|
In Reply to: swaybar stiffness vs. hole setting posted by twhite35 on November 11, 2001 at 18:15:21:
When I first started autocrossing and put the bar on, I used the stiffest setting. Car felt great. At a test & tune day, I tried full soft. Car felt horrible, but I was nearly 3% faster. Bottom line is that you have to test the car to adjust the suspension right.
As an aside, the folks at Dinan have almost certainly tested their suspensions on the track, not autocrossing, so folks with a DInan setup are at a distinct disadvantage at an autocross. Remember, you are paying a thousand bucks just to tell you what settings to use. Just my 2 cents. . .
I recently changed tire sizes. Used to autocross 245 front 275 rears. Went to 245 all around, and set my bar to medium soft, to balance out the oversteer thus created, which is about the same as stock. Car feels great.
I don't understand the issue of the swaybar thickness/stiffness vs the various (usually 3) holes you can use to set the stiffness to. What is the point of getting a
thick, stiff bar and then setting it to the soft position on the tab? Why not just leave the stock bar in there?
According to the UUC web site, the Dinan sway bars are thinner in the front than stock and thicker in the rear, so that "Dinan's sway bars are designed to dial in more oversteer, to counteract the factory designed understeer. However, this is at the expense of increase front body roll."
Do you guys think this is true? Would Dinan have been better off putting in thick bars front and rear (like Eibach, UUC, etc) to reduce body roll and then using the positions in the holes to counteract the understeer? Or does setting the front bars to the softest hole setting also
increase body roll while cutting back on understeer?
I am very interested in the Dinan suspension, but this issue bugs me. But perhaps its just a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Thanks in advance for any clarification.
© 1997 -
2009
Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.
