Granted the cabrio has some flex problems as all cabrios do. But we were all talking about hardtops.

 

Just chiming in with my 2 cents as have other cabrio owners like rkw.
Plus, it seems that if the system makes a distinct difference in the R52, it's hard to believe it wouldn't affect the R53 in some way (although admittedly maybe drastically less since the cabrio does start out with more of a problem). As to whether it's worth the money for the slight difference in a hardtop, you're right -- I can't comment. But I have no qualms about getting it for my R52 and will continue to recommend for other R52s.

 

I'll be the first to chime in if a product does not do what I thought it would do after I bought it. I hate wasting my money like that and have a thing about sharing my experience to help save others the trouble.

Study shmudy. I don't fall into the category of "most people." I don't need to "affirm" my purchase decisions for my ego. The FSB and USS worked well on my car and I felt I got what I paid for.

As for the M7 brace not offering much resistance to compression due to its design, you may have a point. However, If there was movement due to those slots or the bolts or how it was put together, I would certainly notice by looking at the part now. I did and there is no evidence of any kind of slip. Surely it would be indicated by visible abrasion of the anodized surface had slippage under the torqued bolts occur.

Just because it may be human nature to say stuff you bought works doesn't mean that everything we buy that can't be easily proven is snake oil.

Sure, there is a lot of snake-oil out there. However, anyone who believes the Mini is flex-proof is most likely affected by this same ailment... the "I bought it so it must be awesome!" ailment you speak of.

The compressive and twisting forces involved may be real, and the resistance to them provided by the M7 products may not be huge. However, I find it to be sufficient to provide a noticeable difference in feeling.

Those of you who cannot afford to spend a few hundred dollars based on someone's "feeling" can simply not buy the products. Those that are willing to spend the dough based on what they've read can do whatever they want.

If you buy it and don't like it you can resell it with ease.

 

Scott, perhaps you should read your own post #2 in this thread, in which you said:
Smells like ignorant BS to me...

 

And what exactly do you mean Ricky?

I stand by my recommendation. The OMP will have much more bang for the buck than the M7 does.

Oh and you just smell................

 

That is great that you feel you got your monies worth. If you are happy fine. But myself, and I am sure others, would like to have a bit more info besides anecdotal comments that something actually works or is even needed.

I myself refuse to pay for the privilege of being the test dummie.

 

Might I suggest that we simply add some science to the mix? Let's do a test to see what really happens in the real world in a cabrio.

Now, I don't even have my Mini yet, so I can't try this out, and my understanding of suspension is very much amateur, so there are probably better experiments that can be done, but here's a starter:

Take a string, something around 10' should do.

Tie one end to one strut tower, tie the other end to the other strut tower. Leave lotsa slack.

Feed the slack under the bonnet, up over the windshield and down into the passenger compartment.

Have a passenger put their finger on the string and pull it taut, using a constant amount of force.

Now, go thrash.

If the towers are separating, your passenger's finger should rise. If the towers are contracting, your passenger's finger should fall. Note the amount of deflection.

Now, install STB and repeat. Any difference?

For a more quantifiable result, anchor a strain gauge inside the cockpit and connect to the string.

 

First I would like to say I respect you comments on other mods that I've read on NAM but I respectfully think you might be missing a point here . In reference to the slots on the M7 tower brace being able to withstand compression and by default expansion. If this were the case you would visually see back and forth ware on the paint on the bars surface. I don't see any on mine. If you think in terms of friction on the two main surfaces of the contact points between the bar and the plate instead of just the bolts you'll see that those surfaces are what is caring the load similar to the hub on a wheel and the spindle caring the load not the bolts or studs.
Also any USS is better than none whether it's a rhombus or X design.

 

Is it not amazing that someone who has never actually tried, and perhaps never even seen or touched a product, can waste the time of other people who do have personal experience, explaining how the product can't work?

For myself, I have the OMP upper and lower bars installed, and I'm pleased with the results - well worth my money. I have touched and examined the new Mini-Madness lower brace and discussed it with George Mehalik, and I suspect that it or the TSX brace would be a nice incremental improvement over the OMP, but probably not enough so to warrant my spending again to replace it. I've also examined a USS both on and off a car, but not driven with one installed.

In my judgment, the diagonal braces have a good chance of further stiffening the front end of my S (or not), and it is worth $50 to me to find out. If I don't find a positive difference, well, it's the price of dinner out, and I could recoup around 60% by selling them on NAM anyway.

So, Scott, if you don't care to spend to experiment, don't believe anything that other people tell you about their experiences, have never apparently actually seen or touched any of the products on which you are commenting, plainly have no understanding of structural engineering, and have nothing constructive to say, why don't you just zip it for a while?

Maybe a long while?

Please?

 

LOL Whatever Ricky.

I thought this was an open forum. To bad you can't accept a differing opinion on this. Just shows the closed mind you have.

I too have the upper OMP brace but my mind is not made up on it's benefits. Off all of the braces out there this one actually looks to be designed to withstand the forces acting on the towers.

I have a more than passing understanding of physics and engineering, thus my skepticism on some of the designs. I am glad you feel that by simply touching a product you can discern its benefits, I don't have that gift.

Looking forward to not seeing you soon !

 

Scott, in one breath you refuse to buy a product without firm scientific evidence of it's value, then follow up by claiming you have a strut bar and don't know if it's worth a crap.

other posters in this thread have pointed out further incongruities in your testimony. I can't really believe anyone is taking what you say here seriously. I mean, I can certainly respect a differing opinion, especially when based on experience. However, discrediting a product based on the fact that you don't know anything about it is certainly not constructive. Your "refusal" to purchase is certainly your right. However, demanding hard evidence from those of us who have purchased is not going to win you any "friends."

You don't have to buy anything. None of these products are "needed." People have come here to ask questions. In order to be helpful when you answer, it is prudent that you either share experience, or ask the questions that the poster should be also asking so they may glean a clear understanding of the item in question.

I agree there are questions that have not been answered through rigorous scientific testing. Those questions are valid. However, the only people qualified to answer said questions are those who have purchased the products, or have otherwise experienced them in action.

Those who have no experience with said products should keep to asking the questions, and let those with experience (and hence, valuable input) provide the answers. To me, it appears you are attempting to answer a question about an item with which you have no experience. How can you answer such a question? By attempting to answer said question, are you helping the OP, or anyone else reading this thread?

 

As I stated above, I feel that the OMP upper bar is the only bar available that is located in a way to actually resist the forces on it. I am just not completely convinced that the towers are subject to the kinds of forces that would cause any deflections. But it does look good !

All any of us need to determine whether or not a product is worth buying is our own feelings on it. I am simply posting my opinion on these products. Anyone with a little bit of understanding of the forces at work and the directions there are working in would have some serious concerns about the validity of the claims.

As an example...........the USS is used to connect the sides of the car below the tunnel. What forces are these parts suppose to resist? Twisting? Compression/tension? My guess is that these bars will only resist the forces being applied from one side of the tunnel to the other. In other words from side to side. If you wanted to resist the twisting motion of the car you would need to design the braces to work in that direction, these are not.

The other lower bars at least have some design function for these forces. The TSW brace is by far the best designed of the 3. I have never promoted the idea that these product don't have some value, but to only have folks saying "it feels" better is not a glowing endorsment in my opinion. Rigorious testing is really not needed, maybe just some common sense and understanding of the forces involved. Just like with the cabrio front braces, they are not located to add any suspension stiffness at all. They may help eliminate some vibrations from the engine, but I see no benefit. There is nothing out there that should affect the handling of the car.

Just because I don't have a product doesn't mean I don't have a valid opinion on it's validity. Just look at the Palo Uber crap. None of us has to own any of the stuff to know that it is a rip-off.

I hope that you and the others can see my point.

 

I see your point.

However, I not only feel a stark improvement after installing these parts, but I can imagine the forces at work and understand (as vague as that understanding may be) how these parts pose a resistance to those forces.

I keep remembering what an old friend and body shop manager told me once... About how a dent comes out. For a dent to go in, other parts of the panel must go out. So he showed me how to pull from one area and push in other areas to get the panel to flatten out.

There is a lot of push/pull going on in a twisting car body. There is a whole hell of a lot of energy involved when you throw your Mini into a corner transferring a good portion of the weight to the outside wheels. I think adding full boxes to the skeleton of the chassis makes sense.

 

Not to fan the flames, as there seems to be quite a bit of expert and non-expert discussion here but I'll throw in my 2 cents. First caveat...I'm new to the Mini. Second, I've modded (extensively) quite a few suspension systems, Third I am VERY sensitive to chassis and suspension nuances. That said, Earlier in the week I mounted lighter wheels and tires. Big change there as I dropped 8.5lbs per corner in unsprung weight. Today I mounted the OMP lower bar. Took all of 5 minutes. I was barely out of the neighborhood and noticed an improvement in the feel of the car. After a spirited drive in the Boonies, I have to give this mod a Hearty thumbs up, especially for the measely $95 it cost. Very nice improvement noted. It works, It improves the car, I'm happy with the change. I can feel it, others may not, but mu Butt is pretty highly calibrated! I'll be mounting the cabrio braces next week and don't anticipate feeling a big difference from these, but in my mind (and experience) anyything you can do to stiffen the chassis in key areas, especially where suspension forces are at work, will be returned in better handling and feel.. You guys can keep on arguing if you like...I'll just continue to add Key mods to improve the car...

 

Steve,

Please keep us apprised of how it feels.

Thanks,
Tony

 

Looking good Steve.

 

What? In those two sentences you stated the strut brace you have is the ONLY one to resist the kind of forces you you aren't completely convinced exist in the first place. If they don't exist or are so minimal to not really need a upper brace, why is the bar you have the only one that can do the job?

So I guess the ONLY forces acting on a Minis strut towers move in the vertical and maybe a minimal amount exactly 90 degrees to either side. They can't possibly flex in any other direction than those two. How about the fact that they are braced to the chassis not the engine? kinda kills the vibration theory. Its a simple physics problem. A vertical tower can flex (even minimally) in any direction it is not supported fully. By adding a brace to the chassis in front of the strut tower you create triangulation to the chassis in that direction. That reduces flex at the strut tower even if it is minimal.

A roll cage is rarely. if ever tied to the strut towers but in post 73 you admit one will improve handling by stiffening the chassis. Why is it so hard for you to accept an item designed by a multimillion dollar car manufacturer to stiffen the chassis of a cabrio will do the exact same thing for a hardtop? (even though you personally don't think that's what it does-having designed it and all) Is it just because you can't seem to grasp the idea of a strut tower having any force other than vertical applied to it because nobody has posted the empirical data on NAM?

 

1) Cause it looks good........?

2) No data that the braces are there to stiffen the chassis. More than likely it is to eliminate cowl shake/vibrations.

Next.......

 

I'm sure glad that NAM has an Ignore list. It cuts the length of this thread by about half, leaving only the meaningful posts, with just one entry...

 

My thoughts are that cabrio braces help with some twisting motion in chassis. Follow me here...

There is this lump of metal (engine-transmission) hung off the two forward chassis members in front of the strut tower. When entering a turn momentum will want to keep the engine moving forward resisting the turning action. Thus setting up a possibility for the chassis members to twist. Adding the cabrio bars will help resist that action.

I have no empirical data just my own thoughts after having looked at exploded views of the car.

Standard R53 Body



Standard R52 Body



One item I'd never noticed before is the inclusion on the R52 body of a brace behind the shock tower between the shock tower and the fire wall. RealOEM nor the MINI/BMW ETK show that as a separate part.

 

Thanks for the illustrations gnatster. I can see clearly in them how the angled braces can help stiffen the front end of the chassis.

Because it looks good it is better at resisting non-existent (according to you) forces? Ok then.
Where is YOUR data that YOUR theory is correct? Until you post it I am not going to believe it will reduce any cowl shake or vibration.

Oh and let me know when you are actually going to respond to any of the points I made rather than mindlessly ape your "its for vibration reduction" tripe.

 

Good images, and I think it clarifies that triangulating and bracing the fork-lift prongs against the strut tower will add stiffness to both. If you don't have a rigid platform to attach it to, no suspension will work as well as it could, and the braces look like they should help resist vertical, lateral, and fore-and-aft stresses.

I've been musing on why MINI chose to add the holes, welded nuts and plugs to every MINI chassis from '04 to '06, since it clearly cost them on the order of a buck per chassis. If the braces were intended solely for the small % of MINIs that are Cabrios, they could just as easily have been attached with loose nuts.

So here's a theory that could explain it: perhaps the engineers found good reason to add stiffness to the front end of all the cars, by using the diagonal braces. They designed in the attachment points, and chassis production started, but at that point, the cost accountants pressed them to lower manufacturing costs, so they eliminated the braces on non-Cabrios to save a bit of money...

In any case, I've now got the braces and special (torx) screws, and they are going on my car this week. I'll be very interested to see how they affect the car, and I'll comment on the results here, in spite of the Troll.

 

I'm gotta think the production engineers thought it more cost effective to create one part with the tapped holes in place for all models.

 

HIYA RICKY ! !

 

Justify it all you want. I still don't think it will add $60 worth of difference to the handling. We can argue about this all day long, but it will still come down to what we each want to spend our money on. And I will not stop adding my opinion to ANY post on this board, whether it agress with yours or not.