As we all know, a large rear swaybar is essential to success in STS, however, with the 92-00 Civics the subframe needs to be reinforced to prevent tearout when using 22mm and stiffer bars because of the different attachment points from the ITR.

Now, reading the 2006 rules, under the heading 14.7: Anti-Sway Bars, It reads "Substitution, addition, or removal of any anti-roll bar(s) is permitted. Bushing material, method of attachment, and locating points are unrestricted. Components such as anti-roll bars and strut housings that serve dual purposes by also functioning as suspension locators may not be modified in ways that change the suspension geometry or steering geometry. Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted."

Seeing as I read no real allowance for reinforcement of the attachment points, it seems to me that they would be not STS legal, however seeing the bars that most of the autocrossers here use, I am inclined to believe that they are at least in use.

Any clarification of this point would be appreciated, as well as examples or testimonials of usage or non-usage from the resident STS autocrossers. I figure that at least for myself, at the local level, no one would be likely to make a fuss about it, however insight as to the true legality of it would be welcomed.

Thanks all.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Draco &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> "Substitution, addition, or removal of any anti-roll bar(s) is permitted. Bushing material, method of attachment, and locating points are unrestricted.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ehhh? Read it again.

 

Of course, that Comptech piece does have a non-standard lateral member, depending on who you ask.

 

I was thinking something along the lines of the ASR kit which also looks like a form of non standard lateral member.

 

can't find the thread right now, but sccaforums had a discussion on this. general concensus is that the ASR is not legal. the one peice comptech unit is not legal either, the ST peice is in the grey area. remember that most STS cars are 4th gen civics that mount the bar to the frame rails, not the cross member.

 

Section 14.7 could definitely be interpreted as outlawing something like the ASR or Comptech pieces. However, section 14.8 J allows strut bars, and the Comptech at least could definitely be argued to be a strut bar.

 

"14.8 L Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars
may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper
right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower
right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration
is permitted. Additional holes may be drilled for mounting
bolts. Only bolt-on attachment is permitted. Interior trim panels
may be modified to allow installation of strut bars. Holes or
slots may be no larger than necessary and may serve no other
purpose. This does not permit any modifications to the frame or
unibody beyond the allowed mounting holes."

This should cover the Comptech Lower strut bar.

 

i think this is the thread here

quote from andy in that thread:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Andy Hollis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The STAC discussed this earlier this year and considered them illegal. For the piece to qualify as a strut bar, it can only provide lateral stiffness in one dimension (lateral). These plates also provide significant torsional rigidity (and Lord knows that flimsy lower crossmember needs it!) which is not allowed. You could make it legal by slicing a section out of the middle and connecting the two pieces together with a heim-jointed rod. In fact, ST makes a nice piece for the 92-96 Civic that is just like that and includes both a sway bar and torsion bar. Something like that should be legal if the bar is heim-jointed.

--Andy

PS: Wasn't it Bret Noorgard that designed that piece when he worked at ST? Have him make you one...</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GChambers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"14.8 L Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars
may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper
right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower
right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration
is permitted. Additional holes may be drilled for mounting
bolts. Only bolt-on attachment is permitted. Interior trim panels
may be modified to allow installation of strut bars. Holes or
slots may be no larger than necessary and may serve no other
purpose. This does not permit any modifications to the frame or
unibody beyond the allowed mounting holes."

This should cover the Comptech Lower strut bar.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I thought the Comptech piece attached at the swaybar attachment points? If so, that's not the "suspension mounting point" that's stated in the rule. Suspension mounting sounds like LCA to me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PseudoRealityX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I thought the Comptech piece attached at the swaybar attachment points? If so, that's not the "suspension mounting point" that's stated in the rule. Suspension mounting sounds like LCA to me.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The Comptech bar does attach at the lower control arm. The lower control arm bolt goes through the lower hole and the sway bar mount goes through the upper hole.

 

Dammit!

Looks like I am wrong.

Any recommendations on an alternative sway bar mount? I'm not concerned about the strut bar being illegal. I am more concerned with how to mount my sway bar without having the problem of it ripping out of the rear frame where it is mounted.

 

Well that's just special.

Looks like the Comptech won't be legal for SP, either. Amusingly, I also found this little tidbit in section 15.7 of the SP rules: "This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe to accommodate the installation, or the cutting of holes to route the bar or links." This effectively outlaws the Beaks kit, too, since it requires removal of the <u>welded on</u> nuts that hold on the stock sway bar.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Agent Smith &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well that's just special.

Looks like the Comptech won't be legal for SP, either. Amusingly, I also found this little tidbit in section 15.7 of the SP rules: "This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe to accommodate the installation, or the cutting of holes to route the bar or links." This effectively outlaws the Beaks kit, too, since it requires removal of the <u>welded on</u> nuts that hold on the stock sway bar.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Funny, since the SCCA has already ruled that Miata may remove the welded on front swaybar mount in stock class (to be replaced with a beefier swaybar mount). In this case, the swaybar D-bracket is attached to a second bracket, that is attached to the subframe. That bracket is welded to subframe, but may be removed and replaced as part of "method of attachment ... are free ...".

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Agent Smith &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well that's just special.

Looks like the Comptech won't be legal for SP, either. Amusingly, I also found this little tidbit in section 15.7 of the SP rules: "This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe to accommodate the installation, or the cutting of holes to route the bar or links." This effectively outlaws the Beaks kit, too, since it requires removal of the <u>welded on</u> nuts that hold on the stock sway bar.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess that depends on the car in question. I am assuming that you have an Integra. My Civic came with no rear bar and no welded on bolts so it looks like I am ok with a Beaks Kit. But, I have heard that the Beaks kit isn't a complete fix either since on some occasions the entire Beaks kit has ripped out on cars with the bigger rear sway bars. I have the 22mm Comptech bar now and would like to stay with that size bar or go with something bigger.

Anyone have Beaks website?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GChambers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I guess that depends on the car in question. I am assuming that you have an Integra. My Civic came with no rear bar and no welded on bolts so it looks like I am ok with a Beaks Kit.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah, you do have the welded on bolts. They're inside the subframe. All 92-95 Civics have mounting points in the subframe for an Integra rear sway. That's why all I had to do to install my LS one was switch the LCAs and bolt up the brackets.

 

No ****? I didn't notice when I installed my Comptech. Or, did I? I have slept since then.

Ok, what are we going to do now?


Modified by GChambers at 8:25 PM 1/11/2006

 

Well, I'm sure as hell not going to Nats anytime soon, and definitely not in my car (94 Civic Si), and noone locally is going to care much I think, so I'm installing the ASR kit with an ITR bar.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Draco &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well, I'm sure as hell not going to Nats anytime soon, and definitely not in my car (94 Civic Si), and noone locally is going to care much I think, so I'm installing the ASR kit with an ITR bar.</TD></TR></TABLE>

what's wrong with your car?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Draco &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yeah, you do have the welded on bolts. They're inside the subframe. All 92-95 Civics have mounting points in the subframe for an Integra rear sway. That's why all I had to do to install my LS one was switch the LCAs and bolt up the brackets.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i don't know about the other years, but both of my 93's had no blind nuts in the subframe. the subframe part# for the cars with rear swaybar (my 93 Si did not come with a rear swaybar, afaik only the ABS equipped ex's and si's have the stock rear bar) is different then the part number for the cars without rear swaybar.

using something like the beaks kit is fine, even if you have to remove the blind nuts. they aren't "part of a subframe". the sp rule is there to prevent people from running the bar through the spare tire well or modifying the subframe to make it fit. knocking off the blind nuts doesn't qualify as modifying the subframe. you can weld on blind nuts too.

solutions? well, if you have the comptech or ASR setup already you could always cut the brace in half then reconnect it with a heim joint. or, you could write the STAC and try to get them to review their decision and possibly open the allowance to include them. after that, use something like the beaks or bsq kits or make something on your own. that is the direction i'll be going since i'm not particularly comfortable with the grey area my ST tie bar setup plays in.

nate

 

I would consider cutting my Comptech brace in half and installing a heim joint but it still attaches at the subframe as well as at the lower control arm so I still don't think it will be legal. Again, my concern isn't so much about the fact that I am losing the strut bar, I am more concerned with the mounting of the sway bar. I may look into making something on my own if I can't buy a solution that I think will take the level of abuse that I plan on unleashing on this car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what's wrong with your car?

i don't know about the other years, but both of my 93's had no blind nuts in the subframe. the subframe part# for the cars with rear swaybar (my 93 Si did not come with a rear swaybar, afaik only the ABS equipped ex's and si's have the stock rear bar) is different then the part number for the cars without rear swaybar.

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

I'm currently in college and only autocross recreationally, and use my car to drive daily, and to that end, I'm not going to fully ***** out prep this thing for STS. That and I believe that it's not the best car for STS, mostly because of the excess weight it carries.

None of the EG Si's came with rear sways, only the EX coupes and sedans had them. I have ABS, but no rear sway stock, and still had the hidden nuts, so I assumed they all had them.

 

maybe it's the abs that forces the change in part number for the sub frame.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GChambers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"14.8 L Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars
may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper
right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower
right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration
is permitted. Additional holes may be drilled for mounting
bolts. Only bolt-on attachment is permitted. Interior trim panels
may be modified to allow installation of strut bars. Holes or
slots may be no larger than necessary and may serve no other
purpose. This does not permit any modifications to the frame or
unibody beyond the allowed mounting holes."

This should cover the Comptech Lower strut bar.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I suppose I need someone to clarify to me what a "suspension mounting point" really is.

If we take it literally as the bolts that holds on a suspension component, then any aftermarket front upper strut bar that mounts in the factory location as my gsr bar would be illegal, since its attachment points are next to the shock upper mount, but not directly connected to any suspension component. Then again, if we use this definition, then how does allowing the drilling of additional mounting holes make sense?

If "suspension mounting point" is defined a little more loosely, such that the structural area around the suspension mounts is valid, then the Comptech tie bar should be legal. It does connect with both the LCA bolts and the factory swaybar holes. It is only bolt on attachment, does not require modification to the frame or unibody, and is mounted only transversely from lower right to lower left.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Draco &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... 14.7: Anti-Sway Bars, It reads "Substitution, addition, or removal of any anti-roll bar(s) is permitted. Bushing material, method of attachment, and locating points are unrestricted. Components such as anti-roll bars and strut housings that serve dual purposes by also functioning as suspension locators may not be modified in ways that change the suspension geometry or steering geometry. Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted." ...</TD></TR></TABLE>

The comptech bar does not serve the dual purpose of functioning as a suspension locator, and there are no geometry changes from installing it. So, as long as it is legal as a tie bar (strut bar), then it should be a perfectly valid place to mount the swaybar to. Don't add the Comptech piece to add the swaybar, add it as a strut bar by itself, then add the swaybar in the permitted unrestricted location, which just happens to be the strut bar itself.

So, is it a valid strut bar or not?

 

Tuner, I'm with you and your logic. But, unfortunately, the Comptech not only mounts to the LCA bolt but also to the subframe. This is the illegal part. A strut bar is not allowed to attach to the frame and by doing so, it offers not only longitudinal structural support but torsional support as well. My co-driver and I have been discussing this today and we have come to the conclusion that we are not concerned with the strut bar as much as the sway bar mounts. So, our solution may just be to cut the center section out of the Comptech and keep the ends. We feel that this will give us the best compromise between securly mounting the sway bar and getting past the SCCA Rules *****.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GChambers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"14.8 L Strut bars are permitted with all types of suspension. Strut bars
may be mounted only transversely across the car from upper
right to upper left suspension mounting point and from lower
right to lower left suspension mounting point. No other configuration
is permitted. Additional holes may be drilled for mounting
bolts. Only bolt-on attachment is permitted. Interior trim panels
may be modified to allow installation of strut bars. Holes or
slots may be no larger than necessary and may serve no other
purpose. This does not permit any modifications to the frame or
unibody beyond the allowed mounting holes."

This should cover the Comptech Lower strut bar.</TD></TR></TABLE>

After reading my own post and reading the rule again, I have to disagree with myself(well, what was told to me by Andy Hollis). There is nothing in that rule that states that the strut bar cannot mount to the frame. Also, if you consider that the front strut bars mount to the shock towers, not the suspension mounting points then the Comptech should be even more legal than the upper strut bars that are considered legal for the class.

Time to write a letter.

 

It's best to contact someone from the SCCA when there are questions like this so it's clear which some rules are far from. And cars vary quite a bit. Doug Gill is one guy to ask.