Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: Triangulated FSTB

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 31-40 of 59
2008-03-05 20:00:28
#31
Originally Posted by STRATTON
a cusco fstb is more then capable of stiffing up the front end.

look into them.

stratton.


I beg to differ, when my FW triangulated bracing was loose, the difference was very noticeable. I thought something was broken, due to the "slop".

Coleman did it on the cheap, but it works very well esp anchored to the GC plates. He measured the deflection under load before and after, it was significantly less (how involves using a laser, mirror, don't ask...). It also being home-brewed cost a lot less than a Cusco, I am guessing. And yes, that is simply a box section piece of steel across the towers - 4 bolts and a piece of essentially "scrap" metal. Rectangular hollow metal box cross sections don't like to twist, although they are not very sexy compared to most FTSB's.



I added some metal behind the FW side mount, loctite to the threads, and it works very well. Even with Nittos, there are not too many B13's that can pull 0.96g's on a crappy skidpad. Mine can, thanks to Dave C:



Clearly several thousand $$$ in custom valved Progress CO's and corner-balancing plus a 33mm FWB and a Progress A-Arm/Lower Control Arm chassis brace helps, but I'm saying that triangle makes a BIG difference, too, because I've felt it w/o it.

SCCA seems to agree, because that bracing is 1 of 2 of the only reasons I cannot run STS class in AutoX, the other being the front brakes. It's a big jump from Street Touring to Street Prepared, too (DSP).

I guess it depends on what you mean by "enough"

Don't take my word for it, I love this quote, I couldn't say it any better:

"Even in the wet, this is a brilliant machine...with balance as close to Neutral as any front driver..." - Mike Kojima
2008-03-05 20:16:44
#32
Originally Posted by Pretty
OMG, the camber on that car!!!!


Holy crap, that's extreme! I cannot see how it would really help things perform better (1.5 deg? I forget exactly where they are, but < 2 deg). Putting a major angle on the CO unless it's for clearnance to move the lower mount outbound, I just don't get that.



Even if you're correcting an angle down lower at the knuckle, with that much camber up top, you have altered the pivot axis on each side, it's less vertical and even if used with GC mounts and spherical bearing/torrington bearing spring perches which I think I see under the bar end loops, it would still load them much harder and wear out the bearing much faster. If you only had that top bearing, ouch.

SCC July 2000 Suspension Magic

That 2-bearing setup makes the steering so smooth there's almost not enough feedback - I find myself looking out the window in the start gate to ensure the tires are pointed straight ahead, I could be a full wheel turn off and not feel it. The CO's rotate effortlessly, and you're not replacing top mount bearings so frequently - The entire assembly rotates as a unit.

Nice bar, though, but I'd like to see one where it could adjust preload, and allow for a little variability of fit across cars. As light as it may be, I am guessing it weighs more than my two short sections of alum rods/end joints.
2008-03-05 20:18:35
#33
Originally Posted by FORZWIN
Anyone have pictures of this setup, or has anyone here made their own?

I recall a few pics of one from oversees that was rumored to fit the P11, but nothing for the B13, aside from the SCC bar...


Oh yeah, and what's wrong with the SCC bar? You trying to start something, buddy?

1. It works
2. It's cheap
3. It's adjustable

What more could you want?
2008-03-05 20:22:14
#34
Originally Posted by superblackz
I beg to differ, when my FW triangulated bracing was loose, the difference was very noticeable. I thought something was broken, due to the "slop".

Coleman did it on the cheap, but it works very well esp anchored to the GC plates. He measured the deflection under load before and after, it was significantly less (how involves using a laser, mirror, don't ask...). It also being home-brewed cost a lot less than a Cusco, I am guessing. And yes, that is simply a box section piece of steel across the towers - 4 bolts and a piece of essentially "scrap" metal. Rectangular hollow metal box cross sections don't like to twist, although they are not very sexy compared to most FTSB's.



I added some metal behind the FW side mount, loctite to the threads, and it works very well. Even with Nittos, there are not too many B13's that can pull 0.96g's on a crappy skidpad. Mine can, thanks to Dave C:



Clearly several thousand $$$ in custom valved Progress CO's and corner-balancing plus a 33mm FWB and a Progress A-Arm/Lower Control Arm chassis brace helps, but I'm saying that triangle makes a BIG difference, too, because I've felt it w/o it.

SCCA seems to agree, because that bracing is 1 of 2 of the only reasons I cannot run STS class in AutoX, the other being the front brakes. It's a big jump from Street Touring to Street Prepared, too (DSP).

I guess it depends on what you mean by "enough"

Don't take my word for it, I love this quote, I couldn't say it any better:

"Even in the wet, this is a brilliant machine...with balance as close to Neutral as any front driver..." - Mike Kojima


Would you mind snapping a pic of how Dave attached the firewall-bound tubing to the back of the GCCC plates?

Thanks!

_SHig
2008-03-05 20:38:20
#35
Sure, I know one other tube (PS?) was a problem on I think pass side, one of the 4 bolts was left out, and how they attach, I have lots of pics at home. I'll post some up and make a link here.
2008-03-05 20:41:37
#36
I think it's a stand-off plate that completely misses the bottom one, and has sort of a short sideways squared off "U" shape - the majority of the plate you see stands off the firewall where the tubes are, there is metal under that between what you see and the FW. Behind the FW I added some metal besides the large washers DC used with the bolts. I'll find a a good pic.
2008-03-06 02:32:00
#37
Originally Posted by SHigSpeed
Would you mind snapping a pic of how Dave attached the firewall-bound tubing to the back of the GCCC plates?

Thanks!

_SHig


Here you go bro, any questions give me a PM or post.

Looks like mostly lines were moved around, I was wrong about it being stand-off, although that would work, too, but not as well maybe. Can't beat this for effective brace/low cost, maybe I'll even repaint the bracket someday...nah, I'm not trying for show trophies

More pics here from different angles:

Triangulated Brace B13

Slotted the GC plates, I believe they come this way now, if not a pretty simple cutting job if a little pucker factor cutting nice GC plates - glad I didn't have to do that!

'Cuse the mess, this was right after finishing 3k drive to CT, including snow/ice in PA with Kuhmo MX (n/a for snow), picked up a lot of crap and salt there.

2008-03-06 02:56:36
#38
TRICK! I like the blue re-anodize, or is that a flash trick?

_SHig
2008-03-06 03:00:17
#39
Originally Posted by superblackz
Oh yeah, and what's wrong with the SCC bar? You trying to start something, buddy?

1. It works
2. It's cheap
3. It's adjustable

What more could you want?


It could be complicated if you have a lowport without camber plates, it would be easier a bolt-on thing.
2008-03-06 03:08:54
#40
One thing about the SCC bar. You realize that you'd get better use of the CC plates if you removed the PS line and slammed the plates back to add more caster?

Pic:

You may be able to see what I did here. A simple bent aluminum bracket with a couple of holes drilled - ziptied to the hard line, lose the bracket for the PS hose.



_SHig
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top