Anti Rock settings - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Tech Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Mr. Bills
  • 1 Post By jjvw
Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 08-21-2019, 01:44 PM
Thread Starter
  #1
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 133
Anti Rock settings

For those that run the Currie anti rock in the front, what setting do you use?

I just installed mine finally and haven't had a chance to test it at all. I used the recommended second hole from the end to start with. I'm curious what other do and why.

Thanks.

sh00ttok1ll is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 06:38 PM   #2
Jeeper
 
jeepers29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 5,910
I went with the second hole as well, just to help with body roll a touch.

__________________
98 TJ 4i in currie with Currie bars front and rear
2014 JKUR AMP"D,Ace slider,BFG AT/KO's 33's
Ace Tire carrier/ rear bumper,LOD Mid width front bumper

I love my country. That's why I despise the government.
jeepers29 is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 06:42 PM   #3
Newb
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
I have mine set to the loosest setting and haven't noticed any excessive body roll.
russinidaho is offline   Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-21-2019, 06:53 PM   #4
Knows a couple things...

WF Supporting Member
 
Jerry Bransford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Escondido, Calif.
Posts: 48,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by russinidaho View Post
I have mine set to the loosest setting and haven't noticed any excessive body roll.
Same here, mine has been set to its most flexible setting for 14-15 years. It was a daily driver for years with that setting, though it no longer is. The key to being able to run on the most flexible setting is just having good shocks that aren't too soft.
__________________
When you have a choice, buy American.
Jerry Bransford is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:03 PM   #5
Jeeper
 
Kota7x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 92677 & 92004
Posts: 2,801
Set mine when I got it to the middle. Didn’t take long to go to the loosest.
Kota7x is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:25 PM   #6
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Middle.

Since the AR is there to control movent, it makes makes sense to set it as stiff as possible without restricting the travel allowed by the shocks. My front shocks are just about 11" and the AR doesn't restrict them.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:55 PM   #7
Knows a couple things...

WF Supporting Member
 
Jerry Bransford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Escondido, Calif.
Posts: 48,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
Middle.

Since the AR is there to control movent, it makes makes sense to set it as stiff as possible without restricting the travel allowed by the shocks. My front shocks are just about 11" and the AR doesn't restrict them.
As I recall what John Currie (inventor of the Antirock) said during a short presentation he made, he said it was more about balancing the antiswaybar's torsion (stiffness) properties between the front & rear so they worked together instead of fighting each other. I'm pretty sure he never said anything about it restricting any travel.
__________________
When you have a choice, buy American.
Jerry Bransford is offline   Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:55 PM   #8
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Bransford View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
Middle.

Since the AR is there to control movent, it makes makes sense to set it as stiff as possible without restricting the travel allowed by the shocks. My front shocks are just about 11" and the AR doesn't restrict them.
As I recall what John Currie (inventor of the Antirock) said during a short presentation he made, he said it was more about balancing the antiswaybar's torsion (stiffness) properties between the front & rear so they worked together instead of fighting each other. I'm pretty sure he never said anything about it restricting any travel.
I haven't seen him discuss it beyond what is on YouTube. Last I checked, my front and rear opposite corners reach bump at about the same time. That is with the middle AR setting, the factory rear and 11"/12" shocks. One end is not overpowering the other. Two forklifts are the easiest safest way to see this. This may also one thing Metalcloak's trailer might be good for.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 12:11 AM   #9
Newb
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 3
I have mine set at the loosest setting. That's where I will keep it. I did notice the body roll at first, but now that I am used to it, i don't mind it at all.
byhumba is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 10:39 AM   #10
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by byhumba View Post
I have mine set at the loosest setting. That's where I will keep it. I did notice the body roll at first, but now that I am used to it, i don't mind it at all.
Are you at all curious about what those other settings are all about?
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 12:43 PM   #11
Jeeper
 
Mr. Bills's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Area Code 530
Posts: 772
From the most current instruction sheet for the Currie P/N CE-9900 Antirock Swaybar Kit for TJ's:

Quote:
. . . General Information: The Antirock off road sway bar kit is designed to directly replace the Jeep’s stock front sway bar and to be run in conjunction with the stock rear sway bar or the Currie Antirock rear sway bar. The object is to balance the front and rear suspension off road resulting in better, more consistant traction. This sway bar is designed to be connected on and off road. On the road, the Jeep will have more body roll than stock - heavier Jeeps may need to increase the effect of the sway bar by decreasing the leverage point - there are 5 adjustment point for changing the rate of the bar. . . .
Quote:
. . . The sway bar rate may be increased by moving the linkage forward
toward the bumper, thus shortening the arm, and vice-versa, the sway bar rate may be decreased by moving the linkage backward toward the rearend, then lengthening the arm. NOTE: Each hole forward that you move the linkage you will lose approximately 1/2” of articulation. . . .
Quote:
Caution Notes!!!
* Jeep will have more body roll than it did with the stock sway bar.
* The Antirock swaybar is designed to be used in conjunction with the stock rear sway bar.
* The front 2 settings on the black arms are for on-road use only.
Two takeaways:

The adjustment holes change the rate of the torsion bar - spring rate increases when the link rods are moved closer to the bar and decreases when the link rods are moved farther away.

Adjustments do restrict articulation - 1/2" for each position closer to the torsion bar.



I think @jjvw 's approach makes the most sense, specifically set it as stiff as possible without restricting the travel allowed by the shocks. There is nothing to be gained by setting to the "loosest" #5 position if the #3 or #4 positions still allow all the articulation permitted by the shocks. Currie's own instructions caution that positions 1 and 2 are for on-road situations, which by extension infers that positions 3-5 are to allow one to balance off road articulation with on-road body roll control.

My LJ equipped for week long offroad excursions is heavier than a TJ set up for day runs in the rocks. For me, the #3 position still allows all the shock travel available and is a better on-road setting for the weight of my rig.

I tried the #2 position but the additional stiffness wasn't enough to justify any potential loss in articulation. I also tried the #4 and #5 positions and found that since I already had all the articulation my shocks could provide at #3, there was no benefit to the looser positions. Frankly, I see no advantage in "getting used to" the body roll that results from a loosely set Antirock rather than properly adjusting the system to achieve a balance between articulation and body roll control.

The loosest settings are not for everyone, and won't provide any additional benefit if one still has full shock articulation with a tighter setting. Rather than a knee jerk response to always set at the loosest setting, one would be wise to take some measurements and make some observations in order to determine what is really happening when one changes from one setting to another.

YMMV
tworley likes this.
__________________
Mr. Bills
Area Code 530
KG6LMV

'06 Jeep "LJ" Rubicon, '46 Bantam T3-C trailer
Past Jeeps: '49 Willys Wagon, '54 CJ-3B, '65 CJ-5,
'83 CJ-7, '97 ZJ
Mr. Bills is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 08:36 PM
Thread Starter
  #12
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 133
This has been interesting. Thanks for all the replies. I'm going to leave it where it is unless I come across a situation that says otherwise.
sh00ttok1ll is offline   Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 11:23 PM   #13
Jeeper
 
meatsock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: magnolia mass
Posts: 33
2nd from the loosest, i find myself on the road more lately, but really theres not much difference.
meatsock is offline   Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 06:21 AM   #14
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Bills View Post
From the most current instruction sheet for the Currie P/N CE-9900 Antirock Swaybar Kit for TJ's:

Quote:
. . . General Information: The Antirock off road sway bar kit is designed to directly replace the Jeep’s stock front sway bar and to be run in conjunction with the stock rear sway bar or the Currie Antirock rear sway bar. The object is to balance the front and rear suspension off road resulting in better, more consistant traction. This sway bar is designed to be connected on and off road. On the road, the Jeep will have more body roll than stock - heavier Jeeps may need to increase the effect of the sway bar by decreasing the leverage point - there are 5 adjustment point for changing the rate of the bar. . . .
Quote:
. . . The sway bar rate may be increased by moving the linkage forward
toward the bumper, thus shortening the arm, and vice-versa, the sway bar rate may be decreased by moving the linkage backward toward the rearend, then lengthening the arm. NOTE: Each hole forward that you move the linkage you will lose approximately 1/2” of articulation. . . .
Quote:
Caution Notes!!!
* Jeep will have more body roll than it did with the stock sway bar.
* The Antirock swaybar is designed to be used in conjunction with the stock rear sway bar.
* The front 2 settings on the black arms are for on-road use only.
Two takeaways:

The adjustment holes change the rate of the torsion bar - spring rate increases when the link rods are moved closer to the bar and decreases when the link rods are moved farther away.

Adjustments do restrict articulation - 1/2" for each position closer to the torsion bar.



I think @jjvw 's approach makes the most sense, specifically set it as stiff as possible without restricting the travel allowed by the shocks. There is nothing to be gained by setting to the "loosest" #5 position if the #3 or #4 positions still allow all the articulation permitted by the shocks. Currie's own instructions caution that positions 1 and 2 are for on-road situations, which by extension infers that positions 3-5 are to allow one to balance off road articulation with on-road body roll control.

My LJ equipped for week long offroad excursions is heavier than a TJ set up for day runs in the rocks. For me, the #3 position still allows all the shock travel available and is a better on-road setting for the weight of my rig.

I tried the #2 position but the additional stiffness wasn't enough to justify any potential loss in articulation. I also tried the #4 and #5 positions and found that since I already had all the articulation my shocks could provide at #3, there was no benefit to the looser positions. Frankly, I see no advantage in "getting used to" the body roll that results from a loosely set Antirock rather than properly adjusting the system to achieve a balance between articulation and body roll control.

The loosest settings are not for everyone, and won't provide any additional benefit if one still has full shock articulation with a tighter setting. Rather than a knee jerk response to always set at the loosest setting, one would be wise to take some measurements and make some observations in order to determine what is really happening when one changes from one setting to another.

YMMV
That is my thinking. I'm not entirely sure who the first setting is intended for. And those who are leaving their AR's on the loosest setting are very likely leaving both off and on road performance on the table.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 08:44 AM   #15
Jeeper
 
Offroad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 516
All the conversation in this thread has been about which hole to set the Antirock at. However, that's only part of the equation. When doing my original install I used the supplied rods, screwing them all the way into the heim joints. I then ran the setup like that, on the second to last hole, for a couple trail rides. This was a big mistake on my part, because I ended up losing a considerable amount of usable flex.

After my initial experience, and doing more research, I measured the angle of the Antirock and discovered it was at almost 19°. I then cut about 1.5" out of the supplied rods (taking 3/4" from both ends) and was able to reduce the angle to 12° on the next to the last hole. I cycled the suspension and gained back more travel.

For my current lift and suspension I could probably reduce the angle a little more to optimize the up and down travel, but I'm close enough now to try it out on the trail. That said, don't just look at your setup from a single dimension, i.e. which hole to set it on.
__________________
My '04 LJ Build

Owning a Jeep is a sickness, but one I'll gladly endure!
Offroad1 is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 08:50 AM   #16
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Currie states that the arms should be parallel to the frame at the mid point of the suspension travel. The angle at ride height is largely incidental.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 09:43 AM   #17
Jeeper
 
Offroad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
Currie states that the arms should be parallel to the frame at the mid point of the suspension travel. The angle at ride height is largely incidental.

Your point about mid point is an important one I left out. The angle at ride height isn't incidental however. It's more of a consequence, i.e. a direct result of the Jeep's setup. You can verify the arms are parallel with the frame at the mid point of suspension travel, then measure the angle of the arms at ride height. The later gives you an additional general reference point, which is easier to use/measure. Both points are useful, with, as you've said, the mid point being the most important.
__________________
My '04 LJ Build

Owning a Jeep is a sickness, but one I'll gladly endure!
Offroad1 is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 09:48 AM   #18
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
The point is that there is no reason to put an angle finder on the sway bar arms. The specific angle does not matter.

If the shock travels are roughly split in half like they ought to be, the arms will be roughly parallel to the frame.
Jerry Bransford likes this.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 09:57 AM   #19
Jeeper
 
Offroad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
The point is that there is no reason to put an angle finder on the sway bar arms. The specific angle does not matter.

If the shock travels are roughly split in half like they ought to be, the arms will be roughly parallel to the frame.

Clearly we're not going to agree on both points. The angle at rest may not be useful to you, but is to me. If I pull my suspension apart, which I've done multiple times to inspect and work on, the "at rest" measurement allows me to easily set the antirock back to a reference point without having to cycle the suspension.
__________________
My '04 LJ Build

Owning a Jeep is a sickness, but one I'll gladly endure!
Offroad1 is offline   Quote
Old 08-28-2019, 10:27 AM   #20
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offroad1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
The point is that there is no reason to put an angle finder on the sway bar arms. The specific angle does not matter.

If the shock travels are roughly split in half like they ought to be, the arms will be roughly parallel to the frame.

Clearly we're not going to agree on both points. The angle at rest may not be useful to you, but is to me. If I pull my suspension apart, which I've done multiple times to inspect and work on, the "at rest" measurement allows me to easily set the antirock back to a reference point without having to cycle the suspension.
Having cut out and rebuilt nearly all of the stock suspension on mine, the angle of the AR is relatively low on the list of critical details as long as it is in phase with the shock travel and as long as the droop can't pull the arms and links tight.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 08-30-2019, 09:06 PM   #21
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: San Ramon
Posts: 194
Second from the end also
Plumber1a is offline   Quote
Old 08-31-2019, 01:54 PM
Thread Starter
  #22
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 133
I finally got out for a shake down run. All I can say is wow. You guys weren't kidding about the difference. I was amazed at how much more stable it felt. I'm sure it gave up some articulation but that was made up by the rest of the suspension working together.

Overall couldn't be happier. I may play around with the looser setting at some point but don't really see any need to. Thanks for all the info in this thread.
sh00ttok1ll is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 03:27 PM   #23
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh00ttok1ll View Post
... I'm sure it gave up some articulation but that was made up by the rest of the suspension working together.

...
How long are the shock travels? What AR setting?
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 03:39 PM   #24
Knows a couple things...

WF Supporting Member
 
Jerry Bransford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Escondido, Calif.
Posts: 48,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh00ttok1ll View Post
I'm sure it gave up some articulation
An Antirock gives up zero usable articulation.
__________________
When you have a choice, buy American.
Jerry Bransford is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 05:15 PM
Thread Starter
  #25
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 133
That was the point I was getting at. By its design, it has to give up some articulation but the fact that it performed better shows that it wasn't useful articulation.

Someone in this thread said it was right behind lockers as best thing they did and I thought it was hyperbole. I don't now. Its seriously some voodoo magic stuff going on.
sh00ttok1ll is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 05:22 PM   #26
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh00ttok1ll View Post
That was the point I was getting at. By its design, it has to give up some articulation but the fact that it performed better shows that it wasn't useful articulation.

...
Useful (useable) articulation is defined by the shock's travel length. It is highly unlikely that the AR reduced that articulation travel.

The entire point of what I argue for earlier in this thread is that most people are keeping their AR's too loose to begin with. Tighten it up, increase the stability offered by having a tunable sway bar and you still are getting all of the travel allowed by the shocks.
__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 08:14 PM
Thread Starter
  #27
Jeeper
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjvw View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh00ttok1ll View Post
That was the point I was getting at. By its design, it has to give up some articulation but the fact that it performed better shows that it wasn't useful articulation.

...
Useful (useable) articulation is defined by the shock's travel length. It is highly unlikely that the AR reduced that articulation travel.

The entire point of what I argue for earlier in this thread is that most people are keeping their AR's too loose to begin with. Tighten it up, increase the stability offered by having a tunable sway bar and you still are getting all of the travel allowed by the shocks.
I finally get what you're saying here. To maximize performance, you would need to pull your springs and do a bump stop check with the anti rock connected. If, for example, you put it in the middle hole and still bottom out on your bumpstops then you aren't giving up any articulation. Moving to the looser setting would just be giving up some of performance of the anti rock.

Maximum effect of the anti rock comes at the tightest setting that still allows you to get to full bump. For me, and I think most people, it seems like the anti rock would restrict articulation no matter what. In reality, you don't want it to be the limiting factor because it really isn't designed to do that.
sh00ttok1ll is offline   Quote
Old 09-01-2019, 09:23 PM   #28
Jeeper
 
jjvw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by sh00ttok1ll View Post
...

Maximum effect of the anti rock comes at the tightest setting that still allows you to get to full bump. For me, and I think most people, it seems like the anti rock would restrict articulation no matter what. In reality, you don't want it to be the limiting factor because it really isn't designed to do that.
That is the idea. 🙂

My front shocks are about 11" travel, which is near the practical limit of the stock front axle with 35s and a lot of work. The middle AR setting isn't restricting that travel.

__________________
2003 Rubicon
jjvw is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC