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

Bernie Benz b.m.benz at prodigy.net
Thu Feb 1 09:53:15 EST 2001

Here is maybe a more constructive thought.  I believe that Audi's decision
to add tower braces to their later cars must have been economic.  It must
have been cheaper to add the tower brace than to beef up the tower to a
comperable stiffness.  If so, without the factory tower brace the towers in
these cars would flap in the breeze.  But my original point stands, stiff
towers are less that half of an optimum solution.


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

> 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