Anyone here know the weight distribution of tegs.
RS -
LS/GS/GSR -


Either the percentage ie - 60/40 or the actual weight of the front half vs. the rear.

Just curious as to how much weight has to be gained or lost to make it a 50/50 weight distribution.

 

Good question... never even thought of 'dat.
BUMP

 

anyone one why u want 50/50? my only guess would be for controlled slide, the car rotates around the center of mass, which would be the length of the car / 2 for 50/50....then the front wouldnt rotate any faster than the back...so u could easily kick some ***...?

 

i'd say a fair estimation would be 60/40...front being 60 ofcourse.

 

I was just curious, but I would assume its safer and handling would be neutral and easier to recover if you push the limits to far. Although you have a good point about the rotation. Just wondering b/c bmw for example boasts about the 50/50 weight distribution, I was watching the WRC and they had a car boasting about the 50/50 weight distribution.

 

Most FWD honda'a are more like 70/30, rwd/awd benifit from a more neutral setup like 50/50 weight distibution and crossweights, usually the best you can do for a FWD is get the 50/50 crossweight distribution.

 

64/36, and type r is 62/38. I know really bad, no where close to 50/50.

http://www.team-integra.net/se...ID=43

 

Load up the rear of the car with bricks and that weight distribution will even up pretty quickly.

 

or carbon fiber the whole front end.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spender1326 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">64/36, and type r is 62/38. I know really bad, no where close to 50/50.

http://www.team-integra.net/se...ID=43</TD></TR></TABLE>




Most 50/50 weight distributed vehicles are excellent handling vehicles. For example the Honda S2000 and the Toyota MR-2. Both cars are VERY good handling cars right out of the box. Very precise steering and throttle that will do what you want at the touch of your toe.

However, after carefully considering this myself, and rethought it, if you make the Integra 50/50 weight distribution, it will NOT handle the same as the S2000 or any other 50/50 split car. You might think, well "why not?"

Because the Integra was not designed to be split like that from the factory. Obviously if Honda engineers and the R&D team wanted the Integra's weight to be distributed evenly, they would have done so.

so, before you go ripping stuff out to lose weight, and before you go buying suspension pieces, look deeper into it and find out what the results are going to be from the product.

 

Take the motor out.
That will get it to just about 50/50.

Or find a really fat friend to put in the back seat everywhere you go.

 

The close to 60/40 split that the Integras have is a feature, not a bug.

It is (one of the reasons) why the ITR is such a great track car. It gives you more traction up front for better turn in response and traction out of the corner. During acceleration the weight transfers to the back so having a forward weight bias helps to maintain traction under acceleration.

It also helps with braking by putting more weight on the front, but also allows you to drastically lighten the rear of the car which is why with an Integra braking and turning near the limit is a huge no-no. It will spin very quickly on you.

I am pretty sure an Integra with a 50/50 weight distribution would not be as quick around a track at a 60/40 one would. Just a guess though.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rapid_roy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The close to 60/40 split that the Integras have is a feature, not a bug.

It is (one of the reasons) why the ITR is such a great track car. It gives you more traction up front for better turn in response and traction out of the corner. During acceleration the weight transfers to the back so having a forward weight bias helps to maintain traction under acceleration.

It also helps with braking by putting more weight on the front, but also allows you to drastically lighten the rear of the car which is why with an Integra braking and turning near the limit is a huge no-no. It will spin very quickly on you.

I am pretty sure an Integra with a 50/50 weight distribution would not be as quick around a track at a 60/40 one would. Just a guess though.</TD></TR></TABLE>

What the hell are you talking about? That is not right at all. 50/50 is pretty much always optimal.

 

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

What the hell are you talking about? That is not right at all. 50/50 is pretty much always optimal.</TD></TR></TABLE>

For a RWD car, yes. Not for a FWD car.

For acceleration you must have more weight over the front to overcome the rearward weight shift. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to accelerate very effectively coming out of a corner.

Again, do you think the ITR ended up with a 60/40 by accident?

 

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

Again, do you think the ITR ended up with a 60/40 by accident?

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

The ITR while a great car is not the end all be all of FWD CArs, just cause they did it on an ITR does not mean it is right for every car every where, the rease the ITR ended up as 62/38 was more from the weight loss program than any designe issues.

However I would rather have a FWD car that is setup like that why have 50% of the weight on the rear tires that are just there to keep the gas tank from draging, and on FWD 50/50 weight distribution is not as important as 50/50 cross weight distribution.

 

what is crossweight distribution?

 

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

For a RWD car, yes. Not for a FWD car.

For acceleration you must have more weight over the front to overcome the rearward weight shift. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to accelerate very effectively coming out of a corner.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Then why do BTCC cars run almost perfect 50/50 when FWD? They are designed for handling, not the compromises of street use. And why a passensger seat could never be installed in one, because the engine is SOOO far back and down that it occupies the space the passengers feet would be.

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

Again, do you think the ITR ended up with a 60/40 by accident?

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

No, not by accident, but that is as close as they could get to 50/50 and keep the engine in the same place and meet all federal build requirements.

 

Relatively stock 98 GSR. No driver. Unknown amount of gas.

LF 851 RF 819
LR 492 RR 492

TOTAL 2654

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MightyMouseTech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Then why do BTCC cars run almost perfect 50/50 when FWD? They are designed for handling, not the compromises of street use. And why a passensger seat could never be installed in one, because the engine is SOOO far back and down that it occupies the space the passengers feet would be.

No, not by accident, but that is as close as they could get to 50/50 and keep the engine in the same place and meet all federal build requirements.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't believe you. Give me a cite for how they got the Civic TypeR used in that series to be 50/50.

You are also ignoring a host of other factors that come into play. Do not point to race cars that are dissimilar to the Integra as an example of perfect weight distribution and single that factor out. That is ridiculous. edit to retract this statement, it's not ridiculous. It is a valid point and I apologize

There are many reason why it ended up 60/40. If I had to venture a guess I would say it's ride quality more than anything because more weight in the rear would have meant stiffer springs and the ride quality on a teg is dictated by the rear, not the front. Throw some 700lb springs in the rear and see what I mean.

Also, with a 50/50 weight distribution, you are never going to get the back end to rotate in a corner, a trait that is necessary for getting the car to overcome it's inherrent understeer. Something a 60/40 split also helps alleviate.

Imagine the understeer with 300lbs less weight over the front wheels.

Imagine the wheelspin and accompanying wheelhop accelerating out of the corner with 300lbs less weight over the front.

Imagine slower turn in response.

It's reversed because the drive wheels are reversed to compensate for what happens when weight shifts under acceleration and braking. I am not turning this into "60/40 is better than 50/50", I am saying for the Integra 60/40 doesn't suck and 50/50 might not be an improvement.


Modified by rapid_roy at 8:07 PM 4/20/2004

 

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

Again, do you think the ITR ended up with a 60/40 by accident?

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

No. It ended up 60/40 because all of the driveline components are in front of the firewall. The only thing with any weight behind the driver is a full gas tank.

All of that weight on the front tires causes what we like to call a "push."
Us crazy FWD race car drivers remove as much weight as legal from the FRONT of the car. And if we have to add ballast to make minimum weight, we add it to the back.
Shoe me a FWD race car driver that is intentionally adding weight to the front of the car and I'll show you a moron that has never won a race.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

No. It ended up 60/40 because all of the driveline components are in front of the firewall. The only thing with any weight behind the driver is a full gas tank.

All of that weight on the front tires causes what we like to call a "push."
Us crazy FWD race car drivers remove as much weight as legal from the FRONT of the car. And if we have to add ballast to make minimum weight, we add it to the back.
Shoe me a FWD race car driver that is intentionally adding weight to the front of the car and I'll show you a moron that has never won a race.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I wasn't saying add weight to the front. That would be ludicrous.

And yes all that weight causes it to push I agree with you but at what point will less weight over the front start to become bad? Since traction at the front is dictated by the weight (and COF), reducing weight gives you less traction at the front. Where is the law of diminishing returns here?

I had always looked at the biased weight distribution as less than optimal because I do believe that a 50/50 is better. However I think it plays a large part in what makes the Integra such a decent track car and I don't think it would have the same traits with a 50/50.

I could very well be wrong here and I would like to see how some strictly race Integra's are setup when variables such as ride quality do not matter. Anyone got that?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rapid_roy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I could very well be wrong here and I would like to see how some strictly race Integra's are setup when variables such as ride quality do not matter. Anyone got that?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea .. but race Integra means different things to different people. In most cases there are rules which prohibit heavy modification. We corner balance our H3 Integra, but can't do much about the weight distribution Honda gives us. We are still at the 60/40-ish. We optimize the cross weight, not front to rear.

 

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

Yea .. but race Integra means different things to different people. In most cases there are rules which prohibit heavy modification. We corner balance our H3 Integra, but can't do much about the weight distribution Honda gives us. We are still at the 60/40-ish. We optimize the cross weight, not front to rear.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Fair enough, how about the RealTime Integra then? In a hypotherical discussion, that represents perhaps the most capable Integra out there so where does that car lie?

 

Here's a good article form a few years back in GRM about crossweights, good learnin'.

http://www.grassrootsmotorspor....html


The Integra is nose heavy because, as Catch 22 says, all the major components are in the nose. The weight pushes down on the tires more, yes, but those tires have to do more work to move the weight around in a corner, and it's not a linear relationship; that's why nose heavy cars understeer or push without some creative things like very stiff rear suspensions or larger front tires to emulate a neutral handling balance. 911s are tail heavy with everything behind the rear axle, so they oversteer. 50/50 is the goal, the integra is a compact passenger car first, and as cool as the ITR is (i love mine) it wasn't built from the ground up as a race car.

 

If you see any WC car, the first thing you will notice in where the driver sits. Low, far back, and closer to center. They extend the pedals, steering column, and the shift rod. They can also strip the car bare and run lexan. They are probably still not 50/50.