T1R Tie Rod end??
08-12-2007, 05:57 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T1R Tie Rod end??
I just sold my dc2 and bought an EP3. Im ordering f2 coilovers for it very soon, iut i ran into discussion having to do with the angles of the tie rods and how it can damge my rack. i was wondering what the point of needing aftermarket tie rod ends is? is it like 2 inches? if i get the aftermarket tie rod ends and my car isnt low enough, that would be the same as slamming it w/ stock tie rods( the t1r tie rods flip the tie rod end over to decrease the angle on the rack). tia!!!!!
08-13-2007, 09:17 AM
#3
Re: (PatrickGSR94)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dang now how come nobody makes these for 90's Hondas? The tie rods angle upwards pretty bad on those cars too when you lower them.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Looking at this kit for the EP3, doesn't look too hard to adapt or even make one with off the shelf 'circle-track' parts for our 90's hondas. I think the stuf with the taper and longer threads is the part that needs to be machined; everything else is bought over the counter.
Looking at this kit for the EP3, doesn't look too hard to adapt or even make one with off the shelf 'circle-track' parts for our 90's hondas. I think the stuf with the taper and longer threads is the part that needs to be machined; everything else is bought over the counter.
08-13-2007, 10:04 AM
#4
Re: (PatrickGSR94)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dang now how come nobody makes these for 90's Hondas? The tie rods angle upwards pretty bad on those cars too when you lower them.</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you alter the angle of the tie rods on a 88-00 Civic/Integra with double wishbone suspension, you will only screw everything up. The tie rods are supposed to angled because they move in a proper arcing motion to match the upper & lower control arms. If you change the tie-rod angle without changing the UCA and LCA angle, you will have awful bump-steer problems. That is why they never made parts like this for 90's Hondas. Double wishbone works VERY well when lowered with the exception of decreased roll stiffness due to roll-center migration (***more on this at the bottom).
On the EP3's Macpherson strut suspension, everything is different. There is no upper control arm, so the upper pivot point is fixed. The lower control arm pivots and the mounting location for the tie rod is high making its motion in relation to the LCA very different. In effect it will cause bump-steer no matter how the tie-rod is located on the knuckle, especially since the tie rod is way longer than the LCA. This effect becomes exaggerated as mods move the suspension away from the stock range of motion. On an altered (ie lowered) EP3, the trick would be to relocate the tie-rod in an area that minimizes the bump-steer through its new range of motion. That is probably what these new tie rods are meant to do. Of course you cannot be absolutely certain it works without measuring it yourself, or at the very least going of other peoples experience with the kit.
03 Si (tie rod much longer than LCA):
PS: On the new Civic Macpherson suspension, the tie-rods are mounted down near the LCA, and the lengths match, so bump-steer is pretty much eliminated at any ride height. Also the front coil springs are wound in opposite directions to keep the wheels from STEERING (not toeing) as the suspension compresses & droops. Honda's getting the hang of it...
07 Si (tie rod same length as LCA):
*** Roll center migration: Roll-center adjusters will only serve to screw up double wishbone geometry as well. By altering the LCA angle without taking the tie-rod or UCA angles into consideration, your f-ing with bump-steer once again. It's best to avoid these products unless you really know what your doing and can back up the effects of the alterations in geometry with mock-ups & measurements. Stiff springs & sway-bars will easily take care of a softer roll-center...
If you alter the angle of the tie rods on a 88-00 Civic/Integra with double wishbone suspension, you will only screw everything up. The tie rods are supposed to angled because they move in a proper arcing motion to match the upper & lower control arms. If you change the tie-rod angle without changing the UCA and LCA angle, you will have awful bump-steer problems. That is why they never made parts like this for 90's Hondas. Double wishbone works VERY well when lowered with the exception of decreased roll stiffness due to roll-center migration (***more on this at the bottom).
On the EP3's Macpherson strut suspension, everything is different. There is no upper control arm, so the upper pivot point is fixed. The lower control arm pivots and the mounting location for the tie rod is high making its motion in relation to the LCA very different. In effect it will cause bump-steer no matter how the tie-rod is located on the knuckle, especially since the tie rod is way longer than the LCA. This effect becomes exaggerated as mods move the suspension away from the stock range of motion. On an altered (ie lowered) EP3, the trick would be to relocate the tie-rod in an area that minimizes the bump-steer through its new range of motion. That is probably what these new tie rods are meant to do. Of course you cannot be absolutely certain it works without measuring it yourself, or at the very least going of other peoples experience with the kit.
03 Si (tie rod much longer than LCA):
PS: On the new Civic Macpherson suspension, the tie-rods are mounted down near the LCA, and the lengths match, so bump-steer is pretty much eliminated at any ride height. Also the front coil springs are wound in opposite directions to keep the wheels from STEERING (not toeing) as the suspension compresses & droops. Honda's getting the hang of it...
07 Si (tie rod same length as LCA):
*** Roll center migration: Roll-center adjusters will only serve to screw up double wishbone geometry as well. By altering the LCA angle without taking the tie-rod or UCA angles into consideration, your f-ing with bump-steer once again. It's best to avoid these products unless you really know what your doing and can back up the effects of the alterations in geometry with mock-ups & measurements. Stiff springs & sway-bars will easily take care of a softer roll-center...
08-13-2007, 11:40 AM
#6
Good post 94. I had always thought that on our 90's hondas, the angled tie rod itself caused excess bumpsteer but it makes sense that when you lower the suspension, all the arms move relative to each other the same amount. Though, I'm not sure if the 'angled up' is the best for double wishbone or is the arms parallel to the ground. I know that the upper arm being shorter than the lower one creates the arcing when in motion.
08-13-2007, 12:10 PM
#7
Re: (chrisw85)
I have noticed on most of modern Remote controlled touring car chassis (competition level), all the control arms angle slightly upward at ride height to keep the center of gravity low, and camber curve maximized.
I personally think that the most interesting part of having all the arms pointed upward, is how it effects track width. With all the arms pointed upward, your track width will narrow when the suspension compresses, and gets wider when the suspension droops. I don't know exactly how exactly this effects the handling characteristics, but I'm sure you could find a lot of info on the effects of "track width change" on an off-road racing forum.
If you imagine taking turn, the outside suspensions loads, and the outside track will narrow. At the same time, the inside suspension unloads, and the insides track will lengthen. This basically shifts the center of gravity towards the outside tire ever so slightly as your going into the turn. I'm guessing this has some effects on the behavior of the car.
On the other hand, as the suspension is compressed, the tire gains more and more negative camber. This means the bottom of the tire is getting pushed outward. This might compensate for any slight reduction of track at that corner, and actually move the outside tire's contact patch further away from the center of gravity.
With short stroke on-road suspension, I'm sure the changes are minimal, but I think this would definitely be interesting stuff to research...
I personally think that the most interesting part of having all the arms pointed upward, is how it effects track width. With all the arms pointed upward, your track width will narrow when the suspension compresses, and gets wider when the suspension droops. I don't know exactly how exactly this effects the handling characteristics, but I'm sure you could find a lot of info on the effects of "track width change" on an off-road racing forum.
If you imagine taking turn, the outside suspensions loads, and the outside track will narrow. At the same time, the inside suspension unloads, and the insides track will lengthen. This basically shifts the center of gravity towards the outside tire ever so slightly as your going into the turn. I'm guessing this has some effects on the behavior of the car.
On the other hand, as the suspension is compressed, the tire gains more and more negative camber. This means the bottom of the tire is getting pushed outward. This might compensate for any slight reduction of track at that corner, and actually move the outside tire's contact patch further away from the center of gravity.
With short stroke on-road suspension, I'm sure the changes are minimal, but I think this would definitely be interesting stuff to research...
Trending Topics
08-13-2007, 12:54 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: (94eg!)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have noticed on most of modern Remote controlled touring car chassis (competition level), all the control arms angle slightly upward at ride height to keep the center of gravity low, and camber curve maximized.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Interesting. If all control arms angle upward, would that not put roll center below the surface of the ground and make handling worse? Even on those small 1:10 scale cars I'm amazed how their handling characteristics are just like real road cars.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Interesting. If all control arms angle upward, would that not put roll center below the surface of the ground and make handling worse? Even on those small 1:10 scale cars I'm amazed how their handling characteristics are just like real road cars.
08-13-2007, 01:58 PM
#9
Re: (PatrickGSR94)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Interesting. If all control arms angle upward, would that not put roll center below the surface...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not necessarily...
I honestly don't even know if it matters. I mean, what if your control arms are parallel? Do you even have a "roll-center"? In theory, if your CG & RC where in the exact same location, shouldn't there be no body roll whatsoever? It's just too abstract of an idea for me, so I pretend it's not there...
Interesting. If all control arms angle upward, would that not put roll center below the surface...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not necessarily...
I honestly don't even know if it matters. I mean, what if your control arms are parallel? Do you even have a "roll-center"? In theory, if your CG & RC where in the exact same location, shouldn't there be no body roll whatsoever? It's just too abstract of an idea for me, so I pretend it's not there...
08-13-2007, 11:17 PM
#13
Re: (Guam_CiviC619)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Guam_CiviC619 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Damn, kickin some knowledge in here ! 
Where the heck you get the factory exploded views from? 
</TD></TR></TABLE>
SLHondaParts.com
AcuraOEMParts.com
HondaAutomotiveParts.com
AcuraAutomotiveParts.org
HondaPartsDeals.com
and the list goes on...
Where the heck you get the factory exploded views from? </TD></TR></TABLE>SLHondaParts.com
AcuraOEMParts.com
HondaAutomotiveParts.com
AcuraAutomotiveParts.org
HondaPartsDeals.com
and the list goes on...
08-14-2007, 06:49 PM
#14
Re: (94eg!)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I honestly don't even know if it matters. I mean, what if your control arms are parallel? Do you even have a "roll-center"? In theory, if your CG & RC where in the exact same location, shouldn't there be no body roll whatsoever? It's just too abstract of an idea for me, so I pretend it's not there...</TD></TR></TABLE>
haha
I honestly don't even know if it matters. I mean, what if your control arms are parallel? Do you even have a "roll-center"? In theory, if your CG & RC where in the exact same location, shouldn't there be no body roll whatsoever? It's just too abstract of an idea for me, so I pretend it's not there...</TD></TR></TABLE>
haha
08-14-2007, 10:43 PM
#15
Re: (Bailhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bailhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
haha
</TD></TR></TABLE>
What I'm really trying to say is that roll-center is just beyond my comprehension at this point. There is MUCH MUCH more too it than the LCA angle, so why worry...
haha
</TD></TR></TABLE>
What I'm really trying to say is that roll-center is just beyond my comprehension at this point. There is MUCH MUCH more too it than the LCA angle, so why worry...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
STPREZ
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
4
01-11-2005 04:34 PM
