I dont really see the need for a larger rear bar than the ST on full stiff , even with my stock Si front bar and front heavy biased rates my car rotates like no tomorrow.

why not just go to an HF front bar ? or does nobody know about that little gem ?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I dont really see the need for a larger rear bar than the ST on full stiff , even with my stock Si front bar and front heavy biased rates my car rotates like no tomorrow.

why not just go to an HF front bar ? or does nobody know about that little gem ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

already have hf bar, already have ST bar on full stiff. I just like to never let off the gas so I like more rotation so I dont have to.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

already have hf bar, already have ST bar on full stiff. I just like to never let off the gas so I like more rotation so I dont have to.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I suggest you modify your driving habits , if you literally never lift off the gas you're giving up speed on track , period.

weight transfer is your friend.

 

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

I suggest you modify your driving habits , if you literally never lift off the gas you're giving up speed on track , period.

weight transfer is your friend.</TD></TR></TABLE>


if you can control it...loose is faster.

look at the setups of Daddio, King, Carpenter, Priebe....

all have cars so loose that few others can drive them quickly.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I dont really see the need for a larger rear bar than the ST on full stiff , even with my stock Si front bar and front heavy biased rates my car rotates like no tomorrow.

why not just go to an HF front bar ? or does nobody know about that little gem ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

whats a front bar?
i think i need to increase my rear spring rates, which ill be doing with the next set of coilovers i get (12/10). but i think with the 25mm i could get the car real twitchy for tighter autocross courses.

-spenc

 

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

referencing the same stuff from daddio, low(er) rear tire pressures will make the car looser in transitions and corner entry. higher rear shock rebound will also make the car looser in transitions and corner entry. assuming you already have the car setup to take all the weight off the inside rear, a larger rear swaybar will also make the car looser in transitions and at corner entry, as would stiffer rear springs.

high(er) rear tire pressures will make the car more stable in transitions and corner entry, but still improve mid-corner rotation like the low pressures would. obviously a lower rear shock rebound setting will make the car more stable at entry and in transitions, as would a larger front bar/smaller rear bar or stiffer front springs/softer rear springs.

i don't know where you guys are having trouble with rotation, but i'm not having any problems with it at corner entry and in transitions. fwiw, i learned all the stuff on entry stability last year at nats when my car was an evil loose monster at entry and a pig at mid-corner. i talked to daddio, described my setup, and his response was a big laugh, then "no wonder. with it setup like that it'll spin like a top". his suggestions where to turn up the front shocks (originally set at full soft), turn down the rear shocks (orginally set at full hard), increase the rear tire pressure(already at 55psi, ended up a bit north of 70psi), and dial back some of the rear toe-out (1/2" total toe out).

nate</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree with your setup, but am questioning the extremely high rear tire pressure. Why so high?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PseudoRealityX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
if you can control it...loose is faster.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm well aware of that.

I set my car up so the rear is basically along for the ride , I was commenting on the OG posters comments...

 

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

whats a front bar?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

you really should run a front bar , you're giving up the sole benefit of our suspension by losing that bar...

think about it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 89STS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I agree with your setup, but am questioning the extremely high rear tire pressure. Why so high?</TD></TR></TABLE>

to improve mid-corner rotation and stabilize the car more at entry. if i did the low tire pressure thing i would have been in the high teens for pressure to get the same mid-corner rotation and the car would have been even worse at entry.

nate

 

Yeah, I suppose each car is slightly different in terms of setup, air pressures, etc. Thanks!

 

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

you really should run a front bar , you're giving up the sole benefit of our suspension by losing that bar...

think about it.</TD></TR></TABLE>I thought about it, but I still don't know what "sole benefit" of the Civic suspension you're talking about.

That it's independent? No, the sway bar makes it less so...
That it's light weight? No, the sway bar makes it heavier...
That it's low in bind? No, the sway bar just adds bind...(in the absence of $$ bearings at least)
That it has good geometry? Oh yeah, that must be it! But wait, if the wheel is kept in good relation to and contact with the ground by spring rate alone, we're not giving that up either. Hmmm...

Still scratching my head...

 

you're giving up the superior camber control that the independent suspension gives you over the macphearson type setups.

open ended control arms flopping in the breeze is not a good thing , ever.

 

How enlightening.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you're giving up the superior camber control that the independent suspension gives you over the macphearson type setups.

open ended control arms flopping in the breeze is not a good thing , ever.</TD></TR></TABLE>

hrm...ill have to pick up an hf bar and try it. i dont quite understand the theory of why a front bar would be benifitial but your not the first person to tell me to run a front bar.

-spenc

 

how much is a swaybar really going to "stiffen" up the control arms? It ties them together, sure...but they in tandem can still flex.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PseudoRealityX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how much is a swaybar really going to "stiffen" up the control arms? </TD></TR></TABLE>

I never once said stiffen.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PseudoRealityX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how It ties them together, sure...</TD></TR></TABLE>

minimize deflection , number one rule in building a racecar.

simple stuff , really.

 

oh minimise deflection. that makes sence. i know some SP autocrossers that had to run a front bar to handle deflection. they said they were loosing their alignment settings w/o it in the corners. we discussed it and figured we could get away with it on street tires. but when i have the front end appart in a few weeks, ill throw one on and try it.

-spenc

 

 

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

I never once said stiffen.

minimize deflection , number one rule in building a racecar.

simple stuff , really.

</TD></TR></TABLE>


Well, whatever this is supposed to say...

I'm guessing that by "deflection", you're talking about the control arm acting as a rigid body, but flexing at it's mounting point to the chassis. If that's the case, then just install better bushings.

Swaybars aren't hardmounted to anything....they stuck in a couple of bushings, without any sort of thrust bearing to prevent it from moving around.

trying to fix this "deflection" of what you're talking about with a swaybar is a poor fix for a totally different problem.

just IMO of course.

 

let me simplify it even more.

control arms flopping in the breeze is bad , regardless of bushing material they will with no sway attached to them.

simple enough ?

 

im starting to feel the need for something up there. i need more turn-in. and i felt an alignment loss this weekend in one section of the course every time. ill have to try an hf bar.

-spenc

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">let me simplify it even more.

control arms flopping in the breeze is bad , regardless of bushing material they will with no sway attached to them.

simple enough ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Let's try to NOT simplify, since I don't see your point. Maybe I'm missing something here....but how can attaching a member that ISN'T rigidly mounted to anything (Swaybar) going to REDUCE DEFLECTION?

In which axis is it deflecting?

 

Ok, I have to say something.

First off, Doctor CorteZ, I want to make sure you aren't confused on something. We are talking about swaybars, those tubular metal bars that twist when one wheel goes up and another goes down. We are not talking about strut bars, which people mistakenly buy for their double wishbone cars (but that's for another discussion).

With that out of the way, I'd also like to admit, I don't have a lot of experience with 4th gen civic chassis's. However, I would like to think, when honda designed the front half of the frame they didn't say to themselves, "hey, we don't need the frame to hold the control arms in place, let's use the swaybar, which can slide around and is constraind with rubber bushings, to keep the suspension geometry in place." Even if the control arm points aren't triangulated well, the stiffness of any swaybar mount that doesn't use delrin, would be trivial in comparison.

I agree, a stiff chassis is good, but you need to understand the load paths that the suspension sees and the stiffen things in the right directions with the right materials (i.e. don't use rubber mounts to stiffen a metal frame)


Modified by Jreyenga at 6:59 PM 3/30/2004


Modified by Jreyenga at 7:37 PM 3/30/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">let me simplify it even more.

control arms flopping in the breeze is bad , regardless of bushing material they will with no sway attached to them.

simple enough ?</TD></TR></TABLE>Hey Doc,
In the pic, this car has no front swaybar. Would you say that the control arms are "flopping in the breeze" and that their doing so is leading to undesirable "deflection"?

 

all of you people need to go look at a Civic LCA and where the sway mounts.

camber control , think camber control.

and I'm speaking of Road racing , not Auto-X.

EDIT - you guys need to read some more , try this post.
https://honda-tech.com/zero...12942

pay close attention to D cell's thoeries.


Modified by Doctor CorteZ at 2:17 PM 3/30/2004