I have been reading up on how swapping the front upper control arms will give you increased caster. Well all the suspension parts off to do the poly bushings so I decided to try it. I'm not aware of anybody in STS who has tried it on an EF yet so was hoping to get a advantage if it worked. Well I thought it would alter camber as well, but just by a little bit. I put it back on the ground friday night and it looked like it had a bit more than normal. I wasn't sure how much. It had way too much toe out so I took it to align it Saturday morning. put it on the rack and showed 5.5 degrees on each side. Its a bit too much. So if any of you EF drivers are thinking of doing it I would recomend against it. It also looks like the control arms will bottom against the frame well before the shocks themselves bottom out.

It was very difficult to even control with this much camber. I'll be swapping things back this week.

 

well, it looks kinda cool!!!

hehehee

 

On the 92-95 chassis (eg) it gave me ~ 3.8 degrees. Feels great for that particular setup.

 

.....thanks for the post.

What was the total caster change?

 

I'm running 4.5 degrees of positive caster on my SM EF and about 2.7 degrees of negative camber, and I don't have any trouble controlling it. I do intend on reducing the camber to 2.2-2.3 degrees negative, as I was working the insides of my 225/45-15 A3S04s a little too hard this past season.

Not sure why you had trouble with the 5.5 degrees caster.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jaker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Not sure why you had trouble with the 5.5 degrees caster.</TD></TR></TABLE>
his post says 5.5 degrees of camber not caster

 

are you talking camber or castor ?

swapping arms left to right usually increases castor , as the arms are still the same lenth side to side.

its pretty easy to check how much you're going to gain if you put the UCA's beside each other and compare how much its going to throw the top of the spindle back.

you do realize that the whole point of increasing castor is to be able to run less static camber , dont you ?

 

more caster would be good if, like jamie suggested, you could dial out some camber in front. sadly, no decent companies make anything. there are some adjustable uca's out there, but no one has tried them as far as i know.
-spenc

 

I was a little unsure what he was referring to. I am also surprised that swapping the arms around resulted in such a huge increase in camber. There are some other forces at work here. I am using the Vision upper control arms, and though I've had to mod them extensively to get anything less than 3.1 degrees negative camber, they hold their setting really well, and leave room for further reductions in camber. My chassis isn't really happy about the odd visit from the upper control arms, but I'll be addressing that.

I'm also using the SBMS front crossmember radius arm spherical bearings, and with fully threaded radius arms, I have infinite control over the front caster as well.

 

Just curious...other than Vision, is there any other company that makes adjustable UCA's for the DA/EF Suspensions?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">swapping arms left to right usually increases castor , as the arms are still the same lenth side to side.

its pretty easy to check how much you're going to gain if you put the UCA's beside each other and compare how much its going to throw the top of the shock back.

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

I think for this to be, the uca's mounting points (holes) would have to be parallel to each other - if not, you would most likely change static camber as well.

 

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

I think for this to be, the uca's mounting points (holes) would have to be parallel to each other - if not, you would most likely change static camber as well.</TD></TR></TABLE>

movement of the ball joint fore and aft has no effects on camber.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
movement of the ball joint fore and aft has no effects on camber.</TD></TR></TABLE>

He didn't say it did... Reread the post, he's correct.

 

So do you think there would be any issues on an EF/ED that is only lowered 1"-1.5"?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hatch2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So do you think there would be any issues on an EF/ED that is only lowered 1"-1.5"?</TD></TR></TABLE>

That could be an issue. My ride height is about 4.5" ground to jack points so its pretty low.

 

And to comfirm it it 5.5 degree of CAMBER. I think caster was around positive 6 degrees but didn't really look at the numbers too closely on the machine because I know I am going to change it back to normal.

And this was done with the stock upper control arms so there is no adjustability for the camber.

 

OK, so what was your camber before swtiching them?

Come to think of it, by now someone should have figured out a forumula for calculating the amount of negavite camber you get per-inch of lowering on the various double-wishbone hondas...it should be pretty predictable from car to car on the same chassis, shouldnt it?

 

3.3 degrees before the swap.

 

Can any of you do me this favor? I'd like someone to look up in their SCCA SOLO rule book, and please type out or scan rule 16.1.F.1. It has to do with steering modifications. There's a rule change in the June 04 Fastrack, Technical Bulletin #5 on page 5, and I think it might make Rodney really happy if its what I think it is.

I would look in my own rule book if I wasn't in Canada, and running under a different rule set (for 04 anyways).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jaker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Can any of you do me this favor? I'd like someone to look up in their SCCA SOLO rule book, and please type out or scan rule 16.1.F.1. It has to do with steering modifications. There's a rule change in the June 04 Fastrack, Technical Bulletin #5 on page 5, and I think it might make Rodney really happy if its what I think it is.

I would look in my own rule book if I wasn't in Canada, and running under a different rule set (for 04 anyways).</TD></TR></TABLE>

16.1 is for Street Mod, not touring

16.1.F.1 Steering components, including the steering rack and/or box, tie rods, idler arms, power assist devices, and related components, may be replaced, added, or removed. the steering column is specifically excluded from this allowance

 

Thanks Louie. I knew it was a street mod rule. I appreciate you doing this for me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Jaker &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There's a rule change in the June 04 Fastrack, Technical Bulletin #5 on page 5, and I think it might make Rodney really happy if its what I think it is.</TD></TR></TABLE>

hey jakey, what were you referring to? currently the steering rack is excluded from modding. if it was able to be modded, i would be all over it......

after running a car with 1.5 turn ltl at the last event, lemme tell you, slaloms were a joke if i could set that up in my civic, that would be insane.

 

Roderick,

Have a look at my post in this thread on SCCA Forums, Street Modified:

http://www.sccaforums.com/ubb/...2/269

 

OK,

So there are two major opinions on this based on this post and posts of the past... Although both sides agree that steering effort is increased, all those who have done it have power steering.

Would making such a change on a manual rack turning 13x8.5 Keizers and Hoosiers be more detrimental than leaving the UCA's as they were originally?

Anthony "Mario" Crea

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by honda93 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OK,

So there are two major opinions on this based on this post and posts of the past... Although both sides agree that steering effort is increased, all those who have done it have power steering.

Would making such a change on a manual rack turning 13x8.5 Keizers and Hoosiers be more detrimental than leaving the UCA's as they were originally?

Anthony "Mario" Crea </TD></TR></TABLE>

I do not have power steering and moving the wheel was really easy. but that may be because only about 1/3 of the tire was probably on the ground