Would you call the 94-01 Integra's rear suspension a double wishbone or trailing arm type suspension? Or some integration of both that has no name?
Also, I'm still a little confused by wheel rate and how it affects your selection of springs. Say you have a macpherson type front suspension, this automatically makes your wheel rate 1:1, no matter what?
If your wheel rate is 1:1, then you don't need high spring rates to compensate for the mechanical advantage that the wheel rate has over the springs, correct (edit: in other words, the wheel has no mechanical advantage over the springs because there is no lever)? Is this why some cars can perform just as well with relatively low spring rates, in the neighborhood of 200-300#'s?
Is it possible to use a Macpherson suspension and have a lower wheel rate than 1:1?
Is the 1:1 wheel rate optimal?
I know that, in macpherson suspensions, the coilover becomes the strut, which is the main loadbearing component of the front suspension. Does that affect how stiff your springs needs to be?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Would you call the 94-01 Integra's rear suspension a double wishbone or trailing arm type suspension? Or some integration of both that has no name? ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Im pretty sure its trailing arm but im not 100% sure though.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">?
Also, I'm still a little confused by wheel rate and how it affects your selection of springs. Say you have a macpherson type front suspension, this automatically makes your wheel rate 1:1, no matter what?
If your wheel rate is 1:1, then you don't need high spring rates to compensate for the mechanical advantage that the wheel rate has over the springs, correct (edit: in other words, the wheel has no mechanical advantage over the springs because there is no lever)? Is this why some cars can perform just as well with relatively low spring rates, in the neighborhood of 200-300#'s?
Is it possible to use a Macpherson suspension and have a lower wheel rate than 1:1?
Is the 1:1 wheel rate optimal?
I know that, in macpherson suspensions, the coilover becomes the strut, which is the main loadbearing component of the front suspension. Does that affect how stiff your springs needs to be?</TD></TR></TABLE>

In another thread recently, partsquest i think, talked about this. I pretty sure it varries from car to car, and he said that on the rear of integras there is something like .7:1 that means that only .7 of the spring rate is "felt" at the wheel. AKA if you had 1000lbs springs the wheel rate would be 700lbs.

going into the strut stuff, im going to have to pass it off to some one else, as i really don't know that much about strut type cars.


If any of the information above is incorrect feel free to correct me, i just learned this the other day

 

Wheel rate is the spring rate multiplied by leverage factors. In other words, the wheel rate is the spring rate at the center of the tire's contact patch.

 

It's double wishbone. The "trailing arm" of a Civic/Integra is in place to for longitudinal movement, not lateral. There are upper and lower control arms which control lateral movement.

We just published a clarification in the SCCA Fastrack (May-05) around this for the purposes of camber kits, but the explanation should be helpful for your question as well. I bolded sections of interest.

Street Touring: Per the STAC, section 14.8.G should read as follows:

"G. Camber kits, also known as camber compensators, may be installed. These kits consist of either adjustable length arms or arm mounts that provide a lateral adjustment to the effective length of a control arm. Alignment outside the factory specifications is allowed.

The following restrictions apply:

1. On double/unequal arm (e.g. wishbone, multi-link) suspensions, only the upper arms OR lower arms may be modified or replaced, but not both. Non-integral longitudinal arms that primarily control fore/aft wheel movement (e.g. trailing arm(s) or link(s) of a multi-link suspension) may not be replaced, changed, or modified.

2. On arm-and-strut (MacPherson/Chapman) suspensions, the lower arms may be modified/replaced OR other methods of camber adjustment as allowed by paragraphs 14.8.B, C, or E may be used, but not both.

3. On swing or trailing arm suspensions, the main arms may not be modified or replaced, but lateral locating links/arms may be modified or replaced.

4. The replacement arms or mounts must attach to the original standard mounting points. All bushings must meet the requirements of 14.8.B. The knuckle/bearing housing/spindle assembly cannot be modified or replaced."

Note: Many modern suspension designs known by other names, actually function as double A-arm designs. These include the rear suspensions on 88+ Honda Civic/Integra, Neon, E36 BMW, and most "multi-link" and are covered by 14.8.G.1.

 

Cool thanks for the clarification guys. I was reading through that Chris Longhurst suspension bible, and I got confused looking through his rendered drawings.
So if there is no leverage factor, the wheel rate = spring rate?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cool thanks for the clarification guys. I was reading through that Chris Longhurst suspension bible, and I got confused looking through his rendered drawings.
So if there is no leverage factor, the wheel rate = spring rate? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly.