Notices
GT4/Spyder Discussions about the 981 GT4/Spyder
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: APR

strut tower failure

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-20-2019, 10:28 PM
  #661  
stout
Rennlist Member
 
stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ^ The Bay Bridge
Posts: 4,869
Received 1,257 Likes on 588 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 4carl
It should have a flange at the bottom of the cup that would sit and bottom out on the body. This would transfer the impact to the body not the strut tower. carl
Definitely need an engineered solution, but I am surprised that none of the aftermarket has hopped to on this. Whether thin steel or CF, an inverted "bucket" that is epoxied in place could prevent a $$,$$$ repair—or worse. Front dampers would have to come down/out, and then some method of bonding them in, and then the (minimal) added thickness accounted for with the spring perches. Done.
Old 02-20-2019, 10:52 PM
  #662  
Errsomeone
Racer
 
Errsomeone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

The idea of a stiffer spring is something I keep coming back to as an interesting concept and has been my primary dislike of the car on track. While a higher spring rate would seem to transmit more stress, I could see how it may also aid in keeping that stress below a key threshold in extreme cases like bottoming out, or other.

Are there any mechanical engineers out there that would be able to talk through the higher spring rate consideration?

So far i have kept away the curbs as much as possible and have played around with various configurations for my DSC box that helps to compensate for the nose dive I disliked on track.

Though, it is still possible that there could be a few pieces that simply were not up to quality control levels specified but yet passed along from suppliers, which given the transmission threads, seems plausible.
Old 02-21-2019, 02:33 AM
  #663  
Snowy999
Rennlist Member
 
Snowy999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 410
Received 183 Likes on 116 Posts
Default

718 GT4 CS rally version is going to embarrass Porsche highly if a series of customer cars suffer this failure in competition.

I know MSport cars come without warranty but having something that could fail when driven on rough terrain causing loss of driver control.....that was known about .......and happened on Pikes Peak......and that they have briefed teams on how to mend....I can’t imagine the embarrassment if it becomes regulalry visible in competition cars worse if it causes spectator/driver injury.



Last edited by Snowy999; 02-21-2019 at 06:57 AM.
Old 02-21-2019, 03:05 AM
  #664  
speedy974
Instructor
 
speedy974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: SoCal
Posts: 166
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Hey guys,

I was wondering if $400 + $299 for an alignment sounds like a good price to install the renforcement plate? Note that I need to order it for $350.

Thanks
Old 02-21-2019, 04:15 AM
  #665  
GT4_Driver
Advanced
 
GT4_Driver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Munich
Posts: 52
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Does anyone truly believe that these strut tower failures result from normal street or track use?
Old 02-21-2019, 06:37 AM
  #666  
Five12Free
Rennlist Member
 
Five12Free's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,495
Received 199 Likes on 120 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GT4_Driver
Does anyone truly believe that these strut tower failures result from normal street or track use?
they have occurred in both street and track usage. However, I remember there has only one case has been not related to an impact (pot hole).
Old 02-21-2019, 08:22 AM
  #667  
hf1
Banned
 
hf1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 10,392
Likes: 0
Received 1,639 Likes on 1,122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GT4_Driver
Does anyone truly believe that these strut tower failures result from normal street or track use?
Why would GT4’s be subjected to more “abnormal” use vs. any other Porsche GT car or Porsches in general?
Old 02-21-2019, 09:10 AM
  #668  
d00d
Rennlist Member
 
d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 4MB, HYA
Posts: 1,670
Received 275 Likes on 180 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by stout
Definitely need an engineered solution, but I am surprised that none of the aftermarket has hopped to on this. Whether thin steel or CF, an inverted "bucket" that is epoxied in place could prevent a $$,$$$ repair—or worse. Front dampers would have to come down/out, and then some method of bonding them in, and then the (minimal) added thickness accounted for with the spring perches. Done.
There is probably some primer and paint in there that needs to be removed, otherwise the epoxy wouldn't have a good bond with the aluminum strut tower casting.
Since the 992 apparently relies on two links to fortify the area, I could see the proposed insert similarly bolted to the inner sides of the tower in at least two places.
The insert could extend further down with a lip underneath the frame rail for greater mechanical advantage like Carl describes.


Old 02-21-2019, 10:54 AM
  #669  
aualexa2
Rennlist Member
 
aualexa2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 957
Received 51 Likes on 29 Posts
Default

Can we make a push again for this to be a stickie?
Old 02-21-2019, 11:33 AM
  #670  
GoKart Mozart
Racer
 
GoKart Mozart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 415
Received 18 Likes on 17 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by stout
Definitely need an engineered solution, but I am surprised that none of the aftermarket has hopped to on this. Whether thin steel or CF, an inverted "bucket" that is epoxied in place could prevent a $$,$$$ repair—or worse. Front dampers would have to come down/out, and then some method of bonding them in, and then the (minimal) added thickness accounted for with the spring perches. Done.
Yes, that is what I thought as well. Sounds good in theory, except the bonding thing is possibly tricky, as stated below.

Originally Posted by d00d
There is probably some primer and paint in there that needs to be removed, otherwise the epoxy wouldn't have a good bond with the aluminum strut tower casting.
Since the 992 apparently relies on two links to fortify the area, I could see the proposed insert similarly bolted to the inner sides of the tower in at least two places.
The insert could extend further down with a lip underneath the frame rail for greater mechanical advantage like Carl describes.
Next time I have my car on the lift I will take a look at it. Ideally someone with a modern 3D scanning tool could get a model of the area and then design and fab an insert. A time consuming endevour. But it would probably sell like hot cakes if there was a kit for it.
Old 02-21-2019, 02:05 PM
  #671  
MVEED3
Advanced
 
MVEED3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 4carl
A race/fab shop could fabricate a cup/insert for the shock tower?
A cup insert from below would rob from valuable, limited shock travel our cars suffer from with the factory dampers. The only way I'd consider this is with a move to a shorter strut.
Old 02-21-2019, 02:53 PM
  #672  
stout
Rennlist Member
 
stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ^ The Bay Bridge
Posts: 4,869
Received 1,257 Likes on 588 Posts
Default

Some quick thoughts as a mechanically minded person—but no engineer!

Originally Posted by GoKart Mozart
Yes, that is what I thought as well. Sounds good in theory, except the bonding thing is possibly tricky, as stated below.
I'd be curious to hear someone like PeteVB or Robert Linton weigh in on the importance of the bonding agent in this scenario, as the real goal is to spread the load and the piece would obviously be held up (and pushed up) by the strut itself. Might not need much (or, effectively, any?) help from the body agent to stay in place. Question becomes what's the best way to spread that loading so the tower top doesn't take the whole hit. And, of course, what happens as that load is spread.

Originally Posted by GoKart Mozart
Ideally someone with a modern 3D scanning tool could get a model of the area and then design and fab an insert. A time consuming endevour. But it would probably sell like hot cakes if there was a kit for it.
Agree x2.

Originally Posted by MVEED3
A cup insert from below would rob from valuable, limited shock travel our cars suffer from with the factory dampers. The only way I'd consider this is with a move to a shorter strut.
This is where some thoughts from someone like PeteVB or Linton would be interesting to get. There are other very bright minds here with experience in this area, too. Keys would be to come up with the thinnest/strongest solution possible—which would to me suggest carbon-fiber. If we are talking about something washer-thin, I wouldn't hesitate to install it and I wouldn't worry about shortening dampers, etc. That's well within the tolerance of ride height...or if I had to raise the rear by a washer to match the front end that's a washer higher, I'd happily do it.
Old 02-21-2019, 11:36 PM
  #673  
O5C4R
Racer
 
O5C4R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 380
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

I've done 6 Tarmac Rallies (and a lot of track days) and both the front and rear shocks have bottomed out, coil bound, massively 100's of times on very bumpy closed roads, I simply cannot believe my car's in one piece after reading this thread ( I hope I haven't jinxed myself). On these rallies there a 2 people in the car, I have a full cage, fire extinguishers etc and with a full tank the car weighs in total 1600kgs. that's on the heavy side and the strut towers have held up. As its a cast mount there must be variations in the quality of the casting for a pot hole to do this to some cars.

Last year due to the front shock hitting the bump stops so much with so much force I installed longer travel Tractive Shocks, this may have been saving my car for the last 4 tarmac rallies.

anyone have any feedback on the SP motorsport solution? it looks like the strut tower would just peel away regardless doesn't it?
Old 02-22-2019, 10:21 AM
  #674  
Switchfoot614
Instructor
 
Switchfoot614's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 216
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

With anything cast, chemistry of the metal and heat treatment determine the final strength. The least destructive way to determine what each chassis has in place would be to verify the hardness. Equotip though not widely accepted as being repeatable is the least intrusive followed by rockwell. To really understand, a destructive sample would have to be extracted and charpy impacts performed. If anyone who has experienced a failure can obtain a sample of the broken strut tower, I'll take it from there. If we have low impact resistant strut towers in our cars, a reinforcement really won't do much to prevent the failure unless it essentially replaces the entire strut tower and ties back to sound material.
Old 02-22-2019, 11:23 AM
  #675  
aryork
Rennlist Member
 
aryork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: where it gets hot in summer
Posts: 961
Received 157 Likes on 90 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by O5C4R
I've done 6 Tarmac Rallies (and a lot of track days) and both the front and rear shocks have bottomed out, coil bound, massively 100's of times on very bumpy closed roads, I simply cannot believe my car's in one piece after reading this thread ( I hope I haven't jinxed myself). On these rallies there a 2 people in the car, I have a full cage, fire extinguishers etc and with a full tank the car weighs in total 1600kgs. that's on the heavy side and the strut towers have held up. As its a cast mount there must be variations in the quality of the casting for a pot hole to do this to some cars.

Last year due to the front shock hitting the bump stops so much with so much force I installed longer travel Tractive Shocks, this may have been saving my car for the last 4 tarmac rallies.
Off topic, but do you have any videos of the rallies? Love to check it out!


Quick Reply: strut tower failure



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:41 PM.