Would you want a composite chassis GT40

G

Guest

Guest
If a fully composite chassis were available, would you consider buying one or would you say "wow, cool!" and never give it a second thought? What if it were reasonably priced and what would reasonable be (presumably, it would constructed primarily with carbon fiber)? Given the versatility of the material, what differences/enhancements would you like to see?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Lynn,
I'm new to the whole GT40 world, and am interested in finding out more about this car. I hope to own one someday(replica, or one of the new ones that are coming out). I noticed that you're also in Raleigh, NC. Do you have a GT40, and if so, do you have pictures of it that you can share?

Thanks.
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
I think a composite chassis GT40 would be great. It would be lighter, stiffer and probably handle better, that being a relative term in a car that handles as well as a GT40 to begin with...reasonable price, 30K to 40K for the chassis ready to put on the body and mechanicals. The wiring would be interesting- you'd have to run returns or have a return system for all the grounds.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Mike, there are a couple of us in the area who are building GT40s. There are rumored to be one to two ERA GT40s in the area. Have some pictures but haven't set up a http server to host them from yet. I think I have some space available to me at TW Road Runner and I need to check into that so I can post some pictures. Email me and maybe we can set a time for you to see the car.

There is no composite chassis GT40 yet. Someone mentioned this on another thread that was deeply involved with a discussion of monocoque vs space frame in mild steel vs stainless, etc., etc. Someone made a post that said "Just make a composite chassis and the will solve everything." This made me curious about how accepted a composite chassis would be.
 
I've thought about using FRP in chassis (not in the ERA GT - why fiddle with perfection
wink.gif
).
The GT is actually a pretty good candidate because the basic chassis design give a very, very stiff structure for a given material. The "weakness" of a glass reinforcement is that it has a very low modulus - it's less than 1/2 as stiff as an equal weight steel or aluminum structure. To match steel, you'll need kevlar (approx. $25/lb)in large quantities, or with an unlimited budget you can make a stiffer laminate with graphite ($40/lb). Figure 80-100 lbs of fabric for a vacuum-bagged chassis (includes about 20% scrap and trim).
Then you add reinforcents at suspension and engine attachment points.
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
There might be another way to construct a GT40 chassis from composites: use a plan similar to the original chassis and begin with preformed composite structurals. These are available in a variety of shapes, strengths and laminate schedules. These can be cut and assembled into the structure that you want. Since much of a GT40 is flat sections, or derivatives of flat sections, this would reduce the amount of custom molds you would need. Also, if you had to repair a chassis, you could begin with similar structural panels to the ones you fabricated the chassis from to start with.
You would lose the advantage you gain with vacuum-bagging or SCRIMP technology, but that advantage mainly has to do with strength rather than weight in a small composite object like a car chassis. I amnot sure you would need to use Kevlar or graphite; possibly you would have enough strength with S-glass and epoxy or vinylester. Or, you could use Kevlar and carbon in certain areas and make less stressed areas out of S glass.
One thing for sure, Bob; for certain you would never have a chassis rust problem...not that you do with stainless in any event.
grin.gif
 
While I love the idea of the weight and rigidity of using composites, I have the concern of repairs, I love to race and while in a perfect world we would never hit the tires, I have to admit its a issue that has to be addressed. I think that you may be on to some thing Jim, but the amount of bonding required to spread out the load might make it too difficult to achieve, but then again it might be more acceptable than ordering a new chassis.
Jonathan Faught
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
Good point. However, if you look at the race history of the early fiberglass chassis cars, particularly the Chaparrals, which wee lighter than any of their comtemporaries, they crashed their cars often and repaired the tubs, glassing them back together, and putting them back into race service.
What I don't know is what their cars were made of; it's hard for me to believe that they were simply fiberglass and polyester resin, like a body shell from a Vette, for example. I don't know what was available in FRP technology then; this is before carbon fiber and Kevlar, etc, so they would have had E-glass (regular old fiberglass cloth etc) and possibly epoxy resin although not what we have now (West System, MAS, System Three etc).
To put this in perspective, the Chaparrals were racing in the early and mid-sixties. The first large fiberglass yacht hulls were built two or three years before that, and were overbuilt by today's standards, since no one knew how well FRP would hold up over the years. I don't know anyone who has seen the early FRP-chassis cars, but I sure would like to and find ut what sort of technology these guys used and how they did what they did. They were way ahead of their time, I believe. Compared to what was available to them, the number of choices of materials and methods of construction available today are enormous, but with the little they had, they won races.
shocked.gif
 
I went to a bookstore last night and happened to find a book devoted to the Chaparrals. The way the book put the story Chaparral approached a composites engineer from Boeing's B-58 bomber program. The engineer wanted to get out of aerospace engineering and start making composite yachts. According to the book the Chaparral II was fiberglass reinforced by aluminum braces in the joints. It had also talked that Chaparral had been interested in honeycomb construction but did not say specifically if they had used it or not in the car. One could look at the composition of yachts at that time and the B-58 to get some leads as to what was used in the composition. I think I have the B-58 some where here at home.
Jonathan
Ps I will try to get the title and author of the book today if anyone else is interested
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
Yes, if you can find out what the book is, would you post it? I'll find it and buy it. While GT40s are my favorite cars, I have always had a soft spot for Hall and Sharps cars as they were the underdog and determined to do things their way, a spirit I very much admire.
 
jim there are 3 books devoted to Jim Hall's Chaparrals.
Chaparral Can-Am & Prototype Rcae Cars by Dave Freidman Published by Motor Books International ISBN 0-7603-0508-0
Chaparral Richard Falconer with Doug Nye MBI ISBN 0-87938-607-X
Chaparral The Texas Roadrunner Published by "news publishing Co.Inc Japan isbn4-938495-53-8 Japanese and English text.
These 3 books have good photos of chassis etc, the japanese in colour.
I visited Road America July 2001 to see the Chaparrals,2a 2c 2f and the 2j (the sucker car)
All the Chaparrals are to be displayed permantley in Midland at the Petroleum Museum from late 2002
Also this site devoted to GT40's is great.I dont visit all the time.
 
A composite chassis could be a good idea, but it should be a bagged assembly of either carbon or kevlar. A poorly constructed composite structure is worse than a basic aluminum or steel structure.

The strength to weight ratio of composite parts is all about fiber to resin content. The fiber provides essentially all of the bending and torsional strength of the material while the resin or epoxy holds the fibers together. Extra resin is extra weight. Point load braces take careful attention. Polyester resins break down in UV over time leading to shock tower failures in cars like the fiberglass Lotus Elite. It's also a pain to seal a composite structure to make integral fuel tanks as any vari-eze aircraft builder will tell you.

The key to fast composite repairs is to take a splash mold from an existing part in good repair. When a nose bowl gets crunched, you clamp the splash mold over the crunched part and splice your new layup in from the back of the original part. If the backside isn't accessible, you can make a partial part from the mold, and it's a matter of manually sanding and splicing the new piece on.

Another note: when carbon fails, it shatters and splinters catastrophically. The upside is that it is extremely strong and has a huge young's modulus. Kevlar is a bit softer, so it deflects more, but when it fails it stays fairly contained. New composite sailplanes use carbon and e-glass structures everywhere but the cockpit where Kevlar is used for pilot protection.

KP
 
Lynn,
I'd still like to take you up on the offer to look at your car. I responded with a message to your e-mail, but not sure if you received it. Thanks again for the gracious offer.
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Hi Mike,

You're also welcome to come down and take a look at my Roaring Forties car. I'm in Apex, just a couple of miles South of Raleigh. Lynn and I would love to have another GT40 builder active in the area. There is one rumored to be down in Durham but neither of us can locate the guy. Take care,

Ron
 
Back
Top