I agree with you about bikes not belonging on the roof if you can carry them on the rear. There are lots of posts about which trailer hitch bike racks are worth buying. But I am hoping to see new "feet" from Thule for the '09 so that I can still re-use the rest of my roof rack from my '07 Fit. Are you back from the land of chocolate, wrist watches and secret bank accounts yet?

 

Back last Tuesday and picked up the Fit on Thursday: Blue Sensation Sport MT w/ VSA/NAV. Pretty happy with it so far but haven't really tossed it around yet. Wife is happy, which is key, since it's "her" car.

I wish I were able to carry bikes on the back of my STI, but there still aren't any hitches for the new body style, so I've got a roof rack on that one. Somehow it suits the rally DNA well enough that it looks like it belongs.

 

Welcome home and congratulations on the new Fit!! One of the most effective and effortless benefits of a trailer hitch on any Fit is parking lot armor. Leave the draw bar and ball on at all times, and bumper damage is prevented on your car, and guaranteed on the cars that drive into you.

 

Anyone with pictures of the trailer hitch and bike rack installed on their 09 Fit? After loading 2 pairs of skis on a bike in my 09 Fit for a weekend trip last week and scratching some of the interior trim, I decided I need a rack. I'd like a hitch rack to avoid the wind drag of a roof rack. But I have some hesitations about installation and how it will look.

Also, does anyone notice a difference in handling with the trailer hitch and bike rack when bikes are mounted? I remember reading somewhere on this site about people installing stiffer rear shocks to accomodate this.

Thanks.

 

Do the math: Hitch (~45 lbs) + rack(~60 lbs) + 2 bikes(~50 lbs) is no more than a rear seat passenger. Stiffer shocks were being discussed for pulling a trailer, but for a bike rack that's just silly.

 

A reminder- there are no "stiffer" shocks for the Fit. The Monroe air shocks merely provide BETTER damping of the rear springs, and provide HEIGHT adjustability to handle extra weight. For most cars the air shocks can maintain stock ride height in the rear with up to 1200 lbs. more than the normal payload. I wouldn't recommend that much extra weight in a Fit, but that's the claim from Monroe regarding the air shock capacity.

 

"Better damping"? If they are properly designed for higher loads they will be stiffer indeed!

 

Tim, you are missing the point. The Monroe air shocks give a better ride simply because they are better at controlling the high frequency vibration from small ruts and freeway expansion joints than the weaker stock shocks.

"Stiff" implies a harsh and jolting ride over large ruts, railroad tracks, etc., and that is simply not the case. The only design feature that is there specifically for weight is the air sleeve in each shock that raises the car when inflated to compensate for sag under extra weight.

Once again, the air shocks are better than stock in controlling spring compression and rebound. Better control does not mean "stiff".

Once you get these shocks for your Fit to complete the trailer hitch package as you have posted about in other threads, you will find out for yourself that arguing with me on definitions of the characteristics of these specialized air shocks is pointless.

 

I'm not implying anything. As a physicist, stiff connotes nothing but denotes plenty. Your description of high frequency damping is too touchy-feely to help me understand the damping characteristics and/or spring rates, even qualitatively. Do you have damping curves or spring rates? Can you say whether the air shocks have higher or lower:

- high speed compression damping
- low speed compression damping
- high speed rebound damping
- low speed rebound damping
- spring rates, and are the rates of both progressive?
- bump travel
- droop travel
- length of bump stop

Without at least a bigger/smaller comparison in at least one or two of these attributes, I don't understand how you can say the air shocks are not stiffer. Although they may not be harsher, I'll bet they are stiffer overall in the physical sense, otherwise they would not be suitable for a larger load.

 

Okay, I give up. I am trying to keep your semantics from driving away other people who would benefit from these shocks- the only ones available as an alternative to overpriced, weak Honda stock shocks.

Buy the shocks or don't- the only way that you will see the difference is to try them yourself.

Other Fit owners who are using the MA-811's on GD's, and MA-973's on GE's know what I am talking about, but you can't know until you try them. Arguments based on semantics mean nothing.

For the other members who are looking for an improved ride, this is your inexpensive answer. The side benefit is the extra weight capacity they offer, expecially if you intend to pull a trailer, use a hitch-mounted cargo rack, or subject the car to occasional overload conditions.

Whatthe physicist ignores is the fact that the weight compensation of the air shocks has absolutely nothing to do with the valving of the shocks. He says "because the shocks can bear more weight than stock shocks, they must be "stiffer", and he has his own definition for that word. The weight compensation of the shocks comes only from the air bag portion of the shocks, which uses compressed air to elevate the back of the car upward from the axle depending upon how much air is put into the shocks. Whether unloaded, or overloaded, the car rides the same, and the ride is much smoother than stock.

 

It won't void the warranty unless you try to tow a 50' boat and rip the back end of the car off. Ok, a bit of an extreme example, but the damage has to be directly related to towing something... is the law.

 

I have some experience using these shocks. ran rear Monroe adjustable air shocks in my Jeep Cherokee, they were fantastic for when I had additional cargo/people in the car and also when I needed extra clearance... up to 3" of adjustable height. I simple filled it at a gas station air pump when needed the extra capacity.

I could see them being good for towing as well, you can increase the pressure when you need to tow and then decrease it when you are finished so you don't have an overly rough ride. I see so many cars/trucks/suv's sagging in the rear when they town and it aims their headlights into the sky... these shocks are an excellent alternative to that.

 

Arguments about shocks aside, does anyone have any pictures of a hitch mounted bike rack on an 09 Fit?? Are the hitch racks easy to take on and off when you're not using them? Thanks.

 

Hey, Dave. I'm not saying they aren't great and there is nothing wrong with stiffer if that is what is called for. My "semantics" are just an attempt to put some meat on a conversation that is mostly dominated by "I like them" kind of statements. Some people want to know more than that, myself included.

Cheers,
Tim

 

If that is true, then they will be badly underdamped when there is a heavy load on the rear.

BTW, I didn't "ignore" anything. This is exactly the kind of information I was trying to get you to tell me.

 

It sounds like these are simply ride-height adjustable shocks. I would still like to know how spring and damping rates compare to stock. That will tell the story on how they will work on the car when unloaded and with larger loads from heavy carrying and/or towing compared to the stock setup.

More information is good!

 

Tim, you really seem to be obsessed with that word "stiffer". Your earlier statement was that if the shocks add weight capacity to the car, that means that they must be stiffer. That damned word is meaningless here. I added a paragraph to my post #50 to try to clear this up. I am only continuing this discussion for the benefit of the members who are interested in improving one of the weak design points of all USDM Fits- the rear shocks. The value of these air shocks has been proven by many Fit owners who race in Auto X events, and many who use their cars for utility functions like trailer towing.

 

I do?

Well, if damping rates aren't increased, then with additional mass in the rear, the suspension will be underdamped. This applet is a really nice way to see what happens when you increase the mass:

Applet: Damped Oscillator

Set b at 4 kg/s and run it. Then increase the mass to 1.5kg and run it again. You need to add some significant damping to get the oscillation to die out as rapidly with the extra mass. If you don't add some more damping, the ride will still be wallowy when loaded, even the if ride height is correct. That is why, were I designing shocks for higher loads, I would probably add a bit of extra damping even if it weren't adjustable. If these are as great as you say they are, I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. In translating to layman's terms, I would say that more damping means "stiffer", yes.

BTW, if you play with that applet a bit, you will discover that you also need to change spring rate if you want to duplicate the initial curve with a higher mass: increased damping alone can bring the system to rest just as fast, but the natural frequency will be a lot lower without a higher-rate (ummm... stiffer) spring. A slightly higher rate or a progressive rate designed to work with the ride height adjustment to increase effective rate when loaded seems like the way to go. Again, I'd be surprised if that weren't part of any good design.


It works, so I should shut up and stop asking questions? Really? That's where we are now?

 

In this case, your education is getting in your own way, and it comes as a surprise to me. You didn't seem to be pompous and silly in your previous posts that I can remember. Also in this case, you are speaking from a standpoint of ignorance. Air shocks have been discussed in multiple threads for at least 1 1/2 years in these forums. I have used air shocks on seven different vehicles over a 28 year period, including my two Fits. I speak from a standpoint of personal experience.

I did not tell anyone that "you should buy these shocks because I like them". You can waste your time dissecting my paragraphs, and can post all of the reasons that you can think of why these shocks can't work the way that many Fit owners say that they do. After all, you are a scientist, and I am a mere engineer and ex-auto mechanic. But science says that bumblebees can't fly.

And of course if you push anything to its design limits, performance will not be optimal. An overloaded vehicle will not handle the same way as it would if loaded properly.

Are these shocks perfect under all conditions? No, nothing is. Are the stock Fit rear shocks even GOOD under most conditions? Not in my opinion, which is shared by many others.

Now, if you require graphs and charts that show every physical aspect of a shock absorber under every conceivable condition before you buy them, you will never buy another shock absorber in your life because the makers have nothing to gain by this exercise, or by presenting such test records to the public.

My apologies to the OP, Dave Zager- one of the many who do have personal knowledge and experience with air shocks. For the general forum members, if you have not received enough information on this subject by now, from this thread and at least three others on the forums, other members will have to continue the discussion because I'm tired of the subject and this is just getting too silly. Bye now.

 

OK, Dave. Step away from the keyboard. I'm sorry if you thought I was being pompous, but I do like to understand things. It's more than a job, it's who I am. I ask questions not because I know it all, but because I don't and I want to understand better. My argumentation is not about being right, it's about getting to the answers. It seems there are no more here. However, if anyone else knows anything about the details of these shocks: spring rates, progressiveness, damping, etc.; I'd be curious to know those things. In lots of other car forums, such details are regularly discussed.

BTW, "science says bumblebees can't fly" is a bit of a myth. It was in fact, a French entomologist, not a physicist or engineer, that made this false assertion in 1934. When I want to know what kind of bug I just found, I'll call an entomologist, but I wouldn't fly on an airplane designed by one.
Once someone qualified decided to study bee flight, answers were quick to come:
Deciphering The Mystery Of Bee Flight