Thanks for the smile...

Matt

 

Oh, God: not again...

How about starting with "Not to be critical"? Wait, wait: I promised myself not to get involved in grammar wars.

 

No one is ordering you to do anything; they're just asking you to do what you said you would, when you said you would (in post #3). It's very simple, but it's something that you've had a consistent problem with ever since you arrived here. Most of your products seem like they're probably fantastic stuff, but I agree with ScuderiaMini - your tactics are so consistently boorish that I can't imagine rewarding them with a purchase. Other vendors here are very good at responding to honest inquiries but not stooping to the level of those who are just out for blood. They also just come out and say it when something is causing a product/data/whatever to take longer to produce than they thought. I honestly hope you turn it around; you're obviously one of the most innovative product developers around, and you could probably be selling to a much larger percentage of NAMers if you'd just refine your approach a bit and be more reasonable.

 

No it is not a thread by any means, take it as an advise

 

I'm sending out for lunch....... Popcorn & Milk Duds!

 

Mr. Spellcheck, mistakes corrected, thank you, ubt uoy do'nt amke snese

 

 

I can't get over the negative attitudes on this thread. I am not a customer of M7 (yet who knows what the future holds) and have no affiliation one way or the other, but I can't help but feel like they have been treated unfairly in this thread. They post up some info on a product thinking it is info people wanted, then instantly the attitude is negative - not "thanks I'd like some more info/numbers and have these questions" but a clearly put down challenging tone followed by erroneous BS about tax dollars and prodding remarks about 'M7 wars' and little digs that don't add anything to the topic and are just unpleasant and dragged the whole thing down from there.

I don't know what happend in the past or what personal laundry is being aired here but its looks stupid and ugly and does not help those genuinely interested in the product and its not M7 that brought it down from what I see. People, do the rest of us a favor and ask questions if you have 'em, let the vendor answer them, keep asking questions or provide other useful data if you want but keep it rational, reasonable and on-topic so we can actually find out about a product and weigh out info and not have to wade through irrelevant offensive and resulting defensive BS posts. If you don't like the answers or lack of them don't buy it, we'll all be able to decide for ourselves. If there are other issues start another thread, contact the mods, or take it to PMs...

 

 

Get on topic "pal", our tax dollars are not the issue and besides are being wasted to a much greater degree on countless other things. You don't even know the facts around the use of the software anyway.

This is exactly what I mean, what does this have to do with the strut towers

 

Oh this is just silly.

 

I smell a thread lock down coming this way

 

I have a question for Peter, and hopefully this will get us back on topic. I have the M7 Strut tower brace. Will this work the same, if not better than the M7 Strut Re-Inforcement Plate? Is the Base for the the strut tower bar the same as in the M7 Strut Re-Inforcement Plate?

There was slight mushrooming when I put the brace on and it seems to have flattened itself out when I tightened the bolts. Sandwiching the thin metal back to flat, I guess. In comparrison to the FEA model on impact, should I expect the Strut tower bar to disperse the energy from impact throughout the length of the bar or just at the mounting points as in the M7 Strut Re-Inforcement Plate.

--golden_child

 

 

I can give you a quick answer to the first part of your question. The Strut tower brace will work at LEAST as good as the SR plates. We designed the SRP 's to be similar to the plates used in the Bar assembley but they are not the exact same . For those of you who think they have some mushrooming we recommend flattening the top of the tower before puting the bar or plate on. In this case it worked and the bolts did not give up but they are the wink link in that procedure.
As for the last part of the question I will have to leave that up to Will to answer.

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

you do have a good point, but history repeats itself with M7, again, nothing against them, i backed them several times on different occasions, because i sensed the unfair treatment against them. But on the other side, why don't other vendors have these problems? Because they DO ANSWER all questions in a PROFESSIONAL MANNER, not in a "that is it, move on if you don't like it" approach. Weezer asked a reasonable question and then recieved all the sarcasm, and then here the same. That is my point. Anyways, everybody has something to say. I hope M7 changes this attitude, because they are really trying hard to supply the high demanding market with some products. I wish them success, and from now on I decided not to post anymore on any M7 related threads (what-a-loss,right?), please pm me if you want to carry any further discussion.

Now back to topic

 

Last post since this is directed at me and then I'm outta here since I'm being dragged into off-topic pollution.

As you yourself said "probably" on taxpayer time so, unless you were there, do not know the facts around the use of the software as I said. It is still not the kernal of the topic, which is the study and product itself not the time of day it was done no matter what your sense of entitlement re: that info is - and really, you didn't even ask for that information, you stated "I really hope Will wrote that and drew up the pictures on his home computer, and that my tax dollars and the Navy didn't pay for that." which did not ask a question nor contribute to learning anything more about the product and I merely referenced the remark in my post about things getting off-topic and negative. Then you made it personal in your post to me.

So, Gov waste is not the topic, I don't know if NAM allows that to be discussed as a political issue, but clearly there are lots of people working for the government on the board and it seems they may even read and post to it while at work using taxpayer money perhaps?

Anyway, cheers everyone and lighten-up. I just clicked on this thread to try to learn more about this strut tower thing and saw the negative attitude and disrespect, degrading into attacks and grammer correction, and felt compelled to remark, but perhaps I made the wrong choice.

 

I'd be upset about that, too, ahamos, but I can assure you that no tax dollars were spent in the killing of this simulated strut tower. I take my work very seriously, and would not abuse your tax dollars in such a way. I work at work, except for the occasional posting, but I think of that as my smoke break, since I don't actually smoke.

The licensing agreement with government laboratories is frequently worded to allow employees to have licensed software installed on their at home computers for use, as long as the software isn't being used on both computers at the same time. While tax dollars have provided for the license for use, the time with which this analysis was performed was not funded in any way by tax dollars i.e. personal time and personal equipment. I hope this clears up the issue.

 

Will rocks!

 

As for the technical questions, the deformation scale that defines the deflection of the metal from the static normal position is equivalent for both sets. The non-colored images represent a 1:1 comparison for the same force. What is not directly comparable is the deflection scale in color. The computer automatically set the color scale with blue being at or very near static, or no deflection, and red being at the maximum deflection, and colored the inbetween accordingly. This is a new version of the software, and I'm not sure how to make them equivalent between analyses yet. I'll work on it. I may post the color scale legends later to show the differences.

 

I enjoy a good discussion, but it gets old fast if it explodes into an unruly herd of subarguments not in line with the original topic.

M7 is offering one solution to a problem that obviously has affected people, especially those with lowered cars, low profile tires, or kissing the grass on track days or even just lousy roads. Lets work together.

 

If that is the case I would be overjoyed that I was finally getting some additional benefit from my tax dollars.

John

 

Back on topic though, I am getting mine installed this weekend and can gladly post pics and thoughts if anyone wants.... though I feel that may have been done before bt you know, anything I can do to help fellow motorers.

 

The presence of a crossbrace isn't likely to have much effect on a mushrooming tower, since the suspension impact is essentially at right angles to the brace axis.

I mentioned this previously in some other related thread, but BMW has had this problem before, in the E36 M3. This model started production in 94 as a 95 model, but from 96 onward had stamped steel reinforcement plates sandwiched underneath the tower sheet metal to address mushrooming problems. It's become routine for early M3 owners to add these plates. No big decision since they're only about $6 each side.

It does seem to me that plates under the tower would potentially be more effective, but there are some practical problems with that. Since they'd raise the front ride height they need to be minimum thickness steel rather than thicker aluminum. Unless the required profile is flat, allowing for a simple production process, then they'd need to be stamped. This calls for expensive tooling that doesn't make sense for a low volume aftermarket part. The BMW plates are domed to match the sheet metal, but of course they were stamped out in the thousands at little cost.

I think the M7 plates look like a pretty reasonable preventative measure given the constraints. And aren't they under $100 the pair? That said I'm more likely to go all the way and order their very nice non-hinged strut tower brace.

Neil
05 MCS
96 M3

 

My on topic question is.
In the first figure that shows the strut support installed {from a side view} in the blue area to the left, it shows that the strut plate is still in contact with the strut tower, and it also shows twisting in the strut support plate. How can this blue area stay in contact with the strut tower when it is not attached to the strut tower in this area ??{see last figure showing view from top}I would expect to see a gap between the strut tower & the strut support as the strut support moves up, at least in that area.
IMHO a plate on the top of the strut tower will have to be attached to the strut tower at more points than just at the strut mounting bolts to be as effective as possible at reducing strut tower deflection.

It is good that someone is working on this week point on the Mini.