MONZTER
-
Posts
818 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by MONZTER
-
-
Hi Jon,
Thanks, ya I did some quick searching for Rally Roll bar/ bolt in roll bar/ and safari roll bar, with not much luck, I'll keep looking.
I know the strut bar I have looks inferior, but I have tried solid bolt in styles in the back and front and it did throw off the balance of my car. I made a nice triangulated solid bolt in bar for the front only to cut the diagonal supports off after the car started to understeer really bad. I switched back the simple heim joint bar an it’s great. Same thing in the rear, not as dramatic but it upset the balance.
The way I see it is like this. If the car is going to have a stiff chassis it needs to be balanced and stiff equally front middle and rear. What you’re doing for example. If you only stiffen the front, and or rear it messes the balance up. People who have used the PDK front setup without a cage have had problems, so I have heard. I think leaving the front and rear soft and balance works for me. Maybe its wrong, but I like it. I know on the road bikes I design this is defiantly the case when working on the carbon lay-ups. too stiff in the rear is bad if the front is not a match. A fully soft balanced frame will always handle better and turn in better than an unbalance frame. I think when I get my cage going in my other car the bar in the back will work perfect. Hey are you going to the MSA driving school? Your welcome to drive my car, and see what you think, its still NA but a lot of fun.
Jeff
-
Sorry, Been working on welding up the Wiggins fittings and secondary injectors to the throttle bodies and such.
I think I am going to build my own flow bench. Have you ever seen the equipment form www.audietech.com
I’ll be able to finish up my CNC head and check the plenum at the same time
-
That is where the original Nissan rally cars' roll bar bolted up and should be plenty sturdy for a harness bar. Still, why not get the extra benefit and brace the strut towers directly?
Really, did they also bolt up to the two sets of holes in the roof bar where the dome light is? Do you have any good pics.
I already have a strut tower bar. And it seems to do the job. If I made the strut tower bar stout enough and bolt in I am afraid it would change my set-up. Also the belts will have to go back at an angle a longer distance, not as good from what I have read.
Here are some pics of it as I made it this afternoon at lunch break. What do you think? I feel it should be OK now that I know what the holes were for..
-
Hey Guys,
I don’t know about anything other than 240's, but my cars have 4 threaded holes in the chassis right under the 1/4 window that have a recessed flat spot. I mode some plates that bolted to them and welded the bar between them. It worked out to be the perfect height and position for the belts. No cutting or welding to the chassis and it unbolts with no problem. I'll take some pictures to show you soon.
Bart I will be at the MSA Autocross, trying for the first time in a year to be in control, this time with a harness. Looking forward to seeing you there.
Jeff
-
Nope not yet
-
I run in a class called CSM, its not a national class, just fun local stuff here in Southern California, my friends with Z,s also run this class. I have not run for over a year and I am getting it back up and going
-
Thanks for the Reply,
This is my daily driver, and I don’t want to weld anything to the body. The car is still original paint and never in an accident, so I want to keep it for restoration. Besides, I was reading on one of John C. post that you want the belt to mount close to the seat. I am really just looking if there are any regulations on wall thickness and bar diameter for local autocross events
-
I need to build a harness bar that will be used without a roll bar. I am going to mount it horizontal above the wheel tubs level with the openings in my seat, about 3" back from the seat. I am thinking about using some 1-3/8x0.83 wall CRMO that I have. Do you guys think this will be good enough as an autocross only set up.
Thanks Jeff
-
-
I know you found something, but have you ever seen this stuff
It is expensive, but I think it looks alot nicer than the plastic stuff.
-
Why does the turbo have to be in the stock location?? I could think of better places. Many have.
Monzter
-
Yes the original F-Series bikes were made by Answer with Easton tubes. They were light and flexi. The new carbon frames are at 900gms and 50% stiffer while having better ride quality. And yes a frame and fork is expensive at 3500.00. who did you ride for?
-
So I am pretty happy today with the results of the Paris Roubaix
I am the Senior Design Engineer for a bike company called Felt Bicycles. Our team we sponsor, Team Slipstream were on some custom carbon frames I was responsible for. They normally ride production bikes that I designed a few years ago, but today’s were kinda special one off's built just for this race. For some of you who don’t know the race, it is the hardest race on equipment and many bikes fail due to the pounding of the cobblestone roads. So our team had a 4th place finish with no frame failures to speak of, here are some pics from this morning’s race.
It is simply amazing what we can do with carbon fiber these days.
MONZTER
http://www.velonews.com/article/74628/slipstream-s-maaskant-4th-into-roubaix
-
You guys ever seen this stuff http://www.clevaflex.com/
Cut six pcs all the same length and star laying out your design. Holds its shape pretty good. I was at this shop and saw them using it to mock up there designs http://www.stainlessworks.net/cart/index.php. I got some and it really helps to get your ideas figured out. I think it was like $100 for more than I needed as they had a minimum order amount
-
BTW, is your header being built from Inconel?
Justin
Ya right, I couldnt find it in the bends I needed. HHAHA Just kidding that stuff is waaay too much money. Its actually all 321 .065
-
Just got home and test fit it to the car, Luckily it fits perfect, just like I was hoping. Here are some more pics:
-
AMAZING! thats alll I have to say...and that i thought you where going to tape it together and throw it on a flow bench first??
It’s not welded yet, just held together with the dowel pins. I will weld all of the fittings and vacuum rail covers first, test it, then weld the two halves last.
-
The CNC work is finished, now it on to finishing up the welding of the two halves, the vacuum plenum covers, and the Wiggins fittings. BTW the logo on the cover, SDE Components is my little side company. I thought it needed something there so I put my logo on it
looks just like the CAD Model
-
That looks great Tim, The end tank shape looks like the ones I modeled from looking at the Treadstone. They worked waaaay better than the square Spearco ones in the standard CFD test. I also like your idea for the fencing. is the intercooler that close to the radiator or is there some plates or rubber seals that hooks to the fencing? Also do you have the front fencing extend to the inlet above or below the bumper as in one big ducted system. I experimented with completely enclosing the gap between the intercooler and the radiator, so basically the only air the radiator could get was through the intercooler. The car overheated immediately, Oh well
-
No Problem Tim,
Hey, I have never seen pictures of your intercooler set up. I know I have looked at your engine set-up for inspiration, but never recall the intercooler. Do you have anything to show? or specs, like inlet outlet size, core size, flow direction. I want to know what helps 600+ HP obtainable with no detonation:lol:
-
Hi Tim,
Ya I guess you are right about the pressure drop thing and flow. Let me explain how I did the test. I let the boundary condition for the inlet simply be ambient pressure (around 14.7) and told the outlet boundary condition to be 25â€. I was trying to simulate flow as if on a flowbench. The new baffled design had better flow and the pressure drop was higher because of this. So I went back and re-ran both test. This time for the inlet boundary condition I gave it a volume flow of 392CFM (amount of flow pulled on the first test standard design) and the outlet a boundary condition of ambient ( so this is like if you blew 392 CFM of air in and just let the outlet be open. Look at the pressure drop now. The pressure drop for the standard original design stayed the same, as the flow was at the same, but look at how much the pressure drop decreased on the new baffled design.
What do you think about this test? Does it make more sense for checking pressure drop for a given design?
-
"Thats a whole nother story" I cant jack my own thread. Check out my gallery
-
Some people have asked about the flow characteristics of some of the intercoolers that are being used a lot, mostly the Treadstone ones. So I made some quick models from pictures I saw (so, no the results are not totally accurate, just for the concept and comparison. Remember there are no turbulators in the tubes so the pressures will be different and the flow results may be different.) here are some quick test.
From what I can tell the cast endtanks that blend smoothly into the inlet and outlets are a big plus. I would stay away from the square edge cut and weld like I bought. The sharp corner on the cut and weld ones seem to be contributing to the recirculation flow, the smooth cast tanks do seem to have a problem. Again this is only from my rough testing, don’t take this as a rule.
So I wanted to look at core sizing, and the fact that everybody runs huge intecoolers rated for 1200-1400 CFM when there only pushing 700 – which is good for probably 450hp.
I am showing below the following: 793 CFM 550hp flow 20psi boost. The plot is velocity from 0-1000 inches per second and I am only showing the range above and below this to help identify where the flow is going. From the picture you can see how little of the core is actually being used. I am not saying air is not flowing, it’s just going way slower than the front half.
Click on the pics to enlarge"
My modified version 6x18.5x3.5
Treadstone 6x18.5x3.5
Treadstone 6x25x3.5
Now same test at ridiculous flow 1200 CFM for both 18.5 long cores and 1492 for the 25†core (what the max flow is rated at)
You can see better use of the core and more uniform velocity when the flow is closer to its suggested rating.
So what does this mean? My best guess is that we are using intercoolers that are bigger than necessary. What is bad about this -
I would like to know your opinions about intercoolers that are way bigger than the flow they need. What are the plusses and what are the minuses?
-
Some more pics of the inside cover and details of the airhorns, dividers
Harness Bar
in Interior
Posted
Ah Ha, found it Jon, different forum but thanks for the Alan T tip (should have figured)
http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7844&perpage=15&pagenumber=1