I was searching through the ground-control web site and I came accross this product in their "new" section (credit to http://www.ground-control.com for the pic):



Here is the brief info:

"Ground Control upper mount for honda Civic, Integra etc, etc. 88-99

Only for use with Ground Control coil over kits, adds XXmm extra travel, for better handling and superior ride quality.

100% bolt on, comes with all parts needed. Anodized, Laser engraved with pressed in studs, just like oem mounts. Will work with most stress bars.

$75 pair, complete"

It looks to me like it simply relocates the upper attachment point of the strut to a XXmm higher location. The question is, for those who have sent their struts to (GC, TC, Koni, etc) be shortened, what did they charge you? Or, what's the going rate for a revalved/shortened damper vs. revalve alone?

 

funky pic, [edit] ah, now i see whats going on. dumb deformation effect confused me what it supposed to do. actually not a bad solution. and not too expensive. how long until skunk2 makes a copy and kits are sold on ebay ad nasueum like camber kits cuz ppl proliferate the notion all lowering springs require camber adjustment.... ill stop the rant here.

furthermore, i dont see why they just dont offer a separate collar or gasket for regular coil springs to accomodate the uneveness of the top of the spring, which is the only reason that would make it only compatible with race springs. or heck, just pull the stock rubber gasket off and slap that underneath this and suffer the few mm it takes up. anyway, i think im thinking about this too much.

anyway, the alternative to getting a shock revalved is (at least for my tokicos) is remove the lower collar that is welded to the shock tube and butts up to the lower fork. then you can slide the shock tube a bit lower, like an inch, and then use a piece of metal to set the distance for the fork. you also gotta punch in a new dimple for the pinch bolt on the fork, enough so the bolt threads dont puncture the shock, that kinda tedious too. youre limited how low you can go by the axles directly undreath the shock, but an inch is significant enough. its not so easy to do at first, but theres a couple tricks my friend who showed me how to do it that help make it easier. just need a good rotary cutter (more than just a dremel, but ive heard it does work after going thru multiple little cutting tools) and a file.

this is a write up someone else did after i told him how to do it. personally, i think he did it the hard way, but you can get the idea.

http://tjshondas.20m.com/frshock.html


[Modified by Tyson, 2:26 AM 1/10/2003]


[Modified by Tyson, 2:33 AM 1/10/2003]

 

It's funny that these are in their new section. They used to make these a way back when.

I have a friend who has a set of these. I've been trying to buy them from him for a year now.

 

A fellow EMRA racer had a home-made solution to this problem: he welded a flat cylinder to where the top of the shock would usually mount and the top of the shock would slide into it instead, making the top higher.

 

This will help a good bit. I think I'll order some.

Even with the shortened Konis I fight with shock travel issues in the front.

 

I have seen a lot of these from different manufacturers like Cusco and Apexi in the Japanese Hyper Rev magazine on the Integra.

 

The GC camber plates on my SE-R essentially do the same thing: moves the top mount point up ~1". The difference in handling from the extra travel is simply amazing. Well worth $75. Buy some today.

 

What about using Suspension Techniques drop forks? Has anyone here used them? Any problems? What do you think?

 

Interesting. When I talked to GC about the package for my CRX, they mentioned these, but then seemed to think they would not be legal on an IT car since they move a suspension mounting point from the original position. Maybe I should run this by the rules NERDS over on the IT site.

 

Isn't this equivalent to just getting the shock rod shortened and not the body. I would think that getting the shock body shortened would be better.

EDIT: forget it, I get it now


[Modified by 6ghatch, 2:50 PM 1/10/2003]

 

Yea, I thought of that too. But by the same token, adjusting a coilover perch is "moving a suspension mounting point." I would make the argument that the suspension mounting point was the two bolts that connect to the body of the car and not the location of the damper rod.

 

Can anyone tell me why these wouldn't work with my currect Sk2 coilovers? Besides the fact that I need to eventually replace my Sk2's because I don't like the sleeves very much, why would these not work?

 

hmmm... pretty cool sounds like a good investment for when I finally get off my butt and switch out my stock springs for some coilovers

 

Interesting question - kind of like the "turn-in spacers" on RX7s.

Per the letter of the law, there is no provision for this particular part. If the same thing is accomplished by the design of the strut itself (goofy bracket on the top or bottom) that would clearly be within the rules. If the camber plate accomplishes the same thing? Hmmm. Not OK, per the "allowed modifications may not perform non-allowed functions" clause.

Changing the perch position on the strut is not "moving a pick-up point", but this is. Think putting an intermediate bracket between the tub and lower A-arm to get camber - clearly not OK, right?

NERD perspective, for what it might (or more accurately, might not) be worth.

K

 

Not sure about that Kirk. You aren't changing the 'chassis' mounting point. The mod. mentioned above, using a piece of tubing welded in, changes the 'chassis' which is expressly forbidden.

On another note, for those of you with Skunk2 or the King arms, I wonder if this would work. I will run out of clearance between the fender & the upper arm. I would have to use a longer bumpstop. So, would I really accomplish anything? I would not realize any more shaft travel on the shock. Same thing would happen with shortened shocks. Right?

 

Exact language in the ITCS is:

5.b.1 Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting points. The number and type (e.g., tube, lever, etc.) of shock absorbers
shall be the same as stock. The interchange of gas and hydraulic shock absorbers is permitted.

I know it seems strange that you could legally use high-buck shortened shocks, while getting the same effect from $75.00 worth of billet would be illegal, but stranger things have happened in the IT rules process. Maybe you can run them, and I can do a long-distance email protest .

 

look here same thing(scroll down for the pics)
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=378981

 

OK. My bad. Reading that quote, it is obvious that you can't use them. I still haven't recieved the SCCA GCR yet......
Not sure that it really matters though. With recent developments, I don't think I will be racing with SCCA.

 

sorry guys, i gotta argue that these pices from GC are completely legal. because i will define the additional piece as part of the shock and define the mounting points of the shock to the chassis as the two bolts that you bolt to the chassis. you can remove the suspension completely as a whole from the chassis by the same means. it does not change geometry, camber angle, or suspension design.

basically i consider the top hat of the shock part of the shock and therefore free.

 

But why only on GC's?

 

I believe that it will probably work with any race spring. eg the upper & lower portions will need to be flat.

 

Can anyone deduce whether this device would fit on my H&R Race springs?

 

Legal methinks.
OPM makes pimpy brackets to mount the Koni 3011 shock (above) inverted to reduce unsprung weight. The brackets mount in the stock holes but obviously mount the shock differently given that the shock has completely different mounting geometry.

This setup has been used on countless cars that have passed multiple protests and impounds (including the ARRC).

 

Tyson,
Wonderful argument, making these $75 GC top hats a part of the shock and separate from the chassis mounting point! I applaud your thinking!

Ii see no reason why these are anything other than SHOCK SPECIFIC, meaning you should be able to run ANY spring setup/brand as long as you run Konis or whatever they specifiy as usable with these top hats. COOL! Now why dont they make them for 92-95 civics? Or do they?

 

But it does change the geometry. It changes the position of the shock in relation to the chassis, does it not?