Bilstein 5100's w/ Springs?

In any case, if you want to dispute the facts that the damping force (when linear) is proportional to velocity and spring force is proportional to displacement, you can go here and get all the details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator

I'm not making this shit up. It's freshman college level physics.

However, you don't need to understand the math to understand this subject intuitively.

 

I know why you are disagreeing with me and I tried to explain why in the section about mountain bikes.

The words you bolded, "As I explained above 5100's cannot significantly affect brake dive under typical conditions", are in the context of steady braking of a automobile in which the brake dive has reached its steady state and the suspension is no longer compressing (e.g. 60-0 mph coming up to a stop light). At that point the shocks no longer matter. They only matter during the transient state between the time the brakes are applied and the time the suspension stops compressing (e.g. 65-60 mph coming up to a stop light). Thats why I qualified my statement with "under typical conditions".

So that's why I wonder drivers are unsettled by the rate of the dive rather than the amount of dive. I definitely notice the rate on a mountain bike because it disrupts your forward-backward balance if you are not anticipating it, but I don't care at all when I'm driving.

Does that make sense? I don't think we are disagreeing as much as you think.

 

In any case, @Veet-88, I hope I'm not coming off as condescending. I'm just trying to explain some physics concepts that seem pertinent to the discussion. I'll admit to being overly analytical by normal standards. It's my nature and why I do what I do for a living.

I also trying to understand why the subject of brake dive comes up so often on this forum. I find it curious, because I have driven automobiles, bicycles, and dirt bikes very aggressively in my life and never really worried about it. Why is it a concern when daily driving?

 

@gudujarlson You are taking two facts and claiming a correlation that doesn't exist:

Both these are (mostly) true assertions.

Is an invalid conclusion.

Unlike rebound dampening that is set to dampen the energy of the compressed spring, compression dampening is set to dampen the energy of the vehicle that acts against the spring (because springs try to achieve their static point and obviously don't compress themselves). I'm assuming you will agree with the statement that dampers control/reduce the downward motion of the vehicle over uneven surfaces. If so, how would suspension compression under braking be any different?

If you take two identical vehicles in identical scenarios with identical springs but different compression valving, the vehicle with stiffer valving will have less brake dive because the damper is removing more energy from the weight transfer which results in less weight transferred to the front spring, and less spring rate required to support the new static height. If the spring rate is unchanged, that means less brake dive. The spring rate only matters in keeping that static point once the damper has bled off all the excess energy.

It's because of the aforementioned weight transfer and the horrible weight distribution of your average pickup. If you get dive in normal braking, you will get even more in an emergency situation that can result in destabilizing the vehicle. Less rear weight makes you very susceptible to locking the rears or hydroplaning among other things.

 

You guys think I’m arguing with you as I try to explain physics/engineering to you. I have obviously failed at the modest task given to me.

Peace out.

 

The fuck is this I have failed to explain this basic concept to these peons bullshit? Nobody is arguing here, we're discussing a practical application, and as a former ASE master tech who has built and raced cars, trucks, and bikes, I'm very familiar with the practical application. If I'm wrong, point out where I'm wrong because I'm always up to learn.

 

285s stock springs on the 5th perch! I went up to 285s and raised from the 4th to the 5th perch and no difference in the ride.

 

So I may be late to the party on this one, but would the "proper" way to gain lift be from longer springs with 5100 set at 0? Or stock springs with 5100's set at #5? Looking at Eibach springs with 5100's set to 0 and an ICON AAL in the rear with 5100's. Or should I do 5160's in the rear since the AAL would require a longer shock?

 

You aren't late, just some differing angles on subjects that have been going on for years. I've tried to pin some things down myself, but getting data on 3rd Gen parts specs is hard.
Bilstein gave the mass market similar preload adjustment as adjustable coilovers. On the other side is longer springs on fixed seat coilovers, to provide lift.

 

You can get lift from spring rate, length, or preload. You normally want to tune length and spring weight to the vehicle and get your lift from preload. So like doing 700# springs instead of 650# if you have a bumper and winch or longer springs with longer travel suspension. So near-stock truck would do well with stock springs on 5100s to save money or you can do a little stiffer with less preload if you plan on adding weight later.

The AAL won't change stock geometry so you can get a little bit extra from longer shocks but it's not necessary.

 

I have bilstein 5100’s with dobinson coils on the zero hitch giving around 2.25 inches of lift, the ride feels nice a firm, minimal body roll, good ride. I also have a 1.5 add a leaf in the back and I have a solid 1.5-2 inch rake. I want to level it out a bit more. Has anyone tried putting compression, bumping the pre load collar up 1 or two notches, (giving an extra 1.1 inches of lift) along with lift springs to achieve closer to 3 inches of lift? I don’t mind a stiff ride and the alignment is great as of now. If anyone out there has tried this let me know.

 

Here’s a copy of a letter Marie at Headstrong sent regarding this very topic: a lot of good info here- please call them if you decide to use their advice!

****

The Bilstein 5100's are popular since they provide some additional and performance over stock while still being budget friendly however they can be a bit limiting off the road. Especially the new version for the 3rd gens. Since that is the case we do have quite a bit of people going with the 2nd gen Bilsteins on their 2016+'s. I created a thread comparing the two. Here is a link if you want to check it out: https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads...-available-in-stock-and-ready-to-ship.455220/

You can run either of the Bilstein 5100's with the aftermarket lift coils we list or your factory springs. The lift coils will provide the lift and the Bilstein will remain at the zero setting. If you stay with your factory coils you would have to adjust the snap ring up to the desired settings on the shock itself. From the feedback I have, so far, people feel as if the top notch settings provide a less then desirable ride quality. In the case of the 3rd gen 5100's I have had a few customers dislike the ride from the 1.1 setting and above. Customers do turn to the lift coil option because they feel as if it supports the truck better and helps prevent the nose dives at stops and the sloshy cornering that you see with the stock suspension without being as stiff as the ride with the preloaded stock spring.. This all just comes down to which option you feel best suits your particular needs. Now or down the line.

In this realm of lifts you also have the OME suspension kits. I have many people who go back and forth between the Bilstein 5100's and the OME's. What typically differs from the Bilstein 5100 kits and the OME kits is the shocks themselves. Most of the other components stay the same (rear lift options). Since this is the case I find it helpful to compare the shocks side-by-side, this way you can see which ones would be suit your specific needs.

Some of the differences between the OME nitrocharger sport shocks and Bilstein 5100 shocks are below:
Bilsteins are a steel body that has been coated with their triple-C coating which seems to hold up better in the elements the powder coating that OME's has on their steel shocks.
There are two different OME struts available the standard 90000 which are the firmest and the 90021 soft ride struts. The Bilsteins fall in the middle as far as valving is concerned.
The OME's have a slightly larger shock diameter then the Bilsteins.
The Bilsteins are a monotube shock and the OME are twin tube.
The OME shocks have an internal component which can be noisy at times. Some people refer to it as the "speed bump clunk." The Bilsteins do not have this same component design.
The OME rear shocks will work the Dakar pack and not require bump stop modification or longer brake lines but they limit the amount of droop you see from the Dakar leaf pack. The standard length Bilstein 5100's really should be used with one of the add-a-leafs or a block up to 1.5". The extended length RCD/Bilsteins will also work with the Dakar leaf pack but longer brake lines are needed and possible bump stop modification but you get more droop from the pack.

The 6112 is a strut and coil combination which uses the notch settings on the shock with the coil provided to achieve lift. They come with a 600lb spring rate tapered coil. They have a much larger shock diameter then the factory shock (which is a 1.5" diameter and the Bilstein 5100's have a 2.0 diameter) which helps with the displacement to keep the shock cooler longer when under strain from an extended period of time. They are not fully adjustable or revalvable. However they are a nice upgrade over the stock suspension and the Bilstein 5100's. From most of the feedback I have, provide a nice on and off-road ride quality even at the higher notch settings. They have a steel body that has been zinc coated. They pair nicely with the 5160 remote reservoir rear shocks. Some people do run the 5100's with the 6112's if they do not need the added extension or the reservoir. I usually say that if the 5100 and a coilover unit like Fox had a baby, the 6112's would be what you get.

Up from this type of lift you have the ADS, Fox, Icon, and Kings which provide quite a bit more performance, capability, and adjustability. If you want to go over these options morein depth I can provide you with information on these as well.

For the rear you can go with either a block, a single leaf add-a-leaf, a 3-leaf progressive add-a-leaf or a full leaf pack replacement. (If you want to explore the full leaf pack option let me know and I can go over the different options that we have available). Since you tow you do could benefit from just an airbag suspension in back. https://www.headstrongoffroad.com/store/p225/FireStone_Ride-Rite_Air_Bags_for_2005-2016_Tacoma.html

The lift achieved from any kind of spring, whether it is a leaf spring or a coil spring, is a variable lift. Meaning that the amount of lift achieved can vary. Depending on the condition of your factory pack and how it responds to the addition of the aal you can see a difference in lift height. On average the aal will provide approx. 1.5"-2" of rear lift. The ride quality will be stiffer from the use of either style of aal since you are adding more steal out back. However you do gain some added load carrying capabilities. The nice thing about a lift block is it is a 1 for 1 ratio meaning that a 1.5" block will provide 1.5" of lift so it is easier to fine tune rear lift and stance with a block over a variable lift from an aal. The block will maintain the factory ride quality but does not provide any added capabilities. It really comes down to which lift option you feel you would prefer.

I have a lot of people who are interested in the add-a-leafs. Since that is the case, I find it helpful to provide my customers with this comparison of the add-a-leafs so you can narrow down which one you feel would best suit your needs and get the spec's on each:

The single AAL is both thicker and arched more than the initial leaf in the 3 leaf AAL. Though the 3 leaf AAL has more steel overall, the first leaf in the mini pack does not engage as quickly as the single AAL does. In fact the single AAL is arched to a point where it re-arches the existing factory packs upon assembly and thus engages immediately. The 3 leaf AAL has less arch and complies with the arch of the factory packs. So although the first leaf in the 3 leaf AAL will provide some support with the smaller bumps, it won't provide as much as the single AAL will, which translates to a slightly stiffer on-road ride. And as far as the 2nd and 3rd leafs in the 3 leaf AAL, these will only come into play until the factory packs are flexed far enough to engage them. This will happen more so over the bigger bumps or when off-roading. The single leaf provides approx. 1.5"-2" of lift and the 3-leaf provides approx. 1.5" of lift with the factory overload removed and approx. 2" with it retained. The overload does provide function, for when you are over load, so removing it or retaining it can depend on what you use your truck for. If you find yourself hauling or towing a decent amount of weight you may want to keep the overload in to keep the factory pack and add-a-leaf from overflexing. Now the performance and capabilities of any of the add-a-leafs still do rely on the factory leaf pack and its capabilities and wareability.
Basically, from the feedback I have, the single leaf provides a stiffer ride quality but better initial support of consistent weight and the 3-leaf provides a better ride quality and as more of the leafs are engaged then the weight support comes into play.

We do not offer installations at this time however we do work with some places in town who install products purchased from us at a discount. Once you decide on the set up I can help get a quote for you.

Please let me know if there is anything else that I can assist you with.
Thank you so much.
Marie
www.headstrongoffroad.com