Removing rear strut braces??

[richm]

LOL I'm quite aware of the differences, and most are in the front suspension rather than rear, whatever relevance it may have.

In the original post vrs_si was asking if there was a problem with temporarily removing the bars, presumably to get a bulky load into the car, simple answer is that it won't do any harm.

As to the effect on performance, the only way to find out is to try with and without them fitted, which I guess you haven't done yet

I've tried with and without, under track conditions, with both road and track tyres - amazingly the car didnt break in half, but the added stiffness benefit can be felt, more so with proper tyres .

[KenONeill]

:wrthless: - of the hatchback luggage bay in this case!

[JohnRS]

This? (Lifted from auotrader)

[Ender]

I think Skoda just tapped into what Citroen were doing with their Saxo and raced it up to get them selling. These rear strut braces as standard are just added value and add to the mystique of the VRS brand? they are very subtle and the estate doesn't even have them? These Vee braces look pretty but are for show me thinks - but will do some digging to find out. Not sure you can even buy upper rear strut braces for octavia via after market route - I don't think they will have the strut brace police lurking around when you crash either?

On the other hand;

Will your insurance company cover or does it not know about the Halfords shopping spree you have added to your octavia - is your car road legal? or a rally/track car Lol :-))

Mods-

ABD racing CAI --- ABD racing TIP --- Forge DV --- Blue flame full sytem --- Koni FSD's --- Bosch aero twins --- Fuel 4 5 Stud - 18" --- Milotek 3 grill set --- Milotek bonnet lifters --- Eibach springs --- Impossible Performance custom remap

I confess I didn't tell my insurance company about the valve caps? Ooops!

Im fully legal all declared, and I bet you dont find even one of my mods in Halfords.

[Ender]

LOL I'm quite aware of the differences, and most are in the front suspension rather than rear, whatever relevance it may have.

In the original post vrs_si was asking if there was a problem with temporarily removing the bars, presumably to get a bulky load into the car, simple answer is that it won't do any harm.

As to the effect on performance, the only way to find out is to try with and without them fitted, which I guess you haven't done yet

I've tried with and without, under track conditions, with both road and track tyres - amazingly the car didnt break in half, but the added stiffness benefit can be felt, more so with proper tyres .

Lol people like you its impossible to talk with as you have of course gone to a track removed them put racing wheels and tyres on and blatted round then gone into your pit put them back on and swapped to bogo tyres rinse and repeat lmao.. and no your right I have not removed them however i have been on many tracks.

All im saying is, they are not their for show, and if you wanna remove them and put a bulky and i presume heavy load in the back it may not be the best idea, however you would no better from your experiments in this area at the track right?.

[KenONeill]

Without a finite element analysis I can't be certain, but those look like triangulation members for side-loading on the strut towers. A proper strut brace between the tower tops would be more effective!

[richm]

of course it's possible to talk to me - provided it's a rational discussion

As you use your car in track conditions you will be quite aware of the benefit that additional stiffness imparts which is what the structure is there for. It is plain irrational to propose that with the bars removed temporarily it will do any harm to the car. Within the limits of the specified maximum axle weight the load will not harm the car, (as it won't with the estate or non-vrs hatch) he won't (presumably) be hooning round with a wardrobe in the back, so the handling deficiencies are hardly an issue either.

I have also been involved in saloon race car preparation for some years so have a decent appreciation of the subject of shell stiffness... no finger required thank you

[Ender]

In other words Bangers! lol

[KenONeill]

I have also been involved in saloon race car preparation for some years so have a decent appreciation of the subject of shell stiffness... no finger required thank you

Which class(es)?

As you may have gathered, I suspect that those braces are no more effective than a bit of extra seam welding around the strut towers would be.

[Ender]

Without a finite element analysis I can't be certain, but those look like triangulation members for side-loading on the strut towers. A proper strut brace between the tower tops would be more effective!

Like the Civic's you can get them apparently, I just cannot see Skoda slinging them on just incase the car goes on a track!, if they did where is all my other gubbins and I wonder if you took them out and jacked the car up would it be like an old allegro and the window would pop out?

LOL I'm quite aware of the differences, and most are in the front suspension rather than rear, whatever relevance it may have.

The Vrs according to my main stealer mate has an utterly differant setup on the rear also.

I see what yall are saying and I fully understand how they work and why they are their, however I (me) being cautius and all wouldnt remove them and trust me i find them a right pain in the butt every weekend when I load the car up for football, but to dispel them as not needed or say a bit of weld would be just as good is abit crazy no? if abit of weld was as good then Skoda would of done that as it would of most certainly been cheaper and easier..

[cloverleaf]

IIRC there was a thread on here previously with tech data from one of the dealer discs explaining what extra seam welding had been done on the shell to help stiffen it. The struts will be in there as part of a number of tweaks to help stiffen the shell. Whether you notice the extra stiffness or not is down to how sensitive you are as a person, how hard you drive it and on what sort of roads. I imagine that some of the extra welding would be to help reduce the risk of cracks appearing after a long and hard life of being abused. I know that the shell on my old Vectra ST200 was an absolute wreck when I sold it due to stiff suspension and hard driving on very rough roads. There were a fair number of cracks around various suspension mounting points and so forth which just seemed to have occurred through fatigue. Extra seam welding is used as a combination to both help stiffen the structure and also increase fatigue life. Using the Impreza STi as an example, that has extra bracing and a solid bulkhead over lesser non turbo models as well as partial seam welding. The old 22B was fully seam welded and that was definitely to contribute to stiffness on the already stiffer 3 door shell where it is obviously going to be driven hard and on a car where all the small things add up to make a big difference.

[richm]

Cloverleaf -

All 2wd cars (and parts diagrams) that i've seen have the same configuration beam/spring/damper configuration and pickup points, spring and damper rates will vary along with a couple of different antirollbar rates in the beam, 4wd are very different. If this isn't the case I'd be interested to know.

The "strut towers" don't support the spring forces directly as they would with a strut damper, the springs bear on the chassis rail, so the bars will impart additional stiffness (provided they are tightened up sufficiently, mine weren't what I'd call tight) to the back end of the shell in place of a bulkhead rather than support the dynamic spring loading directly. Try jacking one corner, with or without the bars, on a standard car and see how it affects the door shuts

Ken - this season we run (and have built) three 1.8 MGZR's, Peugeot 106 and new for this year 1.8T 2wd Audi TT. Club saloon championship, engine spec and suspension free, but retaining original configuration and locations, and MSA listed treaded tyres.

Everything gets a fully braced welded in cage, welded into the suspension turrets etc. so shell stiffness is a whole different ballgame to road cars , braces in the sense we are discussing here become largely irrelevant.

[KenONeill]

Cheers Rich; I know I've seen at least one of those making results, so I know you know what you're talking about.

I'd managed to forget that the springs bear on the chassis rails and aren't coilovers! That being the case, I'm not sure that bracing the towers or wheel wells will do much at all, and would agree it's probably intended (if securely fixed) to act as a pseudo-bulkhead. I'd suspect, but note previous comments about finite element analysis, that a brace between the trailing arm pickups would be more effective!

[cloverleaf]

Cheers Rich; I know I've seen at least one of those making results, so I know you know what you're talking about.

I'd managed to forget that the springs bear on the chassis rails and aren't coilovers! That being the case, I'm not sure that bracing the towers or wheel wells will do much at all, and would agree it's probably intended (if securely fixed) to act as a pseudo-bulkhead. I'd suspect, but note previous comments about finite element analysis, that a brace between the trailing arm pickups would be more effective!

The point that takes the upper suspension load is the same, regardless of what coilovers are or are not fitted.

[KenONeill]

The point that takes the upper suspension load is the same, regardless of what coilovers are or are not fitted.

Really? I was under the impression that the compression load on the shell would be through the upper spring seat, since the spring and not the damper supports the mass of the car. Or are you saying that rear coilovers on an Octy:-

1) don't exist.

2) move the damper to the spring axis

3) move the spring to the damper axis?

[cloverleaf]

On the Octy, as far as I am aware, the spring and damper are still seperate even on ride height adjustable coilovers and so the forces continue to act on the same positions.

[KenONeill]

On the Octy, as far as I am aware, the spring and damper are still seperate even on ride height adjustable coilovers and so the forces continue to act on the same positions.

Based on this, I don't see what the braces are actually supporting, since there should be no significant force passed through the "strut towers" in any plane, unless you have high wheel movement rates, and those should be lower on the stiffer sprung vRS!

[cloverleaf]

They brace the shell where the bulkhead would otherwise be and therefore contribute to the overall stiffness of the structure when combined with the extra seam welding that the vRS had. If you are driving the car fast and on rough roads then there are a lot of forces being transmitted through the shell, trying to twist it. By bracing the shell further you are reducing the inherent flex and therefore improving the consistency of the handling and helping to reduce the movement induced stresses at the panel joins in the shell.

Also, the forces being passed through the springs on the vRS will be greater than a softer sprung car as there is reduced travel but a similar mass to support. That means that for every inch the wheel moves on the vRS, the force required to move it that inch will be greater. Stiffer suspension means that more force is directed straight into the chassis rather than being absorbed by the springs/dampers.

[Turbo120Fabian]

Ill add that the lower part which these braces bolt too is a reinforced u shape channel and i could see that fitting those braces to my 1.8t octy would be of benifit to shell rigidity especially with lower and slightly firmer springs, the way its set up doesnt introod into the load space as much as a solid bar across the vehicle would which keeps the vehicle alot more practical, just my 2c

[KenONeill]

Further thought; won't the estate shell, with the much longer box section, and the bonded CD window, be naturally stiffer than the hatch?