nonsense

ok first off, I'm NOT looking for your personal opinion on any of these kits. I'm looking for some actual data comparisons between these kits. What I'm mainly interested in is bar placement in relation to the subframe and thickness of the tie bar portions of the two that have them.

So, here's what I'm looking for:

Overall thickness of the A-spec brace, meaning the thickness of all 3 of the pieces that stack between the subframe and the sway bar mount.

Overall thickness of the Comptech piece between the subframe and the swaybar mount.

Overall thickness of the beaks kit (ok I know that this is 1")

The reason I'm wondering is because of swaybar placement.

I'm also curious about the thickness of the Comptech and ASR between the LCA bolts (basically the tie bar portion). It looks like the ASR is about 1/2" and the Comptech is about 1", but that's hard to tell from pics.

Now I understand that the ASR is quite a bit wider than the comptech in the center (about 4" compared to about 1"??)

So if you have any of these kits, get out the tape measure and help me out.

Thanks

slammed_93_hatch

as far as thinkness the Aspec would be easy to measure.

But the comptech brace is an I beam design so it has different thicknesses. The I beam design is an overall stronger desgin.


and the I beam design also plays into the center part being taller.

prkiller

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

But the comptech brace is an I beam design so it has different thicknesses. The I beam design is an overall stronger desgin.

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

What do you base this comment on Jimmy? I am curious because I hear people say things like this, but never why they think that.

CivicFerio

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nonsense &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok first off, I'm NOT looking for your personal opinion on any of these kits. I'm looking for some actual data comparisons between these kits. What I'm mainly interested in is bar placement in relation to the subframe and thickness of the tie bar portions of the two that have them.

So, here's what I'm looking for:

Overall thickness of the A-spec brace, meaning the thickness of all 3 of the pieces that stack between the subframe and the sway bar mount.

Overall thickness of the Comptech piece between the subframe and the swaybar mount.

Overall thickness of the beaks kit (ok I know that this is 1")

The reason I'm wondering is because of swaybar placement.

I'm also curious about the thickness of the Comptech and ASR between the LCA bolts (basically the tie bar portion). It looks like the ASR is about 1/2" and the Comptech is about 1", but that's hard to tell from pics.

Now I understand that the ASR is quite a bit wider than the comptech in the center (about 4" compared to about 1"??)

So if you have any of these kits, get out the tape measure and help me out.

Thanks
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hello nonsense,

The overall thickness of the material from the subframe to the swaybar mount is 1.3inches. Ideally it should be a bit more to make the endlink perfectly 90° in relation to the ITR swaybar arm, but doing so the D bracket might interfere with the exhaust muffler canister on HB models.

The thickness of the brace between the LCA bolts varies but the center part is 3/8 X 2.5 by the ASR logo. I hope this helps!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as far as thinkness the Aspec would be easy to measure.

But the comptech brace is an I beam design so it has different thicknesses. The I beam design is an overall stronger desgin.


and the I beam design also plays into the center part being taller.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hello,

The I-beam is a strong design for many structural uses, but for this application I believe the plate will work better. Maybe we have different approaches for the same goal?

By using the plate, all mounting bolts are held together directly, specifically the bolt on the upper D-bracket where it always rips first. The plate holds all mounting points from moving independent from each other during swaybar movement. In turn, this greatly reduces the subframe from flexing.

The swaybar forces one side of the subframe up, and the other side down. Now imagine holding a Popsicle stick with both hands and try bending it, which position will resist more bending force? While it is flat or standing up? How about 1 inch I-beam versus 2.5 X 3/8 standing up?

Charleston

slammed_93_hatch

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

What do you base this comment on Jimmy? I am curious because I hear people say things like this, but never why they think that. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Its just the way forces work, im not supper smart into all of detials but an I beam stronger then a plate.

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

Hello,

The I-beam is a strong design for many structural uses, but for this application I believe the plate will work better. Maybe we have different approaches for the same goal?

By using the plate, all mounting bolts are held together directly, specifically the bolt on the upper D-bracket where it always rips first. The plate holds all mounting points from moving independent from each other during swaybar movement. In turn, this greatly reduces the subframe from flexing.

The swaybar forces one side of the subframe up, and the other side down. Now imagine holding a Popsicle stick with both hands and try bending it, which position will resist more bending force? While it is flat or standing up? How about 1 inch I-beam versus 2.5 X 3/8 standing up?

Charleston
</TD></TR></TABLE>

i don't know the structual findings but im pretty sure the I-beam is strong. Popsicle is representitive of the plate but not an Ibeam.


Now i REALLY don't think that the aspec kit will let the subframe rip, in fact id be willing to put money on it. The comptech peace and the aspec peace are the TWO BEST products out there. Neither one will allow the sub frame to rip. But structually speaking the I-beam is stronger.

nonsense

Charleston, Thanks for the info it does help.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> But structually speaking the I-beam is stronger.</TD></TR></TABLE>

An I beam will be stronger than the same sized recangular beam when a force is placed against the rib in the I beam. The problem with this application is that it appears that the forces on the beam are torsional and I'm just not sure if an I beam is really the best choice in this case.

The problem with comparing the Comptech's I-Beam to the ASR plate is that they are of completely different dimensions. It would take a lot of calculating to figure out which is stronger, and after all that you'll probably know that both are more than strong enough for the job that they're doing.

EDIT: One thing that I just thought of is that I'd be willing to bet that a lot (if not most) of the torsional stress is isolated to the area between the LCA attachment and the swaybar attachments. So what happens between the two LCA's is probably pretty minor in relation to the other portion.


Modified by nonsense at 8:04 AM 9/28/2005

Eyal 951

Aside from what Charleston said about the ASR kit, I have personal experience with the brace. Fitment, quality, and engineering is top notch, something lacking in a lot of after market parts lately. It is appearent that a lot of R&D went into the brace. Even details like serated nuts on the back where its hard to get a tool, so there is no need to counter hold inside the subframe while torqueing make the kit a joy to install. I see no reason to go with any other method.

nonsense

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Eyal 951 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Aside from what Charleston said about the ASR kit, I have personal experience with the brace. Fitment, quality, and engineering is top notch, something lacking in a lot of after market parts lately. It is appearent that a lot of R&D went into the brace. Even details like serated nuts on the back where its hard to get a tool, so there is no need to counter hold inside the subframe while torqueing make the kit a joy to install. I see no reason to go with any other method. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks, but:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nonsense &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok first off, I'm NOT looking for your personal opinion on any of these kits. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not looking for opinions, just curious about the designs of these products.

prkiller

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Its just the way forces work, im not supper smart into all of detials but an I beam stronger then a plate.

i don't know the structual findings but im pretty sure the I-beam is strong. Popsicle is representitive of the plate but not an Ibeam.


Now i REALLY don't think that the aspec kit will let the subframe rip, in fact id be willing to put money on it. The comptech peace and the aspec peace are the TWO BEST products out there. Neither one will allow the sub frame to rip. But structually speaking the I-beam is stronger.

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

But what you are saying is, in general, an I beam is stronger. In general, I would agree. But you need to think about the forces that are being applied to it. If you have the plate, and the I beam next to each other, and you pretend these are mounted correctly on the car. The "bending force" is vertical. So, the forces being applied to the brace are trying to bend one side down, and the other side up. If you have a flat plate 2.5"tall x 3/8", or an I beam 1" tall, which one do you think will resist the vertical bending force? I for one would bet it was the much taller plate.

I have suggested to Charleston that he purchase a comptech brace, and put them both in a jig to test the forces each one can take. But I think people would have a tendency to "not believe" the results simply because they are coming from one manufacturer. I also tend to think that they are both capable of doing the job, and that testing them would show that. So, it's really a pointless arguement I think.

But the ASR kit is cheaper, and from what I can tell a stronger brace.

slammed_93_hatch

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

. If you have a flat plate 2.5"tall x 3/8", or an I beam 1" tall, which one do you think will resist the vertical bending force? I for one would bet it was the much taller plate.

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

But i think thats why the I beam is great because it can be much smaller, and stonger or as strong.

I do see what you are saying but in every application i can think of, people use the I beam design.

i don't want to get into a pissing match with jeremy or charleston. I recoqonize the hard work chareston put into bring out a great product, that works.

Competion makes for a geat Market place!

I have even talked to charelston about buying the hollow bar setup he has, i just need some more seat time befor i make any changes.

Andrie Hartanto

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

But what you are saying is, in general, an I beam is stronger. In general, I would agree. But you need to think about the forces that are being applied to it. If you have the plate, and the I beam next to each other, and you pretend these are mounted correctly on the car. The "bending force" is vertical. So, the forces being applied to the brace are trying to bend one side down, and the other side up. If you have a flat plate 2.5"tall x 3/8", or an I beam 1" tall, which one do you think will resist the vertical bending force? I for one would bet it was the much taller plate.

I have suggested to Charleston that he purchase a comptech brace, and put them both in a jig to test the forces each one can take. But I think people would have a tendency to "not believe" the results simply because they are coming from one manufacturer. I also tend to think that they are both capable of doing the job, and that testing them would show that. So, it's really a pointless arguement I think.

But the ASR kit is cheaper, and from what I can tell a stronger brace. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Speaking from Civil Engineering stand point, it will fail on the weakest point, which is the 3/8". It will fold like a piece of paper. The next time we see each other, you can come and we can talk. I can draw you a FBD and all the forces acting on it.

I'm a civil engineer, and do this for a living.

But like Jimmy said, I think the ASR is a fine product and will work well. Let's not get into pissing match on which is better.

Although, let the record show that I think Comptech is better
(look at my sig)


Modified by Andrie at 2:38 PM 9/28/2005

prkiller

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


i don't want to get into a pissing match with jeremy or charleston. I recoqonize the hard work chareston put into bring out a great product, that works.

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

No pissing match. Just discussion.


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

Speaking from Civil Engineering stand point, it will fail on the weakest point, which is the 3/8". It will fold like a piece of paper. The next time we see each other, you can come and we can talk. I can draw you a FBD and all the forces acting on it.

I'm a civil engineer, and do this for a living.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I see that your pointing out the weakest point on the asr brace would be 3/8". What would be the weakest point on the comptech brace? I have heard lots of people state why they think the comptech brace is better "because of the I beam", but never have I seen a reason why. All I ever hear is "the I beam design is stronger". I for one am trying to understand why it's stronger because I just don't see how it can be in this application.

slammed_93_hatch

ok the plate is strong (in the area of the sway bar) in its thickness messurement.

which chareleston said was 3/8".


now on an I beam design you have the same "plate" in there also, but by adding the tops and bottoms that are thicker, you have effectivly made the "plate" that thick, and hence that stong.


Again im not 100% sure on this, but this is the best why i could think it of it in my head.


Back the the popsicel sticks. Take the one stick (ASR kit) and apply forces to it.


For the Comptech kit, take 3 popsicle stick, make an I out of them and apply forces to it. This is some what representitive of the comptech not fully, i stil think there is some important "stuff" missing.


Modified by slammed_93_hatch at 3:06 PM 9/28/2005

Laserjock

The Comptech looks more like a modified I beam design. The advantage to using an I beam design is for lightness and weight saving. If one was to take a solid block with X and Y dimensions (same length and material) and an I beam with the same X and Y dimensions and applies twist to both and somehow measures the force required to bend either sample. the solid block would require more force to twist because of the extra material absent from the I beam. The solid block will also weigh much more!

The I beam would be lighter and in the case of the Comptech tie bar would look more hawter! I know which I would put in my car. Admit it, appearance do play a role in what we put in our cars.

No-Gi

Comptech is also adjustable = a + in my book.

I have yet to purchase one for my EM1 (still considering both) but I did have the Comptech piece in my DB8. Top notch .

Also, the price difference is roughly $20-30.

cxSHOE

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by prkiller &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I for one am trying to understand why it's stronger because I just don't see how it can be in this application. </TD></TR></TABLE>

i would have to agree.

Andrie Hartanto

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

No pissing match. Just discussion.


I see that your pointing out the weakest point on the asr brace would be 3/8". What would be the weakest point on the comptech brace? I have heard lots of people state why they think the comptech brace is better "because of the I beam", but never have I seen a reason why. All I ever hear is "the I beam design is stronger". I for one am trying to understand why it's stronger because I just don't see how it can be in this application. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The I beam alone won't be stronger, if the force is applied like you said previously. But Comptech added a rib along the I-beam design. Next time we meet, I'll explain it in person.

vwong

Does anyone have a Comptech tie-bar laying around? I'd like to model it and then perform a quick FEA on it and compare to the ASR one.

Andrie Hartanto

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Laserjock &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Comptech looks more like a modified I beam design. The advantage to using an I beam design is for lightness and weight saving. If one was to take a solid block with X and Y dimensions (same length and material) and an I beam with the same X and Y dimensions and applies twist to both and somehow measures the force required to bend either sample. the solid block would require more force to twist because of the extra material absent from the I beam. The solid block will also weigh much more!

The I beam would be lighter and in the case of the Comptech tie bar would look more hawter! I know which I would put in my car. Admit it, appearance do play a role in what we put in our cars. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I just read laserjock, and he is exactly right.