Forced Induction Buyer's Guide | $5,000 +/- (otd) | Daily Driver Spec

[mike the snake]

I just ordered and will be running the Drift Armor Drift bar.

It doesn't look like the OEM crash beam does much anyways after watching that video.

Isn't the crash beam for low speed protection? Like 5mph and under?

Originally Posted by tendogy

It's everyone's right to take their own risks with their own car, for sure. Having said that, there is no way I would ever replace the OEM beam with a steel tube.

Three reasons:

1) No testing. This community goes on and on about whether or not performance claims have been track tested, heat-soak tested, tested on e85, tested at altitude, etc etc etc. But then we're willing to slap a $150 piece of steel tube with zero testing on our car and trust it to protect us in a collision? That's super crazy.

2) The device does not even claim to offer occupant collision protection. First, it's called a "Drift Bar" not a "Crash Beam." Second, the product description says nothing about occupant protection:



I take that to mean that it offers protection to front-end components at very low speeds, but claims no ability to distribute offset frontal crash loads.

3) There are so many FI options for this car that retain the OEM crash beam, why would you choose one that introduces collision protection concerns? Full Blown has specifically stated:



I don't know. Like I said, everyone can obviously choose for themselves, but to me Power is the #2 priority and Occupant Protection is the #1 priority.

[SmsAlSuwaidi]

Originally Posted by mike the snake

I just ordered and will be running the Drift Armor Drift bar.

It doesn't look like the OEM crash beam does much anyways after watching that video.

Isn't the crash beam for low speed protection? Like 5mph and under?

It is for low speed impact


Sent from my IBrick

[protpibe]

I've had that beam off my car and if definitely doesnt feel like low speed impact to me. That steel is pretty heavy grade. I'm not an engineer, but it seems like it's meant to direct the impact around the engine bay and into the unibody.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by protpibe

I've had that beam off my car and if definitely doesnt feel like low speed impact to me. That steel is pretty heavy grade. I'm not an engineer, but it seems like it's meant to direct the impact around the engine bay and into the unibody.

Exactly, I'm pretty sure there is a small crumple zone behind the crash bar to take some of the force, while the crumple zones around the sides of the engine bay are taking the brunt of the force of impact, due to the slight curve of the crash bar. But, this bar can only do so much. I'd rather have a kit that works around the car rather than having to unsafely structurally modify the car to make power gains.

[tendogy]

Originally Posted by mike the snake

It doesn't look like the OEM crash beam does much anyways after watching that video.

Isn't the crash beam for low speed protection? Like 5mph and under?

Originally Posted by SmsAlSuwaidi

It is for low speed impact

No, that is incredibly incorrect. In a 35 mph collision, the failure of the front crash beam results in the passenger cabin receiving 40% more energy than it would otherwise.

Originally Posted by protpibe

I'm not an engineer, but it seems like it's meant to direct the impact around the engine bay and into the unibody.

Winner winner chicken dinner. I posted a link to a paper by Toyota on this very topic back on page 3. I'll just go ahead and unpack the whole thing here, so gather round the campfire, put a wienie over the fire, and listen to the terrible tale of the ghost of Crash Beam hollow.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv.../07-0105-O.pdf This is a paper by Toyota, published by the NHTSA. It discusses how crash energy is absorbed in a small car v big car collision as compared to a small car v SUV collision. Specifically, often a small car's front crash beam will be lower than the SUV's front crash beam and the resulting collision will occur as if the crash beam was not present at all (or, for our purposes, replaced with a worthless piece of steel tube).

First, let me just address Mike's comment that the crash beam does not seem to be doing anything in the video. This is a good observation, but I think what you meant is that the crash beam appears to be smashed like a worthless pancake. Being smashed like a pancake is actually one of the two major roles performed by the front crash beam!

Crash members, here, mean members that carry crash load and dissipate kinetic energy.

So the front "crash member" has two jobs: carry crash loads and dissipate kinetic energy.

To explain a crash phenomenon simply, momentum of a vehicle decreases by a reaction force that is generated in the crash of both vehicles. The reaction force is determined by a structural strength or inertia force of the vehicle. This force deforms the vehicle structures. The deformation continues until the kinetic energy of the vehicles is reduced to the final quantity that is determined according to physical law. In a crash event, the vehicles absorb the kinetic energy as deformation energy.

There were a lot of math-y terms in there, so I bolded the easy-to-read summary at the end. The long and short of it is that when your FR-S is going down the street it has a bunch of kinetic energy and when it runs into something then all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and when it goes into the car it deforms the car. This is non-negotiable, we can not change this.

What we can change is where the energy goes and what gets deformed.

The energy should be absorbed before the cabin to help minimize the intrusion. ... In general, the vehicle front should be designed as an energy absorbing area to absorb the energy effectively.

No kidding! Ideally it is not your face or your femur doing the deforming!

So this is pretty basic. When you are in a frontal collision in the FR-S, there are three or four feet between your knees and the point of impact. If you don't want your knees to absorb "deformation energy" then you want as much of that energy to be absorbed in those three or four feet as possible, right?

When a small car hits an SUV, there is about 210 kJ of energy to dispense between the two of them. Kilojoules are an odd measurement for us, if you convert it to a gear-head measurement, you get 154,896 ft/lbs. That's a lot of energy

That's where the job of dissipating crash energy comes into play. In the videos, yes, you can see the crash beam getting smushed. It is called a "crumple zone" because its job is to absorb energy by being crumpled in an energy-draining method. This absorbs energy that is not felt in the rest of the car.

In a 35mph collision, the energy absorption of the front crash beam is exhausted in about 20ms, but its job is not done yet! It still has about 80ms where it performs its other job to "carry crash loads."

A Frontal Offset crash means that the impact is focused on one side of the car. But guess what, your FR-S is not designed to absorb 154,896 ft/lbs of energy on one side of the car, so some of it has to be carried to the other side.

See the blue pieces here? These are the structural members to distribute load in a frontal crash.



The "bumper reinforcement" is the structural piece that connects the driver's side rails to the passenger's side rails. It needs to be strong so that even after it crumples, it can still distribute the energy of a crash across both structural rails of your car. When the "bumper reinforcement" front beam fails, the energy is carried into the power train instead of the structural members.

Where do you think the power train is going to go? Yes, it is going to go into your lap or your passenger's lap.

Front beam doing its job:



Front beam failing at its job:



You can see this working on a BRZ in this different video. As the BRZ comes into view, visualize where the engine is sitting (remember it's a little further back than most cars, 53/47 weight ratio and all that) and see how well that space is preserved:

[ame="http://youtu.be/bDi0pE8IRNg?t=40s"]http://youtu.be/bDi0pE8IRNg?t=40s[/ame]

At full impact, it looks like the engine might be encroached upon by the test barrier, but as the BRZ bounces away you can see that no, the test barrier was deformed and the FA20's engine bay was largely preserved. You can see it in this picture too, that the power train has not encroached into the passenger compartment:



The passenger compartment is preserved because the front crash beam successfully carried ~35% of the energy to the structural rails on the opposite side of the car. You can also see that the front crash beam is actually not in terrible shape, all things considered.

What happens when the crash beam fails and this energy is not carried to the other side?

The energy absorption amount of the small car cabin absorbed is 1.4 times as much as that of the cabin structures absorbed in an Euro NCAP 64km/h ODB crash.

A 35 mph frontal offset collision with a worthless front crash beam results in 40% more energy being absorbed by the passenger cabin than in a 45 mph frontal offset collision with a well-functioning crash beam.

You read that correct. You would be safer in a 45 mph collision with a good crash beam than in a 35 mph collision with a bad crash beam.

Your car basically has a structural cage surrounding your engine bay so that the engine etc do not get shoved into the passenger compartment during a collision. The most important part of that cage is the front crash beam. It absorbs a significant amount of energy during its crumple phase, and it distributes uneven crash loads so that neither side of the car gets more than it can handle. In a 100 mph collision you are probably toast no matter what, but it has been proven to significantly reduce the deformation energy absorbed by the passenger compartment in collisions up to 45 mph.

Chop holes in it at your own risk. Replace with a $150 steel tube at your own risk.

Edit: Just to clear up potential misconceptions about where the whole "low-speed" and "5mph" idea came from, these front crash beams are designed to absorb the energy from a collision of ~10mph without needing to be replaced. However, this is clearly not their only purpose.

[OjiGeorge]

As mentioned- the car is supposed to crumple to absorb energy. The 86 has a great crash rating. As far as frontal collisions are concerned, this is an integral piece. It has been engineered to transfer energy and then die, so you and your passenger can still walk after an accident. It's hard to justify making any significant changes to it at all.

[ecko04]

So yeah...about the $5,000 +/- Daily Driver buyer's guide that this thread was started for...

Can we get more actual examples from those who have gone FI?

The past few pages have been Turbo vs SC and whether the crash bar should be cut/removed. While useful, completely off topic.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by ecko04

So yeah...about the $5,000 +/- Daily Driver buyer's guide that this thread was started for...

Can we get more actual examples from those who have gone FI?

The past few pages have been Turbo vs SC and whether the crash bar should be cut/removed. While useful, completely off topic.

Not nessecarily. Some kits remove the crash beam while others do not. while power gains are high on the list, members of this site should proactively remind other members about safety concerns when adding 50% more horsepower and cutting structurally critical points to an already very light car.

btw, turbo vs SC is still forced induction, the difference is if someone wants the slightly cheaper and less hastle route (SC) but much less future power potential over a turbo setup

That being said, yes as much can be said on the removal of the crash beam has already been mentioned. if anyone is looking for another kit that will fit under the 5,000+/- total cost would be the JDL kit, fits well below the price range, good options to upgrade to, and was developed with the koyo rad rather than a stock rad. Personally the JDL kit is of great quality from what I've seen, with a GTX upgrade from a presision turbo (already a good starting place) will still fit below the 5,000 price for the kit.

[ecko04]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

Not nessecarily. Some kits remove the crash beam while others do not. while power gains are high on the list, members of this site should proactively remind other members about safety concerns when adding 50% more horsepower and cutting structurally critical points to an already very light car...

Yes, necessarily.

Systems have theirs pros and cons that should be weighed prior to purchase and that's up to the sole discretion of the purchaser.

Furthermore, few of these systems, aside from the CARB approved systems, are certified for use on public roads anyway.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the reason why THIS thread was created. If there's a safety thread for FI all this safety related information should be migrated over. At the end of the day, the best way to maintain all safety parameters would be not to add any additional power to the chassis that it wasn't intended to support.

I'm more interested in seeing what systems exist within the parameters of the OP, i.e the reason THIS thread was created.

The discussions about crash bar cutting, removal and replacement just doesn't matter in the scheme of what systems exist that others use in that price range. Just because a crash bar is removed, cut or notched doesn't immediately disqualify it from consideration. It may for some, which if they do their research they'll notice and bypass it. The same can be said for systems that remove the washer bottle.

This other stuff has credence, just not here.

btw, the turbo vs SC debate is OFF topic in this thread. It wasn't created to discuss which was "better". There's room for both options in this thread. It was created to discuss what the potential for these systems out the door for +/- $5000.

If you want to discuss turbo vs supercharger visit any number of the threads on it:

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13354

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43878

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50816

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30591

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21182

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39928

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36946

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36277

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10921

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by ecko04

btw, the turbo vs SC debate is OFF topic in this thread. It wasn't created to discuss which was "better". It was created to discuss what the potential for these systems out the door for +/- $5000.

If you want to discuss turbo vs supercharger visit any number of the threads on it:

Congraduations, I commend you on your use of the search function.
You mis interpreted my post. The supercharger vs turbo comments on here fell within the 5,000 limit. They were discussing which was better (power vs cost effectiveness) and which had more options within the budget limit @CSG Mike even says for $5,000 it's better for some people who aren't looking push more than 7psi on a turbo to go supercharger due to less problems that could go wrong. When the OP is referring to FI, there are other options than turbo's.

[ecko04]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

You mis interpreted my post. The supercharger vs turbo comments on here fell within the 5,000 limit. They were discussing which was better (power vs cost effectiveness) and which had more options within the budget limit @CSG Mike even says for $5,000 it's better for some people who aren't looking push more than 7psi on a turbo to go supercharger due to less problems that could go wrong. When the OP is referring to FI, there are other options than turbo's.

What you fail to realize is Mike has always been a strong proponent of superchargers, which could be due to his location and desire for CARB approval. He uses the track to justify his standpoint, which makes sense.

Both are options but carrying a debate about which is "better", has more options or less prone to failure is relative. AVO will obviously defend turbocharging and they're an example of the other side of the discussion.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

Congraduations, I commend you on your use of the search function.
You mis interpreted my post. The supercharger vs turbo comments on here fell within the 5,000 limit. They were discussing which was better (power vs cost effectiveness) and which had more options within the budget limit @CSG Mike even says for $5,000 it's better for some people who aren't looking push more than 7psi on a turbo to go supercharger due to less problems that could go wrong. When the OP is referring to FI, there are other options than turbo's.

My reasoning is strictly because the CARB Superchargers offer a plug and play option. You just put it on the car, flash the ECU, and you're good to go with an extremely conservative tune. The kits just *happen* to all be priced at about 5k in that trim. Supporting mods are not required (although recommended), as they are with turbo setups.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by ecko04

What you fail to realize is Mike has always been a strong proponent of superchargers, which could be due to his location and desire for CARB approval. He uses the track to justify his standpoint, which makes sense.

Both are options but carrying a debate about which is "better", has more options or less prone to failure is relative. AVO will obviously defend turbocharging and they're an example of the other side of the discussion.

I was merely explaining the which is better argument in this situation pertaining to cost vs hp perspective.

[ecko04]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

I was merely explaining the which is better argument in this situation pertaining to cost vs hp perspective.

Cool man. I'm not trying to drag this out. I just want to get focused back to what the OP asked because I think it's an interesting question and there are quite a few builds that fall into the parameters.

It's one thing to look online and see prices but it's another when an actual owner posts of their out of pocket expenses as it pertains FI.