Spreader bar fabrication question?
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 620
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio TX
Spreader bar fabrication question?
I was about to start fabricating a spreader bar (from A-Arm to A-Arm), when I got to thinking a little about it.
Instead of running the bar from A-Arm to A-Arm, would it not make more sense to run two of them? They would each go from the A-Arm cross shaft down to the chassis on the opposite side of the car.
My thinking behind it is this. When cornering hard, lateral force is applied on both the inner and outer suspension components.
In other words, if I'm turning hard left, the upper right shock tower area is being stressed out, and the upper left shock tower is being stressed in. I would think that there is more stress on the right side, and by rigidly connecting the two, it will impart even more stress on the left side. I would assume that this somewhat equalizes it out and by doing so, reduces the peak stress on the components. There is still going to be the same overall amount of stress imparted to the components that I'm trying to protect, just a lowering of peak stress.
So, by channeling that stress to the actual frame, would that not do a better job of reducing the flex?
Does anybody understand what I'm trying to say, or am I just talking gibb
erish?
Instead of running the bar from A-Arm to A-Arm, would it not make more sense to run two of them? They would each go from the A-Arm cross shaft down to the chassis on the opposite side of the car.
My thinking behind it is this. When cornering hard, lateral force is applied on both the inner and outer suspension components.
In other words, if I'm turning hard left, the upper right shock tower area is being stressed out, and the upper left shock tower is being stressed in. I would think that there is more stress on the right side, and by rigidly connecting the two, it will impart even more stress on the left side. I would assume that this somewhat equalizes it out and by doing so, reduces the peak stress on the components. There is still going to be the same overall amount of stress imparted to the components that I'm trying to protect, just a lowering of peak stress.
So, by channeling that stress to the actual frame, would that not do a better job of reducing the flex?
Does anybody understand what I'm trying to say, or am I just talking gibb
erish?
Race Director
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 11,872
Likes: 12
From: Waterloo ontario Canada
I feel that the X would do a better job but it involves alot more fabrication, heim joints and maybe it runs into the water pump or accessory. If the front of the engine is already full snaking a double bar through there could be too difficult. In my case I only had room to snake a single bar through a hole between the accessories.
Would love to see pictures if you go that route.
Would love to see pictures if you go that route.
C6 the C5 of tomorrow
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,665
Likes: 2
From: Twin Cities Minnesota
it would definitly be better.
the normal bars are better than nothing, but the rod ends let things move around, which is bad for the car, but makes it easier to make since it's self aligning.
Personally, I think if you want to do it right you'd weld in a couple of bars
the normal bars are better than nothing, but the rod ends let things move around, which is bad for the car, but makes it easier to make since it's self aligning.
Personally, I think if you want to do it right you'd weld in a couple of bars
Last edited by 427V8; Dec 1, 2006 at 09:39 AM.
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 620
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio TX
Originally Posted by norvalwilhelm
I feel that the X would do a better job but it involves alot more fabrication, heim joints and maybe it runs into the water pump or accessory. If the front of the engine is already full snaking a double bar through there could be too difficult. In my case I only had room to snake a single bar through a hole between the accessories.
Would love to see pictures if you go that route.
Would love to see pictures if you go that route.
After giving it some more thought, I'm probably going to go with the tried and proven spreader bar configuration.
Heim joints will have to be used regardless, assuming I attach it to the A-Arm crossbar. Without the Heim joints, I would lose the ability to adjust caster/camber.
My problem is with what happens mechanically by running a cross brace at an angle from the crossbar down, and not being able to rigidly affix it.
Going straight across from the cross shafts means that the forces transferred into the spreader bar are almost completely lateral, basically negating the built in movement of the heim joints. By running them at an angle down, I'm afraid that the lateral flex from the towers will be translated into a sort of "jacking" movement.
Another option would be to eliminate the heim joints. The bars could be attached to the tower itself, just below the A Arm cross shafts. (there are already two holes there. The only problems I see with that are 1. moving the bars lower reduces the leverage on the tower. and 2. it would require a more severe angle to actually terminate onto the chassis itself unless I ran them to the chassis crossmember.
Thoughts?
Last edited by cchristo; Dec 2, 2006 at 08:56 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,192
Likes: 27
From: Boca Raton Florida
I would go with a regular bar and be done wit it. There might be a measureable improvement useing a cross bar as you suggest, it certainly makes sence, but it would be at the very extreem edge os driving so I doudt you could feel it or give you anything on a corner. Also with the added complexity of a cross bar I thnk the benefits would be outweightd by the PITA factor for alignment, and fitup.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Melting Slicks
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,662
Likes: 8
From: Knoxville Tennessee
The theory is that the force would be counteracted by the opposing force from the other a arm. The side loads offset each other. A single stiffener makes a noticeable difference! I could actually feel my front suspension working after the mod on my '79!
Bernie
Bernie
