When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Very cool. Sounds like quite a few RX-8s getting into the mix in PA. Will have to make it up there next year.
I ended up starting with 700/550 spring rates. 4.5" stroke both front and rear. I see shaftworks won't have crosstalk with adjustments. Don't think that'll be the case for me.
I ran with Kevin Donovan in the CRX on Redshift singles in 2018. Whatever crosstalk they have wasn't very noticeable and making adjustments made the changes I'd expect. He's still super happy with them. Your rates make sense for our bumpy local lots in the MA/NE, especially if you're doing no rear bar and/or big front bar.
DiMarco's MS3 got wrecked so it sounds like he's picking up an RX-8 for daily beater/CS backup car too, amusingly enough, haha.
Shaftworks USA dampers. Never had shocks with my name on them before
You'll like these. I have Penske 7500DAs on my RX8, but I have Jon's shocks on my Fiat 124 track/daily/fun car and honestly they feel just as awesome, and these work a bit better than my Penskes in some situations. You'll be fine with 8k in the rear, that's already stiffer than most forum builds and is the sweet spot IMO as long as you have a enormous front sway bar.
You'll like these. I have Penske 7500DAs on my RX8, but I have Jon's shocks on my Fiat 124 track/daily/fun car and honestly they feel just as awesome, and these work a bit better than my Penskes in some situations. You'll be fine with 8k in the rear, that's already stiffer than most forum builds and is the sweet spot IMO as long as you have a enormous front sway bar.
Hotchkis RX-8 front and rear bars at the moment. I suspect I may go no rear bar and/or the Mazda Motorsports 0.250" wall front bar (maybe back to stock rear)
I got the new coilovers on this afternoon/evening and it rides better than the stock Bilsteins/Tein lowering springs (considering it was likely riding on bumpstops this is no surprise) while still being stiff and responsive while hooning it a little. Looking forward to actually getting to use them, though it seems like that will be in the spring.
Ignore the crusty rear suspension, haha. The only rust on the car is the rear control arms/subframe. I've been replacing arms here and there. Everything has come apart ok (except for the alignment eccentrics front & rear)
New xforce catback arrived today. Threw it on after work! Pretty happy with it, only one sorta silly fitment issue, the stock orientation of the camber bolts is now "backwards" and I won't be able to get a socket & torque wrench on so the bolts will get flipped during my next alignment.
Seems way quieter in the cabin but a nice volume increase outside without too much terrible noise. Love it!
I understand egos all too well. No reminder was necessary.
However, perhaps my intention was misinterpreted. I’d suggest that if he built an early model base S1 that was equal in *all* respects that he could then test back to back against himself that it might help clarify the situation more concretely. As compared to reminiscing memories or against worn and beat down S1s. That’s a bit tougher to do.
Which again, I stated that any RX8 he builds will be competitive. No need to get egos triggered.
.
no ego, i was telling you it IS easy to establish a definitive answer to the question of what/whom jeff competes against regularly. i'm at nearly every event that jeff is, and i can tell you exactly whom and what he is competing against. you already seem to know everything, though, so carry on upholding your reputation.
Is it me who knows everything or is it you? The “bye felicia” response at the end there says plenty. C’mon, really?
All I’ve done is expressed my opinion about the competitiveness between an S1 and S2 RX8. It has nothing to do with any particular person, group of people, locale, and so on. You seem to be looking for a confrontation over it as if you’re honor is personally offended. Why is that?
Not only are you incorrectly taking my words out of context, now you’re going to try and lay the lame “how dare you reply back to me” tactic too? A discussion is a two way street. Don’t take it so personal. It’s only my opinion and it’s only a discussion.
I don’t know everything. I have travelled extensively all over the country, many different locales, lots of different talent, different surfaces, site conditions, weather conditions, elevation conditions. I’ve seen a lot of people win, a lot more people lose (obviously), even the same people on both sides of that one or the other condition. If I claim to be an expert in anything, it’s coming to the understanding that there are a lot of variables involved and the answers are not always as clear or defined as some people would like to insist. My own summary of it all is this; it just depends. I’m comfortable with answers not being so concrete, but get how that freaks some people out.
I’m really sorry if this or anything else I said offends you or anyone else. My words were never intended that way and I really have no idea why you’re so personally wrapped in responding as such. In the end it won’t matter regardless. Because the end is a lot closer than most people ever want to accept. When our flesh is dust, along with our autox trophies and petty pride too, it will all amount to absolutely zilch.
.
So rather than fester on what I view to be intangible points on why an S2 might be better than an S1; which was all I was really attempting to convey before the volcano erupted, my suggestion would be to instead focus on the more tangible reasons.
Pretty sure I know what they are, but perhaps I overlooked something. What are the specific points about an S2 that would lead anyone to believe it to be superior to an S1?
I don't think the S2 is superior, it's heavier and the shorter gearing is a tradeoff where it can be an advantage or disadvantage. Otherwise, meh? I prefer the looks of S2 but really this is just the car that made sense to buy. Unfortunately the prior engine at its own bearings...
I mostly just thought it might be a more productive path to pursue than where that last series of replies was heading
which now with the S2 being tunable and the STX rules changing some over time to perhaps being a bit more favorable to the RX8 seems worth revisiting again
trying to post some comparison data, but the text columns aren’t lining up, will be back to continue pursuing the discussion ...
.
i have no idea where “there” is, but maybe it’s just a mutual misunderstanding then
having competed in the past on the Toyo 245/35-17 R1R with 23.8” OD, I get the gearing difference. I think there are some things that separate the advantage of that between an S1 and the S2 though. As was intended previously, I think it ultimately comes down a lot of variables that aren’t always so tangible. That’s not a slam against Jeff or anyone in his region any more than the counter-reply is a slam against anyone else and what’s going on there with regard to the competition.
I know for a fact that the right S1 trim model and no holds barred resources can get under 2700 lbs legally. What I’m not 100% sure of is what that same attempt would accomplish in an S2. I know the S2 has a bit more added weight from the factory, of which may add some amount of improved chassis stiffness, but it was never offered in the lightest trim version as were the early S1 models. As you stated, that is going to offset some of the other. Another one of those variables is the early S1s are going on 16 - 17 years old now. How well up to spec they may be wrt suspension bushings and a number of other things might be in question as compared to newer vehicles of any brand/model.
I was looking for something in the Solo Rulebook and stumbled across something.........
14.5.B: "Any shock absorbers may be used. Shock absorber mounting brackets which serve no other purpose may be altered, added, or replaced, provided that the attachment points on the body/frame/subframe/chassis/ suspension member are not altered. This installation may incorporate an alternate upper spring perch/seat and/or mounting block (bearing mount). The system of attachment may be changed."
Pay attention to this: "This installation may incorporate an alternate upper spring perch/seat and/or mounting block (bearing mount)."
14.8.A: "..........Springs must be of the same type as the original (e.g., coil, leaf, torsion bar, bellows) unless noted below and except as noted herein, must use the original spring attachment points. This permits multiple springs, as long as they use the original mount locations. Coil spring perches may be changed or altered and their position may be adjustable. Spacers are allowed above or below the spring. Coil springs may incorporate spring rubbers. Suspension bump stops may be altered or removed. For cars originally equipped with transverse leaf springs, spring type may be changed to a coil spring. Spring perches may be added to shock absorbers for mounting coil springs in a “coilover” configuration."
Now look at this: "Springs must be of the same type as the original (e.g., coil, leaf, torsion bar, bellows) unless noted below and except as noted herein, must use the original spring attachment points."
Question: Do the two sentences I pulled out of each section conflict?
Case in point: Take a look at the front Ohlins coilover assembly. The top of the spring bears directly on the chassis mounting plate, so it satisfies both 14.5 and 14.8. Different perch, but attachment point is basically the same.
Now take a look at something else, say the Shaftworks front coilover (I only say this since there were recent photos of an install), where it appears there is an upper spring perch independent of the chassis mounting plate. Meets 14.5, but does it meet 14.8, as the "original spring attachment point" is different? There are others with a similar arrangement, such as Feal, and even custom Penske or MCS setups have an upper perch independent of the mounting plate.
I thought it was the general consensus for ST that "any" coilover was allowed as long as it mounts to the chassis in the original factory location(s). I think 14.8 was written for vehicles without factory coilovers in mind, such as those where the factory shock is not mounted inside the coil spring. I think they did recently change this rule so transverse leaf spring cars can convert to true coilovers.
The language for SP is just about identical.
Maybe one of those situations where things just need to be re-written?
there’s no conflict that I see looking at the Shaftworks website, but since you didn’t put up a picture of what you’re specifically referring to it’s hard to be sure
they’re both on the shaft, but as best I can tell what you’re referencing to is whether there’s a spacer between spring perch and the bushing/spherical bearing attachment point on one and not the other, that’s allowed. The wording is usually written in a way to avoid making geometry changes. So in this case the position is different, but the attachment point; being the damper shaft or body, is the same. It’s not going to allow a rocker arm design etc., but any standard coilover arrangement that satisfies the rest of the rules, including inverted, is permitted.
I concur with Team, but I agree that the rule should be rewritten to clarify.
I think almost every ST Miata/RX-8 transmits the spring forces through the top bearing instead of directly to the "top hat" like the OEM spring/shock assembly did. Doesn't make it "right" but it's the norm, so I assume that's legal even if the rule is vague.
I concur with Team, but I agree that the rule should be rewritten to clarify.
I think almost every ST Miata/RX-8 transmits the spring forces through the top bearing instead of directly to the "top hat" like the OEM spring/shock assembly did. Doesn't make it "right" but it's the norm, so I assume that's legal even if the rule is vague.
Yes, this is what I'm getting at....where the spring forces are transmitted. I agree though, it's a quite common arrangement for the fronts. Here's some photos to illustrate, as Team requested:
Spring perch and chasssis mounting plate are one thing
Now, the other situation......
Spring perch and chassis mount are separate
As for the rears, I'm aware of some inverted setups available, where the upper spring perch is a collar on the shock body, instead of bearing on the bottom of the top hat. Spring load is transmitted to the shock body rather than the chassis. This difference is essentially the same as what the two photos illustrate.
I guess I just don't see how photo #2 squares with the rulebook.
From an SP perspective, the intent of the rule is to allow common adjustable coilovers but NOT to allow conversion of a "remote" spring to a "coilover" configuration. Think E46/E36 BMW rear suspension or 350Z/370Z rear suspension with chassis springs that are remote from the dampers.
As Team requested, here are some photos for reference to help illustrate what could be interpreted as a conflict:
Here the upper spring perch and chassis mount (with or without spherical bearing) are one unit. This is essentially the same as the factory configuration, so it's in compliance with 14.8.A
Here the upper spring perch and chassis mount are independent of one another. Does this qualify as an alternate upper spring perch per 14.5.B? But, is it considered a different spring attachment point, as per 14.8.A?
Like DocWalt said, just about every high end setup (ST and SP) would utilize a separate upper spring perch, like in the second photo, to eliminate binding of the spring against the chassis mounting plate. Inverted rears would essentially be the same situation, as the upper spring perch is no longer the bottom of the top hat, but directly attached to the shock body.
The intent of the rule for SP, as John V indicated, would be to disallow conversion of a "remote" spring setups to a coilover setup. I have had discussions with a STAC board member in my region, and he's told me the ST rules were basically grown from the SP rules, so I assume the intent for SP carries over to ST.
So for something like the above, removing the factory spring and replacing the shock with a coilover in the factory shock location is not allowed, correct? I was thinking that may have been the true intent of the rule, so I appreciate the clarification.
12-02-2020, 12:58 PM
