Talk:Anti-roll bar

message: Could we get a picture in here?
It should be stated more clear that it is the difference between roll stiffness of front and rear axes which affects the weight transfer between the 4 wheels.
Moreover, the total weight on the two right wheels (and the total for two left wheels) is completely determined from statical considerations, thus does not depend on stiffness of the parts of suspension.  Similar argument works for weight on the front axis vs weight on the rear axis.
In particular, the explanation of effect of roll stiffness on over/understeer is not only unclear, but completely bogus.  (In fact, it is slightly better [by being unclear ;-] than the [explicit] nonsense explanation in the external link.)
One expects that one needs more detailed consideration of distribution of weight between four wheels, and the fine effects of these distributions on "some particular angles" of these wheels to relate under/oversteer to roll stiffness.  The effect cannot be as direct as in (hinted by) the article.
ILYAZ:71.132.238.123 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight distribution

message: The 198.208.159.17 6th October edit here perpetuates a terminology problem, that my previous attempt had avoided. According to the SAE the roll axis joins the two roll centres. Fair enough. BUT the sprung body does not necessarily roll about the roll axis. It is a bad name. Now, on rereading my previous definition I'm not actually very happy with that either, it seems to me that first of all you have to define what you mean by a roll axis (in a 6dof system) and then you can perhaps describe where that axis is in the general sense. Greglocock 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and, beyond that, why does this article use centrifugal force as the force-at-radius for the torque in the roll? it isn't a real force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.47.25 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a large weight, on a string. Get a friendly giant to whirl it around his head. Now, cut the string and then you hold one piece of string in each hand.  Giant----you-----weight   Get the giant to whirl the large weight around. Are you telling me that you only feel a force in one hand? or that forces you feel are in the same direction? Obviously not, you will feel one force in one hand towards the centre, and an equal (ish) and opposite force in the other hand, towards the weight. Pedantic factoids like "there is no such thing as centrifugal force" are no substitute for learning. Greglocock 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognizing Greglocock's expertise; But the problem with the roll axis isn't the definition, the problem is that once the vehicle starts to move the roll centres (and hence the axis joining them), move all over the place. I think the best you can hope is that your design keeps the roll centres within some semi-predictable region. One book describes how to calculate what could be called the instantaneous roll centre for different types of suspension , either using diagrams, or two different type of mechanical models. re Centrifigal force; Force is force. Call it Reactive Centrifugal force, Centrifugal tension or Centripetal force if you think that is more proper. Egmason (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll axis

message: I propose renaming this article to "Anti-Roll Bar." What this directly controls is the roll mode, NOT the sway mode (see Degrees of freedom (mechanics)). I realize that it is almost always called a sway bar in the US, but I believe anti-roll bar is the more correct term. Before we start a nationalistic flame war, I'm an American, and also a mechanical engineer.LRT24 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Anti-Roll Bar

message: B Stead (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Escort Mk II used a pure macpherson design and so far as I can remember the a/r bar was held in conventional bushes, not ball joints. Lateral location was the bend in the ends of the bar butted up against the bush Greglocock (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but it's also one of the reasons why the Escort handled so strangely, straight out of the box. This location was generally improved for rallying - the WRC spec used what was basically a "constructed wishbone". If you can work this in then maybe, but this is an encyclopedia more than a tuning handbook and clarity of the broad picture is always much more important than convoluted text listing details readers don't care about. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  macpherson 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-roll bar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141212080054/http://ieeecss.org:80/CSM/library/2004/aug04/06-August2004ApplicationsofControl.pdf to http://ieeecss.org/CSM/library/2004/aug04/06-August2004ApplicationsofControl.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Second paragraph in section main function says this: "In general, this makes the outer front wheel run at a comparatively higher slip angle, and the outer rear wheel to run at a comparatively lower slip angle, which is an understeer effect. Increasing the proportion of roll stiffness at the rear axle has the opposite effect and decreases understeer."
There is clearly a typo/confusion, i think the first occurance "understeer effect" should say oversteer (with stiffer front ARB and outer rear wheel overload) and "decreased understeer" at the end is correct? Please someone confirm and fix, thanks :)
:Please sign your posts. The article is correct. Bigger FARB tends to give more understeer. There are exceptions. Several vehicles I have worked on lately have in fact been insensitive to FARB for understeer, so we do other things instead. Greglocock (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A stiffer anti-roll bar generates a bigger slip angle on the outside tyre. So the end of the car with the stiffer anti-roll bar is likely to have the bigger slip angle. If the front has the bigger slip angle then the car tends to understeer (that big slip angle means the tyre doesn't grip and it slides straight ahead). If the rear has the bigger slip angle then the car tends to oversteer (the back doesn't grip and the rear slides sideways). Adding stiffness to the front increases understeer. Adding stiffness to the rear increase oversteer.  Stepho  talk  10:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion in section 'main function'

message: That's a manually switchable system, not an active anti-roll bar. It needs sensors to be considered active. Greglocock (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that there is no feedback, so it can't be a proper active system. Bu they have taken semi-active to mean that there is an actuator involved doing things while driving. The driver gives a command and something makes the change for him. As opposed to most systems where the only change is via substituting parts or adjustment via spanners - things that can only be done when the vehicle is in a workshop.  Stepho  talk  21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've created a section Semi-active to catch these in between cases. Greglocock (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I missed that part. No problem.  Stepho  talk  21:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   the 1988 [[Mitsubishi Motors|Mitsubishi]] [[Mitsubishi Mirage|Mirage]] Cyborg