Would a coupe with the Targa Triangle brace be better than with the current strut tower bar in the engine bay. I saw that Hong had it installed in his car. Didn't know if there would be any performance gains.
Targa Triangle brace
- Thread starter Nukem
- Start date
Ive always wanted one for my coupe but dont know how to make it bolt up. To me it look more sturdy with the targa bar then the standard coupe.
Do u have pic of Hong's setup?
Do u have pic of Hong's setup?
Can't find a picture of it, but if you watch the Format67 NSX video you can see it at 1:46 and 4:43 but you never get a really great veiw of how its installed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53c6o_cNPEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53c6o_cNPEo
I took my friends targa bar and tried to line it up with my coupe and it doesnt line up.. The part that mount to the firewall keep hitting the ground wire piece. No holes on the firewall to mount up. Not predrilled atleast.. Stmpo were going to look into making one that fit ctsc but u know how yhat goes.
Instead of the targa bar, y not get the one stmpo coupe bar. Looks pretty sturdy.
Instead of the targa bar, y not get the one stmpo coupe bar. Looks pretty sturdy.
If you follow the link in this thread, you can see how Hong got a targa triangle brace to bolt up in his coupe and you can see a triangle brace STMPO built for a coupe. Hong wrote that by mounting the grounding wire to the bottom of the grounding point on the rear firewall instead of to the top (flipping the mounting position by 180°), there was enough clearance to mount a targa strut bar in a coupe. As both Hong and STMPO mentioned, you need to elongate the holes of the little pieces that mount between the shock towers and the strut bar to make the length of a targa bar bit fit in a coupe. It is a bit of work, but increasing torsional rigidity with a triangulated bar has to be good.
I wasn't planning on installing one, just saw it in the video and was wondering if it added performance gains.
Some of the benefits of increased torsional rigidity are:
To find out how much a triangulated targa rear strut tower brace would stiffen a coupe, you’d probably have to mount it and measure the change in chassis flex. To find out whether YOU can feel a difference in your daily driving, you'd just have to mount it, though!
- Less creaks and groans, for example when driving into a driveway at an angle
- A more solid “feel” to the car
- Technically, a better platform for the suspension to work from
To find out how much a triangulated targa rear strut tower brace would stiffen a coupe, you’d probably have to mount it and measure the change in chassis flex. To find out whether YOU can feel a difference in your daily driving, you'd just have to mount it, though!
Last edited:
Adding torsional rigidity to a particular area of the structure without verifying the impact to the structure's telemetry could also have negative or unpredicted results in handling, ride and comfort.
The vehicle is built with considerations to the purpose of it's intended use and has been precisely engineered to achieve a balance for that.
When you change that balance it would be wise to establish your intended goal and understand the trade offs and impact you make doing so. That is why I asked about how you use your car and if you are trying to meet a need and if so what it was.
I believe most mod their car because it renews the excitement and involvement of ownership more than actually making a real world improvement. We do it because it's feels or looks cool to do so and that's alright too.:smile:
The vehicle is built with considerations to the purpose of it's intended use and has been precisely engineered to achieve a balance for that.
When you change that balance it would be wise to establish your intended goal and understand the trade offs and impact you make doing so. That is why I asked about how you use your car and if you are trying to meet a need and if so what it was.
I believe most mod their car because it renews the excitement and involvement of ownership more than actually making a real world improvement. We do it because it's feels or looks cool to do so and that's alright too.:smile:
Last edited:
Theres a sort of "more is better" theory that is tempting to apply all the time with cars and it is wrong 99% of the time.
The brace was added to the targa to make up for structural rigidity lost in chopping the roof.
That doesnt meant that adding it to the coupe makes the coupe even better.
It could actually have a pretty detrimental effect on the coupe. Who knows? The point is, without knowing, structural change is a potentially risky thing.
So to Joes great point, it's a good idea to go in knowing why you want to do it (with any mod) and then making sure the impact is well understood.
The brace was added to the targa to make up for structural rigidity lost in chopping the roof.
That doesnt meant that adding it to the coupe makes the coupe even better.
It could actually have a pretty detrimental effect on the coupe. Who knows? The point is, without knowing, structural change is a potentially risky thing.
So to Joes great point, it's a good idea to go in knowing why you want to do it (with any mod) and then making sure the impact is well understood.
that makes sense,because honda put a lot of time and engineering expertise into the development of the nsx
Yes .......... there is always a but! As Joe mentions, once you deviate from the basic premise of the engineers' parameters as dictated by their marketing department too, then the door is open to tinkering with mods that meet your needs such as changes to help at the track. Hence why keep preaching make incremental mods so you appreciate what each mod does.
But I also agree, with statement: I believe most mod their car because it renews the excitement and involvement of ownership more than actually making a real world improvement. We do it because it's feels or looks cool to do so and that's alright too.:smile:
I think the rigidity of a chassis is designed to be “good enough” for its intended use given weight, packaging, and manufacturing cost constraints.
When asked what the most difficult part of developing the NSX was, Shigeru Uehara, the head of the NSX development team, said “… Next would be the weight reduction programme, which led us to the conclusion that an aluminum body was an absolute necessity given our target goals. Even then, this led to a different set of problems, building strength and safety into the design.” Honda’s engineers went on to design an aluminum chassis as stiff as that of any of the NSXs competitors at the time but lighter.
Had the engineers found some optimal level of rigidity for the NSX? In Feburary 1989, when development of the NSX was already so far advanced that it was unveiled at the Chicago Auto Show, Ayrton Senna was testing his F1 car at Suzuka. Honda had an NSX there as well and after spending some time behind the wheel, Senna said the NSX felt a little fragile. So the development team went back to the drawing board and increased the rigidity of the NSX by a further 50%. If there had been some optimal level of rigidity below 100%, Honda’s engineers would have already found it and there would have been no need to change the chassis design so shortly before production began.
In some old cars the chassis bends and twists so much that it actually performs part of the job of the suspension. In modern cars like the NSX, that’s not the case. The more stable the chassis is, the more precisely the suspension can do what it’s supposed to do. And the less creaks and groans the car will produce and the more solid it will feel.
Increasing the rigidity of the NSX’s chassis will increase cost, weight, and potentially make access to certain parts of the car more difficult. But I don’t think that a negative impact on handling, ride, and comfort is realistic. I do agree that it gives you a good excuse to wrench on your car, though!
When asked what the most difficult part of developing the NSX was, Shigeru Uehara, the head of the NSX development team, said “… Next would be the weight reduction programme, which led us to the conclusion that an aluminum body was an absolute necessity given our target goals. Even then, this led to a different set of problems, building strength and safety into the design.” Honda’s engineers went on to design an aluminum chassis as stiff as that of any of the NSXs competitors at the time but lighter.
Had the engineers found some optimal level of rigidity for the NSX? In Feburary 1989, when development of the NSX was already so far advanced that it was unveiled at the Chicago Auto Show, Ayrton Senna was testing his F1 car at Suzuka. Honda had an NSX there as well and after spending some time behind the wheel, Senna said the NSX felt a little fragile. So the development team went back to the drawing board and increased the rigidity of the NSX by a further 50%. If there had been some optimal level of rigidity below 100%, Honda’s engineers would have already found it and there would have been no need to change the chassis design so shortly before production began.
In some old cars the chassis bends and twists so much that it actually performs part of the job of the suspension. In modern cars like the NSX, that’s not the case. The more stable the chassis is, the more precisely the suspension can do what it’s supposed to do. And the less creaks and groans the car will produce and the more solid it will feel.
Increasing the rigidity of the NSX’s chassis will increase cost, weight, and potentially make access to certain parts of the car more difficult. But I don’t think that a negative impact on handling, ride, and comfort is realistic. I do agree that it gives you a good excuse to wrench on your car, though!
Guess it would make sense, since the few NA2 coupes don't have them.
Pbassjo I hope I didn't come off as blowing you off. I have gone to several HPD schools and done lots of autoXs...not in the NSX though.
If it was good I was wondering why it wouldn't be used on the Type S's and R's. Just curious if maybe it was an improvement since the Triangle attaches to the firewall.
Pbassjo I hope I didn't come off as blowing you off. I have gone to several HPD schools and done lots of autoXs...not in the NSX though.
If it was good I was wondering why it wouldn't be used on the Type S's and R's. Just curious if maybe it was an improvement since the Triangle attaches to the firewall.
I just want it cause it look neat. I saw BATMAN's engine bay with the stmpo triangle bar and it look so nice. Im sure he notice different too.
It would sometimes be great to be able to ask the engineers who designed the NSX questions like that. Unfortunately, there are things we’ll probably never know.
Like why didn’t Honda put upper and lower chassis reinforcement bars on the front of the NSX-R until 2002? And since every review I’ve read from someone who has retrofitted them to their NSX has been positive, why didn’t Honda mount upper and lower chassis reinforcement bars to the fronts of all NSXs after 2002? Was the increase in chassis rigidity not worth the extra weight or cost?
Adding reinforcement is not always going to give a positive result in handling, ride, comfort and safety.
It can transfer energy that was intended to be absorbed in one area into another creating problems on the light side such as creaking, rattling, water leaks, wind noise and in other cases as severe as premature wear on tires, suspension parts, steering assemblies, stress cracking of structural members and suspension mount points or injury to the driver and/or other occupants in a crash.
We go to races and read magazines, do track days and see what some have done to their car and figure it is a simple trick to copy these mods and enjoy hidden benefits that for some reason the manufacturers missed or don't want us to know about.
When doing so, bear in mind that race cars are in need of constant repair and maintenance to address the effects of extreme designs made to give service to very specific needs for for specific intervals. Some vendors place disclaimers on their parts saying they are for "off road use only" just to alert the user that the parts may not give the service or meet the entire need or design of the part it replaces.
It's fun to mod a car. We feel like we have a stake in the car have made it better, It also helps support some very nice people who make and sell the stuff but the fact is more is not always better.
Last edited:
It does look cool and well made.
Good questions to ask next time they are at a NSXPO or other like event.
LarryB and I always have a list of questions we discuss and share for these opportunites.:smile:
I agree that haphazardly putting a brace where it shouldn’t be or mounting it poorly can cause creaks, stress fractures, and the like. However, we’re talking about an OEM NSX-T brace that connects the rear shock towers to the upper cross member of the rear bulkhead. According to the Service Manual, that cross member is part of the frame of all NSXs, not some weak section of sheet metal. The Service Manual shows that many parts of the frame were reinforced when the roof was chopped off to create the NSX-T but the upper cross member of the rear bulkhead was not one of those parts. So the cross member should be the same in both the NSX and the NSX-T. If the Service Manual is wrong and the cross member is actually weaker in the NSX than in the NSX-T, then mounting an NSX-T brace in an NSX may not be a good idea. But assuming the Service Manual is right, I cannot see an NSX-T rear strut tower brace properly mounted in an NSX causing creaking, stress cracks, etc. Do you honestly believe that is something to worry about? What about mounting NSX-R front chassis reinforcement bars on a regular NSX?
That said, I’d also love to know Honda's reasons for not mounting the triangulated rear shock tower brace in all NSXs. Maybe I should fly to the States for the next NSXPO.:smile:
Last edited:
Worry? No?
He wants to drill holes and make a mount to fit this in that's his business.
His question was to there being a performance claim. Do you honestly belive there will be one for this man?
You stated that
This is what I take issue with.More is not always better.:biggrin:
I honestly expect the car would be torsionally stiffer, resulting in a more solid feel and less creaks and groans. Whether that would translate into noticeably lower lap times – I don’t know. But I have been thinking about installing an NSX-T rear strut tower brace into my coupe as well. Instead of mounting it to the middle of the rear bulkhead, you could fab a beefy steel tube that bolts to the bottom of the engine cover hinges and weld the triangulated strut brace to that. Then you wouldn’t have to drill any holes in the car and the load would be distributed over a wider area than OEM.
On that, sir, we disagree. Stiffer is almost always better. :biggrin:
So she says.:biggrin:
:biggrin:
You guys are crazy, this thread just bump to the x level.
You guys are crazy, this thread just bump to the x level.
On the note of the triangle brace, i do remember seeing a custom one without having to drill into the firewall. Cant seem to locate it, but the parts that goes to the firewall bolt up to a long extended seperate bar. That extended bar uses factory mounting holes, u just need longer bolts. Ill search again tonight and see if i can find it. Only downfall, does not fit ctsc coupe.
Update:
Like the one on this thread.. Notice the long bar bolt up to the holes which hold the engine cover hinge.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90035
This thread is better. U can see the bar by itself. Scroll down. Perfect for coupe without.FI.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115357
Update:
Like the one on this thread.. Notice the long bar bolt up to the holes which hold the engine cover hinge.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90035
This thread is better. U can see the bar by itself. Scroll down. Perfect for coupe without.FI.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115357
Last edited:
Similar threads
