Re: ESP.net 98-02 Accord Traction Bar System with Front Torque Mount Kit F/H 4 cyl Mo
The frame rails are very thick in comparison to the k-frame connecting arms. If you look at their design, they are very skinny vertically, and will only help during lateral flex which is not as much of a concern. During hard cornering your vertical flex will be more of an issue than your lateral flex. Seeing as they are not very rigid on their vertical axis, while they were providing some chassis stability, it was not a drastic amount of support.
The chassis is designed to prevent loads in bending as much as possible. Those bars are the lower members of a box structure from the base of the firewall to the radiator support. If it were possible, it would be triangulated there, but there must be a hole for the axle & tie rod. They're primarily stressed in tension & compression.
What are you talking about dude. Bind will only be induced if the geometry of the traction bar is misaligned from the center line of the LCA. If the radius rod pivot is in line with the LCA pivot, there will be a negligible amount of camber. In fact there will be less than stock because the radius rod bushing are solid. Think about it like this. Take the LCA with nothing attached. If you spin it 360 degrees (imagine there is nothing in the way). It will make a perfect circle with the radius rod mount point being the circumference. If the radius rod is aligned with the center point of the circle, and you spin that along its circumference you get a cone with the radius rod having a constant length and the axis of the LCA remaining constant. Take a look at Full-Race's white paper
http://www.full-race.com/articles/traction_bars.pdf
This only works if the pivots are aligned on two axis, which is pretty much where the stock radius rod mount is located. Having bushings at the forward mount allows movement in all 3 dimensions, preventing binding. Moving the mount location would induce bind, replacing the mount with a spherical bearing means all movement due to misalignment of the axis will happen at the inboard LCA bushing. Causing stress throughout the LCA and at it's mount location
Energy will travel through the path of least resistance. Before the tires even turn, the motor will pivot on the mounts seeing as that is the path of least resistance. Only once the motor is not able to overcome the resistance of the mounts limiting the motor's pivot, will power be transmitted through the next output...which is the tires. Technically, you will get more area under the torque curve with stiffer mounts and motor braces, because less energy is put forth into pre-loading the mounts. While this is a negligible amount of power, the real benefit is that you get better throttle response seeing as you don't waste time pre-loading the motor mounts.
Electricity will follow the path of least resistance. Mechanical
work involves forces, which generate equal and opposite reactionary forces. Rev the engine in gear with the wheels off the ground, the engine moves slightly due to inertia, but if you hold the speed constant the engine returns to neutral. The front and rear mounts are torque mounts, so called because they provide the reactionary force to the wheel torque.
Think of it this way, you are holding a socket on a ratchet. The socket is the tires, the ratchet is the engine, your hand is the mount. If you apply 100lb/ft of torque to the ratchet, the socket is turned with 100lb/ft, and your hand is applying 100lb/ft. If you have soft, girly hands and they squish when you apply 100 lb/ft, is there still 100lb/ft? Yes. Your arm just moved a bit further to account for the squish in your hands.
Material and design has for more to do with rigidity and structural integrity than the total weight of metal used.
You are correct, which is why those beams were formed in the shapes that they were. To provide the necessary strength to reinforce and triangulate the front chassis rails while minimizing weight and material. They are still tubes, and they are a hell of a lot stronger than the 1/16" wall 1" tube H-braces.
An easy example that I have experienced is the beetle convertible. It has a lower engine shield made out of a single layer of 1/8" aluminum sheet that weighs about 3lbs. It's attached to the chassis with 6 8mm bolts at the front, near the radiator support, and 2 12mm bolts at the rear cross member. The standard beetle, based on this same chassis has a plastic undershield. Leave this part off a convertible, and the chassis flex increases to the point where it is scary to drive. You can literally watch the car twist over bumps.
Our car is not a convertible, so I doubt the effect will be as severe, but I have no doubts that the chassis torsional rigidity will decreased by a significant amount. I'll prove it. This weekend I'll jig up my own car and measure rigidity with and without the longitudinal supports. If I don't find at least a 25% increase in chassis deflection I'll apologize and delete my posts.