[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Well, supposedly you didn't write that about anyone claiming the brace doesn't help.

It wasn't for no reason. It was for a lot of very good reasons that I wrote out specifically because you and someone else both said there were no reasons. Every single thing I wrote was correct, too, except this from my first post: "The Chevy part doesn't do that [triangulate the towers to the firewall]." I mean technically that is true, but I just didn't realize there were braces there already doing that.

Of course, you didn't know that either, and you still wouldn't know it if I didn't figure it out myself and sack up and say so. Hell, RobbyBeefcake87 even wrote: "I'm not saying it does anything for the torsional rigidity losses." So he actually agreed with me! So although I could have left this alone, I thought it was more important to put the facts out there even though it made us wrong on that one point.

OTOH, the brace is clearly of no functional value for a coupe. It may technically improve torsional stiffness, but that doesn't mean that is a useful improvement. Again, the lead engineer told us that. And the fact that the GT4.R races professionally without them is probably all we need to know. But at least we understand why they included the STB (along with a bunch of other braces) on the convertibles.


That's some serious pot-calling-kettle-black content right there!

Lol MATT just can’t leave things alone. Butt hurt Matt. Don’t forget to take 20 mins out of your life to respond to my 20 sec dig at you.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by BlackbeastSS2

But the truth Matt it’s really the way you say things even if your right or wrong.

Butt hurt Matt.

Didn't even take a minute.

[BlackbeastSS2]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Didn't even take a minute.

One of the few things I agree with his post, a short post from Matt.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by Msquared

This is true. I debated on on including that because it might clutter up the discussion. But right, the STB cannot change the stiffness in vertical or lateral bending at all.


Well...I'm glad you linked us to that thread and the chart it contains. It pointed something out that I had not previously realized: there are already diagonal braces between the strut towers and the firewall on our cars! That chart calls them "front motor compartment V-braces." You can see where they are placed by the yellow arrows in the Caddy pic below:
Attachment 1030720

That's a pretty important piece of info I was missing. And so, to the delight of several folks, I'm sure...I have to eat crow and acknowledge that the GM strut tower brace will, in fact, add torsional rigidity to any Camaro that is also equipped with the front V-braces. Based on that chart, the only 6th-gen Camaro not equipped with the V-braces in front is the LT coupe. Hopefully, owners of LT coupes have the holes and mounting points available for the V-braces so they can add those, too. So f' me, I was wrong.

Attachment 1030722

FWIW, in terms of total measured torsional rigidity I would think the underbody X and Y braces would help more, but the STB brace might be more noticeable in terms of feel since it ties to the firewall and we get so much tactile feedback through the steering wheel. I'm also quite sure it won't make a bit of difference in actual performance (i.e., what you can measure on a stopwatch). But I won't tell you it won't make a difference in how the car feels...anymore. And then there's that empirically tested 9% panty-dropper factor. So now you can't have mine!

Thanks for that assessment. I still think you're right in that there's no practical benefit for the additional triangulation of the STB in the coupe cars. The V-braces ARE strut tower braces, though they are not directly tying them together.

The Camaro team obviously did an analysis on this and deemed the brace unnecessary from a performance standpoint, even on the top dog performance 1LE models, despite having an off the shelf part available to choose from. Based on Al's response (keep in mind, it's in his best interest for us to buy additional parts), the fact that the 1LE's don't come with it, and the fact that the GT4.R doesn't have it tells me exactly what I need to know about the tangible performance benefits of the part in question.

[weemus]

Easy Killer's

I would say everyone is correct. The brace was determined to not be significant enough for GM to add from the factory because they added bracing (to accomplish the same thing) to the strut towers to firewall. Does this mean that ADDITIONAL bracing would not make an improvement (even in a tiny amount which most customers would not even notice)?

Bracing of any type on any suspension point provides additional structural stiffening only in the way in which it is meant to function so in this case tying the two strut towers together even more. GM like any business has to balance cost and productivity. There analysis determined that for the cost($), complexity(productivity impact on the production line), outcome (feedback to customer touch points) that it wasn't worth it. That doesn't mean it doesn't do anything, its just doesn't provide them any value.

So the question should not be "Does this thing provide any benefits?" (because it does in some way, possibly infinitesimal) is, If GM said this thing really doesn't provide a value to the mass of Camaro owners (including 1LE and ZL1 owners) "Will it provide value to me?" I would say if your a track rat or car show queen then yes. To everyone else then save your money...

But even track rats need to ask, is this the best expenditure of money to eek out a small, possibly unnoticeable gain or are there better ways to spend my cash?

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by weemus

So the question should not be "Does this thing provide any benefits?" (because it does in some way, possibly infinitesimal) is, If GM said this thing really doesn't provide a value to the mass of Camaro owners (including 1LE and ZL1 owners) "Will it provide value to me?" I would say if your a track rat or car show queen then yes. To everyone else then save your money...

But even track rats need to ask, is this the best expenditure of money to eek out a small, possibly unnoticeable gain or are there better ways to spend my cash?

If the GT4.R doesn't use it, then it's not providing any benefit for track rats.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

I've noticed the cts v v3 has the strut brace. Interesting.

[Deakins]

I installed the beefiest strut tower brace I could find hoping to try and avoid breaking the strut tower out over time. You can point to the GT4.R chassis all you want but they don't put tons of miles on those while sometimes hitting potholes large enough to lose the car in. To each thier own.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by Deakins

I installed the beefiest strut tower brace I could find hoping to try and avoid breaking the strut tower out over time. You can point to the GT4.R chassis all you want but they don't put tons of miles on those while sometimes hitting potholes large enough to lose the car in. To each thier own.

Two things here:

• A STB will add stress to the shock towers, increasing the likelihood that they will break. Think about it: you're using the very top of the tower to resist lateral forces from torsion and (theoretically, but not really) the lateral cornering loads. If the STB constrains the motions that result from those forces, then it's trying to shear the top of the tower off. Not that I think these towers are really likely to break, but this isn't a good reason to add the brace.
• Those GT4.R cars are getting hammered over curbs, hard. They hit those curbs while pulling max lateral Gs and perhaps even hitting the bumpstops. And even if they don't hit the stops, they are running higher spring and damping loads than any of us will, and it's the damping loads the really put the force on the strut tower tops - many times more pounds of force than the springs. But here's the thing: all these forces are vertical, and the STB has nothing to do with bracing or reinforcing against vertical loads into the strut towers. The curbs on a road course are much more likely to induce torsional loads on the chassis, since only one tire at a time usually hits them. The brace would help resist that, but again it would be at the expense of shear force at the top of each tower, putting it at cross purposes to your goal. And in any case, Pratt and Miller seem to think it isn't necessary.

[1LEThumper]

I don’t know if it matters, and I haven’t looked if it ties into them, but the GT4 cars have a full cage so they are going to have a stiffer chassis anyway. I don’t know if brining a real race car into this is much of a comparison.

If the brace works or not....I don’t know. I rarely track mine and if Al said it isn’t worth doing, doubt I add one myself.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by 1LEThumper

I don’t know if it matters, and I haven’t looked if it ties into them, but the GT4 cars have a full cage so they are going to have a stiffer chassis anyway. I don’t know if brining a real race car into this is much of a comparison.

That's a fair point. From the underhood pics of the GT4.R I've seen, the cage doesn't appear to extend past the firewall, so it doesn't tie to the strut towers. However, it's still going to add overall torsional rigidity be strengthening the part of the chassis between its attachment points (so at least from the firewall to the rear-seat bulkhead).

[1LEThumper]

Originally Posted by Msquared

That's a fair point. From the underhood pics of the GT4.R I've seen, the cage doesn't appear to extend past the firewall, so it doesn't tie to the strut towers. However, it's still going to add overall torsional rigidity be strengthening the part of the chassis between its attachment points (so at least from the firewall to the rear-seat bulkhead).

True. Also the FIA legal cars have to be crash tested. It might have worked out in their favor to not bring the cage past the firewall and keep the OE crush zone.

Again, when looking at pro race cars you have to think of the rules they had to be built to.