| Zuffy | 07-12-2005 12:05 AM |
Can the FSB be too big for stock class auto-x?
�
�
Looking for opinions/feedback from people that have run only a stiff FSB (24mm and up) for stock class auto-x, preferably DS. I have a 2004 WRX for DS and since the RSB is 17mm, is it possible to go too big on the front? I understand the reduction in bodyroll = more front grip by keep the front tire flatter to the road, is a great thing, but this is most apparent under corner entry. I'm thinking that under power maybe too big is a problem with unloading the inside front under acceleration? This problem with accelerating under power and cornering is made worse that the 03-04's had 17mm RSB, so I think the inside front can be more easily unloaded. Suspension gurus, people with only FSB setups and SCCA champs, whadda think?
| timmyb21 | 07-12-2005 01:03 AM |
This is one that I would like to know as well, so I'm bumping it to the top. Anyone?
| trhoppe | 07-12-2005 09:25 AM |
I ran OTS Konis and lots of toe out with a 24mm bar. I found that to be close to the limit of my shock valving. If I could have stiffened up the rear shocks even more, the 26mm or bigger front bar could have helped.
This was on an 02 with a 20mm rear bar.
-Tom
This was on an 02 with a 20mm rear bar.
-Tom
| Zuffy | 07-13-2005 12:36 AM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]I ran OTS Konis and lots of toe out with a 24mm bar. I found that to be close to the limit of my shock valving. If I could have stiffened up the rear shocks even more, the 26mm or bigger front bar could have helped.
This was on an 02 with a 20mm rear bar.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Thanks so much Tom! Hummmmm, that's what I sorta figured that the 24mm is probably the limit before there's dimishing returns, especially with the 17mm RSB.
I have a 22mm RSB right now which is legal for Canadian DS rules, which makes the car feel pretty good in transitions, but I'm sure the ultimate grip is probably less then with a stiffer FSB. I think even my 710's on the front are being pushed beyond their effective stick since the camber on the outside front less than optimal.
This was on an 02 with a 20mm rear bar.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Thanks so much Tom! Hummmmm, that's what I sorta figured that the 24mm is probably the limit before there's dimishing returns, especially with the 17mm RSB.
I have a 22mm RSB right now which is legal for Canadian DS rules, which makes the car feel pretty good in transitions, but I'm sure the ultimate grip is probably less then with a stiffer FSB. I think even my 710's on the front are being pushed beyond their effective stick since the camber on the outside front less than optimal.
| trhoppe | 07-13-2005 01:30 AM |
Toe out. Lots of it. Try it for a run or two. Adjust the eccentric bolts in the rear to max toe out, should be almost 3/4" of toe. If the car is loose, then you can still add more bar :)
-Tom
-Tom
| Zuffy | 07-13-2005 10:19 AM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]If the car is loose, then you can still add more bar :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Hummmmmm, good point! :banana: :banana: :banana:
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Hummmmmm, good point! :banana: :banana: :banana:
| orthikon | 07-16-2005 04:13 PM |
[QUOTE] I ran OTS Konis and lots of toe out with a 24mm bar. I found that to be [B]close to the limit of my shock valving[/B]. If I could have stiffened up the rear shocks even more, the 26mm or bigger front bar could have helped. [/QUOTE]
Tom,
Can you elaborate more on that? Right now I'm on 22f/20r with -2.3 front camber but on stock struts/springs. My plan is to upgrade the front to that size, probably bigger (32mm Addco bar comes to mind :devil: ). Now I'm not at the same level as you are but would just like to know more info about that.
Zuffy,
[QUOTE]Thanks so much Tom! Hummmmm, that's what I sorta figured that the 24mm is probably the limit before there's [B]dimishing returns[/B], especially with the 17mm RSB.[/QUOTE]
Is the diminishing returns you mention the same thing as what Tom mention's or something else?
TIA all
Tom,
Can you elaborate more on that? Right now I'm on 22f/20r with -2.3 front camber but on stock struts/springs. My plan is to upgrade the front to that size, probably bigger (32mm Addco bar comes to mind :devil: ). Now I'm not at the same level as you are but would just like to know more info about that.
Zuffy,
[QUOTE]Thanks so much Tom! Hummmmm, that's what I sorta figured that the 24mm is probably the limit before there's [B]dimishing returns[/B], especially with the 17mm RSB.[/QUOTE]
Is the diminishing returns you mention the same thing as what Tom mention's or something else?
TIA all
| Impreza01 | 04-18-2006 07:06 AM |
[QUOTE=orthikon]Tom,
Can you elaborate more on that?[/QUOTE]
I would like to know as well. I was not aware that dampers had to dampen out springs AND the swaybars.
Can you elaborate more on that?[/QUOTE]
I would like to know as well. I was not aware that dampers had to dampen out springs AND the swaybars.
| stretchsje | 04-18-2006 07:48 AM |
[QUOTE=Impreza01]I would like to know as well. I was not aware that dampers had to dampen out springs AND the swaybars.[/QUOTE]
Of course they do. :)
Anti-sway bars have a spring rate just like coil springs. It's the sum of the two spring rates (ignoring the motion ratio) that becomes your effective [i]wheel rate[/i]. The only difference is that the anti-sway bar is used only when the right and left shocks are compressing different amounts (such as when cornering). Thus, your spring rate becomes somewhat dynamic based on what the car is doing. This is why, I believe, it is typically easier to drive a car with small sways and firm coil springs- the spring rate is more consistent. Of course, that sends ride quality to hell.
Of course they do. :)
Anti-sway bars have a spring rate just like coil springs. It's the sum of the two spring rates (ignoring the motion ratio) that becomes your effective [i]wheel rate[/i]. The only difference is that the anti-sway bar is used only when the right and left shocks are compressing different amounts (such as when cornering). Thus, your spring rate becomes somewhat dynamic based on what the car is doing. This is why, I believe, it is typically easier to drive a car with small sways and firm coil springs- the spring rate is more consistent. Of course, that sends ride quality to hell.
| solo-x | 04-18-2006 08:00 AM |
[QUOTE=stretchsje]Of course they do. :)
Anti-sway bars have a spring rate just like coil springs. It's the sum of the two spring rates (ignoring the motion ratio) that becomes your effective [i]wheel rate[/i]. The only difference is that the anti-sway bar is used only when the right and left shocks are compressing different amounts (such as when cornering). Thus, your spring rate becomes somewhat dynamic based on what the car is doing. This is why, I believe, it is typically easier to drive a car with small sways and firm coil springs- the spring rate is more consistent. Of course, that sends ride quality to hell.[/QUOTE]
you're talking about warp stiffness here and you are incorrect. [url=http://roadrace-autox.com/bbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=70&start=1]read this thread[/url], particularly near the end. rr98itr has a good explanation on why warp stiffness doesn't care about bar, spring or even shock.
in stock class autocross you use the shock as a psuedo spring. make it stiff enough and while there is still a roll velocity it can artificially boost the spring rate. it is what you would use to balance out a mammoth front swaybar in an attempt to rebalance the car.
is there a point of diminishing or negative returns on bar size in DS? only one way to find out. Strap a logger into the car and burn up some tires testing.
Anti-sway bars have a spring rate just like coil springs. It's the sum of the two spring rates (ignoring the motion ratio) that becomes your effective [i]wheel rate[/i]. The only difference is that the anti-sway bar is used only when the right and left shocks are compressing different amounts (such as when cornering). Thus, your spring rate becomes somewhat dynamic based on what the car is doing. This is why, I believe, it is typically easier to drive a car with small sways and firm coil springs- the spring rate is more consistent. Of course, that sends ride quality to hell.[/QUOTE]
you're talking about warp stiffness here and you are incorrect. [url=http://roadrace-autox.com/bbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=70&start=1]read this thread[/url], particularly near the end. rr98itr has a good explanation on why warp stiffness doesn't care about bar, spring or even shock.
in stock class autocross you use the shock as a psuedo spring. make it stiff enough and while there is still a roll velocity it can artificially boost the spring rate. it is what you would use to balance out a mammoth front swaybar in an attempt to rebalance the car.
is there a point of diminishing or negative returns on bar size in DS? only one way to find out. Strap a logger into the car and burn up some tires testing.
| Impreza01 | 04-18-2006 05:08 PM |
[QUOTE=solo-x]in stock class autocross you use the shock as a psuedo spring. make it stiff enough and while there is still a roll velocity it can artificially boost the spring rate. it is what you would use to balance out a mammoth front swaybar in an attempt to rebalance the car.
[/QUOTE]
Then what tom mentioned earlier about the swaybar overwhelming the dampers is altogether possible? If this is true, how does one account for swaybars everytime he re-valves his struts or is adjusting settings?
[/QUOTE]
Then what tom mentioned earlier about the swaybar overwhelming the dampers is altogether possible? If this is true, how does one account for swaybars everytime he re-valves his struts or is adjusting settings?
| solo-x | 04-19-2006 07:58 AM |
[QUOTE=Impreza01]Then what tom mentioned earlier about the swaybar overwhelming the dampers is altogether possible? If this is true, how does one account for swaybars everytime he re-valves his struts or is adjusting settings?[/QUOTE]
the bar doesn't overwhelm the shock in the same sense a spring would. what typically happens is you run out of adjustment range before you've gotten enough "dynamic spring" to balance the car. for a stock class car, the valving is a strange compromise. accounting for a big front swaybar is just one part of the picture. there is a large amount of trial and error involved.
the bar doesn't overwhelm the shock in the same sense a spring would. what typically happens is you run out of adjustment range before you've gotten enough "dynamic spring" to balance the car. for a stock class car, the valving is a strange compromise. accounting for a big front swaybar is just one part of the picture. there is a large amount of trial and error involved.
| sstrano | 04-19-2006 11:55 AM |
Sway bars are not damped by shocks. They aren't damped at all. :)
And can you go too big? I don't think so. These cars have a TERRIBLE camber curve and a tend to also lift the inside rear tire off the ground. Both things that a big front bar helps tremendously. What's the result? Well, you use more of the front tread in corners when you don't roll the camber way positive from body roll, and you get much better traction from your AWD when a rear tire is dangling, spinning freely. MHO
And can you go too big? I don't think so. These cars have a TERRIBLE camber curve and a tend to also lift the inside rear tire off the ground. Both things that a big front bar helps tremendously. What's the result? Well, you use more of the front tread in corners when you don't roll the camber way positive from body roll, and you get much better traction from your AWD when a rear tire is dangling, spinning freely. MHO
| sstrano | 04-19-2006 11:59 AM |
And FWIW, the bar won't overwhelm the dampers. What can happen is a combination of a lot of bar and some serious low-speed damper force can overwhelm the TIRE. You want to load the tire in a smooth manner, and a lot of low-speed shock force and a big bar can dump a lot of load onto a tire in a hurry and cause it to skate.
Well, guess what..... shocks do not effect the amount of roll and can't help the camber curve or the rear tire dangling. And a bigger bar does help turn-in response. So run the bar, work the wheel rates and don't go off the deep end with shocks. Sadly, many do and they don't understand a lick about what they are doing.......
Well, guess what..... shocks do not effect the amount of roll and can't help the camber curve or the rear tire dangling. And a bigger bar does help turn-in response. So run the bar, work the wheel rates and don't go off the deep end with shocks. Sadly, many do and they don't understand a lick about what they are doing.......
| AtomicRacer | 04-19-2006 12:46 PM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]And FWIW, the bar won't overwhelm the dampers. What can happen is a combination of a lot of bar and some serious low-speed damper force can overwhelm the TIRE. You want to load the tire in a smooth manner, and a lot of low-speed shock force and a big bar can dump a lot of load onto a tire in a hurry and cause it to skate.
Well, guess what..... shocks do not effect the amount of roll and can't help the camber curve or the rear tire dangling. And a bigger bar does help turn-in response. So run the bar, work the wheel rates and don't go off the deep end with shocks. Sadly, many do and they don't understand a lick about what they are doing.......[/QUOTE]
You are referring to too much low speed bump right? I thought that was in relation to steady state rather than transition. Am I way off base here?
-Paul
ps: I am a suspension n00b (of course those of you who know this stuff will already have realized that)
Well, guess what..... shocks do not effect the amount of roll and can't help the camber curve or the rear tire dangling. And a bigger bar does help turn-in response. So run the bar, work the wheel rates and don't go off the deep end with shocks. Sadly, many do and they don't understand a lick about what they are doing.......[/QUOTE]
You are referring to too much low speed bump right? I thought that was in relation to steady state rather than transition. Am I way off base here?
-Paul
ps: I am a suspension n00b (of course those of you who know this stuff will already have realized that)
| sstrano | 04-19-2006 05:54 PM |
Can be too much low-speed bump *or* rebound *or* both *or* too much bar *or* a combination of both. Clear as mud, right? This is why so many folks screw up. ;)
First off, bump is primarily a control for unsprung weight, but folks completely don't understand it and use it wrong all the time, like it's spring rate....... Rebound is what really gets the transition rates up.
Rebound is to some extent way overused, mis-understood as well. It's a legacy from stock class cars that either can't use a lot of bar (Honda's for example) and/or a lack of understanding of bars. There was a movement to run some insanely stiff rebound to essentially hold the car down, making it act pretty much like a go-kart. That slows body roll and if you go REALLY extreme actually can limit it if you run soooooo much force that you just don't let the shock extend. Of course it sucks on any bumpy surface and is a very sudden car. Think go-kart again. But this thinking did not take into account the fact we need all the tire we can get on the ground. And shocks cannot effect camber curve.
BTW, Paul... have some info for you regarding rear springs. Haven't been able to call, been swamped. Try me again, I'll keep trying to free up some time to actually call you back. Sorry. :(
First off, bump is primarily a control for unsprung weight, but folks completely don't understand it and use it wrong all the time, like it's spring rate....... Rebound is what really gets the transition rates up.
Rebound is to some extent way overused, mis-understood as well. It's a legacy from stock class cars that either can't use a lot of bar (Honda's for example) and/or a lack of understanding of bars. There was a movement to run some insanely stiff rebound to essentially hold the car down, making it act pretty much like a go-kart. That slows body roll and if you go REALLY extreme actually can limit it if you run soooooo much force that you just don't let the shock extend. Of course it sucks on any bumpy surface and is a very sudden car. Think go-kart again. But this thinking did not take into account the fact we need all the tire we can get on the ground. And shocks cannot effect camber curve.
BTW, Paul... have some info for you regarding rear springs. Haven't been able to call, been swamped. Try me again, I'll keep trying to free up some time to actually call you back. Sorry. :(
| Impreza01 | 04-19-2006 06:44 PM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]Sway bars are not damped by shocks. They aren't damped at all. :)[/QUOTE]
See, I can actually agree with that statement more as an engineer (with focuses in areas of mechanics). To me, having a bar flex is not going to be dampened since it's not something that will make the car bounce up and down. The energy stored in the swaybar would be displaced into the chassis or to the opposing wheel, if I'm not wrong. This is the reason why I am so confused about the statements above and want some clarification.
See, I can actually agree with that statement more as an engineer (with focuses in areas of mechanics). To me, having a bar flex is not going to be dampened since it's not something that will make the car bounce up and down. The energy stored in the swaybar would be displaced into the chassis or to the opposing wheel, if I'm not wrong. This is the reason why I am so confused about the statements above and want some clarification.
| solo-x | 04-19-2006 08:20 PM |
the swaybar is attached to the suspension. the same suspension that the damper is attached to. the swaybar may not be damped directly, but it most definitely is damped. F1 is forever trying to isolate roll stiffness from ride stiffness and it's partly due to the different damping demands for each.
btw, chang's HS civic? big front bar. DS ITR's? big front bar.
btw, chang's HS civic? big front bar. DS ITR's? big front bar.
| leecea | 04-19-2006 10:29 PM |
I'm guessing this a play with words issue, hence the smiley. The shock certainly controls the up/down movement of the wheel/hub and so has an "interaction" with the swaybar.
| Impreza01 | 04-19-2006 10:38 PM |
This will be a deviation from the thread, but at what point does a fsb overcome the stock springs? I guess this is for a roadracing as auto-x does not have massive side-to-side elevation changes such as the corkscrew turn at Laguna Seca. If the bar is too stiff, the spring cannot fully extend to maintain contact with the road.
| solo-x | 04-19-2006 11:31 PM |
[QUOTE=leecea]I'm guessing this a play with words issue, hence the smiley. The shock certainly controls the up/down movement of the wheel/hub and so has an "interaction" with the swaybar.[/QUOTE]
:huh: i don't see how it could have been more clear. smiley or not. not a lot of room for mis-interpretation when you say "They (swaybars) aren't damped at all". :shrug:
any time you increase roll stiffness you increase the tendency for the car to want to "lift" a wheel while moving diagnolly across large elevation changes. nothing you can do about that.
:huh: i don't see how it could have been more clear. smiley or not. not a lot of room for mis-interpretation when you say "They (swaybars) aren't damped at all". :shrug:
any time you increase roll stiffness you increase the tendency for the car to want to "lift" a wheel while moving diagnolly across large elevation changes. nothing you can do about that.
| Impreza01 | 04-20-2006 01:15 AM |
[QUOTE=solo-x]any time you increase roll stiffness you increase the tendency for the car to want to "lift" a wheel while moving diagnolly across large elevation changes. nothing you can do about that.[/QUOTE]
I thought putting stiffer springs will prevent lifting though.
I thought putting stiffer springs will prevent lifting though.
| solo-x | 04-20-2006 07:49 AM |
[QUOTE=Impreza01]I thought putting stiffer springs will prevent lifting though.[/QUOTE]
nope. a stiffer spring changes load with smaller increments of displacement. for example, put 500lbs on a 500lb/in spring it it'll compress 1". put that same 500lbs of load on a 1000lb/in spring and it only compresses .5". in reverse, if that 1000lb/in spring is unloaded enough to make it extend 1" (lets say it has 2000lbs of load on it and you remove 1000lbs of that load) you would see a 2" extension of the 500lb/in spring and the same load change. that's why these guys that say less bar and more spring on the back of an STi are wrong. get the same rear roll stiffness from spring instead of bar and the car will still want to lift the inside rear. why? because those stiffer springs don't extend as far once they are unloaded.
nope. a stiffer spring changes load with smaller increments of displacement. for example, put 500lbs on a 500lb/in spring it it'll compress 1". put that same 500lbs of load on a 1000lb/in spring and it only compresses .5". in reverse, if that 1000lb/in spring is unloaded enough to make it extend 1" (lets say it has 2000lbs of load on it and you remove 1000lbs of that load) you would see a 2" extension of the 500lb/in spring and the same load change. that's why these guys that say less bar and more spring on the back of an STi are wrong. get the same rear roll stiffness from spring instead of bar and the car will still want to lift the inside rear. why? because those stiffer springs don't extend as far once they are unloaded.
| AtomicRacer | 04-20-2006 09:10 AM |
[QUOTE=solo-x]nope. a stiffer spring changes load with smaller increments of displacement. for example, put 500lbs on a 500lb/in spring it it'll compress 1". put that same 500lbs of load on a 1000lb/in spring and it only compresses .5". in reverse, if that 1000lb/in spring is unloaded enough to make it extend 1" (lets say it has 2000lbs of load on it and you remove 1000lbs of that load) you would see a 2" extension of the 500lb/in spring and the same load change. that's why these guys that say less bar and more spring on the back of an STi are wrong. get the same rear roll stiffness from spring instead of bar and the car will still want to lift the inside rear. why? because those stiffer springs don't extend as far once they are unloaded.[/QUOTE]
The limiting factor on droop isn't the spring, it is the shock or what ever runs out of extension room first (could be the sway bar). As for stiff springs in the rear, use a helper spring and the shock will extend fully AND still keep the spring retained so it doesn't flop around.
So guys who are running stiff rear springs and no sway bar are trying to maximize their droop and still maintain a certain roll stiffness. I expect they are also running helper springs to maximize their droop and keep things from floping around. Kinda like wearing tighty whities, you must have support or things flop around and could get jammed up!
-Paul
The limiting factor on droop isn't the spring, it is the shock or what ever runs out of extension room first (could be the sway bar). As for stiff springs in the rear, use a helper spring and the shock will extend fully AND still keep the spring retained so it doesn't flop around.
So guys who are running stiff rear springs and no sway bar are trying to maximize their droop and still maintain a certain roll stiffness. I expect they are also running helper springs to maximize their droop and keep things from floping around. Kinda like wearing tighty whities, you must have support or things flop around and could get jammed up!
-Paul
| Draken | 04-20-2006 11:06 AM |
[QUOTE=solo-x]that's why these guys that say less bar and more spring on the back of an STi are wrong. get the same rear roll stiffness from spring instead of bar and the car will still want to lift the inside rear. why? because those stiffer springs don't extend as far once they are unloaded.[/QUOTE]
Haha. Once again, Nate puts on his "i'm master of all things Subaru despite the fact i drive a trophy fodder civic." How many STis have you driven, with and without rear bars and stiff springs, and have documentation showing that rear lift is or is not corrected?
Perhaps you should have some real experience with these cars, before you spout off.
Chris H.
Haha. Once again, Nate puts on his "i'm master of all things Subaru despite the fact i drive a trophy fodder civic." How many STis have you driven, with and without rear bars and stiff springs, and have documentation showing that rear lift is or is not corrected?
Perhaps you should have some real experience with these cars, before you spout off.
Chris H.
| AUTOwrXER | 04-20-2006 11:26 AM |
You fix rear wheel lift by increasing FRONT spring rates, adding front bar, and/or removing rear bar. The rear springs are less important than those options.
| solo-x | 04-20-2006 11:58 AM |
:lol: the STi is the new ITR. you don't really know anything until you own/drive one. :lol:
rear wheel lift isn't something special when you are talking about it on an STi. there are a lot of reasons to get that inside rear down, on an STi you just add the beauty of AWD to that list. if you take a look through my posts, you'll find that i've been telling you guys to get that inside rear down for a long time. i've also been telling you the proper way to do it, and it has NOTHING to do with rear bar or spring.
bring something to the fight that is a little more substantial then "i changed the bar and the inside rear came down." as far as documentation goes, that is completely useless. so is "i took the bar off and the car went fastAr." first step, prove to me that you retained the same roll stiffness across the rear axle when you made the bar/spring change. then, show me some data logs that show the improvement. otherwise, i'll just write it all off to the driver variable.
nate
rear wheel lift isn't something special when you are talking about it on an STi. there are a lot of reasons to get that inside rear down, on an STi you just add the beauty of AWD to that list. if you take a look through my posts, you'll find that i've been telling you guys to get that inside rear down for a long time. i've also been telling you the proper way to do it, and it has NOTHING to do with rear bar or spring.
bring something to the fight that is a little more substantial then "i changed the bar and the inside rear came down." as far as documentation goes, that is completely useless. so is "i took the bar off and the car went fastAr." first step, prove to me that you retained the same roll stiffness across the rear axle when you made the bar/spring change. then, show me some data logs that show the improvement. otherwise, i'll just write it all off to the driver variable.
nate
| solo-x | 04-20-2006 12:02 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]You fix rear wheel lift by increasing FRONT spring rates, adding front bar, [/quote]
DING DING!!!! we have a winnAr!!!
[quote=AUTOwrXER]and/or removing rear bar. The rear springs are less important than those options.[/QUOTE]
rear bar and spring combine for total rear roll stiffness. soften the springs OR the bar and you will reduce the tendency to lift the rear wheel, all else equal. warp stiffness doeesn't care what gives the stiffness, only what the total is.
nate
DING DING!!!! we have a winnAr!!!
[quote=AUTOwrXER]and/or removing rear bar. The rear springs are less important than those options.[/QUOTE]
rear bar and spring combine for total rear roll stiffness. soften the springs OR the bar and you will reduce the tendency to lift the rear wheel, all else equal. warp stiffness doeesn't care what gives the stiffness, only what the total is.
nate
| Impreza01 | 04-20-2006 09:31 PM |
So then, going back to the original question of this thread, "Can a FSB be too big for stock class auto-x?" From what solo-x seems to say, no. Tom says yes. Anyone else have any opinions or facts?
| RedTRex | 04-20-2006 09:38 PM |
I would think no......since folks are using the 32mm strano and it appears to be helping....
| leecea | 04-20-2006 09:54 PM |
I know STi people are using it - is anyone using it on a WRX? What model year's does it fit?
| Impreza01 | 04-20-2006 09:56 PM |
[QUOTE=leecea]I know STi people are using it - is anyone using it on a WRX? What model year's does it fit?[/QUOTE]
Every WRX sedan and STi, except there have been a couple of cases (out of like 70 or something sold) where the bar is hitting a steering assembly bolt.
Every WRX sedan and STi, except there have been a couple of cases (out of like 70 or something sold) where the bar is hitting a steering assembly bolt.
| RedTRex | 04-20-2006 10:04 PM |
I am running the 29mm Whiteline ....and like it.....I did select over the Strano due to the "Interference" issue........
If you do a search for "32mm Strano" you will see all the users and comments about interference....
-Here is the main one
[url="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920143&highlight=32mm+Strano"]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920143&highlight=32mm+Strano[/url]
If you do a search for "32mm Strano" you will see all the users and comments about interference....
-Here is the main one
[url="http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920143&highlight=32mm+Strano"]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=920143&highlight=32mm+Strano[/url]
| DrBiggly | 04-21-2006 12:17 AM |
[QUOTE=Impreza01]So then, going back to the original question of this thread, "Can a FSB be too big for stock class auto-x?" From what solo-x seems to say, no. Tom says yes. Anyone else have any opinions or facts?[/QUOTE]
No, it can't be too big. The brackets become a limitation before the positive effects of the bar come into play.
As for Strano's bar, had I the cash lying around I'd run one despite one single user having a problem with the bar rubbing a bolt head. I know they fit WRXs because I have co-driven a WRX with one on it; slaloming in that car was really quite nice. :)
-Biggly
No, it can't be too big. The brackets become a limitation before the positive effects of the bar come into play.
As for Strano's bar, had I the cash lying around I'd run one despite one single user having a problem with the bar rubbing a bolt head. I know they fit WRXs because I have co-driven a WRX with one on it; slaloming in that car was really quite nice. :)
-Biggly
| IBAUCLAPlaya | 04-21-2006 01:18 PM |
Running Stranobar on MY04 WRX w/ no problems.
| Big_Pimpin | 04-21-2006 03:36 PM |
just ignore this
| sstrano | 04-24-2006 01:15 PM |
I reiterate that this is NOT AN ISSUE. Still, to this very minute I've not gotten a phone call from one person about the "rubbing" Tells me it's a car variance, not a bar variance. :)
And when you are running a 32mm bar vs. a 27mm bar, it take up more room and will be closer to things, but clearly it's not a big problem (as in most cars don't rub), or a big enough problem to warrant a phone call. I love the internet..... :furious:
So many positives trumped by a faceless name. :confused:
And when you are running a 32mm bar vs. a 27mm bar, it take up more room and will be closer to things, but clearly it's not a big problem (as in most cars don't rub), or a big enough problem to warrant a phone call. I love the internet..... :furious:
So many positives trumped by a faceless name. :confused:
| sstrano | 04-24-2006 01:16 PM |
BTW...... STi/STI/WRX..... same chassis, same lousy camber curves. What's an issue for one it pretty much an issue for the other. So yes, it works on WRX's as well. :)
| WJM | 04-25-2006 07:33 AM |
50mm solid FSB FTW.
And for the RX....NO sways FTW.
And for the RX....NO sways FTW.
| Aaron B | 04-25-2006 09:41 AM |
Even if the rubbing WERE an actual intermmitent problem with the Strano bar (which as far as most of us can tell it's very limited) it's only on the STi's. On the WRX there's no bolt head anywhere near the bar. It does get very close to the cross member (flat metal) but a careful install should make certain it doesn't become an issue.
I love mine and it's not coming off till winter :)
Oh yeah, and as for how it works on a stock setup for DS, mine showed up while I still had my winter suspension (read: all stock) on. It really was quite nice, the steering response with the Strano bar and stock springs/struts felt about on par to when I was running Pink springs with stock bars. I'd say it's a must for anyone running DS.
I love mine and it's not coming off till winter :)
Oh yeah, and as for how it works on a stock setup for DS, mine showed up while I still had my winter suspension (read: all stock) on. It really was quite nice, the steering response with the Strano bar and stock springs/struts felt about on par to when I was running Pink springs with stock bars. I'd say it's a must for anyone running DS.
| Impreza01 | 04-25-2006 10:11 AM |
[QUOTE=Aaron B]I love mine and it's not coming off till winter :)[/QUOTE]
Funny you mention as I PMed and asked several people running 26mm+ front swaybars during winter and they actually liked how it handled! :lol:
Funny you mention as I PMed and asked several people running 26mm+ front swaybars during winter and they actually liked how it handled! :lol:
| Aaron B | 04-25-2006 10:23 AM |
I like to go all stock in the winter. I enjoy the cadillac ride and lots of suspension travel for playing in the snow.
| Crash477 | 04-25-2006 12:04 PM |
I left my 32mm Strano FSB on in the winter, and it was just fine. Course this is a WNC winter, so not much snow.
| Scoobie Doogie | 04-25-2006 02:43 PM |
The 32mm Strano bar is the best damn thing you can do for your car short of coil-overs. We're running it on our 05 STI in STU and it works magnificently. I am getting much closer to catching the fastest STU driver in the country and a lot if it has to do with Sammy's front sway bar. Now buy it dammit!
Dave Mac
Dave Mac
| DrBiggly | 04-25-2006 03:16 PM |
Fastest STU driver in the country? You mean last year's National Title winner? :)
-Biggly
-Biggly
| AtomicRacer | 04-25-2006 04:54 PM |
[QUOTE=DrBiggly]Fastest STU driver in the country? You mean last year's National Title winner? :)
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't consider those two titles mutually inclusive of one another. I think Neary is the fastest known guy in the class at this time.
Then again, it will be settled in September won't it.
-Paul
-Biggly[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't consider those two titles mutually inclusive of one another. I think Neary is the fastest known guy in the class at this time.
Then again, it will be settled in September won't it.
-Paul
| Crash477 | 04-25-2006 05:05 PM |
We all know who's goign to be the fastest STU come September
| alltracin | 04-25-2006 05:39 PM |
Rankins :)
| Crash477 | 04-25-2006 05:44 PM |
[QUOTE=alltracin]Rankins :)[/QUOTE]
Yep..
Yep..
| DrBiggly | 04-25-2006 06:02 PM |
[QUOTE=AtomicRacer]I wouldn't consider those two titles mutually inclusive of one another. I think Neary is the fastest known guy in the class at this time.
Then again, it will be settled in September won't it.
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Which is why I asked the question. :)
-Biggly
Then again, it will be settled in September won't it.
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Which is why I asked the question. :)
-Biggly
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét