Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Driveline/Suspension
Last step, front sway bar
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CobraRed_96_GT" data-source="post: 14931700" data-attributes="member: 75427"><p>Fair point WL on strength vs stiffness - but I think it can be agreed upon he (and most people) are talking about stiffness/rate.</p><p></p><p>Let me preface by saying I think WL makes some of the best suspensions pieces out there and am happy they continue to develop products for our cars. I am currently running WL end links and have used WL pieces in the past. </p><p></p><p>Agreed that you have to either assume a manufacturer is using accepted bending practices for bending tube or assume they aren't. But in an apples to apples comparo (considering solid bar needs its own proper processes to be bent) lets assume they are - albeit more complicated for tube.</p><p></p><p>I think people focus on OD size because:</p><p>1) Most brands (including WL) don't publish bar rates/% increases in stiffness. So what should they use as a quantifiable determinant? Marketing?</p><p>2) A lot of front sways are tube, and despite your focus on wall thickness (which is important concerning bending), just ask anyone who designs roll cages (or your SolidWorks, CAD program of choice) - tube OD is orders of magnitude more important than wall thickness concerning strength and stiffness.</p><p></p><p>Also, how are we comparing a tube steel vs bar steel? Are we assuming for instance a DOM vs 1018 in all cases? </p><p>I think another reason people are focused on stiffness over strength is you don't really hear about broken sway bars from the brands discussed in this thread. </p><p></p><p>But, assuming the tube bends were done properly there's not a lot of to give up when compared to the 38mm monster bar according to some quick "on the back of a napkin style" calculations I did before picking up my 38mm. I know you have mentioned a 2mm wall, but based on some threads BMR mentioned their wall thickness its more like 5mm+ (edit: including above). </p><p>Which using 1026 DOM vs an alike alloy in solid:</p><p></p><p>The 38mm tube would be experiencing 62kpsi in stress on a 24" length of tube with 3800lbs of load in the middle</p><p>A 33mm solid bar would experiance 69kpsi in stress under the same conditions.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1426792[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>This is obviously with me assuming quite a few things, and WL's point still stands about the solid bar being more capable of keeping its properties across a bend.</p><p></p><p>Just my $.02</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CobraRed_96_GT, post: 14931700, member: 75427"] Fair point WL on strength vs stiffness - but I think it can be agreed upon he (and most people) are talking about stiffness/rate. Let me preface by saying I think WL makes some of the best suspensions pieces out there and am happy they continue to develop products for our cars. I am currently running WL end links and have used WL pieces in the past. Agreed that you have to either assume a manufacturer is using accepted bending practices for bending tube or assume they aren't. But in an apples to apples comparo (considering solid bar needs its own proper processes to be bent) lets assume they are - albeit more complicated for tube. I think people focus on OD size because: 1) Most brands (including WL) don't publish bar rates/% increases in stiffness. So what should they use as a quantifiable determinant? Marketing? 2) A lot of front sways are tube, and despite your focus on wall thickness (which is important concerning bending), just ask anyone who designs roll cages (or your SolidWorks, CAD program of choice) - tube OD is orders of magnitude more important than wall thickness concerning strength and stiffness. Also, how are we comparing a tube steel vs bar steel? Are we assuming for instance a DOM vs 1018 in all cases? I think another reason people are focused on stiffness over strength is you don't really hear about broken sway bars from the brands discussed in this thread. But, assuming the tube bends were done properly there's not a lot of to give up when compared to the 38mm monster bar according to some quick "on the back of a napkin style" calculations I did before picking up my 38mm. I know you have mentioned a 2mm wall, but based on some threads BMR mentioned their wall thickness its more like 5mm+ (edit: including above). Which using 1026 DOM vs an alike alloy in solid: The 38mm tube would be experiencing 62kpsi in stress on a 24" length of tube with 3800lbs of load in the middle A 33mm solid bar would experiance 69kpsi in stress under the same conditions. [ATTACH=full]1426792[/ATTACH] This is obviously with me assuming quite a few things, and WL's point still stands about the solid bar being more capable of keeping its properties across a bend. Just my $.02 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Mustang Forums
2011-2014 Mustangs
Driveline/Suspension
Last step, front sway bar
Top