| WL Flatout | 01-31-2006 06:20 PM |
G'day everyone,
Its been a while since we posted on the forum and we missed a lot of this thread due to our summer holidays "down-under".
draken, you are correct in your analysis of our front adjustable bar and your tests confirm the expected difference. We do not as a rule publish absolute values as our test equipment is designed to compare shapes and sizes rather than deliver absolutes that are only as relevant as the environment they are used in (bushes, links etc).
The key point that needs to be understood is that a swaybars rate is calculated by a formula that looks at the "effective" arm length, irrespective of the twists and turns along the way within reason. Therefore, the absolute distance between the link point and the centreline pivot centre of the back of the bar is what counts irrespective of how it might get there. Any change in that distance, even by a millimetre will result in a change in rate. More information available at our FAQ here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/faqswaybars.htm[/url] . Needless to say, the shorter the arm, the greater the rate difference across a small distance change and vice versa. Hence, draken's experience with the tests of his Whiteline swaybar are consistent and predictable.
There is more information contained in the section on Asymmetric Adjustment on the same page including a PDF copy of our discussion paper as posted to NASIOC in July 2002. Download copy [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/NASIOC_post_assymetric_adj.pdf[/url]
For those interested in better understanding the difference between hollow and solid swaybars, our engineers published a discussion paper on this in January 2003 titled "Hollow versus Solid Swaybars - Comparison of the 2 separate design strategies and how they differ in practical use and manufacture." You can download a copy at [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/docs/bulletins/Hollow%20vs%20Solid%20Swaybar.pdf[/url] .
As a side note, the OEM industry trend over the last 10 years as witnessed by our development team is to move away from hollow swaybars. The current design preference is for shorter arm lengths but with more direct connections closer to the wheel. This reduces affect of motion ratios with solid links allowing higher effective bar rates for a given material size. This trend can be easily seen with Subaru's design approach in later models with diameter's remaining generally unchanged but mounting points and link styles changing to increase effective rates. As swaybar sizes from OEM continue to grow (a '94 series WRX used a 14mm OE rear swaybar) and expected roll resistance rates increase, the manufactures also move away from hollow as they simply run out of room with today's complicated shapes. Clearance becomes an issue while bend radii are compromised to still meet fitment objectives diameters increases. Hence the reason we are seeing more OE swaybar breakages than ever before.
Weight is always an issue with heavier swaybars but we try to get around this problem by following current design best practice through the use of tapered or machined bar ends. For example, our XRD Race swaybars for Subaru like # XSF36XXZ for MY06 STi uses a 27 mm diameter bar machined to 24mm for the mount points and onward to the link points. This has next to no affect on the rate as the "back" of the bar is doing most of the work. I'd like to say that we thought of this ourselves but its been a popular technique with Mercedes and BMW since the 90's. :o
Hope this helps.
Best
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
Its been a while since we posted on the forum and we missed a lot of this thread due to our summer holidays "down-under".
draken, you are correct in your analysis of our front adjustable bar and your tests confirm the expected difference. We do not as a rule publish absolute values as our test equipment is designed to compare shapes and sizes rather than deliver absolutes that are only as relevant as the environment they are used in (bushes, links etc).
The key point that needs to be understood is that a swaybars rate is calculated by a formula that looks at the "effective" arm length, irrespective of the twists and turns along the way within reason. Therefore, the absolute distance between the link point and the centreline pivot centre of the back of the bar is what counts irrespective of how it might get there. Any change in that distance, even by a millimetre will result in a change in rate. More information available at our FAQ here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/faqswaybars.htm[/url] . Needless to say, the shorter the arm, the greater the rate difference across a small distance change and vice versa. Hence, draken's experience with the tests of his Whiteline swaybar are consistent and predictable.
There is more information contained in the section on Asymmetric Adjustment on the same page including a PDF copy of our discussion paper as posted to NASIOC in July 2002. Download copy [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/NASIOC_post_assymetric_adj.pdf[/url]
For those interested in better understanding the difference between hollow and solid swaybars, our engineers published a discussion paper on this in January 2003 titled "Hollow versus Solid Swaybars - Comparison of the 2 separate design strategies and how they differ in practical use and manufacture." You can download a copy at [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/docs/bulletins/Hollow%20vs%20Solid%20Swaybar.pdf[/url] .
As a side note, the OEM industry trend over the last 10 years as witnessed by our development team is to move away from hollow swaybars. The current design preference is for shorter arm lengths but with more direct connections closer to the wheel. This reduces affect of motion ratios with solid links allowing higher effective bar rates for a given material size. This trend can be easily seen with Subaru's design approach in later models with diameter's remaining generally unchanged but mounting points and link styles changing to increase effective rates. As swaybar sizes from OEM continue to grow (a '94 series WRX used a 14mm OE rear swaybar) and expected roll resistance rates increase, the manufactures also move away from hollow as they simply run out of room with today's complicated shapes. Clearance becomes an issue while bend radii are compromised to still meet fitment objectives diameters increases. Hence the reason we are seeing more OE swaybar breakages than ever before.
Weight is always an issue with heavier swaybars but we try to get around this problem by following current design best practice through the use of tapered or machined bar ends. For example, our XRD Race swaybars for Subaru like # XSF36XXZ for MY06 STi uses a 27 mm diameter bar machined to 24mm for the mount points and onward to the link points. This has next to no affect on the rate as the "back" of the bar is doing most of the work. I'd like to say that we thought of this ourselves but its been a popular technique with Mercedes and BMW since the 90's. :o
Hope this helps.
Best
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
| sstrano | 01-31-2006 07:21 PM |
We will have to just disagree. Force does not magically move through the air "as the crow flies". The forces from the bar have to go through the bar. Use a ruler. If you lay it down and push on the end on the edge of a desk the further you move up the ruler the less it flexes. It gets stiffer just like shortening the arm of a bar does because you are actually working with less material to flex. The Whiteline design does not change the amount of material you are working with in the lever arm length. It's nice to think you are shortening it because you moving the link closer to the pivot point of the bar. But the forces aren't traveling forward, but downward though the very same common point regardless of which hole you have the link placed in.
One could say it's 10 miles to Mom's house cross-country..... and it might be cross-country. But if you need to drive there and have to do it on paved roads that path is your real world mileage. Like a car has to follow the road, force has to travel through the bar.
Complicated shapes aren't a problem with my bar, it's very simple which allowed use to use Hollow tubing. But I'd agree that you if you have lots of funny bends that you need to do a solid bar because it's much easier....
I'm not going to argue the semantics of hollow vs. solid here. I'm not a fan of dragging around weight that doesn't help the car, and it's not too often you find a solid bar on a race car where weight counts and cost of building is not a concern.
One could say it's 10 miles to Mom's house cross-country..... and it might be cross-country. But if you need to drive there and have to do it on paved roads that path is your real world mileage. Like a car has to follow the road, force has to travel through the bar.
Complicated shapes aren't a problem with my bar, it's very simple which allowed use to use Hollow tubing. But I'd agree that you if you have lots of funny bends that you need to do a solid bar because it's much easier....
I'm not going to argue the semantics of hollow vs. solid here. I'm not a fan of dragging around weight that doesn't help the car, and it's not too often you find a solid bar on a race car where weight counts and cost of building is not a concern.
| jmott | 01-31-2006 08:48 PM |
Strano, have you ever used a breaker bar?
Did you notice a longer lever arm made it easier?
Am I hearing you wrong here or something?
[QUOTE=sstrano]We will have to just disagree. Force does not magically move through the air "as the crow flies". The forces from the bar have to go through the bar. Use a ruler. If you lay it down and push on the end on the edge of a desk the further you move up the ruler the less it flexes. It gets stiffer just like shortening the arm of a bar does because you are actually working with less material to flex. The Whiteline design does not change the amount of material you are working with in the lever arm length. It's nice to think you are shortening it because you moving the link closer to the pivot point of the bar. But the forces aren't traveling forward, but downward though the very same common point regardless of which hole you have the link placed in.
One could say it's 10 miles to Mom's house cross-country..... and it might be cross-country. But if you need to drive there and have to do it on paved roads that path is your real world mileage. Like a car has to follow the road, force has to travel through the bar.
Complicated shapes aren't a problem with my bar, it's very simple which allowed use to use Hollow tubing. But I'd agree that you if you have lots of funny bends that you need to do a solid bar because it's much easier....
I'm not going to argue the semantics of hollow vs. solid here. I'm not a fan of dragging around weight that doesn't help the car, and it's not too often you find a solid bar on a race car where weight counts and cost of building is not a concern.[/QUOTE]
Did you notice a longer lever arm made it easier?
Am I hearing you wrong here or something?
[QUOTE=sstrano]We will have to just disagree. Force does not magically move through the air "as the crow flies". The forces from the bar have to go through the bar. Use a ruler. If you lay it down and push on the end on the edge of a desk the further you move up the ruler the less it flexes. It gets stiffer just like shortening the arm of a bar does because you are actually working with less material to flex. The Whiteline design does not change the amount of material you are working with in the lever arm length. It's nice to think you are shortening it because you moving the link closer to the pivot point of the bar. But the forces aren't traveling forward, but downward though the very same common point regardless of which hole you have the link placed in.
One could say it's 10 miles to Mom's house cross-country..... and it might be cross-country. But if you need to drive there and have to do it on paved roads that path is your real world mileage. Like a car has to follow the road, force has to travel through the bar.
Complicated shapes aren't a problem with my bar, it's very simple which allowed use to use Hollow tubing. But I'd agree that you if you have lots of funny bends that you need to do a solid bar because it's much easier....
I'm not going to argue the semantics of hollow vs. solid here. I'm not a fan of dragging around weight that doesn't help the car, and it's not too often you find a solid bar on a race car where weight counts and cost of building is not a concern.[/QUOTE]
| AtomicRacer | 02-01-2006 10:12 AM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]We will have to just disagree. Force does not magically move through the air "as the crow flies". [/QUOTE]
Umm, actually it does. The vectors of the applied force do indeed move through the air "as the crow flies". The shape of the arm has some impact on flex and efficiency of the transfer of energy (read force) but in this case it is small enough it can be ignored. The important parts are the centerline of the bar (the pivot point) and the distance of the hole from the centerline of the bar (length of the lever). As that distance (as the crow flies) becomes shorter then more force is required to accomplish the same amount of movement and in effect becomes "stiffer".
Yes, you can come up with examples where the efficency of the lever arm becomes compromised so much that it will have a significant impact on the energy transfered. In this case though, it is sufficiently stiff to not have any significant impact and therefore can be excluded from the model.
-Paul
Umm, actually it does. The vectors of the applied force do indeed move through the air "as the crow flies". The shape of the arm has some impact on flex and efficiency of the transfer of energy (read force) but in this case it is small enough it can be ignored. The important parts are the centerline of the bar (the pivot point) and the distance of the hole from the centerline of the bar (length of the lever). As that distance (as the crow flies) becomes shorter then more force is required to accomplish the same amount of movement and in effect becomes "stiffer".
Yes, you can come up with examples where the efficency of the lever arm becomes compromised so much that it will have a significant impact on the energy transfered. In this case though, it is sufficiently stiff to not have any significant impact and therefore can be excluded from the model.
-Paul
| AUTOwrXER | 02-01-2006 10:26 AM |
I still think that the angle of the endlink is very relevant. If the endlink was horizontal, it wouldn't be able to twist the bar at all. The force transferred in the vertical direction will be afactor of the endlink angle. The endlink shown in earlier pictures of the Whiteline bar is at a considerable angle, IMO.
| D_REX | 02-01-2006 10:32 AM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]I still think that the angle of the endlink is very relevant. If the endlink was horizontal, it wouldn't be able to twist the bar at all. The force transferred in the vertical direction will be afactor of the endlink angle. The endlink shown in earlier pictures of the Whiteline bar is at a considerable angle, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately this is a hazard with any adjustable sway bar and fixed length endlink design. If you look at the picture posted earlier
[IMG]http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/2075000-2075999/2075362_19_full.jpg[/IMG]
It looks like the endlink is off vertical by some angle but appears that it will be vertical if installed in the stiffer position. This is just conjecture of course.
Unfortunately this is a hazard with any adjustable sway bar and fixed length endlink design. If you look at the picture posted earlier
[IMG]http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/2075000-2075999/2075362_19_full.jpg[/IMG]
It looks like the endlink is off vertical by some angle but appears that it will be vertical if installed in the stiffer position. This is just conjecture of course.
| AtomicRacer | 02-01-2006 11:05 AM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]I still think that the angle of the endlink is very relevant. If the endlink was horizontal, it wouldn't be able to twist the bar at all. The force transferred in the vertical direction will be a factor of the endlink angle. The endlink shown in earlier pictures of the Whiteline bar is at a considerable angle, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree with this too. Anything other than vertical will have some negative impact on force transferred.
-Paul
Yes, I agree with this too. Anything other than vertical will have some negative impact on force transferred.
-Paul
| sstrano | 02-01-2006 03:12 PM |
I give up.. I have used a breaker bar. Are you breaker bars equipped with a 180 degree bend in them? No, they are straight because that gives you more leverage. Shorten the bar, the less leverage, just like a swaybar.
So, I'm not going to argue the point here any longer. I can't convey what I mean clearly enough. No surprise, this is why computers aren't responsible for everything (thank god). Letter writing is not an effective means of explanation IMHO. So I'm not going to bother. Have fun.
And oh, BTW to get back on topic...... I still haven't had a phone call from ONE PERSON about this. :)
So, I'm not going to argue the point here any longer. I can't convey what I mean clearly enough. No surprise, this is why computers aren't responsible for everything (thank god). Letter writing is not an effective means of explanation IMHO. So I'm not going to bother. Have fun.
And oh, BTW to get back on topic...... I still haven't had a phone call from ONE PERSON about this. :)
| IBAUCLAPlaya | 02-01-2006 07:42 PM |
Still going to order mine for an 04 WRX at the end of this month :).
| WL Flatout | 02-02-2006 12:13 AM |
G'day everyone,
sstrano, I accept your point regarding difficulty with electronic communication, its often a lot easier to explain these things face to face. :)
Only problem is that as it currently stands, my understanding is that your argument suggests that our front adjustable swaybar does not adjust the rate as its claimed to do which concerns me for a number of obvious reasons. If we "agree to disagree" that still leaves this up in the air.
I would respectfully ask for a clarification of your position or proof supporting any claim that we are selling something that doesnt do what we claim it does.
Cheers
Jim
PS. D_REX. You are of course correct regarding reduced effectiveness away from vertical but we are very careful when manufacturing the bars to keep the perpendicular relationship at normal ride height. Being such a short arm, there is a fair degree of variation but this equally delivers a dynamic rate change on the stock bars as it moves through its normal travel arc.
Whiteline Automotive
sstrano, I accept your point regarding difficulty with electronic communication, its often a lot easier to explain these things face to face. :)
Only problem is that as it currently stands, my understanding is that your argument suggests that our front adjustable swaybar does not adjust the rate as its claimed to do which concerns me for a number of obvious reasons. If we "agree to disagree" that still leaves this up in the air.
I would respectfully ask for a clarification of your position or proof supporting any claim that we are selling something that doesnt do what we claim it does.
Cheers
Jim
PS. D_REX. You are of course correct regarding reduced effectiveness away from vertical but we are very careful when manufacturing the bars to keep the perpendicular relationship at normal ride height. Being such a short arm, there is a fair degree of variation but this equally delivers a dynamic rate change on the stock bars as it moves through its normal travel arc.
Whiteline Automotive
| sstrano | 02-02-2006 06:09 PM |
I simply don't think it works. Have no "proof". On the other hand I've seen nothing proving it either. I've driven cars wtih Whiteline bars on both settings an I'll be damned if I noticed a change. Now you could put that down to me and maybe I'm a bad or insensitive driver. But I'd not agree (or course anyone can say that). I just have a few things that prove I'm pretty good at driving, and setting up cars both ;)
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I don't have a jig to test the bars. It's also not my job to prove your part works as advertised.
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I don't have a jig to test the bars. It's also not my job to prove your part works as advertised.
| crystalhelix | 02-02-2006 06:46 PM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I don't have a jig to test the bars. It's also not my job to prove your part works as advertised.[/QUOTE]
What is the white line bar made out of?
What is the addco bar made out of?
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. I don't have a jig to test the bars. It's also not my job to prove your part works as advertised.[/QUOTE]
What is the white line bar made out of?
What is the addco bar made out of?
| AUTOwrXER | 02-03-2006 02:45 PM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix]What is the white line bar made out of?
What is the addco bar made out of?[/QUOTE]
Addco bar is made out of 1045
What is the addco bar made out of?[/QUOTE]
Addco bar is made out of 1045
| crystalhelix | 02-03-2006 03:08 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]Addco bar is made out of 1045[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I would assume the Whiteline is steel as well. I may be able to do an analysis this weekend.
J
Thanks. I would assume the Whiteline is steel as well. I may be able to do an analysis this weekend.
J
| PossumK | 02-03-2006 03:10 PM |
All I found from Whiteline's brochures was "finest grade Australian spring steel." :p
| Draken | 02-03-2006 07:11 PM |
So when it comes to determining a torsion bars stiffness, we have resorted to "i think" and "i feel" it does or doesn't work?
hahahaha. Brilliant! Basic math be damned.
Good luck guys.
Chris H.
hahahaha. Brilliant! Basic math be damned.
Good luck guys.
Chris H.
| Draken | 02-03-2006 07:13 PM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]I simply don't think it works.
-snip-
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. [/QUOTE]
12345
-snip-
I have no proof. I'm not a scientist, or an engineer. [/QUOTE]
12345
| trhoppe | 02-03-2006 10:55 PM |
I wouldn't say that so fast Stickboy. If anyone can tell a minute difference in teh way a car feels its Sammy. I for one agree that when it comes down to it, results and championships show the way as far as what works and what works on paper :)
-Tom
-Tom
| Draken | 02-03-2006 11:06 PM |
So I've decided that math is for pussies, and will join the Stranobar fanboi club, headed by Hoppeson. First order of business, re-invent the standard calculation for a torsion bar:
Formula:
K (lbs/in) = 500,000 x (D^4 - d^4) x (F^eleventybillion) / (0.4244 x A^2 x B) + (0.2264 x C^3)
D = outer bar diameter
d = inner bar diameter
A = length of bar end, lever arm
B = length of center section
C = length of bar end (if 90-degree bend, C = A)
F = "feel" of a bar
Based on my calculations, using a "feel coeffecient" of 1.0482, the Stranobar is cleary MUCH stiffer than the whiteline bar. By my estimates of feel, i would say 43% stiffer. Tomorrow, I'm thinking it should be 67% stiffer.
Hoppe: Sorry i was gone...in Vegas on worky. Hear anything from Kook?
Stickboy
Formula:
K (lbs/in) = 500,000 x (D^4 - d^4) x (F^eleventybillion) / (0.4244 x A^2 x B) + (0.2264 x C^3)
D = outer bar diameter
d = inner bar diameter
A = length of bar end, lever arm
B = length of center section
C = length of bar end (if 90-degree bend, C = A)
F = "feel" of a bar
Based on my calculations, using a "feel coeffecient" of 1.0482, the Stranobar is cleary MUCH stiffer than the whiteline bar. By my estimates of feel, i would say 43% stiffer. Tomorrow, I'm thinking it should be 67% stiffer.
Hoppe: Sorry i was gone...in Vegas on worky. Hear anything from Kook?
Stickboy
| crystalhelix | 02-04-2006 01:51 AM |
Chris - based on some of your original measurements and some that I took I get 1249lb/in for the Addco bar made from 1045 with your dims. The Whiteline geometry is more complex, but I should be able to come up with something in a couple days. Results via Ansys FEA analysis.
Notes - It appears from the analysis that the end geometry of the bar has most of the effect on roll resistance as seen by the stress concentrating mostly in the end of the arm.
Picture:
[img]http://www.spryracing.com/FAQS/technical/suspension/addcobar/addco1.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=Draken]I had to go by home during a site visit, so i popped under my STi and measured the Whiteline bar. Using the anti-roll bar formula as published in Fred Puhn's book "How to make your car handle" i came up with the following calcs.
[COLOR=Red]Formula:
K (lbs/in) = 500,000 x (D^4 - d^4) / (0.4244 x A^2 x B) + (0.2264 x C^3)
D = outer bar diameter
d = inner bar diameter
A = length of bar end, lever arm
B = length of center section
C = length of bar end (if 90-degree bend, C = A)[/COLOR]
Whiteline Bar, soft setting: K = ~ 1,307 lbs/in.
D = 1.063"
d = na
A = 5.5"
B = 32"
C = 7"
Whiteline Bar, stiff setting: K = ~ 1,731 lbs/in. (34% stiffer than soft setting)
D = 1.063"
d = na
A = 4.75"
B = 32"
C = 6.5"
Based on the photos supplied above, it looks like the major changes in the Strano bar include a longer center section (est. 4") and a longer lever arm (estimate 1" longer than Whiteline stiff setting.) Also, the Strano bar uses a 90-degree bend.
[B]Estimated[/B] Strano Bar: K = ~ 1,655 lbs/in.
D = 1.250"
d = 0.875"
A = 5.75" (based on photos above, lever arm is roughly 1" longer)
B = 36" (based on photos above, center section is roughly 2" longer per side)
C = 6.25"
If anyone has specific measurements of the Strano bar for items A and B, that would be great.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
Notes - It appears from the analysis that the end geometry of the bar has most of the effect on roll resistance as seen by the stress concentrating mostly in the end of the arm.
Picture:
[img]http://www.spryracing.com/FAQS/technical/suspension/addcobar/addco1.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=Draken]I had to go by home during a site visit, so i popped under my STi and measured the Whiteline bar. Using the anti-roll bar formula as published in Fred Puhn's book "How to make your car handle" i came up with the following calcs.
[COLOR=Red]Formula:
K (lbs/in) = 500,000 x (D^4 - d^4) / (0.4244 x A^2 x B) + (0.2264 x C^3)
D = outer bar diameter
d = inner bar diameter
A = length of bar end, lever arm
B = length of center section
C = length of bar end (if 90-degree bend, C = A)[/COLOR]
Whiteline Bar, soft setting: K = ~ 1,307 lbs/in.
D = 1.063"
d = na
A = 5.5"
B = 32"
C = 7"
Whiteline Bar, stiff setting: K = ~ 1,731 lbs/in. (34% stiffer than soft setting)
D = 1.063"
d = na
A = 4.75"
B = 32"
C = 6.5"
Based on the photos supplied above, it looks like the major changes in the Strano bar include a longer center section (est. 4") and a longer lever arm (estimate 1" longer than Whiteline stiff setting.) Also, the Strano bar uses a 90-degree bend.
[B]Estimated[/B] Strano Bar: K = ~ 1,655 lbs/in.
D = 1.250"
d = 0.875"
A = 5.75" (based on photos above, lever arm is roughly 1" longer)
B = 36" (based on photos above, center section is roughly 2" longer per side)
C = 6.25"
If anyone has specific measurements of the Strano bar for items A and B, that would be great.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
| -OneWay- | 02-08-2006 04:08 PM |
I reinstalled my Strano FSB this past weekend.
To prevent the bolt from rubbing against the bar we used a pry bar to pry against the main bushing brackets that hold the sway bar as we tightened them down, this provided a little bit of clearance.
To silence the Strano FSB we removed the synthetic wheel bearing grease that had been recommended and used originally and replaced it with grease meant for urethane bushings, Energy Suspension Formula 5.
[url]http://www.energysuspension.com/pages/univ1.html[/url]
Now my Sway bar is as quiet as stock, feels perfect and doesn't have any rubbing issues.
To prevent the bolt from rubbing against the bar we used a pry bar to pry against the main bushing brackets that hold the sway bar as we tightened them down, this provided a little bit of clearance.
To silence the Strano FSB we removed the synthetic wheel bearing grease that had been recommended and used originally and replaced it with grease meant for urethane bushings, Energy Suspension Formula 5.
[url]http://www.energysuspension.com/pages/univ1.html[/url]
Now my Sway bar is as quiet as stock, feels perfect and doesn't have any rubbing issues.
| makofoto | 02-09-2006 04:17 AM |
Anti Seize is what you should be using ... best for sway bar bushing lube
| Sideshowbob | 02-09-2006 08:47 AM |
What a thread.
| AndrewSS | 02-09-2006 01:24 PM |
[QUOTE=makofoto]Anti Seize is what you should be using ... best for sway bar bushing lube[/QUOTE]
I agree, my strano bar has been really quiet! The anti seize is great, I used it and then some high temp drivetrain lube. Its held up well!
I agree, my strano bar has been really quiet! The anti seize is great, I used it and then some high temp drivetrain lube. Its held up well!
| sstrano | 02-09-2006 07:02 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]I wouldn't say that so fast Stickboy. If anyone can tell a minute difference in teh way a car feels its Sammy. I for one agree that when it comes down to it, results and championships show the way as far as what works and what works on paper :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that Tom.....
I've learned that there mulitple "camps" racers reside in. The "numbers" camp, the "what works" camp, the "copy everyone else camp", and the "can't stops pissing with stuff" camp.
I am a card-carrying member of camp #2. I have been in more situations in which someone (often someone's you've heard of) told me "that won't work, the numbers don't add up". And that was told to me about using a 35mm bar on the front of a Camaro. Of course, that worked out just fine...
I was told many similar things about the use of the ST 24mm front bar on the 2nd gen MR2. The setup had to change to take advantage of the bar. Nobody did that, which is mind-boggling. I guess all these folks had tried that bar, but just slapped it on, determined it sucked and changed back. Amazing that people don't test!!!! Obviously that worked just fine, it resulted in some National Championships (and an almost BS Pro Solo title this year, I just keep hitting crap). Anyway, I've been told the same things about running a 32mm bar on the front of Z06's..... It goes on and on.
Some won't be convinced, and that's ok. Bottom line is numbers don't drive the car. I do.
Reminds me of the story Hans Stuck told. Years ago when driving for Porsche in World Sports Car Championship (mid '80's) and running @ Fuji they devised a program for the "perfect" lap. Stuck beat the time the computer said was the fastest possible with the setup the way it was. It boggled minds. At some ungodly hour, Stuck's phone rang. It was whoever was in charge of the program. He wanted to know what gear Stuck took some corner in. He told him, and it was a gear higher than was "optimal" according to the numbers...
I'm not a numbers guy. I make changes based on trial & error and feel. I don't ignore numbers, because I have to know how things work so I can decide what I want to change. But I don't care if something seems wrong if it works. The problem I tend to see with the very devout engineers is simple. Numbers are concrete, and their thinking tends to be as well. Sometimes you have to think out of the box. Not everything I've done worked, but the huge majority of it has....
-Tom[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that Tom.....
I've learned that there mulitple "camps" racers reside in. The "numbers" camp, the "what works" camp, the "copy everyone else camp", and the "can't stops pissing with stuff" camp.
I am a card-carrying member of camp #2. I have been in more situations in which someone (often someone's you've heard of) told me "that won't work, the numbers don't add up". And that was told to me about using a 35mm bar on the front of a Camaro. Of course, that worked out just fine...
I was told many similar things about the use of the ST 24mm front bar on the 2nd gen MR2. The setup had to change to take advantage of the bar. Nobody did that, which is mind-boggling. I guess all these folks had tried that bar, but just slapped it on, determined it sucked and changed back. Amazing that people don't test!!!! Obviously that worked just fine, it resulted in some National Championships (and an almost BS Pro Solo title this year, I just keep hitting crap). Anyway, I've been told the same things about running a 32mm bar on the front of Z06's..... It goes on and on.
Some won't be convinced, and that's ok. Bottom line is numbers don't drive the car. I do.
Reminds me of the story Hans Stuck told. Years ago when driving for Porsche in World Sports Car Championship (mid '80's) and running @ Fuji they devised a program for the "perfect" lap. Stuck beat the time the computer said was the fastest possible with the setup the way it was. It boggled minds. At some ungodly hour, Stuck's phone rang. It was whoever was in charge of the program. He wanted to know what gear Stuck took some corner in. He told him, and it was a gear higher than was "optimal" according to the numbers...
I'm not a numbers guy. I make changes based on trial & error and feel. I don't ignore numbers, because I have to know how things work so I can decide what I want to change. But I don't care if something seems wrong if it works. The problem I tend to see with the very devout engineers is simple. Numbers are concrete, and their thinking tends to be as well. Sometimes you have to think out of the box. Not everything I've done worked, but the huge majority of it has....
| D_REX | 02-09-2006 07:10 PM |
This entire debate didn't stem from a statement about what was faster. It started because you said that whiteline's adjustable sway bar design did not result in changes in effective rate. You apparently are unwilling to admit that you are wrong. I cannot fathom why.
| sstrano | 02-09-2006 07:23 PM |
I don't believe I am... that's why. We don't have to agree, it's a free country--at least for now.
| Draken | 02-09-2006 07:54 PM |
Sam: I am actually a "feel" guy too. I've run a big front bar from basically two-weeks after the 2004 nationals, when all us ESP STi drivers were having issues with our inside rear wheel lift. I hated how my car felt hopping around on corner exit, the DCCD doing wonky things. And i didn't want to bust my rear diff like kikko.
But when it comes to such things as springs, bars, shocks etc, i am somewhat number biased. Not that I have to have 10k springs up front cause someone said so. But, i would like to know that my 10k springs are actually 10k. That's where basic math comes into play.
I like how my big front bar "feels." That's why i run it. It feels great. If i decide i want a stiffer front bar, based on my feel of the car on asphalt in Fontana, I will do it. But, right now, I cant find a front bar that is stiffer, because you as a manufacturer have no proof of that. Just your feel. Should I just be a fanboi and install your bar cause you feel it is stiffer? Or can you provide me with actual fact it is? Joel's Moment of Inertia Calcs he sent me are the only hard numbers i've seen on your bar. And they completely discount anything having to do with lever arm length. Which is a very important part of the equation.
And i agree....that we can disagree :)
Chris H.
But when it comes to such things as springs, bars, shocks etc, i am somewhat number biased. Not that I have to have 10k springs up front cause someone said so. But, i would like to know that my 10k springs are actually 10k. That's where basic math comes into play.
I like how my big front bar "feels." That's why i run it. It feels great. If i decide i want a stiffer front bar, based on my feel of the car on asphalt in Fontana, I will do it. But, right now, I cant find a front bar that is stiffer, because you as a manufacturer have no proof of that. Just your feel. Should I just be a fanboi and install your bar cause you feel it is stiffer? Or can you provide me with actual fact it is? Joel's Moment of Inertia Calcs he sent me are the only hard numbers i've seen on your bar. And they completely discount anything having to do with lever arm length. Which is a very important part of the equation.
And i agree....that we can disagree :)
Chris H.
| crystalhelix | 02-09-2006 10:14 PM |
[QUOTE=Draken]Joel's Moment of Inertia Calcs he sent me are the only hard numbers i've seen on your bar. And they completely discount anything having to do with lever arm length. Which is a very important part of the equation.
And i agree....that we can disagree :)
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
Chris, there are numbers one page back at the bottom in my post with the pretty pic. I haven't had time to do the whiteline bar. Addco bar is ~1,249lb/in according to my FEA, at least for the first inch. I love FEA, it's my friend as an engineer. But like Sam, I just try crap until something works, then when I want to change my spring rates by upping 10% to prevent rubbing in the back Sam says no :mad: . ;) :lol: :D
(I also have a buddy that needs my old springs ;) )
And i agree....that we can disagree :)
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
Chris, there are numbers one page back at the bottom in my post with the pretty pic. I haven't had time to do the whiteline bar. Addco bar is ~1,249lb/in according to my FEA, at least for the first inch. I love FEA, it's my friend as an engineer. But like Sam, I just try crap until something works, then when I want to change my spring rates by upping 10% to prevent rubbing in the back Sam says no :mad: . ;) :lol: :D
(I also have a buddy that needs my old springs ;) )
| Sideshowbob | 02-10-2006 09:02 AM |
Can someone who has been running the Strano bar up front on the street in adverse weather conditions on a daily basis please report back regarding the status of the link system used? I have broken 2 sets of endlinks now, and I am curious to know how the bolt-through-the-hole-with-rubber-bushings is holding up over time. This is an important element to me.
Also, I would love to see some accurate calculations on bar effectiveness, but have no idea where to even start. Comon all you slacker engineers, didn't you go to college for this crap?
Also, I would love to see some accurate calculations on bar effectiveness, but have no idea where to even start. Comon all you slacker engineers, didn't you go to college for this crap?
| sciolist | 02-10-2006 10:15 AM |
[QUOTE=BeantownWRX]Can someone who has been running the Strano bar up front on the street in adverse weather conditions on a daily basis please report back regarding the status of the link system used? I have broken 2 sets of endlinks now, and I am curious to know how the bolt-through-the-hole-with-rubber-bushings is holding up over time. This is an important element to me.[/QUOTE]
Mine has been in DD use for about seven months now. No problems whatsoever. We've had a good deal of rain and snow this winter.
Mine has been in DD use for about seven months now. No problems whatsoever. We've had a good deal of rain and snow this winter.
| Crash477 | 02-10-2006 10:18 AM |
[QUOTE=BeantownWRX]Can someone who has been running the Strano bar up front on the street in adverse weather conditions on a daily basis please report back regarding the status of the link system used? I have broken 2 sets of endlinks now, and I am curious to know how the bolt-through-the-hole-with-rubber-bushings is holding up over time. This is an important element to me.
[/QUOTE]
I have used the bar since October, in rain, dry, and snow. It has been great. The endlinks have worked well, aside from the NVH, which isnt an issue for me anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I have used the bar since October, in rain, dry, and snow. It has been great. The endlinks have worked well, aside from the NVH, which isnt an issue for me anyway.
| VpointVick | 02-10-2006 10:25 AM |
[QUOTE=BeantownWRX]Can someone who has been running the Strano bar up front on the street in adverse weather conditions on a daily basis please report back regarding the status of the link system used? I have broken 2 sets of endlinks now, and I am curious to know how the bolt-through-the-hole-with-rubber-bushings is holding up over time. This is an important element to me.
Also, I would love to see some accurate calculations on bar effectiveness, but have no idea where to even start. Comon all you slacker engineers, didn't you go to college for this crap?[/QUOTE]
I have used that type of endlink on GM A bodies and Fox Mustangs for ~20 yrs and only broken one once. Rubber bushings degrade quickly, but, Sam's are urethane.
Also, I would love to see some accurate calculations on bar effectiveness, but have no idea where to even start. Comon all you slacker engineers, didn't you go to college for this crap?[/QUOTE]
I have used that type of endlink on GM A bodies and Fox Mustangs for ~20 yrs and only broken one once. Rubber bushings degrade quickly, but, Sam's are urethane.
| Sideshowbob | 02-10-2006 10:26 AM |
Thanks for the feedback guys!!
| crystalhelix | 02-10-2006 10:27 AM |
Used in pittsburgh for ~7 months, no issues
| fliz | 02-10-2006 10:32 AM |
Quick Q.
I went to Stranoparts.com and they list the 32mm bar for 04+ WRX/STi. Does it fit the '02? Any problems with the mounting point on the LCA?
I went to Stranoparts.com and they list the 32mm bar for 04+ WRX/STi. Does it fit the '02? Any problems with the mounting point on the LCA?
| VpointVick | 02-10-2006 10:34 AM |
Fits just fine. ^^^^^^Crash477 has one on his.
| Crash477 | 02-10-2006 10:45 AM |
[QUOTE=fliz]Quick Q.
I went to Stranoparts.com and they list the 32mm bar for 04+ WRX/STi. Does it fit the '02? Any problems with the mounting point on the LCA?[/QUOTE]
Correct! I have one on my 02, and it works great. I had to grind a little off the mounting bracket, but it works great!
I went to Stranoparts.com and they list the 32mm bar for 04+ WRX/STi. Does it fit the '02? Any problems with the mounting point on the LCA?[/QUOTE]
Correct! I have one on my 02, and it works great. I had to grind a little off the mounting bracket, but it works great!
| sstrano | 02-10-2006 12:17 PM |
Just wanted to let y'all now that a new batch of the 32mm bars came in.....
| Neek | 02-10-2006 01:34 PM |
[QUOTE=-OneWay-]I reinstalled my Strano FSB this past weekend.
To prevent the bolt from rubbing against the bar we used a pry bar to pry against the main bushing brackets that hold the sway bar as we tightened them down, this provided a little bit of clearance.
[/QUOTE]
My 32mm is waiting to go on as we speak. Can you go into details about exactly what you did here? I am not sure what you mean.
To prevent the bolt from rubbing against the bar we used a pry bar to pry against the main bushing brackets that hold the sway bar as we tightened them down, this provided a little bit of clearance.
[/QUOTE]
My 32mm is waiting to go on as we speak. Can you go into details about exactly what you did here? I am not sure what you mean.
| silver arrow | 02-10-2006 10:07 PM |
[QUOTE=Crash477]I have used the bar since October, in rain, dry, and snow. It has been great. The endlinks have worked well, aside from the NVH, which isnt an issue for me anyway.[/QUOTE]
Ditto. Great bar for autox.
Ditto. Great bar for autox.
| z3coupe | 02-11-2006 03:00 AM |
Just an FYI on the bolt problem - Max was under my car installing those 4 extra washers that now we know where they go. He checked the bolt rubbing against my bar, and it was the FLAT side, not the pointed side that some had thought, which is rubbing against the bar. And this time the wheels were not drooping up in the air, it was on ramps, and was still rubbing. So later when there is more time, we will shave the bolt a wee bit. But just to put to sleep the thought that it was as simple as the pointy end of the bolt rubbing.
As for the noise? Putting the extra washers on (and adding gobs of grease on the bushings) made it a bit quieter, but later when we do the bolt we will try some other stuff than the trailer ball teflon grease on the bracket bushings. That should cure it all.
As for now having all the washers on as it should have been, the car feels a bit more planted in the front now when going around normal turns. So, if you have not put them on (instructions were not very clear that came in the box), please do put them on! It will make a bit of a difference.
And THANKS MAX!!!!!!!
As for the noise? Putting the extra washers on (and adding gobs of grease on the bushings) made it a bit quieter, but later when we do the bolt we will try some other stuff than the trailer ball teflon grease on the bracket bushings. That should cure it all.
As for now having all the washers on as it should have been, the car feels a bit more planted in the front now when going around normal turns. So, if you have not put them on (instructions were not very clear that came in the box), please do put them on! It will make a bit of a difference.
And THANKS MAX!!!!!!!
| silver arrow | 02-11-2006 12:31 PM |
[QUOTE=z3coupe]Just an FYI on the bolt problem - Max was under my car installing those 4 extra washers that now we know where they go. He checked the bolt rubbing against my bar, and it was the FLAT side, not the pointed side that some had thought, which is rubbing against the bar. And this time the wheels were not drooping up in the air, it was on ramps, and was still rubbing. So later when there is more time, we will shave the bolt a wee bit. But just to put to sleep the thought that it was as simple as the pointy end of the bolt rubbing.
As for the noise? Putting the extra washers on (and adding gobs of grease on the bushings) made it a bit quieter, but later when we do the bolt we will try some other stuff than the trailer ball teflon grease on the bracket bushings. That should cure it all.
As for now having all the washers on as it should have been, the car feels a bit more planted in the front now when going around normal turns. So, if you have not put them on (instructions were not very clear that came in the box), please do put them on! It will make a bit of a difference.
And THANKS MAX!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
Where do the washers go? I thought they were only needed if you were lowered?
As for the noise? Putting the extra washers on (and adding gobs of grease on the bushings) made it a bit quieter, but later when we do the bolt we will try some other stuff than the trailer ball teflon grease on the bracket bushings. That should cure it all.
As for now having all the washers on as it should have been, the car feels a bit more planted in the front now when going around normal turns. So, if you have not put them on (instructions were not very clear that came in the box), please do put them on! It will make a bit of a difference.
And THANKS MAX!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
Where do the washers go? I thought they were only needed if you were lowered?
| funsti | 02-13-2006 12:05 PM |
WJM and I fixed my endlinks the other day. We flipped the brackets to be long side pointing UP... and used the EXTRA washers in between the middle two bushings. Will tightened them down real good: no more noises from the FSB. Gone. Zero lube on the endlinks.
Also by the way: I have a 2005 and that steering rack bolt was not touching even before we fixed the endlinks.
-JWM
Also by the way: I have a 2005 and that steering rack bolt was not touching even before we fixed the endlinks.
-JWM
| silver arrow | 02-13-2006 12:32 PM |
[QUOTE=funsti]WJM and I fixed my endlinks the other day. We flipped the brackets to be long side pointing UP... and used the EXTRA washers in between the middle two bushings. Will tightened them down real good: no more noises from the FSB. Gone. Zero lube on the endlinks.
Also by the way: I have a 2005 and that steering rack bolt was not touching even before we fixed the endlinks.
-JWM[/QUOTE]
So the long side of the bracket should be vertical not horizontal? The picture clearly shows in horizontal and doesn't show the use of the other washers. I will have to try. Where did you get the info to switch them?
Also by the way: I have a 2005 and that steering rack bolt was not touching even before we fixed the endlinks.
-JWM[/QUOTE]
So the long side of the bracket should be vertical not horizontal? The picture clearly shows in horizontal and doesn't show the use of the other washers. I will have to try. Where did you get the info to switch them?
| funsti | 02-13-2006 02:15 PM |
[QUOTE=silver arrow]So the long side of the bracket should be vertical not horizontal? The picture clearly shows in horizontal and doesn't show the use of the other washers. I will have to try. Where did you get the info to switch them?[/QUOTE]
I think the picture in the instructions shows it with the long side vertical and [b]missing[/b] the two of the washers in the middle. We didn't use two of the 4 washers provided per side because the picture didn't show them. We installed the brackets long side horizontal because it seemed like we couldn't get it to go any other way down there underneath the car on ramps.
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM
I think the picture in the instructions shows it with the long side vertical and [b]missing[/b] the two of the washers in the middle. We didn't use two of the 4 washers provided per side because the picture didn't show them. We installed the brackets long side horizontal because it seemed like we couldn't get it to go any other way down there underneath the car on ramps.
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM
| sstrano | 02-13-2006 06:07 PM |
[QUOTE=Draken]Sam: I am actually a "feel" guy too. I've run a big front bar from basically two-weeks after the 2004 nationals, when all us ESP STi drivers were having issues with our inside rear wheel lift. I hated how my car felt hopping around on corner exit, the DCCD doing wonky things. And i didn't want to bust my rear diff like kikko.
But when it comes to such things as springs, bars, shocks etc, i am somewhat number biased. Not that I have to have 10k springs up front cause someone said so. But, i would like to know that my 10k springs are actually 10k. That's where basic math comes into play.
I like how my big front bar "feels." That's why i run it. It feels great. If i decide i want a stiffer front bar, based on my feel of the car on asphalt in Fontana, I will do it. But, right now, I cant find a front bar that is stiffer, because you as a manufacturer have no proof of that. Just your feel. Should I just be a fanboi and install your bar cause you feel it is stiffer? Or can you provide me with actual fact it is? Joel's Moment of Inertia Calcs he sent me are the only hard numbers i've seen on your bar. And they completely discount anything having to do with lever arm length. Which is a very important part of the equation.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
There is variance in everything Chris. Take two springs from the same company and rate them (even race springs), the BEST of them has a 2% variance and most have 5% and more.
I don't jig the bars, nobody does. But the calculations are very common, which is how one can find the rate of a spring with a common formula. Bars are no different. Say my bar is no stiffer than Whiteline's on "stiff", or that within a couple percent. It's still lighter.
If you don't want to run it, that's just fine with me. And if I were totally clueless and a complete unknown I couldn't blame you either! I'm not, the bar is being used in number of cars, and those folks can attest to gain in stiffness. I'm not asking you to be a "fanboi" at all. Do what you want. The facts are a hollow 32mm bar ain't soft. It's got less length overall to flex than a Subaru bar with all the twists and turns, which helps stiffness too. It's not my job to rate other folks bars. And nobody is doubting that a 27mm solid bar is not stiff. I simple don't buy that you can get an effective rate of a 29mm bar from it, and it you do..... it's still heavier than my bar is.
Be a fan of the bar because of the thought process behind it. Be a fan because of way it's been proven to work. Be a fan because I'm willing to stand behind it and help with setup (if that's worth anything to you, to some it is). Be a fan because it's not as heavy.
*OR*
Don't be a fan because I don't buy the Whiteline's supposed ability to act as a 29mm bar. Don't be one because I'm not an international powerhouse. Don't be one because the bar puts function over form and isn't particulary pretty. Don't be a fan because I drive a pony-car most of the time. Whatever.
However, it seems to me all the real-world explanations and experience doens't matter to you. And knowing you 10k springs are 10k doesn't come from math. That only gives you an idea. You can't know without actually putting them on a rate tester... have you done that? The math is rarely perfect simply because there are intangibles that come into play.
I'm confident in what I do. I'm confident in my abilities. I'm trustworthy. I'm easy to find. I'll tell you what I think, regardless of it being what you might want to hear. I'm proven, I win, I've got a track record that's pretty damn good. You either like what I say, or you don't. Your choice, and it's pretty clear you don't agree. That's fine. I'll live because I know I can't please everyone all the time. :)
But when it comes to such things as springs, bars, shocks etc, i am somewhat number biased. Not that I have to have 10k springs up front cause someone said so. But, i would like to know that my 10k springs are actually 10k. That's where basic math comes into play.
I like how my big front bar "feels." That's why i run it. It feels great. If i decide i want a stiffer front bar, based on my feel of the car on asphalt in Fontana, I will do it. But, right now, I cant find a front bar that is stiffer, because you as a manufacturer have no proof of that. Just your feel. Should I just be a fanboi and install your bar cause you feel it is stiffer? Or can you provide me with actual fact it is? Joel's Moment of Inertia Calcs he sent me are the only hard numbers i've seen on your bar. And they completely discount anything having to do with lever arm length. Which is a very important part of the equation.
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
There is variance in everything Chris. Take two springs from the same company and rate them (even race springs), the BEST of them has a 2% variance and most have 5% and more.
I don't jig the bars, nobody does. But the calculations are very common, which is how one can find the rate of a spring with a common formula. Bars are no different. Say my bar is no stiffer than Whiteline's on "stiff", or that within a couple percent. It's still lighter.
If you don't want to run it, that's just fine with me. And if I were totally clueless and a complete unknown I couldn't blame you either! I'm not, the bar is being used in number of cars, and those folks can attest to gain in stiffness. I'm not asking you to be a "fanboi" at all. Do what you want. The facts are a hollow 32mm bar ain't soft. It's got less length overall to flex than a Subaru bar with all the twists and turns, which helps stiffness too. It's not my job to rate other folks bars. And nobody is doubting that a 27mm solid bar is not stiff. I simple don't buy that you can get an effective rate of a 29mm bar from it, and it you do..... it's still heavier than my bar is.
Be a fan of the bar because of the thought process behind it. Be a fan because of way it's been proven to work. Be a fan because I'm willing to stand behind it and help with setup (if that's worth anything to you, to some it is). Be a fan because it's not as heavy.
*OR*
Don't be a fan because I don't buy the Whiteline's supposed ability to act as a 29mm bar. Don't be one because I'm not an international powerhouse. Don't be one because the bar puts function over form and isn't particulary pretty. Don't be a fan because I drive a pony-car most of the time. Whatever.
However, it seems to me all the real-world explanations and experience doens't matter to you. And knowing you 10k springs are 10k doesn't come from math. That only gives you an idea. You can't know without actually putting them on a rate tester... have you done that? The math is rarely perfect simply because there are intangibles that come into play.
I'm confident in what I do. I'm confident in my abilities. I'm trustworthy. I'm easy to find. I'll tell you what I think, regardless of it being what you might want to hear. I'm proven, I win, I've got a track record that's pretty damn good. You either like what I say, or you don't. Your choice, and it's pretty clear you don't agree. That's fine. I'll live because I know I can't please everyone all the time. :)
| Crash477 | 02-14-2006 12:00 AM |
[QUOTE=funsti]I think the picture in the instructions shows it with the long side vertical and [b]missing[/b] the two of the washers in the middle. We didn't use two of the 4 washers provided per side because the picture didn't show them. We installed the brackets long side horizontal because it seemed like we couldn't get it to go any other way down there underneath the car on ramps.
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM[/QUOTE]
Mine is installed that way too!
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM[/QUOTE]
Mine is installed that way too!
| WL Flatout | 02-14-2006 12:35 AM |
G'day everyone,
Looking at the bushed link arrangement of the pictures posted, I was wondering if anyone has compared the effective "lost motion" resulting from the compliant link bushes vs the stock solid ball-end style links?
That is, the stock Subaru links are "solid" deliver a direct movement ratio between the control arm mount point and the actual bar link end. For example, every 1mm of control arm link mount point vertical movement translates to 1mm deflection at the swaybar end (with in reason, not factoring in angular change thru radial movement). Compliant links "lose motion" as load is partially absorbed by the link material until they "lock", or stop compressing. This creates a belly in the rate delivery graph and means that any given swaybar using compliant links will have less total effective deflection or rate for any given load point when compared with solid links.
This is why converting a bushed type link (early WRX or Impreza front and rear) to solid delivers an effective increase in swaybar rate with out actually changing the bar diameter. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true when converting from solid (as used on front alloy control arm GD WRX and STi) to a compliant or bushed link leading to a reduction in effective rate.
Further reading with formula and graphed example available here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/WL_White_paper_Link_comp.pdf[/url] and here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/WL_Alloy_link.pdf[/url] . The latter discusses the effects of link design in anti-roll bar performance using the Subaru stock plastic/rubber rears compared with our alloy/poly design. Even though these are still "compliant" and not solid, fitment of this link will increase the effective anti-roll bar rate by around 9% (using a 20mm sock bar). Naturally, converting to a solid link will deliver an even larger increase.
Again, the inverse is also true so I would be interested to see what is the actual effective rate of a swaybar that uses compliant links in place of the stock solid type.
Cheers
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
PS. We too use "feel" to help design our products but we generally start with math and physics. ;)
Looking at the bushed link arrangement of the pictures posted, I was wondering if anyone has compared the effective "lost motion" resulting from the compliant link bushes vs the stock solid ball-end style links?
That is, the stock Subaru links are "solid" deliver a direct movement ratio between the control arm mount point and the actual bar link end. For example, every 1mm of control arm link mount point vertical movement translates to 1mm deflection at the swaybar end (with in reason, not factoring in angular change thru radial movement). Compliant links "lose motion" as load is partially absorbed by the link material until they "lock", or stop compressing. This creates a belly in the rate delivery graph and means that any given swaybar using compliant links will have less total effective deflection or rate for any given load point when compared with solid links.
This is why converting a bushed type link (early WRX or Impreza front and rear) to solid delivers an effective increase in swaybar rate with out actually changing the bar diameter. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true when converting from solid (as used on front alloy control arm GD WRX and STi) to a compliant or bushed link leading to a reduction in effective rate.
Further reading with formula and graphed example available here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/WL_White_paper_Link_comp.pdf[/url] and here [url]http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/WL_Alloy_link.pdf[/url] . The latter discusses the effects of link design in anti-roll bar performance using the Subaru stock plastic/rubber rears compared with our alloy/poly design. Even though these are still "compliant" and not solid, fitment of this link will increase the effective anti-roll bar rate by around 9% (using a 20mm sock bar). Naturally, converting to a solid link will deliver an even larger increase.
Again, the inverse is also true so I would be interested to see what is the actual effective rate of a swaybar that uses compliant links in place of the stock solid type.
Cheers
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
PS. We too use "feel" to help design our products but we generally start with math and physics. ;)
| funsti | 02-14-2006 10:23 AM |
Jim, I am using your BSR37XZ rear bar with your KLC32 endlinks. I used your endlinks from day one with the new rear bar. A few months ago I thought I'd try using the stock endlinks to see the difference. It was such a big change I thought I went back to the stock rear bar! I guess as an autocrosser I want my car to break away very fast and it wasn't happening with the stock endlinks.
I mention this because it seems from this experience of mine that your big front bar with stock endlinks would be less stiff than the Strano bar with its endlinks well tightened. So, the message here is: stock endlinks completely suck for autocross.
-JWM
I mention this because it seems from this experience of mine that your big front bar with stock endlinks would be less stiff than the Strano bar with its endlinks well tightened. So, the message here is: stock endlinks completely suck for autocross.
-JWM
| fliz | 02-14-2006 12:09 PM |
[QUOTE=funsti]
I mention this because it seems from this experience of mine that your big front bar with stock endlinks would be less stiff than the Strano bar with its endlinks well tightened. So, the message here is: stock endlinks completely suck for autocross.
-JWM[/QUOTE]
IT depends on which front endlinks you have.
The '02 WRX has a solid steel pillowball link. I switched to aftermarket urethane bushing links when I installed my 22mm front bar. I felt that I actually LOST roll stiffness, and within two weeks switched back to the stock endlinks.
I am concerned about flex with the strano links, but I'm hoping if properly tightened down, they won't suffer. And, lots of people have used the bar and not noticed any additional flex.
I mention this because it seems from this experience of mine that your big front bar with stock endlinks would be less stiff than the Strano bar with its endlinks well tightened. So, the message here is: stock endlinks completely suck for autocross.
-JWM[/QUOTE]
IT depends on which front endlinks you have.
The '02 WRX has a solid steel pillowball link. I switched to aftermarket urethane bushing links when I installed my 22mm front bar. I felt that I actually LOST roll stiffness, and within two weeks switched back to the stock endlinks.
I am concerned about flex with the strano links, but I'm hoping if properly tightened down, they won't suffer. And, lots of people have used the bar and not noticed any additional flex.
| sstrano | 02-14-2006 12:42 PM |
The bushings do not soften the rate of the bar in the least..... The stiffness of the bar is derived from the bar, not the bushings. Also, the bushigns are a very hard urethane, not a soft and squishy rubber, so bar reaction remains very quick. Once any slop is taken up from whatever bushings exist in the ends, the bar rate is the bar rate, even if you we were using some extremely soft rubber.
I reiterate we do not use rubber, but urethane and strongly suggest there be no slop or play in the endlinks, lest you get a sudden and nasty spike in bar rate.
I reiterate we do not use rubber, but urethane and strongly suggest there be no slop or play in the endlinks, lest you get a sudden and nasty spike in bar rate.
| silver arrow | 02-14-2006 05:05 PM |
[QUOTE=funsti]I think the picture in the instructions shows it with the long side vertical and [b]missing[/b] the two of the washers in the middle. We didn't use two of the 4 washers provided per side because the picture didn't show them. We installed the brackets long side horizontal because it seemed like we couldn't get it to go any other way down there underneath the car on ramps.
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM[/QUOTE]
sstrano,
I have one of your bars on my STi and am having a problem figuring out how it is supposed to installed. If you could comment on the bracket being long side horizontal or vertical and the use of the extra washers. The pictures in the kit do very little to help get it on right. I currently have it mounted with the brackets horizontal and no washer between the 2 middle bushings. The picture above shows bracket mounted vertically with the 2 extra washers between the bushings. Which is correct? Does it make a difference if you have lowing springs versus stock? Worked great on it's first autocross outing. Having no rubbing problems. Just need so advice on set up. Thank you.
Sean
With the car on a lift the other day we reinstalled the endlinks exactly like this except with the nuts on top instead of on bottom. I got the info from an earlier page in this thread; glad I found it!
[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/-oneway-/strano.jpg[/img]
-JWM[/QUOTE]
sstrano,
I have one of your bars on my STi and am having a problem figuring out how it is supposed to installed. If you could comment on the bracket being long side horizontal or vertical and the use of the extra washers. The pictures in the kit do very little to help get it on right. I currently have it mounted with the brackets horizontal and no washer between the 2 middle bushings. The picture above shows bracket mounted vertically with the 2 extra washers between the bushings. Which is correct? Does it make a difference if you have lowing springs versus stock? Worked great on it's first autocross outing. Having no rubbing problems. Just need so advice on set up. Thank you.
Sean
| GreasedLightning | 02-14-2006 05:16 PM |
[QUOTE=sstrano]The bushings do not soften the rate of the bar in the least..... The stiffness of the bar is derived from the bar, not the bushings. Also, the bushigns are a very hard urethane, not a soft and squishy rubber, so bar reaction remains very quick. Once any slop is taken up from whatever bushings exist in the ends, the bar rate is the bar rate, even if you we were using some extremely soft rubber.
I reiterate we do not use rubber, but urethane and strongly suggest there be no slop or play in the endlinks, lest you get a sudden and nasty spike in bar rate.[/QUOTE]
I prefer a "hard" pillowball like endlink design such as the stock 04 WRX. Is it possible, for added cost, to design such an end-link for the strano bar?
I reiterate we do not use rubber, but urethane and strongly suggest there be no slop or play in the endlinks, lest you get a sudden and nasty spike in bar rate.[/QUOTE]
I prefer a "hard" pillowball like endlink design such as the stock 04 WRX. Is it possible, for added cost, to design such an end-link for the strano bar?
| jsmonet | 02-15-2006 03:07 PM |
i gotta say, it's cracking me up how s many of you seem to have not heard of strano. i mentioned stranoparts.com to a friend with an older firebird and he knew, instantly, of whom i spoke. while i respect both whiteline and strano for their differing approaches to the same problem, i'm trying strano's bar first. now if i could just get a tracking # :D
| sstrano | 02-15-2006 06:16 PM |
[QUOTE=silver arrow]sstrano,
I have one of your bars on my STi and am having a problem figuring out how it is supposed to installed. If you could comment on the bracket being long side horizontal or vertical and the use of the extra washers. The pictures in the kit do very little to help get it on right. I currently have it mounted with the brackets horizontal and no washer between the 2 middle bushings. The picture above shows bracket mounted vertically with the 2 extra washers between the bushings. Which is correct? Does it make a difference if you have lowing springs versus stock? Worked great on it's first autocross outing. Having no rubbing problems. Just need so advice on set up. Thank you.
Sean[/QUOTE]
See post #160 in this thread, it's on page 7. :)
The washers are a needed and should be there to keep the bushings aligned properly.
I have one of your bars on my STi and am having a problem figuring out how it is supposed to installed. If you could comment on the bracket being long side horizontal or vertical and the use of the extra washers. The pictures in the kit do very little to help get it on right. I currently have it mounted with the brackets horizontal and no washer between the 2 middle bushings. The picture above shows bracket mounted vertically with the 2 extra washers between the bushings. Which is correct? Does it make a difference if you have lowing springs versus stock? Worked great on it's first autocross outing. Having no rubbing problems. Just need so advice on set up. Thank you.
Sean[/QUOTE]
See post #160 in this thread, it's on page 7. :)
The washers are a needed and should be there to keep the bushings aligned properly.
| sstrano | 02-15-2006 06:21 PM |
[QUOTE=GreasedLightning]I prefer a "hard" pillowball like endlink design such as the stock 04 WRX. Is it possible, for added cost, to design such an end-link for the strano bar?[/QUOTE]
Have you tried to see just how much you can compress the "soft" bushings? ;) They are made of a very, very hard urethane.
Anything is possible, and I encourage you to try if you feel it's necessary. I do not and it's not something I'm looking at.
Have you tried to see just how much you can compress the "soft" bushings? ;) They are made of a very, very hard urethane.
Anything is possible, and I encourage you to try if you feel it's necessary. I do not and it's not something I'm looking at.
| sstrano | 02-15-2006 06:23 PM |
[QUOTE=jsmonet]i gotta say, it's cracking me up how s many of you seem to have not heard of strano. i mentioned stranoparts.com to a friend with an older firebird and he knew, instantly, of whom i spoke. while i respect both whiteline and strano for their differing approaches to the same problem, i'm trying strano's bar first. now if i could just get a tracking # :D[/QUOTE]
If you contact me back with your full name (knowing that screen names and real names are not usually the same), I'll happily give you a tracking number. If it didn't ship from Addco directly (and all backordered bars were supposed to have been shipped that way) I have a new shipment of bars and will get it out of here ASAP. :)
Let me know.
If you contact me back with your full name (knowing that screen names and real names are not usually the same), I'll happily give you a tracking number. If it didn't ship from Addco directly (and all backordered bars were supposed to have been shipped that way) I have a new shipment of bars and will get it out of here ASAP. :)
Let me know.
| fliz | 02-16-2006 10:59 AM |
WOOT! Got my bar today. Of course with a fresh 6" of snow on the ground, I don't think I'll be installing it anytime soon. :(
Too warm for ice, too cold for autox.
Too warm for ice, too cold for autox.
| z3coupe | 02-16-2006 03:49 PM |
[QUOTE]WOOT! Got my bar today. Of course with a fresh 6" of snow on the ground, I don't think I'll be installing it anytime soon.
Too warm for ice, too cold for autox.[/QUOTE]WUSS! :devil: Back when I lived in Chicago, we would go up to Lake Geneva and race on the frozen lakes. So there is no excuse for not doing something with your car. Heck, at the slower speeds on slippery ice or snow, you can use that to your advantage to learn better car control at those slower (and much safer) speeds. It will help a lot with learning extremely smooth and fine adjustments, as anything done will be greatly exagerated on those surfaces - not to mention a ball of fun! Eons ago, I used to be able to drive my 72 Triumph Spitfire through the driver's door window - going sideways for blocks on end, under full control. Guess that might be what I am missing these days as my driving sucks here in sunny Kalifornia these days :(
Too warm for ice, too cold for autox.[/QUOTE]WUSS! :devil: Back when I lived in Chicago, we would go up to Lake Geneva and race on the frozen lakes. So there is no excuse for not doing something with your car. Heck, at the slower speeds on slippery ice or snow, you can use that to your advantage to learn better car control at those slower (and much safer) speeds. It will help a lot with learning extremely smooth and fine adjustments, as anything done will be greatly exagerated on those surfaces - not to mention a ball of fun! Eons ago, I used to be able to drive my 72 Triumph Spitfire through the driver's door window - going sideways for blocks on end, under full control. Guess that might be what I am missing these days as my driving sucks here in sunny Kalifornia these days :(
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét