Foaming the chassis

[three28]

Sat in Lee's ride ...and boy is there a difference . I would like to do it too.. but hey wait for budget.

Its worth the dough mates

 

[The Necessary]

Originally posted by Lee36328@Jun 9 2005, 09:00 PM
I don't hear anyone talking about crumple zones where antiroll bar and struts bar are concerned...

Yes, the engineers made the car with certain parameters in their calculation and doing anything to the car will alter those parameters.

The same can be said to :
1. changing the airfilter
2. changing the engine
3. changing the suspension
4. changing the brakes
5. changing the exhaust
6. driving with a bad mood
7. ad nauseum

In short, if you alter anything, the calculations are out.

Secondly, I would be mightily impressed if the lowly foam is stronger than steel to the extent that the crumple zones are shifted inwards, in which case, I would feel safer, since I've effectively strengthened the passenger compartment by foaming the A and B pillars...

For the aggressive driver, an foamed car will actually need the crumple zone less since foaming helps with handling.

In the case of the Alfa 156,
1. insulation is not the main benefit of the foam. If you foam a noisy lorry, you will unlikely to notice any improvement in noise insulation
2. I don't drive a 156. It worked beautifully on my e36 though...

Sit in two cars of the same model, foamed and unfoamed. Beats hearsay and imaginative theorising anytime for accuracy.

Cheers!

Anti roll bars?! Do you even know where they go? OK, now that you've googled the location, how about explaining to me how stiffer/bigger anti roll bars will affect crumple zones.

Oh, same goes for strut braces.

THINK about it (I wish I could draw a diagram now!)- crumple zones act from North to South (from the front, assuming North is the front and South the rear) and South to North. How would a bar whose main directional strength is running from East to West (and/or West to East) have much effect/affect on crumple zones? Duh!

Please allow be to address your nonsensical concerns respectively, point by point.

1. OK, *this* I REALLY don't get- how does an air filter change affect the safety structure of your car?!?!?!

2. I don't think any manufacturer or engineer in their right mind WOULD EVER RECCOMMEND you changing your engine beyond a direct replacement. YES! OF COURSE THAT WILL DRASTICALLY F.UCK UP ANY CALCULATIONS/PARAMETERS/TESTING. DUH!!!!

3....

You know what, I will stop here, because modding your car is a good metaphor (as with ALL things in life), about DOING THINGS RIGHT.

OF COURSE if you do a chop shop special with your brakes/engine/exhaust/suspension, IT WILL F.UCK up.

One way we try and assure ourselves that the mods done to our cars won't f.uck up our cars is by buying original products from reputable manufactuerers and getting them installed by trusted mechanics who know their stuff.

IT'S ALL ABOUT DOING THINGS RIGHT!

Sorry, but who and what has done any research on how the foam will affect your crumple zones...? Yup, that's right, ME *and* YOU, such reputable sources. You trust me? No. You trust yourself? I advise you not to.

BTW, you compound your ignorance once more by insisting that the A and B pillars will help with passenger compartment strength... ONLY IN A ROLL OVER. I'm sure your legs and groin will thank you when the front fire-wall of your car is rammed into them BECAUSE YOUR CRUMPLE ZONES DID NOT WORK. *Sigh*

Lee, since you are so assured of your aggressive driving ability now that you've foamed your car, please allow me to suggest that you remove all safety equipment (not relating to chassis stiffness of course!)- like your airbags (pah! who needs them with foaming!), smaller brakes (no need to brake so much into corners anymore mah!) and etc, etc.

Lastly, your foamed crumple zones are NOT shifted inwards, they are where they are, it's just that the foam has and will impede their function if/when (I'm hoping never) they are needed to absorb the energy of a crash. Of course the foam is not as "strong" as steel, but as I have iterated in my above posting, have you ever thought what makes the foam so effective in stiffning up your chassis? If it IS so effective... well... it's gotta be "strong" in some ways, right? If not it wouldn't work? DUH?

Sure, it's your ride, and it's your life, just thought I'd encourage some RESPONSIBLE thinking out there before some other person gets hyped to foam their car into a stiff, but energy absorbingly useless chassis.

 

[koryong]

Was wondering when this thread would start to get interesting .... Now it has ...... zzzznngg ...... I hear lightsabres .....

 

[fabianyee]

hahahaha.... good debate coming...

Personally, I would say it will affect the crumple zone of the car... the filled up beams which is meant to crumple upon impact wouldn't have the space to crumple since the hollow space has been filled up... This is bearing in mind the foaming was done to the front and rear..

As for the foaming on the door sills and B-pillar, this would strenghten the chassis....

Good to have a critical and constructive debate but please keep it cool....

 

[Jipster]

The Necc,

"Anti roll bars?! Do you even know where they go? OK, now that you've googled the location, how about explaining to me how stiffer/bigger anti roll bars will affect crumple zones........"

Why the need to go down this path?

Mr Lee is responding to your post. Just point out where he got it wrong-lah.....no need to diss him and attack his intelligence and all.....thats un-necessary (pun intended)...

Both of you have a point....argue it out-lah like any sensible, intelligent person....no need to put people down etc. :yes:

 

[Lee36328]

I'm afraid a lot of unnecessary energy (pun intended) was wasted at the keyboard over one single misunderstood point.

I recall I said the following...

"Yes, the engineers made the car with certain parameters in their calculation and doing anything to the car will alter those parameters .

The same can be said to :
1...
2...
3..."

I was referring to all parameters in the construction of the car, not just crumple zones .

However, I am astonished at extent of your reaction over this... I am picking up points in your posting worth responding to, while attributing the rest to you simply having a bad day...

Next, "I don't hear anyone talking about crumple zones where antiroll bar and struts bar are concerned..." Thanks for your informative discourse on north-south crumple zones. My thinking is, if the impact is entirely 100% from the front, or 100% from the back, you are entirely right in your eloquent elaboration. I'm just wondering how the arb and struts bar will distort the force of an impact coming at an angle. Pardon me if my thoughts are unwarranted, since I am not an automotive engineer, which I presume you are, by the fury of your righteous indignation that anyone dares to have an opinion on your declarations.

By the way, you'd be happy to know, my legs and groin happen to agree with you. They are now not talking to me until I revert to a Japanese or Korean car, with suitably large crumple zones. Come to think of it, the entire car is nothing but a crumple zone.

Although I am no expert in crumple zones, I do know how to have a disagreement with a modicum of civility befitting a BMW forum, something for which one does not require an engineering degree...

 

[The Necessary]

Lee, if I didn't CARE for your health and the health of any other forummer who would blindly follow your advice, I would not have exhibited half the passion I did.

Civility is highly over rated- and why and how does owning a BMW make one supposedly more civil? Wow, I MUST be really going up the social ladder if and when I get a Porsche! Ya right!

Oh, and ignorance in others reallys irritates me... surely, any man capable of owning a BMW would be more intelligent than that... right? (Hey, how about this as a pre-requisite of owning a BMW- not high brow civillity- but intelligence!)

About your point about engineered "parameters"... well, I did respond eloquently to that by saying that you must DO THINGS RIGHT. Ie., buy TuV approved products, etc. Of course no engineer, except god, can design a product that will be safe in EVERY situation, but in the absence of totality, we should not accept anything less than thoroughness.

Now, about wantonly foaming your entire chassis... do you believe it was DONE RIGHT?

Also, with most things in life, one must think about COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES.

Now, IF foaming was the bee's knees, WHY would BMW (amongst others) spend untold millions of Euros developing ever newer, lighter, chassis to underpin their cars, and in the process of doing so, NEVER using foaming to the extent that it's been used by you? Surely, the technology is not new nor patented, and the costs are not high.

Now, they (major automotive manufacturers) have not used foaming extensively (I know about the join between pillars and chassis bits, but that's cos welding compromises the strengh of the metals), one must ask: WHY.

Now, Lee, have you asked yourself that question?

 

[musclehedz]

Foaming was never meant to stiffen the chassis for the cause of the product. It was towards ICE applications for sound damping.

To use foaming for the cause of handling issues..my suggestion is NO.

To use foaming for the cause of ICE applications..I say YES.

Anyway, each individual has got his/her own opinion. Nobody said that you can't foam your car for whatever reason. Hey, it's your car, do whatever you want with it. My 2 cents, just do some research on the product first and decide if you want to do it after that.

 

[Lee36328]

Originally posted by The Necessary@Jun 13 2005, 04:05 PM
Lee, if I didn't CARE for your health and the health of any other forummer who would blindly follow your advice, I would not have exhibited half the passion I did.

Civility is highly over rated- and why and how does owning a BMW make one supposedly more civil? Wow, I MUST be really going up the social ladder if and when I get a Porsche! Ya right!

Oh, and ignorance in others reallys irritates me... surely, any man capable of owning a BMW would be more intelligent than that... right? (Hey, how about this as a pre-requisite of owning a BMW- not high brow civillity- but intelligence!)

About your point about engineered "parameters"... well, I did respond eloquently to that by saying that you must DO THINGS RIGHT. Ie., buy TuV approved products, etc. Of course no engineer, except god, can design a product that will be safe in EVERY situation, but in the absence of totality, we should not accept anything less than thoroughness.

Now, about wantonly foaming your entire chassis... do you believe it was DONE RIGHT?

Also, with most things in life, one must think about COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES.

Now, IF foaming was the bee's knees, WHY would BMW (amongst others) spend untold millions of Euros developing ever newer, lighter, chassis to underpin their cars, and in the process of doing so, NEVER using foaming to the extent that it's been used by you? Surely, the technology is not new nor patented, and the costs are not high.

Now, they (major automotive manufacturers) have not used foaming extensively (I know about the join between pillars and chassis bits, but that's cos welding compromises the strengh of the metals), one must ask: WHY.

Now, Lee, have you asked yourself that question?

The Necessary,

Am pleased to see you have moderated your response to a level that actually conveys your point passionately without crossing the line into being what some may find a tad obnoxious and therefore blurring the point you are trying to make, and I look forward to a constructive discussion.

Your points are indeed valid, and I have been giving the matter a great deal of thought. Your concern about the SAFETY of the members as the main driver of your passionate argument is indeed laudable, and I applaud you and support you wholeheartedly on this concern. For instance, I too am of the personal opinion that DIY in various areas of the MODding (including foaming, where the earlier part fo this thread discussed sourcing their own foam and injecting it DIY), must be undertaken w great care in order not to compromise the car, and I would not install things in my car that I didn't understand or not convinced that they work or performed by anyone other than people who know what they are doing... so, admirable motivation indeed, my fellow forummer.

And by the way, both civility and intelligence are desirable regardless of make or brand, but certainly, if this was TOKKINGKOK.COM, I can dish out the colourful expletives just as well as I can receive them. Civility is simply part of being civilised and is a hallmark of intelligence as well, not just to be highbrow or to show off... but then that's just my opinion.

Back to the topic at hand, I do indeed see where your point is valid. Strengthening the chassis excessively would affect how it behaves during impact. At different impact force/speed, the safe/ideal crumple zone strength would be different (as far as I can tell from my googling, not claiming to be expert here). For instance, a crumple zone which withstands up to 40 kmh at impact would be inadequate at say 100 kmh, i.e., too soft. Therefore, I postulate that the limited extra strength, and very minimal weight, of the foam in the front part of the chassis, would increase the strength of the crumple zone only marginally, making it withstand slightly higher impact force. PROVIDED that the front chassis in the crumple zone if UNIFORMLY STRENGTHENED, the predesigned crumple points should not move, but only crumple under slightly increased force.

Secondly, if only the front of the chassis, within the crumple zone, was foamed, or if the foaming was incomplete with trapped air pockets at several points of the chassis, then you are right in the arguments you raised. The chassis always seeks the weakest point to bend in an impact, and these points are pre-loaded as part of the crumple zone design, and foaming it this way may compromise that design.

I actually discussed this with the dealer prior to foaming my chassis. The following diagram is loaded for illustration. (I'll get a better diagram shortly where I'll illustrate the parts that were actually foamed, and we can both see and form an opinion on it.) I was convinced at the completeness and thoroughness of the foaming in that the chassis is strengthened uniformly from front to end, but we shall see. I'll revisit this point again with the supplier.

You're right to say the manufacturers actually also use foaming to a limited extent. I have come across this as well. But to use your argument that if it were so good, why aren't all manufacturers using it extensively and completely, one could say the same about (and here we go again)... performance air filter, voltage stabilizer, grounding cable, iridium spark plugs, etc... one gets the drift. I happen to use all the products, and can see and feel the difference in performance, fuel consumption, smoothness of revving, etc, to various degrees of effectiveness. So, just because the manufacturers are just using foaming lightly in some areas does not automatically mean we can't improve upon it further by using it more. If the manufacturers are not using foaming at all, this point would be strengthened, actually.

Finally, bear in mind that the extent and location of foaming is the CUSTOMER'S choice, a point which may have been obscured in our discussion. I believe in it, and thus foamed every foamable part (except the c-pillar, where I believe the foaming wud not help that much). The customer can pick and choose where to foam, according to preference and budget and degree of 'wantoness'. By all means avoid the crumple zone if in doubt. :dunno: Or, if in greater doubt, avoid foaming altogether... the customer's choice.... which is the great thing about our free society.

Thanks for the debate, which serves to shed more light on an interesting topic, and hopefully others can benefit as well from what we've been discussing.

Musclehedz, foaming for ICE??? And not for handling??? Are you kidding me??? I think it's time i take you for a ride in my car again... :yes:

 

[kevster30]

For you DIY heads,

Just did it do my ride over the weekend. Purchased 4 cans and went to work on me ride.

I went down the simple route, just removed the kick panels on the door sills and injected the foam through the existing holes. Once the foam started to saturate(ooze out), I just replaced the panels.

The Verdict: Definate improvement in the handling as I find the turn in to be more responsive. NVH has reduced by about 15-20%.

BTW, I just did the side sills, no A, B, or C pillar. Will I go on? I think that I will stop here for now as I was looking for improvement in handling but the reduction in NVH was a nice bonus.

Would I recommend foaming? YES!!

Lee and Neccessary, both of you take a chill pill....both you gentlemen have VERY valid opinions and facts but one man's meat can be another's poison.......why can't we all just get along?

One more point I would like to share with all:

The EFFECTIVENESS of any mod to any car is SUBJECTIVE, and some butt dynos are more sensitive than others....so there.....

 

[Lee36328]

Welcome to the world of foaming, mr vice president...

Ur chassis should get even HARDER in the coming two weeks (two weeks to cure in total...)

As in all things in life, it's more fun when it gets hard...

 

[kevster30]

Originally posted by Lee36328@Jun 15 2005, 12:44 AM
Welcome to the world of foaming, mr vice president...

Ur chassis should get even HARDER in the coming two weeks (two weeks to cure in total...)

As in all things in life, it's more fun when it gets hard...

 

[The Necessary]

Lee,

your logic is sound, but wrong. What you fail to see is the knock on effects of stiffening the front sub-chassis, a crumple zone, on the rest of the car. Specifically the passenger cell.

Yes, your "stiffened" crumple zone *MAY* now work at a higher level of impact (in a way that we cannot determine), but what happens aft of that? Have you also strengthened or stiffened all respective parts/components related to your now "stronger" (we cannot tell) crumple zone?

Please, foamed door sills and A/B/C pillars do not strengthen the passenger cell agaisnt frontal or rearwards collisions. Thery *MAY* work in certain roll over and/or side impacts.

Hence, I do believe that you have not "Done It Right", and not enough research has gone into this mod.

As for the rest of your mods, like Kev says, it is all VERY VERY subjective- stick it on a (still very subjective) dyno and lets see the results, if any.

As for your arguements about why don't manufactuerers use these "wonder" products, let me give you a little example; Stainless Steel vs. Rubber Brake Lines.

Now, WHY don't manufactuerers use SS brake lines? Because Federal (that's US law) dictates that all brake lines must survive a 100,000mile fatigue test, something that SS lines will never do.

But did you know that?

Hmmm...

 

[kevster30]

One man's mod is another man's snake oil..........hehehehe

 

[Lee36328]

Originally posted by The Necessary@Jun 15 2005, 04:22 PM
...As for your arguements about why don't manufactuerers use these "wonder" products, let me give you a little example; Stainless Steel vs. Rubber Brake Lines.

Now, WHY don't manufactuerers use SS brake lines? Because Federal (that's US law) dictates that all brake lines must survive a 100,000mile fatigue test, something that SS lines will never do.

But did you know that?

Hmmm...

The Necessary,

u r right, I have not done enough research on the issue of foaming the crumple zone part of the front and back chassis, so you win, my good sir. :beaten: (ego inflates)

And, u r right again, I did not know that fascinating tidbit on the SS brake lines.... wow, you have really put me to shame... :beaten: again... (ego inflates even bigger...)

But, I take solace in the fact that at least I know what the Sports mode button in my car does.... * cabut * (after hearing the popping sound)

(Before u flame me for the above, I've noticed we have some mutual friends, & someone i trust n respect said u r a decent bloke... we just have different opinions and different styles of expressing it... :yes: )

 

[E34EuroTouring]

TN,

Crumple zone are designed to *absorb* energy. Now, I think it does a BETTER job abosrbing such impact energy by being supported by the foam which are compressible and not hard structured as steel or raw iron tubing.

This is like landing on a matress as opposed to a solid slab of rubber!.

Take the case of the Carbon fibre noise cone of an F1 car. It takes ALL the energy of 40 tons (Yes: FORTY tons) of force in its "dispersion design" when the lattice structure of the CF material breaks upon impact. Just amazing!. This does not even give a scratch to a solid concrete wall during testing. Amazing. The wall dispersed it energy inwards without breaking due to its steel-reinforced strength.

So I think Chassis Foaming is a GOOD thing for safety too. Another reason to have it done!.

 

[Lee36328]

Originally posted by kevster30@Jun 15 2005, 04:25 PM
One man's mod is another man's snake oil..........hehehehe

Kevster,

tsk, tsk, tsk.... :angry:

You notty boy.... wantonly and recklessly foaming your chassis... have you even done sufficient research as to the effect this has on your exquisitely German engineered chassis? If not, you have not DONE IT RIGHT! Not to mention any possible knock-on effect on your crumple zone. If i do not passionately care about the safety of you and your loved ones, would I even bother? For all I know, you are probably even using... using... using... STAINLESS STEEL BRAKE HOSE AS WELL! Do you know that they can't last beyond 100,000 km? Hmmm? Call urself a vp summore... tsk tsk...



(removing tongue from cheek...)

what wud we do without the entertainment that the forum provides us, I wonder...

 

[E34EuroTouring]

Lee,

You are a *big* man to write your closing on the issue. Hey, none of us are Class A Automotive structural engineers right ?.

We are consumers of all things automotive to fulfill our desires with our interest/passion/sport/whatever. So mostly things that makes sense, we can accept. You have great points and a great car which you enjoy very much and loved to share your job of having foamed your car.

I would do exactly the same, especially when you can tell the difference both on the road and on track. Great investment and very wise decision.

When some discussion turns sour, its always disheartening. Lets just move on.

Oh... I just have a thought. Maybe its a good idea to foam the darn house, that will stop creaking on the floor boards and stop those dreaded cocroaches hiding in the crevices....

 

[2cents]

...we just have different opinions and different styles of expressing it... )

And it is also very necessary to remember not to be rude, berate, impatient, loud & opinionated while expressing different opinion. :lol: :rofl:

 

[kevster30]

Originally posted by Lee36328+Jun 15 2005, 03:50 AM-->QUOTE (Lee36328 @ Jun 15 2005, 03:50 AM)