This link is to a technical document I wrote about hollow stabilizer bar
design. It discusses why suspension designers are using hollow stabilizer
bars on today's vehicles. Hopefully it will clear up some misinformation.
https://www.hotchkis.net/pdf_files/HollowSwayTech-D.pdf
-Gary Pinkley
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:59:10 -0400
From: andy levy <andy-dml@levyclan.us>
Subject: Re: Late model sway bars WAS: Re: DML: Design flaws or just things
I am noticing since this is my first
Well, I'm thoroughly confused now.
Do we really think these sway bars are the "good alloy steel" Bob
mentions below, or are they more likely whatevery Dodge could scrape up
and shape?
Are *both* my front and rear sway bars ('03 QC 4x4, tire & handling
package) hollow? If so, will I see a real benefit from swapping these
swaybars with the solid ones? If I had to pick one to swap, which would
be better? Is it a direct fit to bolt a '99 front or rear swaybar onto
this truck? While I have it all apart, does anyone make a polyurethane
bushing kit for these bars so I can solidify things once and for all?
If it's worth it, this sounds like a great mod to do in an afternoon
along with a shock replacement.
Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:
> One thing to mention...the AFTERMARKET (hollow) bars also use a much
> different material than the solid bars.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bernd D.
> Ratsch
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:47 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: RE: Late model sway bars WAS: Re: DML: Design flaws or just
> things I am noticing since this is my first
>
>
>
> Hollow tubes flex more and are not quite as "reactive" as solid bars.
> Look at most of the aftermarket bars...they're not hollow. If you want
> to compare factory to factory (solid vs. hollow)...i'll stick with the
> solid bars. (We already tested the hollow vs. solid bar theory on a '01
> R/T - the solid one works MUCH better.)
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of DAKSY
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: Re: Late model sway bars WAS: Re: DML: Design flaws or just
> things I am noticing since this is my first
>
>
>
> Hey, DML!
>
> <snip> Woah...back the truck up. You're telling me the sway bars on my
> '03 QC Sport+ are *hollow*?<snip>
>
> I really hate to make a statement, then hafta duck & run for cover, but
> I disagree with the Status Quo... Tubing (hollow rod, if you will) is
> actually stronger than solid bar. I know it sounds absurd, but think
> about it....A solid bar has one surface - the outside diameter (OD).
> With enough strain, this surface will bend or torque, & if it's pushed
> past its elastic limit, it will deform and may or may not be able to be
> cold-press straightened. If it can be straightened, it will not be as
> strong as the original material. Tubing, on the other hand, has TWO
> surfaces to strengthen it..An OD AND an Inside Diameter (ID). It is
> inherently stronger than a solid bar OF THE SAME MATERIAL...Granted,
> with enough strain, it WILL deform, but it'll take more to do it than
> the to deform the solid bar, & small deformations CAN be cold-pressed
> back, as long as the deformation doesn't cause the tubing to "kink."
> So... if you're talking about a good alloy steel (Cold-forged or Hot
> Drawn 4340, 4140, 4130, 8620 etc,) go for the tubing. Now if the tubing
> used on the Gen III DAKs is really thin-walled, say under 1/8" wall, it
> IS doo-doo, but if I hadda replace it, I would not hesitate to use
> tubing... I'm done...
>
> Bob Smith (DAKSY2K on AIM)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:40 EST