nt5k

This looks pretty cool, I already have the SS lines and this would top that off nicely.
If I bring my car up would you able to punch that hole in for me?

shaunv74

Richard that's probably some valuable advice to put in your documentation when you start your finished product. Most folks (myself just now educated)won't know what is okay for their master cylinder and what is not.

TrochoidMagic

i am not knocking at this product at all. or the inventor for all his efforts, but,

-i have saw this thread immediately and considered having one at the cost...its relatively inexpensive.
the only thing that bugs me is having to remove material from the oem strut bar... removing structural rigidity for added rigidity of another. i have to think about that one really hard and couldn't think of a reason to sacrifice.

it may do a fair job for both tasks, but i would rather spend extra for one that does each job well.

i have been thru aftermarket adjustable strut bars that by the look of the structural design which doesn't look well engineered, and i was right. after hard use and adjusted to be loaded with tension, it bended the brace.

^so thats the ONLY reason which i feel it may not be the absolute best if ever were subjected to those extremes... it may be a decent performer, but i'm a buyer that likes to cover all my bases if i'm to spend any $$$ amount.

just my 0.2cents

btw, this is probably only the first version,right? i like to see a revised one... and i'm in the market for a MS strut bar... but like to see a lower cost solution.
we're a step closer, just not completely sold.

thanks for considering my opinion.

TrochoidMagic

btw... KWESCOTT??? not sure whom i'm addressing this to...

but as far as clutch pedal assembly is concerned, i was under the assumption that it was the bracket itsself that was weak. kinda like how brake pedal was engineered to break away to possibly save a limb in a frontal impact. that may be the weak point in the clutch pedal bracket...think we're mentioning the same thing...just checking. but,

all these rigidity items here are to address the flex from firewall flex. which BOTH brake and clutch are connected to(via firewall) that makes both suffer. so hypothetically bracing the bigger(master cyl) piece would induce less flex of clutch pedal flex due to stiffened firewall as a byproduct...makes sense?

seems the absolute only way to eliminate firewall flex and ultimate rigidity in the frontal area is to tie all panels down, which means a 4 point strut brace. the basic principal of "triangulating" braces to evenly distribute torsional twist.
BUT, that is very intrusive. which is why i'm considering the MS strut bar... and not an expensive brace.

i'd only wish i had enough manufacturing power to contribute, but i don't. and i may be only 1 person... but i hope thats enough to sell on the inventor with the manufacturing power to fab up something with no other drawbacks.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

then you should wait for the updated version or a better solution.
the whole waiting part is a bitch..

i have the mazdaspeed bar..

i did think about selling it for this product..

simple well made..

beers

LionZoo

I'd have to agree with TrochoidMagic, except I already have the Mazdaspeed brace so I'm not a potential customer. However, expecting a customer to have to dremel his stock brace is probably doing a great deal to limit the market.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

ok,

i will say that anyone that is going to use the brace for what it is designed to do. would gladly cut the part or drill the hole..

this is not a fluff thing.. it is made to be used.....

beers

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

Strut braces are for marketing on a non-MacPherson strut suspension.
Its just there for looks, really.

shaunv74

^^I have to disagree with you on that one.

Read my thread. https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-wheels-tires-brakes-suspension-55/front-strut-tower-brace-sliding-137835/

To be less cryptic: At my track day last weekend my strut tower brace was sliding back and forth due to the hard cornering forces. If it were not useful it wouldn't be exposed to high loads and be flexing/moving.

TrochoidMagic

MM: yeah, some are. but not all... the improvement is small, so thats the reason why spending a fortune on a strut brace is... not a great idea, then say...putting in the same $ amount for a sway bar. performance-wise speaking of course.

but for a cheap strut bar... on other vehicles, even any aftermarket adjustable one will be of some use to a degree. and for a car that has one from the factory... even a puny one... it certainly isn't there for looks. so i can't fully agree with u on this MM. it really depends on the application, and the vehicle.

but on another note, i already see a possible solution for a revised version of this product. and it isn't much changed... wish i can explain, but i'm not good in applying photos on the computer...

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

If you look at the engineering pics and sketches for the car, you will see that there is no possible movement across the strut mounting points that aligns with the rigid line of the strut bar.

I read your thread before, Shaun. Suspension flex isn't why your bar is moving. Its because your coils are binding and twisting the upper mount.

Its all moot anyway - the hole that you drill for the AF brace doesn't fall along the axis of the bar, nor does it compromise the apex of the brace mounting arch.
It ends up being just as tough (and just as useless) as it was before the added brace.

TrochoidMagic

ok...get this for a revised version w/o sacrificing structural rigidity of the oem bar... and i'm not one to complain about modification or using a drill. but this seems to make sense, hear me out.

(2nd photo, the yellow bodied car) the hole thats yellow, and more obvious on this vehicle. lose the other bolt down location, the one to be drilled. and use the hole thats yellow in this picture... u really only need soo much to keep it in place. and the other bolt down location seems like its main purpose was to keep it from spinning. so the yellow hole serves the alternative route for the revision...
the strut bolt is strong enough... and obviously of high tensile strngth. so we only need one and moving the other bolt down location to be the yellow hole. saves headache and machining material... makes sense???

i'd do that in a heart beat if given the manufacturing power... who likes something along the lines of what i suggested for a revised version?

i know i do!

do it, and for even the same price ($70??? ) if seller sells for same... and i'm SOLD! as the MS strut brace alternative is concerned, i'd take it if its made and i give my word. done!

MazdaManiac

iTrader: (3)

That tab is really flimsy.
Where Rich has the bar anchored is the structurally most rigid area of the vehicle (and part of the reason why a strut bar doesn't do anything there).

swoope

iTrader: (5)

i think you will find the owners of the ms bars got them for the bling, or just for the brake brace.

beers

shaunv74

Interesting thought. Could you post a little more about that in my thread and your thoughts on how to check that and fix if necessary.

TrochoidMagic

MM: not to argue with you. but just to prove a valid point of my own, a strut bar does do its job... get this,

on a adjustable no-name bar i used on a honda. i jacked up car from the center of the subframe, tension the strut bar (add load to the bar), and lower car. as the body of the car gains back the weight from its original state of sitting on the suspension, the strut bar bracket "popped" into place...at which time i re-torqued it down. and no-one seems to understand the benefit of that procedure... which gets me.

but anyway, thats just what i wanted to say. and ur right as well... not all cars have aftermarket bars that are actually "functional". you'll just have to see. but i know mine works as it bended from usage and sustained body flex.
get this. the cheap no-name bar had a design flaw that was on the bracket itself... it has a large hole on one side of the bracket to clear other items that run thru where its supposed to hook up, "before" the strut bolts. so its quite obvious it was the weak link.

and however, even though the AF bracket has a modify point outside of the strut bolt... it was from "that"^^ bad experience that i will not sacrifice even the oem strut bar's structural rigidity.

this is my story... hope you understand where i'm coming from now.

TrochoidMagic

need to get another look at the MS bar. but then again... even though. i'd say ur right on the money swoope. that is the exact reason. (brake/firewall brace) but not for $200+ i won't!

like someone said to me earlier... maybe i will wait for a revised version.

and i still wait for an actual "functional" alternative...

how'd you like ur MS bar anyway?

swoope

iTrader: (5)

my ms crossbrace is hidden under the engine cover..

and the brake brace that came with it was well worth the money...

that is not the topic here..

richard pauls stuff is always well done.

i have his shifter from the first group buy.. flawless..

for the money.. this is the best mod ever, if you auto x or do track days. or if you really really drive hard. most do not..

for the rest it is just bling.. as is the ms bar..


i will say that the difference in the pedal feel is not shy...

but what do i know..

beers

TrochoidMagic

right. it is flimsy. but i don't think that matters.
not sure if i made my statement clear, but seeing that the master cyl stopper bolt is making contact with the master "square" on, i don't expect having to use the other bolt-down location as reasonable to stop the bracket from spinning.
see what i'm saying?

still. i think the "flimsy" hole is actually a better spot to keep the bracket from spinning. which is unlikely... given that at least only the first bolt-down is tightened and torqued.

am i really not making any sense? i hope i shed some light on the idea, thats all.

swoope

iTrader: (5)

i think you miss the fact that this bolts to the shock studs..

in the photo one stut bolt is not installed..

if that is not the case i cannot help you.. this is pretty simple..

beers

Richard Paul

iTrader: (5)

I'm really going to miss this sale'

This part starts out 3.25 Lbs and ends up 1 lbs. It's not the material cost I'm crying about it's the chips that it becomes that cost the money. If I could have made it smaller and picked up that thin little tab I would have. If I built a part that was to weak I'd never hear the end of it. Look at the geometry and you'll see it just will not be the same.
We went to alot of expense to make those nut so the pressure is applied to the top of the part giving it a mechanical advantage.
We really do think these things out as we are real engineers with book learning and all that stuff.
Like Sundance said to Butch "you just keep thinking Butch, that's what you're good at."

BTW I don't run a strut bar at all. The flange you see was just to test the install, it's gone now.

TrochoidMagic

i understand swoope.
i'm only talkin about using only 1 for the kit. the one directly in front of the master, and doin something with the yellow hole from the picture i used off MM.

either way bro, it doesn't affect me. i like the kit, but not a potential buyer for this version... its cheap, but i'd get it just to have to deal with modifying it to how i would see it useful.

lionzoo is right. i'd do everything else but remove material from the oem strut bar.
and this is limiting its customers. for someone **** like myself... i'd like to find a system that lets me keep the oem bar completely intact... or wait til someone else makes what i'm looking for. you only get one oem bar with the car, ya know?

swoope

iTrader: (5)

well there you go..

start a new adventure. stop craping here..

start you own thread about how you are going to do it..

i am sure you will corner the market with your one bolt solution..

beers

TrochoidMagic

RP: i understand all that. and my very first post was clearly stated that i wasn't knocking on the inventor for his efforts. just so we're clear.

and from a functional standpoint... you said urself that u didn't deny where i suggested as a bad spot. so why not just do it?

i understand you guys do your homework. as you can see... so do i.
and maybe thats part of the reason why i'm not sold on ur first version.
i gotta respect you for ur efforts. but then again... i understand its cost in more machining work...but, its quite obvious. you didn't rule-out or deny using that tab as a valid spot.

so what are you waiting for? i can care less if you charged extra for the machining work for it to use the tab instead of drilling out the oem bar. and you'd know i'd buy it! and its also obvious the extra effort will bring you more potential buyers as someone stated... and not "limit" yourself to certain buyers.

ur already doin a good job. i'm just waiting for someone who's willing to do a great job....
make 2 versions. i'll get the one that doesn't destroy the oem bar, and we'll see what sells better.

TrochoidMagic

ok ok ok. got you swoope. i even went the distance to be as respectful about my opinion as possible. and no-body blatantly pointed me out as completely wrong...
sorry people cry and can't take constructive criticism.

if buying compromised parts suits you and the general public, i'll leave it be.
i'll stop crying myself and fork out the money for top end parts. all is happy now, right?