Maybe the solution is a different diameter bar???

Avoid this whole mess...

i like the idea of U-Tabs that are simply wider plus using wider spacers.

that would give me all the room i need to use the full adjustment of the bar (with the u-tab back in the stock rotation) ...


stock: |_||_|

wider: |___||___|


that should solve the problem, right?
Andy

QUOTE (jkeyzer @ Aug 4 2005, 03:04 PM)

Maybe the solution is a different diameter bar??? Avoid this whole mess...

nope, i need to step up on my rear springs some more anyways, a smaller bar would be counter-productive ...

Andy

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Aug 4 2005, 03:07 PM)

stock: |_||_| wider: |___||___|

Maybe - maybe not. It depends on if the hiem joint hits it's own limit before or after it hits the bracket. In this picture that Ira posted, it looks like the heim joint will hit it's limit before it will hit the bracket. So making the U-tab wider won't help.

However, the limit is partially based on the diameter of the spacers. Some spacers that taper to the min diameter necessary as it approaches the heim joint will increase the range of the joint.

Demick

Another consideration is that the lower heim joint range is not the issue - it could be the upper heim joint. I'm going just by pictures here, but the way that the upper joint is mounted it looks like the big washer severely restricts the amount of side to side motion of the drop link. If the top one binds (under decompression when the A-arm is extended which pulls the lower mounting point inboard), it will try to bend the drop link, and that could cause the bottom joint to fail.

Demick

here's another observation ....

the way the top hime joint is mounted, without spacers and large washers on each side, it's *very* limited in how much it can move ...

maybe adding 2 spacers like on the bottom would help getting more movement out of the top joint ...

Andy

QUOTE (Demick @ Aug 4 2005, 03:20 PM)

it could be the upper heim joint.

damm, you beat me to it ...

Andy

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Aug 4 2005, 03:24 PM)

damm, you beat me to it ... Andy

Hey Andy - as long as I'm 1 second faster than you - I'm happy. Especially on the Autox course.

Demick

QUOTE (Demick @ Aug 4 2005, 03:31 PM)

Hey Andy - as long as I'm 1 second faster than you - I'm happy. Especially on the Autox course.

don't get too used to it ... i'm still learning ...

Andy

Is our application different than a 911? I'm confused as to whether or how this is a 914 only problem.

Interesting discussion.

The upper mount being tight against the sway bar is what I was refering to as there is no sideways movement it appears. If you get some new heim joints, I'd say to put the car up on jack stands in the front and test the A-arm travel with the bar hooked up on both sides and also with one side unhooked to see what is binding and what kind of clearances there are. This might mean devising a way to push the A-arm up to simulate full braking compression and pull the A-arm down to simulate a hard corner. This would be the only way short of mounting a video camera down there to see what is happening. I did this 6 years ago when we put the sway bars in the race car to make sure nothing was binding.

QUOTE (john rogers @ Aug 4 2005, 03:39 PM)

This would be the only way short of mounting a video camera down there

a video camera, eh?

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Aug 4 2005, 02:43 PM)

a video camera, eh?

It would be cheaper and easier to use a pencil, paper, and geometry.
Bottom line is that heim joints are not designed to see huge angle changes. They are intended for MINOR angle changes.
Put the U-tabs back in the correct orientation and run the bar at a possition that keeps the geometry correct. If you can't run the the bar at the stiffness you want without putting the heim joints into bind then you need a different weight bar.

-Ben M.

QUOTE (airsix @ Aug 4 2005, 04:26 PM)

If you can't run the the bar at the stiffness you want without putting the heim joints into bind then you need a different weight bar.

no really. problem here is that i don't run the bar at just one setting and that's it.

the car is also my daily driver and on the road i like to have some understeer, however, for the AX course, i like some mild oversteer.

i adjust the bar frequently. for the street usually full soft (which put the hime joints in bind on the stock setup), on the track stiffer.

i'd like to get the car balanced so it's neutrual in the middle and i don't need that much adjustment either way, but i'm not sure that'll ever happen.

i went with a adjustable sway bar so i could *adjust* it.
what's the point to just have one setting?

Andy

The problem is that the upper heim joint is fixed in space inboard/outboard wise, but the lower end in moving in/out through its travel. Added spacers to give the upper joint greater articulation doesn't really change the geometry. As a matter of fact, pushing the upper heim joint outboard would make the situation worse.

As for why this is a 914 specific problem, I think the target application for the bar was the 911. It just happens to fit in a 914. Mostly. As long as you don't run the u-tabs sideways.

Did the heim joint run into the UTab or the spacers?

Seems like if the spacers weren't so large, you'd gain another 5-10 degrees of freedom.

QUOTE (McMark @ Aug 4 2005, 05:08 PM)

Did the heim joint run into the UTab or the spacers? Seems like if the spacers weren't so large, you'd gain another 5-10 degrees of freedom.

on the top?

yes. no spacers on the top, just large washers. the heim joint on the top hits the washers long before it reaches it's maximum angle ...
so yes, there's probably at least 10 deg. more to each side in there ...

on the bottom, the heim joints hit the top of the u-tab and deformed the spacers ...
Andy

On the bottom. The top seems irrelevant, since it's not binding.

This picture seems to clearly show that the UTab isn't the problem, the spacers are. At least from where I'm sitting.

QUOTE (McMark @ Aug 4 2005, 05:27 PM)

This picture seems to clearly show that the UTab isn't the problem, the spacers are. At least from where I'm sitting.

yes, with a new part sitting on a nice glas table, sure ...

on my parts, in the car, under load, the hime-joint *DID* hit the top of the u-tab and deformed the spacer ...
Andy

QUOTE (SirAndy @ Aug 4 2005, 04:38 PM)

the car is also my daily driver and on the road i like to have some understeer, however, for the AX course, i like some mild oversteer. i adjust the bar frequently. for the street usually full soft (which put the hime joints in bind on the stock setup), on the track stiffer.

You've got something backward. If you want understeer on the street, you need to stiffen the bar. For autox if you want some oversteer, you need to soften the bar.

Lets keep in mind that my picture is with my u-tab. Andy’s may be different. So are you saying that the rod end is hitting both the u-tab and the spacer? If so, then there should be room to cut the u-tab back enough to clear. Additionally, I may be able to modify the spacers to get enough additional motion to fix this. I think that it will at least help, if not resolve the problem completely.

It appears that some cars have no problems and some (two that I know of so far) do. I’d like to figure out why there’s a difference so I can come up with the best solution. The other car that I know of, with the limited adjustment range, is local to me. Maybe, if I ask nicely, he’ll let me come by and check it out.

I wonder if this is all just a matter of the factory U-tabs not being uniform but good enough for factory sway bars?

Thanks to Ira for giving this proper attention and not taking our comments as criticisms. Sometimes group engineering can be a good thing (but not usually).

QUOTE (Demick @ Aug 4 2005, 06:10 PM)

You've got something backward.

yeah, the other way ...

on AX i ran full soft (sometimes even disconnected the bar) and on the street i ran it stiffer (towards the back) ...

i'd like to get my suspension dialed to the point where i can play with all of the bar for AX and just set it on full firm for the street ...

but that's another thread ...
Andy

QUOTE (Ira Ramin @ Aug 4 2005, 06:20 PM)

I’d like to figure out why there’s a difference so I can come up with the best solution.

i believe the u-tabs came with your kit as those a-arms didn't have tabs on them ...
i'll try to take another closeup of those tomorrow.

for now, here are a few closeups of the (deformed) spacers ...
NOTE: each of the spacers was the outside spacer on the lower himejoint.

sideways

QUOTE (jonwatts @ Aug 4 2005, 06:24 PM)

I wonder if this is all just a matter of the factory U-tabs not being uniform but good enough for factory sway bars?

Remember that Andy's are not factory u-tabs. Are we sure that Andy's u-tabs are placed properly?

Also remember that the optimum placement may not be where the factory u-tabs were placed. This is an aftermarked sway bar and may have the drop links positioned slightly differently than stock (further outboard or inboard).

Demick

so clearly the heim hit the spacers before hitting the u-tabs. That's some pretty good deformations.

Demick

QUOTE (Demick @ Aug 4 2005, 06:59 PM)

Remember that Andy's are not factory u-tabs. Are we sure that Andy's u-tabs are placed properly?

that's a question you'll have to ask brad as he welded them on. he did use a factory u-tab equipped a-arm as reference and i'm pretty sure he got them welded in the correct place ...

and yes, IIRC those are Ira's U-Tabs ...
Andy

It looks as if those u-tabs ARE too far inboard. According to my (3rd) spare set of factory a-arms, the bolt hole should be even with the inside corner of that tubular brace on the a-arm. (No camera, so I get to play with Paint some more)

Those U-Tabs look to be about 1/2" too far inward from "both" of my cars with stock tabs.

To try to explain... my outer edge is almost directly over the a-support that comes into view on those pics and is welded to the arm. (does that make sense? )

Both my cars have the factory mount placed "outward" by what appears to be 1/2". NOW... they're "both" 911 A-arms on the GT and the RS so... I don't know if that makes any difference.

I'd go take some pics but I don't want to piss off the Sir with my clearly superior photographic skills

(actually, I'm too fuching lazy... I will if you need or request "Oh Sir One")

QUOTE (Eric_Shea @ Aug 4 2005, 07:31 PM)

I will if you need or request "Oh Sir One"

yes, please do so Sir Eric-o-lot !

btw. mine are 911 A-Arms as well. hmmmm, could there be a difference that i'm not aware of?
Andy

QUOTE (Cloudbuster @ Aug 4 2005, 07:27 PM)

It looks as if those u-tabs ARE too far inboard. According to my (3rd) spare set of factory a-arms, the bolt hole should be even with the inside corner of that tubular brace on the a-arm. (No camera, so I get to play with Paint some more)

hmmm, now would be a good time for a picture of a factory u-tab on a a-arm ...
Andy

ask and you shall receive.....

Here's a pic of my passenger side a-arm with factory tab. The two lines represent the centerline of the u-tab where the bolt goes through, and the centerline of the bracing where it intersects the main part of the a-arm. That distance is about 1/2" (the u-tab being inboard of the CL of that brace)

Demick

And roughly 6" from the torsion tube to the edge of the U Tab. That is the distance between the two, not including either. (Wouldn't that be called the exclusive distance?)

Mabee a new mount on the bar area of the control arm. This will move the mount foward. This is what I needed for my bar (Weltmiester) on full soft.
I copied these from a friends 911. I don't know who makes them.
Don't pay any attention to the spiders!

QUOTE (Demick @ Aug 4 2005, 08:27 PM)

ask and you shall receive.....

thank you sir!

sooooo, is there a difference between the 914 a-arm and the 911 a-arm?
like in the placement of the small rod and/or u-tab ???

Andy

QUOTE

how about a lower mount that goes around the small round support rod on the a-arm with a top that can move freely and won't hit anything?

That's the set up that is used with SRP's front bars.
If you can't pivot the drop links with the car on the ground, that is a problem to start with.

The hime joints need to be centered and parrelell with the u-tabs.

here's the drops attached to the stock u-tabs.

KT

Here's the lower mounts installed below the stock u-tabs.
You can buy just the lower mounts from Smart.

KT

QUOTE (trekkor @ Aug 4 2005, 10:03 PM)

here's the drops attached to the stock u-tabs.

trek, with that setup, how far can you move the bar back (tighter) before the lower himejoint hits the u-tab (or is out of movement) ???

from your pic, it looks like it would hit long before you reach the end of the bar (to the right) ...
Andy

I have never raced with the stock u-tabs.

When I showed up with the Smart bar installed for the first time Rich Walton of SRP happened to be there and helped me set-up the lower mounts.

The nice feature with the Smart mounts is you can aim them at the bar so you always have bind free operation.

Buy a set, no matter what bar you run.

KT

Ok Andy, I have an idea that will solve your problem. When you install the new u-tabs in the stock location and orientation, angle them forward enough to get full forward adjustment without binding. Just prop up the back of the tab a little when you weld them in. Make sure it’s not too much, or you could loose rear adjustment.

Ira

QUOTE (Ira Ramin @ Aug 5 2005, 06:48 AM)

Just prop up the back of the tab a little when you weld them in.

hmmm, that could work ...

i'll try to get the u-tab as close as possible to center in regards to the swaybar arm.
a slight tilt could help aiming it in the right direction ...

i'll report back. thanks for all the input, guys ...
Andy

here's a pic of the location of the stock u-tabs

QUOTE (Jeroen @ Aug 5 2005, 12:42 PM)

here's a pic of the location of the stock u-tabs

now that is very helpful!

thank you, my metric friend ...
Andy

I just took a look at my tarret droplinks (have been installed on my 911)
The spacers on the bottom rod-end have been slighly squashed, but only in one direction
(I'm trying to visualize in what position that is)
I'll post pics of them later on...