Community Forums

SAS30 · 08-11-2010, 06:11 PM

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?

WOODYDEL · 08-11-2010, 07:44 PM

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 · 08-11-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmckinley

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 · 08-12-2010, 09:19 AM

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.

jcthorne · 08-13-2010, 03:12 AM

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?

WOODYDEL · 08-14-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcthorne

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?

EngineerMike · 08-14-2010, 08:22 PM

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.

jmckinley · 08-15-2010, 09:37 AM

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.

WOODYDEL · 08-16-2010, 09:00 AM

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 · 08-16-2010, 09:39 AM

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.

Luv2go · 08-16-2010, 10:20 AM

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

WOODYDEL · 08-16-2010, 01:32 PM

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 · 08-16-2010, 06:40 PM

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.

jcthorne · 08-17-2010, 08:37 AM

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/