Tubular K-frames now available

[Turbo Joe]

I too got the provision for sway bar on my arms but I haven't installed the sway bar yet and I really don't think I will. I have the BC set up from RBryant though so I'm sure that helps too but my csx handles and rides so good without a sway bar, so why bother putting it back in? Just wish I would've gotten in on the k-frame deal too, I REALLY need all the room I can get !!

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

I was wondering , maybe one of the universal straight splined end sway bars might work if someone figured out a way to make arms / links between the ends of the bar and control arms

but allowing the wheels to steer with a straight link arm running to the ends of the splined bar would be challenging at the very least

ie

https://www.google.ca/search?q=splin...iw=907&bih=419

something , that looked like this was what I was thinkin

http://www.ridetech.com/store/1978-1...bar-front.html

- just throwing it out there incase one of you bright fellas sees a way to do it

[minigts]

I've been running my car without the sway bar using this K frame and tubular control arms. I certainly could drive the car better, but it held up fine at the autocross at SDAC, in my opinion. The GLHS also has BC coil-overs, a partial cage connected the rear strut towers, rear floor and front floor as well as a front strut tower bar and the front coil overs set on the 4th turn out of 32 and I got the car up on 2 wheels. My point being, I think if the car is stiff enough with the right suspension, the sway bar isn't AS needed. I've never driven a car without one, so I don't have any frame of reference as to how they drive that way.

[wheming]

Dr. Johny:
I think way back in Brian's thread that he was making these k-frames he referred folks to a company with those type swaybars. From the look, he felt that style might work best.

I really don't want to put a bunch into coilovers for Slug, I'd rather cheap out.

[Reaper1]

I've been throwing the idea of a universal splined anti-roll bar for quite some time. For me the trick is where to mount it. I've recently been tossing the idea around of mounting it up where the floor and the firewall "come together", and make it so it goes through the frame rails...kinda like Porsche's. The end blade links can be whatever and you can adjust the stiffness several ways.

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

your ^ idea might be a good one as the frame has to be stiffer then at the front ends of the front rails which is what I was thinking

not that it helps me any thinkin - need cash for a crossmember IF I can find one , the car , and a place to build it
sigh

[Reaper1]

My other reasoning is keeping the weight as close to the CG as possible. Also, it keeps it out of the way for a modular front end. In the event of front end damage, it wouldn't be as susceptible to damage itself. Yeah...I put a little thought into that placement. Now, getting it to work...well....LOL

[turboshad]

My other reasoning is keeping the weight as close to the CG as possible. Also, it keeps it out of the way for a modular front end. In the event of front end damage, it wouldn't be as susceptible to damage itself. Yeah...I put a little thought into that placement. Now, getting it to work...well....LOL

If you're adding weight it can be as far from the CG as you like but preferably below. If your goal is to decrease body roll you want the roll center as close to the CG as possible to reduce the roll couple. Since the CG is above the roll center you would want additional weight as low as possible to lower the CG and bring it closer to the roll center. Your roll bar would still be below the CG but the lower you can get it the better.

[GLHS60]

DJ said roll, not sway!!!

That makes three so far, Reaper, DJ and me

Any one else??

Thanks
Randy

[nvysion]

me :-)

[Ondonti]

You need the arms too so....

[Reaper1]

If you're adding weight it can be as far from the CG as you like but preferably below. If your goal is to decrease body roll you want the roll center as close to the CG as possible to reduce the roll couple. Since the CG is above the roll center you would want additional weight as low as possible to lower the CG and bring it closer to the roll center. Your roll bar would still be below the CG but the lower you can get it the better.

So my thinking goes something like this:

I agree, you can add weight as far away from the CG as you like, but the closer it is the less coupling it can have on the entire car, so it will have as little effect on how quickly the car reacts as possible (less "pendulum" effect). Adding the weight below the CG is also clearly a wanted thing so as to reduce the overall height of the CG just like you said. Having the bar in the position I'm thinking does all of the above. It is a compromise in that it isn't as low as possible and the positioning might be a challenge, but I feel that if the positioning can be worked out it's about as good of a position as you can get.

[turboshad]

The couple isn't between your roll bar and the CG, it is between the CG and the roll center. The CG, as you know, is the theoretical center of all the mass. In other words, the point where the mass has an effect from. The distance from the mass to your roll center creates a moment arm which creates a torque about the roll center, aka the roll couple. The roll center is set by the geometry so unless you change that there isn't anything you can do. If you add mass you add mass, there isn't much you can do about that. What you can do is decrease the moment arm by where you put the mass which inherently decreases the roll couple. If somehow you had a roll center above the CG you would want to bring any added mass into the equation at the highest point possible. Since this is obviously not the case with any vehicle I know of when you add weight you want to bring it into the equation at the lowest point possible. In the end this is generally decided by packaging but if there is a choice pick the lowest point. I hope I didn't reiterate what you just said so if I did just say so.

DJ said roll, not sway!!!

I apologize, I generally like to say sway bar just to piss you off.

[turbo2point2]

Thank you guys for bringing back this thread. I enjoy seeing comments from the folks who bought them, had a chance to use them and how well they worked. I certainly appreciate the comments for bringing back the K-frames however there just doesn't seem to be enough time in the day to do these. I have been quite busy this past year and had to put many of my own home and vehicle projects on hold to keep up.

The jig I used to make the last run of frames is in need of replacement. I also wanted to make some changes to it based on what I saw while constructing the frames.

Another couple factors in building these frames is the cost of material and value. I simply cannot produce these at the rate they sold for in the past and material continues to rise. So when I take all of these factors into consideration, I don't see the oppurtunity to bring these to the public again. I am not saying I will never make any more of these but at the moment I will not be making any frames I the very near future.

[Shadow]

DJ said roll, not sway!!!

That makes three so far, Reaper, DJ and me

Any one else??

Thanks
Randy

You haven't Swayed Me yet...........

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

kinda have to think I'd rather my roll bar be over my head
not under da car lol

[Reaper1]

The couple isn't between your roll bar and the CG, it is between the CG and the roll center. The CG, as you know, is the theoretical center of all the mass. In other words, the point where the mass has an effect from. The distance from the mass to your roll center creates a moment arm which creates a torque about the roll center, aka the roll couple. The roll center is set by the geometry so unless you change that there isn't anything you can do. If you add mass you add mass, there isn't much you can do about that. What you can do is decrease the moment arm by where you put the mass which inherently decreases the roll couple. If somehow you had a roll center above the CG you would want to bring any added mass into the equation at the highest point possible. Since this is obviously not the case with any vehicle I know of when you add weight you want to bring it into the equation at the lowest point possible. In the end this is generally decided by packaging but if there is a choice pick the lowest point. I hope I didn't reiterate what you just said so if I did just say so.

[FONT=Verdana]

Yeah, I at least understand and 100% agree with you. I think my description of the mass of the anti-roll bar being close to the CG got a little messed up, but yeah... I simply stick to that if I have to add any mass, I try to keep it as low as possible and as close to the center of the car as possible. I figure that if the car is under rotation about the Z-axis, that reducing the mass that is farthest away from the CG *should* reduce the rotational inertia, thus the car *should* recover faster and transition faster.

[rdnoel86]

That is understandable, but still disappointing. I wasn't able to participate in the last batch and was hoping to snag an L-body frame in the near future.

Thank you guys for bringing back this thread. I enjoy seeing comments from the folks who bought them, had a chance to use them and how well they worked. I certainly appreciate the comments for bringing back the K-frames however there just doesn't seem to be enough time in the day to do these. I have been quite busy this past year and had to put many of my own home and vehicle projects on hold to keep up.

The jig I used to make the last run of frames is in need of replacement. I also wanted to make some changes to it based on what I saw while constructing the frames.

Another couple factors in building these frames is the cost of material and value. I simply cannot produce these at the rate they sold for in the past and material continues to rise. So when I take all of these factors into consideration, I don't see the oppurtunity to bring these to the public again. I am not saying I will never make any more of these but at the moment I will not be making any frames I the very near future.

[c2xejk]

Thank you guys for bringing back this thread. I enjoy seeing comments from the folks who bought them, had a chance to use them and how well they worked. I certainly appreciate the comments for bringing back the K-frames however there just doesn't seem to be enough time in the day to do these. I have been quite busy this past year and had to put many of my own home and vehicle projects on hold to keep up.

The jig I used to make the last run of frames is in need of replacement. I also wanted to make some changes to it based on what I saw while constructing the frames.

Another couple factors in building these frames is the cost of material and value. I simply cannot produce these at the rate they sold for in the past and material continues to rise. So when I take all of these factors into consideration, I don't see the oppurtunity to bring these to the public again. I am not saying I will never make any more of these but at the moment I will not be making any frames I the very near future.

Since you are not making them, can you post the details of it for those that want to build one at home? (ie. pipe dimensions, details on the change to the change to the control arm mounting location, etc...)

Thanks

[turboshad]

I think my description of the mass of the anti-roll bar being close to the CG got a little messed up, but yeah... I simply stick to that if I have to add any mass, I try to keep it as low as possible and as close to the center of the car as possible.

Ahh, I think I've found the confusion on my part. You've been talking in the horizontal plane (or possibly both) and I've been thinking purely in the vertical plane. Makes total sense now. I've been staring at too many front view 2D FBDs for my own car's suspension lately.