Subject: Re: [Fot] INITIAL PRODUCT OFFERING. REAR MOUNT TR3/TR4

From: Joe Alexander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:48:33 -0500

I sent Terry the design of the A.R.E. Mount. I also indicated that I
understood his first two paragraphs.

I asked for a clarification of the third paragraph as I didn't understand what
he was asking.

I did share that we experienced no increase in driveline vibration.

We have not tried this design in our street TRs yet, but have the expectation
that this 40 durometer rear mount will perform well.

It is clear that Terry has a very wide range of experience in body and frame
isolation. There is certainly something to be learned and will be looking
forward to his reply.

Any other points of discussion?

Joe A
Sent from my iPad

On May 21, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "Enquiries Road & Track"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Joe
>
> i get involved with urethane & hard rubber mounts on a  daily basis.
> my impression of urethane mounts is they are fine in race cars and
> crappy elsewhere as they just don't have the resilience of rubber, so
> they transmit a lot of vibrations that rubber mounts absorb. we have
> experimented here with all sorts and grades of both rubber and
> urethane.
>
> we have removed really hard urethane mounts from modern race/rally
> cars as they been a major factor in fatigue cracking the steel
> bodywork where the mounting plate affixes. notable examples are Toyota
> GT4 and Mitsu Evo lancer, where we have changed to custom rubber
> mounts (harder duro, different voiding compared with factory) and
> totally solved the mount problems
>
> whilst i understand the TR is a lot sturdier than these 2 examples,
> and the same is unlikely to occur, can you please comment on the
> vibration aspects in respect to what you have planned for the TR rear
> mount.
>
> thanks
>
> Terry
> _______________________________________________
> [email-masked]
>
> http://www.fot-racing.com
>
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

---

From: "Enquiries Road & Track" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:40:28 +1000

joe, i think you have answered the question by saying you have not
experienced a rise in vibrations with this soft (40 duro) urethane
mount.

design looks good with what appears to be adequate segregation of the
internal metal components. my experience suggests you need at least
5-6 mm of urethane all around the support plates for the bolts. this
allows enough internal movement before the urethane  goes into
compression "lock-up" eg, as the box rocks around on start up).

mounts like this are typically "tuned" by changing the location, size
and shape of voids cast into the urethane in the lower part. this is
the step that most custom mount makers ignore , but what separates a
really good design from the rest. this will only come from real life
experiences or ideally, from setting up accelerometers on the box and
doing tests on various designs.

good luck, i'll buy one when ready. keep me in the loop

Terry

On 22 May 2013 08:48, Joe Alexander <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I sent Terry the design of the A.R.E. Mount. I also indicated that I understood his first two paragraphs.
>
> I asked for a clarification of the third paragraph as I didn't understand what he was asking.
>
> We have not tried this design in our street TRs yet, but have the expectation that this 40 durometer rear mount will perform well.
>
> It is clear that Terry has a very wide range of experience in body and frame isolation. There is certainly something to be learned and will be looking forward to his reply.
>
> On May 21, 2013, at 4:55 PM, "Enquiries Road & Track" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Joe
>>
>> Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]

---

From: Joe Alexander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:06:33 -0500

Thank you very much. Sean has good experience in mold fixture design, thus the
ability to produce a somewhat intuitive design to overcome a frequent
problem.

The mention of "voids" in the design is duly noted for tuning.

So far, the response for product is well past the first 10 that was offered
and I am sure Sean is mulling over the production quantity for the next run.

If anyone else wishes to see a picture of the finished product and a computer
isometric view of the mechanical parts, just ask.

Thanks again, Terry, for the review of the components and insights we had no
prior knowledge of.

Best Regards,

Joe A.                           WAY TO GO, Sean!

Sent from my iPad

>> We have not tried this design in our street TRs yet, but have the
expectation that this 40 durometer rear mount will perform well.
>>
>> It is clear that Terry has a very wide range of experience in body and
frame isolation. There is certainly something to be learned and will be
looking forward to his reply.

---

From: Bill Babcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:08:32 -0700

Something tells me it will be better than my usual practice of welding the
plates together. I haven't noticed what Tony Garmey has done for mounts, but
Peyote used to be solid mounts in all three corners. I suspect Tony tossed
that away long ago.

On May 21, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Joe Alexander <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]

---

From: Bob Kramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:42:29 -0500

I have used the TRF HD tranny mounts with the cavity filled with automotive
silicone successfully now for years. Welded mounts used with racing engine
mounts caused float bowl issues for me. The silicone acts like the gel in
running shoes, absorbs a lot of harmonics.

Bob Kramer
Sent from my iPhone

On May 22, 2013, at 1:08 AM, Bill Babcock <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> I asked for a clarification of the third paragraph as I didn't
understand
>> what he was asking.
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

---

From: "J. Wagner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:14:16 -0700

> I like Bob's idea of injecting the void with silicone.
>
> On my street TR4A, many years ago, I trimmed and punched holes in piece of
brass shim stock that I put between the rear trans mount and tranny like a
gasket, but left a few inches of material hanging out along the front edge
that I strategically bent down to create an oil shield from the oil the
inevitably makes its way through the drain hole just below the clutch and
whatever other sources of motor oil that makes its way to this area.  It has
kept my rear mount bone dry for years.   I believe this has increased the life
of the mount quite significantly by keeping the degrading properties of oil
off the natural rubber.  Before this, it seems like I replaced a lot of mounts
on various Triumphs I have owned not so much from dry-cracking as much as
simply dissolving!
> Food for thought.
>
> I'm very curious to hear more about Joe's new rear mount.
>
> --Justin
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Bob Kramer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>