anti roll bar question

at what weight and hp level do you want to change to a doudle link arb ? how much force is put on those links during a launch ?

When you start running pro mod.

Who's kit do you have? wall thickness and outer diameter?

those kits have a bar inside too. one bar has preload and one bar is neutral. so it's not the two links that give the strength but rather the two anti-roll bars.

Curt wrote:When you start running pro mod.

x275 IS pro mod.

whatbumper wrote:Who's kit do you have? wall thickness and outer diameter?

those kits have a bar inside too. one bar has preload and one bar is neutral. so it's not the two links that give the strength but rather the two anti-roll bars.

this is an old pic , but it was on the car when i got it , dont mind the red arrows it was a question in another thread

That looks like a Wolfe kit. I could be wrong though. I think you could benefit from a thicker walled bar and or the double kit in your application. Of course we always go overkill with suspension parts.

That ARB looks just like my buddy"s (he said his was a steeda) but its hard to tell in pics. Either way I have the wolfe double ARB its a nice piece. I feel the same as whatbumper I would prefer to over do the chassis/suspenion (so the speak). I have no proof that it is superior to singles but I dont see how it could hurt. I feel confident that it will work better despite what some have posted on other forums. I would call wolfe and Dan will let you know straight up if you dont need it. As far as I know wolfe and upr are the only companies making doubles(for mustangs) and the UPR dbl. arb is just a single with two links and is nothing like the wolfe as stated above it has two independent arbs. KS

why do you even need an arb with a ld setup..............

richter69 wrote:why do you even need an arb with a ld setup..............

Every car we've put an anti-roll bar on has improved at the track. including the ladder bar cars we've done.

then the housing and or the ladder bars werte flimsy as hell.................

I wont get into the argument of an ard on a lb car, there are some cases where it is needed.

on Nicks deal there are other issues I'd address first besides the arb IMO.

There are some "double" anti-rolls out there that are as mentioned in fact a "two-in-one" assembly, but there are also some units that are just a simple "single" setup with double arms/double down links.

I don't see the need for double arm/double down link anti-rolls an on the average race car since using an anti-roll torsion tube that's way too weak (too wide or OD too small) for a given application is more of a problem IMO. If a car has an anti-roll, and is still rolling over on the launch, then doubling the number of down links won't fix the problem if the anti-roll torsion tube(s) it's self still acts like a piece of cooked spaghetti. That's the reason why the monster P/M anit-rolls are made with such a large OD torsion tube.

As for the ladder bar + anti-roll setup the inherent problem with using any rear housing design where you can't weld on a rigid full length back brace + top/bottom braces (aka any "rear loading" housing) is that there will always be some/more rotational torsional twisting/flexing happening from one end to the other along it's C/L under launch loading. A simple front brace similar to Nick's setup made of round material with limited few attachment points might help stop the housing/tubes from bowing forward a little during the launch, but it won't stop the torsional twisting/flexing of the housing/tubes from happening during the launch.

richter69 wrote:then the housing and or the ladder bars werte flimsy as hell.................

I really think it is the dead hooking nature of drag radials. I can assure you the housings and bars are not flimsy nor the the rest of the cars. I used to think the same thing about ladder bars until having a conversation with a well known builder in the east that encouraged us to try it.

richter69 wrote:I wont get into the argument of an ard on a lb car, there are some cases where it is needed.

on Nicks deal there are other issues I'd address first besides the arb IMO.

bruno wrote:

richter69 wrote:I wont get into the argument of an ard on a lb car, there are some cases where it is needed.

on Nicks deal there are other issues I'd address first besides the arb IMO.

that just a nice way of say'n your shit is slow

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:There are some "double" anti-rolls out there that are as mentioned in fact a "two-in-one" assembly, but there are also some units that are just a simple "single" setup with double arms/double down links.

I don't see the need for double arm/double down link anti-rolls an on the average race car since using an anti-roll torsion tube that's way too weak (too wide or OD too small) for a given application is more of a problem IMO. If a car has an anti-roll, and is still rolling over on the launch, then doubling the number of down links won't fix the problem if the anti-roll torsion tube(s) it's self still acts like a piece of cooked spaghetti. That's the reason why the monster P/M anit-rolls are made with such a large OD torsion tube.

As for the ladder bar + anti-roll setup the inherent problem with using any rear housing design where you can't weld on a rigid full length back brace + top/bottom braces (aka any "rear loading" housing) is that there will always be some/more rotational torsional twisting/flexing happening from one end to the other along it's C/L under launch loading. A simple front brace similar to Nick's setup made of round material with limited few attachment points might help stop the housing/tubes from bowing forward a little during the launch, but it won't stop the torsional twisting/flexing of the housing/tubes from happening during the launch.

Dave has summed a bunch up here. Your rear load 8.8 definatley flexes therefore a anti-roll and ladder bar set up is in order and probably why it works as good as it does. I personally am not crazy about the anti-roll that you have on the car now. It basically is a cheap set up (don't take this the wrong way Bruno) with tubing rotating inside of tubing at the very ends. At the very least yours should have or may have grease fittings to keep this area lubricated. I prefer the bolt in style with the bearings in the arms. (Other than the ultra-high priced Pro-stock splined setups) There is less chance of binding and they rotoate/roll much smoother. Also on the kit that is on your car I do not like the solid threaded link bars with the heim ends directly threaded into them. A piece of C/M tubing with weld in tube adapters is a stronger peice in my own opinion.

But to answer your question about the double ARB's I don't think you are in need of or ready to use that aspect yet. With your setup being wide ( Not a narrowed rear with only 24" to 32" between the frame rails) I also think there are areas on your car for improvement before I would go throwing money at something that is really not needed at this point.

that does look to be a wolf anti roll bar like the one i originally had in my car.you may remember last year when i had a lower link bar bolt break causeing sevral bent up parts.well my point is the hime joints from wolf were cast and flemsy.i would at least change them out for the hi streingth forged joints and ride with it for a while

Fist_Full_Of_Dollars wrote:

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:There are some "double" anti-rolls out there that are as mentioned in fact a "two-in-one" assembly, but there are also some units that are just a simple "single" setup with double arms/double down links.

I don't see the need for double arm/double down link anti-rolls an on the average race car since using an anti-roll torsion tube that's way too weak (too wide or OD too small) for a given application is more of a problem IMO. If a car has an anti-roll, and is still rolling over on the launch, then doubling the number of down links won't fix the problem if the anti-roll torsion tube(s) it's self still acts like a piece of cooked spaghetti. That's the reason why the monster P/M anit-rolls are made with such a large OD torsion tube.

As for the ladder bar + anti-roll setup the inherent problem with using any rear housing design where you can't weld on a rigid full length back brace + top/bottom braces (aka any "rear loading" housing) is that there will always be some/more rotational torsional twisting/flexing happening from one end to the other along it's C/L under launch loading. A simple front brace similar to Nick's setup made of round material with limited few attachment points might help stop the housing/tubes from bowing forward a little during the launch, but it won't stop the torsional twisting/flexing of the housing/tubes from happening during the launch.

Dave has summed a bunch up here. Your rear load 8.8 definatley flexes therefore a anti-roll and ladder bar set up is in order and probably why it works as good as it does. I personally am not crazy about the anti-roll that you have on the car now. It basically is a cheap set up (don't take this the wrong way Bruno) with tubing rotating inside of tubing at the very ends. At the very least yours should have or may have grease fittings to keep this area lubricated. I prefer the bolt in style with the bearings in the arms. (Other than the ultra-high priced Pro-stock splined setups) There is less chance of binding and they rotoate/roll much smoother. Also on the kit that is on your car I do not like the solid threaded link bars with the heim ends directly threaded into them. A piece of C/M tubing with weld in tube adapters is a stronger peice in my own opinion.

But to answer your question about the double ARB's I don't think you are in need of or ready to use that aspect yet. With your setup being wide ( Not a narrowed rear with only 24" to 32" between the frame rails) I also think there are areas on your car for improvement before I would go throwing money at something that is really not needed at this point.

and these areas would be ????

bruno wrote:

Fist_Full_Of_Dollars wrote:

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:There are some "double" anti-rolls out there that are as mentioned in fact a "two-in-one" assembly, but there are also some units that are just a simple "single" setup with double arms/double down links.

I don't see the need for double arm/double down link anti-rolls an on the average race car since using an anti-roll torsion tube that's way too weak (too wide or OD too small) for a given application is more of a problem IMO. If a car has an anti-roll, and is still rolling over on the launch, then doubling the number of down links won't fix the problem if the anti-roll torsion tube(s) it's self still acts like a piece of cooked spaghetti. That's the reason why the monster P/M anit-rolls are made with such a large OD torsion tube.

As for the ladder bar + anti-roll setup the inherent problem with using any rear housing design where you can't weld on a rigid full length back brace + top/bottom braces (aka any "rear loading" housing) is that there will always be some/more rotational torsional twisting/flexing happening from one end to the other along it's C/L under launch loading. A simple front brace similar to Nick's setup made of round material with limited few attachment points might help stop the housing/tubes from bowing forward a little during the launch, but it won't stop the torsional twisting/flexing of the housing/tubes from happening during the launch.

Dave has summed a bunch up here. Your rear load 8.8 definatley flexes therefore a anti-roll and ladder bar set up is in order and probably why it works as good as it does. I personally am not crazy about the anti-roll that you have on the car now. It basically is a cheap set up (don't take this the wrong way Bruno) with tubing rotating inside of tubing at the very ends. At the very least yours should have or may have grease fittings to keep this area lubricated. I prefer the bolt in style with the bearings in the arms. (Other than the ultra-high priced Pro-stock splined setups) There is less chance of binding and they rotoate/roll much smoother. Also on the kit that is on your car I do not like the solid threaded link bars with the heim ends directly threaded into them. A piece of C/M tubing with weld in tube adapters is a stronger peice in my own opinion.

But to answer your question about the double ARB's I don't think you are in need of or ready to use that aspect yet. With your setup being wide ( Not a narrowed rear with only 24" to 32" between the frame rails) I also think there are areas on your car for improvement before I would go throwing money at something that is really not needed at this point.

and these areas would be ????

Here you go:

First a question ? Your car looks like it does not have enough bars under the car for one but it may be an old picture. Is the car a C/M barred car or is it a mild steel ?
That being said,
Double frame rail ( round tube inside of the stock rails)
X brace under floor boards ( you may already have this can't tell)
Shocks tied to the new double frame
A GOOD 9 inch with full bracing
Heavy duty ladder bars
If you insist on running the anti-roll atleast upgrade to a better one
-stiffen the chassis- stiffen the chassis - stiffen the chassis
Finally i'll send you a wafer wheel to finish trimming the sheetmetal above the left rear shock (lol) kidding

mild steel , 8.50 cert .......no x braces under floor

bruno wrote:mild steel , 8.50 cert .......no x braces under floor

sounds time for an upgrade to 25.5. You can go 25.5 with mild steel. IMO the x brace under the floor is very important on ladder bar cars to help distribute the ladder bar load throught the chassis.

whatbumper wrote:

bruno wrote:mild steel , 8.50 cert .......no x braces under floor

sounds time for an upgrade to 25.5. You can go 25.5 with mild steel. IMO the x brace under the floor is very important on ladder bar cars to help distribute the ladder bar load throught the chassis.

I agree to a point. But to run the X275 stuff you are not going to be certified for the et and mph that you will need to run. Do you have any plans on upgrading the car or are you just going to throw more engine at it? IMO the car you have with the upgrades i mentioned ( even if you were to convert the whole thing to C/M which in itself would probably save you quite a few #'s) your car would be a good bit faster, react bettter to shock adjustments , and be more consistent period. Forget the double anti -roll and get to work on the NEEDED things.

Fist_Full_Of_Dollars wrote:

whatbumper wrote:

bruno wrote:mild steel , 8.50 cert .......no x braces under floor

sounds time for an upgrade to 25.5. You can go 25.5 with mild steel. IMO the x brace under the floor is very important on ladder bar cars to help distribute the ladder bar load throught the chassis.

I agree to a point. But to run the X275 stuff you are not going to be certified for the et and mph that you will need to run. Do you have any plans on upgrading the car or are you just going to throw more engine at it? IMO the car you have with the upgrades i mentioned ( even if you were to convert the whole thing to C/M which in itself would probably save you quite a few #'s) your car would be a good bit faster, react bettter to shock adjustments , and be more consistent period. Forget the double anti -roll and get to work on the NEEDED things.

what cert do you think these cars have?

whatbumper wrote:

Fist_Full_Of_Dollars wrote:

whatbumper wrote:

bruno wrote:mild steel , 8.50 cert .......no x braces under floor

sounds time for an upgrade to 25.5. You can go 25.5 with mild steel. IMO the x brace under the floor is very important on ladder bar cars to help distribute the ladder bar load throught the chassis.

I agree to a point. But to run the X275 stuff you are not going to be certified for the et and mph that you will need to run. Do you have any plans on upgrading the car or are you just going to throw more engine at it? IMO the car you have with the upgrades i mentioned ( even if you were to convert the whole thing to C/M which in itself would probably save you quite a few #'s) your car would be a good bit faster, react bettter to shock adjustments , and be more consistent period. Forget the double anti -roll and get to work on the NEEDED things.

what cert do you think these cars have?

Not disagreeing with you bumper at all. I totally agree that he needs an upgrade. I would upgrade the car one time though and go C/M. I would love to link you to a build on YB but this borad will not let me link anything without being a member for 7 days ------WTF?

I feel that the center X brace needs to be in there regardless of what suspension type is used, or what material is used for the chassis, or what the cert is going to be (NHRA/IHRA vs SFI) just because the X brace will help keep the chassis straighter & more square over time.

And this includes even the cars that fit the SFI "loophole" for not needing the center X brace in the first place (if car retains factory steel body shell/rocker panel/door jamb assemblies + steel floor). It just makes sense to me to always have it in there even in cases where it's not needed to be "legal."