Any reason you used a front ARB or was it just the shape that caught your eye?
It was a few things, the shape as it looked like it would work, and it has shape wise, and the fact a MGF is mid-engined and as such weight distribution is near 50/50 if not slightly rear biased (never looked it up) so front bar should not be too strong, and the thickness 19mm (i think Cinq is 18.5ish when measured with verniers), therefore near enough the same as a Cinq front bar so Cinq front anti-roll bars brackets fitted straight on.
There was nothing more scientific in it than that. If its too strong it can be made weaker by removing material and thinning it down, or move pivot points on the arms, but until car is running will not know where its at. The whole rear suspension assembly is off being shot blast and powder coated so hopefully get some pics up next week when its back.
I did almost buy a rare Metro GTi rear anti-roll bar, again because it was a very simple shape like a "U" ie only two bends and given Metro's track not much different thought it was worth a punt, but turns out because its rare loads of folk who run Metro's with larger K series conversions seek them out so bidding went to high. It was new as well unused NOS with all brackets and drop links.
Forgot to add, one of the reasons on developing the rear anti-roll bar was although car is going to be primarily a track day toy, we have looked at road rallies as well, and therefore would like to be able to run softer springs and raise ride height, probably going AVO which are height adjustable coil-over front standard 2.25mm springs so easy to buy different rates, and have some standard, some Eibach, and then the AVO provided springs to have a few options on rear, but still have a pointy car with less roll, in fact making it pretty pointy could be of real benefit, again though its all just thinking out loud.
