Aluminum vs steel lug nuts
Jul 30, 2011, 08:46 PM
#33
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure they do... Dont want the competition to steal your killer new wheel/tire package while your in the can!
Jul 31, 2011, 09:02 AM
#36
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Good Job Dave Man
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that aluminum is a good choice, but 7075-T6 is a poor choice for a lugnut for racing applications. Not due to it's strength or weight, but because the heat treatment will be damaged when the material gets above 250F - which happens on front wheel lugs quite easily during track days. Note that Porsche has used aluminum lugs on all their 911/930 series cars for 30+ years.
Should? You mean if it's made smaller? 4130 and 4340 only have a few percent of alloying elements in them so there is no difference between 4130/4340 and mild steel as far as weight (less than 1% - don't forget that chrome and molybdenum also weight about the same as iron). Now if we're talking thin-wall tubing compared to thick-wall, then yes - but the metal volume is different. But not for a lugnut that has the same dimensions.
Jul 31, 2011, 10:46 AM
#37
What some are forgetting is the relation to rotational weight vs static weight. Somewhere on here there was a thread about the ratio - 1 lb of rotational weight is the same as ? lbs of static weight (think it was around 9 lbs). I forget the actual ratio, but its significant - well, for us racer types.
Any rotational weight loss will improve acceleration period.
Now somebody may spend $500 on a seat (or ?) that's 10lbs lighter, but could have just spent 200 on a set of lugs instead.
Agreed with Tommi - never get lugs with keys - you'll loose the key just when you need it. It's easier to borrow a missing 19mm socket from the neighboring pits than to find a key.
Any rotational weight loss will improve acceleration period.
Now somebody may spend $500 on a seat (or ?) that's 10lbs lighter, but could have just spent 200 on a set of lugs instead.
Agreed with Tommi - never get lugs with keys - you'll loose the key just when you need it. It's easier to borrow a missing 19mm socket from the neighboring pits than to find a key.
I have had no problems with my generic splines lugs and have extra keys. The key is universal and not keyed for each set of nuts so mine will fit others. Makes it much easier to get them on/off with the limited space I have on the Kosei wheels.
Who sells chromoly nuts???
Jul 31, 2011, 11:18 AM
#38
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact: chromoly is lighter than other steels.
Here's the facts I have:
Percent alloy elements (mixed into the iron):
4130:
C - 0.28-0.33
Mn - 0.40-0.60
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 0.007 (max)
Cr - 0.80-1.10
Mo - 0.15-0.25
So with a total non-iron content of 2.717, even if we assigned exactly zero weight to those elements, we've only saved 2.7%.
Specific gravity:
Fe - 7.6-7.9
C - 2.26
Mn - 7.61
P - 2.34
S - 4.31
Si - 2.33
Ni - 8.9
Cr - 7.19
Mo - 10.22
( ref: http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra.html )
Carbon and silicon are the only lightweight elements added and those total 0.78% max. And they strill weight more than zero, so that's less than 0.5% weight reduction.
Now be sure to compare that to a mild steel, say a 1030:
C - 0.28-0.34
Mn - 0.6-0.9
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Let's also look at a 4340:
C - 0.38-0.43
Mn - 0.60-.080
P - 0.040 Max
S - 0.040 Max
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 1.65-2.00
Cr - 0.70-0.90
Mo - 0.20-0.30
So for 4340, with it's higher Ni and Mo content, it will weight MORE than 4130. I didn't count the extra 0.10% of carbon though.
I didn't do the exact math, but it may actually be heavier as Mo is MUCH heavier than iron. And to me "light weight alloy" means something in the 10-25% lighter range and it's certainly not 10% less. More like 1%??
Jul 31, 2011, 11:25 AM
#39
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're talking in circles, first you say 7075 is poor, then you say porsche uses alum.... know what alloy they're using? 7075, along with 2024, is a very good alloy; as for heat I believe that 2024 is greater, though I know that an M16's entire receiver is made of 7075 aluminum...
I seriously doubt that an (your?) M16 upper ever gets above 250F (barrel? yes, receiver? No), and it it was a 7075-T6, it would certainly have lost it's T6 aging spec hardness level if it ever did. I have measured some lugnuts (on real race cars) at over 350F - so 7075-T6 would be inappropriate for that usage.
Aug 1, 2011, 06:24 AM
#40
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Good Job Dave Man
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone said they had chromoly nuts in this thread I thought.... idk who sells them though. I run McGards.
Doesn't have anything to do with percent metals directly; has to do with density. And it's common knowledge amongst anyone who work with metals and even people that don't that chromoly is lighter than most steels. I learned this I think when I was 15 or 16? I'm 27 now.
The entire receiver is 7075. And does it? IDK, I've never shot one, let alone measured the temp.... I'm just stating facts here. I'll have to check later today about specs on 7075.
I just don't see how you can say that for size-to-size equivalents, that 4130 or 4340 is lighter then mild steel. You have facts? Please enlighten me.
Here's the facts I have:
Percent alloy elements (mixed into the iron):
4130:
C - 0.28-0.33
Mn - 0.40-0.60
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 0.007 (max)
Cr - 0.80-1.10
Mo - 0.15-0.25
So with a total non-iron content of 2.717, even if we assigned exactly zero weight to those elements, we've only saved 2.7%.
Specific gravity:
Fe - 7.6-7.9
C - 2.26
Mn - 7.61
P - 2.34
S - 4.31
Si - 2.33
Ni - 8.9
Cr - 7.19
Mo - 10.22
( ref: http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra.html )
Carbon and silicon are the only lightweight elements added and those total 0.78% max. And they strill weight more than zero, so that's less than 0.5% weight reduction.
Now be sure to compare that to a mild steel, say a 1030:
C - 0.28-0.34
Mn - 0.6-0.9
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Let's also look at a 4340:
C - 0.38-0.43
Mn - 0.60-.080
P - 0.040 Max
S - 0.040 Max
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 1.65-2.00
Cr - 0.70-0.90
Mo - 0.20-0.30
So for 4340, with it's higher Ni and Mo content, it will weight MORE than 4130. I didn't count the extra 0.10% of carbon though.
I didn't do the exact math, but it may actually be heavier as Mo is MUCH heavier than iron. And to me "light weight alloy" means something in the 10-25% lighter range and it's certainly not 10% less. More like 1%??
Here's the facts I have:
Percent alloy elements (mixed into the iron):
4130:
C - 0.28-0.33
Mn - 0.40-0.60
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 0.007 (max)
Cr - 0.80-1.10
Mo - 0.15-0.25
So with a total non-iron content of 2.717, even if we assigned exactly zero weight to those elements, we've only saved 2.7%.
Specific gravity:
Fe - 7.6-7.9
C - 2.26
Mn - 7.61
P - 2.34
S - 4.31
Si - 2.33
Ni - 8.9
Cr - 7.19
Mo - 10.22
( ref: http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra.html )
Carbon and silicon are the only lightweight elements added and those total 0.78% max. And they strill weight more than zero, so that's less than 0.5% weight reduction.
Now be sure to compare that to a mild steel, say a 1030:
C - 0.28-0.34
Mn - 0.6-0.9
P - 0.040 (Max)
S - 0.040 (Max)
Let's also look at a 4340:
C - 0.38-0.43
Mn - 0.60-.080
P - 0.040 Max
S - 0.040 Max
Si - 0.20-0.35
Ni - 1.65-2.00
Cr - 0.70-0.90
Mo - 0.20-0.30
So for 4340, with it's higher Ni and Mo content, it will weight MORE than 4130. I didn't count the extra 0.10% of carbon though.
I didn't do the exact math, but it may actually be heavier as Mo is MUCH heavier than iron. And to me "light weight alloy" means something in the 10-25% lighter range and it's certainly not 10% less. More like 1%??
I do not know what alloy Porsche uses - I was only stating that they have used aluminum lugnuts since the first 930, , circa 1975? And they seem to live just fine in normal automotive use with impact gns and all.
I seriously doubt that an (your?) M16 upper ever gets above 250F (barrel? yes, receiver? No), and it it was a 7075-T6, it would certainly have lost it's T6 aging spec hardness level if it ever did. I have measured some lugnuts (on real race cars) at over 350F - so 7075-T6 would be inappropriate for that usage.
I seriously doubt that an (your?) M16 upper ever gets above 250F (barrel? yes, receiver? No), and it it was a 7075-T6, it would certainly have lost it's T6 aging spec hardness level if it ever did. I have measured some lugnuts (on real race cars) at over 350F - so 7075-T6 would be inappropriate for that usage.
Aug 1, 2011, 07:58 AM
#41
http://www.speedelement.com/index.ph...emart&Itemid=1
The nice thing is that I only need a 17mm deep socket, which isnt hard to find should I lose or break a socket when Im messing around my car at the track.
Aug 1, 2011, 09:34 AM
#42
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't have anything to do with percent metals directly; has to do with density.
Go get a scale and a 1"x1"x1" chunk of 1030 and 4130 and then tell me which one is lighter.
And it's common knowledge amongst anyone who work with metals and even people that don't that chromoly is lighter than most steels. I learned this I think when I was 15 or 16? I'm 27 now.
So what makes it lighter? If 4130 was a higher density it would weight MORE.
The entire receiver is 7075. And does it? IDK, I've never shot one, let alone measured the temp.... I'm just stating facts here. I'll have to check later today about specs on 7075.
I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through both [assorted] AR15 models and Colt M16s. The upper receiver handle never got too hot to touch, btw. The barrel, otoh, got quite hot (like >600F after a hundred rounds.
Aug 1, 2011, 12:26 PM
#43
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Good Job Dave Man
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ - on a strength-per-pound basis, it is stronger, but on a size-to-size basis is IS NOT lighter! It's still 97+% iron.
If 4130 was a higher density it would weight MORE.
Chromoly is lighter. I'm done.
Aug 1, 2011, 12:33 PM
#44
^
I seriously doubt that anyone here thinks they're gonna see any performance difference just from one small weight reduction. However 100 small weight reductions will indeed yield significant results.
And getting an EVO down to 3000 would be a massive performance improvement, especially for an X.
I seriously doubt that anyone here thinks they're gonna see any performance difference just from one small weight reduction. However 100 small weight reductions will indeed yield significant results.
And getting an EVO down to 3000 would be a massive performance improvement, especially for an X.
I use the number pad, and I may or may not have fat fingers.My opinion still stands, though. 1 lb is not enough to worry about. If you're talking about several 5-10 lb weight reductions, sure, that can add up. There are many legit reasons to swap lug nuts. Weight savings is not one of them in my opinion.
Although, this thread has now turned into an in-depth tech discussion on various metals...
Aug 1, 2011, 02:02 PM
#45
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chromoly is lighter. I'm done.
Some specifications:
AISI 1030:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/allo...%20AISI%201030
AISI 4130:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/allo...le=AISI%204130
AISI 4340:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/allo...le=aisi%204340
AISI 8620:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/allo...le=AISI%208620
All of the above - from the same supplier so as to not quote different sources - have same same weight spec.