If the megan rear lower tie bar works, why doesnt the dc sports?

I went in the garage today all excited to install the dc lower tie bar I bought from wprocomp months ago. I carefully opened the instructions and read them thourly. They are very basic and more common sence. Next was the hardware to check fitment. The dc bar itself is too long to fit in the space provided. The jacking piont gets in the way and there is no way it would work. Im using the 90-93 accord rear lower tie bar. What gives?

If I recall correctly, you have to pound down the jacking point. As for length, you have me there.

Did you not have to notch the jack point to install the Megan tie bar? I was under the impression nothing would fit with that in the way.

I saw the post about the jacking piont being inthe way and it is definatly in the way. With the dc bar as short as it will go the mounts still ont line up. Maybe my rear subframe is narrower for some reason. I was only going to use it for astetic purposes and with me having to remove a function of the car I use regularly I doubt Ill use it anymore. I wasnt sure if anyone could post a pic of how they got theres to fit and what the end product looked like after they were done swaing and cutting. I wouldnt notch the jack piont, i would remove it comepletely.

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...35138e8e3d.jpg

That's a Megan on 1988HondaLXIAccord's car, I asked about it and all he mentioned was hacking the jack point. I guess you knew the Megan would fit but as for your subframe being narrower, I've compared his car to mine (had an OBX LTB sitting around) and it looks the same to me.

what car is the megan bar supposed to b for and how much of a difference will it make?

it makes no difference what so ever, it's one of the most pointless mods you can do.

I dunno. Mazda added one from the factory on the Miata in 1992. They did a lot of stupid little shit with tiebars and such... and people noticed the overall handling improvement <3.

so THATS how it fits, thats a piece of cake to make.

I agre with stat1k on this one. This is a useless mod on our cars.

The rear cross member is made of bent/welded sheet metal. This is one single construction and the lower arms from both sides will push against each other when cornering. There is no blank spare between both lower arms attachment points.

The rear cross member itself bolts to a bent sheet metal that's makes almost the entire car width and is spot welded to the trunk floor.

This mod is useful on EG Civics and DC Integras where there is blank space between both lower arms attachment. They also do not have a rear a separate sub frame like we do. It's only spot welded to the trunk.

Here's what I'm talking about.
http://www.invoauto.co.uk/images/Pro...r-13_large.jpg


Also, since we have 2 lower arms that are on each side of the rear wheel axis, the load isn't distributed on a single lower arm like the civics do. Our square shaped rear sub frame will not bend under load.

It looks good tough.

It would make more sense to put it on the front where the cross member makes an angle

http://thegreatdane.homepage.dk/aerodeck/16.jpg

I never really understood it either. They are already connected lol. Looks good though.

Shitty thing is you can't even see it on a 3G like you can on a Civic or Integra.

yeah I leaned against it when when I had to decide if i wanted to hack up the car. Its cool to say you have it but since my car is like 2 inches off the ground, no one except the car far behind me could see it and it seemed p0retty piontless when i went to install it. I guess I have a new in box 90-93 accord lower tie bar for sale.

i wonder if it can be modified to fit on the front? it might work there

If you want to make that rear center member stronger,the best way is to remove it and weld it solid instead of spot welds. that will make it fully boxed, and as strong as crap.a also on the front if you have the lude control arms, you can box the control arm with plate steel and make it a lot stronger too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joay

Shitty thing is you can't even see it on a 3G like you can on a Civic or Integra.

---

The question is form over function, after seeing what stat1K and carotman are talking about, IMO it seems useless to put something on that does not improve handling and strength (especially if i have to pay money and modify my car to do it, instead of doing something more useful with my time and money). Doing it because it looks fancy? not my thing. It wouls be more wise to put the money towards a suspension or some better sway bars, and if you are looking for strength i would go with lostforawhile on his.... (which btw is a good idea, i will have to do that)

Yeah i just installed mine because i already bought one but my rear sway bar did more of a difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lostforawhile

If you want to make that rear center member stronger,the best way is to remove it and weld it solid instead of spot welds. that will make it fully boxed, and as strong as crap.a also on the front if you have the lude control arms, you can box the control arm with plate steel and make it a lot stronger too.

---

i wonder how much it would change the rear end's characteristic when cornering? it might be too strong... like having to big of a rear bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stat1K

i wonder how much it would change the rear end's characteristic when cornering? it might be too strong... like having to big of a rear bar.

---

I doubt it, that frame section is built like the old frame section on a domestic car, all it would do is take out a little flex and make it stronger.

yeah i just wonder how it would react with independent rear arms, i'm sure it would just be a little stiffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stat1K

yeah i just wonder how it would react with independent rear arms, i'm sure it would just be a little stiffer.

---

I think it would just give a more solid platform for the rear arms is all. like everything else on the car it's overbuilt to begin with. they used spots because of production cost. If you really want to make a car stronger, and you have it down to bare metal, go through it and double the spot welds. talking about add one between every existing one. This is common for people who restore vintage race cars. huge difference , the reason i said to box the lude arms is because the ball joints can be removed first, with the welded in ball joint you might have heat damage. there's a lot of flex in those upper arms. I have a set here but i can't remember how to modify them to fit off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stat1K

i wonder how much it would change the rear end's characteristic when cornering? it might be too strong... like having to big of a rear bar.

---

I'm with you on this. We pride ourselves (us 3G guys) for having one of the early adaptations (and still very good) of 4 wheel independent suspension. ...but this is something that aids itself more to comfort than a true race and steering-response characteristics. While IMO it's still necessary for independent suspension at all 4 corners, tying them in together with a strong rear anti-sway bar is also a necessity (when done right) to achieve predictable and very useful oversteer especially important in a front wheel drive car.

A super stiff rear end (with respect to getting both sides to act in unison on full weight shifts) will allow the rear end to me much more 'loose' and allow you much more control and responsiveness with your steering (also your drive wheels).

Where the independence is needed is with the undulations and other anomolies in the road surface where if one rear wheel hits something, you don't want that to translate to tossing the other rear wheel into a bounce or dip. Look at 'bump steer' for all the reasons why not to tie them in together so stiff that they can't act indepenedently any longer. If you hit a bump with only one front wheel, do get any 'bump steer'? Nope. ...but if you hit a bump with both wheels (ie. bridge sections, road breaks, etc) especially on a turn, do you get 'bump steer'? Yep. ...because both wheels are breaking traction for a split second, not just one. With the independent rear, you have the ability to not for the entire rear to lose traction. A non-independent rear will break traction much easier and can make life interesting pretty damn quick.

So yeah, a nice balance of super stiff, but not solid, is needed. ...but anything anyone can do to stiffen up the back of a FWD car (in general) will greatly help its handling. Even if it's by adding some seemingly useless part that adds only a teenie bit of rigidity. It's the sum of all parts that makes the difference, not just one.

That said, if you were to have to hack the jack-point (which aids in the structural rigidity of the unibody back there) just to add this thing (which I'm sure has some play in it) aren't you just stealing from Peter to pay Paul? Net net, you're in the same place you were, except now you can't lift the car from that point anymore. idk.

yet again, a long winded response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MessyHonda

Yeah i just installed mine because i already bought one but my rear sway bar did more of a difference

---

from what i understand, sway bars will make the biggest difference, besides say shocks and springs

i've got a megan tiebar.. never installed it though

yeah i can see that you would want more stiffness in the rear but it's all going to come down to personal preference really. I know that when i first installed my front bar it seemed to stiff to me but after i got used to it and took it off it felt terrible. I'm pretty happy with the setup my car has with a bigger rear bar since the dx civic's didn't come with the rear bar to begin with (still had the holes and all but no bar). i just think if i put more stiffness back there that i would have to get used to it all over again, granted i don't race the car so for daily purposes i don't think i'd reweld anything. that's just me though... i'm sure if i had a welder i'd be saying different lol.

it's not a perfect science, but if you wanted to tinker with getting more of an oversteering car than an understeer (as is most common with damn near all FWD cars), take your stock front springs from your pile of parts in the corner and cut the needed amount of coils off them to get them at the same ride height of your rear. Then swap them out in place of your lowering springs up front, and viola, oversteer.

I did the same thing you did. I had already put the rear 88-89 LX-i bar in my DX (which came with no bar in back from factory) and loved the way it felt. Then a few years later I got off my ass and put the front LX-i bar on in place of the stock DX, and I was PISSED OFF. I hated it. Understeer like mad. Slam the car into a corner, start turning, then it just pushed through and the steering wheel didn't help much. I was just in it for the ride. ...and I yanked that bar, put the stocker back in, and now I stuck the turn without the 'push' (aka. understeer).

I'll put the LX-i bar back in front once I get the SusTech of Addco for the rear. ...in time, in time.

Suspension Tech 101: "The stiffest part of a car will slide first (front stiffer = understeer, Rear stiffer = oversteer"
That being said, most FWD cars are made to understeer from the factory for safety and driveability (grandma doesnt usually take turns going 80mph) so of course putting on stock swaybars would make it understeer, that is why the vigor sway bar mod or aftermarket ones work well. Stiffening the rear (either by welding or adding pieces) will help achieve overrsteer as well, but it has to be in the right place. Honestly, I can't see how this mod helps much considering how the suspension geometry is setup, But this mod does have the potential to stiffen it a little bit. is it worth it? IMO no, not at all and another mod would be better suited, especially since you take away from the integrity of the unibody in order to add a small bit of chassis stiffening, you would be better off stiffening the body itself.

i have vigor rear sway bar and justin's rear upper strut bars and my back tires will break loose. i recommend doing the rear sway bar (either vigor or ST) before doing this mod

the reason i said to reweld the rear subframe,is to give the rear arms a more precise location to work from, if it doesn't move, those rear arms can function to control the handling that much better. the rear suspension movement is controlled by both the upper and lower arms and the more precise those work such as welding that subframe and urethane rear arm mounts, the better it will work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

it's not a perfect science, but if you wanted to tinker with getting more of an oversteering car than an understeer (as is most common with damn near all FWD cars), take your stock front springs from your pile of parts in the corner and cut the needed amount of coils off them to get them at the same ride height of your rear. Then swap them out in place of your lowering springs up front, and viola, oversteer.

I did the same thing you did. I had already put the rear 88-89 LX-i bar in my DX (which came with no bar in back from factory) and loved the way it felt. Then a few years later I got off my ass and put the front LX-i bar on in place of the stock DX, and I was PISSED OFF. I hated it. Understeer like mad. Slam the car into a corner, start turning, then it just pushed through and the steering wheel didn't help much. I was just in it for the ride. ...and I yanked that bar, put the stocker back in, and now I stuck the turn without the 'push' (aka. understeer).

I'll put the LX-i bar back in front once I get the SusTech of Addco for the rear. ...in time, in time.

---

Well said. Its pretty cool to watch some of those VW's go around the track with solid rear suspension. Absolutely sick, talk about oversteer! But for daily driving or even more agressive autocross, i think our setup is pretty badass. I would love a nice 28mm rear swaybar paired with a 22mm front on our cars, but que sera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lostforawhile

the reason i said to reweld the rear subframe,is to give the rear arms a more precise location to work from, if it doesn't move, those rear arms can function to control the handling that much better. the rear suspension movement is controlled by both the upper and lower arms and the more precise those work such as welding that subframe and urethane rear arm mounts, the better it will work.

---

agreed

I have the old tubular lower braces that Justin made, both front and rear on my car. I'll post some pics of them later since I haven't seen any pics of them installed on the site, except for some really tiny ones. I happen to think getting rid of any amount of chassis flex is a good thing, provided you're not adding a ton of weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

it's not a perfect science, but if you wanted to tinker with getting more of an oversteering car than an understeer (as is most common with damn near all FWD cars), take your stock front springs from your pile of parts in the corner and cut the needed amount of coils off them to get them at the same ride height of your rear. Then swap them out in place of your lowering springs up front, and viola, oversteer.

I did the same thing you did. I had already put the rear 88-89 LX-i bar in my DX (which came with no bar in back from factory) and loved the way it felt. Then a few years later I got off my ass and put the front LX-i bar on in place of the stock DX, and I was PISSED OFF. I hated it. Understeer like mad. Slam the car into a corner, start turning, then it just pushed through and the steering wheel didn't help much. I was just in it for the ride. ...and I yanked that bar, put the stocker back in, and now I stuck the turn without the 'push' (aka. understeer).

I'll put the LX-i bar back in front once I get the SusTech of Addco for the rear. ...in time, in time.

---

I sort of disagree. I have ST bars front and rear along with Sprint/Konis, and I would not want any more oversteer than I have now. I get PLENTY of oversteer on corner entry, mild oversteer mid-corner, and of course understeer on corner exit if I put my foot into it too much. Having the thick front bar is good because the extra roll stiffness helps keep me from bottoming out the front suspension in corners, which I still manage to do sometimes with the 350lb springs. If I could get a thicker front bar I would, because I'd rather have that than stiffer springs, which is what I'm probably going to wind up with (along with re-valved konis -ugh$$).

pico has the justin lower tie bar installed iirc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lostforawhile

If you want to make that rear center member stronger,the best way is to remove it and weld it solid instead of spot welds. that will make it fully boxed, and as strong as crap.a also on the front if you have the lude control arms, you can box the control arm with plate steel and make it a lot stronger too.

---

Sounds like the best idea in here to me.

^^ do it and post pics budddddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strugglebucket

I sort of disagree. I have ST bars front and rear along with Sprint/Konis, and I would not want any more oversteer than I have now. I get PLENTY of oversteer on corner entry, mild oversteer mid-corner, and of course understeer on corner exit if I put my foot into it too much. Having the thick front bar is good because the extra roll stiffness helps keep me from bottoming out the front suspension in corners, which I still manage to do sometimes with the 350lb springs. If I could get a thicker front bar I would, because I'd rather have that than stiffer springs, which is what I'm probably going to wind up with (along with re-valved konis -ugh$$).

---

The oversteer going into and mid/apex of the turn is due to the loading of the corner with the weight of the car. Once the weight/load settles (once you're already in the turn) it's the rotation/looseness of the back that will keep the traction on the front tires and keep them from sliding (ie. the rear 'pushing' causes the understeer). I'm not suggesting stiffening up your rear if you're already at the 'it's-too-stiff-for-my-liking' point, but instead, just soften up the front. As a test, why not pull that SusTech bar from the front and put in the stock 88-89 LX-i bar. Then if you have an upper strut bar, pull that too. Keep everything in the back as it is.

At this point, you'll have to re-learn how your car dives and exits turns because the ass may want to rotate on you or at least break traction a bit, but once you get a handle on that I'm willing to guarantee you'll drop time faster than quick.

JFern hit the nail on the head with his post, and I completely agree with his opinion on this Megan mod (if it requires cutting of the uni).

I love these suspension questions because they always turn into a good solid debate lol, great points from everyone keep it going! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

The oversteer going into and mid/apex of the turn is due to the loading of the corner with the weight of the car. Once the weight/load settles (once you're already in the turn) it's the rotation/looseness of the back that will keep the traction on the front tires and keep them from sliding (ie. the rear 'pushing' causes the understeer). I'm not suggesting stiffening up your rear if you're already at the 'it's-too-stiff-for-my-liking' point, but instead, just soften up the front. As a test, why not pull that SusTech bar from the front and put in the stock 88-89 LX-i bar. Then if you have an upper strut bar, pull that too. Keep everything in the back as it is.

At this point, you'll have to re-learn how your car dives and exits turns because the ass may want to rotate on you or at least break traction a bit, but once you get a handle on that I'm willing to guarantee you'll drop time faster than quick.

JFern hit the nail on the head with his post, and I completely agree with his opinion on this Megan mod (if it requires cutting of the uni).

---

I'm at the point where reducing any roll stiffness is going to hurt me more than it will help me. If you look in the engine bay of my car, there is a dimple either side of the frame above where the upper control arm is from it smacking the top of the fender when the suspension is loaded up. I'm also running -2.5 static camber in the front to keep the tire temperatures even. Any less stiffness in front and I'll be bottoming out more as well as losing contact patch (unless I add even more camber, but -2.5 is pushing it a bit as it is).

And like I said, I get mild oversteer mid corner (already settled in the turn), so the car is pretty much balanced how I need it. FWD is going to understeer on corner exit with throttle no matter what; if I added enough oversteer that it felt like it wasn't, the car would be on the verge of spinning like a top everywhere else. And probably scrubbing off more speed with the back end sliding to keep up with the front end breaking traction from throttle that it wouldn't be worth all that sliding just to keep the car rotating with your foot in it, when you could be keeping more traction on the rear while managing the understeer by gradually getting on the throttle and not having to deal with a car that is so tail-happy.

It probably has something to do with my lack of driving skill, but I'd much rather have a car that pushes a little than something that is ready to swap ends every time I lift.

Here are the Justin bars on my car. There are two for the rear subframe, one that ties in the long lower control arm mounting bolts, and another that ties together the subframe mounting bolts nearer the short arms. The bar clears everything (barely) without cutting anything and the other one bends around the gas tank. I also put a picture of the front bar. Probably can't see in the picture, but I had to flatten the bar a little to make clearance for my Pacesetter downpipe.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...P1010149-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...5/P1010151.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...5/P1010152.jpg

A lot of FWD racers will actually put a huge rear bar on the car, and run with no front bar at all. Big issue with that, from what I've read / heard is traction. You get too much swaybar up front, and when the car leans, your inside tire will lift. Then trying to accelerate out of the corner, you're just totally screwed as all the power goes to the wheels that spins the easiest.

Seems to me that it's really quite "preferred" by a lot of people to have the car's ass end be a bit happy. I imagine that it gives a more balanced feeling to the car, because usually you can control the rear end slide by steering and / or throttle. When you get into a nasty understeer situation, you're pretty much screwed. All you can do is let off throttle, or straighten out the wheel. No counter-steering and trying to carry that understeer perfectly through the corner. Could just be that it's more fun too...

Yeah but if you spin out on corner entry or a transition you're a lot more screwed than if you understeer a little on corner exit. And I've yet to see a FWD car lift it's inside front wheel. Spin it because of an open diff, yes, but not lift it. I've heard of it happening when the shocks have been shortened too much so the suspension doesn't have enough droop to keep the wheel on the ground.

And another thing, I think the super-stiff rear springs on civics and integras has a lot to do with them wanting to limit the suspension movement as much as possible because the geometry sucks and they get crazy toe changes if the suspension is allowed to move too much. I'd like to think our rear suspension is a lot better design, but I've yet too actually plot out the bumpsteer. Maybe next time I take the springs out.

Don't get me wrong, my car oversteers in a steady state corner, I'm just saying I wouldn't want it to oversteer any more than it does now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strugglebucket

Yeah but if you spin out on corner entry or a transition you're a lot more screwed than if you understeer a little on corner exit. And I've yet to see a FWD car lift it's inside front wheel. Spin it because of an open diff, yes, but not lift it. I've heard of it happening when the shocks have been shortened too much so the suspension doesn't have enough droop to keep the wheel on the ground.

And another thing, I think the super-stiff rear springs on civics and integras has a lot to do with them wanting to limit the suspension movement as much as possible because the geometry sucks and they get crazy toe changes if the suspension is allowed to move too much. I'd like to think our rear suspension is a lot better design, but I've yet too actually plot out the bumpsteer. Maybe next time I take the springs out.

Don't get me wrong, my car oversteers in a steady state corner, I'm just saying I wouldn't want it to oversteer any more than it does now.

---

you are forgetting these cars have a double wishbone on all four corners, and handle a lot better then even some new cars. there's a reason Honda adapted this design and used it on most of the other models even to this day they still use a modified version of it. most people who have front wheel drive cars and want to get rid of understeer have to do a lot more work then we do. you want nuetral and a little bit of oversteer. the reason almost all cars are understeer is the average clueless person, would spin them right out. The hatchbacks like to wag the tail with an overhauled suspension as it is, I've taken the hatch out on the taxiway and i can get the back to come around without too much trouble.

my fit doesn't have rear independent trailing arms and it doesn't handle near as good as a 3g, i wish they wouldn't mess with good things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

The oversteer going into and mid/apex of
JFern hit the nail on the head with his post, and I completely agree with his opinion on this Megan mod (if it requires cutting of the uni).

---

Thanks :D

Quote:

---

A lot of FWD racers will actually put a huge rear bar on the car, and run with no front bar at all. Big issue with that, from what I've read / heard is traction. You get too much swaybar up front, and when the car leans, your inside tire will lift. Then trying to accelerate out of the corner, you're just totally screwed as all the power goes to the wheels that spins the easiest.

---

A lot of RWD racers do the opposite, it has to do with the drive wheels through a turn and how the power is transferred, since LSD's are not TRUE 50/50 power side to side (like say a 4X4 locking diff) the wheel with the least resistance does have a tendency to spin more than the other (not as much as an open diff, but same idea) The reason you take out the bar out is because a sway bar WANTS to stay flat, even through a turn. So when you turn hard and the wheel has power going to it, the sway bar wants to lift the inside tire to stay flat (it can't push down the ground duh!), and the wheel breaks traction, so you take out the bar to reduce this.
oh and strugglebucket, the tire doesn't physically lift enough for you to see it (its not like a dr dre video with is 64 impala), but its enough to break traction and cause a shimmy or worse

I would not remove the front sway bar unless you've got some seriously stiff springs that can provide enough roll resistance of their own. Otherwise you'll have so much body roll that all the suspension movement will be used up and you'll be riding the bumpstop and getting positive camber on the outside tire.

Positive camber on the outside tire? I think you're thinking of the way a MacPherson setup works. The whole point of that upper arm, is to prevent positive camber from happening when the strut is compressed past a certain point. It essentially is shorter than the lower arm, always pulling in the top of the steering knuckle as it compresses.

MacPherson struts will do what you describe though, as the control arm passes it's horizontal axis, it begins to pull back in towards the car. Even on the 2g with it's Mac strut, it won't ever see positive camber on compression due to the angle that the strut is mounted on the car. It will gain positive camber, as in once the control arm hits 90 degress with the strut it will start to lose negative camber. But it would have to compress way more than possible to ever run in a positive state under compression. A double wishbone should never, ever gain camber under compression. At least I can't see how it would...

If you mean the inside tire running under positive camber, then I could possibly see that depending on the initial geometry. But if your weight is transferred that much, I doubt the angle of the inside tire is making as much difference. As, like you said, it's probably spinning away due to an open diff.

I've never seen one lift a tire off the ground either, but too stiff a swaybar up front definitely doesn't help that inside tire with traction any, especially accelerating out of a corner. I was using that more as an example, than a case of it actually lifting. A little easier to visualize. If you're lifting any tires, IMO, your swaybar is too big.

No, I mean the outside tire. If you load up the suspension beyond where it is fully compressed then you stop getting any camber gain.

I'm just saying that if you have grippy tires and not enough roll resistance, you can easily run out of suspension travel and start messing things up. So if you want to get more weight transfer on the rear of the car by way of decreasing the front roll resistance, you had better already have enough roll resistance on the front end that you can afford to reduce it.

Right, well it's just the tradeoffs of going too far one way and too far another. I guess the key is finding the right balance that makes you fast. :) I'd probably never remove my front bar either, but that's just what I've heard of people doing, and the logic sort of makes sense. Most of them probably do have some insane springs up front.

That's the thing. And then if you've got the really stiff front springs, you have to have them for the rear too, to balance the handling. And then driving on the street the back end is bouncing all over the place because there's no weight back there.

If I ever get around to getting some coilovers, it's going to be really tough to decide what spring rates to get. I need to ride in someones 3g with really stiff springs and see just how bad it is on the street.

see all the fun I miss when I'm away from the computer for the weekend....

Oddly enough, I just spent about 1.5 hrs on the phone with a friend of mine that's a crazy racer. He's been racing things like EVO's and his current 350Z, but is working with a good friend of his to tweak a CRX. We spent all that time working on this very same issue.

He's currently running a 450/350 lb rating (front/back) and is getting (an I paraphrase his claim) "great bite on turn-in, and pretty much flat at apex, but on exit when I'm heavy on the right foot, it just plows and gets crazy understeer."

Anyway, he wants to spend as little as possible and keep using as much as he can that's currently on there. He's also got a decent sized rear anti-sway bar and upper strut bar. Up front pretty much the same thing. After so much time, we got out of him that it's not so much a matter of bouncing or even riding his bumpstops through the turn, but more-so that he's getting too much 'push' from his ass end and not enough traction to his front wheels.

This "push" is not happening so much because of his front end being too stiff, but more-so because his ass is still too soft (compared to the front) and it's getting too much traction.

Just as a test, we're going to have him disconnect the endlinks on the front bar and run it like that. Just to see if he's got any chance of keeping the 350 lb springs out back. Honestly, we're both at the point that we're telling him he needs to bump up the rear springs to more like 650-750 lbs and he'll be able to keep everything else as is (for now).

What it comes down to is that if you're starting to rotate the ass end around (not just break the ass end loose) on turn entry, you're going into it too fast. ...and possibly the same speed as you would enter the turn with an 'understeer' setup. The real difference is once you reach the apex, instead of playing the waltz on your throttle because you're trying to get your front end to bite enough to get the front tires to do what they're supposed to do, if the front is soft enough to keep good bite on both drive wheels, once you stomp the throttle on exit, you can just keep slamming it as hard as you want to and you'll stick the turn. If the ass starts to come around once you've started your turn-out, that means you hit an early apex.

When I took my first skip barber course, my instructor said the single most common problem of all racers starting out (I'm in that boat, and was definitely guilty of this) is too early of an apex. This took the top spot above "too fast on turn entry". (Cool Runnings: "Slow in, fast out.") He did say that too fast of an entry usually has a root cause of too early of an apex because the driver is planning on getting to (and thinking: also getting through) the turn. The problem is that too soon of a turn-in/apex and too fast of an entry usually means feathering the throttle and/or a quick tap of the brake or clutch-touch, and hence a significantly slower exit speed.

Anyway, I'm kinda thinking we've strayed pretty bad from the original topic of this thread, so I *might* brake this thread apart and leave the "Suspension Theory" to another thread. Anyone else have a take on this?

Struggle --> Props to you for posting up those pics. That's the first time I've seen pics of all three bars from what I can remember.

i say take all the useful posts and losts initial thought of welding the shit and make a new thread lol... or just rename it and put a disclaimer that says good info starts a few posts down haha.

ya i noticed we strayed pretty badly (and didn't answer the question as to why he dc bar doesn't fit) I would not be opposed to breaking it up

tell me what you want it changed to and Ill change it. you answered my question great. It seems to be unanimous that its beter to reinforce the stock situation than add a modifier. Plus I would hate to start cutting into my car. i dont mind changing it. Just let me know. theirs no reason to add more threads just to clutter up the board. Thanks for the help guys and great info in here

it would be great to change the title and remove the clutter posts and make it a sticky for informational purposes.

alright, it's unanimous... It'll be changed and as stat1k suggested, I'll clean out the poo-poo posts. No sticky yet as this is just theory and not proven application on our specific cars... ...but as soon as we get some of these theories tested and proven, I'll toss a sticky on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

see all the fun I miss when I'm away from the computer for the weekend....

Oddly enough, I just spent about 1.5 hrs on the phone with a friend of mine that's a crazy racer. He's been racing things like EVO's and his current 350Z, but is working with a good friend of his to tweak a CRX. We spent all that time working on this very same issue.

He's currently running a 450/350 lb rating (front/back) and is getting (an I paraphrase his claim) "great bite on turn-in, and pretty much flat at apex, but on exit when I'm heavy on the right foot, it just plows and gets crazy understeer."

Anyway, he wants to spend as little as possible and keep using as much as he can that's currently on there. He's also got a decent sized rear anti-sway bar and upper strut bar. Up front pretty much the same thing. After so much time, we got out of him that it's not so much a matter of bouncing or even riding his bumpstops through the turn, but more-so that he's getting too much 'push' from his ass end and not enough traction to his front wheels.


This "push" is not happening so much because of his front end being too stiff, but more-so because his ass is still too soft (compared to the front) and it's getting too much traction.

Just as a test, we're going to have him disconnect the endlinks on the front bar and run it like that. Just to see if he's got any chance of keeping the 350 lb springs out back. Honestly, we're both at the point that we're telling him he needs to bump up the rear springs to more like 650-750 lbs and he'll be able to keep everything else as is (for now).

---

I think with the lighter weight of the CRX, 450lb springs in the front should be plenty stiff enough to allow removal the front sway bar without any issues of running out of suspension travel (assuming it's not super-slammed). What kind of temps is he getting across the tires? And what kind of alignment? I would be checking that first. Another cheap way of getting more weight transfer to the rear would be to raise the rear ride height.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markmdz89hatch

What it comes down to is that if you're starting to rotate the ass end around (not just break the ass end loose) on turn entry, you're going into it too fast. ...and possibly the same speed as you would enter the turn with an 'understeer' setup. The real difference is once you reach the apex, instead of playing the waltz on your throttle because you're trying to get your front end to bite enough to get the front tires to do what they're supposed to do, if the front is soft enough to keep good bite on both drive wheels, once you stomp the throttle on exit, you can just keep slamming it as hard as you want to and you'll stick the turn. If the ass starts to come around once you've started your turn-out, that means you hit an early apex.

When I took my first skip barber course, my instructor said the single most common problem of all racers starting out (I'm in that boat, and was definitely guilty of this) is too early of an apex. This took the top spot above "too fast on turn entry". (Cool Runnings: "Slow in, fast out.") He did say that too fast of an entry usually has a root cause of too early of an apex because the driver is planning on getting to (and thinking: also getting through) the turn. The problem is that too soon of a turn-in/apex and too fast of an entry usually means feathering the throttle and/or a quick tap of the brake or clutch-touch, and hence a significantly slower exit speed.

---

I should add that I'm speaking from an autocross perspective, because I'm a poor bastard and that's the only type of motorsports I can afford. On an autocross course, I would say 90% of the time the fastest way around is NOT one that optimizes exit speed. Most of the course is corners linked together, and usually this means hugging the inside to cover the shortest distance and keeping your speed up as much as possible. "In slow, out fast" is kind of the exception to the rule and part of the challenge seems to be finding the few places where it is advantageous to "give it up" because you actually have space to use the exit speed. Not that you drive "In fast, out slow" (or backwards:lol:), more like "in medium, out medium, give or take according to what's coming next".

.a also on the front if you have the lude control arms, you can box the control arm with plate steel and make it a lot stronger too.[/QUOTE]

PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE BETTER IM SO CONFUSED AND I CAN PICTURE IT AT ALL IN MY HEAD:eek5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b20a86lude

.a also on the front if you have the lude control arms, you can box the control arm with plate steel and make it a lot stronger too.

---

PLEASE EXPLAIN MORE BETTER IM SO CONFUSED AND I CAN PICTURE IT AT ALL IN MY HEAD:eek5:[/QUOTE]

Give me a few mins and I'll make up a very quick MS Paint drawing...