TICO the SE

Postby **tomli123001** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:01 pm

Thanks Magpie for posting the actual BC instruction.
I know if I do what I did I won't change the suspension setting, but height.

I did think the top 2 rings should never to be changed. But I do think now you are right and the pre-load can be varied in such way. Just like my bicycle forks.

Hi Sailaholic, Thanks for your links. But on the BC, the height adjustment method posted by Magpie worked on my suspension well though without changing the preload. Changing preload will change the initial sag of the suspension and hence the height of the car at stationary. For example, 10% vs 20% sag, means 20% setting make the car lower and absorbs initial bump better. But it has limitation, as the the sprint may become not compressed anymore at some stage. Also the raised height is limited by the physical shock travel, i.e. does not matter how hard spring is, the shock as a whole won't extend anymore.

I still believe Magpie posted method is the right way to adjust BC at least.

Postby **tomli123001** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:14 pm

sailaholic wrote:Sorry mark your wrong on 2c. This is only used to get the correct balance between bump and rebound travel.

Ride height should always be adjusted via preload.

http://mcablog.com/?p=409

http://www.mcasuspension.com/infosheets ... _words.pdf

I did read the 2nd link thoroughly.
The article basically says below 2 things:

1. If car's shock is set at a certain full drop length, we should not increase or decrease this full length by just changing the base point.
2. The car can change its height by sliding springs up and down, so the above is not affected.

My only question is, the car is made according to the factory Mazda shock. It is longer than almost all after market coil over body length, such as yellow speed and BC. In this case, we could never achieve the article's recommendation of keeping the full length unchanged from the original setting. Wouldn't that mean by increase my BC base height, I am getting closer to the factory full length and hence is better in this situation?

sailaholic · Postby **sailaholic** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:35 pm

Changing the base doesn't increase the total travel available only the percent of travel you have for bump and rebound from rest.

So if you fit lowering springs to standard shocks you've moved your at rest position closer to full bump and away from full droop.

So yes fitting coil overs often reduces your total travel but the stiffer springs also reduce the travel required.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Magpie · Postby **Magpie** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:48 am

I have 'spoken' to sailaholic and I will be trying the MCA method on the BC's once I have my tools in Blackwater. This will be more than likely over the Easter break. I have always followed the BC instructions, but I'm always open to suggestions and believe in the 'don't knock it till you try it' school of thought.

The BC method could be designed as it is the simplest and easy to follow whereas the MCA method requires a lot more initial effort and seems counterintuitive. However the logic of the MCA method cannot be dismissed, first the limits of the suspension is set (very important) then ride height (via pre-load) is used so that the geometry of the suspension remains unchanged. Ghanging pre-load does not chage spring rate, rather you change the weight point at which the spring starts to move. Once the spring starts to compress it will move at its spring rating. The BC method ignores suspension geometry and hence may be a compromise.

Megan Racing recommends the same method as BC Racing http://www.meganracing.com/tech/installations.asp?id=75&subject=CDK:%20%20How%20to%20properly%20adjust%20ride%20height%20after%20spring%20pre-load%20has%20been%20set
I have been meaning to do the upsprung weights on the car and since the MCA method requires the complete removal of the shock I may as well try it. It will be interesting to see the results between the methods and what gives the best results. I'll make a post and give my thoughts on the MCA suggested method vs the BC official method if you like?

The MCA method may also overcome one of the issues that is specific to the BC ER's and that is a finite amount of vertical movement in height due to the way the external canister (ER) attaches. Using 2a to change ride height overcomes this limitation. Plus this may 'cure' the rubbing I have been getting at the top of the wheel arch in extreme situations. If the MCA method works changes on the fly will be much easier with the ER's as will corner weighting.

Plus I will be (hopefully) at the Time Attack Round 2 on 01/05 so I will have a direct comparison. Anway I have already decided that once the BC's are stuffed I will be installing MCA's.

Maybe this is best put into a seperate thread?

Nevyn72 · Postby **Nevyn72** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:18 am

Magpie wrote:I'll make a post and give my thoughts on the MCA suggested method vs the BC official method if you like?

Anway I have already decided that once the BC's are stuffed I will be installing MCA's.

Maybe this is best put into a seperate thread?

Would be appreciated and I think a separate thread would probably be appropriate.

Which version of the MCAs are you looking at?
Their website says the blues are still under development but I suspect you would be heading for at least the reds.....

sailaholic · Postby **sailaholic** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:03 pm

Blues and reds are done. I've got reds in my garage waiting, the blue time attack has reds installed and someone else has blues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Postby **tomli123001** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:55 pm

Let us know your new thread magpie. Really want to learn more of suspension set up

Magpie · Postby **Magpie** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:15 pm

So do I there is so much to learn about suspension. Now that my engine is completed this is always what I planned on learning more about.

I will leave my other half to unpack while I spend 4 days over Easter with my MX5, should be fun

Postby **tomli123001** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:31 pm

I had the radiator cover matching wiper cowl cover from garage star for a long time. Finally I got to install it after my washer bottle relocation kit installed.

The only issue with it is that it was not designed to have an opening for the washer bottle, so I had to drill a big hole t here to help. After efforts and filing of the edges afterward, here is the result.

Cut away needed, no opening for washer bottle cap.

Drilling with a special head.

Finished, for that neater look

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Sun May 11, 2014 5:36 pm

Spotted you yesterday, turning off gympie road at aspley, looked good mate!

Postby **tomli123001** » Wed May 14, 2014 11:22 pm

ManiacLachy wrote:Spotted you yesterday, turning off gympie road at aspley, looked good mate!

Yes, I was checking out some spares with a friend at Mx5 plus.
The SE is for sale at the moment by the way, if anybody might be interested.

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Thu May 15, 2014 9:42 am

If only you had a Ti, we'd talk

Postby **tomli123001** » Thu May 15, 2014 10:54 am

ManiacLachy wrote:If only you had a Ti, we'd talk

But Ti has got the curse :roll:

. haha.... and red is more sports car color.
No worries.

ManiacLachy · Postby **ManiacLachy** » Sun May 18, 2014 3:01 pm

Did you ever replace the OEM seats or fit that turbo?

Postby **tomli123001** » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:06 pm

ManiacLachy wrote:Did you ever replace the OEM seats or fit that turbo?

No, i ended up selling and sold these bits also.
Now I miss my 5 terribly :frown:

Life is such. Until next time, I am waiting for the ND to come out and toss between the NC and ND.
I have been considering supercharged BRZ or the new WRX STI also. All in my budget range, but can't put my money until seeing the new ND. Hope to come back here again.