Project "Marginal gains..."
Turbo Mini Forums

Lovely job, as expected.

In the 13's at last!.. Just

Cheers mate,

Just working out what angle, clr and the number of bends we need, but it's coming to a bit more than I had planned for, but it's too late now

I could my losses and make it a log manifold but it would be a shame not to make proper use of the twin scroll by coupling 1&4 and 2&3 as I am trying to make it as quick spool minimum lag as possible - but I don't really know sh*t about these things tbh.

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 30th Jan, 2014.

Nice

I run a supercharger and I don't care the TB is on the wrong side.
VEMS + 12 PSI + Liquid Intercooler = Small Bore FUN!

Cheers mate,

Turbo manifold is moving along slowly, have been double checking all the required bend angles and centre line radii but you can only ever really be approximate and always ending more bends than you need just to be sure you are covered.



We're using a type of flexible ducting to try and finalise the turbo position and estimate bends, he's going to do the best he can as far as making all them equal length but space will dictate how close we can get. Once he has tacked the primaries together he weighs them as a method of checking how similar the lengths are, he's says he's tried all the usual methods, volume / weight of water in each primary, volume / weight of sand in each primary but weighing has given him the best results.



The cold end of the turbo still needs to be 'timed' / rotated to clear the port for cylinder 1.

Ended up revising the position slightly, this is the turbo in it's final resting position (hopefully)

[/url]

It's rigidly mounted whilst the manifold is being fabricated, but will need freedom to move when finished. Had to drill out and ring dowel 3 of the exhaust manifold stud holes in order to ensure the exh ports in the head and the ports manifold flange all line up without steps, otherwise the manifold could have moved up / down 2 - 3 mm every time it was assembled.




Some of the flange mounts are countersunk to give a little more clearance, but you can see here why the turbo had to move toward the passenger side as the rear twin scroll entry was directly inline with cyl 2 exh port



Yep cold side definitely needs rotating



Getting the bends from Primary Designs (http://www.primarydesigns.co.uk/exhausts.html) as they were the only place we could get some of the more difficult bends and clr properly mandrel bent, but it's the worst time of year to order as they are flat out with mostly F1 stuff and somehow my little project seems to have a lower priority

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 13th Jul, 2017.

Looking great! Primary designs are a few minutes up the road from me.

My build thread: http://www.turbominis.co.uk/forums/index.php?p=vt&tid=454802

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/85313398@N02/

look forward to seeing this come together it looks like it will be superb

A guy at my work has just started at primary designs, apparently they only started the new exhausts for the F1 season a few weeks ago. Talk about cutting it fine!

Build is looking great!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fusion-Fabri..._homepage_panel

www.fusionfabs.co.uk



1/4mile in 13.2sec @ 111 terminal on 15psi

Cheers Matty,

A mate at Primary designs is definitely some one you should keep in touch with

So the latest use of the Primary design bends:



The pairing of 1 & 4 is essentially done, as you can see the turbo is not central, it's deliberately as close as it will go to cyl 1 whilst still leaving an exit for cyl 2.



As shown here



Just trying to keep everything as tight as possible whilst still having reasonable transitions



Also trying to make sure there is room for the coolant / thermostat outlet to pass over the top of the manifold to get to the rad



Somehow it's starting to feel 'real' now, it was just a pile of tubes and a dumb idea, now it's a smaller pile of tubes

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 13th Jul, 2017.

Nice, it's giving me the horn.

I run a supercharger and I don't care the TB is on the wrong side.
VEMS + 12 PSI + Liquid Intercooler = Small Bore FUN!

thank manifold looks the bomb!!
is that a VVT or a twin scroll or something?

Thanks guys!

Yes it's a twin scroll VF

Just noticed when looking back at the original mock up photos how much tighter he has been able to get the 'real'runners

Hope we can progress to the downpipe by next week and then its making the sump around the down pipe and the shear panel

Cheers

..

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 13th Jul, 2017.

still using the internal gate? Always used to be able to get pretty good control with the VF's just using a 3 port solenoid anyway.

Hi Alex,

You know I don't do thermodynamics stuff , I leave that to guru Ben but he's becoming increasingly difficult to get hold of.

I decided to keep it compact and simple as there is so little space but would be relatively easy to close it off if necessary.

The only thing remotely engine related that I am looking forward to is setting the SQ6 up and all the sensor calibrations, TC mapping and maybe some mapping under Ben's guidance.

There's quite a lot of built in logic type controllers which can be 're-purposed' and all of the chassis sensor set up

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 4th Mar, 2014.

F1 season now huh! you'll have to wait until winter lol.

Interesting, ATD then!

Time to trial in the car again:



Really pleased with what has been done in the space available, obviously the cold side isn't in it's correct position here - still needs to be timed



We can't really make it any tighter and still feed the twin scroll correctly, the only way I can see to save any more space is with a log type manifold.

[/url]

I guess this weekend decides if the self imposed std length round nose plan can still be achieved, if it can't then it's a log manifold or Clubman, it's not just the packaging of the turbo, it's the charge cooling and water cooling the same as most of the 'A' series installations I guess



One thing in particular is how tiny the manifold and the primaries look especially compared to the normal tubular LET manifolds, but the primary diameter is sized for low end performance





Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 13th Jul, 2017.

That's a work of art.

http://www.turbominis.co.uk/forums/index.p...tid=469104&fr=0

Wow, That is a nice looking manifold....

On 12th Oct, 2013 Aubrey_Boy said:
Hi Vegar,

Thank you for your comments

Next to simulating the kinematic geometry the analysis of how the forces which are fed into the frame from the suspension links has been where most of my time has been spent.

I have looked at 0.9g braking, 0,9g cornering and forward acceleration. Without question the braking loadcase is the worst for the loads fed into the subframe.

Under braking the lower wishbone has the highest force - but is in the highest stiffness / strength area for the subframe - so not a problem, the upper wishbone still has reasonably high load and as you state will try to twist vertical leg of the subframe.

Yes I calculated the amount the twist in this tube based on the tube diameter / thickness and length of the tube and material but with some assumptions such as the twists about its centre, the effect of the welding heat on the stiffness / strength of the tube etc...

So yes I have considered this but all relies on my assumptions being somewhere near right. I have always planned to add to this area of the subframe once everything is installed - so many things (Gearbox protrusions, gear linkage, starter motor, steering rack) all get in the way of putting nicely placed tubes from this area back to other stiff areas in the frame.

It all stems from keeping a standard length front end, move the engine forward 40 - 50mm and this area is much easier to resolve, I know of one type of frame manufactured which uses a similar top arm layout and has been used for a number of years. This is an AMT frame



Running the same simulations but using the AMT frame hard points (essentially standard Mini in terms of the way the loads are distributed) for suspension parts I have a good idea of the sort of deflections this frame has as a benchmark.

I have already done some 'ugly bar tests' - to visually see what moves and where - which lead to me adding the lower mount in the middle of the subframe which bolts to the tunnel area

So in summary I agree completely with what you are saying and do plan to add to this area

Cheers

Edited by TurboDave16V on 13th Mar, 2014.

Thanks for the comments guys,

Hi TurboDave,

The angled bush you mention is a piece of solid bar (EN14) which was threaded for the rod end and then counterbored (the counterbore radiuses back up to the angle cut so it's not a plain counterbore to help distribute the load more evenly), EN14 is used as it is about the best suited to T45 as far as welding compatibility.

With these types of simulation, as you approach the peak lat / long acceleration it can become computationally tricky (tyre slip is the main cause) to solve so the 0.9g is chosen to stay below this limit and just serves as a comparison between any two configurations. Otherwise you have to keep re-running the simulations with what are known as different solver settings just to get the simulations to finish which quickly becomes a real PITA having to keep rerunning everything.

So the process went something like:

Run a simulation with completely standard A series subframe hard points, this gives me a baseline figure of say 900 bananas lateral force, 150 bananas vertical force, 700 bananas longitudinal force. It's by no means fool proof but gives me an idea of all the relative loadings through out the suspension parts and the subframe.

Then I ran several similar simulations but with my chosen hard points and see how and where the forces are distributed and a the relative magnitudes compared to the A series subframe, it flags up any wildly different loadings and as such areas for concern.

The other really useful thing that choosing typical values for latacc / long acc such as 0.9g etc is that it gives you some idea of the real spring deflections for your chosen spring rates, amount of total roll etc...

No question that you would ever choose to have an upper wishbone with such a narrow 'span' compared to a normal wishbone spacing but the Mini packaging dicates this without totally redesigning the bulkhead in this area and I wanted it to look vaguely factory like. The span I am using is wider than the standard A series arm and a fair bit wider than the AMT arms.

I would be really interested to see the subframe design and any calculations / relative loadings / data from this.

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 3rd Dec, 2014.

Clearly well thought out; looks like you've done your homework for sure.


I appreciate the insight on the solid bar - the outer surface physically looked more like the tube than the turned part on the other end of the arm...

BTW, I've always preffered the approach taken by (IIRC) Z-cars, and latterly MiniTec in USA on their front subframes - if there isn't enought space behind the engine, then go around it. I still don't know what to make of the in-board coil-overs on the Z-cars frame however....

http://www.superfastminis.com/Images/102_5055.JPG


http://www.zcars.org.uk/minibuild/target14.html

I agree totally about that part of the upper arm looking like a tube :) To the extent where I kept looking at the picture you reposted and thought "he did make the bushes as I drew them, didn't he? - or am I going mad, I'm sure he did :) " Causing me to go and get one of the wishbones to check and yes it's all turned from solid.

IMO this load is in an area which is the most diffcult to get any stiffness or strength in the subframe (well when you stick a stupidly big engine in which doesn't fit in the available space it does anyway), sort of in No mans land. We made a mock up subframe with pickups in these positions and did some rudimenatry 'ugly bar' stiffness tests and I was really unhappy with how much this area was moving and very little we did reduced it, it's so difficult to get any triangulation from this point back to the bulkhead or somewhere which has any stiffness / strength.

Don't get me wrong Minitec have probably done either full FEA testing or practical stiffness tests which gave them confidence that is OK and they have no doubt sold hundreds which is further proof of their concept so I am not knocking it, but I got all of the kinematic behaviour I wanted and with the upper arm mounts being so close to the main bulkhead I can hopefully add any additional strength / structure if it's required.

None of the layouts I tried (uncluding the one I have decided on) gave me something I was 100% happy with, I just chose a different set of compromises, quite a lot has changed / been added since the last photos I posted of the subframe so I will try and get some more photos together, adding a removable shear panel which properly dowels into the lower legs of the subframe being the biggest of them.

But please post some pictures of the modded AMT subframe

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 3rd Dec, 2014.

That's funny about the tube bushing.... I made you even doubt yourself!

Isn't it odd how the Z-cars frame does it the opposite way again - the bottom arms appear to pivot paralell to each other, and the top arm pivots are angled.

I'm still struggling to see how something with large-span triangulation like the Zcars / Minitec is little-to-no better than the thin span on the AMT.

I did remember something else - the AMT frame having the suspension point at the front of the arm (instead of centrally) was worse - which is why the Race frames seemed to have the issue but not the standard frames (which used coil-overs above the Ball joints).

I'll get pics when I can

This is the shear panel I have added it has 6 dowelled fixings, the main purpose was to tie the lower wishbone mounting points together as shown by the red lines as there is not much in the way of lateral connection between the two halves of the frame. I did it after deciding to go the turbo route but I want to test with and without it to see if I can feel a difference.

The kick up at the front is done to give the shear panel some 'section' and not just be a flat plate and as such it will work well as a sump guard / Panzer plate but that is really not what it was done for.



These are the dowelled fixings held in by M6 12.9 countersunk bolts, it makes it quite tricky to get the shear panel off with the kick up but for the shear panel to add any real stiffness it has to be dowelled and not rely on bolt head friction.





The female part of the dowel fixing goes through the top and bottom halves of the main lower longitudinal tube and these are in the middle of the wishbone pick up points:





It loses about 10mm as far as ground clearance goes where the fixings are and about 6mm to the plate itself





Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 13th Jul, 2017.