Obioban's 2005 IR/IR Coupe

[S14]

The car was purchased with these on, so I never got to experience the OEM set-up (although I still have these stored). However, they give 1.27 vs the H&R 1.06 flatride. The ride height was set like this (Front: 640mm as measured from ground to centre of arch and Rear 635mm - same measurement) and the front camber was set to a smidge over 2° on standard mounts. It is/was very neutral and balanced with no ill traits. I'm now running different springs and dampers with much more camber thanks to Turner Hybrid top mounts.

Your CSL and garage look great Mike!

[Mike RT4]

Was there a lot less understeer / more oversteer with that setup?

Or...

If I'm reading this right, max front ride height is ~1.2" lower than stock. Is that correct? If so maybe the reduced camber gain in front balanced it out?

The car was purchased with these on, so I never got to experience the OEM set-up (although I still have these stored). However, they give 1.27 vs the H&R 1.06 flatride. The ride height was set like this (Front: 640mm as measured from ground to centre of arch and Rear 635mm - same measurement) and the front camber was set to a smidge over 2° on standard mounts. It is/was very neutral and balanced with no ill traits. I'm now running different springs and dampers with much more camber thanks to Turner Hybrid top mounts.

[IamFODI]

Front: 63N/mm (360lb)
Rear: 120N/mm (685lb)

Was there a lot less understeer / more oversteer with that setup?

Or...

If I'm reading this right, max front ride height is ~1.2" lower than stock. Is that correct? If so maybe the reduced camber gain in front balanced it out?

[Mike RT4]

Call H&R to verify (I disregarded it because can’t use the springs with my camber plates), but IIRC it was something like 400/700.

Front: 63N/mm (360lb)
Rear: 120N/mm (685lb)

[Obioban]

Do you know what the H&R street performance spring rates are? Mine are getting delivered to FCM this week. Hoping to have them installed by the first week of October. Thought about trying them with the springs it came with prior to my custom flat ride setup.

Call H&R to verify (I disregarded it because can’t use the springs with my camber plates), but IIRC it was something like 400/700.

[duracellttu]

I also noticed that they're flat ride, stock!

Perhaps I should throw them on and try them out stock for a while, just to have more experience with more setups.

I seem to be getting progressively less adjustable with time. On the track car we had quad adjustable remote reservoir JRZs and Motons. Originally on this car I had TCK doubles... then Ohlin singles... and now moving to non adjustable.

Do you know what the H&R street performance spring rates are? Mine are getting delivered to FCM this week. Hoping to have them installed by the first week of October. Thought about trying them with the springs it came with prior to my custom flat ride setup.

[Obioban]

The H & Rs are surprisingly good from the factory and with the stock spring rates give a flat ride of 1.06, where all the common aftermarket arrangements (KW Competition, Clubsport, V3, Ohlins, Nitron et al) all give pitch.

The H & Rs are what I had on the CSL for 7 years (and it surprised me to see in previous posts on the old M3 forum that they got a slating) as they made the car feel like a big go kart. My new arrangement has aimed to achieve a similar goal, but with more adjustability.

I also noticed that they're flat ride, stock!

Perhaps I should throw them on and try them out stock for a while, just to have more experience with more setups.

I seem to be getting progressively less adjustable with time. On the track car we had quad adjustable remote reservoir JRZs and Motons. Originally on this car I had TCK doubles... then Ohlin singles... and now moving to non adjustable.

[Mike RT4]

And the H&R coilovers arrived, that I'll be sending off to Fat Cats Motorsports for reworking. I go back and forth between being super excited and feeling like I've gone off the deep end, spending $5000-6000 for a non adjustable Bilstein setup

The H & Rs are surprisingly good from the factory and with the stock spring rates give a flat ride of 1.06, where all the common aftermarket arrangements (KW Competition, Clubsport, V3, Ohlins, Nitron et al) all give pitch.

The H & Rs are what I had on the CSL for 7 years (and it surprised me to see in previous posts on the old M3 forum that they got a slating) as they made the car feel like a big go kart. My new arrangement has aimed to achieve a similar goal, but with more adjustability.

[selm3]

Will do thank you!

[duracellttu]

If you guys don’t mind me asking what’s the average cost for a setup from Shaikh and the team at Fatcat?

You need to reach out him directly. I know he is in the process of updating his pricing. If you mention I sent you, he will give you a discount.

[selm3]

If you guys don’t mind me asking what’s the average cost for a setup from Shaikh and the team at Fatcat?

[S14]

So... multiple thoughts:

-my track mods are focused far more on cost minimization than speed maximization. I'm not racing, and the e46 M3 is slow compared to modern fast things no matter what, so I'm not trying to make the car the fastest thing out there. I like it to drive nicely (predictably and not managing temps) and keep costs as low as possible. So, that's the priority set.

-the NT01s fit really well into that mindset. They cheap, especially if you wait for sales, and last a long time. I got this current set for $100/tire, new, shipped! That's crazy cheap, IMO. Discount tire tends to have a large sale on them in late fall/early winter, and that's the time to buy IMO. In addition to the cheap purchase price, they seem to last a long, LONG time and don't get heat cycled out. I'm 9 events into these and they still feel good. They don't have any rain grooves anymore, so they're hydroplane on a light mist, but they're still going strong.

-17s are great because tires for them are cheaper

-17s aren't great because tire options are very limited in e46 m3 widths. You basically can get RE-71Rs (which I hated and used up in 2 events) or NT-01s. I like the NT-01s, but I'd like more options more.
(or slicks, but they don't last long enough for me to consider them)

-265 or 275 square is what I've been tracking for a decade+. Feels great. Can rotate for better life still.

-I don't like the ET25 offset. I know lots of people do, but, if you have a setup with the spring perch above the tire, I think the ET35 (with a 10mm spacer in the rear) setup is just better. Assuming you're not too low/stiff (many people who track are, imo), the et35 setup lets you have less static camber. Combined with more dynamic camber from the higher ride height and softer springs, you can dial your camber in by tire temps instead of setting to max to fit it under the fenders. This can be improved by increasing the caster on your camber plates and/or CSL kingpins (which I'm doing both). So, once these tires are used up, I'll probably sell this set and get a set of 17x9.5 et35s... assuming they clear the 996 calipers (they don't clear the brembo 355 calipers), which I'll have to verify somehow, and assuming I don't dislike these brakes once I try them on track.

-I wish there was a 265 wide 17" NT-01, as that's probably a better match for my car's current weight and that would fit more optimally on a 9.5" wheel.

economics is my goal too, I completely get what you are talking about!

I gave our chief instructor a ride for a few laps in my car and afterwards he was blown away with how planted and easy the car felt to drive. He is a former E46 M3 owner and was lamenting about getting rid of his after riding in mine, haha! I'm running ohlins as well with super cheap federal FZ-201's. I think the car needs more negative camber, but right now I'm going to play around with the flat ride calculator before moving forward with any more suspension changes.

[duracellttu]

Ironically, it's how happy I am with the Ohlins that's making me move away from them. That said, I am selling them to a friend with a significant caveat-- if I regret my decision, he has to sell them back to me for the same price I sold them to him for.

To explain further...
Flat ride and the FCM spreadsheet have completely transformed my car for the better. It is faster, more comfortable, and more predictable. Thanks to the spreadsheet, I can actually make objective part choices and understand what I'm getting into without having the trial and error multiple spring and sway bar combos. After 15 years of own the car, I finally feel like I can make informed suspension parts decisions. It's been eye opening and wonderful in every possible way.

Flat ride is a huge break from conventional BMW aftermarket setups. If it wasn't stock on almost every car (including things like GT3 RSs), I probably wouldn't have tried it. Fat Cats is really working outside of the box, and the results... well, they're one of my favorite changes I've made to the car.

Fat Cats shocks are similarly outside of the box. But, the theories they're devised under similarly make sense to me. I love the idea of getting away from jacking down. The KBO looks to superior to Ohlins DFV. Adjustability isn't useful if you have shocks valved to your cars specifically corner weights and spring rates, and adds the ability to get it wrong (likely) and more possible points of failure. And, having a setup designed around flat ride should mean less shock stiffness is necessary (as flat ride causes the car to naturally settle faster).

Fat Cats has also set up a lot of winning cars, which gives me further confidence in the setup.

Basically, I've been absurdly happy with the changes to my car from following his spring theory-- enough so that I'm going out on a limb and tryin this shock theory as well... even though I'm exceedingly happy with my car as is. I'm hoping for a car that rides better, grips better, and handles better. That's what I got from their spring setup, and am hoping it extends to their shock setup, as well. If not, I can retreat back the the Ohlins and only be out money.

Well said. I’m making the jump for similar reason. I seriously considered going to Ohlins as a stepping stone, but with all the other testimonials it was worth trying. I had to luxury of meeting Shaikh in Santa Barbara last weekend to drive “Christina” his race car with stage 3 elite setup. I was surprised how compliant it was in street conditions but when stiffness/firmness was wanted in a heavy turn you had the performance. It was a little harsher than I would choose in the street, but hat flat ride setup was a higher bounce frequency. Hoping I’m choosing a comfortable/high performing setup and this damper set is the final piece of the puzzle.

[Obioban]

Curious what motivated you to move away from the Ohlins if you were happy with the setup after adopting flat ride spring rates.

Ironically, it's how happy I am with the flat ride Ohlins that's making me move away from them. That said, I am selling them to a friend with a significant caveat-- if I regret my decision, he has to sell them back to me for the same price I sold them to him for.

To explain further...
Flat ride and the FCM spreadsheet have completely transformed my car for the better. It is faster, more comfortable, and more predictable. Thanks to the spreadsheet, I can actually make objective part choices and understand what I'm getting into without having the trial and error multiple spring and sway bar combos. After 15 years of own the car, I finally feel like I can make informed suspension parts decisions. It's been eye opening and wonderful in every possible way.

Flat ride is a huge break from conventional BMW aftermarket setups. If it wasn't stock on almost every car (including things like GT3 RSs), I probably wouldn't have tried it. Fat Cats is really working outside of the box, and the results... well, they're one of my favorite changes I've made to the car.

Fat Cats shocks are similarly outside of the box. But, the theories they're devised under similarly make sense to me. I love the idea of getting away from jacking down. The KBO looks to superior to Ohlins DFV. Adjustability isn't useful if you have shocks valved to your cars specifically corner weights and spring rates, and adds the ability to get it wrong (likely) and more possible points of failure. And, having a setup designed around flat ride should mean less shock stiffness is necessary (as flat ride causes the car to naturally settle faster).

Fat Cats has also set up a lot of winning cars, which gives me further confidence in the setup.

Basically, I've been absurdly happy with the changes to my car from following his spring theory-- enough so that I'm going out on a limb and tryin this shock theory as well... even though I'm exceedingly happy with my car as is. I'm hoping for a car that rides better, grips better, and handles better. That's what I got from their spring setup, and am hoping it extends to their shock setup, as well. If not, I can retreat back the the Ohlins and only be out money.

[Obioban]

This made my night!

How do you like the M3 with 275/40/17 NT01's?

So... multiple thoughts:

-my track mods are focused far more on cost minimization than speed maximization. I'm not racing, and the e46 M3 is slow compared to modern fast things no matter what, so I'm not trying to make the car the fastest thing out there. I like it to drive nicely (predictably and not managing temps) and keep costs as low as possible. So, that's the priority set.

-the NT01s fit really well into that mindset. They cheap, especially if you wait for sales, and last a long time. I got this current set for $100/tire, new, shipped! That's crazy cheap, IMO. Discount tire tends to have a large sale on them in late fall/early winter, and that's the time to buy IMO. In addition to the cheap purchase price, they seem to last a long, LONG time and don't get heat cycled out. I'm 9 events into these and they still feel good. They don't have any rain grooves anymore, so they're hydroplane on a light mist, but they're still going strong.

-17s are great because tires for them are cheaper

-17s aren't great because tire options are very limited in e46 m3 widths. You basically can get RE-71Rs (which I hated and used up in 2 events) or NT-01s. I like the NT-01s, but I'd like more options more.
(or slicks, but they don't last long enough for me to consider them)

-265 or 275 square is what I've been tracking for a decade+. Feels great. Can rotate for better life still.

-I don't like the ET25 offset. I know lots of people do, but, if you have a setup with the spring perch above the tire, I think the ET35 (with a 10mm spacer in the rear) setup is just better. Assuming you're not too low/stiff (many people who track are, imo), the et35 setup lets you have less static camber. Combined with more dynamic camber from the higher ride height and softer springs, you can dial your camber in by tire temps instead of setting to max to fit it under the fenders. This can be improved by increasing the caster on your camber plates and/or CSL kingpins (which I'm doing both). So, once these tires are used up, I'll probably sell this set and get a set of 17x9.5 et35s... assuming they clear the 996 calipers (they don't clear the brembo 355 calipers), which I'll have to verify somehow, and assuming I don't dislike these brakes once I try them on track.

-I wish there was a 265 wide 17" NT-01, as that's probably a better match for my car's current weight and that would fit more optimally on a 9.5" wheel.