AEM Strut Bar will include Master Cylinder Brace

[wu_dot_com]

This morning I was at AEM for another business, AEM rep was kind enough to show me their revamp Strut Bar design since the debut at SEMA to include a Master Cylinder Brace.

I was not fortunate enough to snap any pictures, however from the looks of it, I think it’s a much more robust design than those typical offering from Perrin or Grimm speed.

the fundamental difference between the two design is that with the existing design offering, the MC brace is mounted on the flexible sheet metal sidewall of the shock tower. In this case, all the lateral deflection of the firewall would be transform into a bending moment and transfer onto the sidewall in a way deviating from original design intent. Moreover, it is likely that this additional bending load was never analyzed during the chassis design. For all intents and purposes, the shock tower sidewall may be fine when subject to an extra bending force under normal operating condition. However, without a proper chassis stress analysis, it will be hard to determine the possibility of the detrimental effects on the shock tower sidewall throughout the life of the vehicle. On the other hand, the AEM strut bar has incorporated the master cylinder brace as part of the welded structure. Because of this design, it have effectively self-contain all the firewall deflection load within the strut bar structure. Therefore, no undesired bending force will be transmitted onto the chassis structure. In addition, in a hypothetical case of an overload failure, the weld joints of the strut bar would most likely failed first which then decouples the over loading force from further damaging the chassis.

With all this being said, I think the AEM strut bar offers tremendous value than those current market offering.
So if you are looking to add a strut bar or if you are thinking about adding a MC brace in the future, stay tune to what AEM has to offer.
PS. AEM is in their final development phase of this revised design. As of today, they have one preproduction unit that was installed on their track/test car.

[norsamerican]

hmmm...interesting

[eckoflyte]

Pics here
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...5860617&type=1

I see that it only mounts to two strut bolts on each tower. Would it make a difference in terms of chassis rigidity if not mounted to the entire tower (all 3 bolts)?

[Kodename47]

I wonder if they'll make a RHD version, really want a MCB but yet to see one.

[Anorexic 86]

Originally Posted by eckoflyte

Pics here
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...5860617&type=1

I see that it only mounts to two strut bolts on each tower. Would it make a difference in terms of chassis rigidity if not mounted to the entire tower (all 3 bolts)?

Check the pictures you posted again.

It mounts to FOUR (4) bolts on EACH strut tower PLUS (4) to the firewall for a total of TWELVE (12) bolts.

and it includes a master cylinder brace? Yes, AWESOME!

[eckoflyte]

Originally Posted by Anorexic 86

No...

Check the pictures you posted again.

It mounts to FOUR (4) bolts on EACH strut tower PLUS (4) to the firewall for a total of TWELVE (12) bolts.

and it includes a master cylinder brace? Yes, AWESOME!

That sounds more like speculation without quantifiable evidence. The whole point of a strut bar is to reduce tower flex, therefore to me it would only make sense if the bar utilized all the strut bolts to maximize bracing.

Of course I am no engineer and I don't know the answer to this which is why I am asking. Can someone with an engineering background comment on this?

[Anorexic 86]

Originally Posted by eckoflyte

That sounds more like speculation without quantifiable evidence. The whole point of a strut bar is to reduce tower flex, therefore to me it would only make sense if the bar utilized all the strut bolts to maximize bracing.

Of course I am no engineer and I don't know the answer to this which is why I am asking. Can someone with an engineering background comment on this?

YES, it makes sense to utilized all the strut bolts to maximize bracing...

NO, it does not use only 2 bolts on each strut tower as stated earlier by another member... it utilizes 4 bolts on each strut tower.

That was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Either way, it looks stout and is a fully welded triangle design... compaired to the similar looking Hotchkis brace which is not welded together at the firewall mounting location.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater
Cheers

[White64Goat]

It bolts to 2 of the 3 strut bolts. The other 2 nuts connect to studs on an ear that is welded to the side/top of the tower and connects the firewall to tower bars. You can't tell that from these pictures, but another member on here busted off one of the studs that is attached to the ear. Check under your hood and you'll see what I mean. Do not over-tighten the 2 nuts as the studs are not very strong.

Here is the other post: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...6254&highlight

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by Anorexic 86

YES, it makes sense to utilized all the strut bolts to maximize bracing...

NO, it does not use only 2 bolts on each strut tower as stated earlier by another member... it utilizes 4 bolts on each strut tower.

That was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Either way, it looks stout and is a fully welded triangle design... compaired to the similar looking Hotchkis brace which is not welded together at the firewall mounting location.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater
Cheers

Originally Posted by eckoflyte

That sounds more like speculation without quantifiable evidence. The whole point of a strut bar is to reduce tower flex, therefore to me it would only make sense if the bar utilized all the strut bolts to maximize bracing.

Of course I am no engineer and I don't know the answer to this which is why I am asking. Can someone with an engineering background comment on this?

Here is my understanding of the purpose of the strut bar. The strut bar is usually a design that is intended to reduce engine bay flex and improve load transfer between the two shock tower. Thus by providing an overhanging rigdit cross member in the engine bay connecting the two load path directly, it would provide a shorter direct path for the suspension load to transfer between one another. A bolt as the one utilized in this case is typically being loaded in tension, I.e the load is carry through the axis of the bolt. It's primary load carry method is through providing a compressive force on the clamping member. The clamping member in this case is the strut tower. The bolt that was used typically are not design to carry lateral shear or bending loads. in order to achieve maximum mechanical effectiveness, the bolt will usually be loaded upto 90% of the bolt yielding load.

Now I will analysis s the force path that will effect the strut bar. When the shock is being compress, all the suspension reaction force will be applied evenly to the top of the shock tower. This reaction force is being applied on the shock tower in a form of a compressive force. This force will then be evenly transfer onto the strut bar base as a compressive force. Thus when the suspension is being compress, the load transfer does not effect the bolt because the bolt is being loaded in tension. On the other hand, when the suspension is being extended, the compressive member between the bolt would want to pull the bolt apart thus reducing the preloaded tension force within the bolt. Even at maximum suspension loading in this case, the bolt should alway remain in preload tension. The forces which thr strut bar will add in this case is relatively minimal.

Now with all this being said, does utilizing all 3 suspension bolt help?
The answe is yes, it will distribute the load more evenly within thr bolts when the suspension is fully extended. However, the standard MS bolts use in our car are typically over design. Thus even when the minimal strut bar force went up from 1/3 to 1/2, it would never reduce the compressive tension preload in the bolt to zero under maximum suspension load.

I hope my explanation provide some clarification.

[johnnie]

nice try AEM rep.

I kid...

[LeeMaster]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

Here is my understanding of the purpose of the strut bar. The strut bar is usually a design that is intended to reduce engine bay flex and improve load transfer between the two shock tower. Thus by providing an overhanging rigdit cross member in the engine bay connecting the two load path directly, it would provide a shorter direct path for the suspension load to transfer between one another. A bolt as the one utilized in this case is typically being loaded in tension, I.e the load is carry through the axis of the bolt. It's primary load carry method is through providing a compressive force on the clamping member. The clamping member in this case is the strut tower. The bolt that was used typically are not design to carry lateral shear or bending loads. in order to achieve maximum mechanical effectiveness, the bolt will usually be loaded upto 90% of the bolt yielding load.

Now I will analysis s the force path that will effect the strut bar. When the shock is being compress, all the suspension reaction force will be applied evenly to the top of the shock tower. This reaction force is being applied on the shock tower in a form of a compressive force. This force will then be evenly transfer onto the strut bar base as a compressive force. Thus when the suspension is being compress, the load transfer does not effect the bolt because the bolt is being loaded in tension. On the other hand, when the suspension is being extended, the compressive member between the bolt would want to pull the bolt apart thus reducing the preloaded tension force within the bolt. Even at maximum suspension loading in this case, the bolt should alway remain in preload tension. The forces which thr strut bar will add in this case is relatively minimal.

Now with all this being said, does utilizing all 3 suspension bolt help?
The answe is yes, it will distribute the load more evenly within thr bolts when the suspension is fully extended. However, the standard MS bolts use in our car are typically over design. Thus even when the minimal strut bar force went up from 1/3 to 1/2, it would never reduce the compressive tension preload in the bolt to zero under maximum suspension load.

I hope my explanation provide some clarification.

*Blank stare*

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

...it would never reduce the compressive tension preload in the bolt to zero under maximum suspension load.

[chadstyle]

The cusco OS strut brace has an integrated MCB. I chose this design at the time as they were the only manufacturer utilizing the rigid strut brace to also secure the master cylinder. I installed it a couple days after purchasing the car and I love it. I got a great deal purchasing the front and rear OS braces together and they look great installed and are great for stiffening up the chassis.

[drifter-s]

Been waiting awhile for this brace to hit the market. Just picked one up from FT86speedfactory.com. Excellent service as usual! Pic 1 shows what comes in the box. Pics 2 and 3 show brace installed.

Final verdict: Top notch quality. Easy install. Brake master cylinder brace is a nice addition. Feels good, but I'm not feeling any drastic changes. Decrease in minor rattle noise though.