Well., I am defff the guy who doesn't have lots of money to put into sing\le parts. so I have to spread my money around. What are your guys thoughts on running 22mm sway bars all the way around? I have a 92 4 door. I run h&r sport springs with agx shocks. I have a 22mm front and 22mm itr rear sway bar I am about to go install. Are there any advantages or disadvantages of running the same size bar all the way around? any input, advice, or comments will be greatly appreciated. thanks. I will be using beaks kit in the rear temporarily until I figure exactly how I plan to reinforce. thanks. nick

 

Typically you don't have to/want to upgrade to a stiffer bar up front, due to the fact that our cars have understeer problems as it is. Stiffening the front swaybar will only make matters worse. A stiffer bar in the rear, as compared to the front, will have lead to better handling characteristics, so maybe put the rear on only. You could actually try both though, and experience it for yourself if you have the time.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Typically you don't have to/want to upgrade to a stiffer bar up front, due to the fact that our cars have understeer problems as it is. Stiffening the front swaybar will only make matters worse. A stiffer bar in the rear, as compared to the front, will have lead to better handling characteristics, so maybe put the rear on only. You could actually try both though, and experience it for yourself if you have the time. </TD></TR></TABLE>

well put

 

my crx handles great with an upgraded front 23mm integra swaybar and mugen rear 22mm bar.

but dont focus on whats on front or rear relative to each other. just do what makes that end work properly.

 

OK. learning a little, so can anyone explain why honda went with a larger one 00-01 integra's 24mm and a 26mm on a 99-00si/. I figure the put small bars on the rear to stop rear subframe tearouts(on cars that even have them, maybe a warrenty issue's they didn't want to deal with.) itr and 92gsr's even had a 23mm. is there a reason honda does this?

 

sway bars are one part of the suspension, don't just look at sway bars and expect to find an answer to why some one runs that, look at the whole setup.

 

You got to look at the spring rates and the bars as a whole. The OEM guys tune for comfort and use bars to make up for lower spring rates.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4potnick &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OK. learning a little, so can anyone explain why honda went with a larger one 00-01 integra's 24mm and a 26mm on a 99-00si/. I figure the put small bars on the rear to stop rear subframe tearouts(on cars that even have them, maybe a warrenty issue's they didn't want to deal with.) itr and 92gsr's even had a 23mm. is there a reason honda does this?</TD></TR></TABLE>

the rear subframes are tearing out because honda did not design them for the bigger swaybars. its the idiots who are putting ITR rear swaybars on their civics and totally disregarding the fact that the ITR has reinforced subframe, by design, and then surprised by the subframe tearing.

theres lots of factors when it come to handling. you can just generalize it all.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4potnick &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OK. learning a little, so can anyone explain why honda went with a larger one 00-01 integra's 24mm and a 26mm on a 99-00si/. I figure the put small bars on the rear to stop rear subframe tearouts(on cars that even have them, maybe a warrenty issue's they didn't want to deal with.) itr and 92gsr's even had a 23mm. is there a reason honda does this?</TD></TR></TABLE>

they are also not in the buisness to get sued by every kid who backs there stock honda into trees abd off ramp guardrails. oem is a very safe setting for push at the limit.

 

You should also note that you can't compare front and rear swaybars with each other because the design between the two is completely different. A 22mm front bar provides significantly less wheel rate than a 22mm rear bar.

 

awesome more info. I know on my 89 hatch the hollow hf front bars17mm is th eway to go with a larger rear bar. what is is the smalllest you can get for 92-95 oem. i have 2mm, 24mm, and wouldn't mind getting same smaller to play with. 88-91 prob won't fit? anyone?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Typically you don't have to/want to upgrade to a stiffer bar up front, due to the fact that our cars have understeer problems as it is. Stiffening the front swaybar will only make matters worse. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Wrong. Just all sorts of wrong - go try it for yourself.

RJ - happy with his 25mm front bar.

 

i guess diff people like differenmt things. I know i'll be running 22mm itr rear along with beaks(poverty stricken fingers crossed) for now. so factory front options are 21,22,24mm? are there any smaller. I'd like to try a few different sizes? 88-91?

 

You'll need to use the bars from the same chassis that you have - i.e. EF/DA, EG/DC2, etc.

 

Makes sense to me: adding more roll resistance to one end means that lateral load is transferred from side to side more quickly, and increasing the traction demands on that end, which eventually leads to lateral grip loss on that end. On an understeering car, that means more understeer.
I think that increasing swaybar stiffness to a point might help an understeering car, but factory swaybars on the Hondas already cause them to understeer, so there is no point in increasing stiffness further. Maybe you had other changes made to your suspension to cause it to act differently.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Makes sense to me: adding more roll resistance to one end means that lateral load is transferred from side to side more quickly, and increasing the traction demands on that end, which eventually leads to lateral grip loss on that end. On an understeering car, that means more understeer.
I think that increasing swaybar stiffness to a point might help an understeering car, but factory swaybars on the Hondas already cause them to understeer, so there is no point in increasing stiffness further. Maybe you had other changes made to your suspension to cause it to act differently.</TD></TR></TABLE>nope, actually just got a 92 4door and putting together a DECENT BUGET SUSPENSION.Do they make anything smaller than a 21mm front eg bar? vx or cx have a front bar?

 

Oh no I was referring to RJ's post, not yours.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> which eventually leads to lateral grip loss on that end. On an understeering car, that means more understeer.
I think that increasing swaybar stiffness to a point might help an understeering car, but factory swaybars on the Hondas already cause them to understeer, so there is no point in increasing stiffness further. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, you havent tried it. Theory is nice and all, but what matters is
the results.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Maybe you had other changes made to your suspension to cause it to act differently.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, I did not.

 

I think I will have to try this, because all signs point to the opposite.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think I will have to try this, because all signs point to the opposite. </TD></TR></TABLE>

But you havent tried it - you're just going on interweb bandwagon heresay.

 

Like I said, I will have to try this... ?
And its more of a well-documented fact supported by theory, and maybe it works in degrees, but it certainly works.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4life &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And its more of a well-documented fact </TD></TR></TABLE>

"Documented" on the interweb...

 

And in books, and by engineers, and by racers...

 

Sway bars do not univerally cause more load transfer and thus loss in ultimate grip. Up to a point they may actually increase ultimate grip by controlling body roll and camber angles, then as you get so thick as to imitate a solid axle, then you start running into negative returns and loss in grip. As to what the optimal thickness is who knows. It's all about what produces the best results and the best feel and transient responses and blah blah blah. So RJ is inevitably right, you have to experiment, all the theory and no testing is not how people win races.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sway bars do not univerally cause more load transfer and thus loss in ultimate grip. Up to a point they may actually increase ultimate grip by controlling body roll and camber angles, then as you get so thick as to imitate a solid axle, then you start running into negative returns and loss in grip. As to what the optimal thickness is who knows. It's all about what produces the best results and the best feel and transient responses and blah blah blah.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, I understand and agree with that. But to say that the theory itself is incorrect, or that its not substantiated by research and practice is untrue.