Anyone with an SD1 Vitesse or other older car which previously had 
Nivomats but which are no longer available might feel the same - that 
it's a real drag having to put up with inferior spring/shock suspension 
and no self-levelling.

My question is this: is there any particular reason why one can't make 
do with some Nivomats specified for current vehicles (Volvos, Vauxhall 
Omegas, Mercedes and various others I think) if it can be demonstrated 
that the characteristics of the particular model aren't a million miles 
from what is required? After all, it's not as if the replacement uprated 
springs/shocks available for the SD1 in any way give a ride comparable 
to the original Nivomats! They don't even give quite the same ride 
height even though they claim to.

The physical problem (apart from the obvious one of the ride height and 
thus the distance between the top/bottom mounts which could vary 
dramatically between different cars) is that the SD1 Nivomats were 
fitted with threads on both ends of the unit whereas many of the models 
in circulation for current vehicles have eye bushes at the ends (or at 
one ends).

But surely there's no reason why an adaptor bracket could not be bolted 
to the SD1 mounts to provide a pivot bolt to accept a Nivomat with an 
eye bush? The Nivomats don't provide any of the forward/rear or sideways 
location of the rear axle so there are no mechanical reasons to avoid 
having pivoting mounts on the Nivomats, are there?

Has anyone with a classic vehicle or indeed any old car for which 
Nivomats aren't available, ever tried adapting units that are specced 
for other vehicles?

I wonder which model of car would have Nivomats which would be the 
closest match in terms of spring/damping rates and physical length of 
unit? Not sure where to start without buying a Haynes Manual for 
something and looking up all the suspension dimensions!

Michael

In article ,
   Michael Kilpatrick  wrote:
> But surely there's no reason why an adaptor bracket could not be bolted 
> to the SD1 mounts to provide a pivot bolt to accept a Nivomat with an 
> eye bush? The Nivomats don't provide any of the forward/rear or sideways 
> location of the rear axle so there are no mechanical reasons to avoid 
> having pivoting mounts on the Nivomats, are there?

The top mount might be tricky to modify - the lower one easier. 

Luckily I got a new pair off Ebay a few years ago and they've usually got
quite a good life.

> Has anyone with a classic vehicle or indeed any old car for which 
> Nivomats aren't available, ever tried adapting units that are specced 
> for other vehicles?

> I wonder which model of car would have Nivomats which would be the 
> closest match in terms of spring/damping rates and physical length of 
> unit? Not sure where to start without buying a Haynes Manual for 
> something and looking up all the suspension dimensions!

I remember this being covered before. Wonder if the SD1 club archives can
help?
The forum on there is the popular one now - few seem to bother with the
Yahoo groups. Which is sad as I hate forums - far prefer email groups.

-- 
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Michael Kilpatrick"  wrote in message
news:Zt-dndCD3KCQ8zrXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Anyone with an SD1 Vitesse or other older car which previously had
> Nivomats but which are no longer available might feel the same - that it's
> a real drag having to put up with inferior spring/shock suspension and no
> self-levelling.

Doesn't have to be.
IME, If suitable springs and shocks are fitted the ride doesn't suffer.

When I bought my '85 Vitesse in 1988 I had a similar problem. One Nivomat
needed replacing.

At that time, whilst discounted standard Nivomats could be bought for around
£70 each, the shorter Vitesse ones were twice the price. A little to rich as
I always like to fiit springs and shocks in pairs. £280 in '88 was quite a
lot of money.

So, I decided to do away with the Nivomats, and use a std setup and ordered
a pair of 50mm lower springs and a pair of adjustable Konis.

The first pair of springs supplied were too long, so I sent them back and
they were replaced by a pair that gave me the correct unladen ride hight.
After a few adjutments to the Konis, I finally arrived at a setting that was
satisfactory.

A ride that was as comfortable as when it had Nivimats, albeit with one that
was knackered. Roadholding was excellent, with little roll, and the loss of
self levelling not really noticeable, even with 5 adults on board.

Obviously the Vitesse with it's lowered and stiffer suspension will never
give as soft a ride as any of the other SD1 models but IMO it's better
handling more than makes up for it's harder ride.

I had two 2600's with Nivomats before I got my Vitesse, and IMO the Vitesse
is much more of a drivers car, with totally different handling to a std
SD1,.and TBH I prefer it's harder ride.

> My question is this: is there any particular reason why one can't make do
> with some Nivomats specified for current vehicles (Volvos, Vauxhall
> Omegas, Mercedes and various others I think) if it can be demonstrated
> that the characteristics of the particular model aren't a million miles
> from what is required? After all, it's not as if the replacement uprated
> springs/shocks available for the SD1 in any way give a ride comparable to
> the original Nivomats! They don't even give quite the same ride height
> even though they claim to.

I can't answer this part of your question fully. I can only tell you that as
far as my personal experience is concerned, if you get the right springs,
preferably from a Co that makes them to order, as I did, you should be as
happy as I am with the result.
Mike.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:

> "Michael Kilpatrick"  wrote in message
> news:Zt-dndCD3KCQ8zrXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> > Anyone with an SD1 Vitesse or other older car which previously had
> > Nivomats but which are no longer available might feel the same - that
> > it's a real drag having to put up with inferior spring/shock
> > suspension and no self-levelling.

> Doesn't have to be. IME, If suitable springs and shocks are fitted the
> ride doesn't suffer.

> When I bought my '85 Vitesse in 1988 I had a similar problem. One
> Nivomat needed replacing.

> At that time, whilst discounted standard Nivomats could be bought for
> around £70 each, the shorter Vitesse ones were twice the price. A little
> to rich as I always like to fiit springs and shocks in pairs. £280 in
> '88 was quite a lot of money.

> So, I decided to do away with the Nivomats, and use a std setup and
> ordered a pair of 50mm lower springs and a pair of adjustable Konis.

> The first pair of springs supplied were too long, so I sent them back
> and they were replaced by a pair that gave me the correct unladen ride
> hight. After a few adjutments to the Konis, I finally arrived at a
> setting that was satisfactory.

> A ride that was as comfortable as when it had Nivimats, albeit with one
> that was knackered. Roadholding was excellent, with little roll, and the
> loss of self levelling not really noticeable, even with 5 adults on
> board.

Quite the reverse of my experience. 

I've had my EFI for some 20 years. So safe to assume the suspension was
pretty decent at 30,000 odd from new. When a Nivomat failed many years
later, I changed to Konis and regular springs. And I couldn't get a
setting which gave reasonable comfort one up without being too soft when
loaded - to the point of hitting the bump stops. I was delighted to get
some new Nivomats when they became available again.   

> Obviously the Vitesse with it's lowered and stiffer suspension will never
> give as soft a ride as any of the other SD1 models but IMO it's better
> handling more than makes up for it's harder ride.

It could be the stiffer suspension means there's less difference than on a
standard height car. But FWIW I find the Vitesse ride just too hard for
London roads. And my backside. ;-)  

> I had two 2600's with Nivomats before I got my Vitesse, and IMO the
> Vitesse is much more of a drivers car, with totally different handling
> to a std SD1,.and TBH I prefer it's harder ride.

Well, the 2600 has different weight distribution and smaller wheels and
tyres. You'd need to a Vitesse and EFI to do a true comparison. 

FWIW, given the cost cutting on the SD1, I can't see Rover fitting
variable rate springs and Nivomats if conventional was just as good.

-- 
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:50984cf2d4dave@davenoise.co.uk...

 >> A ride that was as comfortable as when it had Nivimats, albeit with one
>> that was knackered. Roadholding was excellent, with little roll, and the
>> loss of self levelling not really noticeable, even with 5 adults on
>> board.
>
> Quite the reverse of my experience.
>
> I've had my EFI for some 20 years. So safe to assume the suspension was
> pretty decent at 30,000 odd from new. When a Nivomat failed many years
> later, I changed to Konis and regular springs. And I couldn't get a
> setting which gave reasonable comfort one up without being too soft when
> loaded - to the point of hitting the bump stops. I was delighted to get
> some new Nivomats when they became available again.

The springs I ordered were from a spring manufacturer. Maybe they were off 
the shelf, but they were supplied to a specific spring rate, and loaded 
length..
Not the std Vitesse constant rate replacement springs that many suppliers 
were advertising at the time.
Those were the first springs I tried. In fact I believe I still have them in 
my garage, and like yourself found them too soft. Car bottoming etc. Hence 
my specific order.

>> Obviously the Vitesse with it's lowered and stiffer suspension will never
>> give as soft a ride as any of the other SD1 models but IMO it's better
>> handling more than makes up for it's harder ride.
>
> It could be the stiffer suspension means there's less difference than on a
> standard height car. But FWIW I find the Vitesse ride just too hard for
> London roads. And my backside. ;-)

We've had this discussion before. Personally I feel more comfortable with a 
firm ride. In this respect the Vitesse, IMO, gives a good compromise between 
comfort and a ride that is too hard.
What also might make difference, is that I think the Vitesse seats are more 
comfortable and supportive than those in other models, inc the EFI.

>> I had two 2600's with Nivomats before I got my Vitesse, and IMO the
>> Vitesse is much more of a drivers car, with totally different handling
>> to a std SD1,.and TBH I prefer it's harder ride.
>
> Well, the 2600 has different weight distribution and smaller wheels and
> tyres. You'd need to a Vitesse and EFI to do a true comparison.

Fairy nuff, but the Vitesse does have less roll and a firmer ride.
On rough roads the Vitesse might give a jiggly ride, but IMO on the open 
road that disadvantage is more than compensated for by it's sharpness and 
the improved feeling it gives back through the steering.

> FWIW, given the cost cutting on the SD1, I can't see Rover fitting
> variable rate springs and Nivomats if conventional was just as good.

I think that was probably due to the market it was aimed at. Like other 
SD1's in the range, I believe that having self levelling was seen as a 
selling point for the more expensive versions. Not for any other reason,.and 
with the Vitesse they were trying to cater for both the sporty driver and 
the executive type who might load the car up for a dash to the south of 
france or wherever.

With a heavy load, having self levelling suspension probably does help, but 
for the majority of motoring I don't think it's any better than a good std 
setup, which I believe I've achieved on my Vitesse without using Nivomats.

And, bear in mind that it was not a cheap car when it first came out. At the 
time, it and the EFI were competing with other executive cars. Like BMW's 
and Mercedes, so self levelling was probably seen as a plus in that market.

Of course doing extremely well on the track must have helped their sales 
figures, but I doubt the track versions had Nivomats :-)
Mike..

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> > Well, the 2600 has different weight distribution and smaller wheels and
> > tyres. You'd need to a Vitesse and EFI to do a true comparison.

> Fairy nuff, but the Vitesse does have less roll and a firmer ride. On
> rough roads the Vitesse might give a jiggly ride, but IMO on the open
> road that disadvantage is more than compensated for by it's sharpness
> and the improved feeling it gives back through the steering.

I'll give you the less roll. But I don't think it's that noticeable when
driving a standard car. Although it is from the outside.  

> > FWIW, given the cost cutting on the SD1, I can't see Rover fitting
> > variable rate springs and Nivomats if conventional was just as good.

> I think that was probably due to the market it was aimed at. Like other
> SD1's in the range, I believe that having self levelling was seen as a
> selling point for the more expensive versions. Not for any other
> reason,.and with the Vitesse they were trying to cater for both the
> sporty driver and the executive type who might load the car up for a
> dash to the south of france or wherever.

My experience says it's essential if you don't want the rear bottoming.

> With a heavy load, having self levelling suspension probably does help,
> but for the majority of motoring I don't think it's any better than a
> good std setup, which I believe I've achieved on my Vitesse without
> using Nivomats.

But did you ever drive it hard with a full load?

> And, bear in mind that it was not a cheap car when it first came out. At
> the time, it and the EFI were competing with other executive cars. Like
> BMW's and Mercedes, so self levelling was probably seen as a plus in
> that market.

Certainly essential to provide a reasonable ride/handling compromise with
a crude beam axle. BMW and Merc had long moved on to independent rear
ends. As had Rover, before the need to cut costs.   

> Of course doing extremely well on the track must have helped their sales 
> figures, but I doubt the track versions had Nivomats :-)

Extremely well? You must have rose tinted specs. ;-)

 But the requirements for a racing car have nothing to do with a road one.

-- 
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> > It could be the stiffer suspension means there's less difference than
> > on a standard height car. But FWIW I find the Vitesse ride just too
> > hard for London roads. And my backside. ;-)

> We've had this discussion before. Personally I feel more comfortable
> with a firm ride. In this respect the Vitesse, IMO, gives a good
> compromise between comfort and a ride that is too hard.

But you now have a BMW E39? That has a softer ride than even a standard
SD1 but handles better.

> What also might
> make difference, is that I think the Vitesse seats are more comfortable
> and supportive than those in other models, inc the EFI.

Maybe - but the leather ones are the same?

-- 
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Miike G wrote:

> "Michael Kilpatrick"  wrote in message
> news:Zt-dndCD3KCQ8zrXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> 
>>Anyone with an SD1 Vitesse or other older car which previously had
>>Nivomats but which are no longer available might feel the same - that it's
>>a real drag having to put up with inferior spring/shock suspension and no
>>self-levelling.
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be.
> IME, If suitable springs and shocks are fitted the ride doesn't suffer.

If you have a family of four and 80 bottles of wine in the car and 
you're driving from the south of France with the back of the car  about 
a quarter of an inch away from the bump stops, it jolly well does suffer!

My two Vitesses are both classic cars and everyday working vehicles (I 
don't do any daily commuting).

"Ride" isn't just about the ride. People have families, luggage, a bag 
or two of sand, or some bathroom tiles, from the builder's yard, or 
something.

> 
>>My question is this: is there any particular reason why one can't make do
>>with some Nivomats specified for current vehicles (Volvos, Vauxhall
>>Omegas, Mercedes and various others I think) if it can be demonstrated
>>that the characteristics of the particular model aren't a million miles
>>from what is required? After all, it's not as if the replacement uprated
>>springs/shocks available for the SD1 in any way give a ride comparable to
>>the original Nivomats! They don't even give quite the same ride height
>>even though they claim to.
> 
> 
> I can't answer this part of your question fully. I can only tell you that as
> far as my personal experience is concerned, if you get the right springs,
> preferably from a Co that makes them to order, as I did, you should be as
> happy as I am with the result.

If I never put anything heavy in the car then obviously I might be happy 
with a set of adjustable shocks and springs set exactly to my desired 
ride comfort level for the weight of the car when empty. But that's not 
the point, is it? That's mainly why I'm asking about it.

I do *often* put things in the car: a wife and two toddlers. With or 
without luggage. Or my saxophones, stage stands/light and music for my 
17-piece jazz orchestra, which together fill up the boot and back seat.

Nivomats aren't just about spring rate and damping. They are about 
levelling. That is the respect in which shocks and springs are 
"inferior", as I said originally.

Michael

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5098860e00dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> > Well, the 2600 has different weight distribution and smaller wheels and
>> > tyres. You'd need to a Vitesse and EFI to do a true comparison.
>
>> Fairy nuff, but the Vitesse does have less roll and a firmer ride. On
>> rough roads the Vitesse might give a jiggly ride, but IMO on the open
>> road that disadvantage is more than compensated for by it's sharpness
>> and the improved feeling it gives back through the steering.
>
> I'll give you the less roll. But I don't think it's that noticeable when
> driving a standard car. Although it is from the outside.
>
>> > FWIW, given the cost cutting on the SD1, I can't see Rover fitting
>> > variable rate springs and Nivomats if conventional was just as good.
>
>> I think that was probably due to the market it was aimed at. Like other
>> SD1's in the range, I believe that having self levelling was seen as a
>> selling point for the more expensive versions. Not for any other
>> reason,.and with the Vitesse they were trying to cater for both the
>> sporty driver and the executive type who might load the car up for a
>> dash to the south of france or wherever.
>
> My experience says it's essential if you don't want the rear bottoming.

I'm sure that depends on the spring and shock settings.
Mine only bottoms under exceptional circumstances.
On a road with the sort of undulations one would expect it has never 
bottomed. Even when quite heavily loaded.
When I had my business, I often used to deliver press tools in it rather 
than use my van. Anything up to 2cwt at a time. It didn't make that much 
difference to the ride hight, so most of the suspension travel was still 
there.

>> With a heavy load, having self levelling suspension probably does help,
>> but for the majority of motoring I don't think it's any better than a
>> good std setup, which I believe I've achieved on my Vitesse without
>> using Nivomats.
>
> But did you ever drive it hard with a full load?

Not really, as I never drive hard with passengers. I might drive fast, but 
not when cornering. IME most passengers don't like being flung sideways on 
bends. :-)

>> And, bear in mind that it was not a cheap car when it first came out. At
>> the time, it and the EFI were competing with other executive cars. Like
>> BMW's and Mercedes, so self levelling was probably seen as a plus in
>> that market.
>
> Certainly essential to provide a reasonable ride/handling compromise with
> a crude beam axle. BMW and Merc had long moved on to independent rear
> ends. As had Rover, before the need to cut costs.
>
>> Of course doing extremely well on the track must have helped their sales
>> figures, but I doubt the track versions had Nivomats :-)
>
> Extremely well? You must have rose tinted specs. ;-)

Probably, but if memory serves they had some notable successes in production 
car races in the mid to later 80's

> But the requirements for a racing car have nothing to do with a road one

Wasn't the Vitesse developed by BL's motor sports division?
Mike. .

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5098856686dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> > It could be the stiffer suspension means there's less difference than
>> > on a standard height car. But FWIW I find the Vitesse ride just too
>> > hard for London roads. And my backside. ;-)
>
>> We've had this discussion before. Personally I feel more comfortable
>> with a firm ride. In this respect the Vitesse, IMO, gives a good
>> compromise between comfort and a ride that is too hard.
>
> But you now have a BMW E39? That has a softer ride than even a standard
> SD1 but handles better.

I don't expect you to believe it, but my Vitesse handles better than eiither 
of my BMW's, even though the E34 has dealer fitted M-Tech suspension.

>> What also might
>> make difference, is that I think the Vitesse seats are more comfortable
>> and supportive than those in other models, inc the EFI.
>
> Maybe - but the leather ones are the same?

AFAIA leather covered bucket seats were never a listed option
Cloth covered ones were std in the Vitesse.
Maybe a few leather covered ones were fitted for special orders.
Or maybe a few customers had leather seats out of the EFI fitted or the 
Vitesse bucket seats recovered.. I don't know. All I do know is that IMO the 
bucket seats in my car are far more comfortable than the leather seats that 
were in one of my 2600's.

TBH I just don't like leather seats anyway. I find them hot in the summer. 
Lack of ventilation I suppose, compared to cloth, and more slippery into the 
bargain.
It's one thing I don't like about my E39. I much prefer the cloth sports 
seats in my E34.
Mike.

Miike G wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
> news:5098860e00dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> 
>>>I think that was probably due to the market it was aimed at. Like other
>>>SD1's in the range, I believe that having self levelling was seen as a
>>>selling point for the more expensive versions. Not for any other
>>>reason,.and with the Vitesse they were trying to cater for both the
>>>sporty driver and the executive type who might load the car up for a
>>>dash to the south of france or wherever.
>>
>>My experience says it's essential if you don't want the rear bottoming.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that depends on the spring and shock settings.
> Mine only bottoms under exceptional circumstances.
> On a road with the sort of undulations one would expect it has never 
> bottomed. Even when quite heavily loaded.

I have run both my Vitesse with no bump stops (because they were 
complete shot to pieces - the rubber completely disintegrated) until I 
realised what it was and replaced them.

Believe me, when your bump stops are shot to bits you *really* know (and 
hear, and feel) when the back bottoms out all right! And remember, if 
the rubber is gone completely that means at least an inch of extra 
suspension travel before the the lower spring mount hits the upper with 
an almighty clank.

So...

With only myself and Alena in the car, no other load, on quite a number 
of ordinary roads with speed bumps or rather noticeable pot holes (but 
nothing extreme in the same of being "exceptional circumstances" as you 
put it), I could bottom out quite a number of times.

When your bump stops are in good shape you can't always tell when you 
bottom out.

So, with the Rimmers yellow uprated "Vitesse ride height" springs and 
Spax adjustables (set reasonably hard), bottoming out is not too 
difficult to achieve. That is supposedly a roadworthy replacement for 
the Nivomat suspension.



Michael

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> > But you now have a BMW E39? That has a softer ride than even a standard
> > SD1 but handles better.

> I don't expect you to believe it, but my Vitesse handles better than
> eiither of my BMW's, even though the E34 has dealer fitted M-Tech
> suspension.

Ah - that's why you think the Vitesse has a reasonable ride. My E39 has
standard suspension and wheels.  

> >> What also might make difference, is that I think the Vitesse seats
> >> are more comfortable and supportive than those in other models, inc
> >> the EFI.
> >
> > Maybe - but the leather ones are the same?

> AFAIA leather covered bucket seats were never a listed option

Really? I've seen a few with them. But Rover would sell you what you
wanted - to order. 

> Cloth covered ones were std in the Vitesse.
> Maybe a few leather covered ones were fitted for special orders.
> Or maybe a few customers had leather seats out of the EFI fitted or the 
> Vitesse bucket seats recovered.. I don't know. All I do know is that IMO the 
> bucket seats in my car are far more comfortable than the leather seats that 
> were in one of my 2600's.

> TBH I just don't like leather seats anyway. I find them hot in the summer. 
> Lack of ventilation I suppose, compared to cloth, and more slippery into the 
> bargain.
> It's one thing I don't like about my E39. I much prefer the cloth sports 
> seats in my E34.
> Mike.

-- 
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit. 

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Michael Kilpatrick"  wrote in message 
news:8MWdncIq_8FA5TTXnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Miike G wrote:

>> I'm sure that depends on the spring and shock settings.
>> Mine only bottoms under exceptional circumstances.
>> On a road with the sort of undulations one would expect it has never 
>> bottomed. Even when quite heavily loaded.
>
> I have run both my Vitesse with no bump stops (because they were complete 
> shot to pieces - the rubber completely disintegrated) until I realised 
> what it was and replaced them.
>
> Believe me, when your bump stops are shot to bits you *really* know (and 
> hear, and feel) when the back bottoms out all right! And remember, if the 
> rubber is gone completely that means at least an inch of extra suspension 
> travel before the the lower spring mount hits the upper with an almighty 
> clank.
>
> So...
>
> With only myself and Alena in the car, no other load, on quite a number of 
> ordinary roads with speed bumps or rather noticeable pot holes (but 
> nothing extreme in the same of being "exceptional circumstances" as you 
> put it), I could bottom out quite a number of times.
>
> When your bump stops are in good shape you can't always tell when you 
> bottom out.
>
> So, with the Rimmers yellow uprated "Vitesse ride height" springs and Spax 
> adjustables (set reasonably hard), bottoming out is not too difficult to 
> achieve. That is supposedly a roadworthy replacement for the Nivomat 
> suspension.

I know I have stronger springs than those commonly supplied as replacements.

The first springs I fitted were sold as replacement Vitesse springs, without 
Nivomats. Even with the spax set hard, I had the same problem you had. The 
car bottomed too easily.
On top of that it rolled more than it did even before when it had a 
knackered Nivomat. Leading me to believe the springs were simply not hard 
enough.

I forget the name of the Co that I got my springs from, but as well as 
supplying springs or shocks for various models, they also made, or had made, 
springs to order.

Took quite a lot of deliberation before I came up with a spec that I thought 
would give me what I was looking for.

They did cost about £15 more each than the 'Vitesse replacement springs' 
though.
The first set they sent were too long, so I sent them back. The second set 
are those fitted to the car at present.

Although the car has done many thousands of miles since they were fitted, 
the last time I was under the car the bump stops showed no signs of wear. In 
fact little signs of contact whatever.

Having said all that, I appreciate that your requirements are different to 
mine, but failing in your search for a Nivomat replacement, I think you 
might find that fitting stronger springs is an acceptable compromise.
Mike.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5098d01653dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> > But you now have a BMW E39? That has a softer ride than even a standard
>> > SD1 but handles better.
>
>> I don't expect you to believe it, but my Vitesse handles better than
>> eiither of my BMW's, even though the E34 has dealer fitted M-Tech
>> suspension.
>
> Ah - that's why you think the Vitesse has a reasonable ride. My E39 has
> standard suspension and wheels.

I accept that my Vitesse is not everyones cup of tea, but for the reasons 
I've given I much prefer a stiff suspension setup.
My E39 also has std suspension, but with 17" wheels, which I believe, at 
least from the handbook, was a listed option.
Mike.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> On top of that it rolled more than it did even before when it had a
> knackered Nivomat. Leading me to believe the springs were simply not
> hard enough.

IIRC, the principle of the Nivomat makes it an anti-roll device to some
extent, given it attempts to keep a constant ride height.

It's a relatively easy matter to make a car 'handle' well by stiffer
springs etc. Getting a decent ride/handling compromise is the difficult
bit. Which many modern makers with far more sophisticated rear suspension
systems still don't manage. I'm utterly amazed just how hard the ride is
on many modern cars. I have a neighbour with a new BMW 535d - and that is
simply awful over roads I know well.

-- 
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> My E39 also has std suspension, but with 17" wheels, which I believe, at 
> least from the handbook, was a listed option.

It is, and spoils the ride. Like most ultra low profile tyres.

-- 
*If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:50990f2bfcdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> My E39 also has std suspension, but with 17" wheels, which I believe, at
>> least from the handbook, was a listed option.
>
> It is, and spoils the ride. Like most ultra low profile tyres.

Not by any significant amount on normal roads. Only on rough roads is the 
difference noticeable .
Remember, I had a '98 528i  as well, before I sold it and kept the one I 
have now.
That had std wheels and there was hardly any difference in ride between thr 
two. Of course that could have been down to the tyres it had, which were not 
particularly good quality, but I don't think that better tyres would have 
made a noticeable difference.
Mike.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:50990f0981dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> On top of that it rolled more than it did even before when it had a
>> knackered Nivomat. Leading me to believe the springs were simply not
>> hard enough.
>
> IIRC, the principle of the Nivomat makes it an anti-roll device to some
> extent, given it attempts to keep a constant ride height.
>
> It's a relatively easy matter to make a car 'handle' well by stiffer
> springs etc. Getting a decent ride/handling compromise is the difficult
> bit. Which many modern makers with far more sophisticated rear suspension
> systems still don't manage. I'm utterly amazed just how hard the ride is
> on many modern cars. I have a neighbour with a new BMW 535d - and that is
> simply awful over roads I know well.

We all have our likes and dislikes. I prefer a harder ride. You prefer one 
that is softer.
One can't argue that one choice is better than the other In the end it comes 
down to personal preference.

My son had an Octavia VRS TDI last year as a company car. Maybe a little 
rough around the edges, but it went like stink with a firm ride. The sort of 
ride I like, but I can quite see that the ride quality could be a criticism 
levelled at it by someone who prefered a softer more compliant ride.
Someone like yourself for instance. :-)
Mike.

In article , Miike G
 wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
> news:50990f2bfcdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> > In article , Miike G
> >    wrote:
> >> My E39 also has std suspension, but with 17" wheels, which I believe,
> >> at least from the handbook, was a listed option.
> >
> > It is, and spoils the ride. Like most ultra low profile tyres.

> Not by any significant amount on normal roads. Only on rough roads is
> the difference noticeable .

Where do you find 'normal' roads in the UK? ;-) Apart from some motorways
most are appalling. Especially London ones.

> Remember, I had a '98 528i  as well, before
> I sold it and kept the one I have now.

Not my experience having a pal with a near identical car with larger
wheels. The 16" made less difference. Not that I'm holding up the E39 as a
paragon of good ride. It's merely adequate.

> That had std wheels and there
> was hardly any difference in ride between thr two. Of course that could
> have been down to the tyres it had, which were not particularly good
> quality, but I don't think that better tyres would have made a
> noticeable difference. Mike.

Tyres do matter. I've got Colway remoulds on the SD1 and the difference
from the previous Avons was considerable. Better in every way. Apart from
wear which is too early to tell.

-- 
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> We all have our likes and dislikes. I prefer a harder ride. You prefer
> one that is softer. One can't argue that one choice is better than the
> other In the end it comes down to personal preference.

> My son had an Octavia VRS TDI last year as a company car. Maybe a little
> rough around the edges, but it went like stink with a firm ride. The
> sort of ride I like, but I can quite see that the ride quality could be
> a criticism levelled at it by someone who prefered a softer more
> compliant ride. Someone like yourself for instance. :-)

Yup. It's certainly the fashion to have poor riding cars. Luckily I'm not
much of a blind follower of fashion.

-- 
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5099222a74dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article , Miike G
>  wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
>> news:50990f2bfcdave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> > In article , Miike G
>> >    wrote:
>> >> My E39 also has std suspension, but with 17" wheels, which I believe,
>> >> at least from the handbook, was a listed option.
>> >
>> > It is, and spoils the ride. Like most ultra low profile tyres.
>
>> Not by any significant amount on normal roads. Only on rough roads is
>> the difference noticeable .
>
> Where do you find 'normal' roads in the UK? ;-)

In W Sussex apparently.:-)
Around Horsham where I live, the majority of deristricted roads are fairly 
smooth and free of surface irregularities. It's on the minor and side roads 
in villages etc where the lack of maintenance is most obvious.

In my own village for several weeks there were some quite deep potholes in 
the access road to the library car park. Other local roads also have 
problems with minor potholes, and bumpy repairs.
They do jar my car if I hit them, but as I know where most of them are, most 
times I can avoid them.

>Apart from some motorways
> most are appalling. Especially London ones.

Maybe if I lived in London I would have the same prefence as yourself, re 
suspensions and ride comfort.:-)
Mike..

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:5099225b72dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> We all have our likes and dislikes. I prefer a harder ride. You prefer
>> one that is softer. One can't argue that one choice is better than the
>> other In the end it comes down to personal preference.
>
>> My son had an Octavia VRS TDI last year as a company car. Maybe a little
>> rough around the edges, but it went like stink with a firm ride. The
>> sort of ride I like, but I can quite see that the ride quality could be
>> a criticism levelled at it by someone who prefered a softer more
>> compliant ride. Someone like yourself for instance. :-)
>
> Yup. It's certainly the fashion to have poor riding cars. Luckily I'm not
> much of a blind follower of fashion.

'Poor' is a subjective opinion.
I doubt modern cars would be made with 'poor' rides if such cars reduced a 
manufacturers overall sales.
Mike..

In article ,
   Miike G  wrote:
> > Yup. It's certainly the fashion to have poor riding cars. Luckily I'm
> > not much of a blind follower of fashion.

> 'Poor' is a subjective opinion. I doubt modern cars would be made with
> 'poor' rides if such cars reduced a manufacturers overall sales.

Oh they would. Most equate a poor ride with good handling. And must have
20" wheels on a car which never leaves town. ;-)

-- 
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:509937cb37dave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Miike G  wrote:
>> > Yup. It's certainly the fashion to have poor riding cars. Luckily I'm
>> > not much of a blind follower of fashion.
>
>> 'Poor' is a subjective opinion. I doubt modern cars would be made with
>> 'poor' rides if such cars reduced a manufacturers overall sales.
>
> Oh they would. Most equate a poor ride with good handling. And must have
> 20" wheels on a car which never leaves town. ;-)

Yes, but they're not deliberately creating cars with poor rides.
The 'poor' ride is simply a result of fitting large wheels with low profile 
tyres, to suit the fashion concious buyer.
About the worst reason for buying anything IMO, but a lot of Co's, including 
car manufacturers, make a lot of money catering to people that see being 
fashionable as a desirable feature in their lives.
Mike.