Suspension Is there a verdict on shock tower plates?
5th Gear
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco
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.
If not, guess I'd go with the M-M. Sheesh... too much thinking to do. I don't know how to talk the talk like all of you.
http://cravenspeed.com/index.php?productID=191
5th Gear
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
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.
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.
I don't mean to start any flame wars, but isn't this product JUST a steel sheet cut out with holes in it?...Couldn't anyone with a saw and drill make this. Couldn't anyone design this in their high school shop class?
FWIW, I feel the same about the top plates as well. They are just designed to look like you need an engineering degree to make them. At least now it is obvious why you are calling all of the other products "decorative". I would say fanboy, but it appears that you are your own fanboy and hater of the competition. This new product appears to be no better designed or tested than ANY OTHER ON THE MARKET! I would love to see real tests to prove effectiveness, but it appears that no vendor has tested any of these products. If it has been tested and proven to be more effective than the others, then please by all means show us results and I will shut the hell up! BTW, it just makes you seem a bit shady when you call all of the other similar products "decorative" and useless and then say that this new one is amazing and designed by yourself.
5th Gear
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
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?
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?
If you simply look at a badly deformed stock mount, the first reaction is WTF did they make this crap out of! It looks like something made for an ATV or something. The low tinsel strength and the too small bushing are the problems. It seems to me that BMW limited their R&D of the suspension parts to closed roads with no bumps or pot holes. I don't see how they could have tested these parts properly and still released them for production.
I think you are dead on about all of these "fixes". The plates, whether above or below the tower are better than doing nothing, but it still does not fix the real problem.
It seems to me that BMW realized the major problem in their design and they supposedly fixed it in the second gen cars. To me, it says that they recognize that there was a problem even if they refused to do something about it on previous cars. Why would they change that if they didn't think there was a problem?
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
Randy
M7 tuning
(just felt the need to chime in here... sorry!
)
6th Gear
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 3
From: Daytona Beach, Florida
How about 2007/2008/2009 ? any problems?
Does anyone know if this problem has been fixed by BMW for 2007 up? I have a 2009 JCW with a strut brace on it. I'm hopeing the problem has been solved by BMW. I had enough problems with the C5 Corvette I had with G.M. ignoring several problems that C5's had for their whole life span of from 1997 up to 2004. I'm starting to guess that all of the car makers just don't care anymore.
Ronnie
Ronnie
Former Vendor
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Portland Oregon, USA
YES they will work on a Cooper, Non-S
100% sure they will fit on the Cooper, NON-S model. Tried them last week.
Also remember that when installing these you do not need to take the shock apart or out of it's lower mount to install. We did a set of these Friday that took all of about 20 minutes.
Instructions are located on our links page: http://www.mini-madness.com/pdf_file...rut_plates.pdf
5th Gear
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco
100% sure they will fit on the Cooper, NON-S model. Tried them last week.
Also remember that when installing these you do not need to take the shock apart or out of it's lower mount to install. We did a set of these Friday that took all of about 20 minutes.
Instructions are located on our links page: http://www.mini-madness.com/pdf_file...rut_plates.pdf
Also remember that when installing these you do not need to take the shock apart or out of it's lower mount to install. We did a set of these Friday that took all of about 20 minutes.
Instructions are located on our links page: http://www.mini-madness.com/pdf_file...rut_plates.pdf
Alas, I don't have jack stands or stands, so I will have to take it to a shop. Plus, since I don't do work on my car here in San Francisco, can't seeing buying a jack and stands to simply install these.
And from a bonehead [me] it seems that putting steel BELOW, that will come between the shock or impact and the mount surface, would be more effective than a cap or plate on top. In other words, the under-the-tower mount would seem better at intercepting [absorbing] the shock.
Again, that's just from my limited understanding of impacts.
Most interesting.
UPDATE: I just remembered, I have a friend in Sacramento who owns a mansion. Has a five car garage with a hydraulic car lift, just like a garage or gas station. [He uses it to make his garage a six-car garage.
] It lifts by the tires or the frame. Problem solved.
Last edited by MichaelSF; Sep 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM.
Camber plates or the Mini-Madness under-tower plates are far and away the better solution.
The only way the top-plates are functional is that they help (a little) to keep the studs from splaying outward, which is a really indirect method to keep the tower-tops from bulging.
The only way the top-plates are functional is that they help (a little) to keep the studs from splaying outward, which is a really indirect method to keep the tower-tops from bulging.
I like the idea of the Mini Madness reinforcement plates that mount underneath the sheet metal, but man are they expensive for what they are! $100 for a sheet of steel with some holes cut in it? I bought these for my E46 for less than $25 and are essentially the same thing http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html...ID=51717036781
Anyone have a template of the area underneath the strut tower?
Anyone have a template of the area underneath the strut tower?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
smdmini
MINI Parts for Sale
21
Oct 7, 2019 06:05 AM
atlantaorange
F55/F56 :: Hatch Talk (2014+)
19
Sep 16, 2015 12:43 PM
