Alignment for Max tire life, was Re: Chuck's vs Bernie's Strut Barce.

Tue Jan 2 09:46:31 EST 2007

I miss spoke, wrongly quoting my Toe spec.

The total static toe should be slightly positive, not negative, toeing out,
for the reason given. 1/8² over the length of a 5¹ straight edge.

Sorry about that!

Bernie

Ted,

You¹ve maybe opened a whole new and maybe more interesting string to this
tired, old retreaded tower vs. strut brace thread. That being the
requirements for maximizing tire life. What are the alignment specs and
tolerences necessary to achieve same? In the end, it makes no difference how
the alignment is acheived. (The strut brace will always reign superior in
cornering performance, simplicity, and cost, but we must leave room for the
fat wallets and sceptics among us.)

IMO, the factory nominals and tolerences are designed to accommodate the
minimum wage alignment jockey having no understanding of the basics nor of
his maybe sophisticated optical alignment system and of course, to sell more
rubber.

Beyond that of a sound, tight steering and suspension system, my DIY specs
for optimum tire wear are, for both Front and Rear:

Camber: zero, +/- 0.1, both sides must be identical, no measurable
tolerence.
Toe:  -0.1, +/-0.1 (Will pull to zero optimum under average drive torque.)
Both sides must be identical with a centered steering wheel/rack. Also,
total toe must be centered on the chassis as measured at the B pillars, F
and R. When C and T are dead on, if necessary I will adjust Caster to
eliminate any slight consistent pull to a side. This being an initial, first
time adjustment, not necessary thereafter.

This is easily (but initially time consumingly) accomplished with simple
carpender¹s tools on a relatively flat garage floor and will hold without
drift or changes for years. Been my modus operandi now for 10+ years.

Bernie

> From: Ted Fisher <fisherwc at pacbell.net>
> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:09:17 -0800
> To: 200q20v at audifans.com
> Subject: Chuck's vs Bernie's Strut Bat.
> 
> I always admired Bernies Bar. Thought it was a a great solution to an
> ugly problem. But I was never comfortable with the  system. 1. What I
> didn't like was having to cut the body to make it fit (can't reverse it
> if it doesn't work the way I want it too).  2. Tying the ends to the top
> of the struts. The factory goes to great lengths to allow the struts to
> have some freedom of movement and Bernie's bar takes a lot of that away.
> 
> Chuck's bar built on what Audi (and most  the other factories were
> doing) (see the 92 S4) and copied a rather simple solution from Nissan
> for dealing with the variables in 16 year old cars. I am not an engineer
> but when offer two opinions, one following factory concepts and the other...
> 
> I got one of the first bars from Chuck and installed in on my Avant. I
> was able to spread the towers and get my alignment back into specs. Now,
> almost a year later I just had the alignment done again and it still
> falls right into the factory specs without any fuss. Since I have
> retired my Avant as a track car (saw 209,000 miles this weekend) I am
> much more interested in long tire life than shaving a few seconds. If
> you have a alignment or stress crack problem, then IMO I recommend
> Chuck's Bar.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 1991 Audi 200 Avant
> 2001 Audi TT
> 1996 BMW R1100RSL
> 
> 200q20v-request at audifans.com wrote:
> 
>> Send 200q20v mailing list submissions to
>> 200q20v at audifans.com
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> 200q20v-request at audifans.com
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> 200q20v-owner at audifans.com
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of 200q20v digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>> 1. Re: Chucks' Strut Tower Bar (Bernie Benz)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:20:06 -0800
>> From: Bernie Benz <b.benz at charter.net>
>> Subject: Re: Chucks' Strut Tower Bar
>> To: Matt Bolles <m.bolles at mchsi.com>
>> Cc: 200q20V mailing list <200q20v at audifans.com>
>> Message-ID: <C1BBC3A6.125C%b.benz at charter.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>> 
>> Matt,
>> Your contribution puts down my opinion but has nothing to do with the
>> subject. Off topic!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: "Matt Bolles" <m.bolles at mchsi.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:39:41 -0600
>>> To: "Bernie Benz" <b.benz at charter.net>
>>> Subject: Re: Chucks' Strut Tower Bar
>>> 
>>> Man, you are just chock full of sour grapes!
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bernie Benz" <b.benz at charter.net>
>>> To: "Chuck Pierce" <cpcycle at earthlink.net>
>>> Cc: "200q20V mailing list" <200q20v at audifans.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Chucks' Strut Tower Bar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> IMO, you guys are out of your common sense to pursue this cosmetic design,
>>>> both cost and functionally ineffective. To each his own!
>>>> 
>>>> Bernie
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 200q20v mailing list
>> 200q20v at audifans.com
>> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v
>> 
>> 
>> End of 200q20v Digest, Vol 38, Issue 33
>> ***************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 200q20v mailing list     http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/200q20v