Lola T70 MK 3b continuation photos
- Thread starter John Woerheide
- Start date
Richard,
it is the right front lower A-arm pick-up, which is riveted onto the knee hump,
see also
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/lola-t70-lounge/22490-lola-t70-scratch-build-3.html
Best,
Marcus
it is the right front lower A-arm pick-up, which is riveted onto the knee hump,
see also
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/lola-t70-lounge/22490-lola-t70-scratch-build-3.html
Best,
Marcus
Thanks, Marcus. I should have recognised them from your thread!
That is what I suspected, but I am surprised at the length. I don't think the MkIII's A-arm protrudes that far into the cockpit (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm at home and my 1:12 Tamiya is at the office).
Do you know if the 3B also had different upper A-arm mounting points/lengths from the MkIII? If not, the resulting camber change must have been useful or they wouldn't have done it. Wider front rubber and/or stiffer sidewalls perhaps?
Not sure if I would enjoy the back of my right calf getting whacked every time I turned left or hit the brakes!
That is what I suspected, but I am surprised at the length. I don't think the MkIII's A-arm protrudes that far into the cockpit (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm at home and my 1:12 Tamiya is at the office).
Do you know if the 3B also had different upper A-arm mounting points/lengths from the MkIII? If not, the resulting camber change must have been useful or they wouldn't have done it. Wider front rubber and/or stiffer sidewalls perhaps?
Not sure if I would enjoy the back of my right calf getting whacked every time I turned left or hit the brakes!
Fran Hall RCR
GT40s Sponsor
Johan....
the Lola Mk3b chassis, along with all the others, had a reputation as a flexi flyer ..did it not?
the Lola Mk3b chassis, along with all the others, had a reputation as a flexi flyer ..did it not?
Johan,
got to second Fran´s remark.
To my knowledge, Eric Broadley refused to be defensive about the chassis´s flexing.
In his words its rigidity was sufficient for the suspensions of that time.
Also, he was only too happy to give away some of the GT40´s chassis strength for saving weight in return.
Cheers,
Marcus
got to second Fran´s remark.
To my knowledge, Eric Broadley refused to be defensive about the chassis´s flexing.
In his words its rigidity was sufficient for the suspensions of that time.
Also, he was only too happy to give away some of the GT40´s chassis strength for saving weight in return.
Cheers,
Marcus
I stand to be corrected...but after having had a closer look at the cockpit pictures it seems to me as though the continuation car´s chassis is paying tribute to today´s springs and tyres (therefore higher cornering forces being fed into the chassis):
The lower A-arm pick-up points look like being significantly strenghtened as compared to original spec. Also, take a closer look at the massive doublers riveted to the OUTSIDE of the sills.
The latter already struck me when I took a closer look at Carlos Barbot´s car at this year´s SPA 6 hrs.
The lower A-arm pick-up points look like being significantly strenghtened as compared to original spec. Also, take a closer look at the massive doublers riveted to the OUTSIDE of the sills.
The latter already struck me when I took a closer look at Carlos Barbot´s car at this year´s SPA 6 hrs.
Last edited:
By "very stiff car" , I mean that the suspension does not move much when you drive it
as compared to a street car(We were talking about that front suspension rod that shares space with your leg). If you compared it to a Porsche 962, it is a mushy car.
The tub of a later Lola T332 is only about 8" deep and the T70 seems about a foot deep so Lola was not in the business of making huge substantial chassis. A Humvee comes to mind as the other end of the spectrum. Lola limp is what you got if you crashed because that suspension is going to get you leg if the wall does not fub your foot off. At the time, the chassis was considered adequate to keep all the bits in their proper places during a race. In Vintage racing or , gulp, street use, the tub will neither make nor break the experience. nothing short of a cage will protect during a crash. If a cage connected the front suspension to the rear suspension like a tube framed car, well, then it would not be a T70 would it ...
as compared to a street car(We were talking about that front suspension rod that shares space with your leg). If you compared it to a Porsche 962, it is a mushy car.
The tub of a later Lola T332 is only about 8" deep and the T70 seems about a foot deep so Lola was not in the business of making huge substantial chassis. A Humvee comes to mind as the other end of the spectrum. Lola limp is what you got if you crashed because that suspension is going to get you leg if the wall does not fub your foot off. At the time, the chassis was considered adequate to keep all the bits in their proper places during a race. In Vintage racing or , gulp, street use, the tub will neither make nor break the experience. nothing short of a cage will protect during a crash. If a cage connected the front suspension to the rear suspension like a tube framed car, well, then it would not be a T70 would it ...
On the subject of Continuation Cars, here are a couple of the "First 5". Only got 3 of them. One hasn't been out to race yet and the other is in the 'States.
Anybody stumped up a deposit for one of the "Next" 5 announced in "Autosport" Last week.......
HU76/159 Blue/Yellow.
HU76/160 Red/White
HU76 163 Yellow
On the subject of 3b chassis stiffness, I know its around 10,000lbs per degree, so in theory if you had a heavy 2000lbs car you'd need to get airborne and land on one corner, completely compress that corners spring/damper, at around 5g to get a bit of flex.
Marcus, Your bottom radius rod mounts look to have a few more parts to their fabrication than ours. Wondered what made you think they had been beefed-up.
Darren.
Anybody stumped up a deposit for one of the "Next" 5 announced in "Autosport" Last week.......
HU76/159 Blue/Yellow.
HU76/160 Red/White
HU76 163 Yellow
On the subject of 3b chassis stiffness, I know its around 10,000lbs per degree, so in theory if you had a heavy 2000lbs car you'd need to get airborne and land on one corner, completely compress that corners spring/damper, at around 5g to get a bit of flex.
Marcus, Your bottom radius rod mounts look to have a few more parts to their fabrication than ours. Wondered what made you think they had been beefed-up.
Darren.
Attachments
Fran Hall RCR
GT40s Sponsor
Darren,
an original 3B has 4300lbs/deg according to the info I have...the continuations may well be higher due to material thickness and "safety improvements"..such as a cage etc.
an original 3B has 4300lbs/deg according to the info I have...the continuations may well be higher due to material thickness and "safety improvements"..such as a cage etc.
Are the presentation T703B blue/yellow and the HU76/159 blue/yellow #23 the same car? The chassis plate on the presentation car say HU76/1.
Sorry, the pic is small, but you can see it in high res at Lola Heritage Scrapbook. I would like to see pics of the HU76/161 blue with a white stripe and HU76/162 white with a red stripe.
Sorry, the pic is small, but you can see it in high res at Lola Heritage Scrapbook. I would like to see pics of the HU76/161 blue with a white stripe and HU76/162 white with a red stripe.
Attachments
Darren,
don´t know of how many parts the pick-up points of the Continuation cars consist, but my ones are made of only three parts, see pic below. Yours seem to habe a wider base with more rivets. How are yours being made?
Attachments
Hi Marcus.
Quick mod to your photo. Ours are only 2 parts. I don't think ours are any wider, may just be the overall shape of the upper part giving it that appearance. Similar shape but top plate goes to the rear to pick up on same rivet holes. Also we have a washer welded over top hole to add support rather than a complete plate as your's appear. These are too original Lola drawings and rivet pattern, always use two staggered rows when poss. Only difference on ours is under the thigh panel with added strengthening as this was the cause of more than one lost leg in an accident. Original design is REALLY frightening when you see it.
Darren
Quick mod to your photo. Ours are only 2 parts. I don't think ours are any wider, may just be the overall shape of the upper part giving it that appearance. Similar shape but top plate goes to the rear to pick up on same rivet holes. Also we have a washer welded over top hole to add support rather than a complete plate as your's appear. These are too original Lola drawings and rivet pattern, always use two staggered rows when poss. Only difference on ours is under the thigh panel with added strengthening as this was the cause of more than one lost leg in an accident. Original design is REALLY frightening when you see it.
Darren
Attachments
Hmmm...see what you mean.
What´s more, if you take a closer look at below pics of SL76/147´s original tub, you can also spot some additional rivet lines around the pick-ups which seem to belong to some kind of doublers underneath the pick-up points.
Am I correct?
What´s more, if you take a closer look at below pics of SL76/147´s original tub, you can also spot some additional rivet lines around the pick-ups which seem to belong to some kind of doublers underneath the pick-up points.
Am I correct?
