General > Product Reviews
UNIbraces XB & UB - Review (UPDATED 23rd Oct)....
sub39h:
--- Quote from: RedRobin on October 26, 2012, 01:45:45 pm ---
--- Quote from: sub39h on October 26, 2012, 11:41:20 am ---
I think a blind test is called for. Someone close to RR should adjudicate by taking off the XB and/or the UB and without checking which has been removed RR should go on a truncated version of his 40 mile test drive. Do this three or four times back to back with different combos (neither XB or UB, XB only, UB only, and both) and see if RR can work out which is fitted each time. (I wouldn't reveal the results to RR until the end.)
I know people are busy so that's not all that feasible, but it would be an interesting experiment :happy2:
--- End quote ---
...."adjudicate"? - "Adjudicate" is a process which is reserved for resolving disputes in a formal court. Are my own tests/experiences, assessment and information which I have bothered to share in this forum's review of the UNIbrace products standing accused of being false?
"not all that feasible"? No it's not at all feasible is it. 4 short route (20 miles minimum to cover a variety of roads around here) adds up to about 80 miles. You gonna pay for my V-Power? - No, I thought not. A guaranteed flat surface and pit/lift-ramp is needed to install the UB properly - You got one which can be used free? - No, I thought not.
If you want to ignore what I have written about my experiences of the UNIbraces, I obviously have no problem with that. If you want to ask questions, as reading this thread shows, I am happy to try my best to answer or get answers. If you don't agree with my reported findings and/or don't want to install any UNIbraces - No problem, it's entirely up to you.
But I have done all the 'tests' I am happy to spend time and money doing.
--- End quote ---
I apologise that you took my post to mean your findings were false. This is not at all what I meant. Like you, I was a sceptic about the benefits of the XB, but you have been happy with it and I feel that I would be too. (I feel the UB's potential benefits are outweighed by their drawbacks for my personal circumstances and hence it's still not something I'm interested in.)
What I was suggesting is that richwig feels that the perceived benefit of the products is subjective ("snake oil"). I'm merely proposing a more objective method of testing, short of a race driver and lap times or destructive chassis rigidity tests. I would hope that my test method would put some of his doubts to rest (or potentially confirm them - who knows).
In regards to feasibility, it's certainly a test i'd be personally interested in carrying out should I have the products in question and easy access to my car. Sadly for me neither of those are the cases.
RedRobin:
--- Quote from: sub39h on October 26, 2012, 05:07:04 pm ---
I apologise that you took my post to mean your findings were false. This is not at all what I meant. Like you, I was a sceptic about the benefits of the XB, but you have been happy with it and I feel that I would be too. (I feel the UB's potential benefits are outweighed by their drawbacks for my personal circumstances and hence it's still not something I'm interested in.)
What I was suggesting is that richwig feels that the perceived benefit of the products is subjective ("snake oil"). I'm merely proposing a more objective method of testing, short of a race driver and lap times or destructive chassis rigidity tests. I would hope that my test method would put some of his doubts to rest (or potentially confirm them - who knows).
In regards to feasibility, it's certainly a test i'd be personally interested in carrying out should I have the products in question and easy access to my car. Sadly for me neither of those are the cases.
--- End quote ---
....Apology totally accepted, Subegh - I was a bit prickly in my response wasn't I, so perhaps I should apologise too :grouphug:
Yes, in an ideal world it would be great if we could test products more scientifically without it costing us money. The same dilemma happens when trying to compare aftermarket air intakes. We always need to compare like-with-like for the results to be more meaningful.
Meanwhile, all I can do is what I have done and reported in this review thread. :happy2:
tony_danza:
This in particular puzzles me.
If you know anything about metals, you know that the alloy used in this subframe doesn't flex - as if it did, it would fatigue and crack/break. So I can say with some confidence, that this is fricking useless.
tony_danza:
It's the typical rubbish of finding 'x-number' of points and bracing them for no reason whatsoever. Looking at the way that's mounted, if it were to have any load, it'd simply shear the two bolts.
People need to understand that some flex is actually a good thing, that energy doesn't just dissappear, it'll transfer somewhere else and possibly to some place that isn't capable of dealing with it. Plus, with modern cars, particularly with the laser welding techniques and very sophisticated suspension in the MKV, you're never going to get it to flex unless you start running race suspension, solid mounts and slicks - you cannot generate the forces required on a road biased car.
Teutonic_Tamer:
I have some concerns about both these products. And before I start, I just need to stress that I enjoyed RedLeaders highly comprehensive review, and respect that Red was able to notice an improvement. :happy2: :driver:
Firstly, the UB - like others, I am skeptical of its ability to control torsional stresses (it being a flat-plain plate, rather than a 3-dimensional brace). However, of much greater concern is its potential huge detrimental effect on crash-worthiness in side impacts. We all probably/hopefully know that cars have 'crumple zones' for frontal and rear-end impacts - those being the engine compartment and the boot. Side-impact crumple zones are much more critical, because there is fundamentally much less 'distance' to absorb side impacts before intrusion meets interior passengers.
Arguably, THE most important structure for side-impact crumple zones is the central transmission/exhaust tunnel. This means that on the standard Golf (sans the UB), when a side-impact occurs, if the intrusion reaches the front seat, and still has enough force (or momentum) to continue - the whole seat should remain relatively intact, but move sidewards towards the centre of the car. With the UB fitted, the centre tunnel will be far more resistant to deform as a crumple zone, so the seat itself will deform, and that would highly likely result in a fatal / non-survivable injury to the front seat occupant (shattered pelvis, shattered dislocated hip and femur). What would this train of thought have regarding insurance implications? I accept that Robin has declared this mod, and Greenlight have accepted said mod purely as a stiffening item - but would they, or other 'mod friendly' insurers re-think their acceptance of this UB mod if it becomes known that they reduce the ability of the crumple zone, and actually increase the risk of fatal injury? :stupid:
I fear that Robin, and possibly others may have either been mis-informed, or maybe made an incorrect assumption - regarding the two OEM 'braces' straddling the tunnel. Those are not 'braces', in terms of providing stiffness to the body shell - they are actually a legally required retaining device . . . . for the exhaust and/or propellor shaft on 4WD/RWD layouts. Basically, if the exhaust or prop shaft snap or somehow become disconnected near the front of the car, these flimsy stuctures retain said broken exhaust/prop shaft, prevent it from dropping onto the road surface, and prevent said items from digging in and 'pole vaulting' the car out of control. :scared:
Secondly, the XB - whilst the product itself appears to be a substancial product, designed to resist compressive forces, I think its mounting points within the car body are compromised, and less than ideal. The upper mounts arn't really on a structural part of the bodyshell. OK, they may be near the rear seat back retaining mechanism - but that part of the shell is designed to take possibly around 150kg of force (basically retaining the contents of the luggage compartment). What you are effectively asking the XB to do is to cope with the force from the potential total weight of the vehicle - say upto 1500kg force. As others have stated, if those magnitudes of forces were applied to the XB, it would simply rip out the mounting fixings as though they were attached to wet toilet tissue! Mike Roberts nailed it in the previous post, the Mk5 bodyshell is continuous-bead laser-welded (unlike the pathetic spot welding as found on even the latest Dagenham Dustbins), and also uses better, high-strength steel. This means that structural rigidity is considerably better - between 40 to 60% stiffer when compared to a Mk4 shell. :booty:
In summary, as is usual with the vast majority of so-called 'performance products' from America, they create a product (albeit nicely made and aesthetically pleasing) with little if any actual improvement over OEM, and then create ill-informed mis-beliefs we need said products. :sick:
ETTO though! :grouphug:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version