ac schnitzer rear strut brace installed pics

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

Why is my credibility in question?

Wow, you really are that clueless. You make a bunch of premature and patently false claims and your credibility is in question. Wow what a surpise... As you can see I am not the only one questioning your credibility.

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

I must report what the vendor tells me is so, because they are the developers of the product. FACT.

And then, when you are both wrong about things such as the billet point, both of your credibility suffers.

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

However, I personally installed this bar on my car. FACT. I personally feel the benefit of the bar, and am willing to bet that anyone else that installs the bar will feel the difference as well.

Please reread J08M3s post again about butt dyno and the like. Surely you would not deny the occurrence of the things he mentioned?

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

Now for all of the "scientists" on this forum that are claiming mathematical probability.

We have discussed a great many thing that are not probabilities, but heck qualification of statements that one is not quite 100% sure on is better than being blatantly wrong over and over again.

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

My advice to you is to put down the calculator and test the product for yourselves before making blanket statements. Coming to a conclusion without all of the information, or first hand experience/testing of the product, is just absurd and NOT scientific.

The facts is that the bar does stiffen the rear. The only way that I can describe the feeling is that the car is flatter around the corners.

If you don't believe me because I am the manufactures rep, fine. But why would you not believe Blake? He is the only other person on this forum that can speak FACTS about the product because he actually has it installed. He has driven his car before and after the install and like me has felt the difference in performance. FACT.

Absolutely wrong. The facts here are that the design both by the existing nature of the cars subframe and chassis can not work in the way you claim. Again your claims are just as strong as someone saying a new exhaust makes their car corner more flat. By your own admission, that you are not an engineer (and clearly have no basic mechanical engineering understanding) is 100% relevant here. You simply have no idea. Why do you not understand that engineers can really look at a design and conclude how it works and if it can or can't work? This happens all day, everyday in all fields of engineering. Unfortunately for you - in light of the likely flawed "butt dyno" type of evidence you have, and the engineering analysis that leads to the conclusion you can't observe what you claim, and of the course based on the 100% lack of any real DATA - this all leaves the burden of proof on you and on ACS.

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

Now as I have stated before, I am a member of this forum because I myself am an enthusiast and own an M3. I have no problem answering questions about any of my post, but will only do so for members that can "play well with others." Though I may not agree with everyone on this forum, I treat every member here with respect and have never personally attacked anyone on the forums and never will. That behavior is childish, and not becoming of a professional.

Obvious reference to me here. Look, the forum, and myself in particular are often harsh but we are fair. Many of us are quite technical and have engineering and science degrees and real world design and analysis experience. We have MEs, EEs, Physics folks and Computer Scientists, etc. - all sort of pretty sharp technical folks both reading and posting here. Personally this is one huge value of this forum. The only "attack" you have got from me are for things that deserve them. They have been neither personal nor ad hominem - they are based on your ignorance of your "own" product, your ignorance in basic engineering, your lack of supporting data and your stubbornness in sticking with your "butt dynos" as both proof and fact.

[Orb]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Excellent data point. I knew the number would be much smaller than the spring load or mounting loads but putting this ceiling here on this load is an excellent piece of the puzzle. Can you elaborate on where this figure came from. We all need to remember that this is a VERTICAL load as well, not lateral!



The bar itself will support both tension and compression, but I absolutely see you point about the huge difference between tension and compression in terms of the effect of the stainless bracket on the surrounding sheet metal. I guess your point is that this surrounding sheet metal does not provide a suitbably strong nor stiff load path?

The data point is based on the system being critically damped in (low speed) rebound. The data used is a suspension frequency at 2.2 Hz with the damper motion ratio at 0.81^2. I used some other data based in the Shock Absorber Handbook to get a more accurate number. This is most likely the worst case.

The bracket looks to me that it might be a problem. You see that the aluminium beam center is much higher that the mount bracket bolts. It’s going to create a nasty bending moment under tension. In the first 2 seconds of seeing that it more or less screamed wrong.

I looked at most of the possible load cases and the all result in tension on this beam but I don’t think this will ever happen to any degree.

At this point you only need to do a few hand calculation of the bracket and make a few good assumptions to see if this will even work. You just need to get information of the bracket dimensions. You don't need any info from ACS.

My gut feeling tells me its not going to be great. I not sure Frank wants to question anyones credibility…..I spend 75% of my time doing non linear FEA and CFD Analysis so this is kind up my ally.

Still like to see the vendor support their claims in a short paragraph. I do this every day so how hard can it be.

Orb

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Orb

The bracket looks to me that it might be a problem. You see that the aluminium beam center is much higher that the mount bracket bolts. It’s going to create a nasty bending moment under tension. In the first 2 seconds of seeing that it more or less screamed wrong.

I see your point there. However, that part is stainless and it is quite thick. I'm sure we can find many interesting point of criticism for this design. But any way you slice it the part simply can not and does not work as advertised. This we can agree on.

Originally Posted by Orb

I spend 75% of my time doing non linear FEA and CFD Analysis so this is kind up my ally.

Cool, what tools do you use? I sell ANSYS/Fluent tools myself. I used to use quite a bit of ANSYS Mechanical tools when I was an ME.

[FrankieP]

Hello board,

I have been reading thread after thread about how this bar can not affect stiffness and driving feel. Most threads seem to have valid claims regarding physics, load, torsion, and it's effects on the chassis while cornering. I can even agree with the assumption that each strut tower can move vertically at different rates thus creating some form of pivot in the bar. Heck, all of these experts chiming in about the laws of physics and engineering even got me to question the bars effectiveness.

All this being said, my position has still not changed. The bar makes a VERY noticeable change in driving feel. The car does not roll as much and is more horizontal (flat) while pulling though the turns. Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly, but this is more than a feeling. Unlike the "feel" of a horsepower gain (butt dyno), a suspension adjustment is much more noticeable.

Let me explain:

During the adjustment period of my race suspension (about 200 mile for street setup), I played with the settings and drove through a street corse consisting of highway on/off ramps, elevation changing curves, and some tight corners. I've driven this route at least 100 times over the last 7 years with all of my cars. Over the last 5000 miles in my M3, I've driven the route about 6 times with my current suspension settings.

I just did it again with the bar installed....

Hands down different. The limits were raised and the car felt planted. It was begging for more gas coming out of the sweeper and took the corners like a champ.

Now all of the posts that claim this bar can't work seem silly to me.

Again, no one is arguing that a solid bar would not make it stiffer. Just that this bar makes it stiff enough to feel and improves cornering. IMO, the fact that it can be easily removed and still offers improved stiffness over stock is validation enough of a well designed product.

Thanks for reading!

[Orb]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I see your point there. However, that part is stainless and it is quite thick. I'm sure we can find many interesting point of criticism for this design. But any way you slice it the part simply can not and does not work as advertised. This we can agree on.



Cool, what tools do you use? I sell ANSYS/Fluent tools myself. I used to use quite a bit of ANSYS Mechanical tools when I was an ME.

I use Ansys, Star CD and CFdesign.

I think the story ends here for this bar as I don't think the vendor will address this simple question. I guess that is two ME who think the brace doesn't do much.

Orb

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

I have been reading thread after thread about how this bar can not affect stiffness and driving feel. Most threads seem to have valid claims regarding physics, load, torsion, and it's effects on the chassis while cornering. I can even agree with the assumption that each strut tower can move vertically at different rates thus creating some form of pivot in the bar. Heck, all of these experts chiming in about the laws of physics and engineering even got me to question the bars effectiveness.

Finally, one iota of progress.

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

All this being said, my position has still not changed. The bar makes a VERY noticeable change in driving feel. The car does not roll as much and is more horizontal (flat) while pulling though the turns. Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly, but this is more than a feeling. Unlike the "feel" of a horsepower gain (butt dyno), a suspension adjustment is much more noticeable.

Oops, I spoke way too soon...

As bad as a butt dyno is for small changes it is pretty good for detecting gross acceleration changes when confounding factors like NVH and acoustics are held constant. The subtleties of suspension function take considerably more training to accurately determine with the "butt dyno". Especially when you are not near, at or above the cars tractive limits. Were you driving tail out on these roads?

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

During the adjustment period of my race suspension (about 200 mile for street setup), I played with the settings and drove through a street corse consisting of highway on/off ramps, elevation changing curves, and some tight corners. I've driven this route at least 100 times over the last 7 years with all of my cars. Over the last 5000 miles in my M3, I've driven the route about 6 times with my current suspension settings.

I just did it again with the bar installed....

Hands down different. The limits were raised and the car felt planted. It was begging for more gas coming out of the sweeper and took the corners like a champ.

Now all of the posts that claim this bar can't work seem silly to me.

A blind placebo test is THE SINGLE thing you could do that would both convince me that your particular "butt dyno" is refined enough to discern these changes. ANY effects from this tiny little, relatively flimsy bar, mounted how and where it is will be in turn quite small. Even your descriptions of the clarity and strength of these effects call your observations into question. Ever heard of the requirement between the size of the cause and size of effect? In other words when you swap major suspension components you will get a noticeable effect, when you swap the entire suspension you will have a major, undeniable effect, but with such a minor "trinket" you just can not have such a huge effect. Keep up the marketing hype though...

All of the cute smileys are not going to convince me and I doubt they will convince 95% of the folks here.

I am pretty much done here and am not going to waste my time further. That is until you offer:

1. Blind placebo test
2. Static mechanical test data
3. Statistical lap time or other quantitative suspension/handling test metrics.

[J08M3]

Frank,

Since you have the bar installed in your car and you can easily feel the difference driving on the street. You would be the perfect person to conduct the blind test. It's quite simple and would prove this thing works or not.

Test:

Since the bar is easily removable, you can have one of your buddies prepare the car for you with and without the bar. Do ten runs on the same course you listed above. In between runs let your buddy take your car where you can't see it and either remove or replace the bar and bring it back to you. Let the number of times the bar is in or out be random and not necessarily an equal number of both. After ten runs of blindly testing the bar you should be able to report which runs were with and which runs were without. Post up your results. You probably don't even need to get it 100% right, but if you get most of the runs correct that should probably be good enough to convince to forum it works.

[FrankieP]

I agree we should do a blind test, but we should also have Blake do one on his end as well. I do not believe that some on this forum will take my word for it, hence the 5 page thread about this bar.

Not to go off topic here, but some of the information that is being requested will not be furnished by the vendor. Just by the descriptions and pictures I have already provided, I have made it easier for others to use the design to create a lower cost bar. By way of the posts in this thread, this thought has already crossed the minds of some that are not even in said industry.

Having said this, I do not believe that a placebo test will compromise any of the information gained during design and development.

Blake, maybe you can conduct your test on the your next track day?

Thanks for your comments.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

...
Having said this, I do not believe that a placebo test will compromise any of the information gained during design and development.
...

A blind test will be incredibly valuable to anyone considering this bar. Thank you for committing to do it.

Dave

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

Not to go off topic here, but some of the information that is being requested will not be furnished by the vendor. Just by the descriptions and pictures I have already provided, I have made it easier for others to use the design to create a lower cost bar. By way of the posts in this thread, this thought has already crossed the minds of some that are not even in said industry.

Well maybe ACS shouldn't price the bar at $750 then.

[graves4r6]

Originally Posted by Big Windy

Well maybe ACS shouldn't price the bar at $750 then.

Simple. Dont like the price then dont buy it

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by graves4r6

Simple. Dont like the price then dont buy it

Simple. Don't over price the bar and then complain that people can and want to make it for cheaper.

[J08M3]

If you're honest about your test and don't cheat and look to see if the bar is there or not on each run how can people not believe you?

At the end of each run just say whether you thought bar was installed or not. I'd say at least ten times just to have a fair sample to look at and we know it's not just a lucky guess. Then just open the trunk and report on you answers.

[swamp2]

Given the hype and excitement Frank has shown for this product I would only be satisfied with a 3rd disinterested party moderating the placebo test. Similarly, the results of which run did or did not have the bar should be available to the driver only after completion of ALL of the runs.

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Given the hype and excitement Frank has shown for this product I would only be satisfied with a 3rd disinterested party moderating the placebo test. Similarly, the results of which run did or did not have the bar should be available to the driver only after completion of ALL of the runs.

What, swamp, you don't want to pay $750 to try it yourself?? j/k

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Big Windy

What, swamp, you don't want to pay $750 to try it yourself?? j/k

As I mentioned earlier I would lie, tell them I have a 335i and get the part for $550....












NOT.

[Radiation Joe]

DIE!!!! Thread DIE!!!

[FrankieP]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OMG it gets even better... CEC will charge you $580 for this part for your 335i and $776 for the EXACT same part for your M3.

Price lists are attached (freely available on the web). Part number is 3334-90-310.

This is a typo. Please note that next to the price there is a code (B,C) . Since we are the importer, we have a structured discount for all of our dealerships and vendors. This code represents the dealer discount on the item. If you look on the M3 price guide, the discount code is "B". On the E90 and E92 price lists, the same part number is a "C" code. 2009 prices were calculated last week (prior to my vacation). In 2008 the bar was a "B" code on all price lists with a price of $776. The new 2009 price is indeed $580 and is now a "C" code item across the board. This was a mistake in the calculation done by marketing. All chassis are not up yet, but should be up by next week. It's my job to proof them but as you guys know I'm on vacation (kind of).

This thread also got me to catch another mistake. This bar does not fit the E93, but it does not specify this in the E92/93 M3 price guide. It will only fit E90/E91, LCI, and E92.

Damn you guys! Making me work on my vacation. j/k

[FrankieP]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

DIE!!!! Thread DIE!!!

[graves4r6]

Originally Posted by Frank@CEC

This is a typo. Please note that next to the price there is a code (B,C) . Since we are the importer, we have a structured discount for all of our dealerships and vendors. This code represents the dealer discount on the item. If you look on the M3 price guide, the discount code is "B". On the E90 and E92 price lists, the same part number is a "C" code. 2009 prices were calculated last week (prior to my vacation). In 2008 the bar was a "B" code on all price lists with a price of $776. The new 2009 price is indeed $580 and is now a "C" code item across the board. This was a mistake in the calculation done by marketing. All chassis are not up yet, but should be up by next week. It's my job to proof them but as you guys know I'm on vacation (kind of).

This thread also got me to catch another mistake. This bar does not fit the E93, but it does not specify this in the E92/93 M3 price guide. It will only fit E90/E91, LCI, and E92.

Damn you guys! Making me work on my vacation. j/k

Woo hoo.. Now you make me think to get it...
Frank, Do you have it in stock?

Anyone who complaints about the price now it's time to get it before the price increase

[kmarei]

cheap way of getting above
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255748

[FrankieP]

Originally Posted by kmarei

cheap way of getting above
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255748

Looks like a hack job to me. To each his own, but I would never do this to my M3.