MK IV tubular spaceframe drawing

Nice thread to follow, note that Jac has not commented on the engine shown since you stuck a Ford in your drawings.:p
What country are you in? Your English is improving nicely as this thread moves along
Thank's for the compliment.
I live in Bavaria / Germany. Scratch building provides many challenges.
But honestly - Deepl.com is my friend
And you see Jac is back :)
 
You need more headroom. With the new helmets especially, you will be solidly up against the roof/roll cage structure. Not good.
Neil I have done a lot to get more space, but at some point you reach the limit. I extended the frame forward and moved the roll bar back as far as it would go.
All to get a more reclined position for more headroom.
My wife Britta says I should rather plan with the michelin man....
 

Attachments

Neil

Supporter
Those are very nice CAD drawings. It looks to me as if you might be able to roll the top part of the 'cage rear hoop backwards 20-30 degrees to give you more space behind your head- space for a big helmet, HANS, etc. Driving with your neck bent forward and your helmet rattling off the rear bulkhead is not pleasant.
 
I already had this idea, too.
At the moment, the roll bar sits half under the Spider and half under the hood. If I put the roll bar at an angle, I have no support for the spider.
 
Hi - can someone maybe help me?
I am completely confused right now.
I have entered my chassis data into the Syspensions Analyzer, so far everything works.
Now I have set static 20% AntiDive, that also works .
But if I compress the chassis 60 mm, then I get logical values for the left side (i think) , but for the right side something completely unrealistic is displayed.
Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?
I have attached the data.
 

Attachments

Neil

Supporter
Rex, the camber gain & caster gain values are given L-R as mirror image. Is that the confusion?
 
Neil - I don't think so, only the camber is an input field,
the caster comes from the geometry.
For the static camber, I entered -1.5° on both sides so that both wheels point inward at the top.
Or do I understand you wrong?
It is very troublesome to work with the program, every time I open the file, half of the input data is missing again.
Unfortunately, I also get no answer when I ask the developer :(
 

Neil

Supporter
Neil - I don't think so, only the camber is an input field,
the caster comes from the geometry.
For the static camber, I entered -1.5° on both sides so that both wheels point inward at the top.
Or do I understand you wrong?
It is very troublesome to work with the program, every time I open the file, half of the input data is missing again.
Unfortunately, I also get no answer when I ask the developer :(
I used that software (but maybe a different version) to design my suspension and I had no problems with it. My rear suspension is a 5-link type and the front is the common Mustang II a-arm setup.
 
Obviously, it depends on many things, including placement of main components, ride height, etc, but for my specific case; 4.5 inch front ride height and 5 in rear ride height with bottom of engine sump in line with plane of chassis bottom (no dry sump) then
front CoG: rear CoG
29.25​
cm
42.8​
cm
I did it the hard way by weighing/estimating most of the major components and calculating mass centres over the axle axes
 
Hi Trevor, Thank you very much!! So far I have calculated with 34 cm (estimated). That must have been a lot of work - thanks for releasing the info. It helps me a lot!
 
Top