GI: Traction Bars?

[Putin 2.3T]

I'm currently working with a local company to get a set fabricated for myself but I'm curious to see if maybe there might be some interest from @CorkSport;? I know back in the day MediEval and PTP both tried their hand at traction-bars for the Mazdaspeed 3. But it seems they never caught on? Strange since traction bars are awesomesauce.

Customer's Review about MS3 traction bars!!! - Mazda3 Forums : The #1 Mazda 3 Forum

I believe this is MediEval's original design but here's an older M3F thread (originally quoted from MSF, but can't find thread) reviewing a set of traction bars.

Tractions bars are here and on the car!!!

Here's PTP's design.

I'm just using these as examples of what could be possible design wise as I think there's TONS of room for improvement. I'm sure you could position the bars towards the front since it looks like there's a ton of clearance, just need to find a way to mount it. There's ton of room to grow here.

[JSmith]

Didn't Corksport already sell these at one point in the past? Seem to remember reading an article about not fitting a Canadian speed.

P.S. I would be interested.

[erevlydeux]

You getting these made for won or pu?

[Modality14]

theres already enough on the market

[erevlydeux]

Originally Posted by Modality14 theres already enough on the market

For the MS3? Links or gtfo.

[Putin 2.3T]

Originally Posted by Modality14 theres already enough on the market

What @erevlydeux; said. I would like to have some links to bolt-in traction bars for the GenJuan AND GenPu Mazdaspeed 3.

But yeah, to answer your earlier question @erevlydeux; I'm having some made for a Pu. Buuuut, I'm not looking to manufacture/sell my own set. I'm only bringing up the idea to see if @CorkSport; would be willing to make them if there's enough of a want for traction-bars from the community. My unit is going to be a permanent mount plus I'm having travel limiters installed up front as well. That's something most folks DON'T want when it comes to ease of use.

[duappleganger]

Not sure how legit this vendor is but...

TB Performance Products (Scroll down a bit)

[Putin 2.3T]

Originally Posted by duappleganger Not sure how legit this vendor is but... TB Performance Products (Scroll down a bit)

Not the same thing. That's a "tie-bar." It doesn't in any way limit the front-back motion of the control arm.

[Kor3y101]

God damn, I'ma have to start charging for people to use the word 'Awesomesauce' hahaha!
But seriously, traction bars would be a great idea. Someone should jump on this.

[getemslough]

i want... no need this.

[Mauro_Penguin]

I'd be curious to see how the front control arms behave with this bar bolted to it, since you'd be adding an auxiliary joint that could potentially push or pull the control arm as it cycles.

[Nliiitend1]

Just get polyurethane LCA bushings. That way you don't have to worry about binding or clearance issues.

[Putin 2.3T]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 Just get polyurethane LCA bushings. That way you don't have to worry about binding or clearance issues.

If you install them for free.

[Nliiitend1]

The installation is the easy part. It's the removal of the old bushings that isn't so fun...

[Putin 2.3T]

Which is why traction bars seem to be the best FIT for everyone. No costly (life and money) removal/installation fees for bushings. No wasted money on "tie-bars" (essentially) that don't do anything to help alleviate wheel-hop. Motor-mounts do help a considerable amount, but with traction-bars you could run 70d mounts, enjoy a more enjoyable and less rattly interior and still have wheel-hop'less traction or just nice calm smoky burn-outs, lol. The only other alternative, the whiteline anti-lift-kit doesn't fit the Pu. This could be easily adapted to fit both.

Hell, my idea right now is to run a TurbineTech front motor-mount, have the shop weld on some u-joints and run the bars from the front of the car. Most if not ALL of the traction-bar kits for Honda's run exactly like that. I'm still bouncing around the idea of running it from the front AND back for even more stability. But that will depend on if there's any chance of binding.

[Nliiitend1]

Originally Posted by Putin 2.3T Which is why traction bars seem to be the best FIT for everyone. No costly (life and money) removal/installation fees for bushings. No wasted money on "tie-bars" (essentially) that don't do anything to help alleviate wheel-hop. Motor-mounts do help a considerable amount, but with traction-bars you could run 70d mounts, enjoy a more enjoyable and less rattly interior and still have wheel-hop'less traction or just nice calm smoky burn-outs, lol. The only other alternative, the whiteline anti-lift-kit doesn't fit the Pu. This could be easily adapted to fit both.

I don't think those pictured desings would work very well with the WALK. Especially the MediEval one, as the WALK rearward bushing sits further outboard and lower than the OEM seutp.

[Putin 2.3T]

Originally Posted by Nliiitend1 I don't think those pictured desings would work very well with the WALK. Especially the MediEval one, as the WALK rearward bushing sits further outboard and lower than the OEM seutp.

I meant to say "fit both generations." Sorry for the confusion.

[Brandon@corksport]

Interesting idea to say the least. I don't know that we have considered developing them or not. I know we had similar items proto-typed and discontinued for various reason.

Wouldn't hurt:

Product Ideas

[Putin 2.3T]

Originally Posted by Brandon@corksport Interesting idea to say the least. I don't know that we have considered developing them or not. I know we had similar items proto-typed and discontinued for various reason. Wouldn't hurt: Product Ideas

Sent. Thanks!

I'm really surprised as to why these wouldn't be a popular item to have on a car. Limiting the movement of the control arm should be really important. I'm willing to bet 100% of MS3 owners have experienced wheel-hop and just how violent it can be. My only requirement would be that if @CorkSport; DOES go for this.. go XXL. This has to not only withstand 400lb.ft of torque for those BT Stock Block but should also handle 500+tq from those that are built and going all out. During the development stages for the traction bars for my Altima the brackets that were originally supplied had bent from just 290b.ft of torque. This HAS to be built STRONK!

[Jeff23spl]

let us know how it work with your custom ones but i would be afraid that this could change the geometry of the front end instead of correcting wheel hop.

I imagine a worn out set of bushing with a bar installed like the second picture. The wheel would still oscillate but instead of back and forth, it would be from left to right while the stering wheel probably follow the movement.

The first picture seems more efficient than the second one....The bar seems closer to the baldjoint. The left/right movement i tryied to explain above may not be an issue for that one. I would expect the second one to fail quicker too, the tiny bolt directly installed straight...

Do you think these bar still permit the full up and down travel of the table arm ?

[erevlydeux]

Originally Posted by Jeff23spl I imagine a worn out set of bushing with a bar installed like the second picture. The wheel would still oscillate but instead of back and forth, it would be from left to right while the stering wheel probably follow the movement.

I mean, the traction bars limit movement of the arm compared to no traction bars. I can't imagine a situation where they contribute to a more significantly degraded setup on their own. If your bushings are so loose that the arm is deflecting many millimeters, enough to have an impact on steering control, etc.. I think you're already totally fucked.

[Mauro_Penguin]

The point of these things is to limit movement of the control arms forward and backward on launch or dive, not to be confused with the typical upward and downward hinge like motion that the factory arms have to them.

The problem with this is that you introduce another axial directed motion (you MSF engineers can probably phrase it better than I can). These arms would actually pull or push the control arm forward or backward upon cycling, similar to how our rear suspension is on the ms3's.

I agree with @Nliiitend1; in that poly bushings would be a much simpler solution to this, and provide the least consequence or counter effect. I understand that some people dont feel comfortable enough swapping bushings, and that for guys that drag a lot this would probably be very useful, but the change in toe as the control arm gets cycled now in 2 directions (like an oblique axis as opposed to just horizontal and vertical) should be considered before using a strap on dildo like this.

Call me gay but I like controlled simplicity, and not wild complexity.

Maybe I'm over thinking it, I do that sometimes.

[Jeff23spl]

Originally Posted by erevlydeux I mean, the traction bars limit movement of the arm compared to no traction bars. I can't imagine a situation where they contribute to a more significantly degraded setup on their own. If your bushings are so loose that the arm is deflecting many millimeters, enough to have an impact on steering control, etc.. I think you're already totally fucked.

IT was just a figure to better imagine how the second installation picture with the bars close to the inside bushing could make it less efficient.
I get a hard time to explain it but it is like ''Mauro_Penguin'' is trying to explain it too.
I though it could be easier to understand the movement if you think of it with loose bushing because under high torque, bushing will move like crazy even if it is brand new.
The bar really need to be as close to the baldjoint as possible. IT is the same effect of using a longer bar to loosen a bolt.

[SpencerC]

We used to sell a "lower control arm bar" often referred to as a traction bar.

Product Release! CorkSport Mazdaspeed 3/Mazda 3 Front Lower Arm Bar | CorkSport Mazda Performance - Blog

We did stop selling it due to some issues of it contacting in I believe Canadian cars.

We might bring it back if enough people request it via this: http://corksport.com/product-ideas.html

[Code Monkey]

In before ms6 owners start complaini..... oh wait, nevermind.

[mudrunner2600]

Originally Posted by Mauro_Penguin The point of these things is to limit movement of the control arms forward and backward on launch or dive, not to be confused with the typical upward and downward hinge like motion that the factory arms have to them. The problem with this is that you introduce another axial directed motion (you MSF engineers can probably phrase it better than I can). These arms would actually pull or push the control arm forward or backward upon cycling, similar to how our rear suspension is on the ms3's. I agree with @Nliiitend1; in that poly bushings would be a much simpler solution to this, and provide the least consequence or counter effect. I understand that some people dont feel comfortable enough swapping bushings, and that for guys that drag a lot this would probably be very useful, but the change in toe as the control arm gets cycled now in 2 directions (like an oblique axis as opposed to just horizontal and vertical) should be considered before using a strap on dildo like this. Call me gay but I like controlled simplicity, and not wild complexity. Maybe I'm over thinking it, I do that sometimes.

It really comes down to the pivot locations of the traction bar vs the pivot locations of the LCA. If the design could locate the traction bar pivots directly below the pivot locations of the LCA then there would be no binding because the traction bar and LCA would be able to rotate up an down in parallel while still providing longitudinal stiffness. If you really wanted to co crazy you could design the traction bar to create anti-lift with the right geometry.

[Mauro_Penguin]

Originally Posted by mudrunner2600 It really comes down to the pivot locations of the traction bar vs the pivot locations of the LCA. If the design could locate the traction bar pivots directly below the pivot locations of the LCA then there would be no binding because the traction bar and LCA would be able to rotate up an down in parallel while still providing longitudinal stiffness. If you really wanted to co crazy you could design the traction bar to create anti-lift with the right geometry.

Yes pivot location can accentuate or reduce the effect of the "pivot push/pull," but.....

The traction arms do not have the ability to stretch, they are a fixed material and length. As the control arm moves up or down the solid length traction arm will still exert lateral force (be it push or pull). The pivot point of the traction arms may have a greater or lesser effect depending on mounting location, and will also be dependent on the amount of suspension travel.

Obviously the less the suspension travels the less change will occur, but the change is there regardless. Bushing binding can still occur. Geometry design is very important, but your not replacing/swapping a part, your talking about adding something that was not previously there. This changes how the system works as a whole, which is what I'm trying to get at.

If you don't believe me on how dramatic this effect can be, lift up the rear end of an ms3 or ms6 take the wheel off one side, put a jack under the trailing arm and cycle the motion. Although not the exact same set up, a similar enough effect will be present.

[phate]

Originally Posted by mudrunner2600 It really comes down to the pivot locations of the traction bar vs the pivot locations of the LCA. If the design could locate the traction bar pivots directly below the pivot locations of the LCA then there would be no binding because the traction bar and LCA would be able to rotate up an down in parallel while still providing longitudinal stiffness. If you really wanted to co crazy you could design the traction bar to create anti-lift with the right geometry.

Anti-lift and Anti-dive are fancy words for bind, which is exactly what @Mauro_Penguin; is talking about. Yes, a "traction bar" like the ones in this thread will do exactly that as the suspension attempts to travel along it's intended arc. If the trac bar attaches away from the pivot axis, it will attempt to alter the travel of the control arm in a fore-aft motion - that will be seen in either the bushings or in the wheel location - neither of which is good unless you ONLY plan to go in straight lines.

Think about the horizontal length of the traction bar, when viewing from the side. As it moves away from perfectly flat, the horizontal distance is decreased - that change in horizontal length is what is trying to push or pull the control arm fore-aft. Now consider the motion ratio you've introduced by not attaching it at the center of the ball joint - you amplify the motion through the motion ratio [LCA pivot-to-bj length/LCA pivot-to-tracbar pickup], meaning you have more change in wheel motion than you do in just the motion of the trac bar.

If the trac bar attaches somewhere on the pivot axis, it can no longer do its intended job - which was to control unwanted [supposed] fore-aft movement during wheel hop. There is simply no lever arm to apply the force through at that point, rendering it useless.


Realistically, for straight line folks it's probably not going to hurt things to much. For anyone focusing on twisties, I would seriously consider the affects this thing will have. If someone happens to get them, they could measure the change in camber curves and bump steer curves. Both take only a few minutes to get.

[Putin 2.3T]