just wanted to know who has changed the geometry in the front suspension or has done testing with the upper control arms angles vs the lower control arm angles?

would you say bringing the upper control arm down with a shorter spindle is a good idea??
having the upper control arm and lower control arem angles closer together.

just seeing because i havent done any major suspension work on a civic before.

 

Bringing the upper control arm down at ride height will reduce negative camber or even make it go positive, and will also reduce the amount of negative camber gain when the suspension compresses (like the outside wheel when cornering). IMHO this is not a good idea.

Honda spent many years R&D'ing the suspension design, and you really don't see anyone messing with it that much. Not even hardcore race teams really mess with the suspension geometry all that much, from what I've seen.

 

I've seen pics of RealTime (I think it was) Integras with 3" of UCA anchor bolts sticking up into the engine bay. Only reason to do that is if you are playing with shims under the UCA anchors, to relocate the UCA pivot point down, increasing the camber curve and relocating the RC.

I've contemplated doing this, but have been too lazy.

But yeah, most amateur racers participate in classes that do not permit (much, if any) alteration of the suspension geometry.

 

true they have had many year experiance in the designing suspension. but also keep in mind that honda has built there cars for an average typical economical person rather a full track car.
but i agree i have not done research in the suspension geometry of a honda so i dont feel that i would be able to correct them just from one idea.

but as you say from what you have seen... does that mean you have seen some kind of suspension geometry modification???

just gettin ideas from fellow experianced techs.

and turnernoob thats interesting do you have any pic's? they are actually increasing the angle more, right??
opposite of what i am thinking?

 

By lowering the UCA mount points, but keeping the knuckle the same, the UCA ends up angling upwards more. Then as the knuckle moves upward during bump compression, the knuckle gains negative camber faster than it would otherwise.

 

yes i see.
and by shortening the knuckle and bringing the uca angle down it should keep more of a steady camber angle but beside the camber fluctuation how will it affect other axis points or inclination angles...

 

Yup.

Of course, what this does to RC and IC locations, I can't say.

Incidentally, the Ingalls sliding UCA bushings are "longer" than stock (from chassis mount to pivot point), relocating the pivot point down slightly.

Nope. It was just something I saw in pictures once when other people were discussing such things.

One thing to consider is that many of us do change the geometry of the suspension without even knowing it. My UCAs are much shorter than stock, since I have them adjusted all the way in for max camber. This makes the camber curve steeper while increasing static camber at the same time. Most people only think about the static setting (I did when installing) and forget that there are dynamic changes too.

 

yes good question indeed, such as the arc angle of tie-rods, as well as toe-in/out as a result.... good stuff here guys, I love it, intelligent conversation as apposed to the normal BS.... ;-) now go wrench on something!

 

When I used to be into the "show" scene and my goals were how low I could get my car, I cut the top of the knuckle off where the ball joint mounts. I shortened about 1" off the knuckle and then rewelded it on (with bracing, since cast iron welds like crap). The result was I could go a lot lower without bottoming out the UCA on the top of the shock tower frame/engine bay. At the time many people simply cut holes in the engine bay for the UCA's to poke through but the problem was they would break the ball joints like crazy. With my setup, I had a smooth ride, no holes in the engine bay and a heck of a lot less static and dynamic camber! FYI - I had a little positive camber so I had to shorten the UCA's to compensate for it, mostly which was to keep the tires off the fenders since they tucked about 1-2" of tire on my Integra. NOTE: This was because camber kits even existed. LOL!

I later caught the performance bug and I autoxed and HPDE/tracked the car and I can say from experience that this mod did exactly what you would expect in theory. It SUCKED (even with the shorter UCAs!!! I didn't realize how bad it made the car handle until I bent my knuckles with an off track excursion and had to buy new knuckles. Wow, what a difference it made simply going back to stock suspension geometry!

I have always wanted to try shimming down the ball joint (i.e. make it longer) to effectively do the same as lowering the mount points for the UCA like PatrickGSR suggests and then reducing my static negative camber but this stuff just takes so dang long when you're only making one change at a time and only tracking the car once or twice a month.

So many changes, such little time...