Still not convinced - no neither am I, the great LKJ thought Anti-roll bars to be an abomination, and I can see his point. First you build expensive independent suspension, and then you join it together, effectively making back into a live axle.

The whole thing beats me, all I can say is it seems to work as every one and their dog uses anti-roll bars to control body roll. Perhaps one day a Manufacturer can come up with a design  with a CoG low enough not to need them, until then they seem like a bit of a kludge.

explanation 1 above expresses the view that the Anti-Roll bar doesn't affect ride, whilst explanation 2 suggest the stiffer the bar the worse the ride.  If you have a better explanation then please let us know.

In the mean time here's the most plausible Explanation from man who knows a lot of stuff

Explanation 3

"The anti-roll bar is a torsion bar (torsion spring) connecting the suspension systems on each side of the vehicle in such a way as to allow both wheels to respond unhindered to two-wheel bumps, such as a ridge across the road."

"But if the wheels try to move independently, as with a single-wheel bump, or in opposite directions when the car rolls then the anti-roll bar resists this tendency. Roll is reduced as intended but comfort suffers as the effective spring rate of each wheel is increased in the individual single-wheel bumps, although the combined spring rate of the two wheels is unchanged over joint disturbances."


"compromise must be reached between the requirements of minimum roll and good response to road shocks. Roll bars, unlike the springs, are undamped (theoretically damping could be incorporated, although the manufacturers have generally concluded that it is not worthwhile)"

So there Anti roll bars leave your suspension settings unchanged, if both wheels rise over the obstacle. ( like a sleeping policeman), but increases the effective spring rate, if only one wheel rises over the  obstacle or it is forced down by cornering.