35/22 mm Chrome Moly Hollow Sways - Who Sells?
07-30-2010, 08:35 PM
#1
35/22 mm Chrome Moly Hollow Sways - Who Sells? Has anyone or company tested 35/22 mm Chrome Moly Hollow Sway Bars? Is there a proven problem during testing with this metal choice for this application as hollow at this sizing? If they are ok, who sells them?
The only real benefit would be weight reduction, AFAIK.
The only real benefit would be weight reduction, AFAIK.
Last edited by libertyforall1776; 07-30-2010 at 10:09 PM.
07-30-2010, 09:26 PM
#2
You're already knocking a lot of weight out of the sways with the hollow setup; wanting chrome-moly (it's really not Molly, we're not talking about 1940s pin-ups, we're talking about molybdenum) is going a bit overkill, especially when you could probably pick up a complete battery relocation kit and move a good 40-50lbs from the nose of the car for less than a chrome-moly option would be for the front sway bar, and if you're not building a real road-race car, I don't think you're ever going to notice the difference anyway.
If you haven't started pulling ancillary stuff out of the car for weight reduction (AIR setup, rear seats, spare/jack, among a lot of other things), spending the extra for chrome-moly is, in my opinion, wasted money that could be better spent elsewhere.
If you haven't started pulling ancillary stuff out of the car for weight reduction (AIR setup, rear seats, spare/jack, among a lot of other things), spending the extra for chrome-moly is, in my opinion, wasted money that could be better spent elsewhere.
08-02-2010, 02:05 PM
#5
I've been more than a little busy end of this week, and up to now. I haven't had time to answer your PM.
Quickly, I really don't get the fascination with CM vs. mild here... FWIW, a CM solid bar is a lot heavier than any hollow bar, mild or CM. Sometimes CM isn't any lighter--because it's only lighter when you use a thinner wall. And fwiw, a solid CM bar doesn't use any sort of thinner wall tubing, because you know---it's solid.
Chrome-Moly has it's places, mostly where you will save a lot of weight without giving up strength to use it. Bars that are already hollow to start with, won't see any tangible weight savings--but they'd cost a good bit more. So what's the point?
Dude, seriously here's an example: My rear hollow 22mm is 5 pounds (excluding hardware). How much lighter do you want it to be?
Quickly, I really don't get the fascination with CM vs. mild here... FWIW, a CM solid bar is a lot heavier than any hollow bar, mild or CM. Sometimes CM isn't any lighter--because it's only lighter when you use a thinner wall. And fwiw, a solid CM bar doesn't use any sort of thinner wall tubing, because you know---it's solid.
Chrome-Moly has it's places, mostly where you will save a lot of weight without giving up strength to use it. Bars that are already hollow to start with, won't see any tangible weight savings--but they'd cost a good bit more. So what's the point?
Dude, seriously here's an example: My rear hollow 22mm is 5 pounds (excluding hardware). How much lighter do you want it to be?
__________________
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
08-02-2010, 02:21 PM
#6
So let's try this one more time:
We use ST52.3 DOM. Let's compare what we have bars built with to 4130 CM--that's what you want to know, right?
ST52.3 4130 CM
Tensile: 85,000psi 90,000psi
Yield: 75,000psi 80,000psi
Do you think, somehow that 75,000 psi is weak? You think the car can produce that kind of load?
Further, here's two other things you should know.
The spring rate of steel is the spring rate of steel, CM isn't any "better" than mild in that regard, unless you vary the wall thickness.
And CM is no stronger than mild in twisting unless you heat treat it, which nobody does because if you got it hot enough to treat it properly, you'd bend it when you picked it up to quench it. This isn't a solid block of billet, but a bar with specific twists and bends.....
And here's the final reason for using what we use... it's got better properties for bending tight radii. 15% elongation for ST52.3 vs. 10% for 4130 CM, that means a 4130 bar is more prone to cracking and failing the tighter and tighter the bends are. And on the front bar, that's critical as where the bar moves around the tie-rod--there is some complex shaping there.
We use ST52.3 DOM. Let's compare what we have bars built with to 4130 CM--that's what you want to know, right?
ST52.3 4130 CM
Tensile: 85,000psi 90,000psi
Yield: 75,000psi 80,000psi
Do you think, somehow that 75,000 psi is weak? You think the car can produce that kind of load?
Further, here's two other things you should know.
The spring rate of steel is the spring rate of steel, CM isn't any "better" than mild in that regard, unless you vary the wall thickness.
And CM is no stronger than mild in twisting unless you heat treat it, which nobody does because if you got it hot enough to treat it properly, you'd bend it when you picked it up to quench it. This isn't a solid block of billet, but a bar with specific twists and bends.....
And here's the final reason for using what we use... it's got better properties for bending tight radii. 15% elongation for ST52.3 vs. 10% for 4130 CM, that means a 4130 bar is more prone to cracking and failing the tighter and tighter the bends are. And on the front bar, that's critical as where the bar moves around the tie-rod--there is some complex shaping there.
__________________
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
Last edited by Sam Strano; 08-02-2010 at 02:27 PM.
08-02-2010, 03:06 PM
#7
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't we had this discussion already?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/suspensio...ome-molly.html
Let me run the numbers and get a answer on this:
Torsional Deflection of Shaft
The angular deflection of a torsion shaft can be expressed as
θ = L T / Ip G
where
T = twisting moment (Nmm, in lb)
θ = angular shaft deflection (radians)
L = length of shaft (mm, in)
G = modulus of rigidity (Mpa, psi)
Ip = "polar moment of inertia" of cross section (mm4, in4)
AISI 4130 Steel has a modulus of rigidity of G = 80 GPa
Carbon steel G = 77 GPa
Comparing identical shafts with an identical load I can set L, Ip, and T to 1. So:
Deflection of a 4130 chrome moly shaft θ = 1x1/1x80 = 1/80 = 0.0125
Deflection of a carbon steel shaft θ = 1x1/1x77 = 1/77 = 0.0130
So an identical chrome moly shaft would deflect 3.9% less than carbon steel. I don't want to run the moment of inertia equations, but I would guess the weight savings for a 4130 bar of identical stiffness would be right around that 4%. 4% of 5 lbs is 2 tenths of a pound.
Edit: Sam edited above while I was typing, but we're saying the same thing. The torsional spring rate, or modulus of rigidity, are very nearly if not exactly the same.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/suspensio...ome-molly.html
Let me run the numbers and get a answer on this:
Torsional Deflection of Shaft
The angular deflection of a torsion shaft can be expressed as
θ = L T / Ip G
where
T = twisting moment (Nmm, in lb)
θ = angular shaft deflection (radians)
L = length of shaft (mm, in)
G = modulus of rigidity (Mpa, psi)
Ip = "polar moment of inertia" of cross section (mm4, in4)
AISI 4130 Steel has a modulus of rigidity of G = 80 GPa
Carbon steel G = 77 GPa
Comparing identical shafts with an identical load I can set L, Ip, and T to 1. So:
Deflection of a 4130 chrome moly shaft θ = 1x1/1x80 = 1/80 = 0.0125
Deflection of a carbon steel shaft θ = 1x1/1x77 = 1/77 = 0.0130
So an identical chrome moly shaft would deflect 3.9% less than carbon steel. I don't want to run the moment of inertia equations, but I would guess the weight savings for a 4130 bar of identical stiffness would be right around that 4%. 4% of 5 lbs is 2 tenths of a pound.
Edit: Sam edited above while I was typing, but we're saying the same thing. The torsional spring rate, or modulus of rigidity, are very nearly if not exactly the same.
Trending Topics
08-02-2010, 11:47 PM
#8
You did make one really interesting comment that reminded me that Apple started leading the industry in a new realm -- making their laptops out of solid blocks of billet aluminum in 2008 -- resulting in MUCH greater rigidity.
Video of this process (the first 3 min. are most relevant):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUFvjGlVyk
Granted, we're talking about different metal, parts and applications, but that might be a new approach for this kind of application -- might be something to try, for an ambitious vendor... Obviously continuous improvement should be an ideal of any aftermarket vendor that wants their products to be the best they can be.
The question still stands if anyone has tested, in real world use, a hollow CM 35/22 bar set?
Correct me if I misunderstood, but a point you are making is that in general, the characteristics of the ST52.3 DOM are actually overkill for the Camaro application. Which begs the question why not test the CM in real world use, and the idea above about a different manufacturing process is intriguing and would potentially address your final reason...
Video of this process (the first 3 min. are most relevant):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUFvjGlVyk
Granted, we're talking about different metal, parts and applications, but that might be a new approach for this kind of application -- might be something to try, for an ambitious vendor... Obviously continuous improvement should be an ideal of any aftermarket vendor that wants their products to be the best they can be.
The question still stands if anyone has tested, in real world use, a hollow CM 35/22 bar set?
Correct me if I misunderstood, but a point you are making is that in general, the characteristics of the ST52.3 DOM are actually overkill for the Camaro application. Which begs the question why not test the CM in real world use, and the idea above about a different manufacturing process is intriguing and would potentially address your final reason...
So let's try this one more time:
We use ST52.3 DOM. Let's compare what we have bars built with to 4130 CM--that's what you want to know, right?
ST52.3 4130 CM
Tensile: 85,000psi 90,000psi
Yield: 75,000psi 80,000psi
Do you think, somehow that 75,000 psi is weak? You think the car can produce that kind of load?
Further, here's two other things you should know.
The spring rate of steel is the spring rate of steel, CM isn't any "better" than mild in that regard, unless you vary the wall thickness.
And CM is no stronger than mild in twisting unless you heat treat it, which nobody does because if you got it hot enough to treat it properly, you'd bend it when you picked it up to quench it. This isn't a solid block of billet, but a bar with specific twists and bends.....
And here's the final reason for using what we use... it's got better properties for bending tight radii. 15% elongation for ST52.3 vs. 10% for 4130 CM, that means a 4130 bar is more prone to cracking and failing the tighter and tighter the bends are. And on the front bar, that's critical as where the bar moves around the tie-rod--there is some complex shaping there.
We use ST52.3 DOM. Let's compare what we have bars built with to 4130 CM--that's what you want to know, right?
ST52.3 4130 CM
Tensile: 85,000psi 90,000psi
Yield: 75,000psi 80,000psi
Do you think, somehow that 75,000 psi is weak? You think the car can produce that kind of load?
Further, here's two other things you should know.
The spring rate of steel is the spring rate of steel, CM isn't any "better" than mild in that regard, unless you vary the wall thickness.
And CM is no stronger than mild in twisting unless you heat treat it, which nobody does because if you got it hot enough to treat it properly, you'd bend it when you picked it up to quench it. This isn't a solid block of billet, but a bar with specific twists and bends.....
And here's the final reason for using what we use... it's got better properties for bending tight radii. 15% elongation for ST52.3 vs. 10% for 4130 CM, that means a 4130 bar is more prone to cracking and failing the tighter and tighter the bends are. And on the front bar, that's critical as where the bar moves around the tie-rod--there is some complex shaping there.
08-02-2010, 11:57 PM
#9
TECH Addict
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, ALASKA
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ST52.3 is already overkill, why would you have the need for CM? It has no real advantage, either in deflection or weight savings(were talking .5-1lb). It makes it hard for manufacturers to justify the cost of materials for a product they cannot say is better than another they offer for less $$.
And Apple started making their computers out of aluminum because their plastic cases would break all the time. Its cheaper to have a higher initial cost than to pay out the *** to replace a plastic case a couple times during the warranty period. What would I know though, Im only in IT. lol
And Apple started making their computers out of aluminum because their plastic cases would break all the time. Its cheaper to have a higher initial cost than to pay out the *** to replace a plastic case a couple times during the warranty period. What would I know though, Im only in IT. lol
08-03-2010, 09:21 AM
#10
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question still stands if anyone has tested, in real world use, a hollow CM 35/22 bar set?
Correct me if I misunderstood, but a point you are making is that in general, the characteristics of the ST52.3 DOM are actually overkill for the Camaro application. Which begs the question why not test the CM in real world use, and the idea above about a different manufacturing process is intriguing and would potentially address your final reason...
Like I showed above, the best likely benefit CM would have in this application is a weight savings in the tenths of a pound. You can achieve that same weight savings by going commando, for free
.
08-03-2010, 09:32 AM
#11
This is the 21st Century, nobody engineers by trial and error anymore. Sam and I have shown that CM has negligible advantages. Why test something when the science says it will not be an improvement? I'm sure Sam or any other company can't afford to build and test products just because people are fascinated with CM and assume it is the best material for every application.
Like I showed above, the best likely benefit CM would have in this application is a weight savings in the tenths of a pound. You can achieve that same weight savings by going commando, for free.
Like I showed above, the best likely benefit CM would have in this application is a weight savings in the tenths of a pound. You can achieve that same weight savings by going commando, for free
.
08-03-2010, 04:05 PM
#12
Interestingly, Edelbrock took a different approach from Strano with hollow chromoly sway in the front (Hollow core 3/16" wall x 1-3/8" (35mm) diameter), and solid 1045 steel in the rear (Solid core 1" diameter; Strano adjustable rear is hollow Chrome Molly)... My point is not the size, but the material, esp. on the front bar.
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...swaybars.shtml
"Why did we choose different materials for the front and rear?
4130 Chromoly was chosen for the front sway bars for two simple reasons - weight and strength. A vehicle carries the majority of its weight in the front end and 70% of the braking is handled by the front brakes. The front end is also responsible for the vehicle's steering control. 4130 Chromoly provides the tensile strength (up to 130 pounds per square inch (Ksi) and its hollow-core design keeps weight to a minimum. This provides the optimal ratio of weight vs. strength to increase the chassis roll stiffness and improve handling without compromise. When Edelbrock engineered the rear sway bars, 1045 was the material best suited to provide the optimal roll stiffness. Since weight is not as critical to the rear of the vehicle, 1045's solid core provides strength and long-term durability. This all adds up to a great product at exceptional value to our customers."
Other companies like Tarett Engineering do Porsche chromolly sways, and Rebel Racing Products does CM sways for vintage cars too.
So it looks like hollow CM front sways should be viable...
I also work in IT, and the Apple MacBook Pro rigidity is a big improvement over the previous design, not to mention form and looks...
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...swaybars.shtml
"Why did we choose different materials for the front and rear?
4130 Chromoly was chosen for the front sway bars for two simple reasons - weight and strength. A vehicle carries the majority of its weight in the front end and 70% of the braking is handled by the front brakes. The front end is also responsible for the vehicle's steering control. 4130 Chromoly provides the tensile strength (up to 130 pounds per square inch (Ksi) and its hollow-core design keeps weight to a minimum. This provides the optimal ratio of weight vs. strength to increase the chassis roll stiffness and improve handling without compromise. When Edelbrock engineered the rear sway bars, 1045 was the material best suited to provide the optimal roll stiffness. Since weight is not as critical to the rear of the vehicle, 1045's solid core provides strength and long-term durability. This all adds up to a great product at exceptional value to our customers."
Other companies like Tarett Engineering do Porsche chromolly sways, and Rebel Racing Products does CM sways for vintage cars too.
So it looks like hollow CM front sways should be viable...
I also work in IT, and the Apple MacBook Pro rigidity is a big improvement over the previous design, not to mention form and looks...
If ST52.3 is already overkill, why would you have the need for CM? It has no real advantage, either in deflection or weight savings(were talking .5-1lb). It makes it hard for manufacturers to justify the cost of materials for a product they cannot say is better than another they offer for less $$.
And Apple started making their computers out of aluminum because their plastic cases would break all the time. Its cheaper to have a higher initial cost than to pay out the *** to replace a plastic case a couple times during the warranty period. What would I know though, Im only in IT. lol
And Apple started making their computers out of aluminum because their plastic cases would break all the time. Its cheaper to have a higher initial cost than to pay out the *** to replace a plastic case a couple times during the warranty period. What would I know though, Im only in IT. lol
Last edited by libertyforall1776; 08-03-2010 at 04:20 PM.
08-03-2010, 04:22 PM
#13
Interestingly, Edelbrock took a different approach from Strano with hollow chromoly sway in the front (Hollow core 3/16" wall x 1-3/8" diameter), and solid 1045 steel in the rear (Solid core 1" diameter; Strano adjustable rear is hollow Chrome Molly)... My point is not the size, but the material, esp. on the front bar.
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...swaybars.shtml
"Why did we choose different materials for the front and rear?
4130 Chromoly was chosen for the front sway bars for two simple reasons - weight and strength. A vehicle carries the majority of its weight in the front end and 70% of the braking is handled by the front brakes. The front end is also responsible for the vehicle's steering control. 4130 Chromoly provides the tensile strength (up to 130 pounds per square inch (Ksi) and its hollow-core design keeps weight to a minimum. This provides the optimal ratio of weight vs. strength to increase the chassis roll stiffness and improve handling without compromise. When Edelbrock engineered the rear sway bars, 1045 was the material best suited to provide the optimal roll stiffness. Since weight is not as critical to the rear of the vehicle, 1045's solid core provides strength and long-term durability. This all adds up to a great product at exceptional value to our customers."
Other companies like Tarett Engineering do Porsche chromolly sways, and Rebel Racing Products does CM sways for vintage cars too.
So it looks like hollow CM front sways should be viable...
I also work in IT, and the Apple MacBook Pro rigidity is a big improvement over the previous design, not to mention form and looks...
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...swaybars.shtml
"Why did we choose different materials for the front and rear?
4130 Chromoly was chosen for the front sway bars for two simple reasons - weight and strength. A vehicle carries the majority of its weight in the front end and 70% of the braking is handled by the front brakes. The front end is also responsible for the vehicle's steering control. 4130 Chromoly provides the tensile strength (up to 130 pounds per square inch (Ksi) and its hollow-core design keeps weight to a minimum. This provides the optimal ratio of weight vs. strength to increase the chassis roll stiffness and improve handling without compromise. When Edelbrock engineered the rear sway bars, 1045 was the material best suited to provide the optimal roll stiffness. Since weight is not as critical to the rear of the vehicle, 1045's solid core provides strength and long-term durability. This all adds up to a great product at exceptional value to our customers."
Other companies like Tarett Engineering do Porsche chromolly sways, and Rebel Racing Products does CM sways for vintage cars too.
So it looks like hollow CM front sways should be viable...
I also work in IT, and the Apple MacBook Pro rigidity is a big improvement over the previous design, not to mention form and looks...
You do IT.... you realize that different companies do different things, for different reasons, right????????? As big a name as Edelbrock is, I don't recall them autocrossing or tracking a Camaro. And the fact is they might use CM, but if it's not heat-treated after bending, it's not any help in strength, and adds a lot *A LOT* more cost. And you are worrying about strength for no good reason. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS *PLEASE* and tell me what CM will get you other than a blingy name and more money spent?
As it was put to me yesterday.... We could make a properly heat treated bar, it would cost about $600 for the 5k psi difference in tensile strength.
You say "hey make a CM bar" for any number of reasons. You think it's cooler (ok), you think it's lighter (it's not), you think it's easy (it's not). You think there is a market for it (fine). I think you are making a ton of assumptions, some of which are flawed and basing your thinking on those.
Did you also notice they do a 1" rear bar, like most everyone else? How about you ask Edelbrock why they don't do a 22mm rear that's hollow that's well proven in actual competition with my multiple SCCA Championships? Why they don't offer the option for an adjustable rear bar?????? Etc., etc.....
__________________
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
08-03-2010, 05:18 PM
#15
This is the process I go through in selecting parts, ask about all the questions and part choices I have until there are no more questions...
$199.99 (Strano front 35mm hollow ST52.3 DOM) vs. $175.83 shipped via autopartsdealer.com (Edelbrock front 35mm hollow 4130 Chromoly) really is $24.16 (+ shipping) cheaper for hollow 35mm CM, and it should weigh less -- seems like that would mesh well with your CM rear adj. bar...
Edelbrock uses greasable graphite polyurethane bushings (Strano's lack grease fittings because he says that makes them weaker) Another differentiator is different bends (I count 8 bends), the Edelbrock bends are similar to UMI & BMR:
Strano front (Sam previously said his bends are better fitting for convertibles, I count 10 bends):
I don't have answers to your other questions, but have an email into an Edelbrock engineer to get answers...
$199.99 (Strano front 35mm hollow ST52.3 DOM) vs. $175.83 shipped via autopartsdealer.com (Edelbrock front 35mm hollow 4130 Chromoly) really is $24.16 (+ shipping) cheaper for hollow 35mm CM, and it should weigh less -- seems like that would mesh well with your CM rear adj. bar...
Edelbrock uses greasable graphite polyurethane bushings (Strano's lack grease fittings because he says that makes them weaker) Another differentiator is different bends (I count 8 bends), the Edelbrock bends are similar to UMI & BMR:
Strano front (Sam previously said his bends are better fitting for convertibles, I count 10 bends):
I don't have answers to your other questions, but have an email into an Edelbrock engineer to get answers...
Seriously, I am about ready to give up.
You do IT.... you realize that different companies do different things, for different reasons, right????????? As big a name as Edelbrock is, I don't recall them autocrossing or tracking a Camaro. And the fact is they might use CM, but if it's not heat-treated after bending, it's not any help in strength, and adds a lot *A LOT* more cost. And you are worrying about strength for no good reason. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS *PLEASE* and tell me what CM will get you other than a blingy name and more money spent?
As it was put to me yesterday.... We could make a properly heat treated bar, it would cost about $600 for the 5k psi difference in tensile strength.
You say "hey make a CM bar" for any number of reasons. You think it's cooler (ok), you think it's lighter (it's not), you think it's easy (it's not). You think there is a market for it (fine). I think you are making a ton of assumptions, some of which are flawed and basing your thinking on those.
Did you also notice they do a 1" rear bar, like most everyone else? How about you ask Edelbrock why they don't do a 22mm rear that's hollow that's well proven in actual competition with my multiple SCCA Championships? Why they don't offer the option for an adjustable rear bar?????? Etc., etc.....
You do IT.... you realize that different companies do different things, for different reasons, right????????? As big a name as Edelbrock is, I don't recall them autocrossing or tracking a Camaro. And the fact is they might use CM, but if it's not heat-treated after bending, it's not any help in strength, and adds a lot *A LOT* more cost. And you are worrying about strength for no good reason. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS *PLEASE* and tell me what CM will get you other than a blingy name and more money spent?
As it was put to me yesterday.... We could make a properly heat treated bar, it would cost about $600 for the 5k psi difference in tensile strength.
You say "hey make a CM bar" for any number of reasons. You think it's cooler (ok), you think it's lighter (it's not), you think it's easy (it's not). You think there is a market for it (fine). I think you are making a ton of assumptions, some of which are flawed and basing your thinking on those.
Did you also notice they do a 1" rear bar, like most everyone else? How about you ask Edelbrock why they don't do a 22mm rear that's hollow that's well proven in actual competition with my multiple SCCA Championships? Why they don't offer the option for an adjustable rear bar?????? Etc., etc.....
Last edited by libertyforall1776; 08-03-2010 at 09:35 PM. Reason: added pics, clarified, updated price again
08-03-2010, 05:38 PM
#17
Officially, I give up---for now.
Yes, I have more bends, to make sure the bar fits *all cars* the best it can. No I don't use greasable bushings. You see that as a bad things, or so it seems. I don't use them because they are more fragile. I've broken them with 35mm bars. So...... should I use something I know is weaker? I don't get it..... really.
Yes, I have more bends, to make sure the bar fits *all cars* the best it can. No I don't use greasable bushings. You see that as a bad things, or so it seems. I don't use them because they are more fragile. I've broken them with 35mm bars. So...... should I use something I know is weaker? I don't get it..... really.
__________________
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
www.stranoparts.com --814-849-3450
Results matter. Talk is cheap. We are miles beyond the success anyone else has had with the 4th gens, and C5, C6, C7 Corvettes,
10 SCCA Solo National Championships, 2008 Driver of they Year, 2012 Driver of Eminence
13 SCCA Pro Solo Nationals Championships
2023 UMI King of the Mountain Champion
08-03-2010, 05:56 PM
#18
I imagine more bends on a CM piece might be more undesirable? But if the extra bends improve fitment, that's a plus (esp. since my application would be a 'vert.).
Just pointed out the differences in bushings, not saying non-greasable is bad -- I'm sure your experience is valid, and candor appreciated.
Just pointed out the differences in bushings, not saying non-greasable is bad -- I'm sure your experience is valid, and candor appreciated.
Officially, I give up---for now.
Yes, I have more bends, to make sure the bar fits *all cars* the best it can. No I don't use greasable bushings. You see that as a bad things, or so it seems. I don't use them because they are more fragile. I've broken them with 35mm bars. So...... should I use something I know is weaker? I don't get it..... really.
Yes, I have more bends, to make sure the bar fits *all cars* the best it can. No I don't use greasable bushings. You see that as a bad things, or so it seems. I don't use them because they are more fragile. I've broken them with 35mm bars. So...... should I use something I know is weaker? I don't get it..... really.
08-03-2010, 06:33 PM
#19
So we have established:
1. cromoly offers no valuable weight savings in this particular application.
2. Sam has designed his bar to fit best
3. and has proven them to allow the desired amount or roll stiffness to win champion ships, and satisfy all the customers that use his parts.
4. Liberty STILL wants them in cromoly
Changing the material would change the amount roll the car would generate. And that would change those specs OUTSIDE of how Sam feels his bars should perform.
1. cromoly offers no valuable weight savings in this particular application.
2. Sam has designed his bar to fit best
3. and has proven them to allow the desired amount or roll stiffness to win champion ships, and satisfy all the customers that use his parts.
4. Liberty STILL wants them in cromoly
Changing the material would change the amount roll the car would generate. And that would change those specs OUTSIDE of how Sam feels his bars should perform.
08-03-2010, 06:42 PM
#20
On The Tree
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I already went out of my way to run the equations and show there are almost no benefits. If he doesn't want to believe me, then fine. I don't have my Professional Engineer license quite yet, but I'm close. He can go bother the Edelbrock engineers.