Updated! Let me know if you have any other questions, I'll try my best to answer them.
3-4 more will be here next week! Should I do group buy ?
3-4 more will be here next week! Should I do group buy ?
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
GT-One Engine Tourque Damper - In stock!
- Thread starter GTOneUSA
- Start date
Request sent. Thanks again Igor.
It's doesn't do anything except move with the engine torque - It's bling people!
Incorrect.
Also incorrect.
Man you two must have really crappy SAT math scores.
Please pay attention to the following diagram:
The 2 red dots represent the damper mounting points.
The hypotenuse of the triangle (side c) represents of course the damper.
Side b of the triangle is an imaginary line from the chassis mounting point of the damper that intersects the imaginary line of the engine's fore and aft movement. Side b is always a fixed distance
Side a is an imaginary line representing the engine's fore and aft movement.
Since side a moves when the engine moves and side b never changes. What does The Pythagorean Theorem tells us about side c?
Correct class! The damper works as advertised.
Last edited:
Hugh, let get something straight here, I haven't insulted you or anyone else on this board (with exception to one individual that deserved it), let’s keep this discussion at an adult level, I assure you my SAT and ACT scores where high enough to secure my entrance and full scholarship through college. If you are so sold on this product than buy it, until there is scientific proof that this devise performs any function at all as has been described above than it means nothing. Maybe you could provide the scientific proof.<O</O
<O</O
It is very common knowledge that these engine dampers have little to no performance benefits as other performance additions sold by retails. This is not a new idea; it's been around for 10-15 years at least and within that time I have never seen any data to support that it’s beneficial. Your geometry is correct in regards to the ability of the piston not only pivoting with the torque of the engine but compressing. Additionally your understanding of the The Pythagorean Theorem is not so correct because this theory deals in constant non-movable fixed points which is not the case. Both points have the ability to pivot along the fixed axis which although doesn't change the fixed point but does change the angle upon compression. At the extreme mounting angle I along with many other mechanical engineers out there can surmise that it will provide no gains of any kind with the exception of an engine compartment dressing. Some people like that sort of stuff though and will not admit that there is no functionality because they dropped some serious cash on it.
<O</O
As I have always stated in the past several times on this forum and many others will agree with this following statement, if you can prove me wrong please do, I’m always willing to learn something new and have no issues admitting to being educated in a positive way.<O</O
<O</O
</O<O
</OIt is very common knowledge that these engine dampers have little to no performance benefits as other performance additions sold by retails. This is not a new idea; it's been around for 10-15 years at least and within that time I have never seen any data to support that it’s beneficial. Your geometry is correct in regards to the ability of the piston not only pivoting with the torque of the engine but compressing. Additionally your understanding of the The Pythagorean Theorem is not so correct because this theory deals in constant non-movable fixed points which is not the case. Both points have the ability to pivot along the fixed axis which although doesn't change the fixed point but does change the angle upon compression. At the extreme mounting angle I along with many other mechanical engineers out there can surmise that it will provide no gains of any kind with the exception of an engine compartment dressing. Some people like that sort of stuff though and will not admit that there is no functionality because they dropped some serious cash on it.
<O
</OAs I have always stated in the past several times on this forum and many others will agree with this following statement, if you can prove me wrong please do, I’m always willing to learn something new and have no issues admitting to being educated in a positive way.<O
</O<O
</OIncorrect.
Also incorrect.
Man you two must have really crappy SAT math scores.
Please pay attention to the following diagram:
The 2 red dots represent the damper mounting points.
The hypotenuse of the triangle (side c) represents of course the damper.
Side b of the triangle is an imaginary line from the chassis mounting point of the damper that intersects the imaginary line of the engine's fore and aft movement. Side b is always a fixed distance
Side a is an imaginary line representing the engine's fore and aft movement.
Since side a moves when the engine moves and side b never changes. What does The Pythagorean Theorem tells us about side c?
Correct class! The damper works as advertised.
Last edited:
+100
the force-split diagrams DO NOT APPLY to non-fixed anchor points.
that damper is completely useless!
unwarranted and uneducated comments are not worthy your post history hugh.
the force-split diagrams DO NOT APPLY to non-fixed anchor points.
that damper is completely useless!
unwarranted and uneducated comments are not worthy your post history hugh.
I would buy one for $20 with free shipping. :tongue:
I have one and to date, on a 92' GPW I have had NO engine mount discrepancies.
It may be rubbish to those who don't have one installed and at first the obscure mounting angles seem wrong but after careful consideration and use, mine seems to work just fine.
The "P Factor" twist is virtually non existent and that's the whole purpose of its installation for me. Stabilize the engine in its mounts allowing some flex as not to damage any attaching hardware.
After careful discussion with several buddies in the Champ Car world over copious amounts of beverage items, if nothing else it looks cool as well.
Cheers
nigel
It may be rubbish to those who don't have one installed and at first the obscure mounting angles seem wrong but after careful consideration and use, mine seems to work just fine.
The "P Factor" twist is virtually non existent and that's the whole purpose of its installation for me. Stabilize the engine in its mounts allowing some flex as not to damage any attaching hardware.
After careful discussion with several buddies in the Champ Car world over copious amounts of beverage items, if nothing else it looks cool as well.
Cheers
nigel
Last edited:
I don't understand what you mean by "non-fixed anchor points". The engine functions as a shock absorber. Like a shock absorber the two mounting points must be able to pivot. When one side of a triangle changes length, the angles between the sides must also change. The sum of the angles in a triangle are always 180 degrees.
Shock absorbers in cars pivot this way at both ends. In the case of coilovers the top end is mounted in a pillow ball mount which is a spherical bearing allowing the top of the shock to pivot.
Shock absorbers in cars are set at an angle to the up and down movement of the wheel, just like the engine damper is at an angle to the fore and aft movement of the engine.
I continue to be baffled at the inability of some of you to comprehend this.
as an engineer i am telling you that you are wrong. like i said,
the damper will rotate about the eyelets and most of the force is transferred to that motion instead of damping- especially at that extreme of a component angle. will it compress some? sure. will it dampen? no. you can use a rubber band to the same effect. set up your suspension struts at that angle and you will see that any motion of the a-arms will be converted to rotation about the eyelets not compression of the spring. furthermore there will be significant frictional losses caused by the assembly not working withing its design envelope- ie axial loading.
there is nothing to 'comprehend' here. look up engineering principles on force-split diagrams (like your tiangle) and you will see that one of the first defining conditions is to have a inert system in equilibrium- what you have is a dynamic system with continuously variable vectors.
believe what you want, i am done.
the damper will rotate about the eyelets and most of the force is transferred to that motion instead of damping- especially at that extreme of a component angle. will it compress some? sure. will it dampen? no. you can use a rubber band to the same effect. set up your suspension struts at that angle and you will see that any motion of the a-arms will be converted to rotation about the eyelets not compression of the spring. furthermore there will be significant frictional losses caused by the assembly not working withing its design envelope- ie axial loading.
there is nothing to 'comprehend' here. look up engineering principles on force-split diagrams (like your tiangle) and you will see that one of the first defining conditions is to have a inert system in equilibrium- what you have is a dynamic system with continuously variable vectors.
believe what you want, i am done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me guess, you also subscribe to the man made global warming theory caused by CO2 right? :biggrin:
whatever hugh
Hey Hugh, is this what you do on your leisure? Open up old threads and argue about it when the thread was clearly dead and the product is no longer available? Does it help you sleep at night or you have to wear that pink NSXPO dress before you can sleep like a princess thinking that royalty is always right?
Last edited:
