That is the point. The OE piece, strut support, does not have the surface to support the load. The strut mount only spreads the load with the surface available on it - this is where the problem is. The top plate, if there were more fasteners & covered a larger area to spread the load it, could work but as is it there are only the 3 mounting points that are far away from the point of force ( the strut center ). This is why there is an issue with the OE pieces.
Hope this helps.

 

Yes it does perform a similar function as washer but the spread is not much larger than the nut securing it and would not extend beyond the boundaries of the guide support beneath it no matter the size of the bolt & nut or the amount of torque applied. With such a small nut and minor torque it would not have a sufficient grasp of the tower metal to prevent stretching under the product discussed here, so in my opinion the washer is not as large as it appears to be. There is also a channel needed to accommodate the tower’s stiffening rib running front to back, a hole in the middle, and the thin section the nut secures, all of which compromises the overall rigidity; in other words it’s not as functionally thick as it looks.

I’ve really stooped to nit-picking here and going further than need be. The bottom line from my view is to make this decision with your eyes open, and if you so choose, get one of these above tower products for any other reason than to prevent mushrooming.

 

Bad news...

 

varying degrees, some of us with and without M7 plates (with and without bar) don't think the total solution is provided by plates on top of tower. We question/wonder/suspect how much stress/pounding the threaded studs can take. Prior to bolting some in, I talked to two different guys that sell and use modern body work adhesives. They told me that there is an adhesive that could be used to bond the plates to the strut tower that will practically never let go. At the time, I thought I'd just see how things go using the plates as instructed by the supplier. Now, I'm kinda thinking about taking the step to glue them in permanently. It is cheap, easy, and should produce a union between the sheet metal and plates akin to welding.

 

Even a weld could still break though, especially if not flexible and able to absorb shock. And if the glue/weld is so stiff that 100% of the force gets transferred through, you'd still have the same problem in the end, no?

 

Newbie Question: Several posts have suggested that reinforcement from below would be a better solution than above (like M7 plates) in preventing mushrooming.

Is greater strength from below one function of camber plates and thus why they often seem to be recommended as part of a "fight mushroom" package?

 

Yes, because they are less likely to bend and some models are wider than stock so they can spread the impact over a larger area; some only have a slightly larger contact area than stock however. On the other hand, there are models that have solid bushings which are less capable of absorbing some of the impact energy in a strong hit. There are some reports (internet chat) of tower weld seam splits at a certain race track that has notoriously bad off track obstacles, the car goes off the track and the strut tower separates as well as deforms because it’s a solid mounted strut (IMO).
The only plate I’m aware of that has a wider surface contact area, fairly rigid construction, and a compliant rubber bushing, is the Ireland Engineering Fixed Camber Plate. It’s still no guaranty, but it has good chance of doing double duty as a mushrooming deterrent.

 

But it is not "a singular instance of a sample size of 1" who doesn't have mushrooming. Haven't you overlooked the hundreds of thousands of other MINI owners who don't have the plates and have had no mushrooming? So why do you think it is just 1 person who hasn't experienced mushrooming without the plates?

I seem to recollect reading that M7 has sold about 350 strut tower reinforcement plates and about the same number of strut tower braces so that would mean that there are approximately 700 M7 users out there. I have no idea how many IE camber plates, Dinan and other such mods are in use, but it seems that there are thousands and thousands of more MINI owners who don't have them. Is there really enough statistical evidence on the table to make a reasoned judgment? I don't think so. Those who want to use M7 plates are free to do so, but I don't see how that they can claim statistical proof of efficacy.

 

"Yes" to the latter question. However not everyone wants camber plates, and all camber plates are not equal, or even good. (I once installed some K-Mac plates on a friend's '02 MCS and they were just awful pieces of crap.)

And "yes" to the first question too. I continue to be mystified why somebody hasn't come up with under-tower reinforcements. BMW had this same problem with the 95 M3 and introduced a reinforcement plate in the 96 model year. You can see it here, part #15: http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...39&hg=31&fg=10

This is a simple stamped steel plate that conforms to the tower sheet metal shape. It's less than 2mm thick, so has negligible effect on ride height. Price at the dealer is around $6 each.

We need the equivalent part to fit the Mini. Yeah, it's not sexy, there's zero under-hood bling to be had, but it would do the job and do it well.

Neil
05 MCS
96 M3

 

Of course, if I were to be looking at a science for support of an issue regarding structural rigidity, I doubt that statistics would be the science I'd be turning to. Call me biased if you will, but I'm pretty sure that engineering would be the science to which I would turn.

I'm not at all sure I'd enjoy a ride in a car designed by a statistician.

But again, that may just be me.