I don't know when you came into this but the discussion has a lot of history...
I'm probably at the end of my rope with it for many reasons... and have been extreamly short whith my detractors for a while now.
However...
I do not mind answering an honest question here (also sent you via PM)
I wasted a lot of typing on it though then the thread was locked…. I’ll start over.
My job a long time ago was to dream up ways to test what engineering came up with… To shake out unforeseen failures diagnose the cause and help correct them… I’m not saying the math was wrong I’m saying that there is LUC (Law on unintended consequences) no matter how many times you run numbers something in real life will break...
But… Yes you assumed correctly on both counts… both empirical (fiddling) and hard math engineering (math mostly already done for me).
The original measured data was derived from a raw e30 on a 7 post (7 plane) Chassis shaker… At this same time the effectiveness of several braces were tested.
I had the luck and luxury to borrow this machine because the owner is a friend who was exceptionally helpful in bringing me up to speed on modern telemetry and data collecting methods.
My original intent was not to sell bars or anything else to anyone... We were just curios. But then I went on a mission after what we found...
These braces are designed and have been tested to directly address chassis flex that was measured on that chassis shaker… And also tested for any unintended results of mitigating the flex we set out to mitigate.
I have posted some of the actual data here on R3V somewhere… I’ll dig some of it up again if you can’t find it.
These braces (front Strut, Lower X, Rear Brace system) are not “ideal” in the strict sense but as ideal as a bolt on assembly can be to mitigate undesirable chassis component compliance. They are an alternative to building a full on GT2 (or what have you) for the guy out there that doesn’t want to gut his car and weld in structural bracing.
I'm probably at the end of my rope with it for many reasons... and have been extreamly short whith my detractors for a while now.
However...
I do not mind answering an honest question here (also sent you via PM)
Originally posted by gstuning
I wasted a lot of typing on it though then the thread was locked…. I’ll start over.
My job a long time ago was to dream up ways to test what engineering came up with… To shake out unforeseen failures diagnose the cause and help correct them… I’m not saying the math was wrong I’m saying that there is LUC (Law on unintended consequences) no matter how many times you run numbers something in real life will break...
But… Yes you assumed correctly on both counts… both empirical (fiddling) and hard math engineering (math mostly already done for me).
The original measured data was derived from a raw e30 on a 7 post (7 plane) Chassis shaker… At this same time the effectiveness of several braces were tested.
I had the luck and luxury to borrow this machine because the owner is a friend who was exceptionally helpful in bringing me up to speed on modern telemetry and data collecting methods.
My original intent was not to sell bars or anything else to anyone... We were just curios. But then I went on a mission after what we found...
These braces are designed and have been tested to directly address chassis flex that was measured on that chassis shaker… And also tested for any unintended results of mitigating the flex we set out to mitigate.
I have posted some of the actual data here on R3V somewhere… I’ll dig some of it up again if you can’t find it.
These braces (front Strut, Lower X, Rear Brace system) are not “ideal” in the strict sense but as ideal as a bolt on assembly can be to mitigate undesirable chassis component compliance. They are an alternative to building a full on GT2 (or what have you) for the guy out there that doesn’t want to gut his car and weld in structural bracing.
Comment