This is the phase one of my rear trunk bar.

http://digicomweb.com/v67-gsr/rear%20bar.htm

Reinforcment plate will add next week.

 

you should contact Dangsr, he made me a set using 2 bars
the second bar is underneath that plastic behind the bar you just made for those visible bolts
handling is OUTSTANDING with them installed

 

I did think about 2 bar setup before i built this one. But since this bar is built to be the prototype of part of my coming custom (DIY) roll cage. All i need is the feed back in handling with this bar on so i can make up my final design for my roll cage.

 

cool

 

BretQ has one on this website. Different mounting location then yours.

I'm not sure your mounting location actually stiffens the chassis any.

http://www.geocities.com/bretq

 

ummmmmmmmmmm, trust me...................
it stiffens up the rear end of the chassis, that's for sure
lol

 

Indeed, the mounting location I used is the stiffest point of the very end of the car.

BretQ mounting location is just a piece of connector "weld on" to the main chassis frame, and connect to the sub-frame of the rear panel.

My mounting point is actually the main frame itself.

So I guarantee it is stiffer than BretQ design. His design is very easy DIY project, and it you can still keep a lot of the useful trunk space and spare tire. But my design need some welding, and has to give up part of the trunk and can’t keep the spare at all. All I assumed why Honda not using the way I mount the bar is to keep the trunk and spare tire in where it belong.

 

Looks like the project is coming along good.

Had mine done a couple of months ago.

I noticed the sound deadening has cracked, which was due to the bar on top from all the flexing that is going on. A good sign that the bar is doing its job to keep the rear end stiff.

I'll post pics to show what I mean.

 

your design is more asthetically pleasing.

But I think mine would be more effective. Instead of putting a tab on the bar. I got longer bolts and drilled holes thru the bar and attached it directly to the car.

Yeah...I've made a couple of these bars. Everyone who buys them says they notice a big difference.

 

Well, I put I tad, or the "L" shape connector to the bar because I want to mimic the way that this bar will include in my up coming roll cage. Besides, all I need to do it weld 2 triangle plates to each side to make the “L" a lot stronger.

BTW, I also think of drilling a hold through the bar itself. But end up drop that idea. Unless I use a piece of solid tube (a lot heavier), there is no guarantee the hollow bar that I used will not deform in time due to the high torque require (47 lb of torque onto a small area).

Anyhow, that is only my prototype, part of my ultimate project, a roll cage.

 

I have read several comments from people that say that the bar would be more benefical mounted horizantally (as compared to being mounted vertically). But I'm not really sure if I would agree with that statement. The reason why I say that is because the rear trunk sheetmetal where the trunk brace is mounted is welded to the same sheetmetal area that you are referring to mounting the bar horizantally to. Therefore, the bar should function the same whether it is mounted horizantally or vertically. Now the only really way to tell which way is more benefical would be to study the vehicle rigidity on a supercomputer with the bar mounted in both locations (which I'm sure Honda engineers have already done). Another test would be to have someone do several back-to-back blind test with the bar mounted in both locations and see if the driver can tell a difference.

Also, I decide to mount the DIY trunk brace ( http://www.geocities.com/bretq/DIY_trunk_brace.html ) in the same location as the Integra Type-R trunk brace (see pictures below). Also the Realtime Racing Team races several Integra Type-Rs in the Speed World Challenge series and they leave the trunk brace in their race cars which have full welded in roll cage.

DIY trunk brace


Integra Type-R trunk brace

 

I wish we had access to some of the tech documents that Honda has about body rigidity, because I'm trying to build my own structure-strengthening parts.

I did manage to get my hands on an ITR Tech Information Guide which details every difference between the GSR vs. ITR. They put a lot of extra structrue into the rear of the car.

 

Well, you are correct in a point. But if you look in the official Integra Service Manu, and/or take apart everything at the rear end (include bumper, and rear impact bar). I am sure you will find out that the sheet metal you use as mounting location is indeed a connector of the main frame, and rear sub frame. Only about 2~3 mm thick and it is not physically connect to the main frame itself.

Although my mounting location looks like be the same sheet metal as your design, what under it is actually the main chassis frame of the car. The bolt that I used go through the interior sheet body panel, then the main chassis frame, and mount to the rear impact bar. The metal is about 5 mm thick all together. And the bolt is torque to 47lb.

I never said your design is a bad one; indeed, it is a very easy and friendly design. Material and labor is very handy. Compare to my design, mine require some welding (well, no really necessary in most case, just that I want to make it look better for re-sell value), and need more accurate measurement. My point is that if there is an alternative way to make the same, if not better gain in handling. Why not let others know and discuses with other and gain opinion for good for the entire Integra crowd.

 

I hope you didn't feel that I was knocking your design or your opinion. My main point is that I'm not sure that either method of attaching the bar (horizontal vs. vertical) can be considered better than the other. Yes, if you were to have some sophisticate method of measuring chassis flex, one method would be more rigid than the other method. But, if you were to do a back-to-back test you would not be able to tell the difference between either method. Either method will yield a more rigid chassis.