Brakes Idea 1st Gen Most liked posts in thread: A possible different bigger brake idea and, Meth Injection and more

The MINI is a 4 3/4" bolt spacing whereas the Cobalt is 4 7/8". It is logical to assume the forward force of the wheel is going to make the caliper want to move back toward the center of the wheel on the bottom attachment point and forward on the top point. The bottom bolt cannot move inwards as it is held in place by the Knuckle. The top bolt will want to move towards the front but the only way that it can is to either move down and then over, which would appear to be impossible as the caliper material would maintain the 4 7/8" spacing or deform. The tab of the washer that I made will also create a shim that keeps the bolt from moving down.

I made up a drawing of how this is suppose to work. Have to remember this is not for a car that is going to run the 24 Hours of Le Mans, reaching triple digit speeds that must be shed in order to navigate corners. This is low cost option for a Track Wannabee that never sees the track except as a bystander.

Yes I would love to have an engineer run some calculations on this. I just do not see the force being sufficient enough to deform the high strength bolt.

 

I made up some different oblong hole shims. The round washer type would rotate when torquing the bolts down. I took some electrical junction box covers and my Whitney Punch. By no means 3-d printed but worked quite well.

 

Yes I reached out to Jan, Detroit Tuned and Way over on the BBB forum. I am only to do some searching here, the MA search function is much better than over there.

 

I am so glad I am doing this here as over on the BBB forum you get you ass slapped very hard for going of topic and this is a brake thread.

I heard the Admin and one Mod over there are real buttheads . . . . . . .

 

There was this other guy that got out of a great looking red Gen1. Had a Pennsylvania vanity plate, something to do with a woman. You know him around these parts?

 

More hijacking but on the MI systems, I found this:

In my searches I came across this:

On 19% pulleys, there are lots of 19 and 17+2 cars, and in the UK they run up to 22 % pulleys with mods. A person would need to data log temps to make sure the pump is not cavitating, which I don't see happening. Even at the track you are not at 7000 rpm constantly.

You will not get good info on US forums, the builders focus on peak hp not hp over time, and people just parrot what they have heard. The reason r56 is faster on the track is it makes more power between 4000 and 6000 so you have more torque over a longer period, 19 % closes that gap I've thought about it on my track car, I dont really care if I wreck a supercharger they are not that expensive anymore, and I have a new jcw SC in the garage on the spare motor.

Also on the US forums they usually do not understand water vs meth, water will cool better, 100 % is the best for cooling but meth will raise the octane more. If you tune for meth, god forbid the meth pump fails, that is why I use it only for cooling. I would never run over 50 % due to the invisible fire issue, and pretty much all race tracks have banned methanol. At the end of the day its how you plan on driving the car.

__________________

 

I recognize that what I can visualize in my head and/or comprehend may not be put into text/verbiage that another person may understand. Nothing against the other person as it has more to do with how I explain things. Perfect case is yesterday when Dave.0 talks about meth not helping the supercharger heat. I looked at that and my head went right to the downstream air flow.

The 19% pulley would be creating more boost at low engine rpms as the supercharger is spinning 19% faster than stock. At low levels of engine rpm the boost is more efficient relative to heat generation. As the rpm level increases the supercharger does not create boost in the same fashion as it is in the realm where "squeezing air together" has become so difficult for it that efficiency drops. In my case where I am not concerned about triple digit track speeds but rather low end torque on twisties, it appears the 19% will provide what I am looking for. At approximately 5,800 engine rpms the 19% will be at the same supercharger rpm as the Stock S engine.

Past this 5,800 engine rpm point, my supercharger will not be producing boost as efficient but so what? We are talking about a matter of a few seconds for the engine to go from 5,800 to redline. Hence the MI that would appear to help mitigate the heat created by the inefficiency.

 

and back to supercharger heat, yes higher revs will create more heat that the metal of the supercharge will absorb. This heat will then be transferred to the air stream. It is logical to assume that there will be a point that the air stream will be heated to the point that even after the injection atomizing cooling will no longer keep any fuel from premature detonation.

The spreadsheet I uploaded reflects the pulley revolutions where the JCW values are exceeded. On the 19% line, this only happens after 6550. The instances that a normal driver will exceed this point are far and few between. I cannot remember ever hitting cutout in second gear but I have hit it in first. I will just start shifting sooner in first.

The Mistress is proof that the point is manageable even at engine rpms of 8,000 and supercharger rpms exceeding 20,000 rpms. It would be very interesting to have your tune mapped out to reflect timing from 6,500 engine rpms up. IMO this would be the smoking gun on where the "point" is reached.

 

and last, if I am posting too much just tell me to go back to the BBB site.

I had to make some posts over there yesterday on a thread where somebody was bashing RMW. It would have been so nice to throw in some good FUs, you are full of shit and piss offs.

 

So I put the 17% pulley on that in conjunction with the Way Motors 2% crank overdrive pulley gives me 19% This means I am in the area where Columbus sailed off the edge of the flat earth, my water pump spun so fast that my car started to vaporize the coolant, and the Eaton Supercharger so far out of its normal operating range that it created a nuclear reaction that welded my pistons to the cylinders.

NOT!!!!!!!!!

Prior to the pulley change I collected data with a boost of 12 and a manifold temperature never above 132 F. I took the car out this morning and collected some data both at the beginning of the run and then when I turned around to come back about an hour later. I had stopped and parked for a short time so there should have been some heat soak of the intercooler. What I found was that the manifold pressure remained at about 26 psi up to the around 6,500 rpm at which point there was about 29 psi of manifold pressure. Factoring in the elevation of the area I am in results in 14 psi of boost at high rpms but the same basic values at lower rpms, 12 psi.

Now, my values are by no means scientific and I do not have any equipment that will monitor the motor at very short intervals, but it sure appears that:

1.) The redline cutout is 6,750 rpms as at 6,850 the boost was lowering that would be logical as although my foot was on the peddle hard, the ECU had cut fuel..
2.) The 19% pulley combination DOES NOT make any more boost until the 6,500 engine rpm value is exceeded. This appears to verify the spreadsheets I posted previously in this thread.
3.) There does appear to be more heat generated by the this combination. I had a 152 degree readout both at the beginning of my run and after turning around. That is about 20 degrees Fahrenheit higher than with the JCW pulley. The mid range rpm temp value was also higher as I had 145 degrees at 5,084 rpms. This could be from the supercharger turning about 400 rpms faster at the same rpm as the JCW pulley. I am thinking the additional revs produce more heat that the intercooler is soaking up in a static condition.

 

Would think there are formulas where all this could be calculated. I recognize that a bigger diameter rotor has more "stopping" force than a smaller rotor as the relationship is similar to a lever or a small gear turning a larger one.. Then the coefficient of friction for the brake pad comes into play. I have to do more research on the calipers as would think that leading and trailing may impact orientation/placement.

It appears that many of the Wilwood MINI kits are based on their .81 rotor whereas the R56/JCW caliper works off a .86 rotor. Yes this is a small increase but I do wonder if even that small amount is able to address the heat build up better.

 

I have not seen too many cheap r56 Brembo/jcw calipers out there. It appears the Brembo/jcw's have 1.5" pistons which means the clamping force is less than the Wilwoods above and are actually almost the same as the r56S caliper that is 36% less than the Wilwoods. I have not researched the pressure difference between the Gen1 and Gen2 brake master cylinder but on the Gen1s, it does not appear that 4-pop brembos are going to do much more than the r56S units.

Thinking the Gen2 JCW rotors are 330mm vs the Gen1 294mm so even with the same clamping force the stopping force is increased. So the question is will the Wilwoods above with 294 rotors provide similar numbers to the small brembos with the larger 330 rotors??