Sway Bars: Hotchkis and Cobb
#1
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sway Bars: Hotchkis and Cobb
I am wanting to purchase some swaybars today as a short term remedy to some of this body roll. I have to do something for the next couple auto x events until I save up the half a million bucks it costs to buy some real coilovers and a few sets of springs I'm sometimes loosing composure trying to keep up with a couple guys in my region through slaloms and any abrupt transitions. We are all on similar spring rates and the same tires, and we are all competitive, but they run huge bars and are able to carry more speed through these transitions. Looking at data and photos, they are very flat and my car is about to roll over
I'm looking at the Cobb and Hotchkis bars, and the Cobb stuff looks super nice. I like the increased spring rate up front (+108% and +125%). The rear on the Cobb is (+106, +132, and +176).
The Hotchkis is a larger 32mm bar front and rear, but I'm confused why the rear spring rate is higher, and the front is rated much lower. Front (+50%, +70%) Rear (+155, +195, +245). Does this mean they used a different wall thickness on the front and rear bar? I find that unlikely and wondered if anyone had tried them or could have anything to say to help me make a decision
When I get them I will do some datalogs through a few different slalom spacings of stock vs sways to see if I can carry more speed. Maybe I'll post that data up if I'm feeling friendly.
Thanks in advance.
Here are some body roll pics for fun
Stock Suspension
More stock suspension....ahhh...don't flip over!
Winged Warrior, stock tires, Eibach springs. The springs suprisingly eliminated a lot of roll and helped the car in transitions. I was pretty suprised given the very slight increase in spring rate.
Stock suspension and Dunlops. Now with the sticky Dunlops she is back to rolling a lot. My competitors are all very flat through the same sections with similar spring rates, just larger bars. When I try to carry a couple extra MPH through these same sections to match them, I can't transition as quickly regardless of how I drive it
Also, here is a pretty non-scientific video of before and after on the Hotchkis from their site. A real slalom with some hard data like what I will do could be helpful
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/E...-Vs_202150.htm
So I guess my main question is, why do you think the Hotchkis front bar offers less spring rate increase given its larger size when the rear offers so much more? I could understand if it were just a thinner wall thickness, but I wouldn't guess them to use a different tubing on the front and rear bar if they are the same size.
I'm looking at the Cobb and Hotchkis bars, and the Cobb stuff looks super nice. I like the increased spring rate up front (+108% and +125%). The rear on the Cobb is (+106, +132, and +176).
The Hotchkis is a larger 32mm bar front and rear, but I'm confused why the rear spring rate is higher, and the front is rated much lower. Front (+50%, +70%) Rear (+155, +195, +245). Does this mean they used a different wall thickness on the front and rear bar? I find that unlikely and wondered if anyone had tried them or could have anything to say to help me make a decision
When I get them I will do some datalogs through a few different slalom spacings of stock vs sways to see if I can carry more speed. Maybe I'll post that data up if I'm feeling friendly.
Thanks in advance.
Here are some body roll pics for fun
Stock Suspension
More stock suspension....ahhh...don't flip over!
Winged Warrior, stock tires, Eibach springs. The springs suprisingly eliminated a lot of roll and helped the car in transitions. I was pretty suprised given the very slight increase in spring rate.
Stock suspension and Dunlops. Now with the sticky Dunlops she is back to rolling a lot. My competitors are all very flat through the same sections with similar spring rates, just larger bars. When I try to carry a couple extra MPH through these same sections to match them, I can't transition as quickly regardless of how I drive it
Also, here is a pretty non-scientific video of before and after on the Hotchkis from their site. A real slalom with some hard data like what I will do could be helpful
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/E...-Vs_202150.htm
So I guess my main question is, why do you think the Hotchkis front bar offers less spring rate increase given its larger size when the rear offers so much more? I could understand if it were just a thinner wall thickness, but I wouldn't guess them to use a different tubing on the front and rear bar if they are the same size.
#2
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was questioning the same thing when I was looking for bars. The only conclusion I could come up with is maybe that the front should be rated 150% not 50%. That would make more sense. I ended up getting the Cobb bars cause I think it is stiff enough for my needs. BTW, I believe the cobb bars are made by Hotchkis to their spec.
Having the rear so stiff like they have it and the front soft like that would be silly.
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NorCal
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahaha, that video was funny. They obviously drove the stock X harder. If you look carefully, you'll see way more of the side of the car, meaning that they turned the stock one harder. I'm not doubting the sway bars helped, it's just the video is a little deceiving.
I think Hotchkis calculated their stiffness wrong. It doesn't sound right to be so much stiffer on the rear.
BTW, winged warriors car still has a decent amount of body roll. Just look at the angle of his front lip.
Personally, I wouldn't go too stiff with the sway bars. It limits your individual wheel travel and it also doesn't help with weight transfer when braking or accelerating. You'll still need springs to help with that.
I think Hotchkis calculated their stiffness wrong. It doesn't sound right to be so much stiffer on the rear.
BTW, winged warriors car still has a decent amount of body roll. Just look at the angle of his front lip.
Personally, I wouldn't go too stiff with the sway bars. It limits your individual wheel travel and it also doesn't help with weight transfer when braking or accelerating. You'll still need springs to help with that.
#4
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahaha, that video was funny. They obviously drove the stock X harder. If you look carefully, you'll see way more of the side of the car, meaning that they turned the stock one harder. I'm not doubting the sway bars helped, it's just the video is a little deceiving.
I think Hotchkis calculated their stiffness wrong. It doesn't sound right to be so much stiffer on the rear.
BTW, winged warriors car still has a decent amount of body roll. Just look at the angle of his front lip.
Personally, I wouldn't go too stiff with the sway bars. It limits your individual wheel travel and it also doesn't help with weight transfer when braking or accelerating. You'll still need springs to help with that.
I think Hotchkis calculated their stiffness wrong. It doesn't sound right to be so much stiffer on the rear.
BTW, winged warriors car still has a decent amount of body roll. Just look at the angle of his front lip.
Personally, I wouldn't go too stiff with the sway bars. It limits your individual wheel travel and it also doesn't help with weight transfer when braking or accelerating. You'll still need springs to help with that.
I agree with you on the spring stiffness, but as I'm setup at the moment I think I need the bars and probably will after a stiff spring as well. Gotta try it....Enlightened trial and error wins over the planning of flawless intellect
I bought the Cobb bars yesterday and I'm going to go ahead and order the Hotchkis bars today. Gotta see for myself.
#5
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NorCal
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? Have you seen how hard it is to install the front bar? If I put that in, it's never coming out!
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
#6
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: So Cal
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? Have you seen how hard it is to install the front bar? If I put that in, it's never coming out!
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
#7
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? Have you seen how hard it is to install the front bar? If I put that in, it's never coming out!
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
I've been eyeing the Cobb bars but the front bar install - Yikes. And that's the one I want. The rear bar for me can wait. Slap on a set of springs and I'm done. I don't autox the X. I have an 89 Civic for that.
Trending Topics
#8
Account Disabled
iTrader: (10)
Yes, keep this thread updated with the COBB vs. Hotchkis vs. WORKS as well. I think for the price, COBB has the best deal and they are nearly identical to the other two.
I am very interested in this. I am looking for a set for my X. I would love to know, which work better.
I think I will stay with the stock shocks and springs and just install a set of KW3's eventually.
I know that a few people blew their shocks already with aftermarket springs. The best ones were the .5" WORKS springs, which they stopped making sadly. Since those did not affect the dampering of the stock shocks.
I am very interested in this. I am looking for a set for my X. I would love to know, which work better.
I think I will stay with the stock shocks and springs and just install a set of KW3's eventually.
I know that a few people blew their shocks already with aftermarket springs. The best ones were the .5" WORKS springs, which they stopped making sadly. Since those did not affect the dampering of the stock shocks.
#9
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Cobb and Hotchkis are both 32mm front and the same stiffness. Both companies I will assume are utilizing a different method of calculating bar stiffness. The Cobb rear bar is 28mm and the Hotchkis is 32mm. The posted rates are different, but again their method of calculation may be different. Safe to say the Hotchkis makes a stiffer rear bar.
#10
Account Disabled
iTrader: (10)
Cobb and Hotchkis are both 32mm front and the same stiffness. Both companies I will assume are utilizing a different method of calculating bar stiffness. The Cobb rear bar is 28mm and the Hotchkis is 32mm. The posted rates are different, but again their method of calculation may be different. Safe to say the Hotchkis makes a stiffer rear bar.
You can find the Hotchkis bars for around $340
#12
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got the Cobb bars yesterday. I measured them with my calipers since I had seen some conflicting sizes posted for these ranging from 30-32 for the front and 27-30 for the back.
Front: 32.xx mm
Rear: 29.xx mm
I'm not sure how much of that is powder coat, but it appears to be pretty thin. I'm hoping to install them next weekend.
Front: 32.xx mm
Rear: 29.xx mm
I'm not sure how much of that is powder coat, but it appears to be pretty thin. I'm hoping to install them next weekend.
#13
Account Disabled
iTrader: (10)
Just got the Cobb bars yesterday. I measured them with my calipers since I had seen some conflicting sizes posted for these ranging from 30-32 for the front and 27-30 for the back.
Front: 32.xx mm
Rear: 29.xx mm
I'm not sure how much of that is powder coat, but it appears to be pretty thin. I'm hoping to install them next weekend.
Front: 32.xx mm
Rear: 29.xx mm
I'm not sure how much of that is powder coat, but it appears to be pretty thin. I'm hoping to install them next weekend.
Thanks for the numbers on the COBB bars.