I personally won't run the bar in the middle but just wanted to ask the question for education purposes.

 

wait, I just skipped over something I guess.

Is the adjustable end-links really only to even out the pre-load on the bar differences if using different holes on either side?

I presume that would also mitigate the condition nmrado describes?

Those are the kinds of answers I was looking for. I only wanted a 3rd degree of adjustability so I could start in the middle & tune (first time running a square setup) but I don't want to be thrown off with any wonky effects that'd be caused by one corner differences (or the bump condition described by nmrado). Much more straight forward to just pick stiff or soft and decide how I like the balance first. With my list of things to do, I don't think getting new end links procured and in place are in the cards before next weekend.

 

If you are going square I think you will definitely want to run full-stiff. Even at full-stiff, it's a lot softer than some other bars.

 

The forces acting on the bar act on both ends so it doesn't matter if one is set to hole 1 and the other side hole 2 and an adjustable end link will have no affect on that issue. The adjustable end link--and you only need one-- is used to remove any pre-load on the bar in whatever holes are chosen. I would suggest you start with full stiff but after you've gotten used to the car (a few events) try the other settings to see what you get. Besides tire pressure an adjustable FSB is probably the easiest and most effective way to tune handling.

 

okay, so then how bad will it be if I have a little pre-load on the bar and do not do an adjustable end-link? Or perhaps I'm making this more difficult than I should. Is this a simple McMaster Carr / Grainger kind of part I can quickly and easily source?

 

A little pre-load won't hurt and the parts are pretty standard but I found the McMaster end links wore out quickly and made horrendous noise. My front and rear bars had minimal pre-load so I went back to stock end links.

 

Adjustable length endlinks will not eliminate the effects from using different sway bar settings from side-to-side. There are a lot of variables that determine how much roll you would experience from using different settings on each side of your bar - suspension travel, bar arm geometry, bar stiffness, coil spring stiffness, bushing stiffness, etc. I'd recommend just using either of the two standard settings and avoid the potential of encountering "wonky" effects, as you stated.

 

nmrado, can you explain what the issues could be from running different stiffness settings on the two say bar ends? I've always thought it didn't matter because both ends of the sway bar are acted upon even if only one wheel moves for a bump. As someone above said, "leverage is leverage." In fact most cockpit adjustable bars only adjust one blade bar end.

 

It's a length distance thing. The closer you get to the sway bar pivot point the less distance is covered vs the end of the bar.

I don't think a one inch difference or whatever it is is going to make any significant difference over a 1 to 2 inch range of motion.

 

Blade-style roll bars are a different animal than most of us use on our Hondas. The A.R.E. bar is a blade-style bar and would not cause undesired effects by running different settings on each side. The reason for this is the bar arm length never changes. You're effectively changing the bending stiffness of the bar arms with a blade-style bar, not moving the endlink location to change the length of the lever acting on the torsional portion of the anti-roll bar.

Macr could be correct. The effect could be minimal, but it's based on the bump encountered, stiffness of the coil springs, stiffness of the anti-roll bar, etc. I made a graphic to better illustrate the point I'm trying to make:



I should have stated that Theta1 and Theta2 are not equal. Theta2 is greater than Theta2 by a significant amount in that example graphic.