macr88

In some applications it can significantly increase bump travel. In some applications it will only bring the upper spring perch closer to the bottom of the chassis which will increase bump travel but not as much as its intended use.

Normally the bump stop would be inside which would increase clearance.

macr88

at a given ride height if you need more bump travel because you're bottoming out the damper and you have plenty of wheel clearance the GC top hat will help give you more bump travel.

The part that's inside the GC top hat on these dampers is not the shock shaft, it's called a pin mount so you're not loosing anything as far as travel goes.



I'm pretty sure they'll be running as low as their rules allow them to run which should be pretty low. They'll have to clearence more than the fender to achieve this and they will do it so the issue at that point won't be the fender. It's a race car not a street car


Since stroke is the same and droop has been reduced, bump travel will then have been increased by the same amount that droop was reduced by.

Hope this makes sense

berny2435

thanks for explaining but it still doesn't make sense, especially since you have thrown the pin mount thing into the equation.

non-the-less, I don't think I'd use these unless I had no other option. I'd rather have shortened shock bodies if that is an option for the shocks I was using.

macr88

It might have been what was offered? I agree it's not really needed especially for these dampers but they could be using different length TTX's than what I'm using

//steve\\

I did a write up on these not too long ago. Worth ever bit to me even losing the solid mounts.

https://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/913...#entry21208556

It personally helped my setup out a lot and the difference was immediately noticeable on larger bumps. I was definitely getting deep into the bumpstops before and now I'm not. Unfortunately I did not see the solid top version of the mounts until after I had ordered mine. I actually asked GC about them and was told unless my car has solid mounts and spherical bearings everywhere else there isn't going to be much difference between the two and the solid mounts will require more maintenance/upkeep. I'd still considering making the move down the road but for now I'm really happy with them.

Like Berny mentioned the only real downfall with these is if your shock body has a larger diameter than the inside of the top hats (which my KWs do) you're forced to leave the bumpstop long to make sure that the top hats don't make contact with the shock body. It might not be a problem for Koni Yellows but definitely was a factor with my KWs. I've done a good amount of driving on them between daily stuff on crappy highways, and country back roads and so far I haven't had problems.

modMonkey

Steve, your write up was very useful. I'm looking at doing the same thing since I'm running out of travel in the rear.

For those looking to do this in the future, CrazyPhuD did a very good write up as well back in '05:

https://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/326...ophat-install/

User 121020

Figured I'd add some info about my experience with the spherical bearing GC extended top mounts -

Like the others, I used these to gain some bump travel for a given ride height without having to shorten the damper bodies. What you gain in bump travel, you effectively lose in droop travel. So, there is a fine balance to strike. The spherical bearing top hats give you some adjustment, however. You can move the top mount up 1/2" or 1" depending on how you configure the spacers provided with the top mounts.

Spherical bearing top mounts with 2 spacers, shown below. Place the longer spacer on top of the bearing & the shorter one below and you'll end up with a 1" height change of the damper pin mount. Place the longer one below the bearing & the shorter one above and you'll end up with a 1/2" height change of the damper pin mount.


If you're using these with coilovers that have their own upper spring perch, you'll likely need to trim the portion that is meant to locate the ID of the spring.

3/4" of material meant to help locate a spring ID -


Cut it down and you'll have enough clearance to use the 1" height change configuration, as shown below with Penske 8100 upper spring perch -

macr88

Did you have to cut out a hole in the hood liner for clearance or did you have do anything to prevent the shock shaft from rubbing the fuel filler hose?

Do you also have a before pic of the way it was setup?

User 121020

I'm only using them in the rear, so I'm not sure what the hood clearance looks like. It would be tight even at the 1/2" configuration, from the looks of it. In the rear, there is slight rubbing on the fuel filler bellows using the 1/2" spacer config. It'll be more difficult to adjust rebound on that damper, but I'll deal with it.

This image gives you an idea of how much space there was between the upper spring perch and the top mount with the previous setup.


I forgot to take side-by-side comparison photos of the "old" and "new" setups.

macr88

Awesome, thanks for the pic. Does Penske use a pin mount for the upper perch?

This is the pin mount for the Ohlins