-
Welcome to our new sponsor Lecatona, a brand dedicated to enhancing performance for VAG group sports cars, including SEAT, Audi, Volkswagen and Škoda. Specializing in High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) upgrades.
ok guys, please, before you all have a go at me, sit down for a minute, and give some thought to the suspension on your leon.
At the FRONT end, you have a fixed lower wishbone, with a hub attached via a ball joint, then a Macpherson strut type arrangement. The front upright is attached to the hub VERY rigidly, and the only point of contact to stop the hub flapping around, is the top of the upright.
In this kind of setup, any movement at the top of the strut, will result in a change of either camber or castor, or both, as moving the strut, directly effects the hub and wheel geometry.
Adding a brace here and stopping chassis flex will reduce the amount that the front geometry can change during body flex, so the results MIGHT be noticable.
At the back of the car, you have a fixed beam axle. This also has flex along it's length, to give a degree of independance to the rear wheels, but aside from the flexy centre, the trailling arm sections of the beam are fairly rigid, and the wheel is mounted via a stub axle to the rear beam.
The rear beam mounts to the chassis, at a VERY strong reinforced point, at floorpan /rear squab level, some 18'' forward of the rear wheel centre. The rear springs are also mounted to the beams trailling arms, and compress against a bulky chassis rail, just behind the beam mounts.
The rear wheel geometry is fixed by the rigidity of the beam, and cannot be altered without camber shims.
The rear shock absorbers on the leon, are mounted via a highyl flexible rubber bush, at the back of the trailling arm section of the beam. then into the wheel arch via an alloy top mount and 2 bolts.
These rear shocks take load in compression ONLY, and take no lateral load what so ever.
As a result, bracing the top of the wheel arches, on a leon, will make NO difference what so ever.
if you don't believe me, think for a second about what you're bracing. it's the top of the shocks right?
Now, if you REALLY don't believe me, unbolt a shock, and grab hold of the top, and wobble it around as violently as you can manage.
You'll notice, that the rear wheel geo does not, and can not, change as a result of moving the upper shock mount on the back. Even if you ran no shocks at all, rear wheel geo wouldn't change, at all.
For this reason, surely, you must agree that bracing the top of the shocks cannot make any difference what so ever?
At the FRONT end, you have a fixed lower wishbone, with a hub attached via a ball joint, then a Macpherson strut type arrangement. The front upright is attached to the hub VERY rigidly, and the only point of contact to stop the hub flapping around, is the top of the upright.
In this kind of setup, any movement at the top of the strut, will result in a change of either camber or castor, or both, as moving the strut, directly effects the hub and wheel geometry.
Adding a brace here and stopping chassis flex will reduce the amount that the front geometry can change during body flex, so the results MIGHT be noticable.
At the back of the car, you have a fixed beam axle. This also has flex along it's length, to give a degree of independance to the rear wheels, but aside from the flexy centre, the trailling arm sections of the beam are fairly rigid, and the wheel is mounted via a stub axle to the rear beam.
The rear beam mounts to the chassis, at a VERY strong reinforced point, at floorpan /rear squab level, some 18'' forward of the rear wheel centre. The rear springs are also mounted to the beams trailling arms, and compress against a bulky chassis rail, just behind the beam mounts.
The rear wheel geometry is fixed by the rigidity of the beam, and cannot be altered without camber shims.
The rear shock absorbers on the leon, are mounted via a highyl flexible rubber bush, at the back of the trailling arm section of the beam. then into the wheel arch via an alloy top mount and 2 bolts.
These rear shocks take load in compression ONLY, and take no lateral load what so ever.
As a result, bracing the top of the wheel arches, on a leon, will make NO difference what so ever.
if you don't believe me, think for a second about what you're bracing. it's the top of the shocks right?
Now, if you REALLY don't believe me, unbolt a shock, and grab hold of the top, and wobble it around as violently as you can manage.
You'll notice, that the rear wheel geo does not, and can not, change as a result of moving the upper shock mount on the back. Even if you ran no shocks at all, rear wheel geo wouldn't change, at all.
For this reason, surely, you must agree that bracing the top of the shocks cannot make any difference what so ever?
Haha I haven't read all the storing but prawn knows his stuff! I'll vouch for that!!
I totally get all you said mate, and it does make sense - but just to throw a spanner in the works........
Back when I braced mine up my rear one arrived first so I got that in place- it made the back end feel very rigid and made it better at low speed bends but more inclined to step out at high speed! As soon as I got the front one in too it was the perfect match! It jus stiffened up the chassis which is normally held together with piella
Now this was back on standard shockers so I can't comment now that it's on weitec coilies and h&r ARBS! But I did notice a difference by supporting the back chasms not the top of the shocks.
I'm done and I'll be over soon mate
I totally get all you said mate, and it does make sense - but just to throw a spanner in the works........
Back when I braced mine up my rear one arrived first so I got that in place- it made the back end feel very rigid and made it better at low speed bends but more inclined to step out at high speed! As soon as I got the front one in too it was the perfect match! It jus stiffened up the chassis which is normally held together with piella
Now this was back on standard shockers so I can't comment now that it's on weitec coilies and h&r ARBS! But I did notice a difference by supporting the back chasms not the top of the shocks.
I'm done and I'll be over soon mate
I see where you guys are coming from, but I just can't see how it could make any difference.
perhaps the Leons shell flexes considerably more than the A3? being 4 door, and having a very large rear hatch opening.
Bracing is all very well and good, but basic engineering principles cannot be ignored, and without triangulation, a simple brace over the rear arches like this highly unlikely to do anything meaningful.
perhaps the Leons shell flexes considerably more than the A3? being 4 door, and having a very large rear hatch opening.
Bracing is all very well and good, but basic engineering principles cannot be ignored, and without triangulation, a simple brace over the rear arches like this highly unlikely to do anything meaningful.
The beam is a V shape in the middle, and is designed to flex. if it didn't flex, the rear wheels wouldn't have any independance at all.
Adding a rear ARB to this chassis basically reduces the amount of flex possible in the rear beam, which in turn reduces body roll.
Yes prawn, the rear strut simply reduces body flex. If you open the rear doors and boot theres not alot of metal left! My car used to creek and moan as I would turn off a slope to a flat road as the while car twisted. Since I put the rear brace in it's never done that. It's like fitting a roll cage, just in a very basic level it stiffens up the chassis
get back in your a3 and let's hit the ring!!
get back in your a3 and let's hit the ring!!
Fair enough,
I'm a huge fan of chassis stiffening, as you can see below:
I just never thought a single brace in that position would make any difference.
The cage on the other hand, welded into the shell at 12 points, made a HUGE difference to stiffness.
You should come over for a spin sometime when we're both free.
I'm a huge fan of chassis stiffening, as you can see below:
I just never thought a single brace in that position would make any difference.
The cage on the other hand, welded into the shell at 12 points, made a HUGE difference to stiffness.
You should come over for a spin sometime when we're both free.
Really not convinced that the rear strut does nothing at all, i understand the point being made... but surely by reducing torsional flex, front or rear the car will respond better when put under stress??!!
I.e. more rigitity = less slack to be taken up before the car responds.
I'd imagine the reduced torsional flex at the rear will reduce (slightly) the flex at the front.
Sure it may not be a huge difference, but a difference never the less.
Certainly an interesting topic - some food for thought - i'd be interested to hear other people's opinion on this.
p.s. the above may be complete jibberish.
I.e. more rigitity = less slack to be taken up before the car responds.
I'd imagine the reduced torsional flex at the rear will reduce (slightly) the flex at the front.
Sure it may not be a huge difference, but a difference never the less.
Certainly an interesting topic - some food for thought - i'd be interested to hear other people's opinion on this.
p.s. the above may be complete jibberish.
it's mainly a track toy yea, although it's still road legal, and gets used a few times a week for fun.
My point is, that the point it mounts to is not structural at all, and nothing load bearing mounts there.
Chassis stiffening can make a huge difference, but without triangulation it's not really doing anything.
Imagine a square for example, the two sides are the arches, the bottom is the floorpan, and the top is the strut brace.
Apply load to any corner, and it can easily flex. it's only when you add triangulation that the flex stops.
Sure, the brace is stopping the two arches closing in on each other, but as they're not directly loaded anyway, they have no desire to do so in the first place.
My point is, that the point it mounts to is not structural at all, and nothing load bearing mounts there.
Chassis stiffening can make a huge difference, but without triangulation it's not really doing anything.
Imagine a square for example, the two sides are the arches, the bottom is the floorpan, and the top is the strut brace.
Apply load to any corner, and it can easily flex. it's only when you add triangulation that the flex stops.
Sure, the brace is stopping the two arches closing in on each other, but as they're not directly loaded anyway, they have no desire to do so in the first place.
I read this thread with interest and liked the fact its a removable brace and want one.
I emailed Mike @ [email protected] on the off chance that 4 other people had shown interest.
Mike got back to me to say I’m number 2 in that list @ £115 all in.
So hopefully there’ll be 3 more peeps looking to add to that list.
Just out of interest is it Hughes Engineering in Glasgow?
An interesting read, although I see what Prawn is saying, there is no arguing with the quality in workmanship of these braces.
PM'd you Mart.
Hopefully we can get the required number for the list..... 2No. more required?
An interesting read, although I see what Prawn is saying, there is no arguing with the quality in workmanship of these braces.
PM'd you Mart.
Hopefully we can get the required number for the list..... 2No. more required?
Last edited:
Hi Doc,
Mike quoted to me its £115 (all in) for one if five peolpe email him direct.
I took the (all in) part to mean including p&p, but can verify that with Mike if he gets 5 or more.
Similar threads
