Performance Shock, Inc. Ohlins TTX

Joined
25 April 2005
Messages
3,069
Location
Western PA
Well, soon there will be another Ohlins suspension offering for our NSX application.

I've been working with Bruce of Performance Shock Inc. (located at Sonoma Raceway) on a mostly-street application for the Ohlins TTX.

So far, they've done one other NSX application - Kip Olson's rebuilt race NSX where they recently ditched the Penske's and went with these Ohlins TTX coilovers. Apparently Kip likes these a lot better according to Driving Ambition media posts.

Anyways, that's a track application where mine is more of an aggressive street driver with maybe a few track days per year. Mine is a 2700lb wet car with most creature comforts removed. Power varies from ~300 WHP (N/A) to ~525 WHP (F/I) depending on what I'm experimenting on. I've had this car for almost 15 years and my priority now is the most comfortable ride I can get while still being sporty. It also needs to accommodate my four-wheel lift kit which is a must for any kind of daily driving.

I've waited years for an electronically-available adaptive suspension that I could retrofit. The one that still holds the most promise in my opinion is the Tenneco Driv or other variant. However, I think a generic release is still years away, and it is questionable if it could be adapted to my lift cups.

[MENTION=20915]RYU[/MENTION] suggested I look into the Ohlins DFV offering a few years ago which has had a lot of success in the Porsche, BMW, and S2000 (with the longer stroke dampers) worlds for some time. I liked what I read, and had a chance to compare two BMWs back-to-back with DFVs and KW V3's on the street. I really liked the DFVs. At the time, no one had an off-the-shelf kit available for the NSX, so Ohlins corporate in NC referred me to Performance Shock Inc. From exhaustive internet searches, PSi is the premier Ohlins folks for DFV and TTX applications. I never found one negative review on them. Their work is highly regarded... Check out this Porsche CGT Ohlins TTX application they did years ago:

https://rennlist.com/forums/porsche-supercars-carrera-gt-918-960/731597-psi-ohlins-ttx-porsche-cgt-suspension-system.html

The craftsmanship and attention to detail is amazing, and I knew they could easily handle my request.

Unfortunately, they're located in CA and I'm in PA. Other than the DA NSX, which isn't quite representative of my ride height and top mount attachment, they have not measured another NSX for fitment. So, I pulled off a front and rear old coilover and sent it to them for measurement. I also provided them with a few other measurements such as the suspension motion ratios at my desired ride height (the geometry varies), the car weight and distribution, and unsprung weight. They dyno'd my old coilovers and measured the spring rates. Everything has been optimized to maximize suspension travel which isn't easy... especially with the shock stroke taken up with my lift cups.

PSi has been very patient answering my many questions, mocking up dampers to send me for test fitment, taking measurements and pictures, and fabricating special mounts to maximize travel. Check out this steel inverted clevis they're working on to accommodate the top spherical bearing. THIS is the way you orient spherical bearings to place them in the correct loading position and maximize their life. Unfortunately, very few do this correctly:

View attachment 155250

The picture above is the front application where this inverted clevis design is needed. It also shows the TTX ILX (a bit more expensive but it doesn't require a piggyback or remote canister which makes it much easier to deal with on a street car). The blue tape on the shaft represents the thickness of the lift piston. The blue tape on the damper body represents where it will be shortened up to gain stroke (spring perch threads will go almost to the end). To save money and because we have sufficient stroke in the rear already, we're using one of their other normal clevis mounts and adapting it to my old coilover aluminum top mounts. This was the mockup for the rear with the cup in place:

View attachment 155248

You can see how easy it is to rotate the knobs and adjust dampening for the track!

When I asked PSi about going with DFVs or the TTXs for my intended usage, I was convinced to go with these TTXs. You won't find many sample shock dynos for these, but based on their unique design they are extremely flexible in the tuning range. I'm hoping to find a good soft street setting and then adjust for tracks later.

Unfortunately, this has taken longer than both Bruce and I thought. The combination of race season, physical separation, and adaption for my lift pistons has resulted in a bit longer wait than we'd hoped, but the end is very near. The good news for others is that it should be worked out when you go to order :wink:
 
Last edited:
Fancy! I'm excited to see and read about your final setup. To make sure I understand though, these are several times the cost of the DFV dampers, right?
 
Fancy! I'm excited to see and read about your final setup. To make sure I understand though, these are several times the cost of the DFV dampers, right?

Not these. The NSX platform is nice, but there's no way I could justify that kind of investment :redface:

These are the TTX 36 line, which are the "lesser" TTXs with only 2-way adjustment. They can be upgraded later to 4-way if desired. The $12k+ high-end TTXs have through-rod piston technology and 4-way adjustment.

I don't have final pricing yet, but I expect these to be ~$5k if you re-use your top hats. Basically, about $1.5k more than the DFVs. Should be similar to S2000 kits, and without the NSX markup. When I asked the experts if they would use the DFV or the TTX for my application, it was a unanimous TTX answer. The cost does increase, but the TTX design has some unique advantages over the competition in this price range.

Here's some TTX propaganda:
http://www.bgmotorsport.co.uk/suspension/ohlins-suspension/ohlins-damper-anatomy/

And an Ohlins manual with the details:
https://www.ohlinsusa.com/files/files/Inside_TTX_A4-Europe1.pdf

Also, here's the vacuum fill machine PSi uses when building them :wink: As these are pressurized to only 25-40 psi due to the design, it should help extend seal lifetime. I expect rebuilds every 30-40k miles, which will be a long time for me these days.

View attachment 155255
 
I'm embarrassed to admit I don't exactly remember. I know we are waiting for Eibach on the springs as PSi didn't have these particular ones in stock. I think the front will be 7" long with 450 lb/in (8 kg/mm) rate, and one of the iterated spring length parameter goals is to keep that rate constant over 85% of the deflection range (since some spring manufacturer rates either go up or down as you approach the deflection extreme). I think the rear will be 375 lb/in (~6.5
Yes, going with Eibach springs. I inquired about the hype behind Swift springs and the response wasn't the most enthusiastic. My suspicion that it's mostly marketing is backed up by the lack of professional teams using them. I mean, I doubt they're bad, but the coil spacing probably lends itself to the rates varying more near the travel extremes as I described above than your well-known coils like Hypercoil or Eibach.

The old springs that I thought were 10/8 kg/mm front/rear actually tested 10/9 and were a bit progressive. I have the rate/displacement curves... Should have all kinds of data to look at once we're finished!
 
That’s sounds right about what I think I would want for spring rates. The only reason I’d go stiffer is for autocross but it has a major impact on street comfort. Your car is also quite light, which makes a considerable difference.
 
That will be an interesting project, Dave.

Eibach 8/6.5 linear springs are a good choice.

Regarding suspension travel, does the shock body have the same length as stock? The design of the bump stop at top will determine how far they can be compressed.

For installation, are these as long as the OEM or KW V3 ones or a little bit shorter? I hope them to be 1'' shorter overall to make installation easier. OEM and KW3 suck to install and the excessive suspension is not needed anywhere in this world.

Are helper springs used? I hope that no.
 
That will be an interesting project, Dave.

Eibach 8/6.5 linear springs are a good choice.

Regarding suspension travel, does the shock body have the same length as stock? The design of the bump stop at top will determine how far they can be compressed.

For installation, are these as long as the OEM or KW V3 ones or a little bit shorter? I hope them to be 1'' shorter overall to make installation easier. OEM and KW3 suck to install and the excessive suspension is not needed anywhere in this world.

Are helper springs used? I hope that no.

These are about 10-15 mm shorter overall than OEM to ease installation.

In the front where travel is most limited, I have about 110 mm of travel with my cup kit installed. That's only 10 mm less than what I had on the car previously.

The shortest shock body you can use on the front is limited by having to place the spring perch above the top A-arm. Then, you look at the remaining stroke available and chose an appropriate piston length and therefore shock body length. That's why the front shock body in the picture above has a longer lower mount - A longer shock body is simply unnecessary.

Honestly, I cannot see how any other coilover with lift cups up front functions properly on the street. After the car is lowered there is simply not much remaining shock travel available to give any kind of compliant ride on most streets. Just buying 1" shorter springs to accommodate the lift cups only lets you fit the spring on - Your shock travel is reduced by more than an inch and you'll bottom the springs or ride the bumpstops frequently.

That's where working with experts like PSi is worth it. They can help make sure the system works to its full potential.

They even put a small radius on the leading edge of the 14mm diameter shock shaft so that the O-rings in the lift piston are less likely to be damaged when installed.

As far as helper springs - The front should not use a helper spring since the 7" Eibach spring travel of 4.1" (104 mm) is right at the allowable piston stroke. I'm not sure about the rear but I hope it doesn't need one either.
 
Last edited:
These are about 10-15 cm shorter overall than OEM to ease installation.
Do you mean mm?

Just guessing why KW used helper springs. They measured the stock suspension, went with the same suspension travel and due to the lowering feature they added helper springs. And that's the result:
IMG_1085.JPG IMG_1086.JPG
There's a technical requirement in part of Europe that the spring should always be tensioned under all conditions, some say 50 kg, some 10 mm (which is 50 kg with a 5kg/mm spring too).

The higher the spring rate - the shorter the spring - the less suspension travel when linear springs are used.
 
I'd vote for 20 mm less than stock. :) Or even 30 mm less if you can cancel the helper springs.
 
Thanks, we're getting there....

It looks like this iteration will fit fine up front. It's hard to tell from just one photo angle, but there is plenty of clearance everywhere:
View attachment 155659

Check out the inverted clevis specially designed to gain more travel... This is the correct way to load a spherical bearing:
View attachment 155660

I'm redoing the air system too. For various reasons, I can't put the tanks in the trunk or under the back of the car, and it can't go under the front hood.
These aluminum 1 gallon tanks fit where the air conditioner condensers used to go. The compressor is mounted with spring-loaded rubber isolators, and it also has a muffler on the intake. With the car idling, I almost can't hear the compressor running :biggrin: I wanted to keep vibration to a minimum mounted so close to the lithium battery. It has to keep a low profile for the hood ducting:
View attachment 155661

Usually you can find these a bit cheaper:
https://shop-uwa.com/product/airlift-compressor-isolator-kit/
main.png
 
Last edited:
So much win on this thread!

I can't look at it too much because it makes me want to re-do too many things on mine!

Btw.. since you're going with Eibach Springs, are they going to be matched? I've never measured Eibachs but the internet seems to think that sometimes they are up to 20%+ rate variances between springs in a pair. You know... the internet is always right!

Also, will the front top hats be offset so you get better clearance from the UCA at full droop? I read you guys are maximizing the angle for the sphericals so just curious if you get the added benefit of additional clearance thru this exercise.

My most important question... Will they have an electronic control device if even just for rebound? That just might push me over... sigh...
 
Can you also help us understand why they didn't need to maximize the front damper canister length? I see about a 1-2" (visual estimate) extension at the bottom of the shock mount. I've never seen that much damper fluid displaced nor that short of a shock body used in an NSX. Again, just because I haven't seen it.. it still doesn't mean anything :) Just curious on the explanation.

attachment.php


Also, on DA's/Kip's TTX, do they incorporate an external reservoir?
 
That is a nice engineering touch. Beautiful.

I honestly hadn't noticed it until I changed the spring. My concern now for this spring perch bearing as well as my lift cups is dirt. I'm trying to come up with a shock bag that will keep out as much foreign material as possible and hopefully extend the life of the bearings and cup seals.
 
Btw.. since you're going with Eibach Springs, are they going to be matched? I've never measured Eibachs but the internet seems to think that sometimes they are up to 20%+ rate variances between springs in a pair. You know... the internet is always right!

Also, will the front top hats be offset so you get better clearance from the UCA at full droop? I read you guys are maximizing the angle for the sphericals so just curious if you get the added benefit of additional clearance thru this exercise.

My most important question... Will they have an electronic control device if even just for rebound? That just might push me over... sigh...

Hi Regan, I hadn't heard of production variations like that, but I'll ask PSi. Thanks for bringing that up. They test and measure everything - even the spring rates from my old coilovers. Also, spring rates are non-linear near the travel range extremes, so they mention that's just one of the design input factors when they go to optimize the spring length in a specific application.

I've seen the DA car and a few others running Penskes use those offset top hat mounts. They also place the spherical bearings in the ideal load condition, but they are primarily track cars that don't need the suspension travel we can use on the streets with a softer setup. If I didn't have this cup kit occupying 40mm of travel, then I probably would have gone to that type of offset front mount. However, the inverted clevis PSi came up with gets me the 40mm of travel back that I loose with the cup kit. Also, there is plenty of space for the shock body and spring perch relative to the UCA at full droop, so we're good.

As far as electronic adjustment, that is on my list most likely years in the future. I'm using Arduino to control my HVAC since the antique controls are no longer on my dash, so I'm sure I can come up with something later....
 
Last edited:
Can you also help us understand why they didn't need to maximize the front damper canister length? I see about a 1-2" (visual estimate) extension at the bottom of the shock mount. I've never seen that much damper fluid displaced nor that short of a shock body used in an NSX. Again, just because I haven't seen it.. it still doesn't mean anything :) Just curious on the explanation.

Also, on DA's/Kip's TTX, do they incorporate an external reservoir?

It all begins with needed stroke length and then you size the damper body accordingly. One of the biggest benefits of the TTX design is that it is less susceptible to changes in oil temperature than other conventional dampers. Therefore, you don't need a large oil volume and you also don't need as much internal nitrogen pressure to keep cavitation under control. A conventional high performance damper may run between 150-250 psi, but the TTX is only at 30-40 psi. For my 110mm stroke, the damper body came out to be what it is in the picture. Going with a smaller body saves weight and money!

Yeah, Kip's car uses the piggyback reservoir at all four corners. I'm using that in the rear as pictured above. The piggyback setup is cheaper than the inline ILX TTX design we're using up front. I didn't feel like there was sufficient clearance on my street car up front to go with the piggyback, and I didn't want remote reservoirs anymore. It's just a little more $-wise to get a simpler package up front, so I thought it would be worth it.
 
[MENTION=20915]RYU[/MENTION]

Wow - How did you do that? The question you asked previously about the long LCA mount and the shorter shock body actually presents a fitment issue I didn't notice before.

Last night I was doing a final fitment check and ran through the full compression the car may see. Well, the inline canister for the ILX TTX design is kinda large in diameter and hits the UCA when almost fully compressed. This check should have been one of my first tests, but I'm just glad it was caught before asking PSi to begin production! This is one of the pitfalls of having to do this remotely from the experts.
View attachment 155701


There are two ways to fix this. 1) Shorten the LCA mount and correspondingly lengthen the threaded shock body (also increasing the size, weight, and oil volume). That will place the large silver area of the damper well below the UCA mount.

Or (like you also alluded to above), 2) offset the top hat mount. Just out of curiosity, I mocked up how much the top of the damper would have to be shifted over. The picture below shows how much would be needed. After going through the full stroke range, the geometry isn't the most ideal. I can see why Honda placed the damper where they did. Everything is a tradeoff....
View attachment 155702


Because the NSX is limited in compression stroke versus droop, the front damper will be reconfigured and we'll keep this inverted clevis top mount.
 
...1) Shorten the LCA mount and correspondingly lengthen the threaded shock body (also increasing the size, weight, and oil volume). That will place the large silver area of the damper well below the UCA mount.
Why can't you make up the extra length from shortening the LCA mount with a longer piston rod rather than a longer body?
 
Hi Jason, it's because the amount of threaded shock body left protruding above the upper control arm would be too small for future ranges of ride height adjustment.
You can't leave the upper shock mount where it is relative to the body & piston, and extend the rod distal to the upper mount? In other words, instead of using an extended lower spherical section, use an extended upper spherical section. So that moves the entire spring and shock body down without changing it's range of adjustment.
 
I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately that won't work.

Like you said, that would just effectively shift the entire spring and shock body down. There wouldn't be enough threaded shock body left protruding above the upper control arm to allow for ride height adjustment. The radial clearance between the damper body and the upper a-arm isn't enough to pass even a 2.25" diameter spring through. The spring has to sit above the upper control arm, therefore you have to have some damper body threads above there too.

Unless you go to an offset top mount like Regan asked earlier and I mocked up in one above the pictures. I don't like that arrangement because I loose compression travel, and also because of the unfavorable geometry.

The Honda engineers that designed this car did an awesome job on the suspension. Unfortunately, it wasn't designed to accommodate extreme lowering or racing... or lift kits :smile:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top