[200q20v] Re: New title: Strut vs. Tower Braces for the 44 chassis

Greg Johnson gregsj2 at home.com
Sat Aug 25 23:15:46 EDT 2001


Thanks for the clarification.

You needn't apologize for your pride of authorship.  It's well deserved.  If I
recall, I originally accused you of being a feakin' genius and was among the first
to call your device the Benz Brace.  I'm certainly no engineer, but I know a design
that's elegant in its simplicity when I see one.  That's why I was so jazzed when
Greg Amy did the BIRA brake brackets.

I'm looking forward to getting your brace on my car.  The shop owner is a good
friend of mine, and his biz has definite seasons, so I try to give him my work when
things are slow.  I should be able to get in during the back to school lull.

Greg J

Bernie Benz wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> 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
> purposes.
> 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.)
> Bernie
> 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
> >
> > Bernie,
> >
> > I followed most of the previous discussion.  Moreover, all of the parts for
> > the
> > Benz Brace are sitting at my mechanics awaiting install and alignment.   It
> > was
> > 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.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Bernie Benz
> >> Gardnerville, NV
> >

More information about the 200q20v mailing list