ive had my suspension set up like this for about a year now, my endlinks just started makein loud pop/clunk sounds this past month and i was wondern if they are installed right

setup:
omnipower full coils
function 7 LCA
ITR 22mm rear sway
Heim type endlinks (bought off ebay)

im wondering if they are at to much of a angle and if so what can i do to fix that? the stock GSR end links wont fit due to the mount point on the function 7 lca's

any ideas?

 

lube them

 

just some spray lube or should i rub some molly on and try to work it in?

 

undo one side of the link... use lithium grease if you can and then work them around. Looks like there is some rust in there so kinda work alot in. Once they are back up on place... kinda wipe everything off. Inspect on a regular basis

 

ok well i cleaned them all up, ride is much much better now but im gona get some longer bolts and more washers tomorrow so they arnt at such a angle, hope that helps with the binding (think thats what was happin)

 

i thought function7 lca were supposed to have the exact dimensions of the stock control arm. im wondering if thats true since you say you cant use the stock endlink.

 

if you look at the site now they changed the LCA so they have 3 holes for endlinks to bolt up, they also changed the design on the end links.

so i have old lca, old endlinks, and a ITR sway = not a good fit :/

wonder if they would let me trade up for a new set of LCA with the 3 mount holes (mine has one hole and its NOT in the stock place)

 

Yes, they are the same dimensions as the stock LCA, meaning they aren't shorter like other LCAs to "correct" for camber by shortening the rear track. The swaybar mounting hole was moved outbound to increase the effectiveness of the swaybar, in the original design.
In the new design, there are three mounting holes, so you can use the stock endlinks, as well as an adjustable endlink to vary the force of your rear swaybar:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors...ZWDVW



To the original poster: Use some lube on those endlinks to free them up. If you find you need a new pair, you can contact me!

 

how do lateral positions of the swaybar linkage affect the "force of the rear swaybar"??


and why didnt they get it right in the first place?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how do lateral positions of the swaybar linkage affect the "force of the rear swaybar"??


and why didnt they get it right in the first place?</TD></TR></TABLE>

It doesn't affect how much force the rear swaybar has itself, rather, it lowers the leverage the LCA has on the swaybar, effectivly giving the swaybar more effort to keep the wheels at the same level.

"They" got it right the first time, if you mean Function7, as the arms were originally designed as race peices for use with the Function7 endlink kit. The new arms allow the user adjustability in the effort of the rear swaybar, for fine tuning.

 

alright, so they needed the function7 endlinks along with the control arm. that wasnt clear. glad i asked, thank you for answering.

so are those the function7 endlinks shown in the original post? [edit, no apparently not. ebay endlinks?] what do function7 endlinks look like?

i still dont see how any lateral position change in endlink changes anything how the swaybar works other than introducing bind. unless i totally dont understand how a swaybar works. perhaps you can kindly explain that too.

 

So, without pictures, its difficult, but I'll try, as I understand it.

The LCA acts as a lever against the swaybar.
Imagine using a pry bar, the longer the bar, the more force you can apply to what you are prying, right? This also means, the shorter the bar, the more effort you have to do to get the same work done. Now, imagine the LCA is the lever and from the mounting point of the sway bar to the mounting point of the LCA to the end of the LCA is your leverage arm. The closer you mount the swaybar to the chassis, the easier it is for the LCA to move the swaybar. The further you move the mounting point outwards, the more work the LCA has to do in order to move the swaybar.

Try this. Grab two peices of 2x4 and nail them together, leaving a small gap. Use a 6" screw driver to try and pry them apart. Where your hand is located is the wheel, the pivot point is the swaybar attachment point, and the end of the pry bar is the mounting point to the chassis. Now, use an 18" prybar. It is easier to pry the peices of wood apart. Look at the difference in the length of the mounting point (the pivot against the wood), and the applied force (your hand &lt;the wheel&gt. We can't go off and make our LCAs super short, so in keeping the same size bar, moving the mounting point outwards increases the effort the wheel must do in order to lift the swaybar.

That make sense??

Function7 Endlink kit:

 

no, it doesnt make sense.

swaybar works on its own. the relative position of the two arms of the swaybar is all that matter. changing the lateral position of the endlink only changes the relative position between the swaybar arm and the control arm, which doesnt affect how the swaybar works. it doesnt change any force vectors or give added leverage.

the endlink should be positioned straight up and down, keeping the relative location of the swaybar arm and the control arm fixed.

 

No, in fact, it does matter. I'll see if Function7 can chime in on the matter.

Edit: Just to note, I have the Ground Control race swaybar on my car, and it attaches to the shock mount, which is even further out. They did this for some reason, and I think the engineers at GC might know a thing or two about suspensions.

edit2:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by function7 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Moving it outboards increases the stiffness due to a change in the length of the moment arm. A larger moment is placed along the axis of the sway bar, so for the same amount of suspension displacement, the sway bar is twisted more.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Looking at Pic 1 and comparing to Pic 4, it looks like your swaybar isn't centered. It's gotta move over to the driver's side by about 1/2 to 3/4". Suggest using a pair of hose clamps (clamp it on the bar beside the D-bushings) around the sway bar to keep it centered and prevent it from sliding along it's axis.

Those linkages look familiar - did you get them off that one guy on ebay? Pull the linkages, give it a good soak in WD-40 and wipe off as much rust as possible and then grease it up and reinstall.

==========
Technical bits
==========

The sway bar mount point is moved outboard by 16mm on each side. This allows the sway bar to be effectively stiffer (approx 7-12% depending on what the thickness of the sway bar is).

How so? Here's the simple explanation. We increase the distance of the sway bar mount point from the pivot point (inside bushing). For a given suspension movement, the vertical displacement of the sway bar mount point is increased. This vertical movement is translated via the linkage onto the bent "arm" of the sway bar. This twists the sway bar more (compared to a stock mounting location) for the same given suspension displacement. The reaction force (which is determined by the spring constant of the bar multipled by the angular/twisting displacement) is increased, making the sway bar seem a little stiffer.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DavidR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No, in fact, it does matter. I'll see if Function7 can chime in on the matter.

Edit: Just to note, I have the Ground Control race swaybar on my car, and it attaches to the shock mount, which is even further out. They did this for some reason, and I think the engineers at GC might know a thing or two about suspensions.


</TD></TR></TABLE>

And the Sway bar is also longer and I bet the endlinks are pretty much strait up and down. I do not see how moving the lower mounting point is going to have and real effect on stiffing the sway bar. Most adjustable sway bars move the top endlink mount to make them stiffer. I almost wounder if having the endlink at and angle like that would decrease the effectiveness of the bar.

 

if the endlink attaches closer to the subframe, it moves proportionally less up and down when the wheel moves up and down. the endlink's vertical motion is what twists the swaybar. if the endlink moves less, the swaybar twists less and being a linear rate spring, the less it is compressed the less force it exerts. move the endlinks inward, it softens, move them outward, the swaybar has greater displlacement at the ends of the arms and so twists/exerts more force to flatten the car

*edited because i cant spell *

 

that would be true if the swaybar arm moved in. not by changing the endlink position.

 

maybe im off base with this, but geometrically it seems to make sense.
if the force exerted ont he swaybar from the endlink is at an angle, it will have both a vertical and horizontal component. the lca would, as well as moving the endlink up, push the ends of the swaybar in or out depending on the endlink's angle from veritcal. since the swaybar doesnt give really at all bending and bowing in/out, the horizontal movement is fairly constant. thoughas the endlink moves up and down, its angle in relation to the swaybar should change slightly. the difference in vertical forces *should* if im thinking this correctly, be the difference of the sine values for the modified angles.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Voyage34 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">angle in relation to the swaybar should change slightly. </TD></TR></TABLE>

thats the thing, it shouldnt. if it does, its going to be binding the endlink, which locks its position anyway.

 

you do have a point there... im goign to pull out my old geometry textbook to see if high school math can shed some light on this

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

thats the thing, it shouldnt. if it does, its going to be binding the endlink, which locks its position anyway.</TD></TR></TABLE>

If it were a solid mount, I'd believe the binding, but, the endlinks used pivit around each axis they are mounted on. Where is the binding coming from?

 

excessive angle because youve already offset the location.

 

I don't think so. If it were binding up, something would bend/break/wear out fast, and we've never had a complaint about any of that. The top heim join can pivot perpendicular to the mounting point, and the lower pivots around the axis of the LCA. No binding!

 

you dont think this is going into binding?