The fact that a lot of people have paid for a product doesn't make it well-designed, or even indicate usefulness, as witness the number of purely decorative strut-top braces in use on MINIs. I wouldn't have expected ANY of the M7 tower-toppers to have a problem, even for the one-handed people.

As far as re-alignment, you are removing and replacing the strut-top in the same holes, with essentially zero slop in the three holes, and you can't adjust camber without camber plates anyway, so I see no need for a realignment when installing these.

The M-M reinforcement plate is flat 1/8" steel. If anyone wants to measure and cut a couple to save $99, go to it - personally, my time is worth more than that. While you are at it, I'd use 2mm steel plate, which should be strong enough, and would reduce the camber change. For that matter, if you want to fabricate an M7 top-plate knockoff, it would be just as easy - as Kragen showed...

The camber issue is there for the under-tower design, magnitude unknown. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable would calculate how much change a 1/8" plate makes. I suspect it's little enough to be irrelevant, but I'm still hoping for a mathematical answer, instead of an emotional one.

And IMHO. the amount of "engineering" that went into any of these products is negligable. Engineering is an iterative process, where one measures, modifies, learns, and changes a design to improve it. The important part is the iteration and trying variations until the balance of function and cost meets the requirements, i.e. addresses the issue at the desired price point.

IMHO, none of these product took more than 20 minutes to conceive, design for manufacture, and pick a profitable sales price, and there has been little "engineering" beyond that.

"Engineering" would occur if one made a reinforcement plate in several thicknesses and designs, and then tested and measured just how much metal, and what design works best to address the problem.

 

The real lack of engineering went into the shock towers from the engineering and design table. And after all of the thousands of known problems, BMW/MINI still turns a blind eye.

 

Maybe BMW engineering was expecting a higher tensile material for the strut mount and the bean counters only paid for playdough.

Have the makers of the Craven plates or M7 plates done a Finite Element Analysis (FEA)? That would answer the question of plate effectiveness.
Depending on the design packages that they may use, it should be pretty easy to run the analysis.

 

I like this post. It's really well thought out and written.

And if in the courtroom, a damn good argument.

Sidenote: Who is "Kragen?" Do you mean "Craven?"

 

I dunno squat about what you are saying, but sure sounds good. In layman's terms, are you saying the metal comprising the strut mount surface is weak and too thin, therefore it lacks the strength required for its function.

Seems to me, again from a bonehead who knows squat about science and engineering [metals, chemicals, physics were the bane of my school days, so much so I avoided all those classes], that the M7, Craven and other reinforcement plates somewhat [albeit not 100%] address the lack of tensile strength of the strut mount area.

While not a 100% fix or making the area invincible, seems basic physics, science and engineering that bolting a piece of metal on to a piece of metal is better than doing nothing at all. It's not anywhere near as effective as welding metal to metal or installing thicker surface mounts in the first place, but it seems that the plates will absorb more shock than the area without plates.

For sure, I suspect the alternative [cutting out the weak metal and welding thicker mount surfaces] would be cost prohibitive to MINI, hence their not owning up to the issue.

Would the changes BMW made to this area in future models concede lack of tensile strength/material than the older models, like mine?

 

Excellent points, but not being "totally useless" makes the plates useful, maybe $140 worth? However, per posts made months ago, I have always agreed with your premise point that bolting on a few pieces of metal on top of the weak area does not seem all that much of a solution to the problem, but it is better than doing nothing at all. I said months ago that it seems the plates would at least absorb and distribute some shocks to the surface area making the plates more than cosmetic or "decorative."

The biggest danger of the top-mount plates is that they may give users a false sense of pothole invincibility, thinking that the M7 or Craven plates dispense with the requirement of drivers to mind the potholes and other road hazards.

After reading all these interesting posts [stimulated by my armchair comment ?] seems that the best solution to all this is to beef up the area to the max, which would mean getting the M-M and M7 / Craven plates, thereby creating a protective sandwich, if you will.

 

Hi MichealSF,
Thanks. My thought is that the grade of steel used for the top of the shock mount assembly is too weak. Only the people at BMW know for sure. That part should not bend under normal use. High tensile steel would act more like a spring that would deflect, but return to its original position. Thin cold rolled steel (CRS) will just bend. Also, I do not believe that the sheet metal mounting area (inner fender strut tower mounting point) should be considered as part of the structural reinforcement of that shock mount assembly. It can be but only in addition to a well designed shock top mount, not in leiu of it.
What we're diong by bolting on out "decorative" plates is forcing the shock top mount into submission and preventing it from taking a "set" with the center pushed up n the middle. The inner fender sheet metal is there to hold the top of the strut in a predetermined position, which it apparently does fairly well.

To dismiss the engineering of these plates as a 20 minute job is a disservice to any one that designs ANYTHING for a living. At least these individuals took the time to do anything at all to help with an obvious design or materials problem with that shock mounting plate.

Any Engineering Professional knows that designing anything using solely destructive testing as a design procedure is a total waste of time and money. That is why classes in physics and streghth of materials are required to obtain an Engineering Degree. A very good aproximation of the finished part can be calculated and designed before the first chip flys and then destructive testing is used to confirm the result. With the program packages available today, a Finite Element Analysis can prove out a part's vialbilty without wasting one ounce of material.

 

I am off to the Magical MINI tour event on Treasure Island to take some pics [all my pics yesterday turned out lousy because my camera's auto setting was not correctly set. ]

I am going to go there and appear smart, by echoing your posts. Maybe I'll get a free coffee and people will ask for my autograph.

Look for me there, I'll be the one with a crowd of people gathered around listening to my pearls of wisdom and on departure for the day filling my MINI with swag, gifts, tributes and sacrifices.

 

I can tell you exactly that without any disservice, at least for the M-M plates, because I was the guy who "designed" them, and I do design things for a living.

About two months ago, while at M-M for other parts, George and I were chuckling about some of the poorly-designed parts that people buy for their MINIs. The strut-top-plates came up, and I asked him why he did not make a simple steel reinforcement plate alternative that would go between strut-top and tower.

A couple of weeks later, he traced a template from a car with the shocks off, and had a local mfr. cut and powder-coat the plates. When I say 20 minutes invested, I'm being generous, and that includes making the templates for initial fabrication.

I can't testify on the duration of the M7/Craven top-plate design process, but they are just a simplified machined image taken from a mold of a tower-top. Not a real complicated process, and about as much "engineering" as the guys on American Chopper.

How did "destructive testing" sneak into the discussion? I'd agree that engineering design software can eliminate a lot or prototyping, but if any such process was employed in the M7/Craven products, they would probably work better.

 

Somebody please fix Rick's spell checker so it stops changing "Craven" to "Kragen". Because I know he must be typing it correctly.

 

For some thoughts on the magnitude of the camber change, consider this...
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...4&postcount=10

Thx, for the heads-up on "Craven"...

 

I also design things for a living. I really should have said "trial & error" instead of destructive testing. That would have been more appropriate. From a marketing standpoint the new M-M design offers a viable alternative to the currently available products. You, as the designer, and the manufacturer believe it to be a superior design. That does not make the alternatives "decorative".
I have not checked out the M-M offering but I will shortly to see how it looks. I'm sure it is a nice product.

ON EDIT-
OK, I found the plates on the Mini Madness web site. They look nice and the price is right. I would still contend that the over the top plates will do the job intended. Especially if any of these measures are implemented before damage. I also agree with NOT hammering the strut down. I made a rig to "jack" the bolts and top plate into some semblance of flatness. I have a couple of pics in my gallery. I also have the Craven plates and I can say that they "flattened" out the top and tower further as the bolts were tightened.
The only problem I see with the M-M plates is with installation on mushroomed towers. The splayed bolts will not allow the strut to drop through the mounting holes. That will add to the installation time considerably. It is a issue with the over the top variety also but one could get them started then crank down on the bolts to finish the job.
The plugs for the M-M plates look good too. Probably a copyright issue but a MINI emblem would be neat.

This whole issue reminds me of the discussions over at RV.net about air-ride 5th heel pin boxes. There are 3 or 4 available and it is extremely rare that one person would just "try" different brands due to the $700 + cost. They all work well but are different (some radically different) designs. They do the intended job and would not require replacement except for installing a new one on a new rig. With these plates, albeit inexpensive in comparison, once installed they will probably be used until failure (if that ever happens) or sale of the MINI. Maybe someone would try the various designs "just for fun" and report on the results.

 

When I have watched that show I always have thought their "designs" and fabrications were sufficient enough for the film crew to get a few shots of the bikes in motion, but then they would fall apart soon thereafter.

Their bikes are good for the lobby of a business that orders one, but riding on the road, no way.

 

Rick... you mean to say you have an interest in the M-M product? That might explain your passion in defending that M-M versus the M7 or "Kragen" plates. [Your comments are nevertheless most persuasive.]

In looking at the M-M plates am I correct in assuming they make them ONLY of the MINI S? I don't see on the Site that they say it can be used on my 2006 Non-S.

http://www.mini-madness.com/index.as...S&Category=205

It's confusing because when I go to Cooper 2006 and press suspension parts, they mention the plates, but the description says they are for the S. But I don't see why the plates would be different for the S on the strut mount surfaces. But I know nothing about the S versus non-S in regards to the struts.

Bonus Comment: I am in no way qualified to take apart my MINI's front end, so it seems that if I go the M-M route, I need to take it to a professional, to a place that I trust, that specializes ONLY in alignments, shocks and suspension work.

 

MichaelSF,
Usage notwithstanding, the M-M plate is a different means to the same end. The front end should not require realignment after the M-M plates as it would not with the other offerings. The bolt holes are not slotted or enlarged so the mounting location remains unchanged, with the exception of adding .137 inches (3.5mm) between the strut tower and body mount.

 

I have no financial interest in any reinforcement plate product, or in Mini-Madness. I paid full retail for the plates and their installation on my car.

I only suggested the design to George, and he took it from there, with my encouragement. If I had been spec'ing the plates, they would be just 2mm thick, but the thinking is that 1/8" "looks stronger" for marketing purposes.

My only point about engineering was that a large percentage of aftermarket car parts are "engineered" by the "Yup, looks like it might fit," method.

I stimulated the production of the M-M plates because I wanted something for my car that worked better without the obvious flaws of the easy-to-mount tower-toppers. I view the others as mainly decorative because, if they were stamped steel instead of alum., they certainly would work better but not be as "pretty".

Call or e-mail M-M re. the fit on a Cooper - I'm 90% sure they will fit perfectly, and that George simply hasn't updated the Cooper section yet.

Michael, I envy you the Treasure Island visit - I lived in Sausalito for 25 years, but never got out to TI.

 

Noted... I was thinking about the camber plates and posts that said on install of those, an alignment is required.

But as I think I saw elsewhere, the M-M plates require putting the entire front end on stands, then unbolting the struts and other parts, then installing the plates, then putting it all back together.

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I for sure can't put my MINI on stands [that I don't have in any event, and I am not going to buy stands simply for this install.]

Sounds like a pro shop can simply raise the car and install these with ease? So it won't cost that much to have it done?

 

I sent an e-mail to them, about an hour ago. Sure I will get a response tomorrow.

Thanks

 

I was thinking the same thing . As long as you are going to the trouble of dropping the front suspension why not get the most for the labor and install something that will actually help the car in more than one way, camber plates. They do a good job of adding strength to a weak area and you can further tune your car to handle a lot better as well as save on some tire wear if you are a aggressive driver . The under plates will diminish negative camber without question so why not put a plate in there , camber , that can dial it back out? We do not have a camber plate in our lineup but there are several good ones out there at a variety of price points.

Randy
M7 tuning

 

I cant belive this is being rehashed again I think Randys last post says it very well. Either be fine with ANYBODYS bolt on plate or go the whole way and install camber plates and an upper plate. I'm fine with a upper only thank you

 

While installing camber plates is certainly what I'd do... and what I DID... it is a good bit more involved... you gotta have the super special strut socket (or make one - I did) and you gotta compress the springs... right?

 

Maybe because adjustable camber plates installed would cost $400-$500 more than the $99 reinforcement plates?

 

Yeah, that's what I recall, the camber plates were an expensive option. And I thought the camber plates were more a performance mod as opposed to a fix for the weak strut towers.

That's why I am going with the sandwich job, the "under the strut tower plates" [M-M if they make them for my non-S] and the M7 on the top.

Hmm... mushrooms, sandwich, I am getting hungry, time for dinner.

Sidenote for Rick: Guess I got the days wrong, went to T. I. and not a MINI is sight, except one [two if you include mine]. Guess the festivities ended Saturday? No big, took some great shots of my MINI with TI and San Francisco in the background. Also, glad I did not trash my pics from yesterday. Lousy as they are, at least I have something. Will edit them and post in my thread "How Many MINIS Did You See Today."

Teaser Pic: Here is the best MINI I saw, IMHO. A JCW with saddle leather interior and lots of custom vinyl on the outside. I talked to the owner for about 10 minutes. I was not rude by asking the price, but this had to be a $40,000 MINI with the JCW and all the custom this and that. Super nice guy, from Canada. His wife had an equally decked out Clubman.

 

You may have a problem using both plates - there isn't much extra length on the studs. With the M-M plates taking up an extra 1/8" of thread, you lose about 3 threads, plus another 1/8" or so that the M7 plate requires, for another three threads, and this may not give you a real solid attachment, with the nuts only having a couple of threads on the studs.

 

Not really .

Fixed $ 180
http://store.nexternal.com/shared/St...t=products.asp

Adjustable $ 275

http://store.nexternal.com/shared/St...t=products.asp


Randy
M7 Tuning