Why I think the sway bar mounts must stay at stock height
09-02-03, 09:08 AM
#1
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Why I think the sway bar mounts must stay at stock height
We know the stock FD front sway bar mounts are a weakness and aftermarket ones fix that problem. I have been looking into assembling some new pieces in order to build a new front sway bar and got to thinking about the stock mounts.
First off, I don't feel that Mazda engineers are the idiots that some people do. So why do the stock mounts hang down so low? Because they have to. If the front sway bar is mounted higher in the chassis then when the suspension is at rest the arms of the sway bar are not parallel to the ground (the only exception would be a much lowered car). Keeping the arms parallel to the ground is important for a couple reasons. First, it decreases the load on the sway bar mounts and endlinks. Second, it results in the load of the sway bar being more linear with suspension movement.
Picture the sway bar from the left or right side with the arms parallel to the ground (stock). As the car rolls, one side twists up and the other down; the forces balance very nicely and the sway bar mounts for the most part merely see the torque around the bar. Now picture the sway bar on raised aftermarket mounts. Since the bar is higher the front of the sway bar arms are now higher than the rear and not parallel to the ground. As the car rolls the lever geometry of the arms is now trying to push the bar out the front end of the car, putting a much higher strain on both the sway bar mounts and the endlinks. Also, since the sway bar arms are not parallel to the ground at rest, as the car rolls one arm will pass "over center" and so the roll resistance of the bar will no longer be linear. The rate will rise until one arm passes through the horizontal and then the rate will still continue to rise, but at a lower rate. This is because of the lever action of the arms. This idea is tremendously simpler to show with a drawing and I will work on that.
My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below.
Also, I have found I had misunderstood an idea I had elsewhere. The Tripoint bar for instance has 5 holes in the arms which allows 5 different settings. I experimented at one time with "half" settings by putting one endlink on hole 4 and one on hole 3 for example. This works fine for creating my goal of having a roll rate halfway between those two, but it has a discrepency. When the car is flat and goes into dive under braking the bar will twist slightly and actually add spring rate to the front end! Since the lever arm is different at each side with the end links attached in different places you can see that if you raise both suspension arms the same amount the bar must twist. Is that good or bad? I think overall it would be bad, but for the hell of it I am going to sit down and actually figure out how much rate it adds. It may not be enough to be concerned with.
First off, I don't feel that Mazda engineers are the idiots that some people do. So why do the stock mounts hang down so low? Because they have to. If the front sway bar is mounted higher in the chassis then when the suspension is at rest the arms of the sway bar are not parallel to the ground (the only exception would be a much lowered car). Keeping the arms parallel to the ground is important for a couple reasons. First, it decreases the load on the sway bar mounts and endlinks. Second, it results in the load of the sway bar being more linear with suspension movement.
Picture the sway bar from the left or right side with the arms parallel to the ground (stock). As the car rolls, one side twists up and the other down; the forces balance very nicely and the sway bar mounts for the most part merely see the torque around the bar. Now picture the sway bar on raised aftermarket mounts. Since the bar is higher the front of the sway bar arms are now higher than the rear and not parallel to the ground. As the car rolls the lever geometry of the arms is now trying to push the bar out the front end of the car, putting a much higher strain on both the sway bar mounts and the endlinks. Also, since the sway bar arms are not parallel to the ground at rest, as the car rolls one arm will pass "over center" and so the roll resistance of the bar will no longer be linear. The rate will rise until one arm passes through the horizontal and then the rate will still continue to rise, but at a lower rate. This is because of the lever action of the arms. This idea is tremendously simpler to show with a drawing and I will work on that.
My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below.
Also, I have found I had misunderstood an idea I had elsewhere. The Tripoint bar for instance has 5 holes in the arms which allows 5 different settings. I experimented at one time with "half" settings by putting one endlink on hole 4 and one on hole 3 for example. This works fine for creating my goal of having a roll rate halfway between those two, but it has a discrepency. When the car is flat and goes into dive under braking the bar will twist slightly and actually add spring rate to the front end! Since the lever arm is different at each side with the end links attached in different places you can see that if you raise both suspension arms the same amount the bar must twist. Is that good or bad? I think overall it would be bad, but for the hell of it I am going to sit down and actually figure out how much rate it adds. It may not be enough to be concerned with.
09-02-03, 11:11 AM
#3
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by reza
Would the end link compesates for these movement you describe when we use highes swaybar mount.
Would the end link compesates for these movement you describe when we use highes swaybar mount.
09-02-03, 07:06 PM
#4
Re: Why I think the sway bar mounts must stay at stock height
Originally posted by DamonB
...My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below.
...My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below.
It also seems to me that if you really wanted a linear rate, then assuming that the bar itself maintains a linear rate throughout its range of twist, you would need to keep the force acting on the arm at a tangent to the circle described by the center point of the bar and the center point of the pivot at the end of the arm (i.e., where the link attaches).
Now, how you would accomplish that, I have no idea. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that certain racing suspensions use other types of roll control devices.
09-03-03, 12:19 AM
#5
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think end link needs to be longer to compensate the arm movement.
If its too short then there are not much play.
With more length, you can have the end link move away from the arm. Similar to your arm movement, human arm, i mean your upper arm and lower arm. With your upper arm attached if you push in your lower arm, your elbow has to bend and the upper arm move to compensates
Not sure if I got the idea right...
Reza
If its too short then there are not much play.
With more length, you can have the end link move away from the arm. Similar to your arm movement, human arm, i mean your upper arm and lower arm. With your upper arm attached if you push in your lower arm, your elbow has to bend and the upper arm move to compensates
Not sure if I got the idea right...
Reza
09-03-03, 06:57 AM
#6
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Re: Re: Why I think the sway bar mounts must stay at stock height
Originally posted by artowar
I think I understand your point but I don't see how the bent arm solves the issue.
I think I understand your point but I don't see how the bent arm solves the issue.
Originally posted by artowar
It also seems to me that if you really wanted a linear rate, then assuming that the bar itself maintains a linear rate throughout its range of twist, you would need to keep the force acting on the arm at a tangent to the circle described by the center point of the bar and the center point of the pivot at the end of the arm (i.e., where the link attaches).
It also seems to me that if you really wanted a linear rate, then assuming that the bar itself maintains a linear rate throughout its range of twist, you would need to keep the force acting on the arm at a tangent to the circle described by the center point of the bar and the center point of the pivot at the end of the arm (i.e., where the link attaches).
09-03-03, 07:07 AM
#7
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by reza
I think end link needs to be longer to compensate the arm movement.
If its too short then there are not much play.
I think end link needs to be longer to compensate the arm movement.
If its too short then there are not much play.
Picture the sway bar arm angled down towards the rear of the car at (a very extreme case) 45 degrees. The endlinks acting on that arm are nearly vertical, so when they act on the arm there is a very large force pulling horizontally towards the front of the car. This just stresses the endlinks (they can handle it) and the sway bar mounts much more. Since the sway bar mounts drop so far from the chassis that leaves quite a long lever arm to bend the mount or deform the chassis at the point of connection.
Trending Topics
09-03-03, 09:04 PM
#8
Super Snuggles
Damon, which sway bar mounts do you have? I stupidly sold my "FTL" (Trev Dagley) sway bar mounts which were built like the proverbial "brick shithouse", but I now have a set of the Crooked Willow billet mounts David Breslau made for me specially. I haven't installed them yet, but have heard/read that they raise the sway bar mounting points for more ground clearance, which must be what you're talking about?
09-04-03, 12:23 AM
#9
Rotary Enthusiast
From DamonB
"My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below."
This gains nothing, excpt cosmetics. For a high bar, with low and vertical endlinks, it matters not whether the trailing arms are strait or bent to be parallel with the road at the link end. The performance is exactly the same, base on the pivot axis of the transverse bar, and the pinned connection to the vertical link, at the bar end.
From DamonB
"Picture the sway bar arm angled down towards the rear of the car at (a very extreme case) 45 degrees. The endlinks acting on that arm are nearly vertical, so when they act on the arm there is a very large force pulling horizontally towards the front of the car. This just stresses the endlinks (they can handle it) and the sway bar mounts much more"
Not true. The for/aft thrust will be proportional to the for/aft inclination of the vertical link. If near vertical, then no for/aft thrust to sbar support. A link with 2 pinned connections at the ends can only carry force through the pin centers. Trouble starts with extreme settings on the front tripoint bar.
I prefer to have the rear bar adjustments, where forces are much smaller. I modified the brackets there so the main bar pivot axis can be moved forward for the short bar setting, keeping the link near vertical.
I do agree things get funky with half settings. I concluded roll stiffness of the bar is at the mid setting. But, compared to a balanced setting on both arms, the front end will drop more when cornering in one direction, and raise more when doing an opposit corner.
As you note, front will stiffen when braking as bar twists, but it also results in uneven L-R tire loading, which could be twitchy.
"My idea is to go ahead and raise the sway bar using aftermarket mounts, but ditch the stock Tripoint arms. In order to keep the arms parallel to the ground and also allow the bar to be mounted higher in the chassis, the arm must be bent when viewed from the side, like below."
This gains nothing, excpt cosmetics. For a high bar, with low and vertical endlinks, it matters not whether the trailing arms are strait or bent to be parallel with the road at the link end. The performance is exactly the same, base on the pivot axis of the transverse bar, and the pinned connection to the vertical link, at the bar end.
From DamonB
"Picture the sway bar arm angled down towards the rear of the car at (a very extreme case) 45 degrees. The endlinks acting on that arm are nearly vertical, so when they act on the arm there is a very large force pulling horizontally towards the front of the car. This just stresses the endlinks (they can handle it) and the sway bar mounts much more"
Not true. The for/aft thrust will be proportional to the for/aft inclination of the vertical link. If near vertical, then no for/aft thrust to sbar support. A link with 2 pinned connections at the ends can only carry force through the pin centers. Trouble starts with extreme settings on the front tripoint bar.
I prefer to have the rear bar adjustments, where forces are much smaller. I modified the brackets there so the main bar pivot axis can be moved forward for the short bar setting, keeping the link near vertical.
I do agree things get funky with half settings. I concluded roll stiffness of the bar is at the mid setting. But, compared to a balanced setting on both arms, the front end will drop more when cornering in one direction, and raise more when doing an opposit corner.
As you note, front will stiffen when braking as bar twists, but it also results in uneven L-R tire loading, which could be twitchy.
09-04-03, 07:41 AM
#10
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by KevinK2
For a high bar, with low and vertical endlinks, it matters not whether the trailing arms are strait or bent to be parallel with the road at the link end. The performance is exactly the same, base on the pivot axis of the transverse bar, and the pinned connection to the vertical link, at the bar end.
For a high bar, with low and vertical endlinks, it matters not whether the trailing arms are strait or bent to be parallel with the road at the link end. The performance is exactly the same, base on the pivot axis of the transverse bar, and the pinned connection to the vertical link, at the bar end.
Originally posted by KevinK2
Not true. The for/aft thrust will be proportional to the for/aft inclination of the vertical link. If near vertical, then no for/aft thrust to sbar support. .
Not true. The for/aft thrust will be proportional to the for/aft inclination of the vertical link. If near vertical, then no for/aft thrust to sbar support. .
Originally posted by KevinK2
I prefer to have the rear bar adjustments, where forces are much smaller. I modified the brackets there so the main bar pivot axis can be moved forward for the short bar setting, keeping the link near vertical.
I prefer to have the rear bar adjustments, where forces are much smaller. I modified the brackets there so the main bar pivot axis can be moved forward for the short bar setting, keeping the link near vertical.
Originally posted by KevinK2
I do agree things get funky with half settings. I concluded roll stiffness of the bar is at the mid setting. But, compared to a balanced setting on both arms, the front end will drop more when cornering in one direction, and raise more when doing an opposit corner.
I do agree things get funky with half settings. I concluded roll stiffness of the bar is at the mid setting. But, compared to a balanced setting on both arms, the front end will drop more when cornering in one direction, and raise more when doing an opposit corner.
As an exmaple take the bar from the car. Grip one arm at it's end and the other at its middle. Twist one way. Twist the other way. Now swap the positions of your hands. Twist one way, then the other. You'll find it takes the same amount of force to twist in each case. The longer lever arm on one side is offset by the shorter one on the other side. It still balances out.
Originally posted by KevinK2
As you note, front will stiffen when braking as bar twists
As you note, front will stiffen when braking as bar twists
Originally posted by KevinK2
but it also results in uneven L-R tire loading, which could be twitchy.
but it also results in uneven L-R tire loading, which could be twitchy.
Last edited by DamonB; 09-04-03 at 07:51 AM.
09-04-03, 07:43 AM
#11
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by jimlab
Damon, which sway bar mounts do you have?
Damon, which sway bar mounts do you have?
Originally posted by jimlab
I haven't installed them yet, but have heard/read that they raise the sway bar mounting points for more ground clearance, which must be what you're talking about?
I haven't installed them yet, but have heard/read that they raise the sway bar mounting points for more ground clearance, which must be what you're talking about?
09-04-03, 08:57 AM
#12
Rotary Enthusiast
DamonB,
You need to understand the principal of structural links with pinned ends ... ie ball pivots at ea end. Loke truss links in a ME bridge statics problem. At the end attachments, no moment can be transfered, and the link can only carry a force vector passing through both end pivots. In your example, with vertical links, there is no for aft reaction in the arms, just a vertical force applied at the link joint. It's not intuitively obvious. Imagine links removed, and bar ends angled down at 45 deg. now tie 4" string to each bar end .... pull one string up, the other down. Torque is applied to sbar w/o for aft forces.
for unequal arm lengths, the forces at the short arm will be higher, for consistent torque along the bar midspan. my analysis, looking at roll stiffness and vertical support loads at the springs, showed the cornering behavior I noted. When braking in a strait line, this will also result in unbalanced vertical reactions at the frame where the main pivots are, thus rotating the body, resulting in unbalanced side to side tire loads. For short arm at RF, net vertical force to front frame increases (less dive), body rolls left, tire force bias will be on RF and LR. The effect could be small, but it is there.
I do this stuff daily, often with FEA, as an ME consultant, fwiw.
You need to understand the principal of structural links with pinned ends ... ie ball pivots at ea end. Loke truss links in a ME bridge statics problem. At the end attachments, no moment can be transfered, and the link can only carry a force vector passing through both end pivots. In your example, with vertical links, there is no for aft reaction in the arms, just a vertical force applied at the link joint. It's not intuitively obvious. Imagine links removed, and bar ends angled down at 45 deg. now tie 4" string to each bar end .... pull one string up, the other down. Torque is applied to sbar w/o for aft forces.
for unequal arm lengths, the forces at the short arm will be higher, for consistent torque along the bar midspan. my analysis, looking at roll stiffness and vertical support loads at the springs, showed the cornering behavior I noted. When braking in a strait line, this will also result in unbalanced vertical reactions at the frame where the main pivots are, thus rotating the body, resulting in unbalanced side to side tire loads. For short arm at RF, net vertical force to front frame increases (less dive), body rolls left, tire force bias will be on RF and LR. The effect could be small, but it is there.
I do this stuff daily, often with FEA, as an ME consultant, fwiw.
09-04-03, 10:25 AM
#13
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally posted by KevinK2
It's not intuitively obvious. Imagine links removed, and bar ends angled down at 45 deg. now tie 4" string to each bar end .... pull one string up, the other down. Torque is applied to sbar w/o for aft forces.
It's not intuitively obvious. Imagine links removed, and bar ends angled down at 45 deg. now tie 4" string to each bar end .... pull one string up, the other down. Torque is applied to sbar w/o for aft forces.
Originally posted by KevinK2
... When braking in a strait line, this will also result in unbalanced vertical reactions at the frame where the main pivots are, thus rotating the body, resulting in unbalanced side to side tire loads.
... When braking in a strait line, this will also result in unbalanced vertical reactions at the frame where the main pivots are, thus rotating the body, resulting in unbalanced side to side tire loads.
Last edited by DamonB; 09-04-03 at 10:28 AM.
09-04-03, 10:59 AM
#14
Rotary Enthusiast
Originally posted by DamonB
....I still don't understand how the force at the pivots would be unbalanced. The reaction force at the arms may seem different if the arm lengths are unequal, but that reaction force only acts via the opposite endlink through the torque tube. The torque tube will be equally stressed about it's entire length in any case; it can't twist more at one end then the other. How then can the mounts not be equally stressed?
....I still don't understand how the force at the pivots would be unbalanced. The reaction force at the arms may seem different if the arm lengths are unequal, but that reaction force only acts via the opposite endlink through the torque tube. The torque tube will be equally stressed about it's entire length in any case; it can't twist more at one end then the other. How then can the mounts not be equally stressed?
Your initial instinct is correct ... having the pivots and the lower link joints in the same horizontal plane that's parallel to the ground, with vertical links, is a good thing. It will minimize the link angles that occur during compression and extension of the suspension, and thus minimise the bad for/aft (and side to side) thrust forces that help crack mounts and frames.
10-01-05, 08:39 PM
#15
DamonB, to revive your old thread, did you see the Straight Talk column in the October 2005 issue of Racecar engineering?
Picking up on the article, and taking your original post hopefully a more practical direction, rather than view the change in anti-rollbar rate as a bad thing to be minimized, recognize that the change will be there, accept that it can be significant (by the author's measurements), and try taking advantage of it in your suspension tuning.
The author suggests setting the front bar so that the softest rate (bar horizontal to the ground) will occur under braking, thus making the front end softer and enhancing traction when trail braking. In the rear, the suggestion is to set up with the softest rate under acceleration to enhance traction coming out of turns.
You've got the experience to try out the suggestions and measure results-- maybe another experiment for the Geez?
Picking up on the article, and taking your original post hopefully a more practical direction, rather than view the change in anti-rollbar rate as a bad thing to be minimized, recognize that the change will be there, accept that it can be significant (by the author's measurements), and try taking advantage of it in your suspension tuning.
The author suggests setting the front bar so that the softest rate (bar horizontal to the ground) will occur under braking, thus making the front end softer and enhancing traction when trail braking. In the rear, the suggestion is to set up with the softest rate under acceleration to enhance traction coming out of turns.
You've got the experience to try out the suggestions and measure results-- maybe another experiment for the Geez?
Last edited by artowar; 10-01-05 at 08:45 PM.
10-03-05, 08:55 AM
#16
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
^ I have not read the October issue yet but that would be fun to try! I'll have to see how much difference I can really make with the endlinks I already have. I optimized my endlinks and mounts to keep the arms horizontal at ride height and I'm not sure how far "out of whack" I could make it without buying different end links. I'll have to mess around with it
12-08-05, 09:09 AM
#17
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
These are the mounts I built. The upper and lower plates are 3/16" steel plate joined with a 1.25" steel tube. I made the plates in such a way that the cuts at the ends of the tube are perfectly square. The lower mounting plate is much larger than stock so that I can bolt the Tripoint bronze bushings on directly without using the Tripoint braces. These mounts maintain stock geometry with the car at ride height.
You can see how the head of the pinch bolt in the bar arm if ground off as it occasionally is used as a skid plate
A light film of grease where the arm slips onto the torque tube keeps the aluminum arm from squeaking or groaning on the splined steel torque tube. As they get wet tiny mineral deposits get in there and make strange noises. The grease prevents that.
In the pic of the car on the ground the bar is actually not quite parallel to the ground because I have it set on a stiffer setting than normal. When the droplinks are in the third hole of the arms (where they stay 95% of the time) the bar is perfectly horizontal to the ground with the car at ride height.
You can see how the head of the pinch bolt in the bar arm if ground off as it occasionally is used as a skid plate
A light film of grease where the arm slips onto the torque tube keeps the aluminum arm from squeaking or groaning on the splined steel torque tube. As they get wet tiny mineral deposits get in there and make strange noises. The grease prevents that.In the pic of the car on the ground the bar is actually not quite parallel to the ground because I have it set on a stiffer setting than normal. When the droplinks are in the third hole of the arms (where they stay 95% of the time) the bar is perfectly horizontal to the ground with the car at ride height.
06-08-06, 01:31 PM
#18
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wappinger Falls, NY
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any follow-up to this?
I too am of the mindset that setting the bar horizontally is the best place to begin. But I never thought to capitalize on its orientation during threshold braking and acceleration...which at first blush feels like an extreme compromise...
I too am of the mindset that setting the bar horizontally is the best place to begin. But I never thought to capitalize on its orientation during threshold braking and acceleration...which at first blush feels like an extreme compromise...
Originally Posted by artowar
DamonB, to revive your old thread, did you see the Straight Talk column in the October 2005 issue of Racecar engineering?
Picking up on the article, and taking your original post hopefully a more practical direction, rather than view the change in anti-rollbar rate as a bad thing to be minimized, recognize that the change will be there, accept that it can be significant (by the author's measurements), and try taking advantage of it in your suspension tuning.
The author suggests setting the front bar so that the softest rate (bar horizontal to the ground) will occur under braking, thus making the front end softer and enhancing traction when trail braking. In the rear, the suggestion is to set up with the softest rate under acceleration to enhance traction coming out of turns.
You've got the experience to try out the suggestions and measure results-- maybe another experiment for the Geez?
Picking up on the article, and taking your original post hopefully a more practical direction, rather than view the change in anti-rollbar rate as a bad thing to be minimized, recognize that the change will be there, accept that it can be significant (by the author's measurements), and try taking advantage of it in your suspension tuning.
The author suggests setting the front bar so that the softest rate (bar horizontal to the ground) will occur under braking, thus making the front end softer and enhancing traction when trail braking. In the rear, the suggestion is to set up with the softest rate under acceleration to enhance traction coming out of turns.
You've got the experience to try out the suggestions and measure results-- maybe another experiment for the Geez?
06-08-06, 02:08 PM
#19
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by meb
Any follow-up to this?
I too am of the mindset that setting the bar horizontally is the best place to begin. But I never thought to capitalize on its orientation during threshold braking and acceleration...which at first blush feels like an extreme compromise...
I too am of the mindset that setting the bar horizontally is the best place to begin. But I never thought to capitalize on its orientation during threshold braking and acceleration...which at first blush feels like an extreme compromise...
06-09-06, 07:20 AM
#20
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wappinger Falls, NY
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DamonB,
While I've been reading many threads within RXtuner, I joined yesterday. I currently drive a 2005 JCW Mini cooper. While setting up my car, I noticed that the front end would occasional skip thru portions of the second apex and turn two at Lime Rock. My new adjustable endlinks were the cause; these essentially ran out of articulation range. Many Mini folk set their end links so that this does not occur, but are compromising - I feel - the proper orientation of the bar. Simultaneous to my bad track experience I found a website in Grass Roots Magazine - www.powergridinc.com. These folks are OEM and aftermarket endlink manufacturers. I called and spoke with one of their engineers who invited me to meet him at Lime rock Memorial Day weekend. Chip - the engineer - showed me an adjustable ball joint type endlink - like OEM style but with a booted ball joint. The articulation of these ball joint type endlinks is more than twice that of heim joints...22 degrees for a heim joint and 55 for the ball joint type. Every Cobalt team uses these...one or two of the Acura teams as well. Chip will make these to order - for your personal application. He'll simply ask you to make a few measurements.
These new endlinks now allow me to set my bar where I want it without worrying about binding. They are probably twice the weight of typical aftermarket adjustable endlinks, but twice very little weight is still not a concern for me...my new brakes are 11 lbs lighter so I'm still ahead of the unsprung weight game.
Final note; according to Chip, these ball joint ends are so slippery you can use a slightly smaller swaybar. They felt really good next to my slightly used heim joint types.
Michael
While I've been reading many threads within RXtuner, I joined yesterday. I currently drive a 2005 JCW Mini cooper. While setting up my car, I noticed that the front end would occasional skip thru portions of the second apex and turn two at Lime Rock. My new adjustable endlinks were the cause; these essentially ran out of articulation range. Many Mini folk set their end links so that this does not occur, but are compromising - I feel - the proper orientation of the bar. Simultaneous to my bad track experience I found a website in Grass Roots Magazine - www.powergridinc.com. These folks are OEM and aftermarket endlink manufacturers. I called and spoke with one of their engineers who invited me to meet him at Lime rock Memorial Day weekend. Chip - the engineer - showed me an adjustable ball joint type endlink - like OEM style but with a booted ball joint. The articulation of these ball joint type endlinks is more than twice that of heim joints...22 degrees for a heim joint and 55 for the ball joint type. Every Cobalt team uses these...one or two of the Acura teams as well. Chip will make these to order - for your personal application. He'll simply ask you to make a few measurements.
These new endlinks now allow me to set my bar where I want it without worrying about binding. They are probably twice the weight of typical aftermarket adjustable endlinks, but twice very little weight is still not a concern for me...my new brakes are 11 lbs lighter so I'm still ahead of the unsprung weight game.
Final note; according to Chip, these ball joint ends are so slippery you can use a slightly smaller swaybar. They felt really good next to my slightly used heim joint types.
Michael
Last edited by meb; 06-09-06 at 07:25 AM.
06-09-06, 09:14 AM
#21
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by meb
My new adjustable endlinks were the cause; these essentially ran out of articulation range. Many Mini folk set their end links so that this does not occur, but are compromising - I feel - the proper orientation of the bar. Simultaneous to my bad track experience I found a website in Grass Roots Magazine - www.powergridinc.com. Michael
06-09-06, 03:17 PM
#23
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by DamonB
Researching THK ball studs now... Much more elegant solution.
If anyone identifies an alternate solution for the front and rear sway bar links, I'm in.
06-09-06, 03:45 PM
#24
Lives on the Forum
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by jimlab
Do I smell a group buy?
It's too much work and always thankless
If I end up buying some link ***** I'll post where I got them and how much I payed and everyone can then exercise their own free will I work with suppliers who sell THK so I'll just have to figure out what I need and make some calls next week.
06-09-06, 04:10 PM
#25
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by DamonB
That's your job?
If I end up buying some link ***** I'll post where I got them and how much I payed and everyone can then exercise their own free will
BTW, congrats on the little one.