MyShibbyZ28

I just thought up the idea because i was bored (when am i not). So, does anyone think it would be worth to put two in? Here's what i was thinking, one of two ways.

1) get two and run then side by side/parallel
or
2) Get one running one way then another running the other, so it makes an "X" like thing.

Anyone think any of this would add to the firmness of the suspension or am i just thinking up a load of BS?

ShibbyZ

Z06Z28

If your looking for the upper...you can run an upper BMR Bar like the pic off their webite site. BMR Upper PHR. Your idea sounds complicated about an "X" design but try it and let us know.

Bud M

The X setup would make it plenty firm. Like "preventing suspension travel" firm.
I don't see 2 parallel rods being beneficial to anyone but BMR.

TobyZ28

The upper bolts would also need to travel from side to side in the suspension at all 4 points of the X. The top and bottom two would be wider apart the lower the car is, and closer together when the suspension is extended.

JakeRobb

As Bud M said, an X would eliminate all rear suspension travel. You might as well bolt the rear end to the frame.

If, as toby360 said, you allowed for bolt travel, you would lose the firmness you were going for in the first place.

One panhard rod is all you need!

-Jake

MyShibbyZ28

My parallel PHR would look something like that picture but it's just be two side by side. Just bolted maybe 2 inches apart from eachother.

The X style i knew would stop sway period. I was just wondering if anyone tried/thought of it before. Would the X style also stop my up and down suspension? So that way my back end wouldn't squat at all? basically what i was looking for is ultimate suspension/firmness with only PHR and LCA's.

EDIT: Just had a thought. Would the X style put my front end in danger of rolling? Like drag cars when they have a ton of torque put on the car and the front end lifts up on one side. Could my front possibly have that happen around hard corners? Or would the two PHR's take care of that and keep all 4's on the ground? Maybe a bigger front sway bar....

JakeRobb

X style would stop up and down, period. It would not stop sway, but it would make sway feel weird. I've thought of it before (when I was first learning what a panhard rod was), but ruled it out quickly.

Experiment:
Materials needed:
- two pair of chopsticks
- 4 sewing needles (or other small pins or needles, long enough to go through two chopsticks, and thin enough to do so without splitting the wood)
- knife sharp enough to cleanly cut the chopsticks
Description:
- Two of the chopsticks will be your panhard rods. Another is the rear axle assembly, and another is the rear subframe. We will use this to demonstrate the range of motion allowed by the proposed configuration.

Steps:

1. Take two chopsticks and cut an inch off the end. Lay them parallel to each other, 1.5" apart, oriented horizontally (these are the rear subframe and axle assembly).
   
2. Take a third chopstick and lay it across the first two, on an angle, like a panhard rod would be. Press one pin through each end of the panhard rod chopstick, making sure to have it go through the subframe chopstick and rear axle chopstick.
   
3. Flip the whole assembly over, so that the panhard rod chopstick is now on the bottom.
   
4. Attach the second panhard rod chopstick in the same manner that you attached the first one, only angled the other way.

You should now have an X-shaped assembly. Stand it up so that the rear axle chopstick is on the ground (or a table, or whatever), and the subframe assembly is directly above it (oriented like it would be on the car). You may need to set it on something small (paperback book?), so that the attachment points have the room that they need to pivot.

Press down (lightly! don't break the chopsticks!) equally on both ends of the rear subframe chopstick. It doesn't move! Now press down lightly on only one end. Experiment with the motion of the assembly. See the other end rise? Notice the shift to the side? Those are both motions that would be highly undesirable in a car making a turn.

-Jake

MyShibbyZ28

Very good experiment, just tried it and now i know what you're talking about. I also came up with a new idea.

Weld everything together so nothing can move...

But seriously, i did. The X'd PHR's would kind of cancel out the rocking or lifting of one side. Because they aren't attached to eachother. So one would knock out the rock to one side, and it wouldn't rock hardly at all, and the second would knock it out to the other. So even if there was a lean to a side, it would probably be so small i wouldn't notice it. Am i making any sense or did i just think up another POS?

JakeRobb

I'm glad you tried my experiment, and I'm glad it worked, because I came up with it on the spot and described it without trying it first.

Are you looking for a completely solid suspension? What's your goal here?

-Jake

MyShibbyZ28

It worked with some minor adjustments...like tape...

My goal is to get a perfect cornering car. I road in a buddies and he has his suspension done to the max. PHR, LCA, subframe connectors, KONI shocks, 1.5" lowering sport springs, the works. I guess he spoiled me. I'd like my car to have less lean then it does now when cornering. After riding in his it feels like mine's a boat. I just thought up the idea hoping it would solve my problem without getting everything he has. Would LCA and PHR solve this to a very good extent? He told me the PHR was a huge improvement over stock.

Injuneer

By using "tape" you defeated the purpose and results. You added a feature that bolted or pinned conections don't provide - "slip". Make the connections rigid with pins eliminates most of the possible movement.

Rather than reinvent the Panhard bar, why not consider a Watts Linkage in its place? That improves the lateral location, by elminating the offset that occurs when the body starts to roll.

http://www.fays2.net/fays2_watts_link_4_.html

And remember, the Panhard rod is providing lateral location, not roll resistance. The "sway" bar provides the roll resistance.

JakeRobb

Ha, I didn't even think to point that out!

He's right. The Panhard rod is there to keep the rear axle from moving from side to side -- it really isn't intended to reduce body roll.

LCAs don't do that either. If you want your car to corner like your friend's car, you need the shocks, the springs, and the swaybar(s) (which you didn't mention, but I'm guessing he has). The LCAs, SFCs, PHR, torque arms, and all that other stuff help the car transfer power to the ground, and have a minimal effect on cornering ability.

-Jake

MyShibbyZ28

Hmmm, now that i think twice, it does make sense that the PHR is for the lateral and not sway motions. Maybe i can custom make a sway bar 3" thick...

just kidding. So i guess sway bar, shocks and springs are my biggy for cornering. For power to the ground, PHR, LCA, SFC's and torque arm. well now i have something to work with till i get enough money. Thanks guys.

Injuneer

You don't need to use a sway bar 3" thick.... you can get them made from 1-5/16" chrome moly spring steel, and it will keep your car as flat as possible on cornering. However, simply beefing up the rear sway bar is not the correct way to control body roll. As I understand it, it can cause excessive oversteer. You need to increase the torsional strength of both the front and rear sway bars to keep it balanced. I'm only into "straight line" traction... there are others far more knowledgable in going around corners.

This is the Spohn "drag" rear sway bar:

http://members.aol.com/InjuneerZZ/im...hotos/Susp.jpg

MyShibbyZ28

I plan on getting bigger sway bars for both front and back, but i just didn't know which to get. The biggest i found was 36mm hollow ones but i want a solid one. The biggest solid one i found was i think 32mm. I also noticed something, why is the back in inches and the front measured in millimeters?