Ok. I search but could not find any answers. So here goes do I have to jack the front to install this or just leave the car on the ground as is? and the same for the rear.

Thanks

95 Accord EX

 

No....


It just bolts to the shock towers. They dont do anything remotly noticeable to stiffen your suspension up.. You should get a set of ST sway bars, then you'll notice a diffrence..

Eric

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Alpinestar03 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No....
It just bolts to the shock towers. They dont do anything remotly noticeable to stiffen your suspension up.. You should get a set of ST sway bars, then you'll notice a diffrence..
Eric</TD></TR></TABLE>
You're correct that they do nothing at all to stiffen the suspension, because they are designed to stiffen the chassis. A well designed and robust tower brace (front or rear) does quite a lot to improve the chassis dynamics, but poorly designed and flimsy ones don't...

 

Thanks for the replies.

One more thing I got this cheapo 3 pcs strut bar from Ebay and the seller only sends me the front and rears and he told me that the rear lower tie bar is not necessary is this true?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Alpinestar03 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No....


It just bolts to the shock towers. They dont do anything remotly noticeable to stiffen your suspension up.. You should get a set of ST sway bars, then you'll notice a diffrence..

Eric</TD></TR></TABLE>


No

Jack up the front of the car so the wheels are off the ground (no load) then install the strut bar, when you lower the car it will be doing it's job.

Same for the rear.

The rear lower = show really

Get good sway bars front/rear and you're good

Front/Rear Strut Bars
Front/Rear Sway Bars

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You're correct that they do nothing at all to stiffen the suspension, because they are designed to stiffen the chassis. A well designed and robust tower brace (front or rear) does quite a lot to improve the chassis dynamics, but poorly designed and flimsy ones don't...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Great answer right there!

Muffingman also explained why you have to sit the car on jacks before installing the strut tower bars &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; so there's no weight/load on them. It would be like putting a cast on someones leg without getting the broken bones ligned up before the cast... ...well.. you get the point...lol

 

It doesn't make sense why he would have to jack the car up to install it other than to make aligning the bolts easier, but he has a 3 piece strut brace. You also risk the assembly falling out if you jack the car up too high. Strut bars work in almost the same fashion as anti-sway bars by transfering load between them, if the car is not moving there is no load. Tighten them to spec and you should be fine.

 

I installed both front and rear without jacking the car, all bolts were aligned and easy to put in.

I have mix opinions about installing it.

As per my other post, do I need the rear lower tie bar or front and rears will do?

I am going to try it out and see how it handles.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bonh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It doesn't make sense why he would have to jack the car up to install it other than to make aligning the bolts easier, but he has a 3 piece strut brace. You also risk the assembly falling out if you jack the car up too high. Strut bars work in almost the same fashion as anti-sway bars by transfering load between them, if the car is not moving there is no load. Tighten them to spec and you should be fine.</TD></TR></TABLE>


How doesn't it make sense?

As soon as the car hits the ground, the suspension bears the load of the car which pushes the strut towers together just a smidgen.

The purpose for doing it while jacked up is so that everything is nice and even without any load.

That way when you lower it, the strut bar does what it's supposed to do which is push the strut towers apart (well really just keep them straight)

 

It would make more sense to do it with the car on the ground under its normal load. Wouldn't putting the strut bar on with the car jacked up cause you to link them together with the towers pointing outward? As you begin lifting the car your tires push outwards also moving the suspension... Yes this preloads them for compression but what about tension? Putting the bar on there where there is not pre-stress applied to it would allow it to work with both.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bonh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It would make more sense to do it with the car on the ground under its normal load. Wouldn't putting the strut bar on with the car jacked up cause you to link them together with the towers pointing outward? As you begin lifting the car your tires push outwards also moving the suspension... Yes this preloads them for compression but what about tension? Putting the bar on there where there is not pre-stress applied to it would allow it to work with both.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't think you're understanding it.

Once the car is on the ground (normal load) the strut towers have already been pushed together.

The point of a strut bar is to prevent that chassis flex.

 

Ghetto representation of what you're doing.

top = what you say to do = no change/help
bottom = what you SHOULD do = helps

*edit*

- black = tip of strut
- blue = shock tower thingy
- red = forces
- salmon = strut bar

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bopbop93030 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One more thing I got this cheapo 3 pcs strut bar from Ebay and the seller only sends me the front and rears and he told me that the rear lower tie bar is not necessary is this true? </TD></TR></TABLE>
If the "lower tie bar" is what I'm thinking it is, then IMO it won't really do anything worthwhile. The rear subframe is already a very substantial member, and adding a simple tube to it will not make an appreciable difference to it's stiffness, especially considering that the only direction in which loads can pass through the tube without flexure are straight along the tube, i.e. compressive and tensile forces.

The tower braces I've seen on Ebay are IMO not very good, the tower brackets (that fit betwen the bar itself and the tops of the towers and allow the bar to be attched to the towers) are made from thin metal, and are otherwise poorly designed to resist the loads involved without flexing. If the brackets flex (which you'll never see when driving the car) then it doesn't really matter how rigid the bar itself may be.

I strongly suspect that most of those people who think tower braces "do nothing" have Ebay type tower braces, which do not do much. If they had better quality more rigid braces their opinion would probably be different...

 

I fully agree with TheMuffinMan. It's true. You are suppose to push it apart. Just look at the angle of your shocks. I don't get why it wouldn't make sense. It would still do it's job if it was on the ground, but not to it's full potential.

Whatever you like.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TheMuffinMan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I don't think you're understanding it.
Once the car is on the ground (normal load) the strut towers have already been pushed together. The point of a strut bar is to prevent that chassis flex.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I doubt there's an appreciable difference either way. The tower braces are supposed to prevent (i.e. limit) chassis flexure when loading moves away from the statically loaded state. The static chassis flex caused by weight evenly carried on both sides will be minimal compared to the chassis flex that will occur as weight transfers from one tower to the other. It's when we transfer load from one tower to the other tower that the chassis will be subjected to forces that will cause significant flexure.

If I were really pressed to say which I think is probably better, I'd say that fitting the tower bar with the wheels (and towers) unloaded would theoretically be marginally better, but IMO any flexure / preload caused by static weight will be minimal and of no real consequence.

To find out if a noticable difference does exist is easy, fit the brace with the wheels on the gound and drive it around for a while like that to get a feel for it, then jack the car up and loosen / retighten all the bolts (which should remove any pre-load due to clearances between the bolts and bolt holes). Now drive the car in that state and see if it feels any different. Be aware though that if you expect it to be better either way then you might 'feel' a difference even if a real significant difference doesn't actually exist, i.e. a placebo affect...

 

While it may not be a drastic change. The minimal gain from it is still a gain. I'm sure if you were to measure the pressure put on the shock towers and measured while jacked up (no load) and on ground (loaded) there would be in fact a difference in the stress on them.

I'm sure it can't be measured just from driving around for a bit as it'd require hard cornering and what not to truly get a feel for it.

 

You're doing the exact opposite when you are placing a preload on the bar like that. A Strut brace's goal is to prevent chassis flex. When you jack it up, put the strut bar onto the car, and drop it back down you're not allowing the towers to go back into their natural position when your car is sitting still on flat land. I believe doing this is eventually going to cause the chassis to push out and your chassis is no longer preloaded, putting you where I am saying, to put the strut bar on the car without lifting the car. This prevents it from flexing during hard cornering only because your chassis will hardly flex under daily driving.

You get what I'm saying? Lifting the car puts the struts in a certain position. Once you have the bar on the brace tries to keep the struts in that position. The minute you lower it it begins to compress and will not be able to go to the position it is supposed creating the stress which you are trying to avoid.


edit: and yeah, it's not a noticeable performance gain especially if you have a great suspension setup.

 

I understand what you're saying bonh, however I don't believe the strut bar will push them apart as the "normal" position is without a load on them. When the weight of the car is pushing against them they'll flex in regardless. You prevent that flexing from jacking up the car and installing that way.

Regardless it won't break the car either way you do it and you won't get as good of performance from a bar that has moving parts.

 

Yeah either way is fine, I have a neuspeed 4 point on the front that was put on at the same time as my konis so no moving parts. I just personally deem it unnecessary. It has been a huge arguement for a while now but I kind of feel like it's not significant enough for me to bother testing.

http://e30m3performance.com/my...y.htm

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TheMuffinMan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


top = what you say to do = no change/help
bottom = what you SHOULD do = helps

</TD></TR></TABLE>Sticky.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyte-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sticky. </TD></TR></TABLE>


Lol ms paint graphics = ftw

 

I just learned something new today.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bonh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> edit: and yeah, it's not a noticeable performance gain especially if you have a great suspension setup.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The stiffer the suspension is (in general) the more strongly it will tend to transfer forces into the chassis, so I'd think the stiffer the suspension the more affect good tower braces are likely to have...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

The stiffer the suspension is (in general) the more strongly it will tend to transfer forces into the chassis, so I'd think the stiffer the suspension the more affect good tower braces are likely to have...</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree however a tower brace doesn't stiffen up your suspension, it reinforces the chassis(I'm thinking that's what you mean though) which may have some benefit to the handling of the car. I'm not sure if you checked out the link above but it explains how a 2700lb car pulling 1G with 100% weight transfer at the front wheel can produce a 333lbs(12% of the cars wright) force pulling out on the outer strut tower which can make the chassis flex under tension. -- which would bring me back to the theory of ap reloaded bar.

 

I didn't see the link before, but I've read the article now. In principle it tallies almost entirely with my understanding of how forces act at the towers, and how tower braces resist these forces.

We have a lateral force (A) that places the tower brace (TB) under tension due to lateral loading, but also a vertical force (B) that acts to place the TB under compression due to bump loadings or weight transfer. To find the totality of force acting on the TB in roll we'd need to deduct B from A (or A from B depending on which is the larger force).

However to accurately quantify B (and thus it's deduction from A) we also need to find the reduction in B that must occur as a result of the suspension unloading in roll at the other wheel, which will reduce the value of B to some degree. The upshot is that (despite any reduction in B) the value of A won't be as high as implied in the article because B must be deducted from A.

In pure roll on a perfectly smooth road B will be a fairly consistent value dependant on the momentary degree of weight transfer that is occuring through the spring, i.e. how much of the transferring weight is actually transferring through the spring and not 'geometrically' through the suspension linkages. But, not all the weight transfer will be transferring 'mechanically' through the spring vector, some will be transferring 'geometrically' through vector of the suspension geometry (which is to do with the location of geometric roll centres), which to some degree reduces the value of B.

This means that to know the (momentary) value of B (so we can know the momentary value of A) we also need to know the ratio of weight transfer occuring through the 'mechanical' and 'geometric' vectors, which inconveniently tends to change as lateral acceleration and weight transfer increases / decreases. However, the upshot is that the value of B will be reduced somewhat because not all weight transfers through the springs.

As the author of the article stated, his anaysis is simplistic, but for it not to be so causes the calculations to become much more complex (certainly beyond my limited mathematical ability).

In the real world the road isn't smooth, so we see pure bump loadings added and deducted constantly from the equation. This adds and subtracts from the value of B (and thus A) every time a bump or undulation is encountered. I think its likely that considering all these different factors that the the TB must be subjected to compressive and tensile forces that rapidly change, and that when cornering the TB may at some moments be in tension and at other moments be in compression.

I tend to think that the main benefit of a TB is less to do with minimising uncontolled camber changes allowed by tower flexure (which I think is likely to be fairly minimal, i.e. uncontrolled camber change), and much more to do with allowing the forces to be reacted by the suspension with less unwanted effective suspension rate changes cause by tower flexure, which tends to deduct from the responsiveness of the suspension to inputs and as a result deducts from handling responsevness.

One of the more noticable affects of fitting a TB is to make the the chassis vertical motion response to bumps and undulations more obvious, i.e. hit a bump with say the left front wheel and you can feel the left front of the chassis rise more sharply, and also feel the diagonally opposite right rear corner of the chassis lower more sharply in response. You can feel the suspension inputs more clearly, and also feel the inputs transfer through the chassis to the other corner suspensions more sharply, which I think is reflective of the improved resonsivenes to suspension inputs that the TB creates, sharpening up chassis response, i.e. handling responsiveness becomes less 'damped' by unwanted chassis flexure.

The stiffer the suspension (most importantly how stiff the dampers rates are, but also the damper bushes, springs, ARBs and suspension bushes) the more sharply forces are fed into the chassis, and the stiffer the chassis structure (because of TB or other stiffening menas) the more responsive the handling will become to a given suspension input or weight transfer (or rather, creating a faster / more responsive / less damped weight transfer, thus improving handling response). The softer the suspension the less pronounced this will tend to be, IMO.