[200q20v] Re: New title: Strut vs. Tower Braces for the 44 chassis

[Greg Johnson]

Bernie,

I followed most of the previous discussion.  Moreover, all of the parts for the
Benz Brace are sitting at my mechanics awaiting install and alignment.   It was
my original understanding that your brace was meant to help for alignment
issues, but not to act as a tower brace.   Please advise.

Greg J

Bernie Benz wrote:

> Original subject: Re: [200q20v] RE: [BIRA] Digest Number 353
>
> Greg, Taka, Tommy, et al.
>
> Greg, if Tommy's referenced Tower Brace is the first strut brace that you've
> seen for the 44 chassis you have not been lurking on the 200-20V list for
> the past several years.  A year or 18 mo ago there was a very heated thread
> on this subject lasting for about 6 months and involved about half the list.
> This thread was started by my disclosure to the list of the Benz Brace, a
> true strut brace rather than a strut tower brace.  The disclosure and
> selected discussions are now documented on Chris Miller's site.  Further, a
> list member has group fabricated to order the required special nuts.
>
> IMO, a tower brace is inferior to a strut brace for my previously discussed
> technical reasons.  Further, the referenced tower brace has several design
> flaws.  First, the brace is not located on the strut to strut center line,
> but several inches ahead of this ideal location.  Second, the mounting
> brackets are not centered on the tube axis, a poor column design.  Third,
> the mounting brackets are bolted to the tower sheet metal, why bother?
>
> Tommy, better brakes have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for
> considering a strut brace.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bernie Benz
> Gardnerville, NV