Happersized Rear Sway Bars(HRSB)
b.benz at charter.net
Mon Jul 19 21:27:01 EDT 2004
Hap, Thanks for your response. I copied you with my Qs to Eric. He may
have also done so.
There is nothing wrong with computer modeling if it is based upon sound
physics, considering the full physical characteristics of each spring that
you are comparing. But you must in the end relate your results to the real
world, either in your mathematics or in your explanations thereof.
So my request is that you first explain your higher "performance number"
results for the stock S4 RSB relative to your HRSB Perfomance numbers of
half of the stock bar and still claim that your bar is "healthier"!
To be comprehendible to others, please relate your numbers into the actual
spring rates coupling the two trapezoidal arms together through the two bars
Thanks for your explanation.
From: CaptMagu at aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:58:15 EDT
To: b.benz at charter.net, Eric_R_Kissell at whirlpool.com
Cc: CaptMagu at aol.com, 200q20v at audifans.com
Subject: Re: Happersized Rear Sway Bars(HRSB)
Eric copied me on your question. We actually use mathmatical models to
determine the roll resistance of anti-roll bars. These models are based on
the diameter of the bar, the arm length of the bar, and the width of the
bar. Based on these measurements, the stock 17mm bar came out to 33lbs of
anti-roll. The HRSB has 3 adjustments worth 125, 140, and 155lbs of
anti-roll. So, based on these figures, the HRSB is quite a bit healthier
than the stock bar. I am including a picture of my rear suspension.
More information about the 200q20v