Additional Front Strut Brace - worthwhile?

No tramlining or problems in mine at all doesn't seem to reduce the ride quality either I live in a rural area with lots of tractors etc and there are pot holes everywhere. Feels no different at all IMHO.

And it def look awesome under the bonnet!!!! looks a bit feeble without it, those little braces look a tad pathetic.

:thumbsup:
 
The Z4MC has a very stiff chassis which gives the suspension parts a very stable platform from which to function. As a new owner of a Z4MC and a long-standing owner of a Z3MC which I've very heavily modified in the suspension department from OEM, I would suggest that the Z4MC would benefit from stiffer springs at the front and slightly softer springs at the rear. Lateral bodyroll in the OEM Z4MC is not a problem, whereas in the OEM Z3MC it is it's worst characteristic. The OEM ARBs of the Z4 MC are exactly twice as stiff as those on the Z3MC. The Z4MC already has the OEM "triangulated" tower strut-braces which should do the job of bracing the front wheel arch towers.

Can anyone, who has driven their Z4MC with OEM suspension then later fitted Eibach lowering springs, tell me if the Eibach Pro-kit springs reduce squatting on acceleration and pitching on braking, and if so, by how much? Or should I just fit KWV3 from the outset?
 
john how do you feel about jumping straight into a track coilover like the clubsport..... this is what i have purchased.....???
 
exdos said:
Can anyone, who has driven their Z4MC with OEM suspension then later fitted Eibach lowering springs, tell me if the Eibach Pro-kit springs reduce squatting on acceleration and pitching on braking, and if so, by how much? Or should I just fit KWV3 from the outset?


I found the Eibachs actually improved the ride at low speeds when in town, pitching and squatting unchanged iirc.
 
My H&Rs give a very very very stiff ride but they were installed before i bought the car so I cant compare.

Would be up for a comparison at one of the meets :thumbsup:
 
Beedub said:
john how do you feel about jumping straight into a track coilover like the clubsport..... this is what i have purchased.....???
Beedub,

I'm thinking about KW Clubsport, but not sure I want to lose the OEM front top mounts with a set of caster/camber plates on the roads. Have you got a set of Clubsports for sale?

I find the steering on the Z4MC a bit "numb" in comparison to a Z3MC, but the caster angle of the Z3MC is around 9 degrees which gives an increased dynamic camber angle in turn-in, whereas the Z4MC has a caster angle of around 5 degrees only, so turn-in is not so sharp.

I have KWV3 on my Z3MC with front camber/caster plates and I've modified the rear trailing arms to give me camber and toe adjustment on the rear end and it can easily be set up to give me a great ride on the bad B roads or on track.

I've found that the single-most influential setting that affects steering response (as well as tyre wear) is front toe angle, and so I shall experiment with this over the next few months. From a quick check of my Z4MCs geometry, it seems that I've got a fair bit of toe-in at the front and I'll try it with 0 toe, which I've found gives the best handling on my Z3MC.
 
tomscott said:
My H&Rs give a very very very stiff ride but they were installed before i bought the car so I cant compare.

Do you find that the front lifts like a speedboat when accelerating hard or does it stay level, and does the front dive when braking hard?
 
exdos said:
Beedub said:
john how do you feel about jumping straight into a track coilover like the clubsport..... this is what i have purchased.....???
Beedub,

I'm thinking about KW Clubsport, but not sure I want to lose the OEM front top mounts with a set of caster/camber plates on the roads. Have you got a set of Clubsports for sale?

I find the steering on the Z4MC a bit "numb" in comparison to a Z3MC, but the caster angle of the Z3MC is around 9 degrees which gives an increased dynamic camber angle in turn-in, whereas the Z4MC has a caster angle of around 5 degrees only, so turn-in is not so sharp.

I have KWV3 on my Z3MC with front camber/caster plates and I've modified the rear trailing arms to give me camber and toe adjustment on the rear end and it can easily be set up to give me a great ride on the bad B roads or on track.

I've found that the single-most influential setting that affects steering response (as well as tyre wear) is front toe angle, and so I shall experiment with this over the next few months. From a quick check of my Z4MCs geometry, it seems that I've got a fair bit of toe-in at the front and I'll try it with 0 toe, which I've found gives the best handling on my Z3MC.

No not for sale...

I went bmw strut top reinforcement plates, kw clubsport 2 way track units, r e engineering reinforced top mounts with billet tops, kw clubsport topmounts, turner rear camber arms... I just havent fitted it yet..... Im going to run one more sprint on my stock items with camber adjustments and install........ That little lot will feel great.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.
 
carl said:
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.

I totally agree. You get a car to over/understeer with driving technique. I think a lot of people confuse over/understeer with a car's "turn-in" characteristics . If anyone want more rapid turn-in, they should try a bit of toe out at the front and most likely they won't like it! :o
 
Beedub said:
No not for sale...

I went bmw strut top reinforcement plates, kw clubsport 2 way track units, r e engineering reinforced top mounts with billet tops, kw clubsport topmounts, turner rear camber arms... I just havent fitted it yet..... Im going to run one more sprint on my stock items with camber adjustments and install........ That little lot will feel great.
You'll have great fun setting that up! :thumbsup:
 
carl said:
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.

i second you......

heres my strut brace fitted....

babypicturesandSpacerinstall025.jpg


i felt it made a decent difference, on my roadster im happy for any extra rigidity, not to other how it looks, more the performance side of things....
 
exdos said:
Beedub said:
No not for sale...

I went bmw strut top reinforcement plates, kw clubsport 2 way track units, r e engineering reinforced top mounts with billet tops, kw clubsport topmounts, turner rear camber arms... I just havent fitted it yet..... Im going to run one more sprint on my stock items with camber adjustments and install........ That little lot will feel great.
You'll have great fun setting that up! :thumbsup:

yeah looking forward to it... just trying to get some more milege out of my stock items, i have to say however im impressed with the stock stuff on an aggressive alignment, its been fun adding power and brakes ect ect and slowing seeing the suspension run out of talent, i know exactly the area's id like to tackle.... look forward to the setup of this new suspension.... for me compliance is key.....
 
Beedub said:
carl said:
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.

i second you......

heres my strut brace fitted....

babypicturesandSpacerinstall025.jpg


i felt it made a decent difference, on my roadster im happy for any extra rigidity, not to other how it looks, more the performance side of things....
See this is the bit I don't get:
1) BMW want as much rigidity as possible
2) Strut braces are cheap
3) But BMW don't fit them as standard
Do we really believe that BMW are tuning the suspension to take account of the flex in the chassis and body, when £100 of strut brace (<£10 to BMW) would fix it?
 
carl said:
Beedub said:
carl said:
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.

i second you......

heres my strut brace fitted....

babypicturesandSpacerinstall025.jpg


i felt it made a decent difference, on my roadster im happy for any extra rigidity, not to other how it looks, more the performance side of things....
See this is the bit I don't get:
1) BMW want as much rigidity as possible
2) Strut braces are cheap
3) But BMW don't fit them as standard
Do we really believe that BMW are tuning the suspension to take account of the flex in the chassis and body, when £100 of strut brace (<£10 to BMW) would fix it?

You dont need to get it :-) bmw offered one and we fitted it.... Cant really hurt having one fitted so im happy with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Why give it to you for free when they can charge you for it?

Otherwise we'd all have heated ///M seats, sat-nav, bluetooth, etc. as standard - and it would probably cost BMW less in total due to only having to ordering 1 type of each for all applications.

I've got no problem with having the strut brace on the Roadster as it will bring it closer to the Coupe's rigidity on the front.
 
carl said:
I don't get all this stuff about inducing understeer. It's a strut brace, not an anti-roll bar. All it does is stop the chassis/body flexing. Are we saying the handling and compliance is better if it does flex? Seems wrong to me.
First of all, let me say I always like the look of strut-braces in the engine bay, and I've seen plenty of so called 'motorsport' companies selling strut-braces that don't even do what they're intended to due to having curves/hinges in them (which means the forces aren't transmitted to the other strut tower as they should be, and just end up being absorbed by the bar itself). These companies know it's a flawed product, yet continue to sell them as some owners like the 'thought' of having a strut brace.

The BMW one (and lots of others) is not like that, so it does do what it is intended to do. However what it is intended to do, and what people buy it to do are not necessarily the same thing.

Basically, the stiffer the car the less compliant/progressive it is.

Think of a 1ft cube made of concrete on a smooth surface, then gradually tip that surface to 45º and what happens? Nothing until the whole lot slides down the surface without warning.

Think of the same cube on the same surface, but made of jelly, and do the same test in your head and what happens? The jelly will start distorting as soon as you move the surface, and will keep tipping in line with the angle of the surface until it can't grip anymore and will gradually let go and slide down.

If you're on a track then stiffer is better (unless it's wet) as you'll get better feel through the steering, more direct response to your steering inputs, etc.

If you're on the UK roads then you need some softness/flex/compliance to stop the steering wheel being jerked out of your hands, to decrease tramlining, and to allow one side of the car to react without affecting the other side. For example, if you catch the edge of a pothole with your LHS tyre, then you'll feel it a bit of a shock through the car and the LHS suspension will take care of it. If you have strut brace on, that shock will be transmitted to the RHS shock tower and make the RHS wheel/tyre/suspension react too - even when it's on a perfectly smooth piece of tarmac itself.

The reason it tends to add to understeer is that in normal use the two front tyres/struts can act independently to differing road surfaces on different sides of the car to keep the tyre's contact patch at an optimum position in relation to the road surface. With the strut brace in place the two side are forced to act in parallel. In some cases that works fine, in others it doesn't.

The effect is different on different cars, and no amount of roll-bars/strut-braces would make a road-going e34 M5 into a track weapon...(thicker front & rear roll bars, front & rear strut braces, and still it rolled like it was in a Force 9 storm)...
page8-1027-full.jpg
 
sammyz said:
If you drive the car really hard and on track then i think the brace will help keep the front end planted otherwise, well it looks nice under the bonnet :)


mmmfive, that's what I said!!!! sort of :)
 
Most drivers never get anywhere near to exploring the limits of their cars (of any make/model) so in most cases, the manufacturers stop short of making them hardcore and settle for a compromise of a decent(ish) ride on public roads. In the case of the Z4MC, BMW had to stop somewhere in making the car a focused sports car but they will sell you a kit to make the Z4MC into a proper race car for about £250k! :D

mmm-five said:
With the strut brace in place the two side are forced to act in parallel. In some cases that works fine, in others it doesn't.
Surely a properly designed strutbrace (such as the OEM or Strongstrut ones) makes the suspension towers into more fixed points on the chassis so that the left and right suspension units can act independently of each other, to preserve the geometry settings (camber and toe) in dynamic situations? It is the ARB which couples the action of the dampers working independently as a transverse spring: the stiffer the ARB the less the dampers work independently of each other. It would be far easier to set up suspension attached to a concrete block than on a jelly (of equal weights), and you'd be able to get more predictable and reliable handling characteristics too!
 
Back
Top Bottom