rear strut brace
- Thread starter lbrench
- Start date
Hi All,
A first post from me on here... hi, great forum
I have a new 200 (pre new badges). Use it for mostly track - had it since beginning of June (it was a physical car who's original buyer cancelled hence old badges yet registered in June). It already has over 500 track miles on it - Nürburgring, Spa, Zandvoort, Castle Combe, Silverstone South and Donington! What great toys they are! Loved every moment and so impressed with what an out of the box hot hatch can do... that's why I bought one in the first place.
Onto the thread subject...
A thought here regarding bracing between the rear damper tops; All of the load in the rear suspension is controlled within the trailing arm assembly and the area of the floor pan that the rear suspension bolts to. The dampers only see their own axial damping load and have no bearing on geometry. There may be some movement in the chassis at the height of the rear damper tops, but bracing across the bushes would more or less negate any chassis bracing you think you might get. That's an 'in brief' description, but in summary I don't think you are getting any additional chassis stiffness by this method of bracing. You will indeed brace the damper tops together as mentioned in previous posts, but that's it.
Bracing the front is a very different affair because here the strut tops are load bearing and are geometry controlling - they are McPherson struts. Without a strut brace the load is all reacted into and around the structure in the engine bay area. Strut braced, and you provide a load path directly between strut tops. The load still has to be finally reacted into the chassis, but it does prevent the strut tops form moving relative to each other helping to maintain geometry.
To stiffen the rear as is the intention of this thread (I think), requires that the load at the point it enters the chassis being redirected into reinforcing structure... i.e. a cage.
To be fair, these Clio's go so well out of the box (even with the usual out of tolerance geometry they tend to have as new), unless you are going racing, leave them alone. I use mine for mostly track day play time, and aside my increasing the font neg camber a touch to help relieve the outer shoulders of the front tires, they are fantastic!
I stumbled across this thread whilst pondering a front strut brace - I think I've just talked myself out of one!
Steve
A first post from me on here... hi, great forum
I have a new 200 (pre new badges). Use it for mostly track - had it since beginning of June (it was a physical car who's original buyer cancelled hence old badges yet registered in June). It already has over 500 track miles on it
- Nürburgring, Spa, Zandvoort, Castle Combe, Silverstone South and Donington! What great toys they are! Loved every moment and so impressed with what an out of the box hot hatch can do... that's why I bought one in the first place.Onto the thread subject...
A thought here regarding bracing between the rear damper tops; All of the load in the rear suspension is controlled within the trailing arm assembly and the area of the floor pan that the rear suspension bolts to. The dampers only see their own axial damping load and have no bearing on geometry. There may be some movement in the chassis at the height of the rear damper tops, but bracing across the bushes would more or less negate any chassis bracing you think you might get. That's an 'in brief' description, but in summary I don't think you are getting any additional chassis stiffness by this method of bracing. You will indeed brace the damper tops together as mentioned in previous posts, but that's it.
Bracing the front is a very different affair because here the strut tops are load bearing and are geometry controlling - they are McPherson struts. Without a strut brace the load is all reacted into and around the structure in the engine bay area. Strut braced, and you provide a load path directly between strut tops. The load still has to be finally reacted into the chassis, but it does prevent the strut tops form moving relative to each other helping to maintain geometry.
To stiffen the rear as is the intention of this thread (I think), requires that the load at the point it enters the chassis being redirected into reinforcing structure... i.e. a cage.
To be fair, these Clio's go so well out of the box (even with the usual out of tolerance geometry they tend to have as new), unless you are going racing, leave them alone. I use mine for mostly track day play time, and aside my increasing the font neg camber a touch to help relieve the outer shoulders of the front tires, they are fantastic!
I stumbled across this thread whilst pondering a front strut brace - I think I've just talked myself out of one!
Steve
Hi All,
A first post from me on here... hi, great forum
I have a new 200 (pre new badges). Use it for mostly track - had it since beginning of June (it was a physical car who's original buyer cancelled hence old badges yet registered in June). It already has over 500 track miles on it - Nürburgring, Spa, Zandvoort, Castle Combe, Silverstone South and Donington! What great toys they are! Loved every moment and so impressed with what an out of the box hot hatch can do... that's why I bought one in the first place.
Onto the thread subject...
A thought here regarding bracing between the rear damper tops; All of the load in the rear suspension is controlled within the trailing arm assembly and the area of the floor pan that the rear suspension bolts to. The dampers only see their own axial damping load and have no bearing on geometry. There may be some movement in the chassis at the height of the rear damper tops, but bracing across the bushes would more or less negate any chassis bracing you think you might get. That's an 'in brief' description, but in summary I don't think you are getting any additional chassis stiffness by this method of bracing. You will indeed brace the damper tops together as mentioned in previous posts, but that's it.
Bracing the front is a very different affair because here the strut tops are load bearing and are geometry controlling - they are McPherson struts. Without a strut brace the load is all reacted into and around the structure in the engine bay area. Strut braced, and you provide a load path directly between strut tops. The load still has to be finally reacted into the chassis, but it does prevent the strut tops form moving relative to each other helping to maintain geometry.
To stiffen the rear as is the intention of this thread (I think), requires that the load at the point it enters the chassis being redirected into reinforcing structure... i.e. a cage.
To be fair, these Clio's go so well out of the box (even with the usual out of tolerance geometry they tend to have as new), unless you are going racing, leave them alone. I use mine for mostly track day play time, and aside my increasing the font neg camber a touch to help relieve the outer shoulders of the front tires, they are fantastic!
I stumbled across this thread whilst pondering a front strut brace - I think I've just talked myself out of one!
Steve
A first post from me on here... hi, great forum
I have a new 200 (pre new badges). Use it for mostly track - had it since beginning of June (it was a physical car who's original buyer cancelled hence old badges yet registered in June). It already has over 500 track miles on it
- Nürburgring, Spa, Zandvoort, Castle Combe, Silverstone South and Donington! What great toys they are! Loved every moment and so impressed with what an out of the box hot hatch can do... that's why I bought one in the first place.Onto the thread subject...
A thought here regarding bracing between the rear damper tops; All of the load in the rear suspension is controlled within the trailing arm assembly and the area of the floor pan that the rear suspension bolts to. The dampers only see their own axial damping load and have no bearing on geometry. There may be some movement in the chassis at the height of the rear damper tops, but bracing across the bushes would more or less negate any chassis bracing you think you might get. That's an 'in brief' description, but in summary I don't think you are getting any additional chassis stiffness by this method of bracing. You will indeed brace the damper tops together as mentioned in previous posts, but that's it.
Bracing the front is a very different affair because here the strut tops are load bearing and are geometry controlling - they are McPherson struts. Without a strut brace the load is all reacted into and around the structure in the engine bay area. Strut braced, and you provide a load path directly between strut tops. The load still has to be finally reacted into the chassis, but it does prevent the strut tops form moving relative to each other helping to maintain geometry.
To stiffen the rear as is the intention of this thread (I think), requires that the load at the point it enters the chassis being redirected into reinforcing structure... i.e. a cage.
To be fair, these Clio's go so well out of the box (even with the usual out of tolerance geometry they tend to have as new), unless you are going racing, leave them alone. I use mine for mostly track day play time, and aside my increasing the font neg camber a touch to help relieve the outer shoulders of the front tires, they are fantastic!
I stumbled across this thread whilst pondering a front strut brace - I think I've just talked myself out of one!
Steve
Oops - a newbie error! Posted twice! I'll get the hang of it. Thought I'd just previewed as I didn't get redirected to thread. The last version is the intended one with the extra
no problem stevemcc you can delete the post ureself. Edit>>delete>>>delete post>>>>>> save if you want to put a reason just say duplicate.
sounds like u love ure tracks.
sounds like u love ure tracks.
Thanks Woody.
I'll leave the above as is... no need to try to cover up numptyness … but will try to avoid next time!!!
Indeed - track days are high on the agenda. The Clio is a second track toy - an Elise is the other. I've envied friends with Clio's for some time; The Elise at 220BHP is a real weapon but is a labour of love. The Clio's are so good out of the box and offer reliability and ease of ownership (relative to the Elise), I just had to get one!.. and love it.
Steve
I'll leave the above as is... no need to try to cover up numptyness
… but will try to avoid next time!!!Indeed - track days are high on the agenda. The Clio is a second track toy - an Elise is the other. I've envied friends with Clio's for some time; The Elise at 220BHP is a real weapon but is a labour of love. The Clio's are so good out of the box and offer reliability and ease of ownership (relative to the Elise), I just had to get one!.. and love it.
Steve
Similar Thread Suggestions
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ultra Racing Rear Strut Brace | Car Parts For Sale | 1 | |
| S | For Sale: Ultra racing rear Strut brace | Car Parts For Sale | 2 | |
|
Ultra Racing rear boot strut brace | Body Work and Exterior Lights | 14 | |
|
Rear strut brace | eBay Finds | 1 | |
|
Only Rear Strut Brace | Suspension, Brakes & Steering | 9 |