[PackPride85]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

The key thing to remember is that it already has a strut brace - hidden under the trim covers below the windscreen. Noting that BMW have previously sold cars with a very obvious brace between the strut towers, that they've chosen to fit one between the actual strut tops and the windscreen that you can't see without removing some trim - and then haven't sold something to bolt between the towers - suggests the latter is of marginal benefit compared to what they already fitted. But, the Turner braces definitely look well made and are much stiffer than the wriggly tin the stock corner braces are made from, and have the advantage of being both better looking than the originals, and much less expensive than the BMW solution.

Whether they do anything compared to said wriggly tin items - never mind what BMW came up with prior to 2013 for the M235i Racing - is the point of contention in this thread.

That stock strut tower bar looks like paper compared to the s55 one.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

Okay... Well:


I accept that you like what you bought and are happy with the cost effectiveness trade off vs what BMW came up with. In the meantime, have fun driving your car. HTH

1) Item 6: https://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/sho...diagId=41_2141

Only the m2 and cabriolet models have this.

2) The turner solution doesn't predate the m235ir, it is relatively new hence bmw couldn't go after market if they wanted to - in response to you hinting at if there were better why didn't bmw go for it.

3) You can clearly see the massive amounts of flex on the bmw carbon brace when it is being installed vs. there being no such flex on the turner motorsports brace. Then the ability to add rigidity to a part depends on how stress forces are transferred to the brace, can't transfer the stress means no improvement in rigidity. The turner braces are secured in many more points vs the bmw brace, meaning better transfer of forces in the wheel house region and thus better rigidity. This is how physics works, you can't transfer forces without contact being made.


4) Bollocks huh? Seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.



Gee I wonder where those braces are attached to, looks like the strut tower to me.

If the strut tower is forced to move towards or away from the fire wall guess where the load transfers? Right to the tubular brace and corner brace in a tension or compression action (some other forces like shear and bending will be present as they are angled). If the tower goes left or right? Same story.... If the strut goes up then these bars act to hold it down like tie down straps.



5)

What like this?

That's what happens when a crap ton of force is concentrated on to small of a surface area, in this instance the weakest material will fail first. So if you want to more effectively transfer forces you need more mounting area.

And yet it still doesn't prove rigidity, because if the tensile strength is high enough the brackets will still shear and break despite flexing. For example a stripped drain thread, the bolt stretches and deforms while being torqued in elastic deformation. But the weaker thread fails after a certain torque limit which is way before the drain bolt's failure point. The bolt still flexed in this scenario, so it doesn't show proof of rigdity, it just shows tensile strength of the carbon being much stronger and all the forces being directed to a sole mounting point.


Yes both braces are mounted to thin stamped steel moutning points, hence why if you want to transfer forces effectively it is better to have more mounting points on the chassis, something the corner braces do.



6) My example was to show you not everything bmw does is top notch and there are sacrifces involved.



7) I do not have all the parts required for weighing, atleast I am trying to provide manufactuer reported weights, something you don't do. All I see on your end of things is talking but nothing to back up your claims.




8) I have multiple strut tower braces I am testing, no guarantee any current one I have in my possession will remain.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

Seems like throwing an aftermarket strut tower bar on will do more than either the m4 brace or turner braces on the n55 m2. After that mod I'd be surprised if anyone could feel the difference between either option. In that case I'd probably just get the turner braces.

Aftermarket braces especially the tubular steel one that afe sells will absolutely brace the strut towers better than the m4 aluminium brace, because steel has a youngs modulus nearly 3 times higher than aluminium.

However the wheel house section is not braced, so that will still need to be taken care of, and the turner motor sports brace will fulfill that.

[davidk]

For fear of unleashing the hounds, I would like to know if there is any benefit to adding the Turner carbon corner braces on a LCI M2 (2018) with absolutely no modifications. The car is not tracked, but does enjoy being driven. I will admit they do look great under the hood, however. Any chance you could provide torque specs for the corner brace bolts? Great review. Thank you.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by davidk

For fear of unleashing the hounds, I would like to know if there is any benefit to adding the Turner carbon corner braces on a LCI M2 (2018) with absolutely no modifications. The car is not tracked, but does enjoy being driven. I will admit they do look great under the hood, however. Any chance you could provide torque specs for the corner brace bolts? Great review. Thank you.

Besides the aesthetics you will get a more rigid chassis. Whether or not you notice that increase in rigidity when you do not track depends on how hard you push the car on the road.


28 Nm for the corner brace bolts as per ISTA.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

That stock strut tower bar looks like paper compared to the s55 one.

This is mainly because the stock brace is adapted from the normal F series cars and alone it is insufficent. Paired with

Originally Posted by M Fifty

Whether they do anything compared to said wriggly tin items - never mind what BMW came up with prior to 2013 for the M235i Racing - is the point of contention in this thread.

The m4 and its technical layout was announced September 25 2013, the m235ir was announced in late December 2013 and derived its parts from the m4. Nothing was custom made for it...


Another funny bit is you don't think the upgraded corner braces (which are clearly more rigid than the flimsy stock brace) do anything vs. the stock braces which were able to be flexed by hand even while bolted (and torque to spec) into the car, which means the mounting points don't do anything. This then implies bmw's engineering to develop these braces was absolute garbage as they chose useless mounting points. Yet when bmw engineers develop the m4 brace it was perfect. So which is it? Is bmw unable to engineer or not?

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

That stock strut tower bar looks like paper compared to the s55 one.

It's steel, and considerably thicker in both wall thickness and section than the wriggly tin on the corner braces. (Edit: 6mm in the centre section, with the box section being 16mm x 22mm with 2mm wall thickness. It weighs 1.65kgs or 3lbs 10oz. What grade of paper do you use in your printer as a matter of interest? )

But yes, I would expect the S55 aluminium brace to be significantly stiffer based on the sheer number of attachment points as well as how thick it is.

Adding something in addition to the stock brace appears not to be cost effective if the //Marketing Department aren't trying to sell same.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

This is mainly because the stock brace is adapted from the normal F series cars and alone it is insufficent. Paired with



The m4 and its technical layout was announced September 25 2013, the m235ir was announced in late December 2013 and derived its parts from the m4. Nothing was custom made for it...


Another funny bit is you don't think the upgraded corner braces (which are clearly more rigid than the flimsy stock brace) do anything vs. the stock braces which were able to be flexed by hand even while bolted (and torque to spec) into the car, which means the mounting points don't do anything. This then implies bmw's engineering to develop these braces was absolute garbage as they chose useless mounting points. Yet when bmw engineers develop the m4 brace it was perfect. So which is it? Is bmw unable to engineer or not?

Not what I said, but there you go.

I think they are stiffer than the wriggly tin of the stock corner braces. I do not think they are stiffer - in concert with the stock strut reinforcement - than the system you highlight as originating on something other than a race car. The front part of the brace appears to have been available to order from January 11th 2013 btw, which predates the M4.

Why do you buy BMW if you think their engineers produce "absolute garbage" as a matter of interest?

[PackPride85]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

Not what I said, but there you go.

I think they are stiffer than the wriggly tin of the stock corner braces. I do not think they are stiffer - in concert with the stock strut reinforcement - than the system you highlight as originating on something other than a race car. The front part of the brace appears to have been available to order from January 11th 2013 btw, which predates the M4.

Why do you buy BMW if you think their engineers produce "absolute garbage" as a matter of interest?

I'm not sure what you're implying. The M2 is a parts bin car designed to maximize performance with existing parts. Pretty much everything on the OG M2 was ripped from the m3/4 or carried over from some variant of the m235. The steel from strut tower is m235 carryover as was the corner braces from the f23 convertible. That's how you maximize performance at value.

That certainly doesn't preclude aftermarket companies from designing better products. That happens on every car platform.

[Bee Pee]

Originally Posted by 3LiterBeater

Adding only the aluminum "upper" brace made a significant difference IMO.

Really makes you wonder if that "V" shaped piece originally in there was working at all.

I wonder what these stamped corner pieces were added for if they seem to also do very little

Agreed.

When I retrofitted m4 brace parts - ran alloy part for 6 months (before CFRP V brace) and it made a noticeable difference.

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

Not what I said, but there you go.

I think they are stiffer than the wriggly tin of the stock corner braces. I do not think they are stiffer - in concert with the stock strut reinforcement - than the system you highlight as originating on something other than a race car. The front part of the brace appears to have been available to order from January 11th 2013 btw, which predates the M4.

Why do you buy BMW if you think their engineers produce "absolute garbage" as a matter of interest?

If you compare the bracing for the wheel house I think the turner corner braces do a better job, and like I said before if you add in the aluminum brace then the whole m4 bracing package does a better job like I said before. However when you start adding in braces to the stock package then I believe it will match if not exceed the aluminum m4 brace in terms of strut tower bracing. Because you can chose a stronger materials with higher young's modulus for bracing, also strut tower brace are also positioned between the strut towers which is a more optimal position for transferring forces to the brace vs. the m4 aluminum brace which is off of the axis of movement meaning less efficient force transfer and in the direction where the brace is less reinforced (example if the towers flex together it is more efficient to transfer the forces directly into the brace where the forces are taken as compression in the direction the brace is the strongest, whereas a force coming in at an angle now acts as a shear force where there is little to support it.


The first m3 production date was April 2012...


Because nothing is perfect, every road car has compromises to meet road regulations and budget constraints. Why choose bmw? Because compared to other brands they have the least garbage put into their cars, fantastic tubular steel rear subframe, stainless steel tubular front subframe, all forged aluminum control arms and suspension components, and their fantastic quasi dry sump oil system. They just make garbage cooling systems and some parts like the bracing was cheaped out.


Like I said before this is why the aftermarket exists, to fix the crap left over by the OEM, because the aftermarket doesn't have to meet regulations nor budget constraints.

[M Fifty]

[QUOTE=F87source;29314949}

Like I said before this is why the aftermarket exists, to fix the crap left over by the OEM, because the aftermarket doesn't have to meet regulations nor budget constraints.[/QUOTE]

By selling alternatives - yes. I totally see where you're coming from.

So that regulation bit: Which regulations are Turner non-compliant with in this instance. Crash Protection perhaps?

[F87source]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

By selling alternatives - yes. I totally see where you're coming from.

So that regulation bit: Which regulations are Turner non-compliant with in this instance. Crash Protection perhaps?

By selling products with no limitations in terms of budget and thus being able to use advance materials. I guess it's hard to understand because modifying cars isn't for everyone.


In terms of regulations I was trying to imply that towards things like noise and emissions regulations. In terms of crash damage, if the frame rails deformed all the way back to the corner braces then the engine would have to be forced back immensely - meaning it was a massive impact energy to the point you'd already be dead.

This is an m2 totaled from a front end crash, notice where the deformation stops (right before it could affect the corner braces, this is why you see most carbon m4 brace's survive crashes):




If it crumpled any further that would be a problem for survival, because now the engine is going to want to star to enter the cabin.


Nice try moving the goal posts.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

1)

5)

What like this?

Good picture. This is what I meant when I said that the unsupported length of the BMW CF brace was clearly not a problem given that in front end impacts it was the bracket that failed first. So it's pretty good in compression as well as tension.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

1) Item 6: https://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/sho...diagId=41_2141

4) Bollocks huh? Seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.



Gee I wonder where those braces are attached to, looks like the strut tower to me.

.

Yep those are where the BMW Aluminium brace attaches to - and the CF part bolts to it. My point was that the Turner Braces don't. HTH?

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

Aftermarket braces especially the tubular steel one that afe sells will absolutely brace the strut towers better than the m4 aluminium brace, because steel has a youngs modulus nearly 3 times higher than aluminium.

However the wheel house section is not braced, so that will still need to be taken care of, and the turner motor sports brace will fulfill that.

Also bollocks.

Your favoured product needs to mount in exactly the same way as the M4 brace for this to be even remotely true, plus when was the last time you flew on a steel aircraft? To match the stiffness, the steel item will end up heavier.

Maybe if you clarify what you mean by wheelhouse? The M2 isn't a ship, so doesn't have a rudder...

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

By selling products with no limitations in terms of budget and thus being able to use advance materials. I guess it's hard to understand because modifying cars isn't for everyone.


In terms of regulations I was trying to imply that towards things like noise and emissions regulations. In terms of crash damage, if the frame rails deformed all the way back to the corner braces then the engine would have to be forced back immensely - meaning it was a massive impact energy to the point you'd already be dead.

This is an m2 totaled from a front end crash, notice where the deformation stops (right before it could affect the corner braces, this is why you see most carbon m4 brace's survive crashes):




If it crumpled any further that would be a problem for survival, because now the engine is going to want to star to enter the cabin.


Nice try moving the goal posts.

I'm aiming for where the goalposts appear to be in your posts?

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by davidk

For fear of unleashing the hounds, I would like to know if there is any benefit to adding the Turner carbon corner braces on a LCI M2 (2018) with absolutely no modifications. The car is not tracked, but does enjoy being driven. I will admit they do look great under the hood, however. Any chance you could provide torque specs for the corner brace bolts? Great review. Thank you.

They will be significantly stiffer than the stock wriggly tin corner braces, and obviously look much better. Whether the places they mount to means they will make enough of a difference to the chassis stiffness that you will be able to feel it when driving is something to ask the OP. HTH.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

I'm not sure what you're implying. The M2 is a parts bin car designed to maximize performance with existing parts. Pretty much everything on the OG M2 was ripped from the m3/4 or carried over from some variant of the m235. The steel from strut tower is m235 carryover as was the corner braces from the f23 convertible. That's how you maximize performance at value.

That certainly doesn't preclude aftermarket companies from designing better products. That happens on every car platform.

It certainly doesn't - as you say. Whether the aftermarket products highlighted here are more effective than the M235i Racing items reused on the F8X M3/M4 and M2C (as asserted by the OP) - rather than merely being cheaper - is my issue with the OP.

I also have doubts about the cost effectiveness of the aftermarket products highlighted here compared to the BMW items as they are bolted in locations that appear to offer less bang for the buck and major on the cosmetic aspects. If they attached to the strut towers using the mounting points for the strut tops and then tied in the mounting points for the corner braces, that would be a compelling alternative offering.

HTH

[PackPride85]

Originally Posted by M Fifty

It certainly doesn't - as you say. Whether the aftermarket products highlighted here are more effective than the M235i Racing items reused on the F8X M3/M4 and M2C (as asserted by the OP) - rather than merely being cheaper - is my issue with the OP.

I also have doubts about the cost effectiveness of the aftermarket products highlighted here compared to the BMW items as they are bolted in locations that appear to offer less bang for the buck and major on the cosmetic aspects. If they attached to the strut towers using the mounting points for the strut tops and then tied in the mounting points for the corner braces, that would be a compelling alternative offering.

HTH

The effectiveness of the aftermarket is close enough when you take cost/effort into consideration that I'd rather spend less of both taking all of 30 seconds to bolt in a strut tower bar and new corner braces over mess around with fitting the m4 setup.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by F87source

If you compare the bracing for the wheel house I think the turner corner braces do a better job, and like I said before if you add in the aluminum brace then the whole m4 bracing package does a better job like I said before. However when you start adding in braces to the stock package then I believe it will match if not exceed the aluminum m4 brace in terms of strut tower bracing. Because you can chose a stronger materials with higher young's modulus for bracing, also strut tower brace are also positioned between the strut towers which is a more optimal position for transferring forces to the brace vs. the m4 aluminum brace which is off of the axis of movement meaning less efficient force transfer and in the direction where the brace is less reinforced (example if the towers flex together it is more efficient to transfer the forces directly into the brace where the forces are taken as compression in the direction the brace is the strongest, whereas a force coming in at an angle now acts as a shear force where there is little to support it.


The first m3 production date was April 2012...


Because nothing is perfect, every road car has compromises to meet road regulations and budget constraints. Why choose bmw? Because compared to other brands they have the least garbage put into their cars, fantastic tubular steel rear subframe, stainless steel tubular front subframe, all forged aluminum control arms and suspension components, and their fantastic quasi dry sump oil system. They just make garbage cooling systems and some parts like the bracing was cheaped out.


Like I said before this is why the aftermarket exists, to fix the crap left over by the OEM, because the aftermarket doesn't have to meet regulations nor budget constraints.

Looking through RealOEM (which does have a number of errors), the earliest F8X (M3/4) came with a CFRP front brace with the part number 51618061631 (weighing 2.295 kg). This is listed as being used from 03/03/2014, which is inconsistent with the launch date of the various models. It is however listed as superseding 41008417085 (weighing 1.862 kg) but that is only listed for the M235i Racing from 11/01/2013.

This suggests that the brace predates the M3/4, even though the dates don't match.

So, there are now two scenarios:
1. BMW developed a chassis bracing system for motorsport use which they subsequently adapted for use on road cars for marketing reasons.
2. BMW developed a chassis bracing system as a marketing device, and subsequently used it for motorsport applications (but tried to make it even lighter and subsequently replaced it with a stronger item).

In the former case they will have prioritised effectiveness (so a trade off between weight and stiffness) while minimising cost. Using it on road cars was primarily a marketing solution (as said road cars would be unable to exploit the benefit), but it wasn't cost prohibitive and did actually work.

In the latter case, the marketing solution would have prioritised bling while minimising cost. While wishing to maximise the marketing potential, it would only ever have been used for motorsport if it provided a benefit that couldn't be realised more cheaply using other means.

In both cases, had just beefing up the corner braces yielded significant benefit, we could reasonably expect to see something like the Turner items on the M235i Racing (or just thicker versions of the wriggly tin items rendered in steel or aluminium), as there would be a compelling cost/benefit and weight reduction benefit compared to what they did come up with for marketing or motorsport use.

Having fitted the BMW supplied uprated parts on three cars now (R53, E46, F87), the difference can be felt in the steering while turning when going over camber changes and rumble strips at both low and high speeds. So, they are doing something.

If you can't feel any difference when using products from other suppliers, that doesn't mean they aren't making an improvement to your car's handing, but away from a track day with data-logging - how would you know?

But, they are significantly cheaper than BMW's solution, and - in concert with additional strut bracing - might result in a difference you can feel rather than only measure with data-logging on track.

HTH.

[M Fifty]

Originally Posted by PackPride85

The effectiveness of the aftermarket is close enough when you take cost/effort into consideration that I'd rather spend less of both taking all of 30 seconds to bolt in a strut tower bar and new corner braces over mess around with fitting the m4 setup.

Seems fair. It is more cost effective. The problem was the assertion that it was better, rather than cheaper.