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.
I like mine! I don't have engine panels or engine cover installed. Others have reported to have installed this brace with no modification to engine cover. Not sure if I feel any difference as I installed Swift springs the same day and that I did notice. If nothing else, it looks dam sexy
Other than look and build quality, I doubt there is any difference in performance between Ultra (or any other solid bar) and the RR racing.
I'm no engineer, but RR's brace looks to be much stronger, with it's cross bar attached to upright cylinders. Ultra's cross bar attaches to folded sheet metal more likely to deform when it's needed most.
I'm no engineer, but RR's brace looks to be much stronger, with it's cross bar attached to upright cylinders. Ultra's cross bar attaches to folded sheet metal more likely to deform when it's needed most.
I hear ya and I am not an engineer either and I love RR products. The RR piece looks to be much better quality and is probably stronger overall, but we are at the point of diminishing returns here. The ISF has a rigid structure to begin with, even if the RR bar is 50 times stiffer than the Ultra or Toms , I very much doubt any of us could tell the difference in performance between the bars.
Adding to your comment above^^^^........I thought a while back in one of the threads on these braces that Lance chimed in and said that there wasn't much benefit based on the fact that the 2IS platform doesn't utilize struts and there would be little reason to do this? If someone wants to chime in with that info feel free, if not someone feel free to tell people here about the deficiency with the current front end suspension and how this will benefit this platform?
Tower braces work in tension, not compression, and yes, because we don't have struts the impact of a brace is a whole lot less. If you are running slicks, especially wider than stock slicks, you'll likely benefit. Street tires are pretty unlikely to generate enough force to make a noticeable difference. I give RR Racing props for a good design that works well with the OEM configuration - engine covers and all - but IMHO, the rear of the car needs stabilization more than the front. Rafi's car with the supercharger and slicks probably benefits greatly from the bracing - IIRC he has bracing underneath in the front too.
The only way to measure a difference is to test chassis flex. The 2IS body shell isn't very stiff, and this is definitely where the RC F and GS F chassis do better at a significant weight penalty. The RC F even comes from the factory with a really nice shock tower brace attached to the firewall for triangulation which would be very difficult to do to the 2IS platform unless you were really committed to stiffening the front end and it would be beneficial after already installing a roll cage which dramatically stiffens the whole car.
but IMHO, the rear of the car needs stabilization more than the front.
An IS-F owner recently confirmed that the F-Sport Rear Under Chassis Brace does fit on the IS-F (with minimum alteration to the panels). This should help limit deflection of the rear suspension, particularly under cornering loads: https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...e-on-is-f.html
Originally Posted by lobuxracer
Rafi's car with the supercharger and slicks probably benefits greatly from the bracing - IIRC he has bracing underneath in the front too.
Yes, I too recall the shop car having the GT-Spec four point lower tie brace up front (similar to this design)
06-17-19, 12:34 PM
