22 replies to this topic

[Rob Burgoon]

So for Miller this year I ordered a 1.6 front sway bar for my 1.8 to comply with the rules for the event.  At the last race I had the rear bar fully soft but was fighting oversteer all weekend.  I wanted to stiffen the front sway bar, but the adjustable end links can't lean that far forward to reach the stiffer hole on the front sway.

 

I'm not crazy about the end link being tipped that far forward either, seems like it's pushing the bar forwards when it should be trying to twist it.

 

Anyone have any ideas?

 

 

Also, Mike (Meat), have you seen sway bar brackets with washers added to loosen the grip on the bar at the events you've done tech at?  Is that being allowed these days at the runoffs and nasa champs?

 

Thanks

[Zauskycop]

I remember seeing this..I believe you only use one side of the u bracket on the LCA to fix it?  I am pretty sure it is something like that...

[Rob Burgoon]

I remember seeing this..I believe you only use one side of the u bracket on the LCA to fix it?  I am pretty sure it is something like that...

 

I know what you mean.  I have one newer LCA that just has a single thick tab.  The other older LCA has the pair of skinny tabs.  Changing the geometry of the sway bar end link mount point seemed fishy to me which is why I'm asking the group.

[Bench Racer]

SCCA has made it legal to shim the sway bar mounting bracket.

 

 

 

 

If the connector link were attached to the LCA and in a vertical position the distance would be zero inches. Now with the 1.6 bar in place move the top end of the link forward, insert bolt and what horizontal distance forward of the LCA hole is the sway bar hole? 

 

On my 1.6 car I have the newer one tab LCA. I use a spacer at the LCA to keep the link vertical.

[Rob Burgoon]

SCCA has made it legal to shim the sway bar mounting bracket.

 

 

 

 

If the connector link were attached to the LCA and in a vertical position the distance would be zero inches. Now with the 1.6 bar in place move the top end of the link forward, insert bolt and what horizontal distance forward of the LCA hole is the sway bar hole? 

 

 

Are you trying to ask how far forward the soft hole is with respect to the LCA mount point?  I'll measure it.

[Tom Sager]

I'm surprised that over the years we haven't pursued a better fitting bar for the front of the cars.  Both bars are a crappy fitment on NA and NB IMO.  

[Tom Hampton]

Iirc, on my 1.6 I mounted the bottom heim joint on the inboard side of the mounting tabs. I still have the old style lca. This puts the links more planar with the sway bar arm plane of rotation.

[Charlie Hayes]

I run the supplied spacer in front of the tab on the new style LCA's and on my 1.6 had the spacer inbetween the U shaped tab with the endlink attached on the front end. Mike said nothing when he poked his head in the wheel well while my shocks were off. 

[Rob Burgoon]

I run the supplied spacer in front of the tab on the new style LCA's and on my 1.6 had the spacer inbetween the U shaped tab with the endlink attached on the front end. Mike said nothing when he poked his head in the wheel well while my shocks were off. 

 

Thanks Charlie.

 

Supplied spacer?

[Charlie Hayes]

http://www.miatacage...drop-links.aspx

 

Look at the pictures, shows how to install. 

[Rob Burgoon]

http://www.miatacage...drop-links.aspx

 

Look at the pictures, shows how to install. 

 

 

Woah.  Spacers it is!  I like the pins.

[Ron Alan]

Not sure if/how critical this is but the quick release pin type end links can get and seem to be pretty sloppy. Noticed this when we were working on the rear of the car and I was on one side(wheels off)while someone started to raise the other corner to tighten control arms. As they did I watched the end link go up, the helm joint/pin rotated yet didn't engage/move the opposite corner until after it had traveled 3-5mm. Didn't seem right...a bolt solved the problem!

[RussMcB]

There have been a few posts (by fast guys) that suggested not using the quick release pins.  The very minor benefit of fast disconnects/changes just isn't worth it.

[Jim Drago]

The quick pins are not a good idea IMO. The bar is more of an on/off switch as well rather than a smooth transition

[Charlie Hayes]

No pins, 9/16ths bolts!

[Glenn Davis]

The quick pins are not a good idea IMO. The bar is more of an on/off switch as well rather than a smooth transition

Agree.  I ended up replacing the quick pins with bolts.  The only time I need to get to them is for rain, or if replacing parts.

[WilsonSteele]

I tried the 1.6 SB on my 1.8 at auto club at the first NASA race of this year, with the stock 94 front lower control arms. With my 949 endlinks, i could only reach the softest position on the 1.6 eibach front bar. Soooo, i was fighting with massive oversteer until i put the 1.8 bar back on. That being said, even if i could reach the stiffer position on the 1.6 bar, with different links, angle of the link in the side plane view was almost 30 deg, which makes me question if this setup only had the options of too soft, vs. much too soft in the front, or oversteer vs more oversteer.
Can someone help.me figure out what i was missing with this "better" setup? I am not convinced after trying it, that it was an improvement, but i was convinced enough to spend the money to buy,it and try it...

[Tom Sager]

I tried the 1.6 SB on my 1.8 at auto club at the first NASA race of this year, with the stock 94 front lower control arms. With my 949 endlinks, i could only reach the softest position on the 1.6 eibach front bar. Soooo, i was fighting with massive oversteer until i put the 1.8 bar back on. That being said, even if i could reach the stiffer position on the 1.6 bar, with different links, angle of the link in the side plane view was almost 30 deg, which makes me question if this setup only had the options of too soft, vs. much too soft in the front, or oversteer vs more oversteer.
Can someone help.me figure out what i was missing with this "better" setup? I am not convinced after trying it, that it was an improvement, but i was convinced enough to spend the money to buy,it and try it...

I too have used both front bars on my '95 at different times.  It would take some work to calculate the real difference in the bars given that the lengths of the bars from the bend are different and so is the angle of the links (unless you somehow compensate for that with your link design).  How the car handles probably gives us the answer and yeah it's different using the different bars.  I've had my car handling what I felt was quite good with either bar but to get there did require some other setup changes particularly at the rear. That and it wasn't the same on Hoosier's vs Toyo's either.   It's nice to have the choice but all the effort to figure out how to best set up the car for a given track with 2 different bars seems like more effort than it is worth IMO.  Rule of thumb, the car needed more negative camber in the rear than I would typically run to be happy using smaller front bar (smaller front bar on stiffest setting).  

[Jim Drago]

Try these.. they come with all the spacers and hardware and are the appropriate length

 

http://mazdaracers.c...table-endlinks/

[Mike Collins]

Run the 1.6 bar and better endlinks