Front C subframe removed
03 April 2012, 04:13 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cheshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(((((.
04 April 2012, 12:21 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: cheshire
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet you cant wait to drive it,and test it out properly.We have been lucky and fuel is no longer a problem,around here.I am still undecided about taking mine off,i do like the weight loss(27lbs).But more concerned about it being there for safety
31 July 2012, 04:23 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine needs replacing, it's at a garage now. Though I've been told about removing it, and wondered if I could on my 51 plate UK300.
Does it not fail MOT without it?
And does it really improve handling?! I can't get my head around that bit. Surely although 12kg lighter the car isn't as rigid? (I'm not after weight loss etc - Just want the car back! haha).
If anybody has one from a 51 plate that will fit mine, that you've taken off yours, how much for it? Been looking for one for a couple of weeks now.
Does it not fail MOT without it?
And does it really improve handling?! I can't get my head around that bit. Surely although 12kg lighter the car isn't as rigid? (I'm not after weight loss etc - Just want the car back! haha).
If anybody has one from a 51 plate that will fit mine, that you've taken off yours, how much for it? Been looking for one for a couple of weeks now.
01 January 2013, 04:54 PM
#74
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very interested in this subject, as I'm trying to shed as much weight as possible from my 2003 spec-c limited. It's a track car but still retains its MOT as I drive it to and from races.
Despite adding a 70kg roll cage, extinguisher etc I've got it back down to just over 1300kg. Losing the subframe is a real chunk in the pusuit of approximately 1260kg 'on the grid' weight.
It seems that the general conclusion of the thread so far is that it doesn't affect the MOT (even then it wouldn't take long to put back).....It's flexible in your hands so doesn't really offer any ridgidity.....it weighs about 12Kg (though the spec-c one might be a bit lighter)......no one who has removed it has experienced a negative effect on the handling, more the opposite.......
These are all the plus points, the only negatives I can spot are possible undertray issues, but I don't have an undertray, and some undefinable reduction in safety in a head on collision.
Since the last post has enyone who has removed it had any problems?
If not its coming off!
Ta Andy
Despite adding a 70kg roll cage, extinguisher etc I've got it back down to just over 1300kg. Losing the subframe is a real chunk in the pusuit of approximately 1260kg 'on the grid' weight.
It seems that the general conclusion of the thread so far is that it doesn't affect the MOT (even then it wouldn't take long to put back).....It's flexible in your hands so doesn't really offer any ridgidity.....it weighs about 12Kg (though the spec-c one might be a bit lighter)......no one who has removed it has experienced a negative effect on the handling, more the opposite.......
These are all the plus points, the only negatives I can spot are possible undertray issues, but I don't have an undertray, and some undefinable reduction in safety in a head on collision.
Since the last post has enyone who has removed it had any problems?
If not its coming off!
Ta Andy
01 January 2013, 06:29 PM
#76
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the undertray i haven't had one for years, and I'll probably leave it until I start thinking about Aero! This year is weight loss and suspension, can't afford anything else. Next year might be aero, I've got an S202 rear wing fitted and that's about it!
02 January 2013, 10:10 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West of Scotland
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removed here - no negative side effects, when I researched it I was happy with the conclusion it is for frontal crashes to pull the engine down under the car.
09 January 2013, 09:08 PM
#78
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removed the monster last weekend......14.4kg! Weighed it again, still the same! and that's without bolts. (I do feel the need to put some lightweight bracing back..so SUMMIT may get a few quid!)
All I've managed is a bit of damp road testing, which is not like dry road testing, which in turn is a million miles away from track testing..so...there seem to be no cornering issues to report, 'handling' therefore doesn't feel compromised, but braking sure the hell is!
Trying to haul down from high speed has turned crap! I think this is purely down to the reduced weight on the front, under braking the weight transfer isn't as affective so we're not pushing the front wheels into the road. Reckon this can be cured with lowered front suspension or reduced compression damping front end.
Anyway the monster brace is staying off...thanks for your help!
All I've managed is a bit of damp road testing, which is not like dry road testing, which in turn is a million miles away from track testing..so...there seem to be no cornering issues to report, 'handling' therefore doesn't feel compromised, but braking sure the hell is!
Trying to haul down from high speed has turned crap! I think this is purely down to the reduced weight on the front, under braking the weight transfer isn't as affective so we're not pushing the front wheels into the road. Reckon this can be cured with lowered front suspension or reduced compression damping front end.
Anyway the monster brace is staying off...thanks for your help!
24 February 2015, 06:12 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTTT.
I'm in a similar position to others, my C frame is covered in rot and will almost certainly fail its MOT.
I'm on the verge of binning it as I'm yet to hear any negatives (other than theoretical) but I was wondering what negatives there are (if any) to running without the undertray?
Some of the links to alternative braces don't appear to work any more, does anyone have any up to date recommendations?
I'm in a similar position to others, my C frame is covered in rot and will almost certainly fail its MOT.
I'm on the verge of binning it as I'm yet to hear any negatives (other than theoretical) but I was wondering what negatives there are (if any) to running without the undertray?
Some of the links to alternative braces don't appear to work any more, does anyone have any up to date recommendations?
24 February 2015, 06:39 PM
#80
BTTT.
I'm in a similar position to others, my C frame is covered in rot and will almost certainly fail its MOT.
I'm on the verge of binning it as I'm yet to hear any negatives (other than theoretical) but I was wondering what negatives there are (if any) to running without the undertray?
Some of the links to alternative braces don't appear to work any more, does anyone have any up to date recommendations?
I'm in a similar position to others, my C frame is covered in rot and will almost certainly fail its MOT.
I'm on the verge of binning it as I'm yet to hear any negatives (other than theoretical) but I was wondering what negatives there are (if any) to running without the undertray?
Some of the links to alternative braces don't appear to work any more, does anyone have any up to date recommendations?
25 February 2015, 12:23 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oxford
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't be removing the C frame. It is surely there for a safety reason and I see it not having any other purpose.
The reports of people saying it helps turn in must be due to added flex in the chassis.
I would rather fit a softer front roll bar then go down the route of removing a structural part of the car.
The reports of people saying it helps turn in must be due to added flex in the chassis.
I would rather fit a softer front roll bar then go down the route of removing a structural part of the car.
25 February 2015, 12:51 PM
#85
I won't be removing the C frame. It is surely there for a safety reason and I see it not having any other purpose.
The reports of people saying it helps turn in must be due to added flex in the chassis.
I would rather fit a softer front roll bar then go down the route of removing a structural part of the car.
The reports of people saying it helps turn in must be due to added flex in the chassis.
I would rather fit a softer front roll bar then go down the route of removing a structural part of the car.
If it is so crucial why wasn't it fitted on the Spec C ?
25 February 2015, 03:10 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I'm fully on the fence about this now. I'm not 100% comfortable just throwing away a considerable chunk of metalwork even though there is no compelling evidence against it.
The optimum solution appears to be an aftermarket brace (assuming replacing the C brace like for like will result in the replacement rotting.
Is this the piece I need?
http://www.scoobyparts.com/suspension/strut-braces/h-frame-alloy-lower-brace-impreza-01-05
The optimum solution appears to be an aftermarket brace (assuming replacing the C brace like for like will result in the replacement rotting.
Is this the piece I need?
http://www.scoobyparts.com/suspension/strut-braces/h-frame-alloy-lower-brace-impreza-01-05
25 February 2015, 05:07 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just reading through a few other posts about this. There seems to be some suggestion that removing the C or U brace (get's called either interchangeably) might mean the aftermarket H braces won't fit as some are designed to fit with the C brace in place. Worth checking this out before you buy one.
Another thread with some more info - https://www.scoobynet.com/902807-u-s...ash-bar-2.html
Another thread with some more info - https://www.scoobynet.com/902807-u-s...ash-bar-2.html
25 February 2015, 05:10 PM
#90
Classics are lighter and don't have them, the newage cars are an evolution of the classic platform but more content and gubbins started going in as it evolved and it got lardyer!
As the tub behind the bulkhead gets lardyer, theres more kinetic energy pushing the bulkhead in a crash and therefore the braces will have gone in to make that crash structure (anything in front of the bulkhead) deform and take out the energy.
Without the U brace and with no lightening of the tub, you could get a spike of G and a slightly twingier neck as the crumple zones wont be in tune with the weight stuffing in to them.
This could explain why the spec c .... a much lighter package (I think .... don't quote me) .... does away with it as the crash pulse is much more akin to a classic than a newage.
This is pure speculation on my part so don't quote me but i do know a bit about designing cars for crash. Crash considerations are the devil for weight into road cars because safety systems add mass..... which adds mass to the safety systems .... which in turn adds mass..... etc. etc. etc.
This vicous cycle is called mass compounding.
As the tub behind the bulkhead gets lardyer, theres more kinetic energy pushing the bulkhead in a crash and therefore the braces will have gone in to make that crash structure (anything in front of the bulkhead) deform and take out the energy.
Without the U brace and with no lightening of the tub, you could get a spike of G and a slightly twingier neck as the crumple zones wont be in tune with the weight stuffing in to them.
This could explain why the spec c .... a much lighter package (I think .... don't quote me) .... does away with it as the crash pulse is much more akin to a classic than a newage.
This is pure speculation on my part so don't quote me but i do know a bit about designing cars for crash. Crash considerations are the devil for weight into road cars because safety systems add mass..... which adds mass to the safety systems .... which in turn adds mass..... etc. etc. etc.
This vicous cycle is called mass compounding.