https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1241444

 

I'm pretty sure these will fit my '89 CRX.

Lee? You out there?

 

Nevermind. Rears fit, fronts don't.

The search continues...

 

hey catch there is some guy selling some koni's for some kind of 80's civic he has has them for sale for a long time too

 

Who?
Where?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nevermind. Rears fit, fronts don't.

The search continues...</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm guessing IT rules prohibit you from using the front fork off the 92-95 Civics? If you could use the fork and front shock off the later Civics it'd be a bolt on affair... I think.

Christian

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Who?
Where?</TD></TR></TABLE>

i don't remeber, it was in some ones signature, and i just know that it was for an 80's civic.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Xian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I'm guessing IT rules prohibit you from using the front fork off the 92-95 Civics? If you could use the fork and front shock off the later Civics it'd be a bolt on affair... I think.

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

correct, or you could simply machine the inside of the fork down so that it would fit.

that is the only difference from the EF to the EG the hole which the damper goes in is a different diameter

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

i don't remeber, it was in some ones signature, and i just know that it was for an 80's civic.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I found this guy: https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1205880

Looks like the front shocks may be for an EF but the rears are "for ITR LCA's"

Christian. who likes the idea of "clearancing" the inside of the fork... that's IT legal, right?

 

naw thats not him, this guy had a set of fronts for sale only.


and your not change any suspension mounting points, just modifiing it, like with a new bushing or something

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nevermind. Rears fit, fronts don't.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Just change the front wishbones.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Just change the front wishbones.</TD></TR></TABLE>

While the $2006 Challenge is an "anything goes" affair, the long term plan for the car is STS2 and then CSP (maybe, depends on how much money is going to the University of Georgia each month).
Reading the rules, looks like that change isn't quite legal.

I hope to score some cheap used Konis for the challenge and then have them rebuilt later for serious autocross use. At least thats the current plan.
The shell I got doesn't need much of the work that I had already budgeted (interior bits, bodywork, paint) so that opened up a few dollars for some decent dampas.

 

method of attachment is open. to me, changing the front wishbones is A-OK!

nate

 

This may lead to a tangent, but you have to remember 2 things...

1. You can't do something illegal to accomplish something thats legal (example - use an alternate fork to attach a damper).
2. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

I don't see anything in the STS rules that lead me to believe that alternate forks would be legal. If this were the case, you could go have some lightweight 3 oz. forks made from unobtanium and use those. I don't think that is the intent of the "method of attachment" rule.
But of course, I could be completely wrong.

For local stuff it doesn't matter, but we plan to maybe do some divisional and national stuff in the future so it isn't worth it to risk being illegal over such a small thing IMO.

 

As I've heard it explained the lower fork is a shock mounting point. Just like the upper top hat. Both are allowed to be changed. I'm not exactly sure but I think thats how it is. The point where the fork attaches to the lower control arm is the only thing that can't be changed. The lower fork doesn't weight that much anyway so it would be more work than its worth to try and make an aluminum one.

 

trust me, i know those two things. <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SCCA Solo 2 Rulebook &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">14.5.B
Any shock absorbers may be used. Shock absorber mounting
brackets which serve no other purpose may be altered, added, or
replaced, provided that the attachment points on the body/frame/
subframe/chassis/suspension member are not altered. This installation
may incorporate an alternate upper spring perch/seat and/or
mounting block (bearing mount). The system of attachment may
be changed. The number of shock absorbers shall be the same as
Stock. No shock absorber may be capable of adjustment while the
car is in motion, unless fitted as original equipment. MacPherson
strut equipped cars may substitute struts, and/or may use any
insert. This does not allow unauthorized changes in suspension
geometry or changes in attachment points (e.g., affecting the
position of the lower ball joint or spindle). It is intended to allow
the strut length changes needed to accommodate permitted modifications
which affect ride height and suspension travel</TD></TR></TABLE>

The italized part is a new allowance for this year. IMO, you'll have no problem with switching the forks in the protest shed.

Nate

 

Nate's correct, the additions to the shock rule were to facilitate the installation of alternate spring hats (aka pillow *****) for the non-Mac Strut cars and to allow alternate means of installation of shocks. A good example for the honda crowd would be to allow the 88 Civic/ITR LCA's to be installed on the 89+ Civics/Integras so you could run a JDM coilover kit (which typically requires the those ITR style LCA's).

Previously both

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">trust me, i know those two things.

The italized part is a new allowance for this year. IMO, you'll have no problem with switching the forks in the protest shed.

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

 

I don't think it would be allowed to change the LCA on the rear. That is completely different.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ryan12321 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't think it would be allowed to change the LCA on the rear. That is completely different.</TD></TR></TABLE>

well... you wouldn't be able to swap the lca in SP because their is no camber kit allowance there. before, in ST, you couldn't swap to the '88 control arms because of the change in shock attachement. so NOW in ST you can use the '88 control arms because 1) you can change the method of attachement and 2) you can change the lca per "camber kit" allowance. phew... now stand on one leg, pat your head and rub your stomach while singing yankee doodle dandy.

nate

 

scott, you taking these or do i get them?

nate

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well... you wouldn't be able to swap the lca in SP because their is no camber kit allowance there. before, in ST, you couldn't swap to the '88 control arms because of the change in shock attachement. so NOW in ST you can use the '88 control arms because 1) you can change the method of attachement and 2) you can change the lca per "camber kit" allowance. phew... now stand on one leg, pat your head and rub your stomach while singing yankee doodle dandy.

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

well you can change it under the camber kit, but only because of that. If you have a standard camber kit for the rear(upper arm) you cannot change the LCA. right?

 

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

well you can change it under the camber kit, but only because of that. If you have a standard camber kit for the rear(upper arm) you cannot change the LCA. right?</TD></TR></TABLE>

right

 

IMO you can swap OEM LCA's in SP within update/backdate allowance by the fact that "system of attachment" is also specified as an allowance. 88-91 Civics (as well as other cars) on the same line that have different LCA's can do this legally.

Just as an addendum, SP put out for member comment, adoption of the ST camber kit rule for 2006. This is something the ST guys should definitely write in about with your support!!!