Stock 1LE strut tower bar vs BMR 2-point?

[Dropspeed]

Originally Posted by Fraxum

This. +1,000 (or what he/she thinks they want). I fixed it for you.

Thanks...yes what they think they want is correct!

Originally Posted by Fraxum

However, given the obsessive attention paid to weight on the Z/28, I wonder if there is some benefit once you put race tires on the car. Or here again does DropSpeed's maxim apply, even to the holy Z/28?

I cant speak for the Z/28 as my discussions were directly about my 1LE...and at the time was still running the stock wheels and tires. I may need to revisit that question now that I have the 305/30/19 RS3 on the Z/28 wheels......But, I don't dare post the answers I receive as I may be lambasted for going against the herd...

[LT1Zob]

I had the GM brace on my 12 RS and have one on my 1LE. BUT I DON'T track my car. It's there for looks only as far as I'm concerned. Some of us want show, some of us want go and some like Dropspeed actually enjoy tracking their cars. His car is purpose tuned and every pound is accounted for. To sit here and argue is silly because he TRACKS his car and track times tell the story.
The strut brace didn't do squat for my RS, nor is it doing anything on my 1LE, but I like the look. By the way, my 09 and 10 CTS sedans both had them too. Give me a break, you really think those were necessary on a 3.6 and 3.0 liter sedan? But they looked nice.

[gajagfan]

Dropspeed, is it possible that over time time the chassis could weaken in the strut tower area without the added support. In other words, the brace may not be needed at this point, but could the wear and tear of 1000 tracked miles start to have a negative effect that could be avoided by leaving the brace in place? Again I am asking your opinion to learn, not start an argument. I guess I am recalling the frame connectors added to our 1969. The car was a hot mess before they were added, and I often wondered if they had been there through it's life if the chassis would not have felt so spongy, or if that much power even in a new '69 would have felt that way. I understand that they stiffened the car, but was the car in worse shape than it would have been if they had been there all along.

[Dropspeed]

Originally Posted by gajagfan

Dropspeed, is it possible that over time time the chassis could weaken in the strut tower area without the added support. In other words, the brace may not be needed at this point, but could the wear and tear of 1000 tracked miles start to have a negative effect that could be avoided by leaving the brace in place? Again I am asking your opinion to learn, not start an argument. I guess I am recalling the frame connectors added to our 1969. The car was a hot mess before they were added, and I often wondered if they had been there through it's life if the chassis would not have felt so spongy, or if that much power even in a new '69 would have felt that way. I understand that they stiffened the car, but was the car in worse shape than it would have been if they had been there all along.

It is a good question, but one that we cant answer for 20-30+ years when the materials are fatigued. But, you are comparing two cars built 40 years apart. It it is similar to comparing a computer from today to 40 years ago as computers now play a huge part of the development. The technology, testing and materials have advanced so far that they are not even on the same page. The use of computers in design and testing has allowed "real" engineers to test products before they ever "cut steel" .....I have another "real" engineer friend (never gets old) at Ford that was quoted as saying any car built before 2006 is a death trap

I think Pete's post is by far the best one I have ever come across that shows the Gen 5 chassis stiffening in depth.


http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90270




Matt

[White_SS/RS]

If I'm not mistaking the brace showed up first on the convertible, for obvious reasons but was not on any other Camaro until the zl1. If GM designed it for a purpose, how is that public demand?

I get the wheel thing and that's quite different when the car needs them regardless, but why build a piece for no apparent reason or no notable profit for that matter when the aftermarket has plenty to offer? And if we're going to say well... it was designed for the convertible and carried over... Then why make a special one for the zl1? And that was before the zl1 was offered as a convertible. Why soak up a cost for no apparent reason and stick it on every performance version of the car if it's not needed? If it's not a quantifiable addition then save the cost, build it right and let the customer dick it up with aftermarket garbage if he's so inclined.

[GONIF]

I have given up on this and will not beat a dead horse any longer on this . Here is Something to ponder for those of us who understand agreeing and disagreeing on any subject you may have an opinion on .



Once established, beliefs are accepted as fact and are rarely subject to scrutiny. They become our “personal operating system.” Much like the operating system on your computer, our beliefs control how we sort and file every bit of input data.
Everything we see, experience, think and feel is adjusted to fit with our beliefs . In other words, our version of reality is a creation of our beliefs. Our personal operating system disassembles and reassembles all input data to conform to what we believe.

[White_SS/RS]

Originally Posted by GONIF

I have given up on this and will not beat a dead horse any longer on this . Here is Something to ponder for those of us who understand agreeing and disagreeing on any subject you may have an opinion on .



Once established, beliefs are accepted as fact and are rarely subject to scrutiny. They become our “personal operating system.” Much like the operating system on your computer, our beliefs control how we sort and file every bit of input data.
Everything we see, experience, think and feel is adjusted to fit with our beliefs . In other words, our version of reality is a creation of our beliefs. Our personal operating system disassembles and reassembles all input data to conform to what we believe.

Let the beatings continue!

[Dropspeed]

Originally Posted by White_SS/RS

If I'm not mistaking the brace showed up first on the convertible, for obvious reasons but was not on any other Camaro until the zl1. If GM designed it for a purpose, how is that public demand?

I get the wheel thing and that's quite different when the car needs them regardless, but why build a piece for no apparent reason or no notable profit for that matter when the aftermarket has plenty to offer? And if we're going to say well... it was designed for the convertible and carried over... Then why make a special one for the zl1? And that was before the zl1 was offered as a convertible. Why soak up a cost for no apparent reason and stick it on every performance version of the car if it's not needed? If it's not a quantifiable addition then save the cost, build it right and let the customer dick it up with aftermarket garbage if he's so inclined.

I never said vert or ZL1. I was talking about the 1LE specifically

Just curious if you were having a beer with Al O, Mark S, Aaron or anyone else on the Camaro team and they told you something, would you believe it or second guess it and scrutinize it over and over until what they said was determined not to be true or correct because you had your own theories about what should work?

[GONIF]

As long as this has gotten silly .................

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
* Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large shots of Jack Daniels, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
* Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
* Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:

• <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Let me put it this way <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">In terms of <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Vis-à-vis <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Per se <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">As it were <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">Qua
• So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g. and i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say:
"Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-à-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
* Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:

• <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2">You're begging the question. <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2">You're being defensive. <LI class=MsoNormal style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2">Don't compare apples and oranges.
• What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say - As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says - Lincoln died in 1865.
You say - You're begging the question.
OR
You say - Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says - Liberia is in Africa.
You say - You're being defensive.
* Compare your opponent to Adolph Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolph Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolph Hitler."
You now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.

[Camaro Dude]

I concur with the above statement.


Reminds me a bit of Sillary's tactics .

[White_SS/RS]

Originally Posted by Dropspeed

I never said vert or ZL1. I was talking about the 1LE specifically

Just curious if you were having a beer with Al O, Mark S, Aaron or anyone else on the Camaro team and they told you something, would you believe it or second guess it and scrutinize it over and over until what they said was determined not to be true or correct because you had your own theories about what should work?

Its just a perspective. They did do it after all. so, that says something... People, engineers... even companies do lots of stuff that doesn't make sense.

[Camaro Dude]

Ok, who wants to raise their Camaro, at midpoint, and take measurements to see by how much the front end flexes?

If no one knows what I'm talking about, then research the "Flag Pole Test" conducted by VW on their Phaeton, which is based on the Bentley platform, and known in automotive circles as one of the most rigid platforms in the industry.

[Dropspeed]

Oh gosh. Were you guys talking about strut tower bars. I thought you meant hood struts. Everything I said is null and void. Forgive me while I wished I had purchased a ZL1 so I could get the cool curved one.

[X25]

Originally Posted by White_SS/RS

If I'm not mistaking the brace showed up first on the convertible, for obvious reasons but was not on any other Camaro until the zl1. If GM designed it for a purpose, how is that public demand?

I get the wheel thing and that's quite different when the car needs them regardless, but why build a piece for no apparent reason or no notable profit for that matter when the aftermarket has plenty to offer? And if we're going to say well... it was designed for the convertible and carried over... Then why make a special one for the zl1? And that was before the zl1 was offered as a convertible. Why soak up a cost for no apparent reason and stick it on every performance version of the car if it's not needed? If it's not a quantifiable addition then save the cost, build it right and let the customer dick it up with aftermarket garbage if he's so inclined.

By allowing the body/chassis of the car to flex more, you are essentially adding a second layer of suspension to your car. At some cases, this might result in desirable outcomes. For instance, since it provides more (softer overall) dampening, it might increase your front end traction with more flex, especially with OEM suspension set-up.

However, one should realize that for best/optimum performance, you are much better off by letting only the suspension do the job of suspension, and nothing else. For instance, if you already have a quality set of coilovers, they will have a much better behavior to 'react' to/dampen suspension load than what your strut tower flex does. Moreover, if your suspension allows tuning compression as well, you could let the suspension harden during a turn-in with knife-like turns, and let it settle at higher speed when there is less load on suspension. All these would be softened by any more flex on the body.

Long story short: Make no mistake, an optimal suspension set-up for any car will rely on high quality suspension doing the 'job', with the body as stiff as possible. There should be no argument on this; it's a scientific fact. That said, if you are not touching anything else at your suspension, but want to soften up the fronts by using the car body as a suspension as well, go for it. Yes, it would be half-baked