Chassis Failure

Keith

Moderator
Can anyone explain why the radius links have to be so long in these designs? I had a 4 link set up in one of my race cars and they were half that length. Mind you, it was a live axle..
 
Hi Keith, all good here - hope your doing ok.
All to do with having the MacPherson struts - solves a multitude of sins on a road car.
Obviously it will differ from car to car but comparing the 40 to my Boxster.
There is still the lower arm but the top one isn't needed as the strut top is fixed to the body.
This means the lower arm is mounted at floor level out of harms way.
 

Fran Hall RCR

Moderator
Thanks for your insight jac

The brackets we already offered spread the load onto another much larger surface area and a plane perpendicular to the mounting surface of the primary turret mount helping to distribute the load down to the floor of the monocoque, larger than even you suggest necessary. This area of the floor also has internal bracing that creates the bulkheads inside the torque box area of the engine bay.

The "new bolt on brace" also create a cap over the top of the turret to help prevent runaway radius rods from cockpit intrusion which the modification done to Craig's chassis do not appear to have. This type of cap/safety option does not appear to be used on many other radius rod suspension style cars, real or replica, obviously an oversight on everyone's behalf , including mine especially in the modern world of more readily available and powerful engines ,stickier tyres and better brakes.

My Lola continuation spyder has a small 0.040 plate closing off the front of original design turret but it is not welded in place , only buck riveted. This is obviously acceptable as a period type modification , but without that the rod would be capable of direct cockpit intrusion with only a fiberglass bulkhead as protection .

The RCR bracing brackets offered FOC are also steel 0.090 not Ali as the prototypes are shown and require no welding to install .
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Thanks for your insight jac

The brackets we already offered spread the load onto another much larger surface area and a plane perpendicular to the mounting surface of the primary turret mount helping to distribute the load down to the floor of the monocoque, larger than even you suggest necessary. This area of the floor also has internal bracing that creates the bulkheads inside the torque box area of the engine bay.

The "new bolt on brace" also create a cap over the top of the turret to help prevent runaway radius rods from cockpit intrusion which the modification done to Craig's chassis do not appear to have. This type of cap/safety option does not appear to be used on many other radius rod suspension style cars, real or replica, obviously an oversight on everyone's behalf , including mine especially in the modern world of more readily available and powerful engines ,stickier tyres and better brakes.

My Lola continuation spyder has a small 0.040 plate closing off the front of original design turret but it is not welded in place , only buck riveted. This is obviously acceptable as a period type modification , but without that the rod would be capable of direct cockpit intrusion with only a fiberglass bulkhead as protection .

The RCR bracing brackets offered FOC are also steel 0.090 not Ali as the prototypes are shown and require no welding to install .
Are those installed on my car up there? Can't wait to get that thing home.
 
Thanks for your insight jac

The brackets we already offered spread the load onto another much larger surface area and a plane perpendicular to the mounting surface of the primary turret mount helping to distribute the load down to the floor of the monocoque, larger than even you suggest necessary. This area of the floor also has internal bracing that creates the bulkheads inside the torque box area of the engine bay.
Are these the brackets that go over the turret top that you have posted pics of on this thread already? Or have you devised another bracket/stay to support the lower end of the turret where the failure obviously initiates from....if so a pic might put my mind & others at rest.
 

Fran Hall RCR

Moderator
The brackets do both Jac

Brace the turret and also create a captive cap

I am in vacation in the south of France with my family so any reply I make is out if sight and earshot of the missus
 
Last edited:
The brackets do both Jac

Brace the turret and also create a captive cap

I am in vacation in the south of France with my family so any reply I make is out if sight and earshot of the missus
That's all?, just a couple of these? Good luck with that!
Honestly Fran, words don't fail me, just don't feel comfortable posting them.
 

Attachments

Fran Hall RCR

Moderator
No Jac not just a " couple of these"
There are four pieces to the brace/brackets and also additional fasteners per turret

I don't have any qualms whatsoever about these parts, their design or their strength.
Luck has nothing to do with it

I know of many other manufacturers that ignore failures and just scream foul or just hide behind their brand and make little to no effort to improve the safety or longevity of their product... That's not the case here.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am glad you have posted your concerns.
 
Last edited:

Glenn B.

Lifetime Supporter
I have finally returned to the forum and realized that I never closed the loop on this item for the folks who asked to see our final product.

We completed the repair and redesign of the rear control arm brackets. I'll be the first to admit that our solution is overengineered and overkill (and I'm sure Fran would agree on this point), but the goal was to both repair the car and my piece of mind. Here's what we did:

1. Welded a second aluminum plate on the top of the rear tub, doubling the thickness to provide more support at the fulcrum point and increase the overall strength of the section.

2. Fabricated the control arm mounts out of steel and fastened them both through the upper tub panel, and at the base, sandwiching the lower panel of the tub with steel plate. The pylons were made to be removable pieces that can be unbolted and slid out through the top of the chassis.

3. Changed the angle of the mounts to directly align with the control arms to eliminate all possiblility of bind or angled stress at the rod end.

4. Made both the upper and lower mounting points captive sockets to retain the rod end in the event of a failure. All AN hardware was used.

I'll repeat...this is an "overkill" solution... but it suits me just fine.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Thanks for posting the update. Your upgrade looks very well executed and thought out. Did moving the mounting points of the trailing arms affect handling at all? Thanks again, S
 

Glenn B.

Lifetime Supporter
There was no movement of the location of the mounting points or the length of the rear arms. All that we changed was the rotational angle of the pylon. Bottom line...no discernable change in handling.
 
Thank you sir. Looks like they are a little more inboard from the pics. I will be blowing the car apart sometime later this year to make some changes and was curious. S
 
Top