Need a strutbrace for '86 5KCSTQ
b.m.benz at prodigy.net
Wed Nov 6 19:20:34 EST 2002
> From: Steven Hauptmann <hauptmanns at MAIL.LLR.STATE.SC.US>
> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:30:29 -0500
> To: "'Bernie Benz'" <b.m.benz at prodigy.net>
> Cc: "200q20v List (E-mail)" <200q20v at audifans.com>
> Subject: Re: Need a strutbrace for '86 5KCSTQ
> << To be effective, any brace, including attachments and resultant tower
> deflections to the point of useful stiffness, the tower top strut anchor
> points, must be an order of magnitude stiffer than the towers themselves. >>
> That seems logical enough. The brace and/or the tower top strut anchor
> points must provide more stiffness than the weakest link.
Not just the weakest link, but the sum of all the weak links in series.
> Obviously off the cuff, the towers themselves don't seem obviously weak to
> me, but since I did feel a noticeable difference in initial turn in after
> installing a strut tower brace on my 87 GTI (I know the chassis is
> significantly weaker than that of a type 44 but..), I have to wonder if the
> chassis which separates the towers is what's being braced because of
> inherent flex and not necessarily flex in the towers themselves.
They are all in series, the towers would be flapping in the wind if not for
the chassis between them.
> Regardless, the flex would be transferred to the rubber mounts (as you
> noted) without the aid of a Benz bar.
Flex, what ever it is, is not transfered! Forces can be transfered, i.e.
applied differently. Don't have the slightest idea of your point.
> As a side note, I received the TAP aluminum (bare) brace as a Christmas
> present in 2000.
More information about the 200q20v