Bent rear anti roll bar
Discussion
spend said:
Huh don't get that????
As I see it, if bar is stronger all the bending force to twist (after all thats simply how it works) it still HAS to be restrained by where it is pinned (ie the bush brackets)?
If I understand correctly, what dnb is trying so is that the ARB bar is not parallel and aligned at the bush mounting points, and bush mounts should be at 90 Deg. to the rotation so when the bar swings up and down (squat/lift) its not putting torsional load into the bush/mount.As I see it, if bar is stronger all the bending force to twist (after all thats simply how it works) it still HAS to be restrained by where it is pinned (ie the bush brackets)?
Only two solutions to that, bend the bar so that the two mounting sections of bar at are consentrically aligned, or buy a replacement one. Option 2 is by far the easiest.
The factory upgrade ones are like rocking horse droppings, Willow Sportscars made me a set.
You aren't a mechanical engineer are you? 
or I am not writing this well.
If the mount points of the bar were parallel as they are supposed to the forces would all act in the x-z plane using standard axis definitions of x forward y left z up. Because the bar is incorrectly made forces are applied as rotations around local z too. It is these forces that break mounts. the mounts are quite strong in the directions of correct operation.
or I am not writing this well.If the mount points of the bar were parallel as they are supposed to the forces would all act in the x-z plane using standard axis definitions of x forward y left z up. Because the bar is incorrectly made forces are applied as rotations around local z too. It is these forces that break mounts. the mounts are quite strong in the directions of correct operation.
dnb said:
You aren't a mechanical engineer are you? or I am not writing this well.
If the mount points of the bar were parallel as they are supposed to the forces would all act in the x-z plane using standard axis definitions of x forward y left z up. Because the bar is incorrectly made forces are applied as rotations around local z too. It is these forces that break mounts. the mounts are quite strong in the directions of correct operation.
Lol...i think we both just said the same thing in two different ways or I am not writing this well.If the mount points of the bar were parallel as they are supposed to the forces would all act in the x-z plane using standard axis definitions of x forward y left z up. Because the bar is incorrectly made forces are applied as rotations around local z too. It is these forces that break mounts. the mounts are quite strong in the directions of correct operation.
It is actually possible to fit the mounting brackets (that bolt onto the chassis) the wrong way round. I am sure you have not done this, but maybe worth checking that either one, or both, are not fitted 180 degrees out. If this is the case, the ARB will not sit correctly.
Worth a look.
Worth a look.
bomb said:
It is actually possible to fit the mounting brackets (that bolt onto the chassis) the wrong way round. I am sure you have not done this, but maybe worth checking that either one, or both, are not fitted 180 degrees out. If this is the case, the ARB will not sit correctly.
Worth a look.
That is what I thought. It looks as if the bar has been bent to fit incorrectly fitted brackets.Worth a look.
It's in progress. Willow sports cars are making a replacement. It will be of slightly different design so I can simplify the brackets and make it miss the exhaust more easily.
Both they and I agree there was no way to straighten the original bar and can't see how it could have become bent in the first place unless it was made wrong.
Both they and I agree there was no way to straighten the original bar and can't see how it could have become bent in the first place unless it was made wrong.
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff