Help - GT40 Space Frame Drawings and Plans

[Russ Noble]

Originally Posted by Doug68

Not to throw a fly in the soup. But... I know a lawyer (he's not really a bad bloke). We had a discussion on liability issues. The interesting thing he pointed out to me is that the notion of a contract or payment does not need to exist for liability to be present.
Therefore if I publish even freely, flawed information how to do a thing, you might attempt to hold me liable for the resulting harm.

I believe that there are a few lawyers on the forum is that your considered opinion?

The old litigation bogey! That's a valid point Doug, and one that I have considered. Jac Macs observations here Kiwi 40 ....

Originally Posted by jac mac

One drawing, or set of drawings that may be of more 'real' use to scratch builders is a set that define the maximum dimensions of all critical areas in order to fit within the confines of the GT40 sillouette: eg the height/width of the panel with fuel fillers, height/width of sponsoons, w/screen dimensions/angles.

In doing this you would leave it open for those that wished to choose between Mono/Spaceframe etc

A bit like reverse engineering, or having the body shell & constructing the chassis inside it.
Still a lot of work - the 40 has several areas that create problems clearance wise especially when you start to compromise on rim offset's-suspension components etc.

Jac Mac

....would tend to resolve that issue and leave the builder responsible for joining up the dots. Not difficult armed with a copy of "Costin & Phipps", which a spaceframe scratchbuilder should have anyway.

More relevant perhaps is the question of litigation WRT definitive "How to" articles on this forum once they get into issues like suspension or brake setup. Should the experts keep their knowledge to themselves and just let the uninformed carry on blissfully along a potentially dangerous course?

I really get pissed off with all this litigious 'sue-everybody-for-your-own-mistakes' crap! Information gleaned from the internet needs to be verified from other sources, if you don't do that you're the author of your own doom! Right now, the 'spinner direction' thread comes to mind!

Cheers,

[Doug Clark]

Russ,

I agree completely but this is the world we live in!
The last thing I'm sure any of us need is to be sued by some moron's widow.
Look at the chassis plans section of this website for example.

[Dave Peterman]

After starting this project I agree that Locost and GT-40 do not go together. The whole idea of a Locost 7 is to be cheap fun. The horsepower to weight ratio is the performance part. The windsheild for a 40 costs more than the chassis of a locost which is made from 1"x1" square tubing.
After years of racing ,calling in favors and learning how to scrounge good used parts I have budgeted about 15K for my 40 project. It is my opinion that the 40 should come in around that if I build as many of the parts I can myself.
I will rebuild my own engine and transaxle. If you were to use AP 4 piston stock car calipers they will run about $300.00 each. You can save a bit if you do not use knock off wheels.GT40 copy wheels are on ebay for about $600 a set. I probably am not going to be as close to original as some of the awesome 40's that members have built but it will be close enough for me.

[Russ Noble]

This is what Doug was referring to....


Chassis Plans....
Formula Motorsport regrets to announce that we are no longer able to sell our chassis plans due to the prohibitive cost of Public Liability/Professional Indemnity Insurance.

.....and this is for a chassis that has been ADR tested and approved!
The law is an ass, and the lawyers that pursue these things are the lowest form of parasites yet found by man. And a few other choice observations and expletives.....!!!!

I guess the next thing the lawyers will do is sue Formula Motorsports because they removed tested and compliant chassis plans, and this directly forced the lawyers client to design and build his own (flawed) chassis directly leading to his serious injury when it failed....

I'm sure some trickshit lawyer could make a case for that. But of course they wouldn't because the company has no insurance so there is no guaranteed gravy train to jump on.....

The easiest way to remove oneself from the litigation merry go round is to have no assets, no income and no insurance.

Go figure.....

[Jac Mac]

I am sure this is a large part of why SPF/RCR/CAV & others very seldom build/sell turn key ,drive out the door with rego insurance etc cars. If you get into the disclaimer part of their contract/sales agreement it will probably state that you are ultimately liable for the final build spec/mechanical safety of the car. Same thing applies to most plansets/kits for sport aircraft- you have to sign an indemnity form that precludes the possibility of anyone taking legal steps against the plans provider as a result of the aircraft having a prang etc.

Dont get me wrong , I am all for the guy/gal that wants to do it themselves, but if you make it too easy you will attract the type of person who should 'NOT' attempt to undertake a project like this.

You only have to have a look at the mindset behind some of our fellow forum members to realise that we dont all think alike or want to be responsible for our own actions.

Jac Mac

[Dave S]

I guess Ron Champion is in a lot trouble then.

Why can't you just write on the bottom of the plan 'Off Road Use Only'?
That's what's written on everything else that is not considered road legal.

[Jac Mac]

A Warning similar to the one at the start of Ron Champions book that was made a 'Sticky' at the beginning of the thread should suffice to keep both contributors of ideas/concepts and the Forum in general out of harms way. Notice how the Lawyers/Bean Counters/& other so called ''Professionals'' are great at asking for 'free' mechanical advice but slow on returning the favour to us . Be a nice change for them to be the guard rail on a corner rather than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff!

[Russ Noble]

Originally Posted by jac mac

Notice how the Lawyers/Bean Counters/& other so called ''Professionals'' are great at asking for 'free' mechanical advice but slow on returning the favour to us . Be a nice change for them to be the guard rail on a corner rather than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff!

Such bitterness from one so young......You're right though Jac Mac! Where are all our lawyer mates on this one. Free legal advice? You must be joking! We'll just stumble along, like they were doing before we helped save them from their mechanical ineptitude!

Dave, I don't think "Off road use only" would do the trick, that's mainly used when something does not comply with government regulations for emissions etc or hasn't undergone the compliancing necessary to be legally used on the road. I don't think it would serve to deflect litigation resulting from a failure if a lawyer's client was using it off road.

[Doug Clark]

Originally Posted by albanygt40

I guess Ron Champion is in a lot trouble then.

1. I've read interesting things about Ron's reputation so he already may be in a lot of trouble.

2. Regarding the book it'll be the publisher they'll be after if they come after anyone, and Haynes I'm sure has an adequate legal dept to take care of the issues.


In Australia the whole thing I would should be a mute argument anyway as whenever you build an ICV (Kit car or one off build to the rest of you) it has to be signed off by a qualified Engineer as acceptable engineering wise and meeting all the rules, so in that case it should actually br that guy who bears the responsibility if it turns out the construction or design was bad.

This is the one good reason I can come up with to support the PITA system we have here in Australia.

[Keith Hardy]

A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display.

While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper,

"I'll have a CAD monkey please."

The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage at the side of the shop and took out a monkey.

He fitted a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be
£5000."

The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.

Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said,

"That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only few hundred quid.”

Why did that one cost so much?"

The Shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can draw in AutoCAD - very fast, clear layouts, no mistakes, well worth the money."

The tourist looked at a monkey in another cage.

"That one's even more expensive! £10,000! What does it do?"

"Oh, that one's a Design monkey; it can design chassis, layout projects,
mark-up drawings, write specifications, some even calculate suspension settings.

All the really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.

The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey in a
cage of its own.

The price tag around its neck read £50,000.

He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put
together! What on earth does it do?"

The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything,
but it says it's a Lawyer."

[jonesy_sa]

Chassisworks,inc Fabrication tools and supplies for racing sells plans for the Diablo at $249USD approx $251 with the strong dollar at the moment!!! I have read many review on this chassis and all have been very happy with it. The plans include allot such as donour list (usa corvette based etc) sheet metal paneling and so forth. Apparantly you built it in sections and weld together and its about the simpplest drawings around...if you want to build a diablo its great value for money....

Come the GT40: Im not sure how many varianes there are in size for between the cars, ie diablo vs gt40 - wheelbase, width, height length of rear subsection etc. However if you had some great dimension of your body you plan to use, you could proably cut 'n' shut this to fit. If you have a look at the images its relativly simple (i would add more strength to suit Aus requirements) so it shouldnt be to hard to change a few dimensions. Mind you i havnt laid any Gt40 specs over the top to see how many would need to be changed and if this idea is even possible. Just a thought until someone gives away working gt40 chassis plans ;-P

[40 Bud]

I think Jac Mac makes some valid points about people in the business trying to limit their liability thru disclaimers etc. However, I believe the law in Calif. will not allow you to sign away all liability. So unfortunately those in the supply of cars, performance parts etc. can still be faced with some costly litagation. A small example: Design a machine with moving parts. Put a safety guard around the moving parts. Put a warning sign on, telling people that moving parts can be dangerous. Watch a smart lawyer sue the pants of you for someone who is injured, as you knew there was a problem or you would not have put the sign on!