Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN] Inconel

Expand Messages
  • Carsten S.
    I heard, stainless steel for expansion chambers in 0.6mm (~.024 ) for track and 1mm (~0.039 ) for street use no prob. Any other experiences less than those
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 1, 2009
      I heard, stainless steel for expansion chambers in 0.6mm (~.024") for track and 1mm (~0.039") for street use no prob. Any other experiences less than those numbers?

      Any guess or experience for Inconel 625 , numbers seen down that link:
      http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Stainless_article/stainless_a
      rticle.html 

      Cheers
      Carsten (Aachen-Germany)


      Jim Schneider schrieb:
      Well, if you catch him before he runs out, there is some Inconel bends
      on Ebay at .049" wall and different diameters and different bends.  No
      "U" bends but close.  Check out this seller
      
      http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3002861567
      57&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT
      
      It is the 625 grade which is some of what Burns sells and is supposed to
      be header construction pieces from an IRL car team?  Maybe now as thin
      as the .032" or the .012" but tough stuff.  I would guess that you could
      run the .032" wall on most cycles without problems.  The .049" isn't
      going to be a real weight saver because I have run .049" mild steel on
      pipes before without any problems.  Limited to larger sizes!
      
      Swiss
      
      -----Original Message-----
      From: mc-chassis-design-bounces@...
      [mailto:mc-chassis-design-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Nik
      Halliwell
      Subject: Re: [MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN] alternate exhaustmaterials(was
      Chamberrolling revisited)
      
      
      Because of the info that Rick Hammond posted earlier, id highly suspect 
      you can use thinner wall Inconel than what SS would be able to do.  I 
      only say this because the article said F1 uses it.  Its inherently 
      resilient to heat / pressure, and maintains 75% of its properties @ 
      1200degF, which means its still hugely strong and not susceptible to 
      swelling from the exhaust gas pressure.
      
      How thin you can actually go is anyones guess.  If anyone is able to get
      
      some info on its yield strength @ temps, that would be much appreciated.
      I could probably hit up a few contacts next week who supply the stuff, 
      but i cant make any promises.
      A general inquiry to your local steel supplier could query HIS supplier 
      and get some relevant data if you are prepared to wait a week, and 
      probably have to throw a few coins for the data sheet on it.
      
      
      charly@...-aachen.de wrote:
        
      Hi Jim,
      
      well, as I surfed to some of Burns' pages today, I noticed a chart
      with all needed. So yes, 5% more density, but have a look at the 
      strength, would outweight the density more than enough. Then it 
      depends just, what sheet thickness is available anyways and what will 
      still be able to be welded :-) ...
      Take alook at the ned of this link at the table:
      
          
      http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Stainless_article/stainless_a
      rticle.html 
        
      Cheers
      Carsten (Aachen-Germany)
          
      
        
    • Matt Patterson
      SUS304 @ 0.7mm for race spannies gives good results. Regards, Matt. www.tyga-performance.com ... From: Carsten S. To: MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN Mailing List ;
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 1, 2009
        SUS304 @ 0.7mm for race spannies gives good results.

        Regards,

        Matt.
        www.tyga-performance.com



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Carsten S.
        To: MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN Mailing List ; mc-engine@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:25 AM
        Subject: Re: [MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN] Inconel


        I heard, stainless steel for expansion chambers in 0.6mm (~.024") for
        track and 1mm (~0.039") for street use no prob. Any other experiences less
        than those numbers?

        Any guess or experience for Inconel 625 , numbers seen down that link:

        http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Stainless_article/stainless_a
        rticle.html
        Cheers
        Carsten (Aachen-Germany)


        Jim Schneider schrieb:
        Well, if you catch him before he runs out, there is some Inconel bends
        on Ebay at .049" wall and different diameters and different bends. No
        "U" bends but close. Check out this seller

        http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3002861567
        57&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT

        It is the 625 grade which is some of what Burns sells and is supposed to
        be header construction pieces from an IRL car team? Maybe now as thin
        as the .032" or the .012" but tough stuff. I would guess that you could
        run the .032" wall on most cycles without problems. The .049" isn't
        going to be a real weight saver because I have run .049" mild steel on
        pipes before without any problems. Limited to larger sizes!

        Swiss

        -----Original Message-----
        From: mc-chassis-design-bounces@...
        [mailto:mc-chassis-design-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Nik
        Halliwell
        Subject: Re: [MC-CHASSIS-DESIGN] alternate exhaustmaterials(was
        Chamberrolling revisited)


        Because of the info that Rick Hammond posted earlier, id highly suspect
        you can use thinner wall Inconel than what SS would be able to do. I
        only say this because the article said F1 uses it. Its inherently
        resilient to heat / pressure, and maintains 75% of its properties @
        1200degF, which means its still hugely strong and not susceptible to
        swelling from the exhaust gas pressure.

        How thin you can actually go is anyones guess. If anyone is able to get

        some info on its yield strength @ temps, that would be much appreciated.
        I could probably hit up a few contacts next week who supply the stuff,
        but i cant make any promises.
        A general inquiry to your local steel supplier could query HIS supplier
        and get some relevant data if you are prepared to wait a week, and
        probably have to throw a few coins for the data sheet on it.


        charly@...-aachen.de wrote:
        Hi Jim,

        well, as I surfed to some of Burns' pages today, I noticed a chart
        with all needed. So yes, 5% more density, but have a look at the
        strength, would outweight the density more than enough. Then it
        depends just, what sheet thickness is available anyways and what will
        still be able to be welded :-) ...
        Take alook at the ned of this link at the table:

        http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Stainless_article/stainless_a
        rticle.html
        Cheers
        Carsten (Aachen-Germany)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.