Sway bar designs that you can adjust while driving?

[Scott_F]

I am trying to come up with some ideas for a sway bar that can be connected and disconnected while driving. I saw this idea on the PCI TT, but I don't remember exactly how they do it. I think they had some type of sliding sleeve in the middle. There must be other TTs and Class 1's that have such a sway bar. Does anyone have any clever ideas on how to do this?

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

I won't go into any details but I think something could be done hydraulically with the end links.

[jeff]

Heck, the new Dodge Ram Powerwagon has this option from the factory. Head on down to your nearest Dodge dealership and see how they did it. With some creativity you could build a variable rate sway bar. Hydro and/or pneumatic

http://www.rockcrawler.com/reviews/dodge/2005_powerwagon/index.asp

Aloha

[DUMP!]

It's actually pretty simple but not easy to explain in words. The swaybar is made up of two short bars placed end to end in the truck. One bar has a flang on the inside end with one or maybe two holes in it. The other bar has a sleave that fits over the flang of the first bar. The sleave is capped, on the inside of the sleave there are two pins welded into the cap that index into the flang of the first bar when the rotation of the bars is timed right. The sleave is spring loaded so that it is always engaged. There is a cable activator that disables the bar when pulled and locked. This is a very simplified explaination but you should be able to get the idea. The thought behind this was to activate the bar on smooth fast sections and disable it in the rough to free up the suspension. I hope this helps.

Dump

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

Jeff that is a pretty kewl system.

I was thinking of a variable sway bar.

I should have read scott f's post better

[jeff]

I think a variable rate sway bar would be more desirable than one that is just on or off.

It'll be interesting to see what the "in the works" AP A2 will use.

Aloha

[grantdcol]

I think the easiest way to do it would be with two flanges that rotate on each other (attached to either half of the sway bar). One has a hole drilled in it, and the other has an electric solenoid that can be be energized so that when the bar rotates to the neutral position, the solenoid shaft extends into the hole.

But I want to check out the power wagon system too.

-Colin

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Two hydraulic swaybar links in a closed loop with a proportioning valve in the middle.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Anybody miss Bob?

http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1857&highlight=magnetic

[ntsqd]

Yes, I do.

The axle disconnects used in most late model live axle 4x4's can be co-opted to work for a simple on-off system. From what I've seen of the Power Wagon sway-bar disconnect it is the same part in a different application. These are splined, which is what I recall the PCI truck as employing when I looked at that system at the last Off Road Expo.
Could replicate it using the splined center piece sold for the rear of t-bar buggies and some buggy t-bars. Would likely need a little massaging to get the anchor-cum coupler piece to slide freely on the splines, but it's doable. Put some sort of pin btwn the two t-bars to keep them in axial alignment.

If you try to do a coupler using a sleave with two pins I suspect that the shear loads will go thru the roof unless the assembly is ungainly large.

I've mentioned this system b4, for a variable sway-bar look at what 80's-90's Indy cars used. They may still use this basic design, but I've no knowledge of them. Picture a simple t-bar with two lever arms attached. One is fixed.
The other is a bit complicated. This arm can rotate about an axis down it's length (roughly 90* to the t-bar's length). So the end at the t-bar is round. The main body of the arm is flat, sort of like a leaf from a leaf spring pack. The push-pull rod end of the arm has an SRE attached to it with the hole in the ball inline with the axis of the arm's rotation. At the end of the arm where it is round there is a short lever attached to the round part.
A Morse type cable moves that lever, which in turn rotates the t-bar arm, which changes the orientation of the flat relative to the ground.
When the flat is verticle to the ground, the arm and hence the t-bar is full stiff.
When the flat is parallel to the ground, the arm and hence the t-bar is full soft.

The key to this working well is that the SRE end of the arm must be controlled so that it can not deflect to the side. The way the Indy cars I've looked at do this is a guide with a pair of vertical rails. Next to the SRE is a sealed cartridge bearing that bears against those rails when the arm attempts to laterally deflect. The guide will only need to be a little longer than the travel at the point of the driving link's attatchment point to the axle.

[GOAT1]

You could make a variation of this. http://www.offroadonly.com/products/suspension/swayloc/

It is a dual rate swaybar, there is an inner and outer bar that disconnect from one another on one arm.

[JESSE_at_TLT]

Two hydraulic swaybar links in a closed loop with a proportioning valve in the middle.

Yup. That's what I've always wanted to play around with.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Yup. That's what I've always wanted to play around with.
It is simple.

[ntsqd]

The typical brake type p-valve won't do what you want though. You would need two of them acting in opposite directions if you are looking for a purely hydraulic swaybar.

If you are looking for damping....er, Damperening of the sway then I think a needle valve would be sufficient. A ball valve would be all you'd need if you are looking to use hyd cyls. to act as the links pushing on the swaybar levers. Closing the valve would give you a swaybar, opening it would allow the cyls to extend and compress. Perhaps both in such a system would be ideal, you could turn the bar on and off, and then be able to dial in some damperening effect with the bar 'off'. Could also use a 12 VDC solenoid valve instead of a ball valve.

Some of the IFS yota crawlers were playing with using air shocks for forced front articulation. Perhaps a variation on this idea?

[ntsqd]

Found a pic of what I mentioned in an earlier posting. Figures, you can buy a kit from: http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_prod_id=217,212,363_1432&action=product

Not cheep, but with the pics and some thot most fab shops could replicate it.

[FABRICATOR]

A picture of the PCI sway bar was posted a while ago.http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1857&page=2&pp=10&highlight=sway+bar+pci
http://www.race-dezert.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=251

[ntsqd]

Hum, that's not the bar coupler I'm rembering. Might have been RG's Red Bull truck. have to think on that.

[JESSE_at_TLT]

I've always thought that it would be pretty easy to replace the end-links of a swaybar with two hydraulic rams and plumb those lines to a custom-made selector valve (controlling the fluid flow to/from each ram). I'd like to build something that would be selectable between on/off, and also allow forced articulation. The forced articulation probably wouldn't be very useful to many people on this forum, but it's something that I'm really interested in. We're building an IFS 4WD Tacoma (http://www.trailslesstraveled.com/vehicle.php?id=2) and I'm planning on taking it everywhere from desert races to rock crawling competitions. I'd really like to enter a few CA rally races too. Obviously, we're not expecting to be too competitive in any of these areas, but it should be a lot of fun to try and do it all with one vehicle.

A completely mechanical/hydraulic system would be the most practical system to start developing, right? So we've got a standard swaybar, two simple hydraulic rams and some type of an accumulator to hold the fluid that's displaced when the swaybar is 'off'. Let's talk about the selector valve. How should something like that be constructed? It could be almost infinitely adjustable if we design-in some type of simple valving and return-to-center characteristics (ntsqd already threw out some ideas related to damperening). Oh, and I'm only thinking about a two-wheel system.

How about it? A Race-DeZert forum project? With all of the resources that we have on this forum, we could design the system and publish a parts lists with blueprints or work with a company to have any custom parts made. Maybe kick back a percentage of parts sales to help support this website?

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

You don't need an accumulator. When "disconnected" fluid just needs to transfer from "link" to "link".

[ChuckH]

That would only work with through shaft hydraulic rams, fluid volume changes just like in a shock so like a shock you would need a reservoir, plumb it with a top and bottom line, valves in each, open valves and instant floating sway arms.

[ShaneR]

As far as on off valves you can use the same tractor style 12 volt valves that we used to use on mini trucks but that will only work for open close, I haven't seen any that are adjustable in between. Air is another possibility, check out all the stuff that is made for mini trucks with air that is cheap and easy to get and you don't have to build it yourself and can use a nitro bottle or air conditioning compressor to power instead of a heavy hydrolic pump.

[ntsqd]

That would only work with through shaft hydraulic rams, fluid volume changes just like in a shock so like a shock you would need a reservoir, plumb it with a top and bottom line, valves in each, open valves and instant floating sway arms.

I think that if they are both plumbed to the top side only (single acting rams?) that an accumulator won't be needed as the total system volume wouldn't change. Could be some lost motion while the valve is open due to flow restriction, but I doubt it would be significant in the big picture.

One thing that will happen when the valve is open is that the bar will wind up a bit during slow speed articulation, which will 'consume' some of the force from forced articulation. Only way to prevent that would be to lock out the movement possible at the ram end of the lever arms.

Don't really need a hyd pump, just a system of two rams with a connecting hose and a valve that has been bled of all air. In this application I don't think an air filled system will work as well due to air's significantly more compressible nature.

[FABRICATOR]

Some motor homes use a pair of hydraulic cylinders on each axle to control body roll. The double acting cylinders are mounted vertically between the axle and the chassis out near the shock absorbers. They are plumbed to each other in an “X” pattern across the axle. When the body tries to roll in a turn, it forces fluid out of the “outside” cylinder and into the opposite end of the "inside" cylinder. In operation, when one side of the body goes down, or up, the other side must also go down, or up. Straight up and down bumps are not affected. This system is not very forgiving or sophisticated, but is simple, reliable, and purely hydraulic.

[ShaneR]

I thought one of the posts wanted to make the system be able to force from the sway bar also is why I thought they would need a pump.
I didn't think about he heat and expansion that the air would get like the Nye Frank air shocks so I guess that would case more problems than solutions.
I had a lowered Nissan that I used 1 accumulator on to get a better ride in the rear and be fully adjustable with out coil springs. Problem I had was I was cheap and only used 1 accumulator at first, at first it seemed to work great for suspenion and was adjustable for stiffness by adding air to the accumulator, problem was when you went around a corner fast the truck would lean to one side and then stay leaning to that side with the one accumulator. After I played with it and stopped being so cheap I bought another accumulator and valve and seperated them and it worked great. I guess what I am trying to say is you might get a wierd unwanted leaning affect with an accumulator in the system?

[JESSE_at_TLT]

I pictured two double acting rams, plumbed in an X (like the motorhome example that FABRICATOR mentioned) with a selector valve in the middle. I don't see how the swaybar could be turned 'off' without using some type of an accumulator. Am I missing something?

As far as forced articulation, I should have explained that I was thinking about allowing fluid to transfer freely between the two rams with the accumulator blocked off so that when one ram compresses, the other would be forced to extend by the same amount. Forced articulation is probably the wrong way to describe the system, because I'm more interested in mimicking the articulation of a straight-axle.

[MH20]

I think most people here are picturing a sway bar on the rear of a 3/4-linked vehicle. The sway bar would be connected to the axle via one single acting ram per side. The two rams would then be plumbed together with an on/off valve in the line connecting the two rams. The two rams would be set up approximately at mid-travel and all the air would be bleed from the system.

With the valve in the closed position the two rams would for all purposes be solid, incompressible links (just like a normal sway bar setup).

But with the valve open fluid would be able to be transferred from one side to the other allowing the axle to articulate without twisting the sway bar.

One thing you would have to be careful with is making sure the truck is relatively level when going from the open to the closed position otherwise you will unequal length links in your system.

[JESSE_at_TLT]

Wouldn't you still want an accumulator somewhere in the system? If you only transfer the fluid from one side to the other, the anti-sway bar would be turned into a sway-inducing bar (what I was suggesting would be kind of cool for 4WD IFS trail vehicles).

[ntsqd]

No, not really. As MH20 described the system (What I've been thinking in terms of as well, though I hadn't confined it to any particular axle) an accumulator would introduce a delay in the sway bar's rxn and effectively reduce the sway bar's spring rate.

With the top (non-shaft side) of the cyl's plumbed together there is no change in system volume when the valve is open. When the valve is open what one cyl loses by being compressed the other is forced to gain. If you had an accumulator in the system then it may be easier to force fluid into the accumulator than to extend the other cylinder, which would reduce the forced articulation effect.

Only reason to use an accumulator in this application would be if you want/need some 'spring' in the open mode or are trying to make the swaybar's rate adjustable. I would shy away from making it adjustable in this manner though. What you would get from such a system would be little to no sway bar effect until the fluid pressure max'd out the accumulator, then you'd suddenly have a swaybar. It would be roughly the same as totally bottoming out a hydro bump.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Two hydraulic swaybar links in a closed loop with a proportioning valve in the middle.
You don't need an accumulator. When "disconnected" fluid just needs to transfer from "link" to "link".
I think most people here are picturing a sway bar on the rear of a 3/4-linked vehicle. The sway bar would be connected to the axle via one single acting ram per side. The two rams would then be plumbed together with an on/off valve in the line connecting the two rams. The two rams would be set up approximately at mid-travel and all the air would be bleed from the system.

With the valve in the closed position the two rams would for all purposes be solid, incompressible links (just like a normal sway bar setup).

But with the valve open fluid would be able to be transferred from one side to the other allowing the axle to articulate without twisting the sway bar.

One thing you would have to be careful with is making sure the truck is relatively level when going from the open to the closed position otherwise you will unequal length links in your system.That's the ticket!

[Scott_F]

Thanks for the great thread guys. Here is a link to a company with the X type double acting rams: http://www.kinetic.au.com/techno.html Check out their X system.

Let's keep the ideas coming. I think one of the critical design features is to have a way of automatically returning to the neutral position. If we come up with something real unique, I will make some SolidWorks models.

The whole idea behind a sway bar is reduce vehicle body roll while cornering. Trying to compress both sides with a sway bar is a crude method. IMO it would be better to momentarily increase the spring rate on the outside suspension during lateral accelerations. Any more thoughts?

[ChuckH]

an accumulator would introduce a delay in the sway bar's rxn and effectively reduce the sway bar's spring rate.

RXN !! ?? .... uh this is a english forum ;)

Plumb it so its shut off also, pure hydro-lock lock on both sides, one reason i said to use a top and bottom line is to have a high fluid flow when its open, even then if you pound a big bump on one side your going to want a nice fat pipe on both lines or its going to bring the sway bar into the mix.

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

Okay here is my take on a variable sway bar.

Don't mess with the link rods.

Expecting the fluid in some of your solutions to react fast creates tons of weight (due to the volume of fluid that must move over 6 feet back and forth. Also, heat is built up and you are moving that weight at the axle thus being completely unsprung pounds..


I can't resist it anymore.

What you do is change the length of the arms that the links attach to. What this does is keep the sway bar constantly attached and the bar maintains full rate and load. What this changes is the actual percentage of sway bar desired. The longer the arm the better it works in the rough. For this it also changes the moment when leverage is applied, allowing the link to “Collapse” as more travel is required (See side view).
The shorter the arm the stiffer it gets it for smooth high speed roads. Also with proper geometry and a variable ride height option (Robby’s new Dakar car) you can maximize sway bar for Maximum leverage “strait up” so to speak (See side view).

Looks good on paper.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Okay here is my take on a variable sway bar.



Don't mess with the link rods.



Expecting the fluid in some of your solutions to react fast creates tons of weight (due to the volume of fluid that must move over 6 feet back and forth. Also, heat is built up and you are moving that weight at the axle thus being completely unsprung pounds.The fluid being transferred would only be a few ounces, not tons, the volume being equal to the volume displaced by the shaft section that is forced in to the cylinder. The total fluid volume in the whole system could be less than 64 oz. There would also be very little heat created because there is essentially no dampening created by the fluid transfer; it would be a relatively free flowing system when open (disconnected links) with little or no resistance to the forces on the “Links” up or down. There would be no heat created when the system is closed (connected links) because there would be no fluid transfer at all.

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

The fluid being transferred would only be a few ounces, not tons, the volume being equal to the volume displaced by the shaft section that is forced in to the cylinder. The total fluid volume in the whole system could be less than 64 oz. There would also be very little heat created because there is essentially no dampening created by the fluid transfer; it would be a relatively free flowing system when open (disconnected links) with little or no resistance to the forces on the “Links” up or down. There would be no heat created when the system is closed (connected links) because there would be no fluid transfer at all.

Kewl, I guess I'm totally wrong. That's good to know.

[ntsqd]

Okay here is my take on a variable sway bar.

Don't mess with the link rods.

Expecting the fluid in some of your solutions to react fast creates tons of weight (due to the volume of fluid that must move over 6 feet back and forth. Also, heat is built up and you are moving that weight at the axle thus being completely unsprung pounds..


I can't resist it anymore.

What you do is change the length of the arms that the links attach to. What this does is keep the sway bar constantly attached and the bar maintains full rate and load. What this changes is the actual percentage of sway bar desired. The longer the arm the better it works in the rough. For this it also changes the moment when leverage is applied, allowing the link to “Collapse” as more travel is required (See side view).
The shorter the arm the stiffer it gets it for smooth high speed roads. Also with proper geometry and a variable ride height option (Robby’s new Dakar car) you can maximize sway bar for Maximum leverage “strait up” so to speak (See side view).

Looks good on paper.
Scott, Have you analyzed the bending loads in those rams? At first look I'd think they would be high enough to bind the shafts and by the time you got the "I" high enough the unsprung portion of the weight would be excessive compared to 'std' designs. I think the concept has merit, some refinement could make it the winner from a tunable standpoint. It does lack a forced articulation aspect, but that wasn't in the original scope of the question.

The "hyd rams as links" concept works for the forced articulation when "off", but also suffers from the easy possibility of excessive unsprung weight.

The 'Rotating Blade' design used in road racing meets the unsprung demand, but also lacks a forced articulation aspect and requires containment of the outer end of the adjusting lever for it to work as intended.

Let's see some other ideas, toss it out for discussion even if it's rough or you're not sure it will work.

[ShaneR]

What is the adjustable knob they have in Indy cars to adjust the ride? I have also heard it called a wieght jacker or something like that. Is it connected to the sway bar or does it move weight from one side of the car to the other?

[Scott_F]

Here is a dual rate sway bar that I found:

http://www.offroadonly.com/products/suspension/swayloc/

I like Scott's variable sway bar idea. Perhaps a different sliding mechanism would eliminate the side load issues of a ram.

[DPpatrol]

If you havent already, take a closer look at that kinetic system that ScottF posted recently and Bob Sheaves posted a while ago. I believe it acomplishes exactly what you are all looking for, roll resistance but at the same time no increased resistance to articulation and single wheel movement. I know it's not off-road by Western Austrailia's Formula SAE team implemented it on their newest car with great success. Rumor has it you could easily lift up any individual wheel while all other wheels stay on the ground, but push on the top of the roll bar and the car would not roll at all. Out on the track the car supposedly barely rolled rolled at all, but sucked up the bumps with ease. The best part is the entire set up is completely passive. Now all someone need to do is make a long travel version.

As far as weight jacking, it is used to have the inside wheels carrying more of the cars static weight so during a turn as weight is transfered to the outside wheels all the wheels are loaded evenly. Only works when you turn one direction though. Lotus accomplished the same thing with the Lotus 38 by having the entire chassis offset towards the inside.

http://www.atspeedimages.com/pebble2001/concours/1965_lotus_38_offset.jpg

jason

[Scott_F]

I am intrigued by the X design, with dual acting, through shaft, hydraulic cylinders, connected in the X pattern, with the top of one cylinder connected to the bottom of the other. With a through shaft cylinder, there is no change in volume, so no reservoir or accumulator is required. Each cylinder would also have a line connecting the top and bottom of the cylinder. This bypass circuit would be open when no sway bar effect is desired, and it would be closed when the X circuit is open. These four hydraulic lines could be controlled by solenoid valves for manual or automatic electric actuation, or a purely mechanical system could use ball valves with a cable or linkage to open one valve while closing the other.

The main problem with this on/off design, is when it is on, the the rear suspension acts as one shock, like on a quad. Perhaps the X design combined with a variable rate sway bar would be the best compromise.

Scott

[JESSE_at_TLT]

I think most people here are picturing a sway bar on the rear of a 3/4-linked vehicle. The sway bar would be connected to the axle via one single acting ram per side. The two rams would then be plumbed together with an on/off valve in the line connecting the two rams. The two rams would be set up approximately at mid-travel and all the air would be bleed from the system.
Why would it matter if this idea was being applied to an IFS or solid rear axle? I understand what you're saying about the single acting rams and how they could be plumbed, but I thought that using dual acting rams would eliminate (reduce) the possibility of the rams cavitating because the forces would be equalized. If that's not an issue, then single acting rams sound like a better solution.

I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall trying to understand this accumulator thing. Can someone please help me understand what I'm missing?

...an accumulator would introduce a delay in the sway bar's rxn and effectively reduce the sway bar's spring rate.
I don't know what an rxn is, but the accumulator shouldn't affect the swaybar's spring rate because it would be closed off from the system (just like the rams) when the swaybar is 'on'.

With the top (non-shaft side) of the cyl's plumbed together there is no change in system volume when the valve is open. When the valve is open what one cyl loses by being compressed the other is forced to gain. If you had an accumulator in the system then it may be easier to force fluid into the accumulator than to extend the other cylinder, which would reduce the forced articulation effect.
That's exactly what I'm concerned about. When the sawybar is 'on', no fluid is transfered and the rams act as solid links. But when the swaybar is 'off', wouldn't the suspension on one side still be affected by what the suspension on the other side is doing? I thought that an accumulator would need to be used in order to provide truly independent wheel travel.

Does the explanation have something to do with the fact that the swaybar is not actually suspending the vehicle? Is that why transferring fluid freely between the two rams wouldn't have any real affect on the suspension?

I've got another simple question related to swaybars. Why do so many of the top trucks only use them on the rear? Is it because they have so much rear wheel travel or because it would be difficult to package a swaybar up front in addition to everything else or...?

[JESSE_at_TLT]

I am intrigued by the X design, with dual acting, through shaft, hydraulic cylinders, connected in the X pattern, with the top of one cylinder connected to the bottom of the other...The main problem with this on/off design, is when it is on, the the rear suspension acts as one shock, like on a quad. Perhaps the X design combined with a variable rate sway bar would be the best compromise.
Selecting a swaybar would still be a matter of tuning to figure out how stiff you wanted it to be while it was 'on'.

[MH20]

I was confining it to a straight axle because there would be no forced articulation issue as a result of the hydraulics. One side goes up and the other side goes down - no matter what.

But on an independent suspension when one side goes up, the other doesnt have to go down - in this situation you might start winding up the sway bar a little. The anti-sway effect will still be less than a standard sway bar but you might start getting some anti-sway effect.

Or I could be completely wrong.

[ntsqd]

snippage.....
The main problem with this on/off design, is when it is on, the the rear suspension acts as one shock, like on a quad. Perhaps the X design combined with a variable rate sway bar would be the best compromise.

Scott

I'm not seeing a need for the cross plumbing. If the goal is to be able to turn the bar on and off at will, a pair of single acting cyls acting as the linkage to the swaybar lever arms should be sufficient. In 'Off' mode compression on one side will drive oil to the other side. If it is not extending at the same rate then the bar is still free to rotate (not twist), at least enough to make up the difference.
The leaf-lever design I posted way back offers a variable rate sway-bar.

snippage......
But on an independent suspension when one side goes up, the other doesnt have to go down - in this situation you might start winding up the sway bar a little. The anti-sway effect will still be less than a standard sway bar but you might start getting some anti-sway effect.

Or I could be completely wrong.
From above: "In 'Off' mode compression on one side will drive oil to the other side. If it is not extending at the same rate then the bar is still free to rotate (not twist), at least enough to make up the difference." The system doesn't care what kind of axle it is bolted to.

For forced articulation to occur the plumbing btwn the cyls would have to be open, and (something I just realized) the bar would need to be fixed so that it can not rotate. Otherwise "Off" is just that.

[ntsqd]

BTW, "rxn" stands for "reaction"

[MH20]

I'm not seeing a need for the cross plumbing. If the goal is to be able to turn the bar on and off at will, a pair of single acting cyls acting as the linkage to the swaybar lever arms should be sufficient. In 'Off' mode compression on one side will drive oil to the other side. If it is not extending at the same rate then the bar is still free to rotate (not twist), at least enough to make up the difference.
The leaf-lever design I posted way back offers a variable rate sway-bar.


From above: "In 'Off' mode compression on one side will drive oil to the other side. If it is not extending at the same rate then the bar is still free to rotate (not twist), at least enough to make up the difference." The system doesn't care what kind of axle it is bolted to.

For forced articulation to occur the plumbing btwn the cyls would have to be open, and (something I just realized) the bar would need to be fixed so that it can not rotate. Otherwise "Off" is just that.

Thanks, I completely forgot about the sway bar being able to "rotate" for a second and thats why I was limiting it to a straight axle.

[JESSE_at_TLT]

Does the explanation have something to do with the fact that the swaybar is not actually suspending the vehicle? Is that why transferring fluid freely between the two rams wouldn't have any real affect on the suspension?
For forced articulation to occur the plumbing btwn the cyls would have to be open, and (something I just realized) the bar would need to be fixed so that it can not rotate. Otherwise "Off" is just that.
Thanks. I feel like a knob for not seeing that sooner.

What about this?

Why do so many of the top trucks only use them on the rear? Is it because they have so much rear wheel travel or because it would be difficult to package a swaybar up front in addition to everything else or...?

[ntsqd]

Oversteer would be my guess.
More or less neutral truck when disconnected, rally car type driving when connected.

The 'axle' with the greatest roll stiffness will have the least lateral traction.