Is disconnecting an IFS front swabar stupid ???
07-17-2005, 02:11 PM
#21
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, Va
Posts: 4,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nitro Hotpants
Not sure. I mean the reality of it is that I need limiting straps because even with the bar connected I still have too much down travel. I will be getting the limit straps installed before I go wheeling again. But at this point, I dont feel that disconnecting the sway bar will help at all.
Keep in mind this is with the Tundra/OME setup only. I can't vouch for other setups.
Keep in mind this is with the Tundra/OME setup only. I can't vouch for other setups.
I guess it is time to test the Tundra setup (with straps) with the swaybar disconnected and connected.
07-17-2005, 02:39 PM
#22
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sway bar actually forces more weight onto the compressed wheel, because the drooped wheel pushes downward. Having the bar disconnected takes weight off the compressed wheel, allowing more lateral weight transfer.
The inherit differences between a SFA and IFS is in weight transfer. In some situations having all the weight on the stuffed wheel is a good thing, less chance of rollover, which is proabably why Casey was doing so well, but I'm sure his tire selection had a lot to do with it as well.
Unlike a SFA, when the weight transfers equally to both wheels the weight shifts to the down hill side, the antirock bar is used to keep the transfer to a minimum and more on the stuffed wheel. Trying to run a full on rock rig on the street without sway bars takes some getting used to, there is a great deal of body roll, that's why many have gone to antirock bars.....
Keeping all 4 wheels touching the ground, reduces the risk of uncontrolled rollover, allowing the shock to dampen the rocking effects.
The inherit differences between a SFA and IFS is in weight transfer. In some situations having all the weight on the stuffed wheel is a good thing, less chance of rollover, which is proabably why Casey was doing so well, but I'm sure his tire selection had a lot to do with it as well.
Unlike a SFA, when the weight transfers equally to both wheels the weight shifts to the down hill side, the antirock bar is used to keep the transfer to a minimum and more on the stuffed wheel. Trying to run a full on rock rig on the street without sway bars takes some getting used to, there is a great deal of body roll, that's why many have gone to antirock bars.....
Keeping all 4 wheels touching the ground, reduces the risk of uncontrolled rollover, allowing the shock to dampen the rocking effects.
07-17-2005, 04:19 PM
#23
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by deathrunner
I disagree. with an open front, my priotity is to keep both front tires on the ground. I just need enough weight to keep the traction. As fas as I can tell, I have never lifted a front tire since I switched to the long travel arms. With the traction aid in the rear, I know that if I lift a rear tire, I still have a tire pushing. If I lift a front then the front is out of commision completely. With 2 fronts and 1 rear touching I have more tires pulling than 2 rear and no front.
I'm not sure I see how the sway bar helps to transfer weight. Knowing that it limits travel and that our desire is to keep the tires on the ground, I can see two scenarios when it is connected.
1) It will limit the travel and only come in contact when the vehichles weight is shifted forward enough to cause the vehicle to lean forward and unto the unloaded tire.
2) It will keep the arms connected and cause one tire to lift.
I see both of these scenarios as undesireable. I would rather have my arm reach down and touch the ground with enough load to allow the spider gears to work. And I wouldn't want to rely on my weight shifting to make the very limited arms make contact.
I don't doubt that these vehichles were capable with the swaybar connected. I'm just not sure why you correlate the sway bar to weight transfer.
IFS is queer.
I'm not sure I see how the sway bar helps to transfer weight. Knowing that it limits travel and that our desire is to keep the tires on the ground, I can see two scenarios when it is connected.
1) It will limit the travel and only come in contact when the vehichles weight is shifted forward enough to cause the vehicle to lean forward and unto the unloaded tire.
2) It will keep the arms connected and cause one tire to lift.
I see both of these scenarios as undesireable. I would rather have my arm reach down and touch the ground with enough load to allow the spider gears to work. And I wouldn't want to rely on my weight shifting to make the very limited arms make contact.
I don't doubt that these vehichles were capable with the swaybar connected. I'm just not sure why you correlate the sway bar to weight transfer.
IFS is queer.
In the front, it doesn't matter if the swar bar is disco'd, it'll still get horrible traction when in a situation where one wheel is stuffed, and the other wheel is at full droop.
07-17-2005, 04:21 PM
#24
Registered User
It's not a torsion bar. It is a lever.
Too much droop kills outers. I watched it eat Schaefer and Bruce with different set ups and the same out come.
People always say lifting wheels is bad. Why? So one is in the air, it will come down soon enough. That magic button makes it a moot point.
I will only entertain performance arguments on this with double locked rigs.
On IFS, the closer to stock you keep things, the less breaks. BJ spacers, IMHO, have contributed to catastrophic destruction of my steering on the last 4 trips and partial destruction every trip for the last year.
Too much droop kills outers. I watched it eat Schaefer and Bruce with different set ups and the same out come.
People always say lifting wheels is bad. Why? So one is in the air, it will come down soon enough. That magic button makes it a moot point.
I will only entertain performance arguments on this with double locked rigs.
On IFS, the closer to stock you keep things, the less breaks. BJ spacers, IMHO, have contributed to catastrophic destruction of my steering on the last 4 trips and partial destruction every trip for the last year.
07-17-2005, 04:46 PM
#25
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BruceTS
but I'm sure his tire selection had a lot to do with it as well.
The Dana 44 can handle them just fine.
07-17-2005, 05:00 PM
#26
Great, this discussion comes up just as I spent the day at Wabbit's house installing a 1" bodylift on my rig so I can disconnect the swaybar so my 285's won't rub like mad. 
I haven't noticed too much droop in my setup with the swaybar connected (OME 882's, one trim packer, OME HD shocks, Inland A-arms). I wonder if I'm headed for too much droop with the swaybar disconnected?
I haven't noticed too much droop in my setup with the swaybar connected (OME 882's, one trim packer, OME HD shocks, Inland A-arms). I wonder if I'm headed for too much droop with the swaybar disconnected?
07-17-2005, 06:01 PM
#27
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flygtenstein
It's not a torsion bar. It is a lever.
Too much droop kills outers. I watched it eat Schaefer and Bruce with different set ups and the same out come.
Too much droop kills outers. I watched it eat Schaefer and Bruce with different set ups and the same out come.
What hurts my rig more than anything is breakover clearance, which I will have plenty of soon....
MT/R's RULE! Actually I'm thinking of trying Nitto mud grapplers next.......
Last edited by BruceTS; 07-17-2005 at 06:04 PM.
07-17-2005, 06:07 PM
#28
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Richmond, Va
Posts: 4,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with the Tundra setup and a BL, would the size tire help, hurt or indifferent
285 vs. 305 vs 315
that is would a larget tire help keep all 4 in contact with the ground OR the added weight hurt the axles
285 vs. 305 vs 315
that is would a larget tire help keep all 4 in contact with the ground OR the added weight hurt the axles
07-17-2005, 06:38 PM
#29
Contributing Member
What i still don't understand is actually how this works. Why would having the sway bar connected help keep more weight on both tires? I mean if one tire is up, doesn't the sway bar lift the other tire somewhat? Or am i totally confused? (that wouldn't suprise me actually)
Also, with a double locked truck, would it really matter? As has been pointed out, if a wheel comes off the ground, it'll come back down again. I would think this would only be of concen to trucks that are open in the front. Then again, could be confused again.
Also, with a double locked truck, would it really matter? As has been pointed out, if a wheel comes off the ground, it'll come back down again. I would think this would only be of concen to trucks that are open in the front. Then again, could be confused again.
07-17-2005, 06:43 PM
#30
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BruceTS
MT/R's RULE! Actually I'm thinking of trying Nitto mud grapplers next.......
07-17-2005, 06:44 PM
#31
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AxleIke
Or am i totally confused? (that wouldn't suprise me actually)
07-17-2005, 09:13 PM
#32
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by sschaefer3
As easy as it is to do a Toyota Axle SAS on your truck, don't sweat it.
07-17-2005, 10:04 PM
#33
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AxleIke
What i still don't understand is actually how this works. Why would having the sway bar connected help keep more weight on both tires? I mean if one tire is up, doesn't the sway bar lift the other tire somewhat? Or am i totally confused? (that wouldn't suprise me actually)
Your right, when one tire lifts the other is somewhat lifted as well, it does nothing in keeping weight on both tires
07-18-2005, 05:17 AM
#34
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AxleIke
yeah, it would be somewhat easier than what you did, but if i do go SAS, i'm thinking along the lines of my newest idea. Check my thread https://www.yotatech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63403
So would an FJ-60/62 front axle and it would be the right width.
07-18-2005, 05:24 AM
#35
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by sschaefer3
That would be alot of extra money, just get a set of leafs and a mini axle. Simple and inexpensive. Sure an 80 axle will work but LC parts are big bucks $$$.
So would an FJ-60/62 front axle and it would be the right width.
So would an FJ-60/62 front axle and it would be the right width.
Yeah, and after reading the posts to my thread, it seems it's been done a bunch, and wouldn't be very easy at that. Just trying to think of ways to get better ride quality. Anyway, i'm getting way off topic. Back to the thread.
07-18-2005, 05:35 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sschaefer3
Ok here is a pic.
Could be anyone, it does not matter. This pic just shows it well.
Could be anyone, it does not matter. This pic just shows it well.
IFS is IFS, sway bar or no. I think the presense of a sway bar on an IFS rig has an insignificant effect on the grand scheme of things when wheeling. To me, any perceived gains in traction at psychological. Sure, it has a very noticable effect on road, but I don't see much difference when wheeling. I'm yet to find something that I could make it over with the swaybar disconnected that I couldn't make it over with it connected, or vice versa.
I don't think the extra 1" or whatever it is of travel you get from discoing really makes that much difference, and I doubt any additional "pressure" (or whatever you want to call it) that the swaybar would put on a drooped tire matters.
Now, obviously, the guy in the pic doesn't have a "typical" IFS setup... I think the long travel IFS and a good driver is what made the difference - not the swaybar.
07-18-2005, 05:49 AM
#37
Registered User
OK, so we've established that excessive droop breaks parts, right?
I'd like to play devil's advocate for a minute. The purpose of a swaybar is to reduce bodyroll by limiting stuff and pushing back to keep both wheels firmly planted. So what happens in off-camber situations? The wheel with the weight on it will push down the wheel without weight on it to keep them both on the ground. Wouldn't this be a disadvantage in offcamber situations?
I'd like to play devil's advocate for a minute. The purpose of a swaybar is to reduce bodyroll by limiting stuff and pushing back to keep both wheels firmly planted. So what happens in off-camber situations? The wheel with the weight on it will push down the wheel without weight on it to keep them both on the ground. Wouldn't this be a disadvantage in offcamber situations?
07-18-2005, 05:54 AM
#38
Originally Posted by jacksonpt
I submit the following for your consideration...
IFS is IFS, sway bar or no. I think the presense of a sway bar on an IFS rig has an insignificant effect on the grand scheme of things when wheeling. To me, any perceived gains in traction at psychological. Sure, it has a very noticable effect on road, but I don't see much difference when wheeling. I'm yet to find something that I could make it over with the swaybar disconnected that I couldn't make it over with it connected, or vice versa.
I don't think the extra 1" or whatever it is of travel you get from discoing really makes that much difference, and I doubt any additional "pressure" (or whatever you want to call it) that the swaybar would put on a drooped tire matters.
Now, obviously, the guy in the pic doesn't have a "typical" IFS setup... I think the long travel IFS and a good driver is what made the difference - not the swaybar.
IFS is IFS, sway bar or no. I think the presense of a sway bar on an IFS rig has an insignificant effect on the grand scheme of things when wheeling. To me, any perceived gains in traction at psychological. Sure, it has a very noticable effect on road, but I don't see much difference when wheeling. I'm yet to find something that I could make it over with the swaybar disconnected that I couldn't make it over with it connected, or vice versa.
I don't think the extra 1" or whatever it is of travel you get from discoing really makes that much difference, and I doubt any additional "pressure" (or whatever you want to call it) that the swaybar would put on a drooped tire matters.
Now, obviously, the guy in the pic doesn't have a "typical" IFS setup... I think the long travel IFS and a good driver is what made the difference - not the swaybar.
take a paperclip, bend it in a "U" shape |_|
now, if you were to bend the arms in opposing directions so that they differed by about 20*-30* of angle, eventually, you will break the paperclip. that's what you're doing w/ the ends of your swaybar. it may sustain 10,000 cycles or maybe even 100,000, but it's that cycle number 100,001 that may break it...
yeah, it slightly limits your opposing travel, and you don't gain a lot by disconnecting it, but more importantly, i'd rather save mine for the ride home on the interstate than to leave it connected and then eventually stress it to the breaking point, and then have to drive 40MPH home due to a tipsy rig on the road.
there's my $0.02. don't spend it all at once...
Last edited by bamachem; 07-18-2005 at 06:00 AM.
07-18-2005, 06:09 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bamachem
i see your point, but metal will fatigue. flexing the front suspension in opposing directions is putting stress on the swaybar. sure, it's flexy, but look at it this way...
take a paperclip, bend it in a "U" shape |_|
now, if you were to bend the arms in opposing directions so that they differed by about 20*-30* of angle, eventually, you will break the paperclip. that's what you're doing w/ the ends of your swaybar. it may sustain 10,000 cycles or maybe even 100,000, but it's that cycle number 100,001 that may break it...
yeah, it slightly limits your opposing travel, and you don't gain a lot by disconnecting it, but more importantly, i'd rather save mine for the ride home on the interstate than to leave it connected and then eventually stress it to the breaking point, and then have to drive 40MPH home due to a tipsy rig on the road.
there's my $0.02. don't spend it all at once...
take a paperclip, bend it in a "U" shape |_|
now, if you were to bend the arms in opposing directions so that they differed by about 20*-30* of angle, eventually, you will break the paperclip. that's what you're doing w/ the ends of your swaybar. it may sustain 10,000 cycles or maybe even 100,000, but it's that cycle number 100,001 that may break it...
yeah, it slightly limits your opposing travel, and you don't gain a lot by disconnecting it, but more importantly, i'd rather save mine for the ride home on the interstate than to leave it connected and then eventually stress it to the breaking point, and then have to drive 40MPH home due to a tipsy rig on the road.
there's my $0.02. don't spend it all at once...
Regardless, I wasn't making a case to keep it connected. Nor was I really making a case to disconnect it. I was argueing that the swaybar has very little effect on your ability to wheel, connected or not. For me, I'd rather have it disconnected to get that extra little bit of stuff, which in theory will help keep the rig level, thus feel less tipsy.
Now, whether or not it does keep my rig from feeling tipsy I have no idea... like I said - it's all psychological, and discoing works for me. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.
