No one needs bearing kits anymore?

https://honda-tech.com/forums/wheels-tires-brakes-suspension-48/progress-tech-competition-bearing-kits-sale-2562869/

 

bump for killer prices

 

Great stuff,I can vouch.

 

come out with a kit for the Shock on the Front LCA, a whole rear LCA kit, and a compensator bushing kit!

I already have the inner Front LCA kit. Still going strong!!

 

Thanks for the good words. Apparently this area gets a lot more traffic than the sponsor marketplace.

We have a polyurethane lower shock bushing kit (11.1002) already and you just need 2 kits (18.1002) to do the full rear lower.

On another note, has anyone seen our banner at the top of the page yet? I'm not here a whole lot, but we haven't seen it cycle once yet...lots of other banners multiple times though.

 

Ahhh that is very good to know!! Thanks!

I like to have all solid bushings, (i know the shock doesn't need it though).

I'll be ordering the 18.1002 kit very soon!

 

I think most people who post in this forum really don't go any were on this site but here.

I haven't seen the progress banner at all.

 

I've seen it

b.

 

Offer front LCA spherical kits for the 96-00 civics and i'll pick up a few sets.

Thanks

 

Great stuff from the progress guys!

 

Hmmm, a poly bushing under a constant load sounds like it will deform over time. When that happens a gap will open up, and the LCA can twist (especially if you have sphericals on the other ends). That makes the rear swaybar not work very well.

 

Why can't you make a bearing kit for the lower shock mount?

 

lulz

 

Lulz what?

 

Because it will restrict a required degree of freedom required at the bushing and this will bind the linkage system, especially if the other pivots are also sphericals. The lower damper bushing needs to be designed to allow deflection - or displacement - into and out of the transverse vertical plane of the lower control arm.

You could still use a spherical, but you would have to have a floating bushing in the spherical. And you would want to center this bushing using something like a belleville washer system. The only problem now is if you mount your anti-roll bay to the LCA in the typical fashion, you won't have any resistance to the LCA rotating under the ARB loads. You could create a centered mount for the ARB on the LCA such that the torsional moment was very small, but with almost zero torsional stiffness in the LCA, the LCA will still rotate under the influence of the ARB. Or, you could mount the ARB low on the LCA to create a stable platform (think pendulum now) and this would work, but the end link would be necessarily complex.

You could use Delrin, Aluminum, or other stiff material as a bushing with a spring loaded floating bushing as well, and leave the ARB end links alone. This might be the best solution if you are trying to reduce compliance in the system for whatever reason.

 

interesting..

In my car when i had different front LCAs i had SBs in the top hat and the spring kept separate from the chassis, along with the shock mount, inner LCA, and rear compliance.

I saw no binding, moving the suspension in its complete range of motion (removed the spring and put the suspension throw its Range of Motion). The only issue that could present itself is if the range of motion in the horizontal range is too great the shock fork can rotate to much.

 

I have a Prelude

 

Are you talking about the front or the rear? My comments were targeted at the rear LCA/linkage of the car.

 

Thanks for the information! We can build the parts for anything but if the demand isn't there it's hard to justify. I'm sure you guys have heard it before...

 

I don't see why there needs to be a displacement requirement when the shock can pivot around the upper mount.

I don't think this would be a stable platform if the arb wants to pull up on the LCA.

IMO if one has a fork type lower mount for the rear shock, then one can use a rotation only bushing for the shock mount. For example, a pair of coaxial sphericals spaced as far apart as possible. (There are better bearing types for this, but sphericals are cheaper) This would put a bit more load on the fork mount, since it would no longer have the two other lca bushings "helping" it to prevent LCA twist.

One other idea is to run regular rubber bushings on all the joints, and connect the lca-subframe bolt and lca-trailing arm bolt with something like a tower strut bar with rod ends. This is the motion you are trying to restrict by using sphericals anyway.

 

You're right for a spherical top mount. Even though the rear LCA is rotated forward in plan view during bump, that isolated displacement can be taken up by a combination top damper rotation and in more displacement of the damper shaft into the damper body. Of course, you would really want to have a spherical in the top damper mount and not some urethane (such as Ground Control's urethane top hat design) because while the urethane would likely give the required Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) for the top of the damper to rotate, the stiffness of the urethane would also side load the damper shaft, which is not recommended, especially if your damper has a small diameter shaft. This side loading is not going to be an issue with a spherical top mount as long as the spherical has ample misalignment angle for the complete suspension movement.


This was actually meant as a technical joke, since the operation of the LCA under torsional rotation requires a very complicated analysis to determine the non-linear torsional stiffness due to say a damper spherical located above or below the torsional axis (TA) defined by the centers of the two outside sphericals. If there is resistance in the top mount and the damper spherical mount in the LCA is above or below the torsional axis, using urethane as a top mount material as mentioned before, would then side load the damper shaft and contribute to the torsional stiffness of the LCA. Now, look at the loads acting on the LCA is a corner.


In a Left Turn:

The right tire is the outside tire in a left-hand corner, and therefore it compresses while at the same time the left tire extends relative to the chassis. Thus, the ARB end link on the right side is pushing down on the LCA while the ARB endlink is pulling up on the left side. So with sphericals at all locations in the LCA, the right side ARB end link would need to be placed below the LCA's torsional axis for stability (which is to say that the force from the end link doesn't cause further rotation of the LCA about the TA - i.e it is self-restoring), while the left side would require the ARB mount to be above the TA of the LCA for stability.

In a Right Turn:

Now, if you are only turning one direction, this wouldn't be such an issue but as road race cars, they need to turn both ways. Thus, in a right-hand corner, the same stability concerns for the LCA would require that the ARB mounts on the LCA be located on the opposite side of the TA as they were for a left-hand corner. This isn't possible unless you had a very complicated system (which isn't practical). Now, if we placed the ARB hole in the LCA at the TA, then the stability analysis results in a unstable system (advanced perturbation analysis). In effect, if the point of the ARB is slightly away from the exact center of the TA, then the force would result in a divergent response of the LCA for either left hand or right hand corner.

 

Bump. We're just about ready to ship the next batch of these out. Sorry for the delay!

 

Can you ship to the United Kingdom?

 

Yeah, we can do that. Either give me a call at 1-714-630-9017 or shoot me an e-mail to info@progressauto.com for the shipping quote.

 

Bump. Still a good amount of these in stock and ready to ship!