Jeep Wrangler Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,013 Posts
I went with the second hole as well, just to help with body roll a touch.
 

·
Knows a couple things...
Joined
·
48,840 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
Knows a couple things...
Joined
·
48,840 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
From the most current instruction sheet for the Currie P/N CE-9900 Antirock Swaybar Kit for TJ's:

. . . 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. . . .
. . . 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. . . .
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: tworley

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
From the most current instruction sheet for the Currie P/N CE-9900 Antirock Swaybar Kit for TJ's:

. . . 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. . . .
. . . 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. . . .
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top