Nice!.. what does it weigh? since their handy might as well throw the v2 on the scale also and post it up..My new core is 6" thick. My V2 is 3" thick. The double wide V2 is 6" thick.
My goal is to get to 160 trap speed or whatever it takes for mid to low 8 pass.
AG
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My original is a V1 or V2. To be honest I get confused on what one it actually is but its the largest single they made and the larger double wide is the same core but 2 put together. So with that being said my original one is 30 lbs, Feedback from a friend with the double wide says its 58 lbs, and the preliminary data I have predicts about 60 lbs for my new assembly.Nice!.. what does it weigh? since their handy might as well throw the v2 on the scale also and post it up..
Cool stuff ! ...my v2 is 13"h 23"w 3"dMy original is a V1 or V2. To be honest I get confused on what one it actually is but its the largest single they made and the larger double wide is the same core but 2 put together. So with that being said my original one is 30 lbs, Feedback from a friend with the double wide says its 58 lbs, and the preliminary data I have predicts about 60 lbs for my new assembly.
AG.
Mine is 16"h 26"w 3"d so I guess I have no idea. Was told it was a CAS V whatever.Cool stuff ! ...my v2 is 13"h 23"w 3"d
I think the v1 was 16"h 25"w 4.5"d
and there was a V3 that I think was the double core 6" deep but they weren't mass produced so im not 100% sure.
Their was probably a few variations of each through the years since they were custom built cores.Mine is 16"h 26"w 3"d so I guess I have no idea. Was told it was a CAS V whatever.
AG
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AG, just for grins I assumed that the top rectangular plate on your IC is 6x12", edges rigidly supported since they're all welded, thickness 0.187", and at 40 psi I get a deflection in the center of that section of 0.03" and a peak stress at the center of the 6" edges of 20,000 psi which is about half of the "book" tensile strength (depending on the alloy), not counting the loss you will get from the weld, which could be up to 50% depending on the alloy and initial heat treat/work hardening. The peak stress of the deflection from each sloped plate will also be in the middle of the same 6" weld seam, and the welds will be the weak spots compared to the base metal. The sides should be weaker since they are larger but my simple calculator doesn't do trapezoids . It probably won't permanently deform the first time you pressurize it, but I would be worried about how many (or few) cycles it will take to start a crack - keep a sharp eye on those welds where the sloped ends join the center flat. The tanks on the other end will be stronger since all the individual sections are much smaller, but this large tank has me concerned. If you don't start your pressure testing with water, at least please set up a micrometer on the middle of those 6" long welds so you can see if the tanks are bulging down at 10-20 psi. Does the 3D CAD program you are using also do stress and deflection calculations? Oh, going to 0.25" plate will cut the deflection by almost a factor of three, to about 0.013", and the peak stress in half, to about 12,000 psi, which will greatly help your safety margin on the large tank.
My simple way of thinking would be if possible to clearance the grill to the intercooler, instead of redesigning the top tank for clearance.I'm going to do some minor redesigning of the top tank anyway to angle the front piece back to give more clearance to the grill. I think I can come up with an interlocking braces for the outside to give it some rigidity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This based on my concept model....
View attachment 270695 View attachment 270696 View attachment 270697
It looks like it would possible fit as-is but I'm not sure if its worth taking chances. a 6" core has fit in this space before and my design fits within that same box.My simple way of thinking would be if possible to clearance the grill to the intercooler, instead of redesigning the top tank for clearance.
Don't know, there ae a lot of unknowns. This design was to maximize cooling efficiency to support 1400 FWHP as the first design was a compromise to reduce pressure drop at the expense of some cooling efficiency and better suited fo alky cars. Not to say the first design wouldn't work but they both have similar flow capability but the first just won't cool as well.The flow path is very different from your first design. I would imagine this was to keep from cutting the core support as most guys (myself include) wouldn't want to cut it. Do you think that the overall efficiency has changed a little due to the direction change in the upper tank?