And the above line is also an error. You may have 1050 lbf acting on the top of the strut tower' date=' but how much of that is being absorbed by the other structural elements of the chassis? Not fair to say the whole thing is being supported only by the strut bar.
Ditto?
As for the suspension bottoming out, at that point haven't you have pretty much lost it anyway? With a soft suspension what would be the advantage of a stiffer chassis? For potholes seems like you would want even more give since no one here is a street racer anyway.
Paint cracking in the C pillars may be helped with a strut bar, but I can tell you first hand it doesn't cure it. I have a straight bar between the rear struts towers on my 1970 (a nice MSA one that didn't clear my L6) and I still get chassis creaks going down driveways.
One other thing to consider. Jersey's now infamous girlie (er, sissy) bar is solidly welded to the strut mounts. My MSA bar has heim joints. Is the purpose of the strut bar to keep the struts parallel, or to stop all movement altogether? Wouldn't that have an affect here?
This was exactly the point I was trying to make. One of JohnC's favorite answers to "this is better". But to extrapolate my conduit example, at some point if you make a curved bar heavy enough, it will be stronger than a straight bar made out of lesser material. Or else how could motorcycles function with curved downtubes?