I did the "Cheap Handling Fix"!

[tommy_salmon]

I recently did the "Cheap Handling Fix" on my 2013 Winnebago Vista 35F. I am impressed and much happier with the handling so far! Now to get the rig weighed and tire pressure adjusted accordingly! Thanks to all who post here, I am learning a lot!

[DryCreek]

I did the CHF too. I posted my results in another thread on Body Roll:

Our recently acquired 2006 Winnebago Sightseer (29R) was a "whale" to handle on the ride home. We had a constant 25 mph cross wind, with gusts up to 35 mph. Crossing the Brazos river was a white knuckle affair as the wind was channeled down the river and blasted you as you entered the bridge from a wooded stretch which sheltered me from the wind (westbound on US 67). When we got home I took the wife and dog on a trip. My wife almost got seasick from the rolling motion.

A more detailed inspection revealed that the rear sway bushings were gone. Not cracked, not chalking - simply gone. A new set of polyurethane bushings, a new set of Monroe Gas Magnums, and the CHF has made a world of difference.

I used the Hellwig 7692 adjustable sway bar links on the front. When I moved the stock links to the inner hole I had less than one inch clearance before it contacted the springs (with weight on the axle). I guess that some chassis are built a little different depending on weight ratings. Our chassis/coach is 18K GVWR on a Ford F-53. I set the adjustable end links to match the original geometry, and then used the front links for the rear CHF.

Twas a magnificent improvement! Next up are the SumoSprings - but, when I try to narrow down the choices, the sellers always try to steer me to the Maxim package. I don't need the extra weight carrying. I just want to slow spring rate to give just a bit more stiffness in the curves and cure the understeer. I am looking at the SSR-186-54 for the rear, and the SSF-186-40 for the front. If I can't get a fitment for those from the manufacturer, I will just go to Timbrens. We have used them on our HD diesel pickups with good results. The only issue we have with them is the ride stiffens over time as the original springs settle with use.

As a note, our coach has almost 75K miles. I don't know if the Bilsteins I took off were OE, but they still had a bit of life left in them. Since I bought the unit from PPL, and not directly from the seller, I have little history on the coach

[Dutch_12078]

I suppose the shocks could be the difference. I don't know if mine were fully extended or not. With the normal weight on the axle, I wouldn't expect any problems though, and as said, none have been reported as far as we know.

[jyrostng]

2" too short when the front axle isn't off the ground,(springs still loaded ), go figure. axle, spring pressure down, both tires and wheels if the struts were connected limiting it, 2000 f53, my first, Maybe my Bilsteins are longer, nothing to compare it to. the rear made a big difference, I left it, I'm ordering the adjustable struts so the loop on the rear doesn't hit the housing under the pinion. made a big difference in handling.

[Dutch_12078]

Under what conditions would "the entire weight of the front end or the rearend" be "hanging off 2-3/8 strut rods"? Not in any normal usage I can envision. Even when the wheels are fully off the ground, the springs are still supporting some of the weight even if the strut rods limit the travel somewhat. When I did the CHF on my coach, I had the front wheels completely off the ground for clearance and had no trouble moving the struts to the second hole. The rear was actually a bit more work because the wheels were not sitting on level enough ground to let the holes align without a little assistance.

[jyrostng]

I'm not a purist, I just don't believe the entire weight of the front end or the rearend hanging off 2- 3/8 strut rods is a good thing. A sway bar should never be a travel limiter. front or back. I think 2 pair of Hellwig 7960 strut rods will fix front and rear correctly.

[timmac]

jyrostng wrote:
I used the hyd lift to raise the front to clear it, to my surprise the link was too short to fit the second hole in the sway bar, if it was in the second hole, it would be limiting the travel of the front end, not good..

On my 08 Bounder I got the front to go into the 2nd hole on sway bar, as to limited travel that is what is needed for the sway bar to stiffen up the front to slow/stop the sway.

Been 2 years since I did the CHF and no issues yet, best upgrade that cost nothing.

[Dutch_12078]

jyrostng wrote:
I tried this today on my 2000 f53 Southwind, the rear seemed fine. On the front, one of the bolt heads lined up with the leaf spring. I used the hyd lift to raise the front to clear it, to my surprise the link was too short to fit the second hole in the sway bar, if it was in the second hole, it would be limiting the travel of the front end, not good. I had a friend that broke a sway bar in a turn in a 3/4 ton truck, he rolled it because the sway bar broke.

Yet we have not seen a single report of a broken sway bar after doing the CHF...

[jyrostng]

I tried this today on my 2000 f53 Southwind, the rear seemed fine. On the front, one of the bolt heads lined up with the leaf spring. I used the hyd lift to raise the front to clear it, to my surprise the link was too short to fit the second hole in the sway bar, if it was in the second hole, it would be limiting the travel of the front end, not good. I had a friend that broke a sway bar in a turn in a 3/4 ton truck, he rolled it because the sway bar broke. The rear requires extended links also. when the suspension is raised on the jacks, the bar center loop bottoms out on the nose of the 3rd member.

[Effy]

I did the fix a year ago and could not be happier with results. I don't notice any shortening of the suspension travel, binding, bending or anything else. What I do notice is a more controlled ride with less roll, wander and wind push. I know some on here claim it's not technically designed to work that way. I don't know, I am no engineer nor do I work for Ford. But I can tell you this, I have never heard of any issues from anyone who has done this. Quite the contrary. I also find it no matter of coincidence that despite not changing the rods they line up perfectly to either set of holes. To each his own, but worked for me with 100% positive results, 0% negative. And in the for what it's worth category, I had it aligned at a commercial truck center, and they said it's perfectly fine to adjust it to the other setting.

[liborko]

I think ClassAgeek is correct. The purpose of the sway bar is to pull left side of the coach down by same amount if right side is being pulled down by sway. If you move second hole even closser to the axle, or all the way to axle, you will have zero suspension travel because there will be solid connection between the axle and the frame rail. So using inner hole in fact just reduces suspension travel and increases stress on sway bar bushings.

[zman-az]

ClassAGeek wrote:
Nice analogy except it is backwards.

I don't think so, However we are both saying the same thing, just from a different point of view. Imagine the right tire on the RV move up 1". Regardless of what hole it is in the sway bar will move 1" at that hole location (assuming the sway bar links are of proper lenghth and geometry). 1" of movement at the inner hole will cause the sway bar to twist more than the outer hole. You need to account for the full range of flex of the suspention. With the suspention fully flexed there will be more preasure put on the swaybar with the inner hole. Now I say 1" flex in my example, however the suspention will flex less with the inner hole vs the outer hole with the same amount of force.

Now with the new location of the inner hole and the old length links the geometry is all messed up. The more flex in the front the less effective the swaybar is. Here is another thing I noticed on my RV. Lift your front tires completely off the ground. Is there still a angle between the swaybar and the links or do they appear to be straight. Mine are almost straight. It could be that the sway bar is now limiting the amount of flex of the front suspention (however I would hate to see that much flex while driving). With the links as straight as they are there is a possability of the swaybar reversing itself. Again, highly unlikely but possible.

I also examined my rear links, they are the same length as the front (darn as I was hoping to swap them with front). To get back close to stock setup geometry I would need to use short links for the rear and longer for the front. I looked at making my own but cost is around $50 for a pair, may as well buy them for $100.

Again, I am not saying this mod does not work nor am I telling anyone not to do it. I do believe if you are going to do the mod to consider getting different size links. I will be purchasing some here soon before I go on my big summer 3,800 mile trip.

[ClassAGeek]

zman-az wrote:

ClassAGeek wrote:
Moving the links to the inner holes probably puts less load on the bar. The range of movement appears to be reduced as the tie rods move from perpendicular to a more obtuse angle.

Ever have a nut you can't get loose with a socket wrench so you put a big bar on it to get more leverage. Sway bar works the same way. It takes alot more torque with a smaller handled wrench than a longer one. That is why the relocation to the inner hole on the sway bar works. The range of movement is the same between the axel and the frame and that is the two points the sway bar is connected to.

Nice analogy except it is backwards.

First: recognize that the force applied by the motorhome is constant regardless of which hole you choose to use. The MH still weighs the same. It will continue to 'sway' with the same amount of force pushing down. Only the twisting force changes because the different length of the sway bar end.

The long part of the bar exerts more twisting force on the torsion bar. Move to the shorter hole (which we have all done), apply the same amount of force from the motorhome (which is constant) and you will twist the torsion bar less. Less twist means less stress on the sway bar.

The only problem is the range of movement with the shorter hole. The connecting links are no longer perpendicular to the torsion bar arm. There is less movement before the torsion bar falls in-line with the connecting rod, meaning no more twisting movement. Get this far and something will either bend laterally or break.

So far no one has had this happen - but it is a possibly. The fix for this problem is simple: Buy the longer adjustable connecting rods mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Mine are on their way via Amazon.

Simply lengthen the rods until the torsion arm is perpendicular at rest and you will have restored the original range of motion. With the longer tie rods, you will also get a marginally stiffer performance compared to the shorter tie rod.

[brandonrv]

I did the fix and it made a big improvement for me. My MH would rock around real bad. Not necessarily swaying at the base, but rocking around that sometimes it was hard to tell if i was actually swaying or whatever.

Hard to explain.

Supposedly they have it at this setting for smoothness of ride. As in you hit a bump and it doesn't jostle you so bad. After the CHF it's definitely stiffer feeling, but not in a bad way.

When the wind blows you aside it's much more manageable because you are not having to decide if you are just rocking or actually moving on the tires.

It doesn't fix everything, but in my opinion it is a much more pleasant driving experience.

[RV-1_2n-FUN]

OldF**t wrote:

whem2fish wrote:
IRV2.com under ford

I posted the link halfway down on page 3.

Click on the link, scroll down and look at the photo to see the repositioned link.

http://forums.trailerlife.com/Index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/26872024/srt/pa/pging/1/page/1.cfm