When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
MAD markets a brace that ties the windshield header and A pillars to
the C pillar (?) when the top is off. I notice a lot of cowl shake in
my 96 when open. Has/does anyone use one of these?
MAD want $399, but I think it could be fabed up for alot less.
Any thoughts? :crazy:
Yes it makes a very large difference. In fact the brace is stiffer than your top is, the car will handle better with it than it does with the real top.
When I added the harness bar from EM, the ride in my 85 improved 100%, even with the top off.
I'm the king of bolt-on's, but I don't care for the targa brace.... No doubt it would improve the stiffness of the car with the top off -- but it looked "bulky," I know cosmetics should not be a factor, however :leaving:
A long time ago there were two options in this department. One was the targa truss from R&D racing, the same company which makes the camber brace. It uses square tubing and does look pretty bulky.
The other option was the TTR Performance Anti Flex Support Brace. It uses round tubing and in my mind looks 100% better than the R&D racing unit. TTR performance was up at the Musuem one day and had them on sale so I bought one. I don't use it often but I love it when I do.
Unfortunately I believe TTR performance is now bankrupt so your only option is the bulky unit from R&D racing, or make it yourself.
Right, it looks odd, but with the chassis improvement when topless I
think I might try to fab one up myself, an at least try to make a
change at the windshield header to blend it into the contour with
a bit of style.
I don't have any pics of mine but it blends a lot better than the R&D unit.
BTW, I'm not talking bad about R&D Racing. I've got the camber brace and love it, I'm just saying that I don't t like their styling for this particular product.
While we are talking about body stability with the targa removed, doesn't someone, MAD or Ecklers offer a bolt on cross brace that goes underneath the car, and is advertised to do the same thing, eliminate the shaking of the body without the targa? Has anyone bought this product and what do you think about it? :cool:
Although I'm sure it will help some, it can't serve the exact same function. You're bracing at the bottom for something that twists and flexes at the top.
It would probably make your car drive about like a convertable. I've never driven one so I don't know how they feel compared to a coupe.
The MAD targa brace is the R&D unit. I do agree it does look bulk and wish the headliner part was more fulsh. maybe even incorporate it to fit with the canvas top so when you park you can cover your vette.
But I do own the chamber brace and cross bar which made a big diffrence in driving the car with and without the top. R& D does make a great quality product
That is just what I was thinking of doing, use the brace with a
fabric overhead when necessary. I was really surprised at the
change in the chassis with the lid off, and do not care for the
shaking and slop. :thumbs:
I have the Cross-Frame and it really works very well as a cahssis stiffener. Does reduce your ground clearance so you have to be warry of certain speed bumps. :flag
Does the chasis frame work as good as the targa stiffener? If it does then i would rather go with that then the top. I don't really care too much for the looks with the top brace on even if i padded the thing up.
I'm no engineer, but it seems to me that the chassis looses its
rigidity when the "box", (the connection between A Pillar and C pillar)
is opened by removing the top. The items such as a lower x brace,
or the hardbar behind the seats would not compensate for the
open top. Neither would provide the stiffness at the top of the
"box". I am trying to think of the chassis as a cage, and that top
piece would be critical.
I'm no engineer, but it seems to me that the chassis looses its
rigidity when the "box", (the connection between A Pillar and C pillar)
is opened by removing the top. The items such as a lower x brace,
or the hardbar behind the seats would not compensate for the
open top. Neither would provide the stiffness at the top of the
"box". I am trying to think of the chassis as a cage, and that top
piece would be critical.
Exactly what I was thinking. I'm sure all of the othe other braces do help to an extent, but ultimately the key weakness is still there when you take the top out. Using your "box" example, bracing it at the bottom will still allow it to twist at the top if torque is applied in the right direction. The bar behind the seats may help somewhat with lateral twisting but can do absolutely nothing for the front to back flex.
Here's a neat trick. Take the top out of your car and then go park it on a hill. Try to put the top back in, it absolutely will not fit. The cross bar cannot correct that, neither can the camber brace, it's the car bending in the middle that causes this problem. The bottom X brace is the most promising, but it also adds the most weight and gives up some ground clearance. It's also questionable how effective it really is. The only way to know for sure would be to install one and then go park on a hill and see if the top will go back in.
I dont' drive my car with the top out enough to warrant the x-brace. I need my ground clearance around the campus speed bumps. For my purposes the roof brace works just fine. Now if I was into road racing I'd probably have every piece of chassis stiffening available. :cheers:
Many of you may already know this, but it's interesting to note that when the C4 was being designed, it was done so around a T-top, rather than a targa configuration! I am currently reading "Corvette From The Inside" by Dave McLellan, who was the Corvette chief engineer from 1975 to 1992 and just learned this fact. It seems the development team put considerable effort into designing the new body to have much greater rigidity than previous generations. All their work was based around a T-top platform and it's structural tie. However, McLellan states that "...at the last hour, Lloyd Reuss ( a GM exec) vetoed the use of the T-bar, insisting that the car should be a targa configuration. Without the T-bar, all our calculations were moot". Reinforcements were added to try to compensate for the loss of this important part of the structure, but the end result was a body with less stiffness than they wanted. One of these changes was to the rocker sill. The orginal design was for a tapered sill (low in the front and high in the rear). So, when you feel the body flex with the top off, just think of Lloyd. :mad :crazy: