Have an idea for an adjustable rear swaybar. Does this make sense?

Discussion in 'Fiesta ST Autocross' started by Couldahadav8, Mar 15, 2014.

  1. jasyatz

    jasyatz Member

    After seeing the picture above, it would appear that although the bar is bent like a swaybar, in actuality, it's a rear beam brace.

    I referenced the ST rules, but if you check back to your Street rule set 13.7, it has similar wording of 14.7 in the ST rule set. Doug specifically mentioned the RB and CS bars in his reply classifying a "torsion bar" as a sway bar. I'll certainly forward him the picture of theEibach bar for his thoughts. Any idea if/when this is available in the states? If its not available here, I'm not sure if it's legal anyway.

    As for not needed a rear sway bar (torsion bar), maybe the ST is a completely different animal, but in autox, rotation is everything. Lapp racing has a road racing shim to get more camber if you are interested, or let me know where you are located, and I'd be more than happy to swap out your rear beam for mine. :)
     
  2. Register or Sign in

    Advertisement Sponsor

     
  3. Couldahadav8

    Couldahadav8 Active Member

    I think there are 2 eibach bars. One mounts in the beam to stiffen it. The other, as pictured above, mounts between the two lower shock brackets like a "brace" though it seems as though it is made of a more traditional sway bar material between the attachment points. The latter might be designed for the base fiesta and could be overkill for the st. At the same time, what could kill you, literally, on a road course might be just right for some autocrossers.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
  4. Couldahadav8

    Couldahadav8 Active Member

    Okay, maybe the Eibach beam design was just a prototype and never made it into production? Here is a picture of what I was referring to:

    [​IMG]

    Even if Eibach doesn't make this one, there are several similar to this design out there. The design that mounts at the bottom of the shocks looks like a swaybar to me much more than the tri-point design and it does not add any adjustability. Thanks for checking with Doug on these bars!!!
     
  5. AlanBDahl

    AlanBDahl Active Member

    The second pictured Eibach bar certainly isn't legal IMHO, the first could be but it troubles me that there's no center clamps. The second is the design that was pictured on the Tire Rack site and then mysteriously became unavailable. I wonder if Eibach discovered their initial design was illegal and re redesigning it accordingly? That could explain why the only have the front bar in stock now.
     
  6. wash

    wash Active Member

    Tail happy or not, the Fiesta ST has more body roll than I would prefer.

    Lowering the car would help somewhat but if it increases the roll stiffness at the front too much, a rear bar may be required.

    It seems like an Eibach rear bar with a base Fiesta front bar and Eibach or Mountune springs might be a good combo for the track.
     
  7. Couldahadav8

    Couldahadav8 Active Member

    Ok, now I am confused even more than typical. In reading the posts, I guess I was reading that the bars like steeda's that mount in or around the torsion beam are legal in G STREET, but the one that mounts at the shock brackets is not, but it seems like Alan is saying the bar mounted in or around the beam is illegal and the one that mounts at the shock brackets might also be illegal.
     
  8. Des

    Des Active Member

    We keep referring to the first eibach bar photo and the second eibach bar photo. Could you refer to post numbers instead? I get confused so easily :)

    In any case, I have the Eibach bar that connects at the shock (as in Post 40). It looks like a sway bar to me, and I'm not sure what part of 13.7(a) it might violate:

    13.7 ANTI-ROLL (SWAY) BARS

    A. Substitution, addition, or removal of a single anti-roll bar and supporting hardware (brackets, endlinks, bushings, etc.) is permitted. The use of any bushing material is permitted. A bushing may be implemented as a bearing.

    B. Substitution, addition, or removal of anti-roll bars may serve no other purpose than that of an anti-roll bar.

    C. No modification to the body, frame, or other components to accommodate anti-roll bar addition or substitution is allowed except for the drilling of holes for mounting bolts. Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted.


    There was a three-week delay to get mine, and a buddy who ordered one a day or two later was told a month. I don't think Eibach has SCCA in mind when it designs bars, so I doubt it is being redesigned solely for G Street. But again, I also don't see where it's illegal.

    That said, I
    -- would love for someone to try the torsion bar route. I'm curious, because I think Eibach has made my car much stiffer without helping it to turn much.
    -- am interested in shims for rear toe as well. At -.54 degrees total toe, my car is actually just outside factory alignment specs range (0 +/- .50 degrees). Even 0 would be a huge help.
     
  9. wash

    wash Active Member

    The Eibach is clearly an anti-sway bar, the one that would seem to be illegal is the tri-point because it appears to only be a toe control brace.
     
  10. AlanBDahl

    AlanBDahl Active Member

    FYI nothing is clear-cut as legal for SCCA unless you have a letter from the SEB or have survived a Nationals protest. I've worked many years on the Solo Nationals protest committee and the questions I'm asking are the same ones we would have asked in our discussions. I look forward to seeing what Doug Gill has to say but even then I caution people to not make assumptions (and remember even Doug's opinion is just that, the SEB may disagree). I am very cautious about these sort of issues because I've seen people tossed for what might seem to the layman as being silly violations of the rules.


    WRT to Des's post I'd be most concerned about 13.7(B) where the bar could be perceived as a brace or a device that prevents toe changing as the suspension travels. I hope that I am wrong but I'd like to see a precedent or a ruling before I install one on my car.
     
  11. wash

    wash Active Member

    If a bar connected to a suspension part can be a chassis brace, I think the tri-point is the one.

    Legal or not, the Eibach is obviously an anti-sway bar, that's what I was saying.
     
  12. jasyatz

    jasyatz Member

    Spoke to Doug earlier to get his ok to post his comments, here they are as it relates to what a sway bar is compared to a brace.
    Hi, Jeff,

    I know Tri-Point calls it a sway bar, but that's not what most people call a sway bar. What most people incorrectly call a sway bar is really an anti-roll bar designed to resist body roll when cornering. With heim joints on each end, this B-Spec sway bar cannot resist body roll.

    It is a lateral brace, strut bar, or lower suspension brace supporting the angle of the wheels when cornering. As far as I can tell from the pics, it is compliant per 2014 Solo Rules section 14.2.G.3 (page 80).

    I'm not an engineer, but that bar can affect the sway (the side-to-side motion) of a vehicle. But someone will have to explain to me how it can operate as an anti-roll bar with joints on the ends like that (the joints are not end-links). So I'm not going to say it's not technically a sway bar, but I am going to say it's not what most people call a sway bar and it's not an anti-roll bar.

    A "torsion bar" like this one here at http://www.corksport.com/corksport-mazda-2-torsion-bar.html is an anti-roll bar and meets Section 14.7 (page 82). An anti-roll bar is a torsion bar.

    Hope this helps. I'll be glad to discuss this further.

    I specifically replied to him asking for the legalities in HS/GS and he said he'd get back to me after the weekend, since he's at the Arkansas Pro.
    According to his explanation as I read and understood it, is that the 2nd Eibach bar pictured, ( the one that bolts under the beam) is a torsion style "sway bar" and would be legal. All bars that attach to the lower spring buckets and DON'T bolt to the beam are braces, and not legal. In the first Eibach pic, it bolts to the spring buckets with 2 bolts...Thats a brace.
     
  13. joe@2j-racing

    joe@2j-racing Active Member

    The problem will also be our lack of negative camber. For stock suspension a bar might help, but on the BC's we spec'd and valved - the rear steps out on high speed sweepers.

    The base Fiesta has more neg rear camber than the ST.
     
  14. jasyatz

    jasyatz Member

    Anybody have a Yaris or a Fit with the rear bar installed to see if it will fit the Fiesta?
     
  15. RodMoe

    RodMoe Well-Known Member

    We have a bar on Our Fit but i doubt I'll get anywhere near it till july the way the weather is going ...
     
  16. jasyatz

    jasyatz Member

    Torsion bar works the same as your Eibach "brace" stiffens with no toe control.

    You can shim the rear for camber and toe, but the shim throws the rear ABS sensors out of specification clearance, and the tone ring can't read the magnet and trips the light on/ deactivates ABS.

    I went with the Tri Point rear bar to get the toe control and stiffen the rear rate. Here's the shim that Lapp Racing designed, they made the technical drawing available for you to take to a machine shop. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page