When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
the strano bars are 33 and 35 mm (with a hollow or solid option for the 35) for the fronts and 25.4 for the rear
my guess would be that the 33 would be somewhere around the stiffness of the Zr1 front bar which is also 33mm
and the hollow 35 would be somewhere around the pfadt Joc - the solid somewhere between that and the T1
the 25.4mm rear is the same diameter as the c6 z51 rear so Id guess its around that stiffness
that said the wall thickness, bends in the arms, and arm length all play into the actual rate so it would be impossible to know without testing or getting strano to provide some data
I can help...
First I can do *either* of my fronts in hollow or solid. I use 6.25mm (1/4" wall) on my hollow stuff, and solid... well that's solid. Also the fronts are two way adjustable.
The most common bar is the #8472 "33mm" bar. I put that in quotes as it's actually 33.3mm or 1-5/16" diameter. This is the bar I use on my C6 Z06, as did Daddio in A-street. Lane Borg used it to win both his 2012 A-stock and the 2014 B-steet titles. Shelly Monfort won SS/SSRL in 2012 and 2014 with this bar on my Z06's. Tony Savini won A-stock in 2013 with that bar. As did Bryan Coulson this year (Kozlak, Craner, Savini and Jacobs were all on it).
In 2013 we ran a Grand Sport, and GS's need a lot more bar and there we run the 8530 solid, which is NOT as stiff as a T1 bar. I have one of those too, and we ran it a lot as the GS has a soft front spring issue that causes me a lot of hassle. The T1 didn't turn very well, but it allowed more power down. Best I can figure the T1 is about 11-20% stiffer than the 8530 depending on what setting you have that bar in. But to be honest I don't get too hung on trying to figure rates and all. Doesn't mean much, the number itself. I.E. that chart with the Pfadt doesn't actually tell you stiffness (which you can roughly figure anyway vs. other bars), but I think folks are figuring out that the arms are messing with stuff. My bars are stock type, use stock links (or links that work on stock bars).
Thanks for the link Greg. Supports my thought that T1 bars need some serious rubber to work.
BTW anyone notice that the Strano Bars and Addco bars seem to be the same size?
Nope. They have front of 1-1/4" which is 31.75mm or 1-3/8, which I also have.. but lots of folks do. The differences lie in things like wall thickness and adjustment. Also I can do rears in both 22mm (7/8") and 25.4mm (1") and with adjustment as well.
Further, and this might have changed but I used to use those bars a long time ago, and fit was always an issue.. for years. In fact I had to hand bore the bushings which got old. Maybe that's changed now.
But the fact is that my bars are built off what we've learned from running other stuff (including those 1.25" fronts).
This is a cool chart, but I discovered the Pfadt bars are much softer than shown on the chart due to their aluminum arms. The bars themselves are steel, but the arms are aluminum. I happened to have one of the Pfadt low rate bars (35 mm) with 3 holes for adjustability as well as a T1 bar (38 mm) and Hotchkis bar (32 mm) so I just ran a test. My hunch was that the hotchkis bar at 32 mm would actually be stiffer than the Pfadt bar at 35 mm due to it's aluminum ends. I tested each bar including the 3 different settings on the Pfadt bar for torsional stiffness by jacking up the driver's side front tire with 600 lbs of force and measuring how far the passenger side rotor raised off the ground due to the sway bar. My results are as follows:
Starting point (distance from passneger side rotor to ground with car on lift) = 52.25"
Jack up driver's side tire with 600 lbs force (scale on a tranny jack):
Pfadt outer hole: 53.75"
Pfadt middle hole: 53.9"
Pfadt inner hole: 54.125"
Hotchkis bar: 54.25"
T1 bar: 54.75"
Sure enough, the Hotchkis bar is stiffer than the stiffest setting on the Pfadt bar. The chart shows the Hotchkis bar softer than the softest setting on the Pfadt bar because it doesn't account for the aluminum arms.
You can run different endlinks with the phadt bars....right?
I just replaced my Pfadt heavy duty sways with some LG G2 bars, and the G2's seem to be a bit stiffer than the Pfadts. As Redtopz pointed out, the aluminum arms on the Pfadt deflect so much that they make sways softer than what is stated.
Also, the end links on the Pfadts are very small and flimsy.
Are T1's to much bar for 200 tread wear tires (I have NT-05's)? I'll probably move to PSS's next year which is when I would move to these bars. My car, C5Z, has DRM shocks and stock brakes with track pads and ducts.
I'm a couple years away from R comps. Not ready for the wear and tear that comes with these!
Dan H. I am using Sam's bars on my C5Zand PSS tires this year and am quite happy with them. I am using the softer of the 2 settings up front and the middle setting for the rear bar. (interestingly I don't think I could use the soft setting at the rear without hitting the toe links). I stayed away from the T1 bars as I think they are too stiff for street tires.
BTW as an aside about the PSS tires. They will be better than the NT05s but are definitely not in the same league for overall grip as a Rival, Hankook Rs3 etc. OTOH, they are easy to drive, consistent, can be overheated and recover quickly and although I have not had a chance to try them in the wet, I am sure they would be vastly superior there. BTW this is for track use and not autocross.
Yes, T1 bars are too stiff IMHO, even for R comps IMHO. Not sure why they wanted to go that big. I did use T1 stuff for a while in testing.
As for the rear bar, I have mine on my FRC full soft with stock links. Shouldn't be an issue. Is close to the tie rod ends when the car is in the air, but swings past there when on the ground. But mine never touch anyway. Can't say that would be the case with every endlink, but is with stock, and Whiteline. The rod end links I've used/tested with separate bolts can be tighter but a lower profile bolt head helps.
Yes, T1 bars are too stiff IMHO, even for R comps IMHO. Not sure why they wanted to go that big. I did use T1 stuff for a while in testing.
As for the rear bar, I have mine on my FRC full soft with stock links. Shouldn't be an issue. Is close to the tie rod ends when the car is in the air, but swings past there when on the ground. But mine never touch anyway. Can't say that would be the case with every endlink, but is with stock, and Whiteline. The rod end links I've used/tested with separate bolts can be tighter but a lower profile bolt head helps.
Sam, I did buy the endlinks from you and have them on the front but not the rear. I thought of making them both quite long so as to use the extra length to avoid the toe link (not sure it would work) but never got around to using them. OTOH, I am happy with the car on the middle setting. BTW, I am running a square set up.
A bit of a plug for Sam here, the little collars included with Sam's rear bar that fit just outboard of the sway bar bushings work very well and prevent the bar from sliding side to side.
Forgive me for digging up this old thread... But I think that the noted Pfadt chart above where someone add the Hotchkis rear adjustable bar stiffness data in Blue maybe in error. This potential error was also noted above by Soloontario.
Hotchkis performed they sway bar development testing on '99 Z51 package cars. The '97-99 Z51 package cars used a 21.7mm rear sway bar, not the 23.6mm rear sway bar found on the '00-04 Z51 package cars as well as the '01-04 Z06 cars. Now if you take that along with the Hotchkis noted verbiage concerned the increases in stiffness of their later 4mm wall thickness 25.4mm 3-way "adjustable tubular steel rear sway bar has three settings to make it +60% +100% and +150% stiffer than a stock Z51" and apply that to the correct '97-99 21.7mm rear bar, then the range on the Pfadt can not be as shown by the Blue line.
Also in discussing recently with Sam Strano concerning his very similar 4mm wall thickness 25.4mm 3-way adjustable rear bar, comparing it to the 23.6mm '01-04 Z06 rear bar currently on my car, he noted that "My rear bar is three position adjustable the softer setting actually being a very tiny little bit softer than what you're running on the back, and then a little bit stiffer and then stiffer again..."
Based on those two groups of information, and realizing (with all due respect to everyone involved) that the noted Hotchkis and Strano rear bars are fairly similar, I replotted what I beleive to be a more accurate representation of the Hotchkis rear 3-way adjustable bar stiffness on the Pfadt chart below noted in Yellow. Please note this may not be perfect, but I believe it to be fairly accurate.
09-04-2014, 06:47 PM
