Thank you, sir. It is good to have your hard work appreciated

 

hmm, the jdm bumper support maybe a good idea down the track with the bumper vent...

*files this away for later use*

 

I have to laugh at the comments about the "crash beam" being merely a support for the bumper anyone who thinks that and claims they only talk from fact is talking rubbish.

A mere glance at the photos show it to clearly be a structural component which forms an integral part of the body.

A mere bumper pad doesn't get made of extruded aluminium section supported by steel pillars connected to the body with high tensile bolts.

 

Here we go again with the beam...lol. There is a difference between a pad and a support. I'm glad that you mentioned the pictures. Look at the JDM Evo X crash beam. You are telling me that aluminum channel with all of the holes in it, and no internal reinforcement is tronger than the steel beam on the RA with 2 slots in it? Using your logic, the USDM has a much more rigid body, because it has a significantly larger "integral part of the body" to tie it together. That beam is, at best, as important as an aftermarket strut tower brace when it comes to structural integrity. But again, we are all entitled to our own opinions. But the way you frame it is completely overemphasizing the importance of the part. I like how you say "made of extruded aluminium section supported by steel pillars connected to the body with high tensile bolts". What do the steel pillars connected to the body with high tensile bolts have to do with anything? This doesn't strengthen your argument. If I said it was "popsicle sticks supported by carbon fiber reinforced 316 stainless steel and bolted to the body with grade 10 28mm bolts", does that change the fact that it is just popsicle sticks? It is an extruded aluminum channel. That JDM piece most likely folds in half at the US mandated 5mph crash, and that's most likely why the USDM one is larger.

Again, entitled to your opinion. I am just refuting your evidence that mine is wrong. Mike at RRE did a similar mod without the bezel for his road race car. He should be able to chime in on how much stiffness this removed from the body, being a "structural component" and such.

 

'You can lead a horse to water but cant make it drink.'

Safety concerns? Drive slower & more carefully.
Dont hit anyone with the front of your car.

Evo X beam & this mod doesnt go together. I dont think the vents will line up.



I weighed the bezel.

it is 0.72 lbs
thats
0.3265865 kilogram



Total Length: 21" 3/8th inches



Total Height: 2" 1/4 inches



Each Opening Length: 6" 1/2 inches


Each Opening Height: 1" 1/2 inches approx. measuring tape is kinda at an angle.


Total Depth: 1" 1/8 inch

Depth: 1" inch


Protrusion: 1/8 of an inch


Bag of plates & screws

Correct me if my basic math is wrong. GED at its finest.

Measure the height and width of the square duct. Multiply these numbers together to get the area of the duct.

6.5 x 1.5 = 9.75
Square the radius and multiple it by PI, or 3.14, to calculate the area.

9.75 x 3.14 = 30.63

Convert this number to square feet by dividing by 144
30.63 / 144 = .2127

Multiply the cross-sectional area by the air velocity, measured in feet per minute, to calculate air flow in CFM.

example 60mph = 5280 ft per min.

.2127 x 5280 = 1123.119

so according to my calculation it is
1123 cfm @ 60mph. if funneled directly to the top of the FMIC.

I dinoc my bezel to match my grill.

 

This was my impression too, just by visual comparison, but I cannot confirm personally.

I believe this is a redundant step. From what I can come up with, there's no need to find a circular area of a rectangular area (hope that makes sense)

So my calculation (over simplified) would be more like:

6.5 x 1.5 = 9.75

9.75 x 2 vents = 19.5 in squared

Convert to square feet by dividing by 144
19.5 / 144 = .13541666...

60mph = 5280 fpm (based on your numbers)

Area of .1354 sqft x 5280 fpm = ~715

Is there a necessity to compensate for the squared value of the area of the vent vs. the singluar fpm value? Not sure at this point as I am no physics major either.

 

Anyone here take fluid dynamics? ( i did not)

At different speeds 'mph' you are going to have a
'thicker' wall of air traveling at a much lower speed around the inside edges of your duct. Think of your car as a boat traveling in water. There is a tiny wake in front of the boat as it travels forward, now increase your speed... a bigger wake in front right? Same thing happens with air on your car at higher speed a film layer develops in front of your car. That layer will impede the flow through the duct and thus make any calculation a *****. So sure w.e 'cfm' is id say maybe 75% of that is probably making it through there at 60mph. at 90mph, 60% of the calculated 'cfm' will be present.

There is no proof behind what i say, but with what I know, that makes the most sense to me.

cfm = ft^3/min?

I didn't bother finding out what your units were throughout your math game...

 

Pfft cfms. I'm all about cfs. However, you're numbers look correct chi. Confirmed by Wolfram Alpha, the site that makes dumb people smart.

11.915 cfs (cubic feet per second)

 

Obviously you have limited knowledge of crash test requirements they may be different in different countries regarding impact speed you are obviously also ignorant of a steel beam of thinner section has the same strenght as a aluminium section of greater thickness and that the aluminium is used for weight reduction.

Perhaps you should also have a look at the CJ manual which shows standard and Ralliart CJ the beam is high tensile steel according to the sheet metal diagrams.

And wow some modifier you know removed it that must make it right, Ill back my 15 years real world experience with one of the big three including responsibility for improving manufacturing in 12 plants in 8 countries across in Asia Pacific against your ill informed comments regarding structural integrity of vehicles.

Quite frankly cutting holes in the existing ralliart beam is simply a bad practice I don't care if you do it its your choice but don't make ill informed comments about it not being a structural component when the photos the manuals and automotive design practice show it to be exactly that structural.

A crash pad you keep referrring to is an item that sits between the structural member and the bumper skin it can be styrofoam , plastic or any other light weight material that is designed to flex in slight impacts to prevent damage to the bumper.

The CRASH Beam transfers impact load to the main body allowing it to crumple and absorb major impacts. Effect of weakening the crash beam in the centre say you hit something dead centre instead of the of the impact loads being shared by the body structure as designed the beam collapses in the centre due to the lower section modulus and resultant loss of rigidity impact is transferred direct to intercooler radiator and engine/potentially firewall and causing major mechanical intrusion into the passenger compartment.

 

Holy contradiction, batman. Don't address my argument, but say it is obvious that I have limited knowledge? One thing I do have plenty of knowledge on is tensile strengths of material, and you even contradict yourself, proving your experience with the big 3 (McDonalds, BK and Wendy's, maybe?) is irrelevant. I am ignorant in thinking a steel beam of thinner material has the same strength as an aluminum beam of slightly thicker section? So are material scientists...lmao. You said it yorself that the RA beam is high tensile steel. What alloy aluminum is the Evo beam that is stronger? The answer is you don't know, so you are making it up to support your argument. That, my good sir, is fallacious.

Who said crash pad besides you? What we are talking about is the crash beam/bumper/bumper skin support or whatever you call it. On the RA, it is steel, on the Evo X it is aluminum and like I said earlier, on some cars it is fiberglass. That has nothing to do with the fact that they all have a styrofoam piece you are calling a bumper pad. You are the only one mentioning this, and it is irrelevant.

That is complete bollocks. The Evo piece, RA piece, or most any other cars are not designed to utilize crumple zones with a focused impact as you are stating hitting something dead center. If you think that, you are off your meds. Crumple zones are designed to absorb energy from a head on or offset head on collision. Hit a light pole in ANY car, and the brunt of the impact will be taken to the engine bay. You act as if you have never seen a car wrapped around a power pole. The crumple zones are not even engaged in that scenario because of, wait for it......the fact that they aren't CRUMPLED. This transfer of energy ability that you are stating happens from that aluminum beam is outrageous. That beam would, at most, support about 800-900 lbs of force. Don't believe me? Stand the Evo beam up on the steel pillars and put that much weight on it. Does it distribute that energy to the ground, or fold in half? Try it and come back here to tell me who is correct. I'll wait.....

And by the way, 800-900lbs is probably about an 8mph impact.

And just for the record,...
Everyone please DO NOT cut your crash beam if you follow any of the devil's thought process. You will only cut off your own arm.

 

Drew, I'd like to continue our discussion, but I'll wait until I have more time to be more clear/concise since I think we are at a point where it has become mainly an argument over semantics with small facts differing our two opinions.

That being said, I have just ordered the EvoX JDM front and rear "crash beams" from our Japanese distribution center and I will have them in about 3-4 weeks. I will take plenty of pictures and verify fitment and weights and any other measurements you folks would like me to take.

 

Awesome! I really don't think that it will be a fit for the RA front end without major work (as far as alignment of the openings) , but I still have optimism. Please be careful when you remove the stock RA crash beam, as the car may fall apart without it

 

I don't expect the openings to line up with the bezel that you've chosen, though I like that design a bit more than the actual X ducting since it incorporates the Ralliart "slashes" in the middle. I'll probably just end up going with the X pieces if I ever do it, but for now, for me anyway, it's more of a weight reduction mod with plenty of future potential.

 

Ok i will directly address your arguments. I am a Senior Member of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. I spent fifteen years in Automotive working for Ford I spent 4 years as the Ford Production System Manager for Asia Pacific and Africa. evidently your automotive knowledge doesn't extend to the big three being General Motors , Chrysler and Ford.

Fact the crash test requirements for frontal and offset impacts are around 35 MPH in the USA which is around 58 Kmh elsewhere. According to your extensive experience its 5 mph.

Fact a thin steel structure can be replaced by a thicker Aluminium structure that weighs less. You might want to brush up on your beam theory

Fact Aluminium does not have as high a tensile strength as Steel

Fact the beams in question are not designed to fail in tension they are designed to resist bending and impact forces.

Steel or Aluminium, JDM or US the beams in questions are all designed to withstand the same loads.

Fact I've been responsible for teams of engineers and improving process in car plants on a global basis.

Please back up your assertions with your extensive automotive and engineering knowledge because quite frankly if an engineer worked for me and made some of the assertions you've just made id sack them for incompetence.

Like i said you can cut your crash beam and make whatever modifications you like to your car don't advise other people its safe or a fantastic idea.


Finally and i quote again just so you are sure

" I am ignorant in thinking a steel beam of thinner material has the same strength as an aluminum beam of slightly thicker section? So are material scientists...lmao"

Yes you are ignorant in this instance that is exactly the case it is not a slightly thicker section it is a section designed to have the same strength as the steel section but is lighter in weight. That's called structural design.

the aluminium beams with the holes in them are designed that way and designed to be a certain strength. Cutting holes in the RA beam is without a doubt and by any argument you may like to put forward weakening the beam, it is not designed to have holes in it. Using cutting torch to do it would alter the mechanical properties of the steel also potentially weakening it.

While your at it go look up section modulus, young's modulus and how to calculate deflection in beams.

An aluminium section with the same strength as an equivalent steel design is lighter that's why aircraft are made out of aluminium not steel, that's why bicycle frames made of aluminium tubing the tubing is larger in diameter than the equivalent in steel because for the same strength the aluminium is lighter.

Seriously get an education and stop talking crap.

By the way i communicated to you my experience in private you chose to make it a pissing contest so put up your extensive experience and qualifications.

I won't bother responding anymore.

 

Someone is E-ANGRY........
So after sifting though all of the irrelevant information about how big your wiener is and how you have been over teams of engineers and all of your experience seems to be centered around process control in automotive plants, which lets me know you have no background in automotive or structural design, this is what we have left...

It's common knowledge that the United States has a zero damage 5mph bumper law. This is the sole reason that the Evo X USDM differs from the JDM one. This retorts two of your arguments, the one that I was talking about frontal impact tests (which are performed at the speeds you mentioned, but irrelevant, because I haven't mentioned them), and the fact that you state:

If they all were designed to support the same loads, why was the JDM version ineffective in the US bumper test, and had to be replaced with a stronger one?
And just for your reading, since all you care to do is challenge my education and experience, which I will not blatantly throw all over this post, as you have, because it is irrelevant to the argument, an overview of the standard.....
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regr...te/807072.html


Did I not state this? How do these facts support your argument? They are common knowledge. I never said that aluminum could not replace steel. That is something you have made up to try and discredit my argument. I was stating that the steel beam in the RA is substantially stronger than the JDM beam BECAUSE of these facts. The aluminum beam can be as strong as a high tensile steel beam if it is designed to have the same yield strength. As stated above, they are not all equal.

Please refer to the fact that all 3 beams do not have the same strength above. The mere fact that you mention structural design, and your inability to look at a picture of the Evo X JDM and USDM beams side by side and tell me they are equal amazes me.


Poor you. Patting yourself on the back is likely going to injure your elbow. I am not trying to get in a pissing contest with you. All of this doesn't get under my skin at all, so I'm not quite sure why you let it get under yours. Yes, you sent me a PM AFTER you posted things in this thread that I addressed. If you wanted to have this discussion through private messages, you have always had the opportunity. I have only ever RESPONDED to a post you have made, and never created one directed to you out of the blue. FACT.

Let me see if I can get us on the same page here, and stop the bickering.....
I am not advocating that you should cut your crash beam if you think it is an integral part of the structure of your car. Cutting holes in the RA steel crash beam WILL weaken it. I have never said it would not. I simply stated that even with the holes in it, without doing a crash test, it is comparable to the aluminum beam from the evo. If you are that concerned about the beam, but still want to cut it, have it reinforced when you modify it. If doing this mod makes you nervous at all, do not do it. I will repeat that. If this mod makes you nervous, DO NOT do it. Just as you have said I am "advocating it", I feel you have been telling people they are going to die from it, which isn't true. Making your car significantly faster than stock, which is what most people on this board is trying to do, is a great deal more dangerous than this mod.