ls1fiend

I have been looking at strut tower braces and am wanting to build my own but was wondering is it necessary to have the adjustable ends on one (as in the round eyelet part that swivels)?

It seems like you would get more rigidity out of one solid unit that bolts to the struts? I seriously looked around before asking this question to waste anyones time.

Dante93GTZ

iTrader: (5)

My car came with an adjustable one - My guess is that they are adjustable simply to fit over more engine combos - If I was building one for my car, I'd definitely go solid, no adjustment.

AM91Camaro_RS

one advantage to adjustable is that you can put preload in the bar. probably not neccesary, though.

built91Z28

You defiently do not want spherical rod ends. I would imagine solid rod ends are perfectly fine.

mexicanknight

A few years ago a friend and me, made two sets of STB's for his car and mine, they're solid, it's been about 3-4 years and i don't have any complains about the one in my car, and ours were ghetto to the max

but they work.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

and here's the one in my buddy's car



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

TheMonster

Wow, that turned out really nice, I might try to do something like this because I don't think I can't buy one that will fit under my dual snorkel air cleaner.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Why "definately" not?

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Home-built & might fit under a dual snorkle filter.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

i agree, why? they are solid when loaded laterally, which is the primary direction of load on a STB. and when you have 2 of them opposite each other, the dont move for or aft either. they are just fine.

TheMonster

Looks good. Might have to fabricate something.

built91Z28

I've just been under the impression that the way the spherical rod ends can rotate around can still leave room for the strut towers to twist and move a little. It is possible I'm wrong. I know that I would rather have every part of it be as stiff as possible.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

i agree with the stiff/rigid mounting part, my STB is solid mounted, and preloaded.

The towers may be able to twist a little, but for that matter, i dont know if they do actually twist at all, they are supposed to just flex inboard a little. Not sure how to test for any other kind of movement.

ls1fiend

What does "preload" mean?

AM91Camaro_RS

preload would be... when the car is at rest, installed the brace to have some pressure pushing out on the towers or pulling them in.
the towers potentially can move for and aft (toward the windshield or headlights). Rod ends would still allow for that movement if you're only using a 2 pt brace. if you use a 3pt, you will greatly reduce for and aft movement.

383fbod

iTrader: (2)

I made mine and saved about $100. Mine is solid for cost and simplicity. I capped the big tube ends and welded pieces of the smaller pipe(7/8"IIRC) in the larger one(1.1/8") for the through bolts

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Solid mounts are no more effective than rod ends, in a forward/aft movement, in a 2-pt configuration.

I switched from a solid 3-pt to a rod ended 2-pt, and felt no loss of stability in my GTA, in the corners.

mexicanknight

Mine were pretty easy to make, and cost me about 10 bucks.

AM91Camaro_RS

Stephen, are you going to try to argue that point, again?? You probably didn't feel it. You probably aren't pushing the car hard enough (including being able to, with all/proper suspension mods to reallly push it) to "feel" the difference. I did say "the towers potentially can move for and aft (toward the windshield or headlights)." Potentially is a key word there! Did I say that they will? No. Can they move once they become the weak point and you surpas the point of needing a 2pt brace? sure.
Anyway, if you stop and think about "solid" vs "rod end" (which pivots in all directions)...you will see where IF the towers are going to move independently, the solid mount will help reduce independent movement of the towers, therefore reducing movement, in general. Rod ends will allow the tower (in this situation) to move, for and aft, independently of each other. That is the purpose of them, "prevent" bind. I prefer rod ends, personally. They are what I plan to use when I build my own, of course it will be a 3pt brace, though.

Norm Peterson

ANY time that you allow movement to occur in a structure without resistance being developed, you're giving up some stiffness, and in a 3-D frame such as a car chassis every stiffness component adds something. How much is a separate question.

Building in some means of adjusting any added structural component is a good idea. No guarantee that any two of these cars will measure up identically even when fresh off the production line, never mind after 20 years or so of use/abuse.

When the chassis is under torsion from cornering (or launching, for that matter), a pivot-ended STB of any sort will not resist all of the loads that are present. You'll end up with a little more overall motion that with a STB that resists everything.

There is only one valid structural reason I can offhand think of to intentionally avoid, reduce, or eliminate a stiffness (or stiffness "direction"), and that's if the stiffness could attract more load into the part than it, or its attachments to the rest of the car, can withstand.


I don't doubt that a rod-ended STB can still make the car "feel" better than no STB at all, but this comes more from chasing a few structural resonances off to places and frequencies that aren't as noticeable than from providing any increase in general chassis stiffness. I've run into this in both my day job and as one result of a "one-off" structural mod that I made to the '79 Malibu.


Norm

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Wow! Somebody take MY experience a little personal & get a little pissy? I shared MY experience with it, that's it. I can't believe you took it so personal that you just HAD to direct a public post like yours towards me.

But everything I said it also 100% valid. I never stated that "2-pt is just as strong as a 3-pt." It isn't. 3-pts CAN BE stronger. Problem is, some 3-pts, like the Edelbrock I had, are made from such thin material, you can twist them by hand & feel the flex in them. My UMI is MUCH stronger. Turn it into a 3-pt and the forward/aft movement would be controlled even better. But unless you are REALLY pushing a car to that point, such as autocross, you won't need that level of rigidity. On the street? When are you going to push a car to the level that you need that. Pretty much never, short of avoiding a wreck and then it is just a split second, 1-time event.

AM91Camaro_RS

Maybe you should have posted before that your brace with "solid mounts" was a weaker piece than the one with rod ends. rather than just throwing bits and pieces out there by only saying you switched from a 3pt pt to a rod ended 2pt and felt no difference. that's misleading for people who don't know the difference.
You quoted me and tried to say that info I was giving wasn't accurate...in a public post. I returned the favor.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Maybe I've posted a million times, along with others, and get tired of typing out the details over & over & over &......The information already exists. No need to repeat it again.

What I quoted & highlighted, was 100% applicable too. Give it a rest!

JamesC

iTrader: (5)

JamesC

DeanJ

Here's mine that I built. Although mine's solid, rod ends would be fine. Dean

AM91Camaro_RS

That whole engine bay looks sweet! I do like the way you built that brace, too.