libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

That is such utter nonsense, and is precisely the reason I prefer Apple products -- their pursuit of continuous improvement, in one infinite loop. ;-) Just look at the iPhone -- Apple made all kinds of innovations in the smartphone market, and some companies that ruled previously are still YEARS behind.

LOL, remember Sam's reply in the Watt's Link thread about the equation munchers -- it doesn't always tell the full story... ;-)

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

• Except Chromoly does offer weight savings.
• Sam apparently has never tested a Chromoly front version, which I am actually a little surprised about, also since his competitor makes one. It might be interesting to hear what Sam thinks of the Edelbrock front bar after competition testing (if he can keep his evaluation strictly factual), for comparison purposes and a rough approximation of what his bar would be like in CM (granted there are different bends). Untested would indicate your very last point is not necessarily true.

Element

iTrader: (5)

You're talking about a weight difference equal to running your washer fluid tank full, or half full. You will NEVER be able to tell the difference of 1lb on a street car, nor even a full tube-chassis custom road race car. "Weight savings" are so negligible between a CM front bar and a mild steel hollow front bar as to not even be worth mentioning.

Why would Sam need to test a CM front bar? Just because someone else makes one? Maybe Sam should test red sway bars, too - his are black, and other people have red sways! Who knows, paint color might make a difference? It's been shown mathematically that a CM bar wouldn't offer any benefit over a normal one, so why waste the time and money designing and testing one just to prove the numbers?

Using a CM bar would require more money in R&D, more money in final design, more money in materials, and a higher final product cost (not even including the costs of R&D and final design rolled into that end product - we're just talking materials costs), for a sway bar that wouldn't offer any benefits over a regular mild steel bar.

You've gone beyond asking useful questions and into the realm of armchair-commando second-guessing guys who have been designing race parts, and using them, for years, after they've answered your questions. If your car isn't gutted, you'd be better served buying mild steel suspension parts and using the money saved from not buying CM parts on other go-fast pieces.

z28bryan

iTrader: (7)

No one's made a chrome moly ***** either.. maybe you should ask the sex toy companies to make one

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

Has anyone here actually used the Edelbrock CM front sway bar? Can we get a review, and perhaps a comparison to the Strano front? The former is actually less $ shipped. I also wonder why Sam doesn't sell the Edelbrock CM front sway...

99SSJarhead

iTrader: (2)

I opt you go out and buy both pieces and fully test the value of each then since this is the dead horse you are beating.

I look forward to your unbiased and well thought out review of the Strano/Edelbrock swaybars.

ninetres

iTrader: (35)

Quoted to reiterate the perfect metaphor for this thread.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

^ The horse is very much alive (the Edelbrock hollow CM front bar came out just last year http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...bar/index.html ), but would appear some would like it out of commission, because it could indicate there is a better horse possible than what they have now.

This is TECH, surely I cannot be the only one interested in finding out more...

I wonder who makes the CM bars for Edelbrock...

Some have mentioned a desire to buy an even bigger than 35mm front bar, the hollow CM front sway offers more tensile strength, less deflection than carbon steel, and has less weight. The jury is still out on this.


Here's a little more background on the metals (4130 in Edelbrock front, 4140 in Strano rear adjustable), more material details are here http://www.matweb.com/ :

AISI 4130 steel is a specific low-alloy steel that contains small amounts of chromium and molybdenum. There are many chromium / molybdenum alloys used in industry, all with slightly different properties.

Steel alloys can be heat-treated to modify their properties for specific needs (e.g., hardness, tensile strength, workability). Each alloy has different properties, depending on the method of heat treating used during production and its chemical composition.

The constituents of AISI 4130 steel are:
- 0.28 to 0.33% carbon.
- 0.40 to 0.60% manganese.
- 0.04% phosphorus (max).
- 0.04% sulphur (max).
- 0.20 to 0.35% silicon.
- 0.80 to 1.10% chromium.
- 0.15 to 0.25% molybdenum.
- Balance: iron.

AISI 4140 steel, also a chromium / molybdenum alloy, contains:
- 0.38 to 0.43% carbon.
- 0.75 to 1.0% manganese.
- 0.04% phosphorus (max).
- 0.04% sulphur (max).
- 0.20 to 0.35% silicon.
- 0.80 to 1.10% chromium.
- 0.15 to 0.25% molybdenum.
- Balance: iron.

1020 Mild Steel, cold rolled

Component Wt. %
C 0.17 - 0.23
Fe 99.08 - 99.53
Mn 0.3 - 0.6
P Max 0.04
S Max 0.05

Density - 0.284 lb/in^3

Brinnell Hardness - 121

Yield Tensile Strength - 50.8 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength - 60.9 ksi
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29.7 ksi

1212 Mild, cold drawn

Component Wt. %
C Max 0.13
Fe 98.52 - 99.07
Mn 0.7 - 1
P 0.07 - 0.12
S 0.16 - 0.23

Density - 0.284 lb/in^3

Brinnell Hardness - 167

Yield Tensile Strength - 60.2 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength - 78.3 ksi
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29.0 ksi

4130 Chromium-Molybdenum, Normalized at 1600 F

Component Wt. %
C 0.28 - 0.33
Cr 0.8 - 1.1
Fe 97.3 - 98.22
Mn 0.4 - 0.6
Mo 0.15 - 0.25
P Max 0.035
S Max 0.04
Si 0.15 - 0.35

Density - 0.284 lb/in^3

Brinnell Hardness - 197

Yield Tensile Strength - 63.1 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength - 97.2 ksi
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29.7 ksi

4130 Steel, water quenched 1570°F, 1000°F temper

Component Wt. %
C 0.28 - 0.33
Cr 0.8 - 1.1
Fe 97.3 - 98.22
Mn 0.4 - 0.6
Mo 0.15 - 0.25
P Max 0.035
S Max 0.04
Si 0.15 - 0.35

Density - 0.284 lb/in^3

Brinnell Hardness - 302

Yield Tensile Strength - 142.0 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength - 151.0 ksi
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29.7 ksi

4140 Steel, normalized at 1600°F, air cooled

Component Wt. %
C 0.38 - 0.43
Cr 0.8 - 1.1
Fe 96.785 - 97.84
Mn 0.7 - 1
Mo 0.15 - 0.25
P Max 0.035
S Max 0.04
Si 0.15 - 0.3

Density - 0.284 lb/in^3

Brinnell Hardness - 302

Yield Tensile Strength - 97.9 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength - 148.0 ksi
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi
Modulus of Elasticity - 29.7 ksi

02TransAm/Batmobile

iTrader: (32)

Really? You are jus' short of breaking out the periodic table of elements and comparing electrons and protons in determining which sway bar could provide more tensile strength yet you wasted money on a CM Strut Tower Brace?

ninetres

iTrader: (35)

LOL. If you havent seen any of his posts about STB.....he claims it made a vast imporvement in the way his car steers through corners. I couldnt feel a thing when I installed mine. Mine must be a lemon.

MeentSS02

iTrader: (11)

I have an idea...

You are pretty much going to keep asking questions until there are no more questions that can possibly be asked, stated here:

...but are you actually reading the answers? Or are they just not what you want to hear?

You are so far down in the weeds that you've convinced yourself that this is a huge problem that must be solved, but you've been given plenty of reasons why manufacturers probably won't go out of their way to make this product - after all, one person does not a market make. And right now, you DO seem to be the only one on LS1Tech that cares.

So...back to my idea: instead of asking more questions, why don't you just type up an answer that you deem acceptable? You clearly have an opinion on the topic - share it with the rest of us, and be done with it.

And please...spare us the internet copy/paste routine.

z28bryan

iTrader: (7)

No one faults you for wanting to learn about how to maximize on a bar construction to work the absolute best. It's just the way you word your responses makes you come across as a know-it-all and your responses to the questions answered that appear to ignore any points made.

So that being said, the vendors your calling out to make a front CM bar aren't going to make one for you. So you can either wait for one to make one for you, or make it yourself. Showing us chemistry between CM and steel is a waste.. you're trying to argue something we all agree upon anyway.. that CM is more rigid.

If you have a valid argument from this point on, let us know. But in the meantime you're just making yourself sound unintelligent

Travis Johnson

iTrader: (2)

I reduced your list to the most important numbers for sway bar material performance (unless you're pushing a sway bar hard enough that it is yielding, which is doubtful). The density is the weight per volume, they are all exactly the same. The shear modulus is the amount it will deflect in torsion under a load (or the spring rate). From your numbers, they are exactly the same!

Chrome moly could improve performance over an identical mild steel bar if:
a) it was less dense and therefore weighed less (it's not)
b) it was stiffer so thinner walls could be used, reducing weight (the numbers I found said it was marginally stiffer, but yours say they are exactly the same).

The reason CM provides benefits in other applications like roll cages is because those applications are ruled by the strength of the material. CM can use thinner walls in those applications to meet the same strengths. But sway bars act like a spring and therefore their design is guided primarily by the spring rate (shear modulus/modulus of rigidity), not strength.

1020 Mild Steel, cold rolled
Density - 0.284 lb/in^3
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi

1212 Mild, cold drawn
Density - 0.284 lb/in^3
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi

4130 Chromium-Molybdenum, Normalized at 1600 F
Density - 0.284 lb/in^3
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi

4130 Steel, water quenched 1570°F, 1000°F temper
Density - 0.284 lb/in^3
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi

4140 Steel, normalized at 1600°F, air cooled
Density - 0.284 lb/in^3
Shear Modulus - 11600 ksi

There's nothing wrong with looking for better. It's when you spend vast quantities of time and effort constantly searching for marginal improvements to something that is already a very good product, and ignore evidence that conflicts with your opinion, that it becomes a problem.

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

I also noticed that chromoly tends not to rust as fast as mild steel...

As promised, and as Sam requested, first are my questions to Edelbrock's suspension engineer, and the reply regarding their front 35mm hollow CM sway bar, and a couple about their rear sway choice:

"1. What is the weight of the front bar for this application?

None of the sway bars were weighted. Shipping weight should give a
reasonable idea of weight. Shipping weight 21 lbs.

2. Is the front chromoly bar heat treated after bending for strength
for this application? If not, I have read that it's not any help in
strength to be chromoly and would be brittle, how do you address that?

Our chromoly sway bars are not heat treated after forming, nor are any
of other bars offered by the industry. After testing and investigation
we have not found any failures due to inbrittlement. I have personally
had a GM sway bar break which are constructed of spring steel and heat
treated. Heat treating will give the bar impact and wear resistance at
the cost of making the bar more brittle, basically harder steel is more
brittle.

3. How come you don't offer an adjustable rear sway bar? Why not in
chromoly hollow at 22mm, which has been a proven rear size by Sam Strano
in multiple SCCA Championships (35mm front hollow is what Strano uses)?

There are a lot of different set up for various vehicle that will work
and what works for a driver pushing a car in competition can be
unacceptable to the mountain road driver. Edelbrock worked to design a
package that would appeal to the broadest group of consumers while
keeping with the package of springs, shocks, and suspension components
that Edelbrock offers.

4. Have your sways for this Camaro application been tested in
autocross or tracking competitions like SCCA with wins by anyone we can
verify?

I have not heard of anyone using our current sway bar in autocross or
tracking events that can be verified.

5. Warranty period on sway bars?

Sway bars are covered under the General Warranty for 1 year as described
in the catalog and website.

6. Have these been fitted on convertibles and clear the bracing,
which have a different design from the coupes?

There are no bracing in the 93-02 F-body cars that should interfere with
sway bar installation or operation."

ninetres

iTrader: (35)

:popcorn:

99SSJarhead

iTrader: (2)

So you have:

1) no viable piece weight data from the manufacturer except the rounded shipping weight.

2) reiteration from edelbrock that no one heat treats CM and that hard steel is more brittle

3) that edelbrock makes pieces for broad consumer use specific to it's own products, not specific applications that handle broad use and aftermarket parts

4) that edelbrock has no track history to bolster any claims on how well the bars hold up in load heavy applications like autocross

5) That they have a warranty (?) (does it cover race applications though?)

6) And that it fits a convertible

I am glad that has been settled. It makes me happier I bought Strano's front bar and will be picking up his rear sway bar soon.

Sam Strano

iTrader: (41)

Every bar will fit a convertible..... Even straight arm bars. But when the suspension compresses those bars tend to hit the mounting tabs that convertibles have to locate the structural bracing rods. I know this because it was an issue I ran into since I use a convertible K-member on my own car.

I think this thread needs go no further. Everyone else seems to get it. My front bar is 20 pounds, 23 as shipped (that's with the 56x21x3" cardboard box, the little box inside that has all the endlinks and mounting bushings and brackets too), and the staples that close the box. So how does the magical CM make it lighter??????????

I am an Edelbrock dealer. I also can sell UMI's bars and Hotchkis's too, and Hellwig's production bars, which are pretty different than what I do. I've got more variety of bars for this car than anyone, and will use what I think is best. I don't build parts simply to make money. In fact if you notice I, unlike some others, don't have a whole line of easy to make parts that I put my name on. If someone makes something that I feel it right, I'll happily sell it instead of putting myself through the trouble of doing something that's not actually any better, just to be "different".

Element

iTrader: (5)

Interesting. They can't be bothered to know the weight of their sway bar, claim an adjustable sway bar wouldn't give the broadest application of uses (uh....), design their sway to work best with their suspension products alone, and they don't sponsor or even know of anyone using their parts in the SCCA circuit.

Compare that to Sam's parts - he knows the weights, he designs the stuff to work with the best parts he can use (regardless of the brand of the part), designed his rear sway to be adjustable to allow a much broader group of people to tune said bar to their application, and has multiple SCCA wins in the f-body platform under his belt. Not to mention, if his 35/22 set of sways isn't going to work the best for your particular application, he'll tell you and won't push his bars - he'll recommend the best ones for your end goal, regardless of the manufacturer or price.

Weight has already been shown to be a null point; you're trying to argue rust formation speed now? Stainless doesn't rust easily, maybe someone should use 18-8 or 316 to make sway bars for f-bodies, so they'll be nice and shiny in 40 years (who cares if they look like pretzels? THEY WON'T BE RUSTY!).

libertyforall1776

iTrader: (2)

It is clear that the hollow-bars are the way to go for weight savings, and there are options for steel or chromoly for both today in 35mm front and 22mm rear, sizes which Strano's experience recommends. The convertible consideration matters and favors Stranos front bar, but probably only applies when you are really pushing the car, not too likely in most street use.

My opinion doesn't much matter if it hasn't been tested and validated in real-world use. But I do think Sam should consider CM pieces (which he already has for his rear adj. bar) -- so why not complete the lineup. I would rather buy a Strano CM front bar, if it was available. From Edelbrock pricing, there clearly is not "A LOT" more cost, it's actually less in this case, but there is a lot more strength and other plusses covered earlier in the thread.

Element

iTrader: (5)

Holy *****....have you ignored everything everyone has told you in the entire thread? There is no weight savings worth mentioning between a hollow mild steel front sway bar, and one made of CM. 1-2lbs? Hell, even 5lbs. That's nothing on a street car.

Sam's already said why he doesn't feel the need to consider a front CM bar - there's no need for one. Edelbrock's CM bar isn't as expensive because they're a massive company and can absorb costs. CM parts from smaller companies are going to be more expensive because they can't absorb the higher materials costs the same way, so, yes, CM bars from a smaller vendor would be more expensive.

I give up. You're completely ignoring every single answer in this thread simply because those answers aren't what you want to hear. You've convinced yourself that a front hollow CM bar is the only thing you want, and regardless of what anyone tells you (even people with credentials lists as long as Sam's), you're never going to change your mind. Buy the Edelbrock front CM bar, Sam's CM rear bar, and have the exact same handling characteristics as if you were running a non-CM front sway. Except that front bar will be shiny longer.

/towel