Motion Control Suspension (MCS) for NSX

[Honcho]

asking if Paul is going to use same or custom?

Same- 8kg front 6kg rear. It's really about the spring lengths, since I want to use the SOS top hats and plastic spring isolators, which will add a little bit of length to the assembled spring/helper. I'm aiming for the NSX-R stock height, which is only 10mm shorter than "standard" NSX.

Mark really did most of the leg work here- I'm going to mostly tweak it. I have the full damper curves from my NA2 R shocks, so I'm going to ask AR to valve the piston to give me that when the single-adjuster is turned up to stiff and to give me a Type-S when it's turned down to soft.

But, I e-mailed these guys on a Friday, so it won't be until next week before I hear back.

 

[Honcho]

Update - heard back from Martin at AR. They are going to quote a 1WNR system for me and help with setup. Great guys.

 

[RYU]

Update - heard back from Martin at AR. They are going to quote a 1WNR system for me and help with setup. Great guys.

It sounds like they can meet the damping curve of the NSX-R at full stiff and the Type S at full soft? That's quite the range. I'm eager to find out for a possible swap myself! Was he able to make sense of the graphs I sent you? I should clean those up and post them up here for the wiki.

 

[Honcho]

It sounds like they can meet the damping curve of the NSX-R at full stiff and the Type S at full soft? That's quite the range. I'm eager to find out for a possible swap myself! Was he able to make sense of the graphs I sent you? I should clean those up and post them up here for the wiki.

When I spoke to Wyatt at MCS, he pointed out that the MCS piston design was vastly better than what Honda was able to do with the R during the 2000/2001 development cycle and that it could easily meet my specified need. I got the funny feeling that he had deeper knowledge on the R development than he was letting on.

I just sent the damper graphs to Martin at AR. He also echoed that the MCS could do it no problem, but that the single-adjustable would not be able to get it quite as close as the dual-canister double adjustable setup. But, I'm using the R/S as a ballpark. I'm going to have them set the valving to my specific handling preferences. For example, I like a touch of oversteer (just a touch) on corner entry to facilitate a good turn-in, neutral mid-corner and a touch of understeer on corner exit. It's just how I like to drive, and I find that I do well with this kind of setup. It helps me fight the car's tendency to oversteer once you start coming off the apex. The tall steering ratio makes it tough to catch the snap oversteer unless you are a pro like Billy. I've spun many times in Turn 11 at HPR due to this behavior. The car gets away from me right after the apex. I know it's a driver problem primarily, but I'd like a suspension that works with me rather than something else I have to fight against. What works for me might not work for you though, and that's why suspensions should be set up bespoke to the driver.

 

[RYU]

That's very cool!

 

[stuntman]

When I spoke to Wyatt at MCS, he pointed out that the MCS piston design was vastly better than what Honda was able to do with the R during the 2000/2001 development cycle and that it could easily meet my specified need. I got the funny feeling that he had deeper knowledge on the R development than he was letting on.

I just sent the damper graphs to Martin at AR. He also echoed that the MCS could do it no problem, but that the single-adjustable would not be able to get it quite as close as the dual-canister double adjustable setup. But, I'm using the R/S as a ballpark. I'm going to have them set the valving to my specific handling preferences. For example, I like a touch of oversteer (just a touch) on corner entry to facilitate a good turn-in, neutral mid-corner and a touch of understeer on corner exit. It's just how I like to drive, and I find that I do well with this kind of setup. It helps me fight the car's tendency to oversteer once you start coming off the apex. The tall steering ratio makes it tough to catch the snap oversteer unless you are a pro like Billy. I've spun many times in Turn 11 at HPR due to this behavior. The car gets away from me right after the apex. I know it's a driver problem primarily, but I'd like a suspension that works with me rather than something else I have to fight against. What works for me might not work for you though, and that's why suspensions should be set up bespoke to the driver.

There are a lot of modern damper options that blow the NSX-R's damping technology out of the water. When having specific goals in mind, it's always best to choose a company that you have good support from to help you achieve your goals. Any dialed-in (valving and settings) MCS, Moton, JRZ, Ohlins, Penske, JRI, KW, Tractive, etc... will greatly outperform any of the others that are not properly valved or setup. The MCS guys are great and have a great product, I've used them and have been hired to set up many cars with them. It's great to hear you are getting sorted out.

As far as entry oversteer goes. Unless you're running close to OEM ride height and/or a very stiff front swaybar and front spring rates, you can quickly find excessive entry oversteer the more you start carrying more speed into corners and trailbrake. This is a geometry issue with the NSX that i'm eventually going to address (but it'll be expensive). I think your path of NSX-R spring rates is a good one. You should be pretty happy with your setup once the dampers are set up.

 

[docjohn]

Billy a reminder to please give us some feedback if you ever get to track a Type S...would love your feelings on the "bespoke" tire...:biggrin:

 

[mwagner10702]

. . . I think your path of NSX-R spring rates is a good one. You should be pretty happy with your setup once the dampers are set up.

I know I am. Totally worth it.

Mark

 

[Honcho]

[MENTION=16531]stuntman[/MENTION] I was hoping you would chime in here. Appreciate the input. This is the second time I've run across pro drivers noting that the stiff front sway and stiffer front springs is to mitigate unloading the rear tires under corner entry braking. I've also heard this was the reason for the 97+ brake change- less wight transfer to the front under hard braking. What's interesting is you're saying there is a fundamental chassis geometry cause here. Perhaps Honda knows and didn't want to spend the $$$ on a redesign, so they came up with the R setup instead?52

 

[RYU]

@stuntman I was hoping you would chime in here. Appreciate the input. This is the second time I've run across pro drivers noting that the stiff front sway and stiffer front springs is to mitigate unloading the rear tires under corner entry braking. I've also heard this was the reason for the 97+ brake change- less wight transfer to the front under hard braking. What's interesting is you're saying there is a fundamental chassis geometry cause here. Perhaps Honda knows and didn't want to spend the $$$ on a redesign, so they came up with the R setup instead?52

My *uneducated* guess is that.. this is why Honda made the Type R rear damper rebound so high. It would prevent some of the unloading in this instance?

 

[mwagner10702]

My *uneducated* guess is that.. this is why Honda made the Type R rear damper rebound so high. It would prevent some of the unloading in this instance?

Spring rates also increased on the 2005 R (assuming that is the spec you are referring to). It would seem logical to increase dampening rates accordingly. Also, at the time the 2005 R was developed (along with the Type-S and S Zero), Honda likely didn't have a lot of development budget left to play with. They were losing money on each NSX sold. Prior two years (2003 and 2004) Honda sold less than 200 manual transmission models each year. IIRC approximately 150 NA2 R cars were built (2005).

Had more R&D money been available I am reasonably sure Honda would have developed a fully adjustable damper for the R, S and S Zero models.

 

[RYU]

Spring rates also increased on the 2005 R (assuming that is the spec you are referring to). It would seem logical to increase dampening rates accordingly. Also, at the time the 2005 R was developed (along with the Type-S and S Zero), Honda likely didn't have a lot of development budget left to play with. They were losing money on each NSX sold. Prior two years (2003 and 2004) Honda sold less than 200 manual transmission models each year. IIRC approximately 150 NA2 R cars were built (2005).

Had more R&D money been available I am reasonably sure Honda would have developed a fully adjustable damper for the R, S and S Zero models.

I agree in that they would increase damping to accomodate the stiffer rates but when we put the R Showa dampers on the dyno even my friend (original JRZ rep from the 90s) was a bit taken a back by just how much. He told me something to the regard of... "yes, I can valve your JRZs to match that curve but that's showing 2-3x more than i'd recommend". He basically thought I was crazy. I have those graphs to share but waiting for [MENTION=18194]Honcho[/MENTION]'s approval

 

[stuntman]

[MENTION=16531]stuntman[/MENTION] I was hoping you would chime in here. Appreciate the input. This is the second time I've run across pro drivers noting that the stiff front sway and stiffer front springs is to mitigate unloading the rear tires under corner entry braking. I've also heard this was the reason for the 97+ brake change- less wight transfer to the front under hard braking. What's interesting is you're saying there is a fundamental chassis geometry cause here. Perhaps Honda knows and didn't want to spend the $$$ on a redesign, so they came up with the R setup instead?52

I have not driven a stock NSX on stock tires, so I do not know how the car was tuned and setup. However I have measured and mapped the NSX suspension geometry and if you lower the car an inch, you greatly change the roll centers and the more you lower it further, the more you will see this problem and need for stiffer front bars and springs -both of which negatively affect ride quality. This is a bit of a motivation to correct this geometry on lowered NSXs, to reduce this entry-oversteer tendency in lowered cars, while maintaining a better ride from softer springs and bars.

So if your car is lowered at all, you can easily get entry oversteer from trailbraking.

 

[mwagner10702]

. . . if you lower the car an inch, you greatly change the roll centers and the more you lower it further, the more you will see this problem and need for stiffer front bars and springs -both of which negatively affect ride quality.

So what is considered stiffer springs and bars? It would be helpful to understand this as most of us who track their car have typically lowered the car to help with aerodynamics.

For a car that is 75% track usage, I am willing to give up some ride quality to improve overall handling.

Do we know what the ride heights were on the NA1 NSX-R as well as the NA2 NSX-R? I assume that would be helpful as those of us with adjustable dampers could set our ride height at these levels and see how that helps or hurts entry oversteer under trail braking. Can't some of this be tamed by adjusting the rebound and compression setting on the dampers? I always went with the notion that increasing front rebound and decreasing rear compression will add understeer and is the usual strategy for taming corner entry oversteer.

 

[stuntman]

So what is considered stiffer springs and bars? It would be helpful to understand this as most of us who track their car have typically lowered the car to help with aerodynamics.

For a car that is 75% track usage, I am willing to give up some ride quality to improve overall handling.

Do we know what the ride heights were on the NA1 NSX-R as well as the NA2 NSX-R? I assume that would be helpful as those of us with adjustable dampers could set our ride height at these levels and see how that helps or hurts entry oversteer under trail braking. Can't some of this be tamed by adjusting the rebound and compression setting on the dampers? I always went with the notion that increasing front rebound and decreasing rear compression will add understeer and is the usual strategy for taming corner entry oversteer.

Probably 800lbs or 1,000lbs + up front and stiffer than an NSX-R swaybar.

Dampers are transient devices and do not affect the peak body roll or dive steady-state. So while dampers can dial in some transient stability and understeer, if your setup (ride height, springs, bars, etc..) will cause the front of the car to increase in grip and rear decrease in grip when trail-braking; then that will be the inevitable. The only way to improve on this is change the ride height, spring rate, swaybar rate, or suspension geometry.

 

[RYU]

I don't exact measurements but over the years my car has just gotten higher and higher. To Billy's point.. it's gotten easier and easier to drive. It's more predictable/fun. At the expense of the 'lowlife'.

[MENTION=18194]Honcho[/MENTION] you should hit up Ravi at We Don't Lift racing. His pink time attack NSX runs on MCS.

 

[Honcho]

[MENTION=32537]mwagner10702[/MENTION] both generations of the NSX-R are 10mm lower front and rear than the stock NSX.

 

[Honcho]

No coincidence then that the old Comptech Pro (Koni) race setup used 1,000lb front springs. I guess Shad and the boys had this entry oversteer behavior figured out back them too.

Got the quote from MCS- it's quite reasonable.

 

[docjohn]

so what is reasonable?

 

[RYU]

so what is reasonable?

+1

 

[stuntman]

3200

 

[Honcho]

Don't want to post it publicly since the vendor has not said ok. I'll PM you guys.

 

[mwagner10702]

One can reasonably guess pricing:

MCS 1WNR = $2,950
Main Springs = $360
Tender Springs = $90
Spacers = $50
New factory top mounts = $400
Torrington Bearings (opt) = $120
Alignment & corner balance = $350

Installation Labor = 6 to 8 hours depending on shop.

 

[Honcho]

Update- ordered my kit. ETA 4-6 weeks.

 

[mwagner10702]

Update- ordered my kit. ETA 4-6 weeks.

Excited for you. You will love these dampers.

Mark