as theory has it, swaybars are supposed to be level when the car sits on all four wheels at rest. what are the affects of a non-level bar? pointing up=less effective?

-spenc

 

Your roll angle will very causing inconsistent cornering.

 

my guess is...a proper sway bar should be as close to parallel to the ground. if its pointing up, then instead of applying a torque to rotate it in that repect, you will be putting a torque at the sway bar mount, possibly causing sub frame failure, and also be more independent (like stock setup) again.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by duh blacksheep &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my guess is...a proper sway bar should be as close to parallel to the ground. if its pointing up, then instead of applying a torque to rotate it in that repect, you will be putting a torque at the sway bar mount, possibly causing sub frame failure, and also be more independent (like stock setup) again.</TD></TR></TABLE>

this would explain the endlink wea on these cars with improper bar setting.

anyone else have more information on this??
-spenc

 

I can't see why it would affect the bar's performance in any way until the limitations of the endlinks are reached.

 

c'mon suspension gurus. someone has to have some kind of fact that will explain this or a formula that would explain what the bar does or soesnt do when not horisontal

-spenc

 

Just picture it in your mind. If the bar is angled up, why would that make it twist any different (until hitting the endlinks' limitations). Call me crazy, but isn't that the question you are asking?

 

Are the lever arms angled up the same amount, or different amounts? Different would lead to pre-load on the bar.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that since the anti roll bar works by resisting twist (ie force up and down applied to the end of the lever arm) at the lever arm, that angling it up would reduce the effective rate of the bar. And its range of motion.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Steppin Razor &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Are the lever arms angled up the same amount, or different amounts? Different would lead to pre-load on the bar.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that since the anti roll bar works by resisting twist (ie force up and down applied to the end of the lever arm) at the lever arm, that angling it up would reduce the effective rate of the bar. And its range of motion.</TD></TR></TABLE>



Head spinning. Wanting to check endlink/bar angle status now. Too late and too lazy, car can sit in garage until next week for next auto-x.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Lo-Buck EF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">c'mon suspension gurus. someone has to have some kind of fact that will explain this or a formula that would explain what the bar does or soesnt do when not horisontal

-spenc</TD></TR></TABLE>

i just told you. you want a formula. the momment = Force(tangental) x distance. momment is pretty much the torque applied at the center. if you have a force that is tangental to the bar (90 degress=up on the bar(parallel to ground) you have max momment on the sway bar in rotation. since the sway bar is connected at the other wrong resisting torsional stresses, you get a twist/resistance, thats how a sway bar is supposed to work. the closer the force is parallel to the endlink (endlink pointing up) means there is torque at the nearest mount, because torque = force (tangental) x distance. since the force isgettting closer to parallel to the endlink, you cause a bending momment. too much bending momment on the sway bar will cause it to go straight up or at angles, putting a lot of stress on the mounts and such. so in conclusion, the lca puts a force in the upward direction. the endlink needs to be 90 degrees to that applied force to create a torsional stress(how its supposed to work), but if the bar is point up &lt; 90 degrees, it becomes bendnig momment. i hope you understand.

 

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

i just told you. you want a formula. the momment = Force(tangental) x distance. momment is pretty much the torque applied at the center. if you have a force that is tangental to the bar (90 degress=up on the bar(parallel to ground) you have max momment on the sway bar in rotation. since the sway bar is connected at the other wrong resisting torsional stresses, you get a twist/resistance, thats how a sway bar is supposed to work. the closer the force is parallel to the endlink (endlink pointing up) means there is torque at the nearest mount, because torque = force (tangental) x distance. since the force isgettting closer to parallel to the endlink, you cause a bending momment. too much bending momment on the sway bar will cause it to go straight up or at angles, putting a lot of stress on the mounts and such. so in conclusion, the lca puts a force in the upward direction. the endlink needs to be 90 degrees to that applied force to create a torsional stress(how its supposed to work), but if the bar is point up &lt; 90 degrees, it becomes bendnig momment. i hope you understand.</TD></TR></TABLE>


aah, thats the explination i was looking for. thank you. so basically, the bar not being horizontal doesnt make it any less effective. it just makes it wear the mounts and endlinks fast(er)

 

pretty much. it still works as in aiding in cornering stability, but not fully optimized as its main functional design

 

Spenc , are you trying to setup your ST rear bar ?

you want the endlinks as long as possible to minimize angular bind , remember you want at least 1.5x the diam of the Heim joint to be on the safe side though.

with the suspension at ride height set install one endlink and then set the lenth of the other so that you dont have to touch the bar to get it bolted in.

preloading the bar is only something I'd do if I had the car on scales , I run zero preload on mine and with the endlinks as long as possible it got rid of some of the bind the bar was having , evidence of bind was apparent when I pulled the bar off to cornerweight the car and noticed my eliptical bearing spacers , once I redid it the proper way the bar works much much better.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by duh blacksheep &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">pretty much. it still works as in aiding in cornering stability, but not fully optimized as its main functional design</TD></TR></TABLE>

Wouldn't there be a difference in the resistance twist v. bend -wise? Or would the bar resist bending (in a non-parallel angle) the same amount as resisting twist (in a parallel to the road angle)?

 

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

Wouldn't there be a difference in the resistance twist v. bend -wise ? Or would the bar resist bending (in a non-parallel angle) the same amount as resisting twist (in a parallel to the road angle)?</TD></TR></TABLE>

that is what i originally thought (that there be a difference in the resistance twist v. bend -wise) but i cant realy see how unless the angle of the bar in refrence to the end link angle and the angle teh force is applied fromt he endlink have an effect on the bars performance.

 

twists (torsional) is easier to bend on a sway bar. thats their main function, is to twists on cornering and have resistance from the other end. the bending will still aid in cornerins because its resisting the suspension moving through bending, but one way will cause the wrong stresses on the mounts and the other doesnt. also, if they dont twists, then the endlinks are not working against each other and become more independend, as if you just got high spring rates.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by duh blacksheep &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">twists (torsional) is easier to bend on a sway bar. thats their main function, is to twists on cornering and have resistance from the other end. the bending will still aid in cornerins because its resisting the suspension moving through bending, but one way will cause the wrong stresses on the mounts and the other doesnt. also, if they dont twists, then the endlinks are not working against each other and become more independend, as if you just got high spring rates.</TD></TR></TABLE>

wtf?

 

if anyone one really cares to know what im talking about, let me know, ill draw you a picture

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by duh blacksheep &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if anyone one really cares to know what im talking about, let me know, ill draw you a picture</TD></TR></TABLE>

I care....could you draw me a picture?

 

here it goes:


as the angle of the enlink goes away from parallel , meaning it starts to point up, there is more bending instead of twist. hope my picture makes any sense, cause it might not.

i forgot to mention, for the picture on the right, the center of rotation is at the reactive force (on the sway mount). whereas the first picture, the center of rotation is at the corner of the sway bar (along latteral part of the bar), noting both are in different axis.

 

Is this for aftermarket swaybars only? Or should somebody installing something like an ITR rear swaybar be concerned with this as well?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Nihilation &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Is this for aftermarket swaybars only? Or should somebody installing something like an ITR rear swaybar be concerned with this as well?</TD></TR></TABLE>

isnt that the same thing? if its a stock bar, dont worry about it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Doctor CorteZ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Spenc , are you trying to setup your ST rear bar ?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

nah, my bar is fine. im trying to explain to people why having their swaybar pointing up into oblivian is not the best way to have it. i just wanted to be able to explain it properly (as well as understand it myself)

"isnt that the same thing? if its a stock bar, dont worry about it."

this is where i see it the most. on cars lowered with stock bars or aftermarket bars and stock, non-adjustable endlinks

 

Bending about the x-axis (as drawn) is present in both cases, not just Case B.

As for the original question: Assuming both endlinks are at the same relative height, the fact that the lever arms are not horizontal only changes the effective moment arm, making the bar slightly stiffer.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GSpeedR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As for the original question: Assuming both endlinks are at the same relative height, the fact that the lever arms are not horizontal only changes the effective moment arm, making the bar slightly stiffer. </TD></TR></TABLE>

so it makes it stiffer (slightly) but it runs out of range of motion quickly and it binds?