Searched..can't find..looking for someone who has a pic of their RX8 with a Rear Strut Bar installed, curious to see where it goes, how it fits, and how it affects the trunk

 

it really does take up some room.

I havent cut my trunk interior pieces yet, I was looking to get a 2nd set before doing so. I recently got the RX8 liner in the pics, and the spare tire too.
there is about a 2 inch gap at the rear of the tire.

i think it made a little difference. I may have to sell the bar to put the tire mout kit in the car. but I am not sure yet.

Hope the pics help.

 

have you tried to turn the mounts around to raise the bar higher?

 

Greddy has one that does not take up much space, the Autoexe one is also similar. LINK

 

Autoexe top to bottom brace on each shock tower on each side - high strength triangulated steel crossmembers. Check out how lame the 'stock brace' is

It takes up a bit of room, but no matter - what it gives in rear end stability is a great swap.

 

Link: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/596655

Not mine, but Car Domain link is worth checking out great car. MS everything.

 

yeah looks like I won't be getting this one...

 

I think it can be easily argued that any brace there is a stretch on value since that area of the chassis is extremely reinforced and tied into bulkhead that spans the width of the car already

racing organisations don't allow triangulated braces in many classes

the MS brace provides the most direct link between the two upper mounting points where, if any, flex will likely occur

your butt dyno is miscalibrated again

 

man i want that autoexe strut brace!!!!

 

lol

 

This is way off topic for what turok4n64 wanted to know... but as you please here's why you're wrong Team....

My butt dyno has nothing to do with it (thought dynos are for power). I'm speaking of rear end stability on the race track at high speed (60-120mph) while braking and/or going over elevations that tend to upset the stock rear end, trail braking, that type of event. I've proven to my own satisfaction that this type of brace does work better vs the stock car. And I've discussed this with several 8 owners and their observed experiences confirm this difference - at the same track - at the same events. Not to mention it's a pretty obvious difference in how the car "feels".

Put another way, peps come back in after a session saying "Holy cow, I almost lost it at that rise before the turn, had to back off as the rear end was moving out!" or "Braking for the Bus stop was pretty scary!" My response, "Humm, I didn't notice anything, just drove/turned over/through it at full speed, then braked hard." or something to that effect.

Although there is reinforcement there in the stock 8, I wouldn't call it extreme, more like cost effective. The real reason it's there at all (in the stock car) is that the handing of the original development mule was way off. It was determined thru testing that was due to the poor suspension stability because of excessive rear end chassis flex. The only way they could get it back to acceptable was to do the behind the seat brace. Elsewise we'd have a pass-thru-trunk. Anyway, I'd call it a band-aid approach but it does work fairly well, but not under all conditions.

The Autoexe DOES take rear end suspension stiffness up a notch or two, but not really to "extremely reinforced" (maybe close), but stock certainly is a lot less reinforced than that.

I'm not a race car driver so it's not germane what class rules allow or don't allow, not sure what your point is there. But ask any race car driver why they put a full roll cage in their race car. ONE of the reasons is stiffing up the chassis. A little stiffness is good, a lot being better is simple common sense. Chassis flex is the enemy of good handling.

The MS brace (and many others) simply makes a parallelogram out of the struts, yea the top ends are tied together, but IMO that really is a fairly weak attempt at stiffening the whole structure. Still, the ones that tie at the top are better than the ones that tie at the bottom, which I'll agree are virtually useless considering the floor-pan is there anyway. With the Autoexe, it doesn't really care what else is going on, there's a I-Beam against the strut towers - and they ARE going to stay straight and perpendicular, regardless.


Bottom line, if you're going to bother to spend money to improve a metric in a car(for a performance purpose) doing it 'sort of good' is simply throwing money in the street. So from the sound of it Team, you don't use these type of frivolous things...

 

I'm about to install the MS bar, it's light and came with the used front bar I bought, not allowed to use a tri-bar

are you sure the difference wasn't the added weight? That looks heavy ...

apparently you're not aware that the RX-8 chassis is approx 2x stiffer than most other auto chassis ... BMW brags about 17000 Nm/deg torsional stiffness, the RX-8 chassis is 30,000 Nm/deg

 

"Based on the oval shaft made of steel, it adopts the dedicated layout by vehicle type such as two way stress distribution structure and surface pressure distribution structure intended to avoid the stress concentration on the mount point. As a result, it secures the unprecedented high rigidity as the bolt-on part. "

What they said I don't recollect exactly, I think they were like 10lbs and 12lbs. It's a very oval shape that is strong, saves space, and doesn't weigh a ton.

Interesting they did end up so well, but I'm happy they did! The 3 focus areas of chassis development concern were the 1) rear grip loss due to not enough bracing requiring the cross seat brace; 2) front transverse member weakness due to packaging requiring front strut bar; 3) side sill strengthening to stop whole car twisting. Those were where improvements could be found IMO due to engineers being limited by budget whereas I may not be.