Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Britain Smith Mar 1 2004, 12:00 PM

Will post pics later

Posted by: seanery Mar 1 2004, 12:45 PM

I was gonna ask why the 911 hood, now I see. That car's been there awhile. i recall seeing that bodywork when i was there in May.

Posted by: TimT Mar 1 2004, 12:56 PM

kEwL!!,

now I have a better idea for mounting my wing

Posted by: Gint Mar 1 2004, 05:22 PM

Who's "we"?


I was using it for a foot rest while waiting for Brad.

Posted by: brant Mar 1 2004, 05:34 PM

my rear camber rods look a lot like those..
brant

Posted by: boxstr Mar 1 2004, 06:49 PM

Britain, what is your "Buy It Now" price. And doe's it have any rust.
CCLINEBAYWATCH

Posted by: Britain Smith Mar 1 2004, 09:53 PM

We...is me taking pictures at HPH.

I believe that the asking price is $25K, but you would have to ask Brad for more details.

-Britain

Posted by: Brett W Mar 1 2004, 10:33 PM

There is some beautiful fab work on that car but why did they add all of that ineffective and excess tubing in the chassis. Some of it is obviously necessary but some of it is not. I am sure the car will be extremely fast but...

Posted by: Dave_Darling Mar 2 2004, 09:19 AM

Which ones are excess, Brett?

I saw tubes going to the rear suspension pickup points and the rear transmission mounts, and tubes going to the front suspension pickup points and a little more... I'm not sure which ones you feel are excess.

--DD

Posted by: Brett W Mar 2 2004, 12:16 PM

This car will probablybe very fast because of the big motor in the little car, I don't doubt it will be effective but some things could have been done differently to make it even faster.

I have numbered the pictures from top to bottom

2: Not the lack of rear down bars. Nothing to direct the load paths from the rear shocks directly into the main hoop-central chassis structure.

3: It looks as though the lower door bar is not attached to the chassis. It runs parallel to the rocker. The junction of the v should be tied directly into the top of the rocker/sill plate.

5: Though nice, the down bars from the front firewall to the front mounts for the torsion bars are relatively unnecessary. The load on that part of the torsion bar is very minimal and in a different direction. It is actually being loaded in compression and tension, in addisiton to rotation.

6 If you are going to tie the front strut towers together cut out the front firewall. Also look at how the loads for the front hoop supports are directed into the tube instead of into the strut mount.

12: Notice the rear supports wrap around behind the rear strut towers actually supporting the shock towers in tension. There appears to be nothing to tie the shock towers to the main structure of the chassis. Those tubes routed around the perimeter of the trunk should be removed they do nothing but add weight. Notice how the brace, that runs across the beam for the tranny mount, is mounted up high and the loads are actually not being tied into the main chassis instead they are canileverd off the back of the shock towers. The bracing should run from the sway bar mounts to the back of the shock towers and then from there to the down bars from the main roll hoop.

15: Just based on the pictures and other observations, the support for the outer trailing arm mount is pointed in the wrong direction or should be supplemented by one running to the main hoop. I am guessing, by the looks of the rest of the chassis, that reinforcement is probably intersecting the middle of a tube instead of a junction like it should be.


There is some nice fab work in this car but I would have done it differently. That is me though. Hope the owner is happy with a nice race car.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 2 2004, 12:36 PM

Britain.. how about asking me before posting pics ?? I never intended to use the ones you shot. The cars a mess with dirt and nasty crap.

Brett,

the first time you build a car for PCA... then decide to run it in SCCA.. you will understand why you end up with tubes running everywhere.

The pics shown here only show 3/4 of the stiffening this chassis has in it. It could use down bars, but at one time PCA didnt want rear down tubes thriough the rear window/targa bar area.

What you dont see is the BIG REDS and 13 inch front rotors and such.


B

Posted by: Brett W Mar 2 2004, 12:51 PM

I did not know the car was built for PCA first. wouldn't it be nice if everyone would get the same rules for cages.

I don't doubt that the car is very well built. I figured it had some pretty massive brakes. You don't go stick that 3.0 engine in without making sure repetetive stopping is do able. I bet that car icould be fast as hell. Just looks a little heavy in my opinion.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 2 2004, 02:16 PM

Um.. that is a 3.2 liter engine...

Now why would everyone follow the same rules ??

B

Posted by: J P Stein Mar 2 2004, 02:27 PM

It looks like a frame within a frame to me. Not a bad plan.

With all the time & effort in the chassis,brakes, yada,
why is there a seemingly stock 3.2L in there?

Your right, Brad, the car is a mess....dirt wise.
Well built but poorly maintained...not a gud way to sell. It looks like it was pushed aside to rot.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 2 2004, 02:33 PM

Which is why I wish like HELL Britain would have asked me before posting the pics..

Anyway.. stockish 3.2 because the current owner was a newbie..


B

Posted by: Jeroen Mar 3 2004, 11:04 AM

You guys are no fun... Now I missed the pics

Brad... stop being such a tight ass

cheers,

Jeroen

Posted by: r_towle Mar 3 2004, 09:08 PM

Had to do it.

Posted by: TimT Mar 3 2004, 09:16 PM

Pics of that car were posted by a few people here..are the pics removed from all the threads? I havent checked.. so the car needs to be cleaned up tp be presented...

The pics gave me some ideas how to mount my rear wing