Roaring Forties 66
- Thread starter otto69
- Start date
The chassis already exceeds the required beaming and torsional rigidity, but a few strategically placed diagonals can't hurt. Tried to tie the path between the front and rear shock mounts with triangulation.
Added a few bars for extra side intrusion and some across the bulkhead.
To give me some flexibility in the future, I added a seatbelt bar just below my shoulder line. (belts will need to go through the seat).
Clayton
Added a few bars for extra side intrusion and some across the bulkhead.
To give me some flexibility in the future, I added a seatbelt bar just below my shoulder line. (belts will need to go through the seat).
Clayton
Attachments
Water pipes.
I wanted to use the least amount of rubber / silicon hose as possible.
Try and limit it to short straight sections.
Pipes are 1.5" S/S and used mandrel bends welded together for the shape.
The radiator end will have sleeves welded on to suit the 40mm radiator pipes.
The rear pipes will have a crox only.
The pipes are held by a split clamp and O-ring at both ends of the cabin for sealing.
Clayton
I wanted to use the least amount of rubber / silicon hose as possible.
Try and limit it to short straight sections.
Pipes are 1.5" S/S and used mandrel bends welded together for the shape.
The radiator end will have sleeves welded on to suit the 40mm radiator pipes.
The rear pipes will have a crox only.
The pipes are held by a split clamp and O-ring at both ends of the cabin for sealing.
Clayton
Attachments
Clayton,
I added diagonals to my DRB frame much in the way you did. In your first pic I saw that the diagonals you added to the sill frame rail point in toward the interior. I placed mine pointing outward. Is there a right way to do this or does it really matter? How about for a collision at 45 degrees rather than straight on? I am no engineer , but I am curious.
Bill
I added diagonals to my DRB frame much in the way you did. In your first pic I saw that the diagonals you added to the sill frame rail point in toward the interior. I placed mine pointing outward. Is there a right way to do this or does it really matter? How about for a collision at 45 degrees rather than straight on? I am no engineer , but I am curious.
Bill
Hi Bill
I'm not a structural engineer either, but the way you did is better in my books. As the welds and tubes are in compression rather than tension. (if hit in the middle of the sill) The reason I did it this way, was so I could access the fuel sender from the top of the sill panel.
I try not to think of collisions........ I may not want to drive it :stunned:
Clayton
Clayton,
I was wondering about the Akerman as well just based on what I was seeing on my kit. I hadnt plugged anything into my susp program but I would have suspected the rack to be behind the wheel centerline, not in front... although I admittedly haven't spent much time researching ackerman and most of my experimentation has been with prepared autocross cars and some with a front drive short wheelbase road race car. Both cases we moved the rack back with good results.
My kit was built well before the new RF owners, so not sure if the original RF guys put the rack there for a specific reason, or if it ended up there for packaging reasons. Do you have any info on the rack location for the early cars?
On another note, have you mapped out/measured the suspension pickup points to see what the original kits roll center was with the supplied forged spindles?(not the new ones)
Regardless, I find your notes on your build to be very useful and quite timely
David
Thanks DavidClayton,
I was wondering about the Akerman as well just based on what I was seeing on my kit. I hadnt plugged anything into my susp program but I would have suspected the rack to be behind the wheel centerline, not in front... although I admittedly haven't spent much time researching ackerman and most of my experimentation has been with prepared autocross cars and some with a front drive short wheelbase road race car. Both cases we moved the rack back with good results.
My kit was built well before the new RF owners, so not sure if the original RF guys put the rack there for a specific reason, or if it ended up there for packaging reasons. Do you have any info on the rack location for the early cars?
On another note, have you mapped out/measured the suspension pickup points to see what the original kits roll center was with the supplied forged spindles?(not the new ones)
Regardless, I find your notes on your build to be very useful and quite timely
David
I'm only a novice when it comes to suspension design, but from what I've read. There seems to be two camps of thought, full Ackerman or greater (Carroll Smith writes a bit about it). Or zero Ackerman (both turn the same angle) and use the slip angle of the tyre. I went for near full Ackerman as its a street car.
I think RF had it set up closer to zero, but cant confirm as I never did any measurements. I've used a different rack as well.
No I haven't worked out the roll centre, I did start to map the pivot points but then got side tracked and never finished it........
My chassis was built in June 2002, so not much later than yours.
Clayton
Sorry if we are drifting Clayton
I have had a play with the ackerman, I have anti and it works well.
I would go more but its not practical for the street.
I have a set of arms that I have used at the track, these are F1 anti ackerman, the intersection point is some where into next week.
It made the steering sharp on turn in but very impractical other than race track use.
I found with ackerman the inside tyre lost grip due to high slip angles, with anti it pulls the wheel out of slip and makes it do some work till about the apex.
I think its due to the lack of weight over the front wheels .
Jim
I have had a play with the ackerman, I have anti and it works well.
I would go more but its not practical for the street.
I have a set of arms that I have used at the track, these are F1 anti ackerman, the intersection point is some where into next week.
It made the steering sharp on turn in but very impractical other than race track use.
I found with ackerman the inside tyre lost grip due to high slip angles, with anti it pulls the wheel out of slip and makes it do some work till about the apex.
I think its due to the lack of weight over the front wheels .
Jim
Park brake
I don't like the look of the twin calipers on the rear (extra park brake caliper)
So I used a late model (back then it was....) Holden HSV disc with integral drum park brake.
Had heaps of fun with cable routing and the drag it produced. With extra return springs and a massage here and there, it worked.
Clayton
I don't like the look of the twin calipers on the rear (extra park brake caliper)
So I used a late model (back then it was....) Holden HSV disc with integral drum park brake.
Had heaps of fun with cable routing and the drag it produced. With extra return springs and a massage here and there, it worked.
Clayton
Attachments
With the small amount of anti ,almost parallel the only time i notice it is parking or a U turn.
I can feel the front tyres having a fight but it is slight and it depends on the surface, mainly concrete.
Other than that you would not know.
The major anti arms its a 3 point turn just to get into garage at the track.
Jim
Hi Clayton, your rear brake set up looks very much like my "race" Set up on my gt#27. Nice.
Dave is yours the same?
Cheers, Gus.
Dave is yours the same?
Cheers, Gus.
Yeah, I have the 17" rims as supplied by RF, although, they are yet to see rubber around them........
Similar threads
