then why does high quality aftermarket axles, likely better than your updated turbo axles, NOT fix wheelhop in an ss/sc

and if axles is the problem, then why does poly motor mounts remove wheelhop?
if axles was the problem, changing those mounts would not reduce wheelhop at all.
holding the motor still will not alter an axles propensity to windup

Chief is not a hostile statement, I call people chief all the time IRL, so im sorry if you take it the wrong way.

I also couldnt care less who im "chiefing" either, I dont hold back my opinions or questions based on who is behind the other keyboard, anyone on this board can attest to that.

lastly, Until you provide PROOF of what you are saying, you cannot call something "fact"
axle windup quite likely was a serious issue, god knows weve seen our fair share of broken axles with ss/scs, but i would like to see some proof that the rigidity was increased to FIX WHEEL HOP, or if maybe you are just confusing it with a fix for the RESULT of wheelhop.

ss/sc axles break DUE to wheel hop.
they dont cause it.

that is my OPINION, based monitoring the results of 2 years and a few thousand cobalts on this forum.

 

Just because an aftermarket axle gets bigger in diameter does not mean its torsional rigidity changed much or enough. (in most cases the answer is yes given duplicate metals being used)Since I haven't put said aftermarket axle on a torsion checker I couldn't tell you if its torsionally stiffer or not as its heavily based on its heat treat and if its a hollow axle or a solid axle. I can tell you the SS turbo axle is almost twice the diameter and is 45% stiffer in torsion than the stock F23 axle it replaces.

Yes mounts will effect how the torsion is damped and how it couples. Mounts are a bandaid as the torsional windup didn't change. (its just being controlled in a poor way through stiff mounts)The goal is to kill the windup before it starts so you don't have to compromise the N&V characteristics of the engine mounting which is unacceptable to general public.

and I take no offence to chief.

SSSC axles break due to violent torsional windup and unloading. I watched Nelson Hoyos destroy a 54MM Hollow tool steel axle on one of our Pro Drag cars in sonoma a couple years ago. It was due to tire shake which is the result of torsional windup which was caused by uneven loading and unloading of the tire). It snapped like a toothpick when he went into 3rd gear.

 

the engine in the ss/t cars is tilted farther forward. which changes the line up of the axles. yes i know the axles are thicker in overall diamter.

bushings in the suspension itself help. there is a bunch of little things here and there

 

Yes the engine is rotated forward but the rotation was around the CL of the axles (at the transmission)and is still the same as the SC car. That axle envelope did not change.

Just an FYI

 

I run dry nitrous before maf.

 

Im sorry, I did statics and dynamics 3 post-secondary (hated every minute) and you are going to have a very tough time convincing me that making the mount points stiffer will have any major significant change on the rotational stress to the axle shafts. in fact, come to think of it, you could almost make a case for the OPPOSITE.
the engine being held more stiffly, will tend to translate the rotational stress MORE towards that little rotating axle shaft
the physics of it just doesnt jive man.

did you consider my last point?
that maybe the axle upgrade was to fix a RESULT of wheelhop....and not a CAUSE?
if you have something official showing that the axle upgrade was to remove wheelhop, id love to see it.
im never above the idea of being proven wrong

 

Imagine the situation below with the wheel fixed to the ground, changing the stiffness of the springs (mount material) will influence the angular displacement of the axle as they are both basically energy storage devices in the situation. In this situation from my current train of thought, the stiffer the mount, the more angular deflection/displacement there should be axle.



and I managed to spell rigidity wrong

 

that looks like a piston with cracks in it at tdc doin the neutron dance

 

quick MS paint drawings w/ a touchpad never look right lol

emo toaster on wheels might be accurate as well

 

engineer ha krispy?

 

An0malous

No where in anything I said did imply that changing the mounting point stiffness of the engine to have any influence of the stress on the axles.

My comment has everything to do with how the energy is displaced and a stiffer engine mounting just moves the harmonic into another location on the engine as into the trans gear set etc. (ie controlled a different way as I said) The simple fact is stiffer mounts keeps more distorted energy in the axles so they break faster. As in physics "all energy is conserved"

 

Well since hp is a function of torque I guess it would be limiting hp too.

 

at some point kinda, if you made a constant 260 ft-lb of torque you would make more HP the faster the engine spun

 

True

I'm at that threshold and have 45k on my clutch. 6k with the TVS and 20k with a 2.6 setup on the M62. Clutch is still holding strong w/ no signs of failure. It's driver error

 

Not to point out a contradiction to be an ass, but there is a contradiction here. If they are storing more energy by becoming more distorted they will be under more stress. It makes sense w/ what I put above with the whole emo toaster thing.

Although while solid mounts would transmit more stress, if they change the harmonic relationship between the engine/suspension/axle/wheel so you no longer have wheel hop, the max stress may be less. Or at least that seems to make sense to me. It seems like its all about striking the right balance btw. unsprung weight, shock valving, spring rate, engine & tranny mounting, axle size/strength, traction, and suspension geometry.

 

Sorry to interrupt but I love your sig.

 

krispy
your correct if in fact some mode of compliance in the axle torque path appeared out of thin air as in the differential became a rubber band. Simple fact is if you stiffen the mounts and all other relationships stay the same more energy will be trapped in the axle. The torsional frequency may change but it will be for the worse. Probably higher concentrated energy at a slightly higher frequency, which is worse.

Anyway this thread was hijacked to death. Sorry guys

 

yep, because it is a relation between tq and rpm etc.

 

mounts = more broken axles?

I think not.

 

Makes sense to me. When I got full BWoody setup, put much more power to the wheels. I was breaking axles left and right, every visit at the track. All that TQ from the 2.5 pulley in first gear.

I never broke a single axle when I had stock mounts.

Even though stock mounts suck (I agree), the CV will just move if the motor does. The motor doesn't have that much play in it. Solid mounts just put more stress/power to the main problem.

 

I completely agree. This is very noticable when you significantly exceed stock power levels (100+hp) as the only way to reduce axle tramp (wheel hop) after suspension and transaxle mounting modification is to replace the axles with stronger versions.

Changing to stiffer transaxle mounts on a fwd is very similar to using tramp rods on a rwd with soft leaf springs. You simply keep the wheels on the ground as a bandaid fix but you haven't fixed the root cause of the axle tramp to begin with. Fine for near stock or bolt on power levels but as power increases the cause will begin to rear its head again.

 

Thanks lol

 

yeah your sig is funny as hell. i had to get the old lady over here to check it out...
needless to say she