So some new ideas about suspension have been shared with me recently from a friend and I wanted to see what you all thought, or if anyone has had some experience with this....

There has been some suggestions made about using, we'll say, CRAZY sway bars, extremely thick, rigid, however you want to describe it.... And then using less aggressive spring rates. I guess the benefits of this are a less "bouncy" suspension setup, where more of the body roll is handled by the sway bars. It would definitly be nicer on the street, but could a setup like this compete at the track?? Let's leave it at that for right now.....

 

Insane, I was literally JUST thinking about this. Sounds like a logical setup to me. Although, for ideal track performance nothing should be compromised. This is a good idea for street driving though...'comfortable ride' with great performance in the turns.

 

There are too many variables. It's hard to look at this and not consider wheel size, wheel thickness, tire size and compound. Bushings and material. Spring rates. Ride heights. FWD, RWD, AWD, curb weights and corner weights...etc. etc.

 

Meh...what am I saying...

I would think that larger springs rates and larger sway bars would go hand in hand on the track. Of coarse it's all a matter of what you change. As the othe guy said, your thought may be better equipped for driving around town.

I would think that the forces generated on key areas of the suspension would be very stressed if all it had to rely on was bigger sway bars. Where's Reid....

 

It wouldnt necessarly be nice on the street.
Even bumps would probably be nicer, but if you hit a pothole, the swaybar is going to keep the 1 wheel from moving as much.

Really, it shouldnt be one or the other(springs or swaybars). Both should be upped the same percentage to lessen body roll, and then fine tuned from there.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jond &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It wouldnt necessarly be nice on the street.
Even bumps would probably be nicer, but if you hit a pothole, the swaybar is going to keep the 1 wheel from moving as much.

Really, it shouldnt be one or the other(springs or swaybars). Both should be upped the same percentage to lessen body roll, and then fine tuned from there.

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

To a point but say you run a pretty decent spring rate on the track say 12k front and 10k rear. You keep the stock front sway bar but up the rear. This will cause the rear to step out.

There is a fine line to setting up a car which I'm still trying to grasp. I think if you increase your sway bar stiffness on a somehow relative way with the spring rate, your asking for trouble.

 

I recall reading about this subject in an old racecar suspension setup book. Sorry, I can't recall the name of the book it was originally my dad's and printed in the 70's.

It discussed how one could use high spring rates with small swaybars or low spring rates with big swaybars to achieve to a similar result.

However, I experimented with putting high spring rates with a large rear bias (600#/1000#) on an otherwise stock '95 Civic EX coupe (no factory rear sway). This enabled the car to have a much more neutral attitude, at the expense of ride quality. Also, a friend of mine used to have a '00 Civic EX coupe with lowering springs (with low spring rates) and a Skunk2 rear swaybar. This car also had a more neutral attitude than stock, with acceptable ride quality. So the theory really does work in reality.

I would go with as stiff springs as one can handle in terms of ride quality, then tune the car further with swaybar changes. It seems at least 800# springs (~14.3 kg/mm) are needed to keep the front of the car from nosediving under braking with R compounds, however.

Personally, I'm using 1000#/1200# springs with a 26mm Mugen rear swaybar. Next, I'll be trying 900#/1300# with the same rear swaybar.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Reid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It seems at least 800# springs (~14.3 kg/mm) are needed to keep the front of the car from nosediving under braking with R compounds, however.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess the word's spreading.

The 14K minimum recommendation on the front (if you're talking about the same old man I think you're talking about) was assuming decently valved shocks properly adjusted, and a car that would have to go into threshold braking from 140 miles per hour.

 

The low spring rate thick sway bar theory works excellent for street cars as it maintains suitable handling on less than perfect roads. The downside is that it's usually less stable under hard cornering as any slight change in one side will drastically effect the other side as well. I prefer running about 12k/14k with small sway bars on a street setup, and about 14k/18k with no sway bars on a track setup. for mountain road driving I prefer about a 14k/6k setup for reasons I won't explain here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Haleiwa-Brando &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I think if you increase your sway bar stiffness on a somehow relative way with the spring rate, your asking for trouble.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Its the harder way to do it, but techinically its the correct way. With extremely heavy springs, and stock swaybars, the swaybars dont really do anything. With really heavy swaybar and weak spring you now have lost independent suspension.

Think about the stock ITR. They didnt just change the spring rate or just change the swaybars from the GSR setup. They changed both. Also real time racing. They changed it all right?

Personally I leave the swaybars alone though for my street/track setup though.

 

Well, it seems as though heavy spring rates are still the best way to go in order to be competitive at the track. I like what jond said about "loosing the independent suspension" in a sense. After reading everyones posts I'm leaning towards the choose the springs then possibly fine tune with certain sway bars train of thought.

Sway bars would also have no effect on front to back/back to forward weight transfer. (some mentioned nose dive earlier)

 

This is a topic of interest to stock class autoxers, because the rules mandate stock spring rates. So what many people do is increase shock valving and (front) swaybar stiffness to 'mimic' stiffer springs. You might wanna bring this up in the rr/ax forum...

 

sounds like my car actually

26MM MUGEN sways front and rear

but only using bilsteins and H&R springs

car is very DD and handles incredibly well

 

There are many threads in the RR forum on this topic, with input from some very knowledgable people.

 

Hmmm...well, Im currently using 10k(F) and 8K(R) on Zeal dampeners. For sway bars Im using an LS 22mm front bar and a ITR 23mm rear bar. The car is VERY competitive on track and very livable on the street. Included in the cars' specs are bracing (Roll bar, strut tower bars and rear lower tie bar) and proper height and shock dampening to further increase balance. Corner weighting your car is critical.

I would like to begin this next year further developing my suspension Geometry and perfecting it.

I would like to move up to a 14k 12k setup this next spring/summer. As well as experiment with different R-compounds.

 

Yeah, I'm still messing around with what rates I am going to use. I have 8,10, soon 12, and 14k springs to choose from. I was most likely going to put the heavier rate in the rear like I eventually did on my last itr. Heavier rates in the rear seem to be a little more rought on the street though due to have a lighter rear. I think I'm leaning towards 10f and 12r. Anyway ever tried those rates??

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itr1236 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think I'm leaning towards 10f and 12r. Anyway ever tried those rates??</TD></TR></TABLE>

There are a few people running those rates. I know Ben Howard was running on them on his GSR, and Bradstard is running them on his ITR.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> for mountain road driving I prefer about a 14k/6k setup for reasons I won't explain here. </TD></TR></TABLE>


Wow, sounds like someone scared of the dorifto when engaged in touge!

 

Ok I will explain here.

One of the most overlooked aspects of suspension tuning is chassis flex. With rediculously stiff front springs the front of the car stays planted. When combined with rediculously soft rear springs the rear of the chassis flexes thus changing the contact patch of the rear tires. Depending upon the exact spring rate, the amount of weight transfer and flex will vary allowing the car to oversteer in various amounts at various speeds. The particular 14k/6k combination works well for tight mountain roads in that oversteer can easily be induced at low enough speeds to take some of the tighter hairpins.

Basically with this setup you trail brake into the corner to swing the *** end out and hammer the gas to pull it around and exit the corner. It's a bit tricky but it works.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itr1236 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think I'm leaning towards 10f and 12r. Anyway ever tried those rates??</TD></TR></TABLE>

that is the current setup i am using on my 97 hatchcrap( i know, not a type R).....

albeit omnipower sport setup...... just switched the 12k to rear and put the 10k up front......

car handles extremely well for not having any sway bars....believe it or not lifting off the throttle in the corners would bring the rear out....

in fact i autocrossed it this weekend instead of the S2k......and it did very well.....

i think if i added a bar to the rear, it might make it a little to tail happy.....

i guess what i am getting is, be careful how stiff you go in the rear w/ a bar or you might end up in a ditch......

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok I will explain here.
...
It's a bit tricky but it works.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Plus, you're mad JDM y0!

 

I had 10f/12r on the ITR during most of my race season last year. I didn't want anything aggressive for my first year. I drove these spring rates on NYC streets for about two weeks before taking the car off the street and it was manageable.

The key to "comfortability" with high spring rates is having a shock that can handle the rates. If you have a shock that can handle it, high spring rates can be somewhat comfortable (relatively speaking of course).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kendall &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok I will explain here.

One of the most overlooked aspects of suspension tuning is chassis flex. With rediculously stiff front springs the front of the car stays planted. When combined with rediculously soft rear springs the rear of the chassis flexes thus changing the contact patch of the rear tires. Depending upon the exact spring rate, the amount of weight transfer and flex will vary allowing the car to oversteer in various amounts at various speeds. The particular 14k/6k combination works well for tight mountain roads in that oversteer can easily be induced at low enough speeds to take some of the tighter hairpins.

Basically with this setup you trail brake into the corner to swing the *** end out and hammer the gas to pull it around and exit the corner. It's a bit tricky but it works.</TD></TR></TABLE>


I understand this setup, but details on your tire sizes (front and rear) as well as your camber settings and toe, etc + front swaybar are all factors.

I ran an apexi n1 99 spec coilover setup for a while with the stock swaybars and neg2.5deg all around on my itr with their off the shelf rates: 11kF, 5kR... It was sporty but docile. And breakaway at the limit was unpredictable - simply no warning. But it was less than neutral - more understeer prone...

I have since changed that setup to 11kF, 16kR and put it on my hatch. It is more neutral, and easier to drive at the limit (imho)... I have purchased a bigger rear swaybar for it now and will install it over the holidays. I want something a little more tailhappy.

I am now of the opinion that 800f/ 800r setup would be a good starting place for a trackable vehicle that will see a bit of street duty as well. Then play with the swaybars to get the handling you desire. An extra set of 1200lb rear springs for tracks with lots of hairpins/ tight corners.....

in my experience, the chassis seems to flex a lot more with higher spring rates..... which would contribute to a noodle like chassis if you do a lot of street driving. That seems to be why many move to a rollbar/ cage to enhance the chassis rigidy for tracking vehicles (safety as well of course)...

 

With that particular setup I usually -1.4 camber and .1" toe out up front, and 0 camber and 0 toe in the rear. I run equal size tires all the way around (usually 205/50/15) and no swaybars at all (they're too damn heavy).

Most people really dislike the setup as it's difficult to drive. The trick is to trail brake into the corner to help turn in and loosen the *** end and to control vehicle speed with brake pedal while maintaining more constant pressure on the gas pedal. My corner exit speeds are usually a good 10% higher when driving this way with this setup versus any method of driving I've tried with both a 10k/12k setup and 12k/14k setup on the same roads.

 

some thory/talk for those new to chassis setup;

forget roughly 95% of what you just read in this post,lmfao.

nick, who is running away quickly from this mess....