Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brace?

This bar would fit all Generation III'sThAnyone interested in a custom "improved" and less expensive version of the Tanabe TUB153F two point from chassis stiffening brace for the Prius "v"?

After extensive thought, I have developed ideas for a bar that serves the same purpose of the Tanabe that is a lot stronger, has no reduced strength welded parts and bolts on the same way.

It would likely hang down about a half inch less than the Tanabe. It would include longer hard to get M12x1.25 fine threaded metric bolts of the same strength Class rating as the OEM bolts.

It would include two custom machined aluminum spacers to clear the edges of the OEM brackets and the exhaust.

It would, however, weigh about 5-6 ounces more, but would be solid and a lot stronger.

I'm looking at a target price of $60 delivered.

Please let me know, if anyone is interested.

This bar set would also fit all Generation III's 2010-2012 and might be better than the Tanabe for them, since it has higher ground clearance.

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Thanks for your interest, Andy,


I'llorder the materials and will start working on the design seriously. Mine will not have welds that can weaken the temper on the aluminum.


Mike

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Yes, Tru,

I have the Tanabe TUB153F installed. For others, however, I've made some improvements to the Tanabe design, especially and sepcifically engineered to fit the Prius "v" and the Gen III.

First, my cross bar would be solid, instead of hollow. That adds only 4-5 ounces to the bar. While a hollow bar would be lighter, it is NEVER as strong as a solid bar.

I will use the "eyebar" concept. It will be of tempered 6061-T6 billet aircraft aluminum. It WILL NOT be welded. Not welding it means that the totally tempering of the aluminum will not be weakened by heat and will be a lot stronger.

Specially machined 6061-T6 billet aluminum spacers will be used to offset the "strengthening" ridges on the triangular OEM braces. The clearance needs to be only 7/8 inch below the bottom frame rails, NOT the 1-1/8 on the Tanabe. That will save 1/4 inch of "hangdown." At least and additional 3/8 inch of "hang down" will be saved, because the "cup shaped" end reinforcing tubes would not be needed.

The specers would have at least 3/16 inch walls, not the thin 1/16 inch tubes on the Tanabe. The main cross "eyebar" will be 1/4 inch thick and either 1-1/4 or 1-1/2 inch wide.

The set would be a lot stronger than the Tanabe. The delivered price would be $63 with the extended length capscrews and washers.

Installation ease and time would be the same as the Tanabe.

This bar would last longer than the car and nearly a lifetime.

Don't get me wrong, I will keep the Tanabe on my car. It's good. But it's more expensive and not nearly as strong as the set that I propose.

My findings,

Mike

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Thanks for the support, Tru,


Mike

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Andy,

A solid bar would be stronger. But a one inch solid bar for the center brace would be too heavy. In the case of the center brace, there is at least 1-1/2 of clearance, before you reach the level of the lowest OEM level of the "ground clearance enelope." Thta's pleanty of room for a box beam.

A solid bar is always stronger than anything of tubular section. Under a bending load, the side of the beam toward which the ends of the tube is bent is under compression and the opposite ind is under tension. If the force exceeds the strength of the tune wall, the tube collapses inward. If the bar is solid, the material that fills the void in the otherwise "cavity" of the tube, will support a solid bar from collapsing. It is a myth that removing material makes a solid object stronger, even if done in areas not under stress.

For the front bar, using a thicker box beam is NOT an option, because there would be greater "hang down" and further reduction of ground clearance. If the owner is using lowering springs, the additional reduction in ground clearance by the Tanabe bar may be a problem. My bar would reduce "hang down" by about 1/2 inch less than the Tanabe. In the case of that chassis area, every minor dimension counts.

If one was building a structure for an aircraft or even a spacecraft, where there are numerous multiples of these "bars," a cumulative multiple addition of weight or mass would be very detrimental to the performance of the vehicle.

In the case of only one bar, an additional sacrifce of 5 to 6 ounces of additional weight will be neglible to the decrease in performance to the vehicle.

The front bar is more important as a tension limiting member than a compressional manner. The area where the bar is attached are the open ends of basically an inverted "U." The weight of the venicle load applied to the top bend of the inverted "U" will tend to "splay" the ends apart, escpecially when the car comes down on a bounce. The bar ties the ends of the inverted "U" ties the ends of the inverted "U," together and reduces flex.


When the downward load of the vehicle is reduced on an upward bounce, the ends of the inverted "U" will tend to be pushed together. In the longitudinal direction either bar is extraordinarily strong, with the sold bar much stronger than a hollow one, since the solid sturcture will bend without collapsing.

It's amazing to many on how much thought and consideration goes into making such a simple item.

Hope this 'splains it.

Mike

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

No problem, at all, Tru,

The Tanabe will serve both you and me, fine on our "v" for many years. I'm just looking that those individuals, who might want an "imrproved" and less expensive stronger alternative with about a half inch of additional ground clearance. And, at a price at leat 1/3 less than the Tanabe, which always seems to be in short supply.

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Hey, Guys,

From what I see, I'll start making several this weekend. They will be ready to ship by late Sunday or Monday.

Of course, I will mount it to my vehicle and test it out. I'm sure that it will work out the same as the Tanabe. But, it will cost less, be stronger and last the life of your car, since every piece will be at least 1/4 inch thick structual 6061 T-651 aluminum with no welds to break or to weaken the hardening done at the aluminum reduction and extruding plant. The Tanabe, while elegant, lighter and still strong enough to do the job is made of 1/16 inch aluminum all over. It will probably still last at least 5-10 years.


I know that my design will last longer than the car. I will, however, keep the Tanabe on my car to test its longevity, since I already have it. Also, it is a good design example for me to follow.

 

Re: Anyone interested in an "improved" and less expensicer version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

I got the special M12 fine threaded bolts that I needed from a specialty supplier, yesterday, and I just finished machining the "special" spacers that I needed, early, today. I't hard to believe how hard the bolts were to find. Tomorrow, I will make the custom eye bars, and I'm done.

The first run of four sets will be done tomorrow evening.

 

They're done! "improved" and less expensive version of the TUB153F 2 point front brac

Yeah,

I completed the "test article" and four (4) sets of my "improved" version of the Tanabe "Sustec" two point bar. Surprisingly, it weighs only about three ounces more than the Tanabe.

They look and fit better than I expected.

My set uses closer fitted holes. The Tanabe bar las loose fitting holes for easy installation.

Mine installs by "finger starting" the bolts and alternately running them down. Final torqueing sits it in for an absolutly close fit. I learned the technique from my experience in fabrication of custom aircraft and spacecraft parts.

The first ones will be offered to thos who already expressed interest in this system. Please send me a PM.

I have attached photos of my bar next to the Tanabe "Sustec" TUB153F.

Rude person's