i wonder if i could get a degree or 2 by loosening the bolt and sliding the bushing along the slot that is already there...

does anyone know if there is a honda UCA that is the same design but slightly shorter so as to get more negative camber? i.e. from an eg or an ek civic...

do you think drilling a new hole next to the OEM slot would add to much camber? i am only lowered ~1/2inch? a DC chassis dynamics computer program would be nice right about now considering the camber curve is not linear...i'm going for ~2.5 degrees negative camber.

 

From what I remember from replacing my Integra's UCA bushings, the DC2/4 UCA doesn't have slots but rather holes. I too am willing to see what we can do by slotting the arm's inboard joint... for the sake of TT classing as well (later this year/next year)

I would hesitate from just drilling another hole because you wouldn't gain any adjustability... so if your holes are off at all, you wouldn't be able to get the camber right. My only concerns with slotting the OEM arm would be the end of the UCA hitting/rubbing the inside of the shock tower (don't know how much room there is back there), and the bolts slipping while going over berms/bumps/etc.

 

Check out www.specialprojectsms.com /HARDRACE
They have UCA's with offset bushings that give more Caster.

Kiwi

 

the direction that the slot is cut is what i'm having trouble with. you could slot along the line going from the original hole to the ball joint pivot point and get the most camber effect per millimeter, or slot at a diagonal and possibly be less prone to having slippage issues...?

washers with texture/scoring on them would also help avoid slippage.

 

Kiwi,

We have to run all stock parts based on recent rules clairifications. Now if you would make us an offset non-metalic bushing to go in the stock uca mounting hardware that would be great......

 

Yeah, that would be friggin' fantastic.

offcamber, unfortunately for us wupike is correct, and I was remembering wrong:

They are holes, and two of them no less. I'm sure with a proper jig you could accurately make that work, but it would take some doing. Still, I'm open to suggestions and ideas. Scott, you have any? We could always bend the uprights I guess...

The offset bushing really sounds like a winner.

 

You will be able to get -2 to -2.5 just by lowering the car. If you are only going for -2 to -2.5 degrees, you should not need to slot the arms. good luck.

 

i just bought a used spare pair of arms and realized the same thing...only holes. there is a spare ~6mm of room for the arm to move back before it is in line with the bushing assembly. let me know if you need me to mike(micrometer) anything in the arms for you.

by offset bushing, do y'all mean modify piece #7 in the picture so that the hole is shoved to one side of the rubber bushing material? i don't see how that would be adjustable.


how low below stock? the car is a DD and is lowered 1/2-3/4inch right now with some scrapping issues.

 

Did I miss something?
7.8 Suspension
i) Camber adjustment devices (plates/shims/eccentric, etc.) are unrestricted but are limited to one
per wheel. Front and rear upper control arms may be modified or replaced with items that allow
camber and/or caster adjustment only.

If so I have to stop reading the rules on my crackberry. I thought the issue was the lower control arms.

 

Yea, but how low do you have to go to get that, and how much bump travel is left?

 

Yes, part number 7 in the picture. I figure its good for about .5 degree, which would get me close enough running Hoosiers and the springs to go with them. -2.5 is optimum for me, but the car is running pretty well, with good tire temps at -2.2.

I need to go back to stock control arms, I am hoping that with some lowering I'll be able to get to at least -2.0, but as stated above you quickly get into some clearance issues.

 

What't that from? We are talking about the NASA Time Trial and Performace Touring rule sets

 

This sounds like the sort of backwards thinking thing that only SCCA could dream up! I would not have expected it from Nasa?

OK - So you have to use a rubber bushing for #7 in the illustration.
No point trying to make it offset. It would only give about half a degree of Neg. camber.

However, are you allowed to replace the outer Ball Joint on the top arm #4?
If so K-Mac Australia make a rotating ball joint Honda camber kit that will give 3deg - camber and a substantial amount of Caster.

Hope this helps.

Kiwi

 

No go on the ball joint.

.5 degree puts a lot closer to what we need, we are talking about Hoosier tires. They run best at -2.5 when you have the car set up right. -2.2 actually works pretty well on my car.

The stock camber on these is supposed to be somewhere in the -1.5 range. A bit from lowering, and .5 from bushings puts us right in the happy place.

 

so 4-5mm(distance the bushing hole can go before hitting the outside wall) = .5* of camber?

i would like to have a formula for how long i need to slot the arm and put marks for each degree or half degree of camber change on the arm itself.

I also need to source some washers with texture/scoring on them. any ideas?

 

OK Try this-



Insert two 3/16" to 1/4" spacers onto the two locating bolts- so they are on the underside of the Strut Tower.
This change in your UCA Angle will increase your Static Negative camber as well as give you increased negative camber under load.

Experiment with washer thickness but the size I have quoted should be right on the mark. We have gone to extremes with this kind of adjustment over the years. A little is better than a lot!
I hope this helps.

Kiwi

 

Thanks, that helps a lot. Do you have any specs on the change in static or dynamic camber? Would your suggestion along with lowering the car 3/4inch(LS/GSR) be enough to have the same effect as 2.5* negative camber with a traditional adjustable control arm?

edit- there is only 1/8" of thread sitting above nut #16 but i assume you had no issues with the threads stripping even with a 1/4" spacer, right?

 

You're thinking Honda Challenge, we're talking PT/TT

 

Kiwi just FYI, we CAN use adjustable arms, but take a decent hit on points for doing so (+4).

Edit: Also Kiwi, does that washer trick have an effect on the studs seating in the hole? I thought there was a little taper to them (though I could also be remembering THAT wrong ).

 

There is a shoulder on the grip portion of the stud. 1/4 inch would still leave some of that grip portion engaged with the shock tower.

And completly PT legal.

 

I'm wondering how much negative camber would be achieved with the washer... I just got a NTB alignment (paid for the 1 year package) and I have -2/-1.5 camber (l/r) in the front and -.9 in the rear... Don't know why my camber is off side to side in the front though...

I'm lowered to about a 1 finger gap all around (a little more than a finger in the rear to keep the rake close to OEM)

The +4 points for a front camber kit seems pretty outrageous, IMO. I would be able to get the camber kit but would probably lose my TB/IM... which if I were to do H4 in a few years, I'd need to get rid of anyway.

 

sounds like HC>PT on this one. thats a dumb *** rule.
has anyone thought about spacing the UCA mounting point downward?

 

I have never experienced any problems with fitting spacers. Using up to a 1/4" thick spacer should still leave plenty of thread to locate the nuts.
*Note- Remove the metal strap between the two bushing housings, you don't need it.

Actually the effect is better-
Too much negative camber is not much use to you on the straights and especially under heavy braking.
By using the spacers to drop the inner mounting points of the UCA's your static say 1.5deg - Will turn into 2.5 to 3 deg - under full bump. or the harder you turn the more Neg Camber will be generated... to the point where you have to decide whether you need more or less static Negative camber.

Kiwi

 

I agree it is a dumbass rule, especially when other cars are allowed adjustable camber for free (camber plates, as one example). Unfortunately, I have clarified it with the rules committee, and it stands

 

Yeah...But...

At racing ride height, the cant on the uca is pretty steep already. Spacing the uca lower at the inboard end will give more static negative, but also put you further into the faster part of the camber curve, which may be fine insofar as the effect while turning, but no better with respect to camber under braking. It should also have an unwanted effect on the bumpsteer - rendering the tie rod too long (or if you prefer - the rack too short).

Scott, who consistently finds silver bullets to be fleeting figments of my optimismagination...