Rear strut brace for the Trophy

[bc_seventy_six]

Has anyone on here fitted a rear strut brace? If so whats the thoughts on it - e.g is it worth it and has it made any difference to the handling?

Just thinking that it may or may not be a worthwhile option on a Trophy. Probably something Renault would have fitted originally though if it did make a dramatic difference as i dont imagine it would be that expensive to manufacture and fit. I know most people go for fitting one at the front but some years back one of my friends fitted a rear one to his car and reckoned it definitely made a difference.

Thoughts/opinions welcome

Cheers

BC

 

[Cue]

George or Fred are the people who will know.

 

[bc_seventy_six]

George or Fred are the people who will know.

Cheers Cue - hopefully they'll be along soon. Is it yourself Cue that has removed the rear bench completely? Or is that Ollie? Just wondering what the thoughts were on this - has it affected the handling or made the back end feel any different? Quite fancy doing this when i get mine - ditch the peasant spec rear bench and fit a shiny strut brace

 

[Cue]

nah, mine's virtually standard at the mo. I think OilS removed his rear bench but don't quote me on that.

I heard that excessive weight in the boot can majorly effect handling in a negative way, lightening it i guess would increase understeer as the weight balance would move slightly more to the front end.

 

[tholman]

Isn't that what they did on the latest works Mini, it was in EVO a few months back (the front wheel drive shootout one)?

 

[Cue]

yeh the GP works 2 or whatever its called - I think this particular 'feature' is critisized in this months Evo as being a bit pointless and dangerous if you plan on carrying anything in the boot at anytime...... Remember the road safety add with someone turning into an elephant anyone?

 

[chiefsilverback]

My thoughts are that Renault spent millions designing the car and part of that design is the rigidity/flexibility of the chassis.

If you whack in a strut brace then you are stopping the chassis from working as it's been designed and potentially transferring/diverting force to areas that weren't designed to handle it!

Similarly what happens to the cars impact safety. Cars are designed to crumple so as to absorb force and protect the passengers. Might a strut brace affect this and potentialy endanger the passengers?

 

[jezza l]

I've had the rear out of mine when i needed to put some boxes in the trophy. To be honest the seats are just foam and are probably about 1kg!! Wouldn't have thought it made any difference to the handling however as has been said before you can hear a nice exhaust note with it all removed.

 

[George K]

As Cue and bc 76 anticipated, I have risen to the bait!

Firstly, a chassis /shell can never be too stiff - hence the science of designing effective roll cages for touring cars. That said, stiffening up a floppy shell will change the spring and damper requirements.

To the specific question - the Clio has a torsion beam rear end and so does not have any struts to brace. There is nothing to be gained by strengthening the shell ends of the spring mounts or dampers pick-ups, as this will not affect either the rear wheel geometry or the front to rear roll stiffness.

At the risk of upsetting lots of people I am also pretty cynical about front strut braces on road cars, as most struts have a rubber bushed top mounts, which will give more movement than any flexing of the shell. For spherical jointed top mounts with high spring rates there could well be a benefit. However there is no doubt that some cars do benefit from a bottom brace - particularly as there was a phase when front sub frames were not used and the forward lower inboard mount (if that makes sense) was cantilevered off the bulkhead and was relatively floppy; but the Clio has a sub-frame so should be far less susceptible.

More money saved??

 

[bc_seventy_six]

As Cue and bc 76 anticipated, I have risen to the bait!

Firstly, a chassis /shell can never be too stiff - hence the science of designing effective roll cages for touring cars. That said, stiffening up a floppy shell will change the spring and damper requirements.

To the specific question - the Clio has a torsion beam rear end and so does not have any struts to brace. There is nothing to be gained by strengthening the shell ends of the spring mounts or dampers pick-ups, as this will not affect either the rear wheel geometry or the front to rear roll stiffness.

At the risk of upsetting lots of people I am also pretty cynical about front strut braces on road cars, as most struts have a rubber bushed top mounts, which will give more movement than any flexing of the shell. For spherical jointed top mounts with high spring rates there could well be a benefit. However there is no doubt that some cars do benefit from a bottom brace - particularly as there was a phase when front sub frames were not used and the forward lower inboard mount (if that makes sense) was cantilevered off the bulkhead and was relatively floppy; but the Clio has a sub-frame so should be far less susceptible.

More money saved??

More money saved indeed, thanks for the info George - very concise and informative. Having someone on here with that depth of knowledge is invaluable.

I think you should be referred to simply as 'The Oracle' from now on

 

[George K]

Thanks - my wife might not agree! Mainly because I sold her beloved MX5 to get the Trophy - but it was worth 5 whole seconds at Wiscombe!

 

[OliS]

nah, mine's virtually standard at the mo. I think OilS removed his rear bench but don't quote me on that.

Not me, mine is vitually standard as well. Oliie has taken out his rear bench, think it saved about 15kg's including the isofix bar.

 

[Cue]

i thought it was either you or oliie

 

[Steve]

As Cue and bc 76 anticipated, I have risen to the bait!

Firstly, a chassis /shell can never be too stiff - hence the science of designing effective roll cages for touring cars. That said, stiffening up a floppy shell will change the spring and damper requirements.

To the specific question - the Clio has a torsion beam rear end and so does not have any struts to brace. There is nothing to be gained by strengthening the shell ends of the spring mounts or dampers pick-ups, as this will not affect either the rear wheel geometry or the front to rear roll stiffness.

At the risk of upsetting lots of people I am also pretty cynical about front strut braces on road cars, as most struts have a rubber bushed top mounts, which will give more movement than any flexing of the shell. For spherical jointed top mounts with high spring rates there could well be a benefit. However there is no doubt that some cars do benefit from a bottom brace - particularly as there was a phase when front sub frames were not used and the forward lower inboard mount (if that makes sense) was cantilevered off the bulkhead and was relatively floppy; but the Clio has a sub-frame so should be far less susceptible.

More money saved??

Can't believe I missed this post, nice one George, you are the Trophy Oracle. I found this when searching for isofix, what are the cons of removing this, if any? Obviously the pro is weight loss.

LMAO at you trading in your wife's MX5 and that you were hill climbing it!

 

[George K]

Steve, I never intended to get into the driving side of motorsport so late in life, but quite by chance our move to Devon ended up 4 miles from Wiscombe - simply had to do it and the MX5 was available. It was not that quick, but as standard it comes with fully adjustable geometry front and rear, and combined with Konis was surprisingly responsive to set up - just desperately short of power. Just for sheer cussedness I was tempted to stick with it, but staying n/a would have been a step into the unknown, expensive and not liable to gain that much power.

As they say the Trophy was a no brainer and I did get my wife an X-Trail which she finda ideal around our narrow and muddy lanes.