These LCA's came out a couple of months ago and there were some discussions about the product. Has anyone installed them, if so what do you think, and how is the weight compared to stock?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by VTECPWR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">These LCA's came out a couple of months ago and there were some discussions about the product. Has anyone installed them, if so what do you think, and how is the weight compared to stock?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I was just wondering the same thing yesterday...

 

nice light and strong good for daily driving I have a set and love the bling bling and light wieght

 

link?

 

i wanna know how much stock lca's weigh also, the lightweight lca's only weigh 1.5 lbs each.....pretty impressive

 

i'd be willing to bet that youd get less oversteer and more understeer.

 

whys this? the stock lca's arent much heavier than 1.5 lbs...or atleast, didnt seem it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Soup **** &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">whys this? the stock lca's arent much heavier than 1.5 lbs...or atleast, didnt seem it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually these weigh 2.2 lbs and the stock ones are a good bit more. I should have a set on the way soon. We shall see what their effects are on oversteer/understeer first hand instead of speculating.

 

Here is the link to the LCA's

http://store.hybridgarage.com/...0008D

sgT why do you think these LCA's would lead to less oversteer and more understeer?

 

Thanks, I knew what I wanted to type fingers just did not cooperate. I corrected my post.

 

because honda designed the 88 crx/itr rear LCA to be less rigid and flex in order to
induce more oversteer. So guess what happens when you take that away?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sgT &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">because honda designed the 88 crx/itr rear LCA to be less rigid and flex in order to
induce more oversteer. So guess what happens when you take that away?</TD></TR></TABLE>

So these won't flex at all?

 

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

So these won't flex at all?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Have you even compared the design with stock??????? Or even read anything about these?????

And i quote - "these lower control arms are proven to have improved ridigity and
structural strength, while significantly reducing unsprung weight"

What does that tell you?

 

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

What does that tell you?</TD></TR></TABLE>

He didn't read. JFWY Trey.

 

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

Have you even compared the design with stock??????? Or even read anything about these?????

And i quote - "these lower control arms are proven to have improved ridigity and
structural strength, while significantly reducing unsprung weight"

What does that tell you?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Tells me they have improved rigidity over something. Do we assume stock and make judgements without checking? I've never seen anything but internet speculation to the claim that the ITR LCA's flex to create oversteer. Got anything I can read on that?

 

I dont have anything YOU can read. Though Im sure theres literature out there because I have seen it.
I dont deal in speculation that often.

But since you are too lazy to look, i will look for you.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sgT &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I dont have anything YOU can read. Though Im sure theres literature out there because I have seen it.
I dont deal in speculation that often.

But since you are too lazy to look, i will look for you.</TD></TR></TABLE>

How am I lazy? Sounds like a cheap shot for someone with no proof.

I've looked and read nothing more than the speculation you posted above. Nothing published anywhere I woudl consider credible. If you want to point me somewhere that might have useful info other than a web board I anm certainly capable to doing my own reseach.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Asahi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How am I lazy? Sounds like a cheap shot for someone with no proof.
</TD></TR></TABLE>


Fine, find it yourself then. Im not going to waste my time helping you.

 

[QUOTE=sgT]
And i quote - "these lower control arms are proven to have improved ridigity and
structural strength, while significantly reducing unsprung weight"[\QUOTE]

Would have a stiffer LCA also transmit more force on to the lower subframe? I know that ITR do not have the problem of tearing subframe as is, but I know that hatchs and GSR do have a tendency to tear subframes with a bigger bar in the rear, so would these stiffer lcs trasmit more force to that area?

 

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


Fine, find it yourself then. Im not going to waste my time helping you.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You were helping me? I don't see how calling me lazy and implying that something you read but don't have any proof of Helping me (And anything less than speculation).

I think you need to consider exactly how I was supposed to percieve your "help". I only replied to the stabs you took.

I also don't think it is quite fair to judge any product you have not tried based on an article or 2. Give it some time and the product will prove itself one way or the other.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Asahi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I also don't think it is quite fair to judge any product you have not tried based on an article</TD></TR></TABLE>

It wasnt based on an article, it was based on changing the way your suspension components work - which will have an effect, whether percieved or not.

 

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

It wasnt based on an article, it was based on changing the way your suspension components work - which will have an effect, whether percieved or not.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok, but without anyone having used these we truly have no real world data on how they change the way our suspension components work. My point was Steve was quick to point out a detrimental behavior we have nothing more than speculation about.

They very well could cause less understeer and at the same time if it isn't just percieved as you mention I suspect the small amount of change can be compensated for with a slight rear camber adjustment while still allowing the benefit of weight savings to be had.

 

CAT FIGHT!!!!



FINALLY, some interesting reading on the itr forum

 

I agree with... TRAN

 

My take was that the 88 Civic/CRX, 97+ ITR Rear LCAs were designed with less of a camber curve to promote oversteer. In 89 Honda put the longer control arms on the back to add camber for the US market because too many fat Americans were looping the cars.

I personally have never heard that the 88 style LCA flexed and this is what allowed oversteer to occur. I always heard that the 88 style was lighter yet just as strong as the 89+.