When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm going Christmas shopping for myself and want to get one of these to stiffen up my Mini. I'm just not sure which one.
This is my first ever Mini so I'm in the dark a bit. I always put a tower bar on all of my STIs but always felt it was more of a show piece. I only ever felt a stiffer ride when I added some support on the undercarriage.
Mini's being smaller, I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts?
I have both, but I couldn't truthfully say which made the most difference. Like you, I think the bar is more looks than anything else, but I like it. The big pair was my first mod on the F56.
Thats the problem Im running into, (Minneapolis) it is so dang expensive to get anything done on these Minis. Coming from the Subie world, labor was cheap. This world, not so much. Almost every mod Ive looked at is double the price because of labor installation.
I was quoted $1200 for lowering springs installation! Just springs, not coilovers etc.. springs
Im all for doing it myself but I live in an apartment with an underground garage. Its not possible
I was skeptical about the Big Pair at first, but it does make a noticeable difference. It's not a night and day difference, but there is definitely less flex in the chassis.
Value for money, though, it's hard to beat a stiffer rear sway bar. It made a huge difference in how my car feels through corners. Considerably less understeer than the stock setup. Install is really very simple. I installed my NM sway bar with hand tools in my parking lot in about an hour or two.
I was skeptical about the Big Pair at first, but it does make a noticeable difference. It's not a night and day difference, but there is definitely less flex in the chassis.
Value for money, though, it's hard to beat a stiffer rear sway bar. It made a huge difference in how my car feels through corners. Considerably less understeer than the stock setup. Install is really very simple. I installed my NM sway bar with hand tools in my parking lot in about an hour or two.
Can't really go wrong either way.
Its that easy to install a sway bar? I thought you had to drop the suspension to do it
Its that easy to install a sway bar? I thought you had to drop the suspension to do it
Was on the R-series cars -- disconnect some of the lower suspension but no need to drop it all! -- and based on what I've read about the F-series it should be no different. I plan to put a RSB on my F55 in the spring.
On my old clubman my dad and I did it together. Good father-son activity
I have the Big Pair, and I agree, it make the car feel slightly stiffer. Less chassis flex. Can't say about the front strut bar- it might or might not help a little as well.
A rear sway bar will make a huge difference- because this is an active suspension component. The sway bar is there to increase the effective stiffness of the suspension while cornering. A strut bar or Big Pair just adds more metal to something that is not supposed to be flexing in the first place. So suspension stiffness vs. chassis stiffness- just to point out the big distinction.
At the risk of benign pedantic, a sway bar's job is not to add metal to a structure that's not meant to flex — the sway bar is meant to flex. When the car goes over road ripples or speed bumps or whatever it does nothing in particular, but when only one side experiences a rising load and the other side a lowering load, it transfers forces to "weight" the less loaded wheel (the one on the inside of the turn), pulling the chassis back down a bit on that side by using the very forces that are trying to tip over the car. And that we care about because we want to keep the wheels and tires oriented optimally to the pavement. It's kind of ingenious.
How much force is transferred is a function of the bar's stiffness. Less stiffness provides less force to level the car but allows each side to function more independently. This improves comfort over irregular surfaces. It's also good for traction in a straight line; one wheel won't upset the other. That's why we want independent suspension instead of a fixed common axle.
And correspondingly, a stiffer anti-roll bar improves cornering behavior by keeping the wheels nice and vertical. Very good for corners. But too stiff and anything upsetting one wheel will upset its mate on the other side!
on a race track, which is the pavement version of a manicured golf course, you want a really seriously beefy bar. No irregularities to deal with. On the road, things are less ideal, so you want a more compliant bar.
Anyway, sorry if I'm too pedantic but I know newbies will eventually find this thread
At the risk of benign pedantic, a sway bar's job is not to add metal to a structure that's not meant to flex — the sway bar is meant to flex. When the car goes over road ripples or speed bumps or whatever it does nothing in particular, but when only one side experiences a rising load and the other side a lowering load, it transfers forces to "weight" the less loaded wheel (the one on the inside of the turn), pulling the chassis back down a bit on that side by using the very forces that are trying to tip over the car. And that we care about because we want to keep the wheels and tires oriented optimally to the pavement. It's kind of ingenious.
How much force is transferred is a function of the bar's stiffness. Less stiffness provides less force to level the car but allows each side to function more independently. This improves comfort over irregular surfaces. It's also good for traction in a straight line; one wheel won't upset the other. That's why we want independent suspension instead of a fixed common axle.
And correspondingly, a stiffer anti-roll bar improves cornering behavior by keeping the wheels nice and vertical. Very good for corners. But too stiff and anything upsetting one wheel will upset its mate on the other side!
on a race track, which is the pavement version of a manicured golf course, you want a really seriously beefy bar. No irregularities to deal with. On the road, things are less ideal, so you want a more compliant bar.
Anyway, sorry if I'm too pedantic but I know newbies will eventually find this thread
+1! This newbie found the lesson helpful. Every car represents compromise. The magic happens when the engineers attain great handling dynamics while maintaining a pleasing everyday ride. Not easy to do, especially at the MINI price point.
+1! This newbie found the lesson helpful. Every car represents compromise. The magic happens when the engineers attain great handling dynamics while maintaining a pleasing everyday ride. Not easy to do, especially at the MINI price point.
Glad it was helpful!
Also, just to be clear, I was only talking about sway bars (which should be called anti-sway bars!). The thread started talking about the Strut tower bar across the front struts. That is a case of just adding metal to stiffen up a structure we don't want to change shape. But I think the overall discussion of the various components was useful.
Also, just to be clear, I was only talking about sway bars (which should be called anti-sway bars!). The thread started talking about the Strut tower bar across the front struts. That is a case of just adding metal to stiffen up a structure we don't want to change shape. But I think the overall discussion of the various components was useful.
Strut bracing up front and lower chassis stiffening have been used on convertibles of various makes for years to compensate for the twisting that is inevitable when there's no metal top structure to provide torsional rigidity for the body. You should see the way the bonnet on my 1989 Jag XJS V12 convertible shakes, even with underhood bracing. In later years, the XJ converts added cross bracing under the tranny, not dissimilar to the idea behind the Big Pair for MINIs. The lower bracing eliminated some of the shimmy and shake, but also stiffened the grand touring ride, to the displeasure of some who claimed the "improvement" took some of the original character out of the car. Can't please everyone, ever.
In the past few years several car makers have extolled how much additional torsional rigidity has been added due to the use of new age adhesives, robotic welding, high strength steel and aluminum, and all the rest. Much of these "advancements" are costly to get right as fit tolerances get tighter and tighter.
Now that manufacturers can integrate all of these cool advances into cars, some of the give and flex of days gone by is necessarily lost. The challenge for MINI world is how to keep the characteristics for which MINIs are known while providing a level of comfort and refinement for a new demographic that values touring dynamics over keeping the car planted regardless of the ride firmness required to do this. That's the beauty of aftermarket performance products. You want anit-sway in the rear and/or more rigidity across the front shock towers? Easily added at reasonable cost.
And for those of us whose old bones need a bit more forgiveness, adaptive suspensions, longer wheelbases, and a little bit of body flex are good things... Something for everybody, though there will always be those who lament the evolution of the brand away from that which they knew and associated with original Mini-ness.
Now that manufacturers can integrate all of these cool advances into cars, some of the give and flex of days gone by is necessarily lost. The challenge for MINI world is how to keep the characteristics for which MINIs are known while providing a level of comfort and refinement for a new demographic that values touring dynamics over keeping the car planted regardless of the ride firmness required to do this.
This reminds me… see, I'm also a motorcyclist. During the 90s and into the 2000's, every time a manufacturer released a new version of a sportbike (with lifecycles far shorter/faster than those of cars), they would brag about the increased frame rigidity. And it really was a big deal; you can feel a classic 90's Kawasaki EX500 frame flex so much under cornering that racers called it "the flexi flyer".
Every year, it was 10% more stiffness, 12% stiffer, 8% more rigid … year after year.
Then sometime around a decade ago, it stopped. And then manufacturers started talking about "fine tuning chassis flex". The frames actually had gotten too stiff! At least for racers, for whom that chassis flex had provided subconscious feedback about the bike's behavior. Most non-racers would be hard-pressed to notice it, I think, but in the sportbike world (outside of MotoGP) production bikes still are the basis for race models, so that was a big deal. Gotta keep the racers happy if you want to "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday".
Will we see the same thing happen with sport-oriented cars? I wonder.
This reminds me… see, I'm also a motorcyclist. During the 90s and into the 2000's, every time a manufacturer released a new version of a sportbike (with lifecycles far shorter/faster than those of cars), they would brag about the increased frame rigidity. And it really was a big deal; you can feel a classic 90's Kawasaki EX500 frame flex so much under cornering that racers called it "the flexi flyer".
Every year, it was 10% more stiffness, 12% stiffer, 8% more rigid … year after year.
Then sometime around a decade ago, it stopped. And then manufacturers started talking about "fine tuning chassis flex". The frames actually had gotten too stiff! At least for racers, for whom that chassis flex had provided subconscious feedback about the bike's behavior. Most non-racers would be hard-pressed to notice it, I think, but in the sportbike world (outside of MotoGP) production bikes still are the basis for race models, so that was a big deal. Gotta keep the racers happy if you want to "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday".
Will we see the same thing happen with sport-oriented cars? I wonder.
12-04-2016, 10:33 AM
