Understanding the function of a sway bar?

[Dr. Design]

Hello All,
We at D3 have noticed that there are companies out there that claim that sway bars stiffen the chassis rather then using chassis braces. In reality the two are very different. Most people think that by adding an aftermarket sway bay it will stiffen the chassis. Wrong! The following is kind of an extreme example but you will get the basic idea. The sway bar will reduce the body from rolling on the frame and suspension. Picture the car from the rear. Pretend that there is a ball between the suspension and the body that allows for the body to pivot off of the ball. What the sway bar will do is reduce the amount of pivot that the body has on that ball. The sway bar does exactly what it is supposed to do. One thing it will not do is stiffen the chassis. ONLY chassis stiffeners will do that. So what we have here is the chassis secured on the suspension with body roll.
Question? What is keeping the chassis from twisting? A sway bar, springs, and shocks are not the answer to superior handling. Even if you use stiffer springs, stronger shocks, or a huge sway bar, what is keeping the corners of the car from moving at different levels (aka twisting)? When the chassis twists, it wastes energy and takes away performance from your suspension. If anything it is even more apparent that the car is twisting. If you add a chassis kit or a roll cage to the car it will keep the chassis neutral and all four corners in sync with each other. As a result this will allow the suspension to do what is supposed to do. The 1st law of physics states that, "An object at rest or moving at constant velocity will continue to do so unless acted upon by an external force". Only chassis bracing can act as that external force. Please let us know if there are any questions.
Thank you,

[Low Rider]

Not to be a prick but, since you brought it up: that is Newton's first law of motion not the first law of physics. On top of that, since when did a little bit of chasis flex become a bad thing. Ask any Honda mechanic: the EP3 chasis is built like a rock. 90% of the drivers on this planet will never drive their cars hard enough to notice the benefits of some cheezy x-brace. In my opinion, there are way better things to spend your money on and improvements to your suspension are far more noticable than the addition of an x-brace.

[tony speed]

Originally posted by Low Rider
Not to be a prick but, since you brought it up: that is Newton's first law of motion not the first law of physics. On top of that, since when did a little bit of chasis flex become a bad thing. Ask any Honda mechanic: the EP3 chasis is built like a rock. 90% of the drivers on this planet will never drive their cars hard enough to notice the benefits of some cheezy x-brace. In my opinion, there are way better things to spend your money on and improvements to your suspension are far more noticable than the addition of an x-brace.

that depends on what you want to do with your car.

[Rueda del Queso]

Ok, so chassis braces are good. When are you going to start selling some for the EP, aside from the double-x brace?

[FCobra94]

Originally posted by Rueda del Queso
Ok, so chassis braces are good. When are you going to start selling some for the EP, aside from the double-x brace?

As I understand it, the double-x brace is a chassis brace...

[Dr. Design]

Hello,
Thank you for your feedback. Chassis flex is fine....if you do not intend to drive the car with any sort of passion. If you intend to go over the recommended speed limit through a turn, then you are speaking our language. Chassis bracing, or any form of suspension modifications, can greatly benefit the EP3 application. Most aftermarket components are built on the fact that a certain percentage of owners will drive the cars more aggressively then the typical vehicle demographics. When our engineers looked at the EP3/DC5 chassis it was determined that the platform could use ALOT of bracing. When it comes to motorsports, eliminating unwanted chassis flex is KEY! Here is an example how important it is to the manufacture to eliminate chassis flex. When GM/Honda/Toyota/etc... want to increase the handling of a vehicle, they typically start by making the chassis X% more rigid. It is far more cost effective to use supplemental bracing rather then completely restructuring the chassis. Please let us know if there are any other questions.

Thank you,

Originally posted by Low Rider
Not to be a prick but, since you brought it up: that is Newton's first law of motion not the first law of physics. On top of that, since when did a little bit of chasis flex become a bad thing. Ask any Honda mechanic: the EP3 chasis is built like a rock. 90% of the drivers on this planet will never drive their cars hard enough to notice the benefits of some cheezy x-brace. In my opinion, there are way better things to spend your money on and improvements to your suspension are far more noticable than the addition of an x-brace.

[FCobra94]

When GM/Honda/Toyota/etc... want to increase the handling of a vehicle, they typically start by making the chassis X% more rigid. It is far more cost effective to use supplemental bracing rather then completely restructuring the chassis.

Tell me about it. When Mustang owners start modding, the first thing they look at is usually sub-frame connectors. Mine has a bit of flex, even w/ upgraded shocks/springs, but I could only imagine what the convertable owners feel! I'm sure they're almost a neccessity on those cars.

Anyways, I figured since the Si felt a good bit tighter than the Mustang, it wouldn't require any extra bracing, but so far I've been hearing otherwise.

This X brace is sounding more and more appetizing to me :tongue: hehe

[foilpan]

aside from improved handling characteristics for those seeking them, are there any negative consequences related to increased chassis stiffness over the life of the chassis?

realistically, i'd like a reasonably nimble ride without the harshness that would make everyday driving unbearable. i didn't buy an EP3 because it's a race machine; i bought it because it's an SI, an economical and quick little car.

so, what are the long term structural consequences -- if any -- of increasing chassis stiffness? or is this the wrong question because many enthusiasts plan to get rid of their EP3s in a few years anyway? i plan on driving mine for the long haul.

[Dunrick]

any idea what class this xbrace is allowed in for scca autox?

[Jpax]

Originally posted by Dunrick
any idea what class this xbrace is allowed in for scca autox?

ST2 numbnuts... :D


Dr Design and his team are experts in this field of chassis stiffing. I would buy this braces in a heart beat if i still had an Ep. when i had the neuspeed x brace on it was a night and day difference over stock in turning and braking.

[Dunrick]

good to know. unfortunetly I got the neuspeed xbrace on already.

[Low Rider]

Re:

Chassis flex is fine....if you do not intend to drive the car with any sort of passion. If you intend to go over the recommended speed limit through a turn, then you are speaking our language. Chassis bracing, or any form of suspension modifications, can greatly benefit the EP3 application.

Hmmm, that's interesting... King Motorsports has set up my suspension for me and they are of the opinion that the EP3 sub-frame is strong enough to do without an x-brace. I have also talked to Toda and Spoon about this issue and they are in agreement. I guess then that noone at these racing pedigreed factories drives with passion!

[Dr. Design]

Hello,
We are not saying they are wrong, or your setup is not a good one. We just see things a little different over here based on what our engineers have done in the past. I guess that is what happens when you have to build pro chassis from the ground up for IMSA and NHRA? It is the opinions of King Motorsports, Toda, and Spoon's that the EP3 chassis is rigid enough. This is fine. It is our opinion that any front strut tower brace MUST attach to the firewall for maximum performance gains. The point is these are just opinions. Everyone on the message boards knows that the EP3 chassis is not race ready. That is not a knock on Honda, very few factory chassis are completely race ready. Please let us know if there are any questions.
Thank you,

Originally posted by Low Rider
Hmmm, that's interesting... King Motorsports has set up my suspension for me and they are of the opinion that the EP3 sub-frame is strong enough to do without an x-brace. I have also talked to Toda and Spoon about this issue and they are in agreement. I guess then that noone at these racing pedigreed factories drives with passion! [/B]

[Low Rider]

Originally posted by Dr. Design
Hello,
We are not saying they are wrong, or your setup is not a good one. We just see things a little different over here based on what our engineers have done in the past. I guess that is what happens when you have to build pro chassis from the ground up for IMSA and NHRA? It is the opinions of King Motorsports, Toda, and Spoon's that the EP3 chassis is rigid enough. This is fine. It is our opinion that any front strut tower brace MUST attach to the firewall for maximum performance gains. The point is these are just opinions. Everyone on the message boards knows that the EP3 chassis is not race ready. That is not a knock on Honda, very few factory chassis are completely race ready. Please let us know if there are any questions.
Thank you,

I guess you are right... it would be interesting to test the car with both configurations!!!

[Dr. Design]

You hit the nail right on the head. We would love to test our products against the others that are also well respected in the industry! Competition always makes the product better!

Thank you,

Originally posted by Low Rider
I guess you are right... it would be interesting to test the car with both configurations!!!