Anyone like to give their before-and-after opinion of having fitted a strut brace, preferably to a VN / VP?
They are useless. After a day of testing and tuning, on average were about half a second slower running with a strut brace. Created understeer.
While we do have them on our race cars, they are only cable tied in and serve no purpose to handling. They are great for supporting breather lines across an engine bay.
Hot Lap Motorsport
Played with a heap of setting that day. Had 3 race cars we were trying to setup pre season a few years ago. 2 Saloon cars (VN & VP) and an Improved Production (IP) VN. Had them do a few laps to set benchmark times and went from there. The IP VN had adjustable swaybars. With a few adjustments, we sort of had it turning in better, but ended up with bump steer issues and he couldn't power out as early as before without the back end trying to come out.
The Saloon cars we could never get right with the strutbrace. Although the biggest thing we learnt about them was how much difference designs in rollcage can make. Ended up requiring to cut a rollbar out of one as it was making the car too stiff in a particular area. But the general consensus seems to be the same. Looking through a few garages, a few of the later model AU/VT's also don't run them
Hot Lap Motorsport
As part of a handling package with properly rated springs and shocks they help keep the front end geometry accurate under cornering stresses. Check out whiteline website or give them a ring. I have whiteline full kit on my vp, cost about $1500 fitted, springs, shocks, strut bar, sway bars, radius rods, links and bushes & adjusted geometry. I noticed the difference when it was out once and I was cornering as normal, it just felt different. As far as times around a track go i wouldn't have a clue. All I know is since I did the suspension (about 3 years ago) my car is much nicer to drive, handles beautiful and can be drifted through corners without lurching and tank slapping off the road like it used to. A strut brace on its own? as far as wank goes I'd give it half wank half useful.
Warranty Void
Never noticed any difference, but then again I don't drive like a moron trying to do things on public roads that i shouldn't.
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
Well I pretty much drive like a grandpa most of the time, but I'm interested in body rigidity after decades of driving flexy cars. Seeing that strut type suspension takes the springs direct to the bodywork the area forward of the firewall is =HEAPS= more rigid than on a car that doesn't have this type of suspension (read HQ-HZ). Seeing that this rigidity is such a good thing I thought a strut brace would improve things even further when you are going over bumps and maybe it would make the alignment stay put for longer. That is my main goal/thoughts.
I can't see how reducing chassis flex and maintaining more consistant front end geometry can be a bad thing. Commodore strut towers are well known for sagging inward over time. A strut brace can help maintain the factory specified measurement between the towers.
I'm no professional race driver, nor is my car a race car by any means, but I've done a couple of circuit days, one with a strut brace and one without. Can't say I really noticed any real difference with the addition of the strut brace, certainly no understeer issues, it certainly didn't degrade the handling. I'd say any improvements would be subtle on most street cars
Was it a simple strut tower - tower brace or was it triangulated to the fire wall? There is merit in the triangulated version however the tower-tower version will be worse than without it for good reason.
From a senior engineer at Holden at the time - "the strut brace introduced on the VY was a development of the engineering department connected to marketing".
No argument Darren. The key is triangulating the towers back to the fire wall which just doesn't happen on street commodores. Anything less will at best flex like a bow (and arrow) and at worst push the inside strut tower to an even worse geometry than what it was.
For it to have any hope of working you need a straight tube going from the strut tower to the fire wall and then out to the other tower. That setup is very strong.
Reaper
Like the factory one on this old XK Falcon?
http://images-2.drive.com.au/2010/06...00-600x400.jpg
It does sound like we are dealing with =very= small movements that would be totally swamped by any bowing or deflection in an inadequate brace.
Out of curiosity,
Do you know how to use a strut brace?
A lot of people tighten them up, Which pulls the struts inwards creating understeer & lots of it.
The proper use for a strut brace is, fit it, extend the sides just enough so it is tight, then give it ONE rotation with a spanner.
Meaning, DO not pull the struts in towards eachother, Fit it, then extend it outwards, Just. Not tight.
The purpose of a strut brace is to keep your struts where they are an not create too much flex, However soo many people use them incorrectly causing increased understeer an negative camber.
Cheers
Mat
![]()
Originally Posted by garth
Outward just enough to take the static load?
Good advice.
Tower to Tower we ran. I would agree that having it attached to the firewall would certainly be better (only could do certain mods to the saloon cars). We were thinking of getting a new roll cage built for the improved production car extending through the firewall to the strut towers on advice from an engineer, but money needed to be spent else where first.
Hot Lap Motorsport
Yes - that is the idea. Even though they were a pressed sheet metal (from memory) it will be very strong as it's straight. Any tube that is bent will be relatively easy to bend similar to an archery bow.
Yeah - the full cage more or less manufactured around the engine made of triangulated straight tubes would be best. As usual it all comes down to money though and the realities of whatever the chassis/engine combo will be.
Reaper