Poly cones are real.  I know of at least two manufactures, both in Japan.  These are the 70A "street" variety from Clan Mini.  "Slightly lower and stiffer than a stock cone" is how they were described.  They are certainly more aggressive than the cones that came off my car, which is welcome. Smooth as glass compared to the old dead rubber, but then that progressive spring rate ramps up really quick.  Very fun.  

I couldn't find those cones listed anywhere else.    $152.00 ea. plus shipping.

Checking the current fake Downton site retrieves little more than key fobs and t-Shirts.

Hmmm,

Polyurethene Cones, wonder how those would work?

Would last forever..

Mitch

Alex -

Your usual well-thought  contribution!

As you suggest, getting a true back-to-back comparo is not easy.

You seem to be channeling KC, but with personal experience to reference. Good on ya!

In fact, I was with you right up to the gratuitous slap at those of us who choose not to submit ourselves to Sir Alex's intentional designed-in discomfort over long distances, or who have back issues and/or distances to be travelled that prohibit us from doing so.

Maybe it's because we Yanks are spread out so far relative to you lucky enough to enjoy the hobby in Merry    Olde?

With my current situation, I'll likely not have the opportunity to own another Mini, so it's really no skin off my nose, but that comment chapped my hide. Well, at least enough to vent.

Rant over, and a sincere thanks for what you and Paul do for the faithful here in the colonies.

Definitely worthwhile reading your comments Alex! Thanks.

Very thoughtfully written, and a rare back-to-back comparison that we can all benefit from when making choices.

Norm

No dodgy maths:
Cones are £160 for four.
A spring kit is £305.
Springs are a US product, cones are heavy for shipping.

Thanks Alex, this was very helpful.  I do not think I would be happy with springs based on your description.  I've had my cones in the car for about 8 years, and the ride height has appreciably lowered since the last time I adjusted it, which has probably been 6 years.  I have not ajusted my alignment since then either, which now has extreme negative camber, and has negatively affected handling.  I have a track day coming up, so was wondering about springs, but it doesn't sound like it is worth the negative aspects of springs.  

My car bottoms out noticeably on bumps, and tires rub the arches also with more than just me in the car.  I like the way the car looks in it's lowered stance, but clearly it is too low as it makes a horrible rubbing noise all the way around hard corners, and hits the bump stops on bumps (which I've cut down to 1/3 their original size to avoid riding on them).  

Time for raising my car and re-aligning.

I dont have many miles on my twin cam.It runs red springs and 32"s. Everthing seemed good till I went down a small hill ,quickly. The car seemed to float,it was very eerie. I think Iwill tighten up the rear shocks. I did like the ride before that though

A set of springs from our host are $379.95, a set of cones are $99.95/ea X4= $399.80. Are you using some of that new math to come up with "a fraction of the price"?

Or are prices on your side of the pond significantly different?

In my *very* aggressive street driving the 008s grip as much as I need.  It is pavement uneveness or off-camber sections that force one to slow down, and in those cases I can't see that it's prudent anyway to go a few mph faster with 032's.

Also I never heard back from Hagerty about insurability with the 032's non-Dot approval.

Just thought of something else.

Tyre selection can have a massive impact as well.
The sidewalls of a 165/70/10 Falken are very soft, and give a much better ride than a Yokhama but can have 'interesting' behaviour on turn-in as they flex.  Both my cars are running Falkens at the moment, so that removes another variable from the comparison.
I shall bolt a set of A008s on and try the cars with those as well as the 032s (I have many sets of wheels & tyres on hand).

Anyone over this part of the world is welcome to try the two back to back.

Most helpful Alex, thank you.  Bet a lot of folks will be referring to this thread.  I was about to go Blue but instead will replace my front rubber.

Suzy's GT is the reference point - 10 year old springs with standard KYB dampers (we had the gas-adjusts on it for many years, but they ended up so hard the ride was nasty and the handling dangerous).  The hi-los have been set to give good rideheight all round, not lowered.
The ride is pretty much what you would expect from a Mini - slightly bouncy/jiggly over uneven roads and good handling.  Even in standard form, Mini suspension doesn't really need posey dampers and adjustable bits for some very spirited driving.  Two trips to Italy and round France a few times have proven the setup to be very nice on a long journey.

The Estate has brand new standard cones fitted and the same KYB dampers. 
The ride is very smooth, with much less jiggling than the GT, but the suspension is settling quite rapidly.  I've already had to wind the back up twice and the front once.  It will soon need doing again.  As it settles, I am expecting the ride to become harsher and more 'normal' though still much nicer than it was.  Like Tigger, the rideheight is not stupicly low as I use the car properly, and it can oftern be seen with an engine & gearbox in the back. 
The handling is much improved.  As there is now compliant movement in the suspension when cornering, the car is far less unsettled when hitting a bump midcorner.  Body roll is pretty much what you would expect and there is no crashing and banging over bigger manholes or potholes. 
The cones I took out were some of the flattest most knackered ones I've ever seen (Tubbs has a hard life) and the change was remarkable.  If I'd been asked to guess the suspension, I would initially have thought springs not rubber.

Betty the Union Jack saloon has got the red S-Racer springs fitted with standard KYB dampers.  Rideheight is set at normal to slightly high for two reasons:  1) It is important to keep pre-load on the springs to prevent the possibility of breaking a spring in the event of it becoming unseated and turning.  2) The springs are linear in their rate whereas a rubber cone has a rising spring rate.  Put weight in the boot or two passengers in the back of the car and it squats down noticeably.  There are photos of me driving round Goowood with 8 people in the car - there is NO WAY I could have done this with coil springs.
In a straight line the ride quality is verging on hydro smooth.  I did several hundred miles last weekend cruising on the motorway and a bit of spirited cross country (some of you may have seen the photo of the speedo...), and I would say it is second only to a Mk3 hydro Elf for ride quality.  Several large bumps in succession can have the car kangarooing, and care has to be taken to avoid yumping in case of spring rotation.
When cornering there is much more pronounced body roll, and the car is more easily upset by a mid corner bump than Tubbs or Tigger, though not as bad as any of the cars were with knackered springs/dampers.  I suspect under really hard cornering a bump may cause the suspension to hit the bump stops and upset its poise a bit.  There is certainly less feel than with the cones on turn-in and mid corner, and there is noticeably less traction with the ability to spin wheels much more easily.

Thoughts:
New cones are a fraction the price of springs, and therefore probably offer much better value for money.  The ride on the brand new cones is pretty much on a par with the springs, though that will inevitably change as they age.
Having said that, for extensive motorway work in an unladen car, springs offer a much nicer ride and probably will do until they break (which should be never, assuming they are installed correctly).

Rideheight and damper selection has more effect on ride quality than most people think.  Yes, it may look cool to drop your car into the weeds on fat 13"s, but it will drive and ride like S***.  I've ridden in many slammed cars and they are universally horrid.  Cake and eat it springs to mind.  Handling isn't improved by enough to offset the loss of comfort.  Hard dampers make life unpleasant - harsh ride combined with iffy handling in the real world. 
Trackdays are different to driving on the road - there are no manhole covers at Brands Hatch, or potholes at Silverstone - so to believe that you can have a nice compliant car on the road and then convert it to be a track beast is probably naïve

Blue, Red and Green springs have been described as Hydro, Rubber and Race in the past as a comparison.  I would suggest that the red ones are Hydro-esque in my experience so the blue ones must be incredibly compliant and probably too soft. 
Based on my findings with the red springs, I would never buy blue ones, though I may be tempted to a set of the green ones just to see what they are like.

Springs are of no use if you intend to carry any weight in the car.

Conclusion (and opinion):

I'll stick to rubber or Hydro.

The ride in a straight line is lovely on springs, but to require really good ride on a long journey suggests luggage on board.  Load carrying and springs are not compatible, they squash too easily.  The wonky handling created by increased body roll can be dialled out with harder dampers or an anti-roll bar, but that really defeats the point of fitting the springs in the first place.

So, if you reeeeaalllllyyyyy neeeeeed to have springs, consider this:
WHAT do you use the car for ?
Be honest.
Trailer Queens (and I include anyone who doesn't drive their car to a Mini Meet) don't need them - they will just be bragging rights.
People who actually drive their car in a spirited manner may be disappointed with the handling compromises.
Interstate or A-Road pounders may get benefit.

Are spring color codes to stiffness ratings the same across manufacturers?   SRacer for instance calls their blue springs street application and says comfort is their primary goal.  Red is their performance street/ track day spring, and green is track only.  

Im guessing Red would suit my needs the best, as I want handling but not back breaking harshness as I mostly drive on the roads.  Or maybe Blue?   I'm just not sure.  

Like Alex, I have a '96 Anniversary Cooper on Blue Springs (see Avator) and it can certainly corner very well.  Then a '80 Clubbie Estate with New Cones and I thought that could go round corners, but the Springs beat it, imo.  I also have a few '90 Minis with tired cones that do corner quickly, BUT, you feel every bump and imperfection.  My choice would be Blue Springs, for the overall ride quality, but thats just my experience

//clanmini.web.fc2.com/page63.html

It is unfortunate but it is the nature of the medium that people get admonished for their opinions on forums. Everything needs to be taken in context.

I am sure Alex will share openly what he is comfortable sharing, but there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in any assessment like this and a large number of variables.

There are lots of types of coil springs and now polyurethane?

ALEX, ALEX, ALEX!!!

Clan Mini in Japan?????

x3

*chant* Alex, Alex, Alex...

In my case I decided against springs (all my other cas have springs) and keep the cone personality which is unique to the mini.  However, you can do better than rubber.  I recently went with polyurethane cones from Clan Mini in Japan.