333pg333

Yeah....look where that got me!

JET951

Sounds awesome Bruce, i cant wait to see what you come up with for the rear. You may have the record for the lightest 951 when your done.

From a little bit of experience, depending on how low the front is, you will need to use camber plates that are raised up through the shock towers. such as the Racers edge ones, and i believe Kolken use to make them. we found that with the KW's anything more then 1 inch lowered then stock we would hit the bumpstops on the track through a corner or braking. This was with the KW flat camber plates. Changing them for the Racers Edge ones fixed this problem. KW have almost the same shock travel as the Motons so i would believe the RE camber plates would be needed. Or in your case im sure you can fab up a set to suit your needs.
Sean

95ONE

Walk it off Patrick, get your *** back out there. No worries. The Moton's will be custom for my height. I have learned much from your posts. Thank you for those.

Thank you for that info Sean, damn good to know. There is a lot of useful stuff you guys are spitting out. I love it.

I don't think it will ever get below 2200lbs. So it will be very light, but certainly not the lightest. Definitely one of the stronger power to weight ratios though.

ausgeflippt951

I like this thread because it is really a concatenation of ideas from all the other heavy hitters out there (Patrick, Tony, Jet, etc) and allows us to answer the question: "If you could do anything you wanted with the 951 while keeping the 'essence' of it, what would you do?"

Being a suspension nerd I take particular interest in mucking/enhancing the Mac Strut and trailing arm but the thread is also making me appreciate how much i want to weld stuff again...

odurandina

+1.

the 944 unplugged.

951_RS

Great stuff Bruce. I don't get to stop by often but it's always nice when I get a chance to come see all the progress.

95ONE

I'm trying to avoid any great debates to keep it this way.

Damn good to have you and anyone else who wants to stop by. Thanks for the ride in the Lotus!

ausgeflippt951

Hahaha OK OK point taken! :-)

95ONE

Got this sweet little puppie in the mail today. I still have the intake and headers to make. A bunch of plumbing etc. But this was a large step in the right direction. I can now confirm my engine mounts will work and other finishing touches can happen. More to follow in this thread when I'm near the very end of the project.

V2Rocket

Tube looks great, good idea on that strengthening ring.

Re: Kokeln-style rear suspension, think there'd be any advantage running a round tube versus a square/rectangular? My thoughts lead me to prefer the round, as a rectangular tube makes me think of a warped 2x4 - whereas a cylinder won't warp under torsion. Also would need to know how thick the original torsion carrier was to decide what wall thickness...the guys at the metal store down the road now know me by name...

Duke

My race car has a double wishbone setup in the front and a 996 Cup rear multi link setup. Custom uprights front and blade style sway bars front and rear.

ausgeflippt951

Astute observation, though believe it or not it's actually less of an issue than one may at first think. If we assume a 1" OD square tube is the exact same wall thickness and material/quality as a 1" OD round tube, their strengths will be roughly equal. See, the average radius (measured from the centerpoint of the square cross-section) for a square tube is greater than the average radius of a round tube, thereby allowing the square tube to withstand greater torsional loads. However, depending on processing technique, the corners of the square tube are typically a stress riser, meaning the material is often stronger but more brittle (i.e., smaller grains and more dislocations, if you want to get really material sciency!). This would be the case for your average, run-of-the-mill (no pun intended!) mild steel tube.


If you take a look at more complex tube forming processes (which usually involve more complex steels/metals), there is often a hot-forming process or post-processing heat treating that takes place. Depending on the heat treating performed, we have the option to make the material more homogenous and the crystal structure more uniform. This would effectively then make our square tube slightly stronger than its round counterpart.

The only difference is that with a square tube you can actually see how the metal is twisting, whereas it's less obvious with a round tube.




In the majority of applications, the square vs. round debate is purely academic. One is usually used over another as a matter of convenience/aesthetics. For example, when I build a tube frame for a car, I often start with square tubing as the base, so as to help prevent my assembly from rolling away!

ausgeflippt951

I'd love to see some pictures of your setup! Got any geometry measurements you could pass along?

95ONE

Thank you,

No advantage with the round as the fabrication would be a little more difficult and it should not sag due to the tabs they have welded in that bolt to the chassis where the nice aluminum cross brace bolts to. I don't think you have to go very thick on the wall. - And everything Mr. Aussie said. - I truly learned quite a bit there.

ausgeflippt951

Shoot I also meant to Oooh and ahhhh over your sexy new pump. What do those things run, if i may be so bold? How did you calculate what you needed?