Thank you very much. Sean has good experience in mold fixture design, thus the
ability to produce a somewhat intuitive design to overcome a frequent
problem.
The mention of "voids" in the design is duly noted for tuning.
So far, the response for product is well past the first 10 that was offered
and I am sure Sean is mulling over the production quantity for the next run.
If anyone else wishes to see a picture of the finished product and a computer
isometric view of the mechanical parts, just ask.
Thanks again, Terry, for the review of the components and insights we had no
prior knowledge of.
Best Regards,
Joe A. WAY TO GO, Sean!
Sent from my iPad
On May 21, 2013, at 6:40 PM, "Enquiries Road & Track"
<enquiries@roadandtrack.net.au> wrote:
> joe, i think you have answered the question by saying you have not
> experienced a rise in vibrations with this soft (40 duro) urethane
> mount.
>
> design looks good with what appears to be adequate segregation of the
> internal metal components. my experience suggests you need at least
> 5-6 mm of urethane all around the support plates for the bolts. this
> allows enough internal movement before the urethane goes into
> compression "lock-up" eg, as the box rocks around on start up).
>
> mounts like this are typically "tuned" by changing the location, size
> and shape of voids cast into the urethane in the lower part. this is
> the step that most custom mount makers ignore , but what separates a
> really good design from the rest. this will only come from real life
> experiences or ideally, from setting up accelerometers on the box and
> doing tests on various designs.
>
> good luck, i'll buy one when ready. keep me in the loop
>
> Terry
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2013 08:48, Joe Alexander <n197tr4@cs.com> wrote:
>> I sent Terry the design of the A.R.E. Mount. I also indicated that I
understood his first two paragraphs.
>>
>> I asked for a clarification of the third paragraph as I didn't understand
what he was asking.
>>
>> I did share that we experienced no increase in driveline vibration.
>>
>> We have not tried this design in our street TRs yet, but have the
expectation that this 40 durometer rear mount will perform well.
>>
>> It is clear that Terry has a very wide range of experience in body and
frame isolation. There is certainly something to be learned and will be
looking forward to his reply.
>>
>> Any other points of discussion?
>>
>> Joe A
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On May 21, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "Enquiries Road & Track"
<enquiries@roadandtrack.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> i get involved with urethane & hard rubber mounts on a daily basis.
>>> my impression of urethane mounts is they are fine in race cars and
>>> crappy elsewhere as they just don't have the resilience of rubber, so
>>> they transmit a lot of vibrations that rubber mounts absorb. we have
>>> experimented here with all sorts and grades of both rubber and
>>> urethane.
>>>
>>> we have removed really hard urethane mounts from modern race/rally
>>> cars as they been a major factor in fatigue cracking the steel
>>> bodywork where the mounting plate affixes. notable examples are Toyota
>>> GT4 and Mitsu Evo lancer, where we have changed to custom rubber
>>> mounts (harder duro, different voiding compared with factory) and
>>> totally solved the mount problems
>>>
>>> whilst i understand the TR is a lot sturdier than these 2 examples,
>>> and the same is unlikely to occur, can you please comment on the
>>> vibration aspects in respect to what you have planned for the TR rear
>>> mount.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Terry
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fot@autox.team.net
>>>
>>> http://www.fot-racing.com
>>>
>>> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
>>> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
>>> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
>>> Unsubscribe/Manage:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/n197tr4@cs.com
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net
http://www.fot-racing.com
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
|