[200q20v] Re: [audi20v] Strut braces, here we go again!

Bernie Benz b.m.benz at prodigy.net
Thu Feb 1 08:28:47 EST 2001

I can not defend apparently less than optimum (dumb) decisions, be they
Audi's or? 

> From: "M&H Graphic Solutions, Inc." <mh at interaccess.com>
> Reply-To: mh at interaccess.com
> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:52:31 +0000
> To: Bernie Benz <b.m.benz at prodigy.net>
> Cc: Audi 20V <audi20v at rennlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [audi20v] Strut braces, here we go again!
> Bernie Benz wrote:
>> A tower to tower braced system divides the tower deflection between both
>> towers but retains in full the larger deflection of the outside bushing, and
>> thus results in only a small camber change improvement over the unbraced
>> condition.  Further, because of the high stiffness and resultant small
>> deflections of the towers, to be effective in dividing tower deflection
>> forces between the two towers a tower to tower brace must be extreemly
>> stiff.
> Bernie: What is your opinion of the Sport Ur-Quattros brace? Isn't that
> a tower to tower brace? The latter V6 90's had I think the same type of
> brace, a tower to tower, am I wrong? I agree with your accessment in
> regards to the inherrent weakness of the cosmetic braces that are out
> there, a lot of them are not worth a damn...but I'm puzzled about the
> path that Audi chose in the after mentioned cars, would they have not
> taken the path you describe. Please clarify.

More information about the 200q20v mailing list