I have a '99 integra. I installed a Suspension Techniques rear swaybar less than 6 months ago. The swaybar endlinks connect to the lower shock bolts instead of connecting to the middle of the lower lca. Some people, actually a lot of people, attribute increased stiffness to this mounting design. I've heard people say that because of the longer moment arm, more torque is exerted on the bar and it can do its job more easily than a similar diameter bar that mounts to the standard lower lca mounting points. Therefore, people compare the effectiveness of the 19mm ST rear sway to that of the 22mm ITR rear sway, saying because of the ST's mounting points its as effective as the 22mm ITR sway. Progress makes a 22mm rear sway that mounts just like the ST rear sway does, to the lower shock bolts. Using the mentality above, the Progress 22mm should be way stiffer than a 22mm bar using the conventional mounting points, and this has been mentioned in Progress sway threads. Now, I was reading a swaybar article on Grassrootsmotorsports website, and I quote:
///////////////////////////////
"It is this lever law that is applied during the design of an adjustable anti-roll bar. By using multiple end link locations, the distance from the point of attachment to the straight part of the bar can be altered. Or, in engineers' terms, the length of the moment arm can be increased or reduced in order to make more or less torque against the bar.
Using a setting farther from the center of the bar increases the length of the moment arm, resulting in more torque against the bar, allowing more twisting motion of the bar, <U>creating more body roll.</U> Using a setting closer to the center of the bar reduces the length of the moment arm, resulting in less torque against the bar, allowing less twisting motion of the bar, creating less body roll."
///////////////////////////////
ARTICLE LINK: http://www.grassrootsmotorsports.com/swaybars.html

I know the article applies to adjustable swaybars, but wouldn't it somewhat apply to the ST and Progress rear sways also, because the distance between the points of attachment are much longer than a conventional swaybar's? If this is true, it would mean that my 19mm ST sway is a limp noodle, and it would explain a lot of things that are iffy in my car's handling charecteristics.


Modified by opeth13 at 4:07 AM 5/31/2004


Modified by opeth13 at 5:17 AM 5/31/2004

 

your terms are basically correct but kinda misapplied... maybe this will clarify things for you:
when the arm of the sway bar is longer the bar is able to exert less torque on the control arm. When the attachment point of the swaybar to the control arm is closer to the wheel (like the progress bar vs. a stock bar) it is effectively giving the control arm less leverage against the swaybar vs. the stock swaybar attachment closer to the middle of the control arm.

hopefully this answers your question and clarifies things a bit

Christian, who wonders what's "iffy" about your car's current handling...

 

thanks for the reply. I never looked at it from your perspective, and my thoughts on where the forces were being applied were a bit sqewed. By "iffy" hanlding, I guess I was expecting a greater effect from adding the ST rear sway. My current setup is H&R race springs, Dropzone shocks (getting sp3 yellows this week), ST rear sway, no front swaybar, Skunk2 front upper control arms, a fairly aggressive street oriented alignment, and some decent tires. When I had a 24mm front swaybar on, and after I had added the ST rear sway, I still didn't feel the car had enough rotation. After taking off the front bar in order to replace it with either a thinner or thicker front bar (I hadn't decided yet), I enjoyed the drastic change in handling charecteristics so much that I don't think I'll be running a front bar for a very long time to come. The car finally rotates like I've always wanted it to. If I could do it all over again, I'd get a custom setup with 450 lb front springs and 600-800 lb rear springs and run a 22mm front bar. I think that sort of setup would yeild the "feeling" that I have now with my current setup, except it would be a more proper setup. Anyway, thanks for the response, it cleared some things up.

 

I measured the progress bar to have shorter lever arms than the ITR bar (which my brother has on his GSR).

In addition to the leverage that xian explained, it takes less movement to place a load on the swaybar and start taking out body roll compaired to mounting the sway bar closer to the subframe mounting point.

 

Hey, whats up fellow TI'er!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by StyleTEG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In addition to the leverage that xian explained, it takes less movement to place a load on the swaybar and start taking out body roll compaired to mounting the sway bar closer to the subframe mounting point.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Another good point which I didn't think of .

 

hmmm... personally, I like the feel of a front bar but if not having one works for you then go for it

FWIW, my setup is stock Si front bar (21mm I think), Progress 22mm rear, 500# f and 400# rear springs on OTS Konis. I think my car rotates really well under any sort of partial throttle lift and is neautral in sweepers. For the future, I plan on going to a larger front bar and higher rear spring rates.

Christian, who really needs to align his car after all the ride height changes he's made

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Xian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">hmmm... personally, I like the feel of a front bar but if not having one works for you then go for it

FWIW, my setup is stock Si front bar (21mm I think), Progress 22mm rear, 500# f and 400# rear springs on OTS Konis. I think my car rotates really well under any sort of partial throttle lift and is neautral in sweepers. For the future, I plan on going to a larger front bar and higher rear spring rates.

Christian, who really needs to align his car after all the ride height changes he's made </TD></TR></TABLE>

I have the exact same car with the EXACT same setup but I experienced some fender rub, both front and rear on a very smooth lot. Do you run into this problem? What height are you at? I just went up to 600f/500r to try and prevent it, but I haven't run it yet. I noticed many people out there are running softer spring than me without rubbing issues and I can't figure out why.

 

what size/offset wheels and tires are you using?

I've had some rub issues with my 13x9's (fender lip to the top of the tire) but no problems with my street wheels/tires (15x7 Volks w/ 205 Azenis).

Also, FWIW, the autoX site we use most here is a well maintained concrete runway... very level

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Xian &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what size/offset wheels and tires are you using?

I've had some rub issues with my 13x9's (fender lip to the top of the tire) but no problems with my street wheels/tires (15x7 Volks w/ 205 Azenis).

Also, FWIW, the autoX site we use most here is a well maintained concrete runway... very level </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm pretty sure the wheels I have are exactly what you have too. 13x9 diamonds with a 5" backspace.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tunes12 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm pretty sure the wheels I have are exactly what you have too. 13x9 diamonds with a 5" backspace.</TD></TR></TABLE>
sorry, didn't realize we were running the same wheel

Anyway, yes, I've had problems with tire rub also and have been raising the ride height in an attempt to alleviate the issue. Right now I think my ride height is somewhere around 5.5" at the jacking point. I suspect that the solution to the problem is going to be stiffer springs and a larger front bar or raise the car some more. I'm hoping that by running a Teg front bar and 600# rear springs I'll be able to reduce the body roll to the point where I won't have anymore rub problems.

You mention that there are people running softer springs than you (us) without rub problems... are they running 9" wheels with 5" backspace? I understand that it's possible to run 5.5 or maybe even 5.75" backspace... maybe that'd make the difference between rub and no-rub?

Christian, who's tired of getting distracted by tire rub...