RV Trip Planning Discussions

Go Back   iRV2 Forums > THE CHASSIS CLUB FORUMS > Ford Motorhome Chassis Forum
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2010, 06:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
SAS30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 353
I see what ya'll are talking about, but it appears to me that if you move the link to the inner hole the link will be out of alignment(which is aproximately 90 degrees) with the bar. Would not after altering this angle reduce the overall effectiveness of the sway bar?
__________________

SAS30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-11-2010, 07:44 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
I'm crawling underneath first thing tomorrow. I know one thing for sure, sway bars can't make a harsh ride. All they do is twist.
__________________

WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 07:47 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
Did the canadians fix the washboarding?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmckinley View Post
Drove to Alaska in June and on the way up the swaying and rocking got really aggravating. While changing oil in Fairbanks I noticed that the front sway bars have two sets of holes. I moved the links to the inner set of holes figuring it would make the sway bar harder to twist thereby increasing the roll stiffness.

I was right. The improvement was amazing. Sway is reduced by 50%, cornering is more responsive and it even rocks less when parked. No Ill effects so far after 5,000 miles.

Cost? $Zero

Since you didn't mention the last 37miles leading into Alaska, I guess they finally paved that road. Last year I thought my dash was going to fall out.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 09:19 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
My Ford F53 18,000 lb chassis has two holes at the end of the sway bar. Sway bars work by twisting. That twist takes place between the brackets holding the sway bar to the axle. By using the second set of holes you "wow" is coming from the fact the sway bar is not twisting in that position. You might as well weld a chain to the axle and tie it to the frame. You are pulling on the end of the sway bar because it is almost a straight line between the bracket on the axle and the chassis. All F53 are laid out the same way. Mine is not unique. You are pulling on the axle with the sway bar ends. THINK TWIST when you're looking at it. Now if you moved the chassis mount point and then used the second hole maybe..... Doing it as described is, in my opinion , a big mistake. I would never experiment while on a trip. I've done the Alaska trip on nearly every road in Alaska except the "haul road". If it was rocking that bad, I'd be slowing down instead.

I had high hopes this free fix would work.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2010, 03:12 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
jcthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 474
I can tell you that when the motorhome is sitting with its weight on the wheels, the endlinks still make a near 90 deg angle to the sway bar. Slightly less than 90. In the original position, they were slightly more than 90. The upper mounting position of the end links is midway between the two sets of holes, this was the whole reason it looked to me as if the adjustment was planned for use on some chassis combo vs another. I can also tell you that, in a fully articulated position, the endlinks still do not reach an inline position to put undue tensile stress on the links. Perhaps your chassis is a bit different than mine and may be the reason for more than one set of mounting holes in the bar?
__________________
38ft 2008 Damon Daybreak 3575 (forward kitchen)on Ford 22,000lb chasis, 242" WB.
jcthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 07:56 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
Pictures

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcthorne View Post
I can tell you that when the motorhome is sitting with its weight on the wheels, the endlinks still make a near 90 deg angle to the sway bar. Slightly less than 90. In the original position, they were slightly more than 90. The upper mounting position of the end links is midway between the two sets of holes, this was the whole reason it looked to me as if the adjustment was planned for use on some chassis combo vs another. I can also tell you that, in a fully articulated position, the endlinks still do not reach an inline position to put undue tensile stress on the links. Perhaps your chassis is a bit different than mine and may be the reason for more than one set of mounting holes in the bar?

I'll take picture of this setup and post here. Can you take pictures from the side showing your setup?
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 08:22 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Auburn, CA, Havasu, AZ & Mulege, BCS
Posts: 5,324
1. a picture is worth 1000...
2. you can calculate the increase in stress to the sway bar. I'll bet it isn't dramatic. Take the new length between hole used and the center of the horizontal part of bar (parallel to the axle), divide it by the original length from bolt hole to center of transverse part of bar, then multiply by 100. [(new dimension)/(old dimension)] x 100. That'll be the percentage of old stress in using the new bolt location. I'm guessing maybe 5-15% increase (i.e. somewhere between 105% to 115% is the calculation result). So (assuming I'm in the ballpark), to get a WOW result, then the coach is hitting some roll limit on another part of the suspension (maybe springs?) where the coach reaction is amplified vs. the design assumptions for usual driving. That's not uncommon w/motorhomes. I had a P30 chassis Trek that wagged like a big dog, and knew lots of Trekkies who plunked down $3-5,000 to settle down the ride.

Nice to see a DIY experiment that works this well. Congrats.
__________________
Baja-tested '08 2-slide 36'
Alpine: The Ultimate DIY'er Project
EngineerMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2010, 09:37 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Southern Ohio
Posts: 694
Handling fix update

I'm up to 7,000 miles on the front since I moved the links to the inner holes. Still no problems. No bent links, no broken anti sway bars, no anti sway bar bracket problems or deterioration of the rubber anti sway bar bushings.

So far, jcthorne and I have made the change and love the results. A whole bunch of you are busy telling us it won't work, it will break something, it will have dire unspecified consequences, etc etc. I would suggest that the doubters crawl under their motorhomes with a box wrench and a ratchet wrench and spend 30 minutes to move the front links. Drive it and see if Jcthorne and I are right. My guess is you'll like it so much you won't want to move the links back If you don't like it, move them back to the original holes. Not a big deal.
__________________
John McKinley
2007 Damon Daybreak 3060, Ford 16,000# Chassis,
Ford C-Max Hybrid Toad , Suzuki V Strom 1000cc
jmckinley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 09:00 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
Post a picture from the side showing the angle of attachment. The distance to any other hole to the chassis will be longer. Show the link. There's another variable you failed to mention. How overloaded are you on the front axle?

Either way why not show a picture. When I post my picture of my chassis which is bone stock you will have a hard time resolving the problem. By the way, I did crawl under my motorhome. I wanted it to work. Your method is dangerous and shade tree mechanics.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 09:39 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
First picture is tape stretched between sway bar mount on axle and the top bracket for the sway bar link. This is to show straight line between the two. The closer you get to this line the less the bar will twist. You must get closer to this line to attach the link bar! Eventually the chassis will be held down by the sway bar and link pulling on the axle bracket.

 
This picture is showing the distance the link spans. Center to center is 9 3/4 ".

 
This picture is showing the distance from the same mounting point of the link to the new hole.This measures out at 12". To reduce the distance the bar must be lifted closer the the straight line shown on picture 1.

 
This picture shows the location of the alternate mounting hole on the sway bar. Just to give an idea of the difference in length.

 
So let's see here. You can see with PICTURES what I'm talking about. Smoke and mirrors? I don't think so.
This 18,000 lb F53 chassis is made by Ford. It was not customized to suit Four Winds. The year of manufacture is 2007.
 
Where are your pictures to substantiate what was done? You are also forgetting that I stated I WANTED THIS TO WORK.
If you get a longer link bar that could work. If you relocate the anchor point for the link bar, that might work. Trying to stretch it to fit DOES NOT WORK.

Look at what I stated previously. If your motorhome is overloaded on the front axle, as I suspect, then moving the link mount point on the sway bar will be easier. That does not mean the method is valid.

To simply move the location of the link and get a "wow" change made me suspicious but I STILL WANTED IT TO WORK.

I'm determined enough to disassemble everything to prove my point. I don't think that is necessary.

I looked up the specs on a Damon Daybreak. Do you have a Ford 53 chassis or a Workhorse? Your post states Ford 16,000.

You have 2000 lbs less carrying capacity than my Four Winds Hurricane. Physically they are the same size. They are constructed the same. Your frame is overloaded. Either on the back or front. Maybe even both. You overload a chassis and it is going to rock and roll like crazy.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 10:20 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Luv2go's Avatar
 
Newmar Owners Club
Nor'easters Club
Appalachian Campers
Ford Super Duty Owner
Coastal Campers
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,259
On our 2008 22,000lb F53 the link angle looks just like Woodydel's. There must be a huge difference between our setups and jcthrones, as his angle was "slightly more than 90" in the original position and ours is most definitely less than 90.

Please, somebody who has done this mod, post pictures!

Stewart
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2008 Newmar Canyon Star 3410, now at a new home
2006 Roadtrek Versatile 210
Luv2go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 01:32 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
This is what I think is happening with the modification. I drew a full size drawing of the parts. In the standard position the mounting point is 6 inches from being a straight line. In the new position it drops down to 3 inches from the straight line. This might look OK statically but when your motorhome is wanting to bob and weave that 3 inches might even drop down to 0 inches. A straight line and you will guaranteed get no body roll as the "wow" factor. In Canada and Alaska you can hit some of those flagged frost heaves just right to pull those parts fully straight. Your wheels could come off the ground because your springs would not continue to extend. As I stated, if necessary I could take it all apart to demo but my full size scale drawing does not lie.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 06:40 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 869
It took me 10 minutes to take the pictures, download off my camera, post them on one of my photobucket albums, type out the text in wordpad and display them here.
WOODYDEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2010, 08:37 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
jcthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 474
I will need to take photos and post them I guess. Yours may be different. My chassis is 22k, not 18. I checked the full suspension travel. The lower limit of the axel travel is the shock extension as designed. The bar and endlinks never binds up. The shocks reach full extension first. Yes, the angle between the link and the bar does get larger as the axel drops but it never reaches anywhere near 180 deg. Also, when the suspension is leaned over, the angle gets larger on one side and smaller on the other. The force on both sides is equal and opposite, trying to right the coach to a verticle position.

Looking at your photos again, are you sure your bar is not upside down? Perhaps its the angle the photos are taken at but my bar the section where the holes are is much closer to horizontal rather than pointed up at that large angle when the suspension is loaded.

Also, Helwig offers replacement end links in various adjustable lengths for under $100 that could correct the angles you are seeing.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/HEL-7962/
__________________

__________________
38ft 2008 Damon Daybreak 3575 (forward kitchen)on Ford 22,000lb chasis, 242" WB.
jcthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Workhorse! Please take notes on how Toyota is handling their recall! dezertcamper Workhorse and Chevrolet Chassis Motorhome Forum 388 07-18-2010 12:49 PM
Fuel filter fix Discovery 2008 Workhorse and Chevrolet Chassis Motorhome Forum 2 10-14-2009 08:48 PM
Icemaker Fix JDT Monaco Owner's Forum 2 09-13-2009 11:14 AM
Fiberglass siding delaminating. Fix? timmosazz MH-General Discussions & Problems 3 07-29-2009 04:22 PM
Rain Fix NEW ?? tvp Newmar Owner's Forum 18 01-13-2006 07:29 AM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.