Project "Marginal gains..."
Turbo Mini Forums

It should all be where it was originally, barring any misalignment :)

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

yes

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

Dp

Edited by robert on 7th Apr, 2016.

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

It's just taking too long to get it all lined up again

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

ah gotcha, thanks.

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

The other aspect of building the rear end back up this way that has been very interesting is getting an idea of the stiffness contribution that each sheet metal part brings, like spot welding the inner arches to the rear quarters and then to the seat base and then to the seat back etc.... and then adding the lower half of the rear panel, the boot floor... you can really see how much flex there is caused by any of the panels being rotten and not contributing as they should.

For instance I expected the seat base to be more influential in holding the lower halves of the inner arches together but it does very little, however it does as you might expect and nicely closes the top of the heelboard area being at 90 degrees to it and really helps the 'toe stiffness' of the trailing arm mounts into the heelboard and then adding the full uninterrupted ally box section 'beam' for the entire length of the heelboard really helps too, interesting

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

So I'm not happy with the 'tubbed' styled arch as I want to be able to run archless as well

This is at full droop and going back to 10 inch looks a bit lost in the arch....

DSC_6529 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

DSC_6536 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

So I am going back to standard outer quarter panels which will mean I quite limited as far as 13 inch tyre clearance but I just don't like the look of it as it is.

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

So a new rear quarter being offered up

The MK1 light conversion is done, I ran out of gas just before the last bit was finished.

DSC_7636_ps by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

The rear panel is still loose.

DSC_7656ps by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

I just need to tidy the sill to heelboard area and this rear quarter is trimmed ready to go on.

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

Looks good. I do like your metal work

I seriously doubt it!

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 15th May, 2016.

So the rear panel conversion to MK1 lights is done and the rear panel weight is 40g lighter than the MK3 version when just comparing the parts need to mount MK1 lights instead of MK3, so the lightened conversion plates replacing the standard MK3 bracketry.

The rear panel itself is now 160g lighter than Heritage panel as delivered, so all of the weight saving of the MK1 lights over MK3 can be realised

Coilover length and travel is now decided, I had to experiment with the damper eye length a bit so that static ride height was mid travel on the coilover.



In total there is 100mm of wheel travel and by adjusting the damper eye length this is currently set at 50 / 50 for bump and rebound travel, if the nominal static ride height changes then the eye length can be adjusted to get back to the mid point in the coilover travel. Or if I decide I want change the bump / rebound travel ratio.

The rosepetal without it's spacer is ET40 so represents worst case as far as coil spring clearance

Which basically means that all clearances for 10" and 13" are done now

Cheers

That car lift is the dogs mate!

I have started posting on Instagram also my name on there is turbomk1golf

Nothing is impossible it just costs more and takes longer.

super cool.

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

Yeah it definitely speeds things up, when fully down it is 100mm high and that is the typical ground clearance I want so it holds the shell at just the right ride height.

It's fully raised height is just under 900mm so can get the car usefully high

Cheers

I mentioned previously that I was converting to MK1 rear lights solely for weight reasons, they are essentially finished now, these are all in the same 'state' so include gaskets, wiring, bulbs, mounting screws etc;

The Mk3 option:

These are 'current' manufacture Lucas 13H6480 as with a lot of 'current' manufacture some weigh more and some weigh less than the original OEM items but these are what I had and planned to use

DSC_7746 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr


The MK1 option:

These are off my '64 car, the bodies are a bit pitted so not decided if I will use these actual ones, but for reference (Strangely the other weighed 350g before lightening)

DSC_7717 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr


Lightened MK1 option:

Still a few little bits I can do but probably only a further 10g or so

DSC_7737 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

So having already made the weld in MK1 conversion plates lighter than the fixings they replaced it comes to around a 730g saving over the MK3 lights and 130g - 150g over the std MK1 lights

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 4th Jul, 2017.

Good saving that! For reference I think that innocenti mk1 lights are lighter still. I don't have solid proof but the covers are one piece and include the chrome which is clear pastic with chrome plate rather than metal.

Cheers Jonny, good to know, I had no idea they were different to be honest, don't think I've ever seen any.

A few bits and pieces coming in now, these are just the bucket bushes for the harness bar mount.

The threaded centre is for the coilover mount and the harness bar tube will weld between these.

DSC_7755 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

DSC_7761 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

I would prefer them to be turned from a single piece of EN8 but I don't have access to that at the moment so these are 16 gauge T45 outer tubes with an EN8 threaded base and come in at just over 80g each, they will be tigged together shortly so I can position the harness bar tube between them.

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 17th Oct, 2017.

I have them on mine, well just the lenses, then some lamp holders mounted in the shell itself.

How come they are threaded? Coilover screw straight into them?

Edited by jonny f on 31st May, 2016.

I was going to ask if they were what you had as I noticed before that your rear lights look different, painted black body?

Yes they are threaded as the coil over clevis will bolt directly to them through the standard mount on top of the inner arch.

They are only M8 as all the compression force is directly upward and along the bolt axis and in rebound they only have to resist the unsprung weight which is minimal.

I made them captive as I am still unsure if I will fit a roll hoop, if I do then the stay which comes down to the inner arch on most cages will go directly to this bucket bush hence making it inaccessible to fit a loose nut.

Cheers

It won't be this actual item but essentially the same:

comp_per2.0-clevis_detail_2 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

The M8 bolt will go up the middle of it in to threaded bucket bush

And I will now be able to run the coil over upside down same as the front

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 4th Jul, 2017.

So the rear beam / trailing arm mounting is finished it comes in at under 3.4kg with all fixings

DSC_7772 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

This is for a standard wheelbase (within 3mm)

DSC_7768 by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr

It's a mishmash of bolts and nuts here but will use k nuts and 12.9 bolts when it goes on properly.

12 of the 16 bolts will go all the way through the beam into the heelboard

So with the ally KAD trailing arms it comes in at less than 10kg plus whatever I end up doing brake wise

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 4th Jul, 2017.

It's been a while, been too busy with work...

Still had time to get some out sourced stuff done, I've decided to go for a rear hoop but there was nothing I could buy off the shelf I was 100% happy with, I want the main hoop literally just off touching the inside of the roof skin and the legs to be hard against inner sill vertical faces. So I got the main hoop CNC bent up. Still undecided what to do about the diagonal/s.

DSC_7829_zpsizow2heb by Aubrey Boy, on Flickr]

I've used T45 for years and never had any supplied as 'bright' tube it's always been 'dark' if it hadn't been from a place I know and trust I'd have been suspicious, everything has the usual T45 printing on it just never seen 'bright' stuff before. The short tube is for the sill jacking points.

None of which is helping me to get under 600kg...

Also changed my plans for the rear trailing arm mounting beam (again) but should start up again soon

Cheers

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 4th Jul, 2017.

Maybe of interest. A Mate reverted from KAD aluminium arms to the old caaast irn ones for his racecar as the KAD ones where twisting under load (grooved slick tyres). They hung a known weight on the arm (engine block) and measured deflection. The heavy buggers where a lot stiffer.

His car has a tendency to get a bit bouncy (the tyres could use a stiffer sidewall as well ) . So he wanted to try it.

Do you think it makes sense ?

That sir, is not rust, it is the progressive mass reduction system

http://aseriesmodifications.wordpress.com/

Hi Sir Yun,

I agree 100% I have made the same measurements even before I bought these KAD arms for a friend who raced Minis for years.... and it was the reason I stated earlier in the thread that I didn't want to get into making my own tubular trailing arms as the camber stiffness in particular with trailing arms is very difficult to attain, the standard Mini arms do a very good job of giving good stiffness for their weight.

I still have both and I will test them 'back to back', but for stuff like drag racing the stiffness is not so important, but as you say for circuits, especially on slicks where you generate greater cornering force then stiffness is more important.

Aluminium alloys, in whatever state (L169? I think? for the KAD arm) has a modulus which is approximately 1/3 of steel / iron and modulus is the property which dictates material stiffness, so if you have the same volume of Aluminium alloy you only have 1/3 of the stiffness of a similar steel / iron alloy part.

Cheers

Edit:

I've lost count of the number of arguments I have had about making suspension components out of aluminium alloy to save weight, yes of course you can save weight but if you want the same stiffness you need approx 3 times the amount of material to get the stiffness back. Funnily enough the density of pretty well all aluminium alloys is 1/3 of steel and so is it's modulus....

It's called specific modulus, it's the stiffness to density / weight ratio of a material and the number is very similar for aluminium, steel and titanium etc

Edited by Aubrey_Boy on 30th Jul, 2016.