Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrpt58
|
A couple of good points were made in that article, even though caution should be used when applying race car dynamics to motorhomes. The basic theories apply the same, but the reason for making modifications is so different that they may not apply or make sense.
The first point I'd like to iterate is that anti-roll bar stiffness goes up by diameter^4 assuming they are shaped the same an made of steel. It's really easy to fall for marketing hype and overdo stiffness. When average buyers don't know this, they won't think they are getting their money's worth unless they see a huge size difference.
The second point which addresses original question, and as an engineer I've mentioned many times, is that anti-roll bars do reduce suspension compliance. As the article states, you should really want the least amount you actually "need", not the most you can get "cheap" just because you can.
If a driver needs added roll stiffness then they need it, but while it may not cost anything monetarily, it will cost some in suspension compliance. It has to, there is no way around it. Ford could make anti-roll bars much stiffer for practically no cost, but they have to weigh all pros and cons, which includes how the vehicle rides.
Quote:
Tuning advice
Just like spring rate, you want to run as soft an ARB as possible while maintaining sufficient control of the car and body roll and the proper handling balance. Softer settings lead to more compliance and more grip on that end of the car. They also tend to be slower responding and easier to drive, but stiffer settings can be more stable and faster responding.
Front:
(1) Stiffer: Will increase overall car stability (reduces roll) and shift the car’s balance toward UNDERsteer (push), thus allowing the driver to be more aggressive with the steering. The compromise can be on bumps and/or braking. A stiffer front bar will reduce compliance, so when one tire hits a bump the entire front axle will be affected through a loss of overall grip.
|
Thor Forums
