Search results

Interesting concept but I'm curious as to what the benefit is. If it's there to act as a barrier to protect the tank itself from the damaging effect of todays fuel then perhaps it's a benefit but I wasn't aware that aluminium (aluminum) was detrimentally affected enough to require a barrier...

Don't forget that just having the cast rear upright doesn't get you going down the road. You will also need a hub assembly with all the necessary precision dimensions for fitting bearing etc As Morten says .... SGT uprights are already approved and the hubs available. Why reinvent the wheel?

Two hideous weeks over Brain fog, aches and the general feeling of unwellness finally drifting off and the senses of smell and taste starting to drift back Covid sucks :mad: Keep safe all

I had discussions with Real Steel in the last few weeks about machining a 302 and can confirm the £100 for 1-piece rear seal.

Thanks for all the responses :) Seems like a weight reduction process is very feasible. What I have just realised is that the system I currently have uses a stainless rod and this will be slightly less robust than 4130 (if my memory serves ok). 0.065 wall tubing has been used successfully...

I'm committed to using a rod change so no going to cables for me. What would be considered the preferred diameter of rod change shaft to use. I've got a solid 5/8" OD item which is undoubtedly up to the job but it sure does weigh a lot and hurts if you drop it on your hoof! Has anyone used a...

Thanks Morten. That should have been the first person I thought of but somehow didn't. The damaged clip is one of his as well!

In the process of acquiring a slightly damaged Mk.1 rear clip with the typical single rear lights fitted. As I need to repair / fettle anyway I thought that going for the twin rear lights might be an interesting alternative. In the last couple of years there was a UK supplier of these...

I'll second that.

Having already read about the GT Forte debacle and now this lovely little thread it does make me feel slightly smug that I went for a Southern GT

The metalwork that's included I believe is more to stiffen the side of the windscreen aperture to prevent flex and subsequent cracking of the glass. It's not a structural safety component and is fully embedded into the fibreglass. To my way of thinking, the difference is that, an impact...

Depending on whose bodywork you use there may already be some limited metalwork embedded within the spider.

I don't think it's just the roll over that will kill you. A 3/4 impact behind the front wheel can push the cage leg towards the driver and drag the cage down onto driver or passengers head. Are there any positive reasons why a front cage can be a good idea? It might be a much shorter topic!

Did you end up reducing the thickness of the left side beam? As that's what my eyes see. Looking at Udo's build the beam seems to be unchanged with all modifications being made to the cover. See post #20 https://www.gt40s.com/threads/kva-sgt-build.51222/

I'm guessing that it's a bit of a special SGT chassis. Certainly not the same as mine as this one looks to have been widened at the front end of the engine bay. Has the area behind the 'horseshoe' also been modified to enable the Audi box to be fitted? From the dimensions I've got the chassis...

Give him a call on 01952 416051

A great example of an integral safety cell. What a pity that the 1/8" thick gussets can't be used on a GT40 cage due to the lack of a perimeter tube around the roof area. No one seems to be saying it but .... In my opinion, the GT40 design just doesn't lend itself to the creation of a safety...

Likewise. Just wish my "shed" had that amount of equipment ..... and skill!

A very sobering read Frank.

I've got to be honest here - I wouldn't be fully comfortable running a single Facet pump on it's own. There's always going to be that opportunity when you want to hoof it and have no time to upgrade to the second pump. I was going to flow test a Facet Red Top anyway to find out if I would end up...