EG - Subframe brace / Swaybar F + R selection & Questions - ASR, suspension technique

[Sexc86]

Hey guys

Due to haveing a base model GLI EG. unfortunately i was not given the Rear swaybar option. I have been looking around for F + R sway bars & Rear subframe braces. However got a few questions for the more experienced people before i buy.

I will be going the ASR Rear subframe brace. Im tossing up between the New release 24mm ASR SOLID Rear sway bar or the 32mm Hollow Rear sway bar.
My Car isnt a daily drivin car so dont factor in daily driving. I have a 3inch exhaust and would either of these sway bars have trouble clearing (generally). ALso between the 24/32.. What would be the pros and cons... would i loose anything in driveability when it comes to the 32mm? or would it just simply tie up the rear end a bit tighter then the 24mm?

Few Questions about chooseing a Front Sway bar. My Eg comes standard with a Front sway bar although does not look very large. id say around 15mm (eye estimate). Can anyone suggest any manufactures that supply a Front sway bar? I have been looking at "Suspensions Technique".. been recommend by a few people in the usa.. apparently quite popular over there. They make a 18mm and a 25mm Front sway.

Is there any "rule of thumb" when choose Front + Rear sway bars and how the specifically have to work together?

Thanks in advance

Regards Lyle

[Sexc86]

No love? Bump it up!

[string]

The best rule of thumb you'll get is to take an active part in understanding and observing what and how your suspension does what it does. You should only modify a suspension part (or anything really) if you have a goal in mind.

Why do you want to upgrade your swaybars?.
Decreased body roll is not a valid answer.

Swaybars are used to change the front:rear roll resistance ratio. A higher roll resistance at the rear will encourage weight transfer from the outside rear to the front. Get the 24mm rear and leave your front stock. Increasing the front swaybar thickness increases the rate at which weight transfers OFF the inside front during transitions, which is NOT a good thing for a ploughing FWD. After you have done this you can now reassess the handling. If your chassis has too much oversteer for you (not likely) then you can increase the front swaybar. If it's still too understeery then it might be time for some real springs.

I would say learn your car how it is now, but it's obviously very very slow. Get a bigger rear swaybar, then learn exactly where the weight on each tyre goes when you corner, and WHY. Write down what happens during every cornering phase, then next to it write down what you WANT to happen. Then go to town figuring out what parts to buy :)

Summary:
You have the right answer but don't seem to know the right question. Figure out what your handling goals are before you do anything.
Get a bigger rear swaybar - stock civic handling is appalling.
Make sure ALL your bushings are in good condition. Polyurethane is fine in many positions and cheap.
Get GOOD SHOCKS!
Learn to drive it.

Regarding your exhaust - I managed to fit a 3" exhaust around my large rear swaybar (with little effort) but if you had yours fabricated with no swaybar in place, I'd put money on the fact that it won't clear when there is one.

You won't really notice swaybars in straight line daily driving duties. I guess that is one of the benefits.

[55EXX]

ASR brace is a must no other questions asked.

your exhaust will most likely not clear as the bar is perfecty in the way of the clearest line for the pipe to take and easiest to fabricate.

the sway will make your ride more rough as but not as much as higher spring rates. seeing as it not your daily this will be a mod that rebirths your cars handling and won't leave you disappointed!

k with sways man it is personal preference as to the diameter and the amount of roll resistance desired at both end as to control under/oversteer balance.

the 24mm solid rear tied with a ~22-24mm ctr dc2 whiteline etc front will give you a ~neutral balance which jap tuners normally desire. in america tho alot tuners ramp up the rear roll resistance for more power to the ground out of corners and enjoy a more tail happy ride. this is what the 32mm bar will provide. i am currently debating these 2 exact bars at the moment and will be going the ASR V2 24mm adjustable solid bar to match my eg5 stock 22mm front and provide me with a slightly more tail happy ride than stock and close to neutral. the 32mm rear is very adjustable and could maybe be set on the lowest level and still prove a ride similar to 24mm solid but to me the extra US$180 is not worth it... or i might just save more... thats what i'm debating really to save of not to save.

if you have the $$$ go the 32mm bar for pure porno bling factor and fact it will never have to be upgraded. it is the asr flagship bar. it has 7 steps in resistance and is a pure race bar. the 24mm whiteline front bar is $220 and would be a easy bolt in match to bring down the oversteer if required.

[55EXX]

Why do you want to upgrade your swaybars?.
Decreased body roll is not a valid answer.


Decreased body roll IS a valid answer. that is the bars job! i don't wanna blow this into a full blown debate about spring rate vs swaybars for decreasing bodyroll but the point is body roll is your cars handling enemy. we've all done it. drove a big car with lots of body roll and the roll kills handling. now if you were to upgrade the sways and sways only the cars handling would be 100 times better.

i agree in the taking an active part in learning what affects what and why but this is what lyle is doing. his car is not slow. big spoon brake up grade sticky semi slicks turbo d teins. he has a goal in mind. a faster car so instead of lecturing him give him some tips or some links to credible info.

i ask you lyle what do you want out of you cars handling? so we can tell you how to go about it.

and here are some article worth reading
hollow vs solid (http://www.whiteline.com.au/docs/bulletins/Hollow%20vs%20Solid%20Swaybar.pdf)
sway adjustment (http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/NASIOC_post_assymetric_adj.pdf)
basic info good little read (http://www.whiteline.com.au/docs/articles/AS_susp_01_0202.pdf)
talks little bout balance (http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/ZM_92_Swaybars_1.htm)

after reading those you should have a good bit knowledge bout sways and how it work with the rest of it. better rep me man ;-)

[string]

Decreased body roll IS a valid answer. that is the bars job! i don't wanna blow this into a full blown debate about spring rate vs swaybars for decreasing bodyroll but the point is body roll is your cars handling enemy. we've all done it. drove a big car with lots of body roll and the roll kills handling. now if you were to upgrade the sways and sways only the cars handling would be 100 times better.

Good handling (on a basic level) comes from an appropriate front:rear stiffness balance and alignment settings. Reducing body roll on a whole will slightly decrease lateral load transfer - sounds great, until you realise that you still have a factory FWD which will understeer at the smell of a turn.

Those big cars with boat like handling just simply have boat like handling. You could up the spring rates by 10x and it'd still have horrible handling. If you don't want factory balance, you don't want factory front:rear spring rates.

[Sexc86]

String.

My suspension setup atm is

Tein Flex, F+R camber kits... Omni power Front LCAs. (soon to be) function 7 rear lcas, Carbing 3 point strut, carbing under tie bars. Asr Subframe brace.

generally with something like this. Would 25mm front and 24mm Rear give a all round nuteral feel? or tighten up the rear alot more? or both. I do rather oversteer then under steer.

[55EXX]

it would give overall neutral feel but the 24mm asr is blade adjustable so you could fine tune it to a small amount.

bodyroll is a killer to suspension geometry and tyre contact patch.

[nd55]

> Omni power Front LCAs

have a good look before you grab these.

These are aimed at the two piece Civic front LCA's.

Only one piece is forged alum. You re-use the rear half of the two piece LCA.

Mr Honda also made a one piece (at least on EK's) front LCA, which is lighter than the two piece job.

A trip to the wreckers might be all you need.

RE: ASR 24 & 32mm.

Sexc86, I think these might be overkill for anything but a track queen.

Go talk to Whiteline, they did run civics around old Wakefield to test their stuff and came up with 26mm f, 22mm rear. They do adjustable sways, a subframe brace, strut bars, camber kits and Group N suspension package too for many cars as well as Civics.

Local people with a good reputation.

They had issues with SOME subframe braces, but have responded with a new design and have been here on this forum.

Alternatively, Koni's and Ground controls with 400lb/in springs and 350lb/in springs.

You can either run them 350f & 400r for good launches and instant response.

Or 400f & 350r for an high speed road racing setup.

If you find those too hard, you then can order just two 250lb/in springs for a 350f/250r setup.

Too soft? just buy two 450lb/in springs and a kidney belt.

Swaybars are a good compromise on the street, but at the limit will transfer more weight to the outside of the car than an equivalently stiff spring only setup.

Nick.

[bennjamin]

Sex86 , just stick with what works and other people use.

Get a ASR brace , and a rear ITR swaybar 22/23mm to suit. Your front swaybar is more than adequate .

[EKVTIR-T]

Is this for the car in your avatar with the 19inch wheels?
What spring/shock setup is fitted?

[civic65]

As nd55 says "buy local" Superior Suspension in Minto Sydney make all the bars for Whiteline and Selbys on site, so they can advise on what size bar you might need. If you want to save some money a front bar off a 94 VTI-R Integra is heaps bigger than standard Civic bar and fits perfectly.

[Limbo]

i'm running the 22mm solid whiteline(adjustible 18mm-22mm set to 22mm) with ASR and LCA(Sage racing), with 5zigen shocks.
Its been prefect. WHy bother with the hollow when you've got that much power ATW. The solid would have less chance of flexing or bending also.

I've found that my car is still very neutral on turns. With the OEM LCA i found the car oversteered more.

Mine's an ek4 btw. i rem watching some of the BMI that the eg/dc chassis is more unsteer orientated, thus you should increase the rear stiffness to neutralise the steering or some people prefer oversteer, your choice.

P.S clearance is fine on mine but i'm running a 2 1/2"

[Sexc86]

Is this for the car in your avatar with the 19inch wheels?
What spring/shock setup is fitted?

Hey dude. I have 2 sets of rims. 20x7.5 and 15x6.5 (show & street). And my suspension i have stated just above a few posts ago.

:)

[JohnL]

Swaybars are used to change the front:rear roll resistance ratio.

Yes. Springs are of course also used for this purpose, and damper rates can be fiddled to adjust transient roll stiffness ratios (front to rear).


A higher roll resistance at the rear will encourage weight transfer from the outside rear to the front.

No, on two counts.

1) The only thing that will cause weight to transfer from the rear to the front is a forward acceleration, i.e. a 'G force' as you will see when braking, or with any reduction in speed. A lateral weight transfer is always the result of a lateral acceleration, if there is also some degree of either forward or rearward weight transfer then there must be some degree of forward or rearward acceleration.

2) Assuming zero change in lateral acceleration, a higher rear roll stiffness (from a higher rear geometric roll centre, a higher rear spring rate, or a stiffer rear ARB) will increase weight transfer from the IR to the OR, and simultaneously decrease weight transfer from the IF to the OF. The same affect will be had by reducing front roll stiffness. Thus is the front / rear roll stiffness balance (i.e. the 'roll couple') adjusted to 'tune' under / over steer.


Increasing the front swaybar thickness increases the rate at which weight transfers OFF the inside front during transitions, which is NOT a good thing for a ploughing FWD.

Yes. Not only the rate at which weight transfers away from the IF, but also the absolute degree to which it transfers away, thus decreasing front grip (effectively less 'rubber on the road' up front due to less equal loading of the two front contact patches). Increasing front roll stiffness will simultaneously decrease rear weight transfer (from IR to OR) by an equal but opposite amount to which front weight transfer was increased, which means more rear grip / less front grip = understeer...


Good handling (on a basic level) comes from an appropriate front:rear stiffness balance and alignment settings.

More or less. I tend to agree with you that reducing body roll in and of itself is not a 'goal' to be aimed at for it's own sake, but in excess it is detrimental to grip levels due to roll camber changes and the affect that excessive roll can have on handling responsiveness (i.e. more roll motion tends to mean less responsive handling).

However, some degree of roll is desirable because it's associated with a 'retardation' in the speed of weight transfer and thus tends to provide some degree of 'communication' from the chassis, giving the driver some warning of impending grip loss. With zero roll motion the weight transfers can be more or less instantaneous and the chassis will tend to lose grip with zero / minimal warning to the driver, i.e. the car can become undriveable on the limit.

Reduction of roll just for the sake of it isn't necessarily a good idea, but it does more or less depend on where you start (i.e. with a lot or a little roll).


Reducing body roll on a whole will slightly decrease lateral load transfer -

Reducing roll won't decrease weight transfer unless the lateral acceleration decreases. Roll is not a producer of weight transfer, roll is a product of weight transfer. However, weight transfer is not dependant upon roll motion to occur. In fact the less roll motion there is the more rapidly a given weight transfer will occur, i.e. roll motion retards the speed at which weight transfer occurs, and it's this that tends to cause a reduction in handling responsiveness with reduced roll stiffness.

Having said this, there is a very marginal way in which roll motion can cause some tiny amount of weight transfer, and that is by the roll motion causing the CG to move laterally as the body rolls around the roll axis, thus causing a very slight lateral movement of the CG. But, this affect is extremely slight with anything that has less roll and lower CG than a Kombi van.


Those big cars with boat like handling just simply have boat like handling. You could up the spring rates by 10x and it'd still have horrible handling. If you don't want factory balance, you don't want factory front:rear spring rates.

Not really sure I agree...

[Muzz]

Why do you want to upgrade your swaybars?.
Decreased body roll is not a valid answer.


Hey man, dont suppose youd care to explain your reasoning?

Ive seen many instances where the swaybars are increased in size proportionally f/r, for the sole purpose of adding more roll resistance, while leaving the front-rear grip at equal ratios.

A good example of this is when a race car requires more roll resistance, so not to exeed the desired roll angle, but spring rates cant be increased due to rough track surfaces.

Swaybars adjust the front and rear grip ratios, just like springs, this isnt the sole purpose or we would adjust the front-rear grip with spring rates!

The main thing there used for is upping the roll resistance, to get the desired angle of roll, without having to up the spring rates to the point where they have poor bump compliance.

If you can get your desired roll angle with springs allone, and tune your desired front-rear grip ratio with the springs (unless you run into probs with bump compliance, which is when you use swaybars), then you do, cus unfortunatly swaybars take away some of the independance of independant suspension. Unless you need em, dont have em!

You use swaybars when you cant get your desired roll stiffness with springs alone.
Adding a swaybar to adjust the front-rear grip alone would be silly, if it can be done with different springs, without negativly effecting bump compliance.

Personally id tell anyone who added a swaybar for the SOLE purpose of adjusting front-rear grip, when there already happy with there roll angles to take it out and play around with there spring rates to get there fr/r ballance right. cus theres no extra roll resistance required, and adding a swaybar is gunna detract from the independant suspension system.

[string]

Decreased roll is not the answer because it doesn't address any issues. If a driver came back to me after a few laps in my car and told me that one problem was "too much body roll", I'd get a new driver. If he instead reported more helpful information then I'd instead start replacing parts - see what I'm getting at?

I don't know where you pulled your swaybar vs spring spiel from but I do agree with you in part. At the end of the day we'd all do without the weight of a swaybar and mounting, but you'd want to be sure as hell about the setup, because you're going to have a hell of a harder time tuning those springs than turning a little endlink :) With the price of track hire these days, I'll keep my swaybars so that at the track I CAN tune balance, even if ever so finely. **** changing a spring back in the shed, I drive an Integra not a race-car designed to be disassembled in 5 minutes.

Off topic are you going to the SAE finals this year? You're in town you've got no excuse! Not sure what year your in but if you're doing mech then you really have no excuse!


Ive seen many instances where the swaybars are increased in size proportionally f/r, for the sole purpose of adding more roll resistance, while leaving the front-rear grip at equal ratios.
Your confusing an intelligent race engineer/enthusiast with a weekend warrior. If you don't have specific goals you fail regardless. If the subject in question has concluded that reducing final chassis angle whilst retaining f:r roll resistance will indeed increase mechanical grip somehow then great, do it! But 9/10 the owner will come back and tell you exactly how much roll was reduced, and exactly how much it didn't increase "handling" as much as they thought it would - not because it doesn't, won't or can't; but because they were uninformed and didn't have precise goals in mind, which is exactly what chassis tuning requires.

[Muzz]

Great discussion, enjoying it throughly!

Your right that increasing roll restance, willy nilly is gunna do didly squat in reguards to increasing grip.

However, when working out the optimal alignment settings (or suspension geometry), having the right amount of bodyroll is important as im sure youll agree. This is what im talking about.

Its maintaining good alignment settings that increase the grip, not the fact the car is rolling less.

To much bodyroll usually means that at one point or another in the whole range of breaking/turning/accelerating, theres gunna be points where the excessive bodyroll (or should i say excessive range of suspension movement) is causing poor wheel alignment with the ground, this of course depends on the suspension geometry, ride height etc etc..

With our hondas, we reduce bodyroll for that reason. We increase the suspensions roll resistance so that the suspension isnt working in such a wide range. If it was, it would be harder for us to achieve good wheel alignment with the ground, for as much of the time.

But yeah i see what your saying now.
"I want to reduce bodyroll so the car rolls less" is not really a good answer.
"I want to reduce bodyroll to limit the range of supension movement" is a better answer.

On a side note, i got kicked out of uni for doing somthing naughty, not somthing i wish to talk about on here, very devistating :(