Thor Forums

[Wrpt58]

Originally Posted by Chance

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.

Very true! As you said, basic theory should be same, but reasons are Very different.



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.

Again, I agree completely. This is why I still have the original ones on my rig. Hellwig advertised a Heavy Duty ( I think) ARB of 1.625". I measured mine and it was 1.6" as close as I could measure, so I let them keep theirs.

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.

Agree. In an Autocross race car, you really don't want very much compliance other than what the springs and ARB gives you. It makes the handling very consistent. However, most of those cars are only racing for about 30 - 40 minutes (SCCA) and no one is worried about ride characteristics. Motorhomes and touring cars have ride characteristics to be concerned with.

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.

Thanx for the input. Appreciate it.