Quote:
Originally Posted by EXSSIVE
So, according to what you're saying, you're old springs were a linear spring with an integrated linear rate helper spring, correct?
This is still considered by the majority of the industry to be a progressive rate spring-
http://automotivethinker.com/suspens...-rate-springs/ |
It isn't a "helper" spring in the sense of helpers in coil-over set-ups. These are dead coils simply there to add free height to keep the spring seated. We did not advertise these as linear springs, but they have a linear working rate. What this means is when the car is at ride height and travels through its normal range of motion, it only used the one linear working rate of 640 lb/in.
I am not trying to be a jerk in any way so please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are missing what I'm saying or twisting it around a bit. BMR's old springs are a dual-rate design, not progressive, solely based on the fact that it only uses one rate through the cars entire range of motion. This is completely by design and it's based on the load rating of the spring. If the load rating of the spring was different and the transition of one rate to another happened in the suspension range of motion it would fall into the definition of "progressive" in the article you gave the link to. Does that make sense?