Quote:
Originally Posted by Dammmittt
Shocks and struts dissipate the load, they don't eliminate it. I'd argue that chassis torque load during turn in/out is much higher than sheer on the crossbeam. Got some FEM software?
|
I don't have any FEM software unfortunately, too much money for my budget. The shear loading I referenced in the original is in relation to the "box" made up of the strut brace, two strut towers and lower reinforcement. Chassis torque during turn-in would have the same effect on this "box" as suspension load transferred to it. The lower reinforcement and strut brace are sheared relative to each other. The original analysis was looking at the effect of strut braces of different rigidities between the towers, with the conclusion that having a strut brace gave most of the benefit, as opposed to fine tuning the lateral strength of the brace.
From a chassis rigidity perspective, triangulating from the middle of the brace to the point where the bottom of the strut tower meets with the lower reinforcement would bring great benefits but is not very practical due to the engine being in the way. From the perspective of the brace doing anything other than keeping the distance between the strut towers fairly constant, you just have to look at how easy it is to lift the free end of the brace by hand if it is only bolted to one tower, to realize it isn't much better than a pivot where it is attached to the top of the strut tower.