[200q20v] Re: New title: Strut vs. Tower Braces for the 44 chassis
b.m.benz at prodigy.net
Sat Aug 25 16:18:39 EDT 2001
You are right, in that I developed the strut brace to correct the
excessively negative static camber condition of the 44 chassis. It has
allowed my 5K and 200 to be aligned to exactly zero camber for street
But further, it minimizes dynamic camber changes caused by transverse
cornering forces far better than any tower brace, because it includes the
upper strut bushing deflections in the equation. Essentually, it ties the
two upper strut tops together in an infinitely stiff manner (relatively
speaking) and thus, divides the upper cornering force equally between the
two sides for a theoretically minimum transverse deflection. It just can't
get any better, short of chassis redesign.
(Does a pride of authership show? Sorry about that.)
PS. They don't work sitting on the bench. B.
> From: Greg Johnson <gregsj2 at home.com>
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:35:43 -0700
> To: Bernie Benz <b.m.benz at prodigy.net>
> Cc: TM <t44tq at mindspring.com>, tommy.arnberg at nokia.com, 200q20V mailing list
> <200q20v at audifans.com>
> Subject: Re: New title: Strut vs. Tower Braces for the 44 chassis
> I followed most of the previous discussion. Moreover, all of the parts for
> Benz Brace are sitting at my mechanics awaiting install and alignment. It
> my original understanding that your brace was meant to help for alignment
> issues, but not to act as a tower brace. Please advise.
> Greg J
> Bernie Benz wrote:
>> Original subject: Re: [200q20v] RE: [BIRA] Digest Number 353
>> Greg, Taka, Tommy, et al.
>> Greg, if Tommy's referenced Tower Brace is the first strut brace that you've
>> seen for the 44 chassis you have not been lurking on the 200-20V list for
>> the past several years. A year or 18 mo ago there was a very heated thread
>> on this subject lasting for about 6 months and involved about half the list.
>> This thread was started by my disclosure to the list of the Benz Brace, a
>> true strut brace rather than a strut tower brace. The disclosure and
>> selected discussions are now documented on Chris Miller's site. Further, a
>> list member has group fabricated to order the required special nuts.
>> IMO, a tower brace is inferior to a strut brace for my previously discussed
>> technical reasons. Further, the referenced tower brace has several design
>> flaws. First, the brace is not located on the strut to strut center line,
>> but several inches ahead of this ideal location. Second, the mounting
>> brackets are not centered on the tube axis, a poor column design. Third,
>> the mounting brackets are bolted to the tower sheet metal, why bother?
>> Tommy, better brakes have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for
>> considering a strut brace.
>> Bernie Benz
>> Gardnerville, NV
More information about the 200q20v