It will double the force requires to flex a single tower as it load transfere from the brace effectivly means that its twice as stiff. I do tend to agree that strtut braces are more for show than go on a road car. Especially given the amount of flex in a tyre compared to the sturt i the first place, saying tht i would probably stick one on my car if i got it for free.

 

Why not stiffen up the bottoms as well?

 

I was looking at that peice the other day Damian. Does anyone here use one of those? Comments?

 

Will it fit a 951 ? The one I saw runs across where the cross-over pipe is. so N/A only.

 

None of the 968 guys have tried it, I asked about a group buy no one was interested-although none of the BK dealers were offering a big discount. I'm going to order one for myself for Xmas.

 

Hmm yeah I thought that's what I said!?? non-triangulated bars aren't holding the struts still in relation to the chassis - only in relation to the other strut. And again, as someone posted, cold street tyres usually have enough sidewall flex to make strut tower flex negligable..

Yes. They are kind of a mystery though, because I know some of the 4 968TRS cars did not come with them, some did, and some had them added after racing crashes and subsequent factory rebuilds.

Here is 968TRS #1 originally. no triangulation


And after:


Here is Jason's car (#4)

 

are those triangulation tubes integrated into the roll cage structure? Thats what it looks like... and if so... damn... thats a strong design.

As far as CF.. too brittle for this application. I have snapped carbon fiber kayak paddle sections, which I expect are subject to far less stress than a strut brace, not to mention the thermal strain that would be applied in an engine bay.

 

Do you know where it terminates? It looks like it is tied into the cage inside the cabin.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Rich, are the first and second pictures you posted of the same car? It seems that those triangulation bars would be difficult to retrofit, especially so if incorporated into the roll cage.

Also, the individual throttle bodied intake manifold in the second pic - Anyone have any info on that? Looks like a very nice piece. The air filter is also in a unique place - I wonder how easily that could be incorporated in a 951? Is there more space in this area in a 968's engine bay?

David, I didn't realize that, thought it ran on the other side of the crossmember. Thanks for the info.

 

Dunno. We'd have to ask Jason.

 

First and Second photos are of the same car, yes. I'm not sure if this particular car was ever rebuilt by Porsche, but I know Jason's car was. It's possible that during this accident rebuild they added the triangulation.

 

I wouldn't call that strut bar triangulation; it's more of a full roll cage with tied suspension pickup points... not exactly the same thing

 

that's the BK watever-they-call-it isn't it? I read (somewhere) a rant by some guy about how unnecessary it was. iirc, he'd measured the deflection that that piece is supposed to combat under track conditions and it was less than 0.001" or something.

EDIT: bummer, i can't find it.

 

I think that having all these anti-flex devices are indeed overkill if you have all the stock RUBBER bushings in your suspension setup. These race cars should have all monoball joints from the A-arm up to the strut mount / camber plates. There is no play. It all gets transferred to the chassis. Extra chassis stiffening is req'd.

I strongly feel it is a waste on a street car with stock rubber suspension bushings and street tyres.

 

I figure it's only a couple of pounds, can't hurt, and may help with my car being a cab and all.