>If we all might agree that open springs may reduce some of the costs with
>shocks, what effect on shock costs would be open rear sway bars? Closer to
>stock the opening springs, since we can change the front, it may produce
>enough change in handling that we won't need as drastic shock valving....
Unrestricted rear AND front sway bars would create a class wherein all the fast
cars had extremely stiff sway bars on both ends.
Upside? Shock-absorber tuning would be less important. Extreme changes to
shock absorbers are done to try to get around the roll-stiffness limitations
of the stock springs. Sway bars, even very trick ones, and seldom more than
several hundred dollars each. Adjustability is often achievable at reasonably
low cost do to the low-tech methods required. Sway bars should last a very
long time. In most cars, addition or removal of sway bars is not very
complicated.
Tire wear is better with less camber chan
Downside? Super-stiff sway bars would be required to be competitive. All the
fast cars would ride like bricks. Whether you consider this a problem is up
to you.
Currently, most cars are limited to how stiff the front bar can be by the effect
of stiffening the front and not the back. This limitation would disappear if
the rear sway bar was unrestricted as well as the front.
Some folks thing that the sway bar rule should be unrestricted at EITHER front
OR rear (but not both). This seems very reasonable to me, but it may not do
enough to cut the required cost of shock absorbers.
Phil Ethier
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|