I did a search on this and turned up nothing. The SCCA rulebook makes no mention of suspension arms in STS, except that aftermarket control arms are permissible for double-wishbone suspensions for camber correction purposes. I interpret that as saying that aftermarket suspension arms are permitted if you do not change the pickup points or factory suspension geometry.

Is my interpretation correct? I ask because I was toying with the idea of fabricating my own arms... partially because I really don't feel pulling the bushings out of my old ones

And yes, I know spherical bearings are a no-no

 

well, my take on it is that if you are not using them for camber correction, then it is a no-go. you have to approach the rulebook with a "if it doesn't say i can do it, i can't" attitude.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Angry Joe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I ask because I was toying with the idea of fabricating my own arms... </TD></TR></TABLE>

sounds like you are candidate for SM.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by "rule 17.8.E" &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The way it is worded, the control arm may only provide positive camber correction (from lowering the car) and not allow any negative camber to be added. Which means a lot of cars are probably illegal. I'd protest a car or two and see how the rule is interpreted. The way I read the rule, you would still need offset bushings to allow negative camber to be added.

 

If you can fab your own camber adjustment lower control arms, there is a HUGE market waiting for you in the Prelude and Accord world.

 

This is from the Moutons site STS rules, so I'm not sure if it's the latest, but...

17.8.E. Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points.

17.8.F. Changes in alignment parameters which result directly from the use of allowed components are permitted. For example, the dimensional changes resulting from the use of a cylindrical offset bushing which meets the restrictions of 17.8.B are allowed, including those resulting from a change in the pivoting action to
(a) about the mounting bolt, or
(b) about the bushing itself.

So according to this, control arms designed to correct camber (or any other camber kit) are an allowed component, and any changes in alignment resulting from the installation of those allowed components are permitted.

This is one of those things the SP Honda guys hate, since they do have to use bushings for any camber change.

 

don't do anything until the 04 rulebook comes out. the camber kit allowance is one of many allowances that are being "massaged". as it stands right now, the allowance was intended to permit adjustable uca and balljoints for double-wishbone suspensions. things like the skunk uca's. (some people are arguing the definition of compensate. i say i lowered my car, didn't get as much camber as i wanted, and used the adjustable arm to compensate.)

however, several people pointed out that there are virtually no limitations on what you could do with your ca's. theoretically, someone could fabricate different uca's, lca's, and spindle uprights and develop a car with a wider track and better camber curve all while managing roll centre's and other design parameters. this was not the intent of the allowance and doesn't fit the "spirit of the rules", so there is some work being done to restrict the camber kit allowance and clarify what is and isn't legal a little better. i would warn against designing your own control arms though. even if they fit the rules as they are next year, going too far with something is an excellent way to get a rule further clarified, usually with a protest.

you should head over the the national street touring list on yahoo or sccaforums. both lists are full of rules ****'s that have little better to do then argue over piddly little things that really don't affect them because THEY NEVER ACTUALLY RACE! things like word definitions and creative rules interpretation, both for and against.

nate-will be making offset bushings for next year to assure legality and flexibility in classing (ie, can go to DSP)

 

what nate said

btw nate, who makes offset upper control arm bushings for our cars? OPM? gotta go custom?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So according to this, control arms designed to correct camber (or any other camber kit) are an allowed component, and any changes in alignment resulting from the installation of those allowed components are permitted.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Except the new arm can only compensate for the camber you gained from lowering, so you're still stuck using bushings to get negative camber (unless you use a tortured interpretation like solo-x).

Of course, without knowing the stock specs for a car, it's camber curvers, etc, you can't enforce the rule as written (short of making the user of said arms prove legality).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Wont be beat &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you can fab your own camber adjustment lower control arms, there is a HUGE market waiting for you in the Prelude and Accord world.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why would that be? I'm assuming they are Macpherson strut cars, in which case camber plates should do the job...

As for control arms, my company is considering letting me cut loose on making them for production. But I don't really feel comfortable testing them on anyone's car but my own...

 

preludes/accords are double wishbone.

all honda cars have been up until the DC5 and EP3. (aside from 1g CRX and such)

 

Then why adjustable LCA's? (as apposed to upper arms)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what nate said

btw nate, who makes offset upper control arm bushings for our cars? OPM? gotta go custom?</TD></TR></TABLE>

me.

just gotta get off my lazy *** and order the delrin. already got steel sleeves for them and an extra set of mounts so motivation is my handicap now. well, that and money.

nate

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Except the new arm can only compensate for the camber you gained from lowering, so you're still stuck using bushings to get negative camber (unless you use a tortured interpretation like solo-x).

Of course, without knowing the stock specs for a car, it's camber curvers, etc, you can't enforce the rule as written (short of making the user of said arms prove legality).</TD></TR></TABLE>

Don't know how you arrive at "Except the new arm can only compensate for the camber you gained from lowering, so you're still stuck using bushings to get negative camber."

Nowhere do the rules require that camber change be accomplished by bushings. The paragraph about bushings does "Offset bushings may be used." but you are not limited to them.

First we have "Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. " So camber kits are allowed. Doesn't specify any type, so any method of changing camber is allowed, as long as it attaches to the original points. This is key because this is the allowance that is <u>not</u> in the SP rules, and condemns them to offset bushings.

Next we have "These kits <u>may</u> include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car." May means can include, not must include. Any method of camber adjustment is still allowed.

"Changes in alignment parameters which result directly from the use of allowed components are permitted. " So if you're using an allowed component, any changes in alignment parameters resulting from their use are permitted. Doesn't say "only positive camber" or such.

Hardly tortured.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Next we have "These kits <u>may</u> include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car." May means can include, not must include. Any method of camber adjustment is still allowed.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would say any method of camber adjustment designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowing the car is allowed. You can use whatever correction device you want, but it must only be designed to return the alignment to stock specs, not the other way.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"Changes in alignment parameters which result directly from the use of allowed components are permitted. " So if you're using an allowed component, any changes in alignment parameters resulting from their use are permitted. Doesn't say "only positive camber" or such. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The camber devices allowed by 17.8.E are only capable of correcting the effect of lowering (adding back positive camber). So, that leaves 17.8.B (bushings) to acheive more negative camber.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Angry Joe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why would that be? I'm assuming they are Macpherson strut cars, in which case camber plates should do the job...</TD></TR></TABLE>
All but 7th generation accord are double wishbone.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Angry Joe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Then why adjustable LCA's? (as apposed to upper arms)</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because offset camber bolts are shitty and are designed to take negative camber out when, believe it or not, some of us are near or at stock and want negative camber for competition.

If you need more info, let me know.

Lets see something...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Wont be beat &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Because offset camber bolts are shitty and are designed to take negative camber out when, believe it or not, some of us are near or at stock and want negative camber for competition.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think he was asking why you would want an adj lowre CA instead of an adj upper CA? The upper is non-load bearing, so it would in theory be safer to make it adjustable.

 

I've seen some nice civic and integra adjustable lca, I guess I was hoping for the same. But if UCA's can be made properly and are effective, so be it.

 

From as what I've seen so far, it looks like I need to lower my car so that I can install custom arms to correct my camber

As far as adjustable control arms, UCA seems preferrable because it takes less load than the LCA (it does take load, however).

I'm always looking for new ideas (although I'm busy as hell right now). If you are serious about there being a demand for adjustable control arms for Preludes and Accords I would consider it. I don't know how much further that discussion could go publicly before I violate sponsorship policy on this site, though!

 

I had offset bushings in my UCA's for more negative camber when I was using stock length front shocks. I found the front end to be much different than with standard bushings. It had considerable torque steer and going straight on a bumpy surface was a real workout. I'm not sure if the bushings had binding issues or if it was the geometry changes. I took them out when I dropped the front to the level allowed by the shortened Koni's. I would be more inclined to try the LCA bushings if I were to try again.

Nate, what diameter and length of Delrin do you need? I have some, but forget what size.

 

Angry Joe, please contact me on AIM.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I would say any method of camber adjustment designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowing the car is allowed. You can use whatever correction device you want, but it must only be designed to return the alignment to stock specs, not the other way.

The camber devices allowed by 17.8.E are only capable of correcting the effect of lowering (adding back positive camber). So, that leaves 17.8.B (bushings) to acheive more negative camber.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Guess we have to agree to disagree. If I was still running STS, I'd write the Solo board and ask them to take the "These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car." sentence out.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd write the Solo board and ask them to take the "These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car." sentence out. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I do agree with that. Allow any control arm. Stock spindles, axles, and tie rods still required.

 

How about allowing replacement of only one control arm? that is what I hope happens.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by smokin rubber &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How about allowing replacement of only one control arm? that is what I hope happens.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Rear multilink suspensions would be harder to regulate. Remember the rules say non-strut type suspensions, not strictly double wishbone