My bad. Sorry, was a very long weekend.

It'* ok I'm HOPING to fab the first one up very soon. Still not sure which car, though.

93 93 93 93 93 93 you know you wanta!!!!

willwren, You act like you know it all.. wait a minute.. The general concensus (sp) would suggest that as well. Hmmm, maybe you do know it all.

I wouldn't go to the point of insulting you if I was curious about your intents, ....as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind taking a drive in your car, since mine is mostly stock.

But, all jokes aside.. he he he

As for the subject at hand, May I ask how the 2 extra bars prevent the main bar from bending upward? I'm not even close to being able to design these type of performance parts, but my limited intellegence would suggest if the bar is bending upward, we might want to add a bracket at the bend, and add a bar or 2 pulling downward, against the said bend'* direction...

I'm not questioning your design, but rather, I would like to know why your design would work better than just bracing in the opposite direction of the bend. I'm guessing the bend is probably due to twisting of the front end, and not only a strutt mounting issue, and your extra bars help reduce this twist? maybe?

I'm guessing here...

Sam B.

Sam, if you look at the design on the first page of this topic, you see a 1/4" plate attached to the strut bar at the center. That reduces the flex of the OEM bar. The braces that come out of it from either side serve the purpose of:

Particularly in a unibody car, any way you can prevent the front of the car from flexing will improve handling performance. The two bars are representative, and may end up being in different places. Some of the limiting factors may be OEM component placement, and the clearances required of them.

Many professional applications use this (MOST), and there are several aftermarket AND OEM corner braces. Anything you can do to get more rigidity will help.

For those that are shocked at my response to 1fatcat above, there'* more to it behind the scenes that only some of you are aware of. Call it the straw that broke the camel'* back.

As an Admin on this forum, I am held to a higher standard, but I am human as well, and one thing we don't tolerate on this forum are belittling personal attacks (see above), or INVITATIONS to flames. Calling someone a fool for modifying a car in a Performance forum is like asking to be shot. There is a history here, and offline 'guidance' has apparently had no effect. Sometimes it does spill over in the public eye, but only as a necessity when other forms of communication fail.

Harsh? Yes. But in this case, I believe (knowing about the offline stuff most don't) that it was time. Don't forget that I'm human too. Even Admins have bad days, and if it takes something like this to give someone a wake-up call to prevent disrespect in future posts towards other members, so be it.

willwren,
I think I have a better understanding now. You mentioned adding corner braces works in some applications..... I owned a caprice classic 9C1, which is the one with the police package, and it handled better than my Bonne'* ever did. Under the hood we can easily see 2 added brackets in each of the back upper corners, near the firewall. There were also other added braces under the engine area, and a thicker frame that added to the stiffness around turns.

It would be hard to believe a '94 Caprice wouldn't have extensive body roll on turns, but I'm telling the truth.. that car was stiff, comfortable, and very sturdy feeling, and the civilian caprices need help to get to that point.

As for the problem posts.. I need no details.. I was just making a little humor. I realize by now that if you get a little angry sounding on this forum, it probably has a reason.. so, I'm not questioning your judgement, or behavior.. If I was to judge you, I'd have to look at all my experiences with you, and every one has been accurate help, and solid advice since I joined here...

Keep up the good work.. some of us depend on you more than you'd realize... especially in a time of car troubles...

Sam B..

My '94 Buick Roadmaster LT1 was the same base chassis as your Caprice PP. I wanted those additional braces. It had quite a lower anti-sway bar, but I could get that sucker to flex and roll on the hard turns. That Caprice package was quite a machine, and the cousins, the Impala and the Roadmaster alike.

Anyway, you see the path I'm after here as well. Even the GP community has a wealth of upgrades off the shelf for these applications. Nothing for us yet, which is what I'm trying to come up with. There'* ALWAYS room for improvement.

I'm not positive on the roadmaster'* frame, but the stock Impala SS had the thicker frame as did the Police Caprice. I want a roadmaster, or another Caprice 9C1. BTW, my Caprice had the L99 engine. I'd like to have one with the LT1 though..

That LT1 had some scoot considering the car'* weight. I wasn't happy with the gearing, too high for my liking. A bit lower gear would have been impressive.

And now I'm off-topicing my own damn topic.

I'm still a little confused about this concept. I understand what you're saying about triangulating the load, but shouldn't the triangles be extended down toward the road instead of forward toward the front bumper? I hope you understand what I'm describing. If you're trying to get rid of upward flex, the added triangulation needs to be on the same plane of movement as the undesired flex. Thus, your support pieces should extend downward. Triangulating on the horizontal plane when the problem is on the vertical plane will not do much to add strength.

Either do that, or get a thicker STB for the stock location.