Most liked posts in thread: TSW Engine Mount Prototype

urethane ice cream cones?

 

Nate, can't wait to hear how it goes on the track. I've asked Jeff to hold one of these for me from the first batch if all goes well with you this weekend--I blew my hydraulic engine mount monday on the track. Only 15,000 miles, and it's leaking like a seive...

 

caught my interest too!

 

It's alive! ALIIIIIVE!!!!!!



It has been one HECK of a long road getting this project through the pipeline. However, it is going to be SO, SO WORTH IT!!!

Nathan is about to put the screws to this engine mount on the track with his monster MINI. If he comes back with a thumbs-up, we'll place the order for the first production run and get these things in stock!

 

..

 

Is this new mount not suitable/useful for an 02-04 then? Thanks.

 

Yes that is correct. The new mount won't work on an 02-04 unless the engine mount bracket (the big aluminum casting) is exchanged for the later type.

 

Black Forest, apparently.

The engine mount is cast as a single piece, just to make that clear to everyone. It is not an assembly of rubber cones.

 

Thanks.

Just curious, what's the rational fo the double cone shape? Why not a sphere, or a cylinder?

 

I have read of several shops trying to get an aftermarket replacement out on the market for the '05 and later hydraulic motor mounts. The first one that can get a good product to the market will do VERY well I'm sure. I'm rooting for you guys, this one looks good and I hope it stands up to Nate's abuse.

 

OK, DrMike: Where does the line form? Over on that other forum, I put my placeholder down some many months ago. But there must be some advantage being over here on Motoring Alliance eh?
Having just bought and installed a VIP engine stabilizer, I'd love to just rip it out and sell it on eBay for 20 cents on the dollar... But you know me, that's the story of my life!

Kudos on a good looking part, and I don't really care if it works or not...haha

 

..

 

For this application, the double-cone shape is very mass efficient. A sphere is very much not, and a cylinder is also less efficient. Mass efficiency means the material is more uniformly-stressed while still being structurally stable, and therefore weighs less. It also means that the part uses less urethane rubber, which keeps the price down.

There may be a more fancy shape that is even more efficient, but the difference is likely to be very small.

 

Ah, it made sense as I was reading your response and recalled images like this ...



...where the strain emanates from the "joints" (contact points) in a more-or-less cone-shape (in 3D). Yes, I see now that a sphere or cylinder would have mass that would not be taking up any stress and would therefore just be excess weight. (Is that right?) Thanks!

 

Nice picture! I think that is Hertzian contact strain (from the same-named stress) in the picture. The stress in the urethane part is different, but yes, you've got it. The part shape cuts out mass that would not be supporting the load.

 

Huh? Those pictures are all well and good, but...
where's the list? I remember a list for the TSW X-Brace, and I was on it. I wanna be on this new list...

 

..

 

who are you asking? :lol: