Re: length of lower control arms
 

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>> z wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does anybody
>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and which
>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>
>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>
>> how is that?
>
>
> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the axle.
> Bad ju ju!
>
ok, but:
1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
go much more than 10mm.
3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.
> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
out
past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
much.

I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
out on it.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.
> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
out
past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
much.

I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
out on it.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.
> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
out
past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
much.

I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
out on it.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

jim beam wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>>
>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>
>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>
>>> how is that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the
>> axle. Bad ju ju!
>>
> ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.

A load that the bearing is designed to handle.

> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.

10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
close to the original design.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

jim beam wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>>
>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>
>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>
>>> how is that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the
>> axle. Bad ju ju!
>>
> ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.

A load that the bearing is designed to handle.

> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.

10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
close to the original design.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

jim beam wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>>
>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>
>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>
>>> how is that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the
>> axle. Bad ju ju!
>>
> ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.

A load that the bearing is designed to handle.

> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.

10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
close to the original design.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
>> go much more than 10mm.
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
> will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
> out
> past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
> much.
>
> I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
> out on it.
>
>
it might have been a "factor" in the old days of bad bearings and
positive scrub radius, but now we have good bearings and negative scrub
radius... having sealed bearing units that can't be "helped" by the
racer kiddie adding more grease extends bearing life significantly too.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
>> go much more than 10mm.
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
> will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
> out
> past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
> much.
>
> I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
> out on it.
>
>
it might have been a "factor" in the old days of bad bearings and
positive scrub radius, but now we have good bearings and negative scrub
radius... having sealed bearing units that can't be "helped" by the
racer kiddie adding more grease extends bearing life significantly too.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
>> go much more than 10mm.
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
> will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
> out
> past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
> much.
>
> I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
> out on it.
>
>
it might have been a "factor" in the old days of bad bearings and
positive scrub radius, but now we have good bearings and negative scrub
radius... having sealed bearing units that can't be "helped" by the
racer kiddie adding more grease extends bearing life significantly too.

Re: length of lower control arms
 

anumber1 wrote:

>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.
>

Well so is having fat aunt Martha sitting in the passenger seat, but it
is not likely to affect the life of the bearing in any measurable way.

-jim


> > 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> > bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> > lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.
>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: length of lower control arms
 

anumber1 wrote:

>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.
>

Well so is having fat aunt Martha sitting in the passenger seat, but it
is not likely to affect the life of the bearing in any measurable way.

-jim


> > 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> > bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> > lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.
>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: length of lower control arms
 

anumber1 wrote:

>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.
>

Well so is having fat aunt Martha sitting in the passenger seat, but it
is not likely to affect the life of the bearing in any measurable way.

-jim


> > 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> > bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> > lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.
>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: length of lower control arms
 

anumber1 wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>>
>>>> how is that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing
>>> surfaces. Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to
>>> mention the forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the
>>> end of the axle. Bad ju ju!
>>>
>> ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing
>> anyway.
>
> A load that the bearing is designed to handle.
>
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual
>> to go much more than 10mm.
>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

dude, with respect, you're going to get more transient bearing load on a
bearing from having suspension lowered too far than you are from spacers.

>
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

hardly - all it does is correct camber. it does nothing for the swing
radius of any of the suspension components themselves.

>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

by what margin??? the vehicle has a working load in the range of
800lbs. how do you think spee-dee ricer with his 10mm spacers and 90lb
girlfriend is going to exert more leverage on the bearings than spec?
install an even bigger sub?

Re: length of lower control arms
 

anumber1 wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in news:KI-
>>>>> dnY16HM3Qaz_YnZ2dnUVZ_uyknZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>>
>>>> how is that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing
>>> surfaces. Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to
>>> mention the forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the
>>> end of the axle. Bad ju ju!
>>>
>> ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing
>> anyway.
>
> A load that the bearing is designed to handle.
>
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual
>> to go much more than 10mm.
>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

dude, with respect, you're going to get more transient bearing load on a
bearing from having suspension lowered too far than you are from spacers.

>
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

hardly - all it does is correct camber. it does nothing for the swing
radius of any of the suspension components themselves.

>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

by what margin??? the vehicle has a working load in the range of
800lbs. how do you think spee-dee ricer with his 10mm spacers and 90lb
girlfriend is going to exert more leverage on the bearings than spec?
install an even bigger sub?