H-brace. Questions/reviews/feedback?

[Sexc86]

Hey guys

On my quest of suspension overhaul. I was origionally looking at lower Arm/tie bar setups. Have found a front bar described as a "H" brace bar. Similar to a conventional tie bars however it has 4 points of attachment as apposed to 2.

Exhibit A (cusco front lower tie/arm bar - 2point)


Exhibit B (NRG - Hbrace 4 point)


Although i have never herd of the manufacture "NRG" it seems to be a quality product that some people on honda-tech have rated quite well. However have also see a few others are. Megan, L-con to name a few. Does this brace actually have merit? or is it just another bullshit exploited brace bar that really has no physical theory behind it?

My main concerns were firstly;

* having sufficient clearance between the chassis and the bar for a 3inch exhaust.

* not being a nuisance from bottoming out from hanging too low.

Has anyone ever run something similar to this? any Pros/cons. What manufactures to look at and/or steer clear of.


Thanks in advance

Regards Lyle

[e240]

I started with a H Brace, changed to a Spoon front Tie bar, and now running without except the stock cross member brace. IMO, H Brace and Front tie bars do diddly squat. If you Cross member is flexing so much that you need a brace, you've probably got a more serious issue.

[Zilli]

agreed... i would drive the car in a situation where you will actually have the opportunity to understand exactly what is required (ie. racetrack) rather than throwing money at things which may look nice, but do jack shit

[JohnL]

OK, please insert IMO in front of every sentence.

This sort of brace works in compression and / or tension between the mounting points. In either compression or tension you want the load path to be straight for maximum rigidity. Any bends in the brace are going to allow flexure, i.e. when the brace is loaded it will flex in the middle, more easily the greater any existing bend or bends. As soon as a bend is placed in braces such as these the physical dimension of the tubing / bar needs to be substantially increased to maintain rigidity.

If we assumed a straight brace, in tension the dimensions of the brace are more or less irrelevant, a length of wire has substantial tensile strength (but only when initially straight of course, which holds true for tubes etc). However, in compression the physical dimensions do matter quite a lot. If the cross section of the brace isn't reasonably substantial in all dimensions then the brace will probably flex under load (even if the tubing's wall thickness is quite thick).

The material from which those braces are made has a substantial cross sectional dimension in one direction (i.e. the tubing 'width', which looks adequate), but an insubstantial cross sectional dimension in the other dimension (i.e. the tubing 'depth', which looks quite inadequate).

I would suggest that those braces are very likely to flex easily under any sort of significant loading and thus are likely not to work very well, i.e. not make much difference (though they must add at least some fairly slight rigidity increase).

Imagine taking either of those braces off the car and placing one end on the ground so that the brace is sitting vertically, then placing all your weight on the brace and loading it in compression. Do you think the brace would flex significantly? Judging from the photos, I think it most probably would, mostly because of the bends in the tubing. Forces acting within the chassis are going to be substantially greater than a persons body weight...

These factors also apply to strut tower braces...

[fatboyz39]

OK, please insert IMO in front of every sentence.

This sort of brace works in compression and / or tension between the mounting points. In either compression or tension you want the load path to be straight for maximum rigidity. Any bends in the brace are going to allow flexure, i.e. when the brace is loaded it will flex in the middle, more easily the greater any existing bend or bends. As soon as a bend is placed in braces such as these the physical dimension of the tubing / bar needs to be substantially increased to maintain rigidity.

If we assumed a straight brace, in tension the dimensions of the brace are more or less irrelevant, a length of wire has substantial tensile strength (but only when initially straight of course, which holds true for tubes etc). However, in compression the physical dimensions do matter quite a lot. If the cross section of the brace isn't reasonably substantial in all dimensions then the brace will probably flex under load (even if the tubing's wall thickness is quite thick).

The material from which those braces are made has a substantial cross sectional dimension in one direction (i.e. the tubing 'width', which looks adequate), but an insubstantial cross sectional dimension in the other dimension (i.e. the tubing 'depth', which looks quite inadequate).

I would suggest that those braces are very likely to flex easily under any sort of significant loading and thus are likely not to work very well, i.e. not make much difference (though they must add at least some fairly slight rigidity increase).

Imagine taking either of those braces off the car and placing one end on the ground so that the brace is sitting vertically, then placing all your weight on the brace and loading it in compression. Do you think the brace would flex significantly? Judging from the photos, I think it most probably would, mostly because of the bends in the tubing. Forces acting within the chassis are going to be substantially greater than a persons body weight...

These factors also apply to strut tower braces...

Are you a engineer? god damn what a reply!

[Sexc86]

agreed man... that diserves a rep!

[Sp00ny]

In my opinion, although what JohnL said is completely true to physics and also logic....in my opinion using common sense....for these kind of bars and parts to make a differance then other parts of your running gear must be equal in capability....there are alot more things holding the average honda back before it comes to chassis rigidity in terms of handling capability. After all "Your running gear is only as strong as its weakest link"...

Eg. The differance of a Rear Strut bar in a stock GSi on Kings you were lucky to notice a differance even during very hard cornering. When installed on my mates VTi-R with 5zigen Coilovers(my estimate is 12-14kg front/ 10-12 Rear), 22mm Sway + tie.....the rear strut bar made a immediant noticable differance and kept the rear end tight and made it alot more predictable. Test bar was OEM JDM Type R Rear Strut.

All im trying to say is you might want to save your money or spend it in more useful areas before spending it on piece of metal that claims to cut your "track times" in "half"....lol. Expessially if your car is getting older i would invest in a polyurethane bush kit and install it yourself....if your capable the value for money is much much better than the handling gain from a "h brace"..... Unless you already have all these mods....(im unsure, lol)

Although this may seem off topic i was replacing my PCV Valve yesterday, having removed the air intake to gain some room to work in i noticed that the VTi-R has already got a front "tie bar" well something that looks suspiciously similar to the stock OEM DC2 Type R rear bar. Im presuming that due to the similarity between dc2/eg perhaps they have this bar too.

Round bar flattened at ends with two bolts either end. It may not be for that purpose but it caught my eye, just thought i would mention it.

[JohnL]

Spoon,
I more or less agree with most of your post. I think the stiffer the springs and / or dampers the more stress is fed into the chassis and the more it will twist, so the more chassis stiffening is needed. Chassis bracing will tend to be more beneficial with stiffer suspension set ups, and with soft suspension set ups it may be hard to pick much improvement, whereas the same chassis stiffening with a stiffer suspension may be very noticable.

But, even with a stiff suspension set up any added stiffening braces do actually have to do something worthwhile, a 0.01% improvement is hardly worthwhile for the $ and added weight.

I would (and have) install front and rear tower braces since most chassis are quite weak between the towers and good braces actually do something worthwhile (again, more so with stiffer suspensions), but aren't nearly so weak between the LCA mounting points. IMO a typical chassis has substantial compressive / tensile strength between the LCA mounts and doesn't even require stiffening at this point. There are far better things to spend your money on than those braces.

[JasonGilholme]

holy shit!

When did ozhonda become a constructive community!!! This is awesome!

+rep for JohnL and Sp00ny!

[beeza]

Where's Limbo,he's got one.

[Sp00ny]

Spoon,
I more or less agree with most of your post. I think the stiffer the springs and / or dampers the more stress is fed into the chassis and the more it will twist, so the more chassis stiffening is needed. Chassis bracing will tend to be more beneficial with stiffer suspension set ups, and with soft suspension set ups it may be hard to pick much improvement, whereas the same chassis stiffening with a stiffer suspension may be very noticable.

But, even with a stiff suspension set up any added stiffening braces do actually have to do something worthwhile, a 0.01% improvement is hardly worthwhile for the $ and added weight.

I would (and have) install front and rear tower braces since most chassis are quite weak between the towers and good braces actually do something worthwhile (again, more so with stiffer suspensions), but aren't nearly so weak between the LCA mounting points. IMO a typical chassis has substantial compressive / tensile strength between the LCA mounts and doesn't even require stiffening at this point. There are far better things to spend your money on than those braces.

Definantly Agree, it is obvious that these bars will make some sort of differance in chassis rigidity, however re-stating what you said i agree the differance is not worth the money or the added weight. The only reason people should buy all these bars is if they are after aesthetics.

If you were to buy all the bars for a DC2/5 (Strut, Tie, C/B-Pillar, Fender/Floor) a Roll Cage would be more effective and most likely cheaper....expessially if your buying named bars such as Cusco, Spoon, Tanabe etc....You can even get street roll cages that can be hidden.

Bottom Line......H-Braces are like Valentines Day......a marketing ploy by the corporate world...lol XD

Regards,
Andrew

[55EXX]

The only reason people should buy all these bars is if they are after aesthetics.

blue would look good with your car. roll it up on some stands mirrors underneath with some neons to light it. neon light will reflect of the bar well and highlight the blue anodising but hide some of the mess that is the undercarriage of street driving cars. give it a clean to make it shiny. did it at one of my shows with my rear sway brace etc and got a point from the judge for it.

just a tip for shows man.