chf

[Hugh.vines@att.net]

Can you do cheap handling on 2016 axis. I think no.

 

[JamieGeek]

I don't think so: I think that is on the F-53 chassis.

 

[DocMike]

Hey, I'm still trying to find out what the CHF is.

Doc

 

[Marine By Choice]

Hey, I'm still trying to find out what the CHF is.

Doc

Me too!

 

[Vinster30]

The CHF can be found on the IRV2 forum in the Ford owners threads. The CHF is basically moving the sway bar linkage to the inner whole of the sway bar. The sway bar will have more resistants, thus removing some of the coach "rock and roll". (Sway)

The thread is long, however, a good read. Based on the Ford F53.

 

[DocMike]

Vinster30,

Well since I have the Vegas on an E350 and not the F53 that kind of rules me out. Thanks for the info.

Doc

 

[Chance-THOR]

Keep in mind that stiffer sway bars affect more than body roll. And some can be more important to ride quality and safety than reduced roll.

As I stated before, it would cost Ford next to nothing to make sway bars stiffer. Perhaps if they don't it's for good reason.

 

[Tom N3EQF]

As I stated before, it would cost Ford next to nothing to make sway bars stiffer. Perhaps if they don't it's for good reason.

Also not applicable to the "still looking" chassis!

 

[Chance-THOR]

Also not applicable to the "still looking" chassis!

Are these fixes limited to Thor products?


I don't think so. Although you are correct, I don't presently own a Thor.

That I'm looking to buy a Thor doesn't mean I haven't driven many different motorhomes for 1,000s of miles each. Large trucks too.

A lot of new owners don't realize that a 12-foot high motorhome leans a lot more on curves than their car or SUV, and then incorrectly think that if they can prevent the lean, the motorhome will magically drive like a car.

Sway bars no doubt reduce lean/roll, but they can adversely affect handling in other ways, and also degrade ride quality. And it doesn't matter what vehicle you are talking about.

Ask yourself why sway bars aren't made stiff enough to essentially eliminate lean/roll. Suspension tuning is about compromise. If a little is good, more isn't necessarily better. That was my only point.

 

[Tom N3EQF]

Uh, that smiley face image on my post is labeled "Big Grin" and was intended to denote I was joking. Only thing I will say is that I doubt Ford made two sets of holes in the bar by mistake. Here, this one is labeled "Hide":

 

[Chance-THOR]

Sorry, I don't read those well.

For what it's worth, Ford uses a thicker sway bar in front on some E-Series models. It wouldn't be as cheap as adjustable holes, but "if" they fit (and they probably do) it would allow adding a little roll stiffness at the front of E-Series on a budget. Wreck yards should have them.

 

[TyCreek]

Did you see that double sway bar setup? Two is better than one!

More than stock sway bar torque on a motorhome is generally good for most folks who travel surfaces where the ride is unaffected. Uneven surfaces common to dirt roads and other secondary surfaces is where individual bump spring force transfers unveil the negative factors.

If your freeway ride gets harsher on expansion joints when increasing bar torque (CHF), it is most likely due to improper link angles that cause the bushings to play a factor in bar travel. With proper linkage, sway bar torque should not effect ride when bumps flex springs left and right at the same time e.g. typical expansion joints.

Stock bars compromise for a wide range of conditions and chassis uses, so of course not ideal for max loaded RVs that only travel on freeways or primary roads. Inversely, the ideal condition for dirt roads is to disconnect a link arm (disable torque transfer). The stock bar on my Axis is tuned nicely for the secondary road conditions we travel most.

Electronically adjustable swaybar would be great, though most RV'rs would leave it in the more is better position! I'd like push button disconnect front & rear please

 

[Chance-THOR]

TyCreek, I recently saw an ad for a suspension system that claims to not only have adjustable shocks (fairly common now), but also adjustable spring rates (unlike air, with very fast response time).

If it works as advertised, sway bars could become obsolete altogether. It would be simpler to stiffen one side and soften the other to prevent excessive lean/roll on an as-needed basis.

 

[TyCreek]

Adjustable spring rate functional theory details would certainly peak my interest. I've not seen a RV suspension without swaybars yet.

I had adjustable shocks on my last truck and they actually worked pretty well though I only adjusted the rear (max/min) for camper on or off. The fronts worked best at max dampening even without a load.

 

[Chance-THOR]

I think it was more of an active suspension, which "may" have all kinds of capabilities. Not only prevent body roll, but control squat, self-leveling, ride-height, etc. I'm not sure what that one could do.

It didn't interest me much at the time so I didn't look into it. It's an option on a motorhome. I'll see if I can find it and research what this early version of the technology can do. Down the road (no pun intended) we'll probably see much more of this computer-controlled suspension.