ISC N1 Coilover Question

[DJAM3]

On the ICS website it looks like there are three different valving and spring rate options. Check if there are markings on your springs to verify the spring rates.

[Tbonem3]

That is if you have enough room to fir the spring, I have found this to be a challenge, is difficult to match the ride height you want with the rate you need to achieve the goal in mind, on top of this the spring still needs to have enough travel to match the bump travel of the strut assembly. I just went through all this and the lowest height I could dial in was stock (in fact 4mm taller). I could have gone one rate lower for a ~0.25in drop from where I am now, I could of also remove the locking ring but I felt that that could put too stress on the spring perch. I fought against using camber plates as I want the ride as good as it can be, but if lowering was a higher priority, then a camber plate would allow for some more drop without affecting the geo or travel.

is all a compromise, you choose what meets your priorities. I went with ride and suspension travel over lowering the car.

Agreed. I'm very happy with the mods I did to my setup to allow a 7" spring. It only worked because the rate was low enough (325) and because of how much travel I recaptured through the camber plate assembly. At my absolute lowest perch setting, the ride height just comes out to 13 & 3/8". Perfect. If I wanted closer to 400lb, like the common GC 440lb springs, you have to go back down to 6" spring. I forget at which spring rate you can't use a 6", but it's somewhere around there (high 300s or low 400s). I wish there were more 6.5" springs! Other than the GC spec eibach 550lb, and maybe some uncommon ohlins or H&R liner springs?, I never see 6.5" It's all 6" from hyperco, swift, eibach, et al.

[Suspension Decoder]

That is if you have enough room to fir the spring, I have found this to be a challenge, is difficult to match the ride height you want with the rate you need to achieve the goal in mind, on top of this the spring still needs to have enough travel to match the bump travel of the strut assembly. I just went through all this and the lowest height I could dial in was stock (in fact 4mm taller). I could have gone one rate lower for a ~0.25in drop from where I am now, I could of also remove the locking ring but I felt that that could put too stress on the spring perch. I fought against using camber plates as I want the ride as good as it can be, but if lowering was a higher priority, then a camber plate would allow for some more drop without affecting the geo or travel.

is all a compromise, you choose what meets your priorities. I went with ride and suspension travel over lowering the car.

Without doing stress / strain calcs, I see no reason to keep the lock ring for load-bearing reasons, unless the instructions explicitly state that. If the spring perch wasn't capable of handling the expected loads on its own, it would be thicker.

If the user had the ability to separate the two AND the lock ring was required that would make the setup unsafe. Possible, but doubtful depending on the trust you have in the designers.

Once a spring perch is in place and loaded, it's unlikely to go anywhere. I and other racers have run without lock rings on various setups for years. As insurance, you could add some racer's tape below the perch to provide some friction. Either way, adding droop travel on the damper shaft would be an ideal solution when going to a longer spring.

Of course, it could be helpful to begin with to tell a manufacturer you want to run a softer / longer front spring than 'standard!' That day is coming... one user at a time.