Are Strut braces worth it
18 July 2007, 12:06 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that is the car is stiff enough (particularly true for new age cars) then braces will make little or no difference. If suspension is stiffened/modified from standard then there may come a point when bracing becomes beneficial. Money would be generally be better spent on things that make a real difference like ALK, ARBs, ASTs.
18 July 2007, 01:05 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Reading
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on your usage/driving style as to whether the stock car is stiff enough. If you like cornering hard then I think for <£100 a front strut brace is a good idea (I am going for one in the next week or so). They are a 5mins job to fit and wont make a great diff to insurance. ALK, ARB, etc are also excellent ideas but are more involved to fit (and insurance companies may fleece you like they tried with me - ARB = £200 extra!).
I bet all the rally cars have strut braces - the Impreza has one but not in the guise we would buy:
http://www.swrt.com/img_gallery/804035643.jpg
PS. I think the rear ones are less important on the saloon and require the back seats out to fit
I bet all the rally cars have strut braces - the Impreza has one but not in the guise we would buy:
http://www.swrt.com/img_gallery/804035643.jpg
PS. I think the rear ones are less important on the saloon and require the back seats out to fit
18 July 2007, 01:35 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally
Classic - yes, classic wagon rear - must,
Newage probably not although on a wagon the rear first.
As the WRC cars are always cracking the front chassis legs, then one would expect other strengthening to be needed we wouldn't think of!
Simon
Classic - yes, classic wagon rear - must,
Newage probably not although on a wagon the rear first.
As the WRC cars are always cracking the front chassis legs, then one would expect other strengthening to be needed we wouldn't think of!
Simon
18 July 2007, 03:45 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Location: surrey
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i own both classic type R and 2002 STI,
and with out a doubt they make a huge difference, i also have underbody bracing, and its soooo noticable
why do you think the WRC cars have these as well as seam welded....you simply cant have enough strengthening...period
the more ridgid your car is the better, flex equates to misplaced power and movement.
no brainer sorry.
and with out a doubt they make a huge difference, i also have underbody bracing, and its soooo noticable
why do you think the WRC cars have these as well as seam welded....you simply cant have enough strengthening...period
the more ridgid your car is the better, flex equates to misplaced power and movement.
no brainer sorry.
18 July 2007, 03:53 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: surrey
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with one 234, i don't have one on my scooby yet but my other cars i have fitted bars to and noticed the difference straight away. Have never tried rear ones though.
Trending Topics
18 July 2007, 07:56 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: GC8 Enthusiast - Scumball3000 Team 69
Posts: 2,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does bracing help? Without a doubt. Do the products commonly available and usually fitted make much difference? Now thats a different question altogether.....
18 July 2007, 08:33 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: newquay
Posts: 6,880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was thinking bout this too
my sti2 has the standard front brace and was thinking of adding a rear,it seems most are of the opinion that doing it is a good idea????
where is a good place to buy then???
not trying to hijack!!
my sti2 has the standard front brace and was thinking of adding a rear,it seems most are of the opinion that doing it is a good idea????
where is a good place to buy then???
not trying to hijack!!
18 July 2007, 09:53 PM
#12
They definatley make a difference on classics. I bought this for mine, check out the mounting plates.
subaru impreza wrx sti ra turbo rear strut brace saloon on eBay Subaru, Car Parts, Cars, Parts Vehicles
subaru impreza wrx sti ra turbo rear strut brace saloon on eBay Subaru, Car Parts, Cars, Parts Vehicles
18 July 2007, 10:08 PM
#13
Newage:
Pretty much every upgrade you can do re: F&R anti-roll bars, drop links, camber adjustment bolts, etc, etc, etc, will give you more improvment than a strut brace per £. If you want a performance improvement, do all that first, then buy the strut brace.
That said, they look pretty, and you can't really see an underbody full of whiteline goodies very well!
(all IMO)
Classics I have no idea about.
Ask in the Suspension forum where 911, Zen and the like hang out - they're the really knowledgeable ones with this stuff.
Pretty much every upgrade you can do re: F&R anti-roll bars, drop links, camber adjustment bolts, etc, etc, etc, will give you more improvment than a strut brace per £. If you want a performance improvement, do all that first, then buy the strut brace.
That said, they look pretty, and you can't really see an underbody full of whiteline goodies very well!
(all IMO)
Classics I have no idea about.
Ask in the Suspension forum where 911, Zen and the like hang out - they're the really knowledgeable ones with this stuff.
Last edited by Prasius; 18 July 2007 at 10:11 PM.
19 July 2007, 12:38 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Couch Spud
Posts: 9,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be a little cautious of fitting a lower strut brace on a road car
Seen one that got 'kerbed' and it bent the Ally wishbones and damaged the chassis, the car got wrote off
I think he hit a roundabout doing 50mph
I have also heard they can be a problem in side impacts, especially to the wing area, and again can write the car off
that said I have front and rear Strut Braces (upper) on my classic, like others have said though, front definately noticeable, rear not sure sure and a bit longer to fit, not just seats out, think I had to remove my seat belts too, to fit it
Seen one that got 'kerbed' and it bent the Ally wishbones and damaged the chassis, the car got wrote off
I think he hit a roundabout doing 50mph
I have also heard they can be a problem in side impacts, especially to the wing area, and again can write the car off
that said I have front and rear Strut Braces (upper) on my classic, like others have said though, front definately noticeable, rear not sure sure and a bit longer to fit, not just seats out, think I had to remove my seat belts too, to fit it
19 July 2007, 08:31 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Can't say for Imprezas because I've never owned one, but my Legacy has a front upper and it's made a big difference
And strangely, when I fitted front upper and lower braces to my Mk1 Golf, the biggest transformation was in the braking
All the WRC cars have massive strut braces, in the form of fully welded roll cages tied to all the front and rear suspension mounts
And strangely, when I fitted front upper and lower braces to my Mk1 Golf, the biggest transformation was in the braking
All the WRC cars have massive strut braces, in the form of fully welded roll cages tied to all the front and rear suspension mounts
19 July 2007, 08:39 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: stoke on trent
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
classic wagon front most definitely makes a difference, but would like to know from somebody if the rear is beneficial, as this is something ive been considering for some time.
19 July 2007, 08:56 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
classic sti v3
have been round blyton test track and elvington in friends 95 sti ra (front and rear struts) and the difference was massive compared to my sti v3 ( front strut only). the ra has got adjustable shocks and of course the dccd but really was surprised by the roll on my v3 and lack of roll on the ra.wouldnt have thought a rear strut would make that much difference to normal road driving.
have been round blyton test track and elvington in friends 95 sti ra (front and rear struts) and the difference was massive compared to my sti v3 ( front strut only). the ra has got adjustable shocks and of course the dccd but really was surprised by the roll on my v3 and lack of roll on the ra.wouldnt have thought a rear strut would make that much difference to normal road driving.
19 July 2007, 11:09 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damian Harty's comments shamelessly copied from his long and interesting suspension thread (beware the Emporers new clothes):
Strutbrace Q: There is an awful lot of mythology around this stuff that goes back to body-on-chassis beam-axled racers in the 20s - I'm not kidding. There are two effects that are important. Basically, the body structure is like a "fifth spring" between the front and rear suspension. If that spring is not stiff enough then the body relaxes out any redictribution of roll moment that the anti-roll bars were trying to make and so the car is unresponsive to handling balance tuning with springs and bars. However, once the body is "stiff enough" then making it stiffer offers no benefits. A good rule of thumb is that the torsional stiffness of the body (between suspension mount points) needs to be about ten times the roll stiffness of the stiffest suspension end (usually the front). If you chase the numbers through you end up with about 5-7 kNn/degree as the requirement for a body structure. Most modern monocoques comfortably exceed that and the Subaru with its bonded screens both ends does too. Somewhere I have a figure but can't recall it right now. Anything over 10 is good, 15-17 is current "state-of-the-art". So in that case, a strut brace does very little. The second effect is a bit more complicated. The body moves on the suspension but the wheel also moves on the tyre - the tyre is in many ways a "secondary" suspension system. That movement is partially controlled by the tyre and partially by the suspension damper and happens 10 to 15 times a second. The body is a flexible thing that has its own resonances and because of the shape of most cars at the front - they need a hole to put the engine in - it can get quite flexible in just about this frequency region. If the body goes flexible - goes into resonance - then the damper just moves with the body and can't contribute to the control of the tyre and in fact can do something bad called "mass loading" where the tyre is carrying not only itself but also part of the body _while it resonates_ (it's important to separate the static 'weight carrying' from dynamic things in your mind). In those cases, the strut brace can help because if it is a good design then it stiffens the front end usefully.
What all of the above means is that the effectiveness of a strut brace is strongly connected to the stiffness of your suspension. So for a Scoob that is fairly standard, the strut brace probably doesn't do a great deal, but as they get modified and stiffened the brace will contribute more to a well controlled feel over less-than-perfect surfaces.
The final point about strut braces relates to the emporor's new clothes - having bought a flash one, not many people will admit they can't really tell the difference.
Strutbrace Q: There is an awful lot of mythology around this stuff that goes back to body-on-chassis beam-axled racers in the 20s - I'm not kidding. There are two effects that are important. Basically, the body structure is like a "fifth spring" between the front and rear suspension. If that spring is not stiff enough then the body relaxes out any redictribution of roll moment that the anti-roll bars were trying to make and so the car is unresponsive to handling balance tuning with springs and bars. However, once the body is "stiff enough" then making it stiffer offers no benefits. A good rule of thumb is that the torsional stiffness of the body (between suspension mount points) needs to be about ten times the roll stiffness of the stiffest suspension end (usually the front). If you chase the numbers through you end up with about 5-7 kNn/degree as the requirement for a body structure. Most modern monocoques comfortably exceed that and the Subaru with its bonded screens both ends does too. Somewhere I have a figure but can't recall it right now. Anything over 10 is good, 15-17 is current "state-of-the-art". So in that case, a strut brace does very little. The second effect is a bit more complicated. The body moves on the suspension but the wheel also moves on the tyre - the tyre is in many ways a "secondary" suspension system. That movement is partially controlled by the tyre and partially by the suspension damper and happens 10 to 15 times a second. The body is a flexible thing that has its own resonances and because of the shape of most cars at the front - they need a hole to put the engine in - it can get quite flexible in just about this frequency region. If the body goes flexible - goes into resonance - then the damper just moves with the body and can't contribute to the control of the tyre and in fact can do something bad called "mass loading" where the tyre is carrying not only itself but also part of the body _while it resonates_ (it's important to separate the static 'weight carrying' from dynamic things in your mind). In those cases, the strut brace can help because if it is a good design then it stiffens the front end usefully.
What all of the above means is that the effectiveness of a strut brace is strongly connected to the stiffness of your suspension. So for a Scoob that is fairly standard, the strut brace probably doesn't do a great deal, but as they get modified and stiffened the brace will contribute more to a well controlled feel over less-than-perfect surfaces.
The final point about strut braces relates to the emporor's new clothes - having bought a flash one, not many people will admit they can't really tell the difference.
19 July 2007, 07:24 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
classic sti v3
have been round blyton test track and elvington in friends 95 sti ra (front and rear struts) and the difference was massive compared to my sti v3 ( front strut only). the ra has got adjustable shocks and of course the dccd but really was surprised by the roll on my v3 and lack of roll on the ra.wouldnt have thought a rear strut would make that much difference to normal road driving.
have been round blyton test track and elvington in friends 95 sti ra (front and rear struts) and the difference was massive compared to my sti v3 ( front strut only). the ra has got adjustable shocks and of course the dccd but really was surprised by the roll on my v3 and lack of roll on the ra.wouldnt have thought a rear strut would make that much difference to normal road driving.
Simon
19 July 2007, 10:12 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitted one on my 54 plate STI used to go round the sme roundabout everyday,once front brace was fitted it dragged the front mud flaps on the ground didnt do it without so something changed.JAY
19 July 2007, 10:50 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damian Harty's comments shamelessly copied from his long and interesting suspension thread (beware the Emporers new clothes):
Strutbrace Q: There is an awful lot of mythology around this stuff that goes back to body-on-chassis beam-axled racers in the 20s - I'm not kidding. There are two effects that are important. Basically, the body structure is like a "fifth spring" between the front and rear suspension. If that spring is not stiff enough then the body relaxes out any redictribution of roll moment that the anti-roll bars were trying to make and so the car is unresponsive to handling balance tuning with springs and bars. However, once the body is "stiff enough" then making it stiffer offers no benefits. A good rule of thumb is that the torsional stiffness of the body (between suspension mount points) needs to be about ten times the roll stiffness of the stiffest suspension end (usually the front). If you chase the numbers through you end up with about 5-7 kNn/degree as the requirement for a body structure. Most modern monocoques comfortably exceed that and the Subaru with its bonded screens both ends does too. Somewhere I have a figure but can't recall it right now. Anything over 10 is good, 15-17 is current "state-of-the-art". So in that case, a strut brace does very little. The second effect is a bit more complicated. The body moves on the suspension but the wheel also moves on the tyre - the tyre is in many ways a "secondary" suspension system. That movement is partially controlled by the tyre and partially by the suspension damper and happens 10 to 15 times a second. The body is a flexible thing that has its own resonances and because of the shape of most cars at the front - they need a hole to put the engine in - it can get quite flexible in just about this frequency region. If the body goes flexible - goes into resonance - then the damper just moves with the body and can't contribute to the control of the tyre and in fact can do something bad called "mass loading" where the tyre is carrying not only itself but also part of the body _while it resonates_ (it's important to separate the static 'weight carrying' from dynamic things in your mind). In those cases, the strut brace can help because if it is a good design then it stiffens the front end usefully.
What all of the above means is that the effectiveness of a strut brace is strongly connected to the stiffness of your suspension. So for a Scoob that is fairly standard, the strut brace probably doesn't do a great deal, but as they get modified and stiffened the brace will contribute more to a well controlled feel over less-than-perfect surfaces.
The final point about strut braces relates to the emporor's new clothes - having bought a flash one, not many people will admit they can't really tell the difference.
Strutbrace Q: There is an awful lot of mythology around this stuff that goes back to body-on-chassis beam-axled racers in the 20s - I'm not kidding. There are two effects that are important. Basically, the body structure is like a "fifth spring" between the front and rear suspension. If that spring is not stiff enough then the body relaxes out any redictribution of roll moment that the anti-roll bars were trying to make and so the car is unresponsive to handling balance tuning with springs and bars. However, once the body is "stiff enough" then making it stiffer offers no benefits. A good rule of thumb is that the torsional stiffness of the body (between suspension mount points) needs to be about ten times the roll stiffness of the stiffest suspension end (usually the front). If you chase the numbers through you end up with about 5-7 kNn/degree as the requirement for a body structure. Most modern monocoques comfortably exceed that and the Subaru with its bonded screens both ends does too. Somewhere I have a figure but can't recall it right now. Anything over 10 is good, 15-17 is current "state-of-the-art". So in that case, a strut brace does very little. The second effect is a bit more complicated. The body moves on the suspension but the wheel also moves on the tyre - the tyre is in many ways a "secondary" suspension system. That movement is partially controlled by the tyre and partially by the suspension damper and happens 10 to 15 times a second. The body is a flexible thing that has its own resonances and because of the shape of most cars at the front - they need a hole to put the engine in - it can get quite flexible in just about this frequency region. If the body goes flexible - goes into resonance - then the damper just moves with the body and can't contribute to the control of the tyre and in fact can do something bad called "mass loading" where the tyre is carrying not only itself but also part of the body _while it resonates_ (it's important to separate the static 'weight carrying' from dynamic things in your mind). In those cases, the strut brace can help because if it is a good design then it stiffens the front end usefully.
What all of the above means is that the effectiveness of a strut brace is strongly connected to the stiffness of your suspension. So for a Scoob that is fairly standard, the strut brace probably doesn't do a great deal, but as they get modified and stiffened the brace will contribute more to a well controlled feel over less-than-perfect surfaces.
The final point about strut braces relates to the emporor's new clothes - having bought a flash one, not many people will admit they can't really tell the difference.
Upper front strut brace (proper one - not the STI faux carbon crap)
Lower front strut brace
Rear strut brace
Poly bushing all around
Solid rear links
ALK
Bump steer
Most of these changes help the suspension work with less and less compromise and each change made a significant contribution to the handling. Actually the only change I made to the car that was a disappointing regret was fitting AST suspension. Indeed the new owner dumped it almost immediately I sold the car.
19 July 2007, 11:12 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the strut brace has stiffened the body (5th spring as mentioned) which has increased the loading on the suspension (ie working it harder)..!?
Was this with standard springs and dampers..?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
