Originally Posted by
OptimumRC
Most compression springs (for shocks atleast) are designed way under the elastice limit, so they are never even close to the elastic limit. But I agree a smaller coil diameter will result in less stability, or I guess as you have been calling it "efficiency" given the same free length.
A spring stores and releases energy. Anything that can be rated for energy use/release can be rated for efficiency.
In this hobby were more familar with efficiency when in reference to batteries and motors than anything else... but again as a general rule the same parameters can be applied.
Design parameters and cost usually limit the true potential of any project... especially if its intent is mass production. Because of this i truly doubt a large amount of RnD goes into spring design for RC cars.
I can see it being of greater importance for companies like Serpent/XRay/etc... that pride themselves in 'over engineering' their designs. Their products are often prime choice for fitment on other so called inferior designs. Like you said before, you pay for the Kyosho product.
This entire discussion was started over "progressive spring rates" and this pic was provided at the start of the discussion....
As i stated before, (and i should have included the word static, which i believe you call 'free length'?), a spring rate cannot be progressive unless its wire size is changed. The above pic shows what a true progressive rate spring looks like.
Despite efficiency, plastic deformation, simple math, or complex equations, our offroad linear springs are NOT progressive in nature. They arent designed as such.