Air Ride/PCW Fender Braces

[wiedemab]

I don't think that the purpose of a fender brace is to resist vertical movenment. It designed to mearly hold the rad. support and the fender at a 90 degree angle to each other.

If the length of the sides of a triangle can not change.... neither can the angles. If I remember right from Geometry class, (which I mostly slept through ), it was referred to as the SSS Postulate.

I agree with this in two dimensional space. The heim ends allow for 3d motion though.

It's probably not going to make any difference in this application though because the other ends of the fender and core support are constrained. I think the purpose of these is to just hold the core support in alignment. I doubt whether the stock ones or these add significantly to the rigidity of the vehicle on the whole.

[Serpa69]

There is only two bolts on a stock fender brace anyway. If it is side to side or up and down movement everyone is concerned about. The stock stuff will not fix it anyway. I think it looks pretty cool. A little $$$ but hey, that is the cost of it.

[bret]

I am referring to movement in the horizontal plane [looking at things from the top]. I think maybe Charlie is referring to movement in vertical plane [looking at it from the edge]. Neither the oem components nor our fender braces will resist vertical movement. Both units are designed to resist movement in the horizontal plane, and only relative to each other. To resist vertical movement we would have to run a vertical brace to the frame or some other solid mounting point.
The end result is that both the oem units and our stainless fender braces resist fender-radiator support movement relative to each other as intended, and beyond. While I guess it may be possible to incur a problem with vertical movement of the fender/rad support, I have not seen any evidence of such movement on my own car[Velocity]. I am thinking that the vertical cross section and mountings of the fender/rad support/inner fender is adequetly resisting such movement.

[Fuelie Fan]

FORM OVER FUNCTION.

If you like the way it looks, buy it. If you want a properly engineered solution, i don't think that this is it. It's not critical enough a component that its worth flaring up a huge argument over, but fundamentally this design has a number of flaws.

[Steve Chryssos]

Tried to stay out of this, but I just can't stand it any more.

Core support bars are designed to keep the fenders from bowing outward at the center of the fender (i.e. bowing away from the hood). The issue is caused by the length of the fenders (i.e. longer than a Nova) combined with the car's unitized platform. The issue is exacerbated by the weight of the wheelhouse. The wheelhouse design is practically free-standing.

-Core support bars are NOT designed to maintain angularity of the nose sheetmetal to cowl/core support. Benefits here are practically non-existent--especially with solid body mounts.
-They are NOT designed to resist chassis flex like a Monte Carlo bar on a Mustang. Here, the Monte bar ties the cowl to the spring towers. F-body core support bars essentially do nothing for handling or torque management.

By resisting the bowing forces, core support bars ARE designed to oppose the weak link in the nose sheetmetal. They work to reinforce secondary mounting points that are sheetmetal to sheetmetal including the lower rear fender bolts and wheelhouse mounting points. You would never actually SEE the bowing forces. Instead, a lack of support would cause lower rear fender hardware to move / loosen causing door to fender gaps to move out of alignment. Funny thing is, the lack of bars (or improper bars) never get the blame.

So: As long as the bars are perfectly straight and in tension, they are effective. Bret's bars satisfy both requirements. End of story.

[wiedemab]

Tried to stay out of this, but I just can't stand it any more.

Core support bars are designed to keep the fenders from bowing outward at the center of the fender (i.e. bowing away from the hood). The issue is caused by the length of the fenders (i.e. longer than a Nova) combined with the car's unitized platform. The issue is exacerbated by the weight of the wheelhouse. The wheelhouse design is practically free-standing.

-Core support bars are NOT designed to maintain angularity of the nose sheetmetal to cowl/core support. Benefits here are practically non-existent--especially with solid body mounts.
-They are NOT designed to resist chassis flex like a Monte Carlo bar on a Mustang. Here, the Monte bar ties the cowl to the spring towers. F-body core support bars essentially do nothing for handling or torque management.

By resisting the bowing forces, core support bars ARE designed to oppose the weak link in the nose sheetmetal. They work to reinforce secondary mounting points that are sheetmetal to sheetmetal including the lower rear fender bolts and wheelhouse mounting points. You would never actually SEE the bowing forces. Instead, a lack of support would cause lower rear fender hardware to move / loosen causing door to fender gaps to move out of alignment. Funny thing is, the lack of bars (or improper bars) never get the blame.

So: As long as the bars are perfectly straight and in tension, they are effective. Bret's bars satisfy both requirements. End of story.

Agreed! They definitely serve their intended purpose and look good doing it. This is a classic case of over analyzing something.

[skatinjay27]

This is a classic case of over analyzing something.

thats what ive been thinking since the start of this debate... they are a pretty insignifigant piece in the handling aspect...

[Steve Chryssos]

But that doesn't make them unimportant. They're only insignificant if you like aligning sheetmetal periodically.

[wiedemab]

Steve - I agree with you that they serve a very important purpose. I think the original beef, if you will, with them was related to their contribution or lack of contribution to the structural rigidity of the chassis - which I would argue is negligible.

I think we're on the same page. Cool product, easily adjusted to help with panel alignment. What's not to like.

[Fuelie Fan]

Perhaps you missed the brackets at both ends loaded in bending???? The single shear joints that the load must pass through????

Care to beat that gavel any more? The design is not optimal. It's pretty.

So: As long as the bars are perfectly straight and in tension, they are effective. Bret's bars satisfy both requirements. End of story.

[Steve Chryssos]

Nah. The gavel's been beat.

[bret]

I'm going to have a beer. With Steevo.

[Charley Lillard]

I'm coming also.

[dontlifttoshift]

-Core support bars are NOT designed to maintain angularity of the nose sheetmetal to cowl/core support. Benefits here are practically non-existent--especially with solid body mounts.
By resisting the bowing forces, core support bars ARE designed to oppose the weak link in the nose sheetmetal. They work to reinforce secondary mounting points that are sheetmetal to sheetmetal including the lower rear fender bolts and wheelhouse mounting points. You would never actually SEE the bowing forces. Instead, a lack of support would cause lower rear fender hardware to move / loosen causing door to fender gaps to move out of alignment. Funny thing is, the lack of bars (or improper bars) never get the blame.

Has anybody run with out them? Did the world end becasue they weren't there.....or as strong as a piece of conduit with smashed ends on it.

I ask because they are in my way and I am having a tough time justifying spending any time coming up with a solution when I don't think they are doing much. Solid subframe/core support bushings on this one.

[bret]

Has anybody run with out them? Did the world end becasue they weren't there.....or as strong as a piece of conduit with smashed ends on it.

I ask because they are in my way and I am having a tough time justifying spending any time coming up with a solution when I don't think they are doing much. Solid subframe/core support bushings on this one.

Go ahead and take them off.

If your frontend falls off you'll know they were important

[Todd in Vancouver]

^^^^

[dontlifttoshift]

Thanks Bret!