My Front Suspension is Badly bent, What do you think?

[vwdmc16]

Its only taken nearly 4 years but I finally got my car on an alignment rack (most places didnt want to touch a DMC, others I wont let touch my DMC) at my new shop. My car has always pulled to the left pretty badly. Now I know exactly why. The rear toe is a bit off, that can be fixed with shims. and the camber is excessive and uneven( remember ive lowered the car about 3"), that can be fixed with adjustable links like DPI sells. But the front has issues. If you havent read my resto thread my car was an east coast rust bucket that probably has never been driven lovingly. So here is the run down of the alignment:

Front toe Spec: .20 to.28' in

Left Front toe actual: .11 Right front toe actual: .07
(Its 3/10') off so its not that bad and its the easiest part and the last to adjust)


Camber spec: -0.5 to 0.0' ( Ideally I prefer to have about -1.2 to -1.5' to help on hard corners)

Left Camber: -1.4' Right camber: .1'

(Positive camber=bad!)


Front Caster spec: 3.5 to 4.0'

Left Caster: 1.1 Right Caster: 6.0'!!!!!!


( This has to be what pulls my car to the side, a difference of 4.9' side to side is really off)






http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c396/vwdmc16/dmc/dmcalign.jpg


So besides replacing all of my control arms, what are my options? fully adjustable tubular arms?

[DMCMW Dave]

This is a very unusual design where the sway bar is also the thrust arm. Thanks Lotus!

Caster is actually set by the stabilizer bar position, normally not adjustable. If welding repairs were made to the crumple section and not done accurately, the stabilizer bar is not clamped in the correct position. The only fix is to tweak (repair) the front frame section or invent an adjustable stabilizer bar/bar clamp.

This could also be indicative of a very worn inner bushings, worn stabilizer bar bushings, bent lower arm etc.

Camber is not adjustable at all. It is set by the relative length of the upper and lower control arms, so being that far off you probably have a bent spring tower or some really bad bushings.

[vwdmc16]

The crumple tubes have cracked and been repaired and reinforced, all sway bar bushings are pretty new and very tight, the main arm bushings are original but dont have significant visual deformation, Ive boxed the control arms too. Its possible that the arms and crumple tubes were mesded up before and Ive locked them in that position with the reinforcements or possibly ive made it worse myself.


How about I swap control arms left to right, the issue probably wont go away but if the errors move to the opposite side then I know its the arms, if not then its the frame. If this car came into your shop, what actions would you take?

[DMCMW Dave]

If this car came into your shop, what actions would you take?

Depends on the customer's budget and how much they were going to drive it. I suspect after visual inspection and some measurements, I'd end up recommending replacing the crumple section completely. Honestly most people would live with it.

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

This is a very unusual design where the sway bar is also the thrust arm. Thanks Lotus!

Ed Uding's LCA brackets basically render the whole swaybar as backwards thrust arms problem moot. They are the closest thing to plug and play lower wishbones currently available.

Note that there appears to be a weakness mounting Ed's bushings in direct contact with the shock tower: they have a tendency to work themselves out of the brackets as they rotate up & down -- a problem easily remedied by mounting the bushings against *HARDENDED* backing washers (which in turn rotate against the protruding pivot bolt tubes, not against the shock towers themselves). Mounting the bushings against backing washers also eliminates annoying polyurethane squeak. You will need longer pivot bolts than supplied with the kit.

Mike Loasby himself was experimenting with true lower wishbones when the DMC house came crashing down:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/377059_271400929571831_999504283_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/313027_271400872905170_829589403_n.jpg

Lotus also went to lower wishbones on their later cars.

[vwdmc16]

wow, thats neat, using another upper arm to make a lower A arm. Not a bad idea if you have a bunch of dmc part bins at your disposal. That lower arm looks a bit weak for my trust, should be boxed to make it solid.


I played around with adding a rear radius rod with heim joints similar to the second picture from Wolfgang Hank's site, more important issues arose since then but its still an idea I want to continue. The front frame section even new is not strong enough for heavy loads, I drive my car hard and I will need the suspension to stand up to the loads. Ive debated on removing my crumple tube section in favor of a stronger and simpler tube steel section. That would be able to carry the forces and be able to mount at a better angle than what I mocked up below.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c396/vwdmc16/dmc/DSCN3626.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c396/vwdmc16/dmc/lever01.jpg

[BABIS]

wow, thats neat, using another upper arm to make a lower A arm. Not a bad idea if you have a bunch of dmc part bins at your disposal. That lower arm looks a bit weak for my trust, should be boxed to make it solid.


I played around with adding a rear radius rod with heim joints similar to the second picture from Wolfgang Hank's site, more important issues arose since then but its still an idea I want to continue. The front frame section even new is not strong enough for heavy loads, I drive my car hard and I will need the suspension to stand up to the loads. Ive debated on removing my crumple tube section in favor of a stronger and simpler tube steel section. That would be able to carry the forces and be able to mount at a better angle than what I mocked up below.



do you know that Deloman removed that system because it can't work at all in this shape?


look at this later style LCA of the lotus esprit :

15441

in this case, the fulcrum of the bushing hole of the diagonal arm (which does the triangulation) is perfectly in line with the fulcrum of the hole of the LCA itself, and this is the only way it can work properly..

another interesting thing we can see in the lotus arm is that the holes for the antiroll bar are in the middle of the arm and not at the end like in our arms.. (but in our suspension the antiroll bar does even the triangulation)

[andyd]

Here is "work in progress" from the EuroTec forum.

http://deloreaneurotec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3392&sid=a9f11609c4af98b81e2ff5b42317c497

Hope you can see it, not sure if you need to be signed in. Looks like a good answer tho,

1544215443



andy

[David T]

Compensating for a bent or incorrectly repaired frame by making adjustable parts is not a good way to "fix" things. The frame is the foundation of the whole car and it really does need to be accurate and strong. I would take measurements and compare them to the diagram in the Workshop Manual (last section). Then do what is necessary to get the frame right. When you take the car to a shop for an alignment it is more properly called a "Static" alignment. The are only measuring at one position, ie, they do not measure over the range of travel of each wheel. If parts are bent or not where they should be the alignment could deviate wildly over the range of travel of each wheel. That can make the car uncontrollable while actually driving. Consider what can happen if the toe of a front wheel changes drastically during a panic stop. It could cause you to go right off the road before you could stop it! Or hit a car in an adjacent lane. Unless you really know what you are doing when you make changes with alignment you are best served by keeping the car as stock as you can. It is not just about going straight down the road and not wearing tires badly. As for the rear toe you are not supposed to use too many shims. If you can't get it right (with I think 5 max) something is very wrong.
David Teitelbaum

[DMCMW Dave]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c396/vwdmc16/dmc/DSCN3626.jpg


I really don't see how this can work as shown. As the suspension goes into compression or rebound, the sway bar and the new thrust arm are trying to move in opposite directions (caster angle change). Look under any other car and you'll see that the sway bar is connected to the control arm with small ball joints aka a stabilizer link, it will not be mounted directly to the arm like this car.

Also - the point on the frame where the thrust arm is connected is not very strong. I would predict that in short order you'd tear the arm off the frame and/or ripple the frame. And rip the bushings off the end of the sway bar.

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

If you go the lower wishbone route (versus triangulation), there are a couple of things you can do to accommodate the swaybar's range of motion in lieu of shoving the lower control arms back & forth:

1) Use rubber bushings rather than polyurethane (more squish)
2) Turn the crumple extension bushings around backwards (hinge towards the front) so the swaybar presses into an empty space

And of course the very shape of the swaybar (45 degree angles) provides a surprising amount of flex in the swaybar itself -- one of the reasons it is so unsuitable as backwards thrust arms. If you stand a swaybar on end and pull on it, you can deflect the poor thing a couple of inches using nothing more than skinny white man muscle power.

Lower wishbones alleviate the swaybar of any alignment function, returning it to a traditional body roll function.

[vwdmc16]

Compensating for a bent or incorrectly repaired frame by making adjustable parts is not a good way to "fix" things. .... As for the rear toe you are not supposed to use too many shims. If you can't get it right (with I think 5 max) something is very wrong.
David Teitelbaum




My frame is not failing structurally. I knew the frame would be a big issue before I purchased the car, It will be replaced eventually. The fact that the DMc suspension is not adjustable it simply unacceptable to me. Things wear, bent, and move around after 31 years. Even replacing everything to NOS will still not give me the proper alignment with the ride height that I am running and will continue to run, I will not allow my car to ride high like a 4x4. Suspension modification and improvement is in order.


As for the toe, I have 3 standard shims on both sides, removing one for a thinner shim on each side should take care of that.

[David T]

There is a reason why the factory did not make the suspension "adjustable". If it is not within the published specs something is wrong. That being said, you CAN adjust things, just not with a wrench. If you lower the car there are parts you can add that will make it "adjustable". If you know the frame is not good then that is where you begin. If the car is pulling or "leading" to one side, that is a BIG red flag. It could be the alignment or it could just be a stuck piston in a caliper. It needs to be fixed to make the car safe to drive.
David Teitelbaum

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

There is a reason why the factory did not make the suspension "adjustable".

The suspension is not adjustable because Lotus/DMC were cheap. Even the lowly Chevette had adjustable caster and camber.

Mike Loasby is on record as being quite concerned about the production suspension (he was a late arrival to the project). Loasby also was experimenting with suspension improvements even as cars were rolling off the assembly line.

No serious argument can be made that DeLoreans are not rife candidates for suspension improvement.

[jerzybondov]

Ed Uding's LCA brackets basically render the whole swaybar as backwards thrust arms problem moot. They are the closest thing to plug and play lower wishbones currently available.

Note that there appears to be a weakness mounting Ed's bushings in direct contact with the shock tower: they have a tendency to work themselves out of the brackets as they rotate up & down -- a problem easily remedied by mounting the bushings against *HARDENDED* backing washers (which in turn rotate against the protruding pivot bolt tubes, not against the shock towers themselves). Mounting the bushings against backing washers also eliminates annoying polyurethane squeak. You will need longer pivot bolts than supplied with the kit.



Interesting to see I'm not the only one with this problem. Attached pics show it on my car.

There is already a washer on the inboard side of the bush, the issue is that it's the same size as the bush. Surely if the hardened washer is the same thickness but simply a larger diameter then there's no need for longer pivot bolts?

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

Looks like you put a thin stainless washer on one side only. I've seen that before (Tyler Butler's car) -- it doesn't work. The other side still drags on the shock tower. Plus the thin washer bends back on itself. You need 1/8" thick washers on both sides.

Proper backing washers will position the Uding brackets about 1/4" further from the shock towers on each side. You'll need even longer bolts if you overlay the provided inset washers with washers that cover the entire bushing face. Another inch is more than adequate):

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/377906_271475429564381_907230671_n.jpg

I've helped two other owners make this upgrade with their lower control arms still in place (there's no need to remove the LCA's to add the washers).

My own brackets have always had proper backing washers on both sides: nearly 18 months and nearly 10,000 miles with not a single millimeter of bushing movement.

Definitely a design flaw in what is otherwise an excellent and beneficial product. Hopefully Dave Swingle will see your pics too. I've sent him pics of the other owner's bushings walked out. Dave is providing the pivot bolts now (and Grade 8 rather than stainless inset washers). It would be a simple change for him to provide longer pivot bolts and hardened backing washers.

[David T]

On modern cars it is very common now to spot-weld all of the stuff together. To adjust you have to drill out the spot welds, (or rivets) move the parts into position and then stick bolts and nuts in to hold things in place. There is no good reason you should have to adjust castor or camber unless you drastically change the ride height or bend something (like the frame). Yes, they probably did it to save money but you can make that argument on just about any part of the car, it was all a compromise to be able to build the car for a particular price.
David Teitelbaum

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

DeLoreans are not modern cars.

Nearly every other vehicle of their 30+ year old vintage had fully adjustable suspensions.

In this one instance at least (fully adjustable suspension) a Chevy Nova is better than a DeLorean.

[jerzybondov]

Definitely a design flaw in what is otherwise an excellent and beneficial product. Hopefully Dave Swingle will see your pics too. I've sent him pics of the other owner's bushings walked out. Dave is providing the pivot bolts now (and Grade 8 rather than stainless inset washers). It would be a simple change for him to provide longer pivot bolts and hardened backing washers.

Great diagram. Can I ask where you sourced your hardened washers from and what size (diameter) you got?

[m81dmc]

I would place an extra washer between the antiroll bar end nuts and the rubber bushing moving the arm forward on the antiroll bar.

Basically just an extra washer. This would adjust the caster forward on that side.

I have not done this, nor heard of it being done, just so you know.

I would also be sure to double nut the antiroll bar and use loctite.

If the others dont see a problem with this thats what I would do.

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

Great diagram. Can I ask where you sourced your hardened washers from and what size (diameter) you got?

An owner in North Carolina took these pictures this afternoon. After nearly 10,000 miles of use his Uding bushings are still exactly where they started (not backed out at all):

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/481576_491740950871160_1192270170_n.jpg
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/480558_491740917537830_1264212625_n.jpg

I'm pretty sure he sourced his hardware from McMaster Carr. Backing washers: Part #92140A120, hardened steel, 1/2" ID, 2" OD, 1/8" thick. Face washers: Part #92217A549: 18-8 stainless steel, 1/2" ID, 1 3/4" OD, 3/32" thick. Pivot bolts: Part #91257A497: 9" long 1/2-20 Grade 8 (they originally had much more thread exposed -- he cut them off for appearance sake).

Note that if you put face washers on the shock bolt bushings those bolts will need to be longer too.

[opethmike]

Watching you type in third person about yourself is amusing, Mr. Robertson.

[Dangermouse]

Watching you type in third person about yourself is amusing, Mr. Robertson.

Made me laugh too.

"I'm pretty sure he sourced them at McMaster Carr". Priceless.

:)

Useful info though......

[jerzybondov]

An owner in North Carolina took these pictures this afternoon. After nearly 10,000 miles of use his Uding bushings are still exactly where they started (not backed out at all):

I'm pretty sure he sourced his hardware from McMaster Carr. Backing washers: Part #92140A120, hardened steel, 1/2" ID, 2" OD, 1/8" thick. Face washers: Part #92217A549: 18-8 stainless steel, 1/2" ID, 1 3/4" OD, 3/32" thick. Pivot bolts: Part #91257A497: 9" long 1/2-20 Grade 8 (they originally had much more thread exposed -- he cut them off for appearance sake).

Note that if you put face washers on the shock bolt bushings those bolts will need to be longer too.

Great info. Thank you :D

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

Bushings walking out of the brackets is likely caused by the brackets moving independently of the bushings. Why this happens when the bushings are butted against the shock towers is intuitively obvious. What is surprising is it happens even when a thin washer is squeezed in on one side (bolts supplied with the kit are barely long enough to allow one thin washer on one side only). I have noticed that thin washers in this application bend back on themselves. It appears enough deformation of these washers creates resistance similar to being butted against the shock towers directly.

If you look closely at the North Carolinian owner's pictures you will notice that lips of his bushings are visibly compressed by the face washers. Don't know exactly how much more that helps the bushings move in conjunction with the brackets, but it must help to some degree. It certainly doesn't hurt.

[chenderson2k]

What year had these brackets? I've never seen them before.

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

What year had these brackets? I've never seen them before.

Brackets are an aftermarket upgrade from Ed Uding in Europe, also sold stateside by Dave Swingle at DMCMW. They are the closest thing to lower wishbones currently available.

This is what an original installation looks like (Luke Sandel's car):

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/390244_271883462856911_174182591_n.jpg

[DMC5180]

I figured it would be worth sharing these photos of my own experience with the Stabilizer links.

Notice the Inboard link ends have migrated toward each other.

15578 15579 15580

I reset all the bushings using this method.

15581 15582

Ready for reinstallation.

15583

reinstalled: Note the bushing Squeeze on the inboard (tower) side. The inside washer now limits inward movement. So far I have not seen any migration in this configuration.

15584 15585

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

The bushings really don't fit all that tightly in the brackets. We used a ball joint press on Tyler Butler's car, and could practically turn the screw by hand.

At least 5 sets of bushings walked out without proper backing washers versus no bushings walked out with them (and face washers) is pretty conclusive.

[dmc6960]

The bushings really don't fit all that tightly in the brackets. We used a ball joint press on Tyler Butler's car, and could practically turn the screw by hand.

At least 5 sets of bushings walked out without proper backing washers versus no bushings walked out with them (and face washers) is pretty conclusive.

You can make that count 6. Mine have done the same. I'll be doing this procedure to mine as well when I take them apart this winter to replace the lower ball joints.

[ed uding]

I do make the sets in Europe, problem is the heavy weight with shipping.
That make it cost more thane it neat. So we send all sets out without the Washers and bolds.
I see on some photo,s with a way to small washers, the washer neat to cover the complete inner of the space in the bushing.
Thicker is the better, In case you bushing pop out you know what to do.
If you see the video's it will be a lot more clear wgat the Arms do.
The Stress is real big, that is why we never use Stainess steel on the lower arms.


Stock Delotrean Arm:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x812jn_delorean-front-arm_auto#.UNbU3Ct7RT4
Braking Video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8jyld_front-arm-braking2_auto#.UNbUYit7RT4
Normal drive: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8jxtj_front-arm-driving_auto#.UNbUGCt7RT4

Regards Ed Uding
www.delorean.eu

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet #1]

This is an edited version (just the juicy bits) of Raphael's video that has made the rounds before:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMHO4Aydk04

Why the bushings work out without backing washers is obvious. Just like working out a pressed in vacuum barb, one piece is held still while the other rotates back & forth and is forced apart. Backing washers prevent the bushings from staying still relative to the brackets as they rotate. Compressing the bushings between backing washers and face washers appears to prevent the brackets moving towards the shock towers as the LCA's try to push them away.

I suspect every owner who has tried Ed's brackets would recommend them as a valuable upgrade. They certainly help with slalom maneuvering, but I found the biggest difference in long stretches of highway driving (especially in conjunction with beefed up LCA's and a vibration reducing steering shaft). In the words of Tyler Butler: "This feels like a modern car now."

[DeLorean]

So does DMCMW still have the outriggers? I can't seem to find them on their website anymore...

[DeLorean]

But really, this is the sort of set up I'd like to do --

http://www.deloreanclub.de/images/lever01.jpg

Any thoughts? The one component, the attachment bolt / link combination is really the only part that I don't know where to get. I have a questions as to the durability of the frame in this plain as a load bearing member?

[DMCMW Dave]

So does DMCMW still have the outriggers? I can't seem to find them on their website anymore...

I have one set available.

[Delorean Industries]

But really, this is the sort of set up I'd like to do --

http://www.deloreanclub.de/images/lever01.jpg

Any thoughts? The one component, the attachment bolt / link combination is really the only part that I don't know where to get. I have a questions as to the durability of the frame in this plain as a load bearing member?

Very bad idea. Paper thin there.

[jawn101]

But really, this is the sort of set up I'd like to do --

http://www.deloreanclub.de/images/lever01.jpg

Any thoughts? The one component, the attachment bolt / link combination is really the only part that I don't know where to get. I have a questions as to the durability of the frame in this plain as a load bearing member?

See posts #7 and #10 in this thread...

Edit: Also, Josh's above.

[BABIS]

See posts #7 and #10 in this thread...

Edit: Also, Josh's above.

Thank you for the quote ;)

[ed uding]

After a long time testing we did come with this solution, it is not a simple trick to do.
Still have to make more mile's, but the winter slow it down.

Ed
www.delorean.eu

[ed uding]

There it is

[Domi]

You have to weld a new plate onto the frame?

[DeLorean]

Well, yeah. Cause that piece is not attached onto the frame

[vwdmc16]

Now I like that but it still needs a way to adjust camber and caster.

[dmc6960]

Now I like that but it still needs a way to adjust camber and caster.

Well, for starters is just uses a regular DMC rear upper control arm. Why not instead use one of Josh's adjustable control arms...

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?5043-Delorean-Performance-Industries-Adjustable-Upper-Lower-Control-Arm-Kit-w-Heim-Joints

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=12856&d=1346628953

[Delorean Industries]

Welding a plate and installing a bar aft of the control arm center line causes binding with the sway bar still integrated into the stock design. You create an additional force not moving in the stock path of travel. This is why the lower stabalizer upgrade wants to tear it self from the car. (it works though in reducing control arm travel) This causes a binding issue with the factory designed steering angle inclination. (The axis between your shock center line and factory set camber) All of the load is put onto the rear inner mounting point which is then applied to the frame in a weak location. To do this properly a lower a wishbone needs to be installed with the same offset as on the top control arm to prevent binding. The stock design relies on the lower bushing to produce this taking the additional stress. Take your sway bar mounting bolts off and let the suspension relax and the result is huge.

The stock lower arm is mounted in one spot and twists accordingly to introduce caster. This angle is measurable by the offet of the upper arm front to rear. (look at the upper arm mounting and the front is higher, etc spec available in the frame section of the workshop manual)

Thanks to much appreciated help from Lotus and a license to their Raven and associated design platforms we were able to produce the correct lower offset required on our tubular chassis. Without being able to simulate travel and loads on the arms and bushings its a big guessing game to see what works. Without extensive modifications the stock frame can not be modified to accept these upgrades. The frame was never designed to be stressed in these additional ways. Not to mention the weld quality is scary to say the least. I would love to have the frames stock welds x rayed. When the epoxy is removed a good number do not pass a visual weld inspection by a professional.

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet]

Stock suspension was something of a guessing game too. On the old .com site Mike Loasby recounted LCA's on one of the pilot cars folding backwards during hard braking. Lotus' solution: bigger diameter swaybar washers.

Speaking of swaybars: stock design swaybars do tend to shove the LCA's backwards through their arc of travel -- action compounded by forces such as braking. I think that is why DeLorean front toe spec is about twice a normal car -- excessive toe while static becomes normal as the front suspension shifts backwards when the car is moving.

Fortunately the swaybar really isn't all that strong. It only manages to shove the LCA's because they are even weaker, especially given their narrow pivot point (narrowest part of the arm). Replacing them with lower wishbones, or faux lower wishbones (Ed' brackets) simply causes the swaybar to flex forward through its arc of travel.

One of the old heads in this community (New Jersey) has pontificated for several years that Ed's brackets will cause the sway bar to rip itself off the crumple extension -- palpable nonsense. Not only have at least two American owners logged approximately 10,000 miles apiece with LCA brackets on their cars no problem, but Rob Grady has been driving on Mike Loasby's prototype true lower wishbones for at least a decade.

[vwdmc16]

All excellent info. The sway bar simply does not work well to be a control arm locating member and should not be stressed in that manner. Its job is to transmit vertical loads from one arm to the other through a rotating shaft and that is all it should do.

[BABIS]

so the problem with a theoric lower wishbone is that the sway bar becomes too stiff (because it is born from factory to do the anti roll job and the triangulation job together)
what about , in the lower wishbone scenario, to change the entire sway bar with a modern type one and to route it over the crumple tubes?

[Bill Robertson's Sock Puppet]

Rob Grady has been running true lower wishbones (the same ones Mike Loasby was experimenting with) for at least 10 years with an otherwise stock swaybar no problem -- see pics in Post #5.

[Patrick C]

Rob Grady has been running true lower wishbones (the same ones Mike Loasby was experimenting with) for at least 10 years with an otherwise stock swaybar no problem -- see pics in Post #5.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/377059_271400929571831_999504283_n.jpg

[vwdmc16]

so the problem with a theoric lower wishbone is that the sway bar becomes too stiff (because it is born from factory to do the anti roll job and the triangulation job together)
what about , in the lower wishbone scenario, to change the entire sway bar with a modern type one and to route it over the crumple tubes?


The bar doesnt become too stiff, its just that it has to force LCA forward and backwards as the bar travels through an arc. This arc doesnt move the arm a huge amount since the bar is only rotating a few degrees however even the relatively soft rubber bushings between everything can absorb only so much, then the conflicting members start to bind. A true and sturdy triangulated wishbone wants to travel up and down only but the end of the sway bar wants to go in an arc, so you must connect the two with a double jointed link that will convert the motion from one part to the other.

[content22207_2]

Swaybar is perfectly capable of deforming itself in lieu of rearward LCA movement. It's a very bendy piece of metal (that's why it is so unsuitable as thrust arms). Swaybar also makes two 45 degree bends between the LCA's and its crumple extension mounts -- introduces even more flexibility (versus two 90 degree bends):

42035

Mike Loasby experimented with lower wishbones at the factory, which have virtually no provision for fore/aft movement. Those same experimental wishbones have been on Rob Grady's car since at least the early 2000's no problem.

Swaybar locking up is a Red Herring.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Drive Stainless]

...so you must connect the two with a double jointed link that will convert the motion from one part to the other.


Gee, if only there was a part that could do that. :)

42036