Sway Bars

[ThePhantum]

This was already discussed in a previous thread...http://www.naxja.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12328...but I'm gonna throw my .02 in here as well.

On a lifted vehicle it is even more important to have the front anti-sway bar in place.

As a vehicle corners, the body rolls (and the center of gravity changes) towards the direction of travel. Given sufficeint speed (highway speeds), too much roll, too quickly will cause the vehicle to flip....that is just physics at it's most basic. The sway bar limits/prevents excessive (note that I did not say "eliminates") body roll reducing the amount of delta V in the center of gravity.

The higher the vehicle, the higher the center of gravity and thus the more prone to rolling over that vehicle is at reduced speeds. Granted, the sway bar might not stop a vehicle from rolling over in all emergency situations/manuvers, but it can delay it for enough time to get the vehicle back under control. That could be the difference between life and death...and if it's someone else's life that gets taken, you've got to live with that.

In most states you would be liable for negligence. No bones about it. Once the accident investigators determined that the front sway bar (a saftey device mandated by the Federal government...that's why it is there) had been removed, you are at fault...and are asking for a lawsuit.

Lose the rear bar and get disco's and poly for the front.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

In most states you would be liable for negligence. No bones about it. Once the accident investigators determined that the front sway bar (a saftey device mandated by the Federal government...that's why it is there) had been removed, you are at fault...and are asking for a lawsuit.

Please provide the confirming regulation that an Act of Congress or the NHTSA has determined "the front sway bar (a saftey device mandated by the Federal government?"

 

[DARKFLY]

ok first sway bars are a must you dont run them your a idiot and shoud not be on the road to begin with(my .02 cents). and i dont think a 3" lift is that unsafe but lets talk about all these fords and dodges that run 12"+ and 44's they even scare me . how can any one drive some thing so big that they could kill some one just trying to stop there truck(car fits under truck).

 

[BLUTO]

Please provide the confirming regulation that an Act of Congress or the NHTSA has determined "the front sway bar (a saftey device mandated by the Federal government?"

History proves that you don't need an Act of Congress, ask any Trial Lawyer iratefla . When somebodys gets hurt and feels "wronged" while driving one of our vehicles, they line-up all "the usual suspects"....the Manufacturer, the Driver, the last mechanic who worked on said vehicle. They see the swaybar missing and all the fingers point to the Driver ! The Manufacturer swears that it is a Safety Device and sets-up re-enactments to prove it in court. There is small print to cover DC's ASS about the removal of a Safety Device aperwork
DC had to install that anti-swaybar to meet NHTSA's "guidelines" for rollover resistance (meaning: turning a corner in a 25mph zone shouldn't tip the rig!)
Go ahead and practice your Constitutionally protected right to take chances and beat the Odds! If the Odds beat you, don't come looking for the taxpayers and insurers to change your diaper and feed you. YOU put all your chips on Black and it came up RED! .....Hopefully those of you contemplating taking the anti-swaybar off your DD rig won't drag anybody else down with you if you roll!

BLUTO

 

[Urban Redneck]

If you want to run without a front, fine by me, just don't be anywhere around me. :nono: Second, how did we get on the box about rippin' Dodge and Ford? Isn't it up to them how they want to lift their rigs? I'm sure a lot of people here would sh*t a house if someone who drove a Honda Civic told them not to lift their XJ so high. And I'm sure they would use the can't stop..., too high..., a small child can walk under it... arguments. Now I feel like Rodney King..."Can't we all just get along..."

:twak: :roflmao:

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

History proves that you don't need an Act of Congress, ask any Trial Lawyer. When somebodys gets hurt and feels "wronged" while driving one of our vehicles, they line-up all "the usual suspects"....the Manufacturer, the Driver, the last mechanic who worked on said vehicle. They see the swaybar missing and all the fingers point to the Driver ! The Manufacturer swears that it is a Safety Device and sets-up re-enactments to prove it in court. There is small print to cover DC's ASS about the removal of a Safety Device aperwork
DC had to install that anti-swaybar to meet NHTSA's "guidelines" for rollover resistance (meaning: turning a corner in a 25mph zone shouldn't tip the rig!)
Go ahead and practice your Constitutionally protected right to take chances and beat the Odds! If the Odds beat you, don't come looking ...

BLUTO

You offer some good questions to research, to determine if there is any true legal need for an anti-sway bar. I assume you can remain focused on the topic in question (without distraction), as you raise some insightful points to consider? I understand your ethical issue, regarding an opinion on the need for an anti-sway bar, and offer no obstruction to anyone's opinion, or ethics; I just want to review the legal aspects of this issue.

My goal is to separate fact from opinion. I offered no opinion on tossing the bar, nor any opinion debating its removal, or opinion on the impact of removal on safety. I desire to separate fact on the legal aspect, from speculation regarding any federal requirement, for the use or removal of an anti-sway bar. I simply requested help in this effort. If there is regulation (federal or state) mandating the use of an anti-sway bar I am interested in reviewing the legislation or code section.

I read that "DC had to install that anti-swaybar to meet NHTSA's "guidelines" for rollover resistance."

Please provide a copy of "NHTSA's "guidelines" for rollover resistance" indicating a requirement for an anti-sway bar? I would like to read the test procedure, and the Engineers technical paper on the requirement for the anti-sway bar (anyone, ... an SAE Technical Paper number will do).

I fully understand the potential for a legal challenge "When somebodys gets hurt and feels "wronged" while driving one of our vehicles." This same exposure for litigation occurs anytime a modification is implemented on a vehicle, even when modifying something as simple as changing wheel rims (the cornerstone of modern Tort Law was a lawsuit regarding Studebaker wheel rims).

Removing a regulated item like seat belt restraints and headrests significantly increase the potential for litigation, as they are mandated by regulation. Removal of the chrome badges have little or no impact on the litigation potential (although litigation potential is decided by the stubbornness of the complainant, and the depth of their litigation fund -- we can be assured it has been tested in court). Debating the potential for litigation regarding removal of the anti-sway bar is opinion, regarding the removal of the front or rear bar (until tested in court, as ethically removal of either bar is an equal opening for negligence litigation). I know of no case law establishing any anti-sway bar as required safety equipment. Please provide links to case Law establishing the bar as required safety equipment (anyone)?

I have read no statute classifying an anti-sway bar in the same category as safety glass, seat belt restraints, a horn, signal lights, and headrests? Is there such statute or vehicle code on the books for any state that is available for reference (anyone)?

I intend to keep this search for definitive answers on the legal aspects of retaining or removal of an anti-sway bar as constructive as possible and I hope others share this desire for a constructive exchange of valid information.

Is anyone willing to share in this cooperative and constructive effort to resolve the legal aspects of this issue?

 

[Eagle]

I understand Ed's position, which is simply to ask for accuracy in information, and I also understand Phantum's, which is to promote safety. I think, however, that Phantum is morally correct but factually incorrect.

The NHTSA does not, to my knowledge, require any particular bits and pieces of hardware. What they do require is that vehicles meet certain minimum requirements for safety in various regards. The manufacturers decide how they choose to meet those requirements.

As to front anti-sway bars, I am reasonable certain that the NHTSA does not require them. However, that's not the point. There are no Federal traffic cops who run around writing citations for people who remove or alter Federally-mandated safety equipment.

The issue is as was already enunciated: The manufacturer put the anti-sway bars on the vehicle in the interest of providing what they (the manufacturer) felt was safe handling. If an individual removes or alters any part of a vehicle's suspension and is subsequently in a serious or fatal accident, it is to be expected that attorneys for any injured party or parties will engage the services of self-styled "experts" who will examine your vehicle, and if they find an altered suspension will do their very best to convince a jury that you were grossly and criminally negligent because you made your vehicle unsafe and operated it that way.

We also conveniently forget that in most states we hand those attorneys a prima facie case. Most states have lift laws, and most of the more extreme rigs on these forums exceed those limitations. Each state is different, and while I don't expect many of you will un-modify your babies, I do suggest you find out what the laws are in your state just to give you an idea what you could be looking at. At the very least, it might cause you to drive more conservatively so you won't ever have to sit in a courtroom and have a discussion with that attorney -- from the witness stand.

As an example, here in Connecticut we have regulations that allow a maximum lift of 4 inches (frame and body combined) above stock. The regulations also explicitly prohibit modifying the suspension in a way that causes a shock absorber to reach the limit of its travel. We also require that fenders or flares completely cover the top half (or third, I can never remember) of the tires.

How many of your modified rigs would be legal in Connecticit?

I freely admit that there are trucks all over the state that violate these regs. I see them every day. That's not the point. If you run a stop sign and there's no officer there to cite you, it doesn't make it legal, it just means you got away with it that time. One time -- as what recently happened to the senator from South Dakota -- you won't get away with it.

It's always your choice. You can comply with the regs and be stuck with a smaller rig, or you can ignore the regs and go bigger/farther. But be adult about it -- admit when you do decide to ignore the regs that you are making your vehicle less safe for highway use, that you may be making the vehicle illegal, drive accordingly, and above all DON'T advise other people to do what you did without at least warning them that there might be consequences.

[/sermon] :soapbox:

 

[BLUTO]

anti-swaybars

Ed,
I understand your question, from a different perspective now. I'm not a lawyer or an engineer at DC, I'm a pipefitter. :woohoo:
I did take physics during college as part of my mechanical curriculum to get my degree.
I can probably speak to my buddy @ Jeep division next time I see him and ask about the Federal Laws and NHTSA and how they apply to this issue. He may even have a few cases to cite as reference. His job is to re-create accidents that we are getting sued over. He goes and buys an identical vehical to the one in question and re-enacts the accident for the Defenses (DC) evidence. This guy has one of the most AWESOME collection of Jeeps you've ever seen! :wow: . Most of them are DC property, but he is in charge of them (kinda like a curator )
Anyway, this thread needed to go to this depth to counter the ongoing ignorance about this safety device. A device that many members are removing out of misinformation and laziness (disco's).
I've pretty much exhausted myself on this topic :lecture: :yap:
I'm finished! :woohoo: :yelclap:

BLUTO

 

[ThePhantum]

As to front anti-sway bars, I am reasonable certain that the NHTSA does not require them. However, that's not the point.

Absolutley correct. I should have been more specific in my original statement. To repeat Eagle, the NHTSA has minimum safety requirements/standards that vehicles must meet. The manufacturers then decide how to go about meeting those safety standards. This is the reason swaybars are installed in the first place.

Not being a lawyer, I cannot quote specific regulations in regards to maximum amounts of body roll allowed, engineers technical papers on rollover resistance, etc. (despite the fact that I majored in engineering and minored in physics...I went went into the IT industry....go figure )

However I can say with a degree of accuracy that the standards currently being utilized by the manufacturers are for passenger vehicles not SUV's. The NHTSA and congress are currently the process of deciding regulatory agenda for SUV Rollover Protection.
edit - I just saw this article from last week...more fuel for the lawyers http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/10/15/vehicle.weight.ap/index.html

I can also point to related news reports and the like. As an example, in 2000 Ford issued a recall (NHTSA Recall #00I003000/Ford Recall # 00M11) on 1995 through 1997 Explorers (this was just after the whole Firestone tire problem), after the NHTSA began an investigation into broken antisway bar links. The investigation was prompted after an agency employee, having handling problems, discovered a broken swaybar link on his vehicle. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/fordexplorer001201.html

Christ, there is even a site that has links to lawyers ready to sue when someone is involved in an SUV rollover accident. http://www.suvrollovernews.com/

After doing a little research I freely admit that I can find no specific legislation in regards to anti sway bars in SUV's. However, even not being a lawyer, it is easy to see that there is already a burden of proof that lawyers are ready to use in order "to convince a jury that you were grossly and criminally negligent because you made your vehicle unsafe and operated it that way." So there are (or at least appear to be) legal ramaifications if you are involved in an accident and roll.

I'll end by qouting Eagle (again), since he said it so well...

admit when you do decide to ignore the regs that you are making your vehicle less safe for highway use, that you may be making the vehicle illegal, drive accordingly, and above all DON'T advise other people to do what you did without at least warning them that there might be consequences.

Rock On.

 

[DARKFLY]

redneck
ok first of all i don't care what some little civic has to say it's not my falt his little car will slide under the rear of mine to begin with. second off i all most got ran over i my 4runner the other dy by one that wasn't watching where he was going(4runner is about 6'4" tall and hard to miss). also i hate getting halsed by cops about my toy when those BFT are all over the place.