[BMR Suspension]

BMR Suspension has redesigned its rear lowering springs for 2016-newer Camaro (SP043/SP041 set), making the spring rate linear. Linear springs rates give you more consistent, predictable handling. This also gives you better ride quality and less noise.

[TECHTURTLE]

Rates?

[BradfordCamaro]

Same 1" drop?

[Jmcalhoun22]

And for the people that have already bought your lowering springs a month ago? Is there something wrong with them? Do we need to exchange them? I do get a floaty feeling over hills and bumps, that I did not have before.

[EXSSIVE]

Originally Posted by Jmcalhoun22

And for the people that have already bought your lowering springs a month ago? Is there something wrong with them? Do we need to exchange them? I do get a floaty feeling over hills and bumps, that I did not have before.

There is nothing wrong with progressive springs. Rather, the issue is that a progressive spring puts comfort and load handling capabilities before handling. This is the exact reason you're getting more of a floaty feeling, you're unloading the suspension and the springs are at their softest portion of the available travel.

Progressive springs can provide some unwanted handling characteristics when you start to push the car harder. It's for this reason I would strongly recommend against using a progressive rate for an on road performance car unless you have the dampers to back it up which takes very specific tuning.

It honestly puzzles me why BMR went with a progressive spring in the first place for an on road performance oriented vehicle unless they were wanting to mainly cater to the drag racing crowd which needs more body motion to plant the tires during hard acceleration.

[BMR Suspension]

Originally Posted by TECHTURTLE

Rates?

The rate is the same as the old springs' working rate - 640 lb/in

Originally Posted by BradfordCamaro

Same 1" drop?

yes, the drop is identical.

Originally Posted by Jmcalhoun22

And for the people that have already bought your lowering springs a month ago? Is there something wrong with them? Do we need to exchange them? I do get a floaty feeling over hills and bumps, that I did not have before.

There is nothing wrong with out old springs, the dual rate design can make a little extra noise in some circumstances and we figured out a design change that allowed us to go 100% linear.

Do you have MRC or non MRC? We (and other spring manufacturers) have had a couple of instances where there has been a "floaty" feeling in the rear. We are working on a solution.

Originally Posted by EXSSIVE

There is nothing wrong with progressive springs. Rather, the issue is that a progressive spring puts comfort and load handling capabilities before handling. This is the exact reason you're getting more of a floaty feeling, you're unloading the suspension and the springs are at their softest portion of the available travel.

Progressive springs can provide some unwanted handling characteristics when you start to push the car harder. It's for this reason I would strongly recommend against using a progressive rate for an on road performance car unless you have the dampers to back it up which takes very specific tuning.

It honestly puzzles me why BMR went with a progressive spring in the first place for an on road performance oriented vehicle unless they were wanting to mainly cater to the drag racing crowd which needs more body motion to plant the tires during hard acceleration.

Our 2016 Camaro springs were never progressive. The old springs were a dual rate spring - 360/640. This design uses two spring rates for a specific reason. When you design a lowering spring, you have to look at load rating, spring rate, drop amount, and a few other parameters that define the spring characteristics. One of those things is free height. This is important because when the suspension unloads, the spring can unseat if there isn't enough free height. With linear springs, it can be difficult to achieve the desired drop with the correct load rating, while maintaining enough free height to keep the spring seated with the wheels hanging. So a dual rate springs is an easy way to add free height, while keeping the working rate of the spring linear. The soft rate is low enough to completely compress at ride height, so the car only uses the heavier linear rate. They can be a bit noisy because the soft coils are in coil bind. This is why you see other companies use isolaters around every other coil. to reduce noise from coil-to-coil contact. We figured out a new design to eliminate the soft rate, keep the load rate the same, and have enough free height to keep the spring seated.

As for Jmcalhoun22's floaty feeling, it has nothing to do with our spring design. I assume he has an MRC car since the only time we have ever seen or heard of that kind of issue is with MRC. It is an issue we are working on a solution for, and it will most likely be sensor related.

[Jmcalhoun22]

I have a NON mrc car.

Originally Posted by BMR Suspension

The rate is the same as the old springs' working rate - 640 lb/in


yes, the drop is identical.


There is nothing wrong with out old springs, the dual rate design can make a little extra noise in some circumstances and we figured out a design change that allowed us to go 100% linear.

Do you have MRC or non MRC? We (and other spring manufacturers) have had a couple of instances where there has been a "floaty" feeling in the rear. We are working on a solution.


Our 2016 Camaro springs were never progressive. The old springs were a dual rate spring - 360/640. This design uses two spring rates for a specific reason. When you design a lowering spring, you have to look at load rating, spring rate, drop amount, and a few other perimeters that define the spring characteristics. One of those things is free height. This is important because when the suspension unloads, the spring can unseat if there isn't enough free height. With linear springs, it can be difficult to achieve the desired drop with the correct load rating, while maintaining enough free height to keep the spring seated with the wheels hanging. So a dual rate springs is an easy way to add free height, while keeping the working rate of the spring linear. The soft rate is low enough to completely compress at ride height, so the car only uses the heavier linear rate. They can be a bit noisy because the soft coils are in coil bind. This is why you see other companies use isolaters around every other coil. to reduce noise from coil-to-coil contact. We figured out a new design to eliminate the soft rate, keep the load rate the same, and have enough free height to keep the spring seated.

As for Jmcalhoun22's floaty feeling, it has nothing to do with our spring design. I assume he has an MRC car since the only time we have ever seen or heard of that kind of issue is with MRC. It is an issue we are working on a solution for, and it will most likely be sensor related.

[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/

[EXSSIVE]

Originally Posted by Jmcalhoun22

I have a NON mrc car.

I stand by my previous assessment, you're unloading the "helper spring" (340lb) portion of the coil which is making the car feel light under down travel of the suspension.

There are two solutions, get rid of the current springs or use a limiting strap which really shouldn't be needed by a practically stock suspension setup with a proper spring design.


Let me make this clear, this is not a dig on BMR, HOWEVER, the old spring design was not the best for someone who aggressively drives their car. I do like BMR parts, in fact, once the turbo build is done, I'll probably end up with some of them on my car. I just want to make it clear that when choosing springs, you need to be aware to pick the proper solution for the problem at hand.

[BMR Suspension]

Originally Posted by Jmcalhoun22

I have a NON mrc car.

Interesting. Let me look into it with our product designer and see what he has to say. We have not seen anything like that in a non-MRC car.

[BMR Suspension]

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?

[BradfordCamaro]

I get it. Love my Dual rate Springs

[EXSSIVE]

Originally Posted by BMR Suspension

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?

It is not my intention to twist anything that you say. It is my intention to inform and educate if possible, if not, it's my intention to be educated, lol. Do you happen to have a picture of your old dual rates installed?

What you seem to be saying is that the car will compress the 340 rate spring while sitting idle, coil over speak or not, this is essentially an integrated helper or "tender" spring designed to keep the spring from moving when the suspension is unloading from what you have described.

If that is not how the 340/lb section is being utilized and instead the 340 section is not completely compressed during static ride height, they're essentially a stepped rate progressive spring.

While I know we can all agree that the original springs were not a truly progressive spring, dual rate springs are largely grouped into the "progressive" category by the majority of manufactures.


Just trying to clarify.... as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case, maybe a few thousand already, lol.

[BMR Suspension]

Originally Posted by EXSSIVE

It is not my intention to twist anything that you say. It is my intention to inform and educate if possible, if not, it's my intention to be educated, lol. Do you happen to have a picture of your old dual rates installed?

What you seem to be saying is that the car will compress the 340 rate spring while sitting idle, coil over speak or not, this is essentially an integrated helper or "tender" spring designed to keep the spring from moving when the suspension is unloading from what you have described.

If that is not how the 340/lb section is being utilized and instead the 340 section is not completely compressed during static ride height, they're essentially a stepped rate progressive spring.

While I know we can all agree that the original springs were not a truly progressive spring, dual rate springs are largely grouped into the "progressive" category by the majority of manufactures.


Just trying to clarify.... as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case, maybe a few thousand already, lol.

I 100% agree on the education side of it. I have been an automotive journalist for nearly 10 years, so I share your opinion on education and learning.
I have pictures of the springs installed, but only at full droop (car on our 2-post lift). This doesn't illustrate the point either of us are trying to make.

I will agree with you that springs like our old ones get grouped into the "progressive" category, in the handling world, "progressive" carries a negative connotation and we try to avoid marketing our springs as progressive, because they really are not progressive solely based on the fact that they only use one spring rate. If we are talking about how the industry classifies the springs, then yes they will most likely fall under a stepped rate progressive classification, they are not designed and do not work as a progressive spring. Either way, our redesigned 2016-newer Camaro spring is 100% linear! haha