Lightweight Chassis Jig

[Guest salty_monk]

About 1.8 to 1 at the moment USD to GBP....

 

California where? I'll be back in Redondo Beach in a couple of weeks, be nice to meet some petrol heads.... not met any yet

 

Probably nowhere near though as California is so big....

 

I used to have a Robin Hood 2b although I sold it back in the spring when I first went to the US. Maybe I can give you one or two pointers or alternatively just drink your coffee

 

 

Riz, any idea of the torque figures on those engines & how they compare to the Busa's?? I think the Busa is 170 BHP with 100 lbft torque but could be wrong....

 

Dan

[Longboarder]

The american spec 2.3 duratec is even taller than our 2.0. Pretty sure you will have height issues in a lightweight unless you dry sump it. If you could send one over to me I can do a trial fit in my series 3. Won't help you much but it would be good for me!

 

Nigel

 

Chris, I don't think there is a problem with a Q in this case.

[Guest ScotMac]

Sorry, u lost me for a bit there chris.

 

But did a bit of research on the q-plate. so, u r concerned about some uk registration issues? Yes, i can see how it would be MUCH easier to be able to fully spec from donor, in terms of convincing the DMV (US term!!! ;-) that the car is actually a sierra, or some such!! ;-)

 

However, note that isn't an issue for me. California now has a specialty car registration, which is a bit restricted, in terms of number of miles allowed per yr (similar to ur q?), but is fine w/ me, since i want this car as basically a track/race-car. Maybe a trip or two to lotus 7/locost meets.

 

BTW, i believe that emissions are relaxed for the specialty car also, due to # of miles allowed...so, i would simply dump the cat.

 

Cheers, -sm

[Guest ScotMac]

(LONG POST; sorry; ignore if you want)

 

Nigel, i was NOT considering the 2.3l duratec, just used as a price point. Many of the racing classes that i want to race in are 2.0l and below, and yes, i knew about the height problem. However, a wrecking yard TRIED to pawn one off on me JUST YESTERDAY (claimed it was 2005 duratec 2.0, and it turned out to be 2.3l 2003)!!! LOL

 

Dan, yes, torque is my other concern on the bike engines. I believe the hayabusa is best, but again, we are talking over $3k (US), just for the base engine!! I would be afraid to drive it!!! ;-) Would love to get together for gear talk (my co-workers are getting sick of it!!! ;-). However, u r right...redondo is down by LA, and i'm in SF-bay-area. About 400 miles. Also, i think the conversation would be a bit one sided, as i'm ALL THEORY, and no practice!!! I have the a deposit on the duratec 2.0, and THAT IS IT!!! Still don't know what direction i am going to go. REALLY like the concept of a monocoque, but am NOT AT ALL convinced that RH did it RIGHT. My guess is they did NOT, and i am just wondering how bad their bungling would be.

 

In fact, PLEASE any of the guys that already have their kits, give us some info...PLEASE!!! Pictures would be GREAT, and also some info on the chassis (i'm sure rest is fairly common between 2b and l/w). In fact, here is my "questionaire for RH" (which they have yet to even acknowledge :angry: ):

 

(NOTE: Please feel free to comment on any/all of the questions (or ignore!!! ;-))

 

1. First of all, AND most importantly, can the l/w be shipped to the US???? I would assume the answer is yes, since they would have to be shipped for the export program. If so, what is the dimensions/weight of the package(s).

 

Assuming positive answers to the above questions:

 

2. Can the kit's shipped brakes be switched to slotted/drilled disc brakes (it appears to currently be drum). If the disc brakes can't be shipped, do the hubs accept/support disc brakes? If not, can the hubs be switched to the ones that do? eg, the superspec ones? Note, it is not a question of stopping power, but is instead all about cooling. Disc stay alot cooler than drums, and are thus much better for racing, or sports driving.

 

3. What is the exact weight of the chassis?

 

4. Do you have figures for any testing you have done on the strength of the chassis?

Oh, and i almost forgot the most import questions:

What is the exact grade of the aluminum?

What rivets type and grade of rivets are included w/ the kit?

How are the rivet holes finished off? Are they "capped"? If not, are the holes highly finished/smoothed-off to ensure no shearing (one of the biggest problems w/ aluminum-based riveting)?

 

5. What are the 2 different dash-board options? Do you have pictures (web?) of both?

 

6. Do you have pictures (web?) of the different color options (red,green,blue) for the GRP, and are there any other color options?

 

7. Do you have engine mounts for a duratec engine?

 

8. What transmission and differential do you suggest for a duratec engine (for racing)?

 

9. The chassis jig mentioned in the kit contents is reported to not really be part of the kit. Instead, the customer must build the jig himself. What does this entail. Do you have pictures?

 

10. How does the roll cage attach to the chassis/body? Is it race legal?

 

11. Does the kit include a steering box? Is it rack and pinion?

 

12. Do you have pictures of the stainless steel exhaust cover? In general, do you have some better and more current pictures of a finished l/w? (eg, the one in the picture definitely does NOT have a stainless stell exhaust cover)

 

13. In terms of sealing the aluminum, what compounds do you recommend, *and* how and where do you recommend applying it/them?

 

14. The kit mentions "assortment of bends to fabricate exhaust pipe"....what does this exactly mean? ie, what part of the exhaust must be fabricated, and what part is included? Do you have pictures (someone must have a digital camera over there!!! ;-)? My best guess is that you assume the engine comes w/ exhaust headers, and you simply need the build to go from the headers to to the outside, in order to hook up the final exhaust, as shown in the picture. Also, in general, what is the diameter of theses pipes? Are they mandrel-bent?

 

15. What are the OTHER options in the kit?

 

16. (Newly added) You mention bonding the chassis to gain strength. Bond using what kind of a bonding material? Bond at what exact points?

 

Cheers, -sm

[Guest salty_monk]

Be interested to know a little more about this special car class for California, where are you getting your info from?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[Guest timswait]

For what it's worth, I'd go for the Duratec over the bike engine too. You quote power to weight ratios of the engines, what's really relevent is the power to weight ratio of the complete car. The Duratec only adds 30 odd kilos to a roughly 500kg car, less than 10% over a bike engine. It adds about 50bhp to a 150bhp bike engine, a 33% improvement, therefore the power to weight ratio of the complete car will be better. Plus a wider power curve, and you won't have to change gear so often (although admittedly those changes will be marginally slower). As I understand it bike engines became popular in cars because they were a cheap way of getting a good power to weight ratio, but now so many people use them they're not cheap anymore, so what's the point!

I've got a 2B, so I can't speak with any authority on the light-weight, but it's RHE's policy to use donor components where possible, so with regards to the brakes you should be able to fit whatever you like. Sierras came with discs all round on certain models, so if you can find one of those you can use those, and plenty of places do slotted/drilled kits for Sierras.

It's true that an ali monocoque has the potential to have better stiffness to weight and strength to weight ratios than a steel spaceframe. That doesn't mean that every ali monocoque will be stronger and stiffer than every steel spaceframe, especially if the monocoque is designed to be lighter. Steel spaceframes are far easier to design and build well, so in reality can easily be better. It would be interesting to see some figures for torsional stiffness for a lightweight chassis (if RHE have done the tests), so if you get a reply to your questions then post them up.

[Guest micky bigthumbs]

Where did the jig go

Mick

[Guest Giggling_Buffoon]

Where did the jig go

West?

[Guest ScotMac]

Dan, the law basically allows the assignment of year for the first 500 cars of a CUSTOM line to have the year based on the LOOK of the CAR!!! ie, for us the look of a 60's lotus 7. Or, if doens't resemble ANYTHING, it defaults to 1960. All cars are emision exempt if older than 1976!!!

 

DMV web site defining the rule:

 

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/spcns.htm

 

Relevant text of rule:

 

What is the Specially Constructed Vehicle Emission Control Program?

 

Existing law requires most motor vehicles of a model year 1975 and newer to pass a smog check, emissions control inspection, prior to initial registration or transfer of ownership and every second annual renewal. Starting April 1, 2005, the law will require most motor vehicles of a model year 1976 and newer to pass a smog check, emissions control inspection.

 

Specially constructed vehicles do not have a manufacturer assigned model year because they are esentially home-made vehicles. In the past these vehicles were subject to the emissions control requirements applicable to the year of the engine installed in the vehicle and the regular smog inspections per the county where the vehicle was registered. The year of the engine was determined by a Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) referee during the initial inspection.

 

In 2001, Senate Bill 100 passed which allowed the first 500 specially constructed passenger vehicles and pick-up trucks presented for original (initial) registration to DMV to have the year model for emissions control equipment and inspection purposes based on the appearance of the engine or the vehicle as a whole. In addition, if the vehicle or engine does not resemble an established make or year model BAR is required to assign 1960 as the year model for emission control purposes. In 2002, another Senate Bill passed, SB 1578, which allowed previously registered vehicles to be allowed this special consideration by BAR in addition to initial registrations.

[Guest ScotMac]

Hi Tim, thanks for the info. I agree...ie, i don't think the duratec is going to be that much heavier. In fact, i did some research on the tranny. The tremec t5 is only 75lbs!!! Bellhousing is actually pretty light, and i am going to go w/ a lightened flywheel..

 

Also, Tim, one of the big reasons for getting a monocoque is pure economics. I am hoping the l/w chassis, unassembled, will be substantially less to ship than shipping the FULL size of BOTH the chassis *and* the body of a tubular locost...from UK to california. The point is, the amount of low-cost locosts in the US is *ZERO*!!! Also, i like the unique-ness, lightness, and atleast potential for extra strength and stiffness of the monocoque. In fact, RobinHood is really the ONLY choice for me...IN FACT, I AM FIGHTING IT, since the company leaves a lot to be desired, and i STILL don't see a choice!!!!

 

In the same vein, last night i did some MORE research on monocoques. The ONLY choices that i could find, for a locost 7 monocoque, are the RH L/W, the quantum xtreme, and the birkin composite prc. I don't believe quantum will ship theirs unwelded (besides, i am a bit welding challenged!!! ;-), and birkin will definitely NOT ship theirs outside of australia. ie, as i said, i have no choice!!! ;-)

 

So, i am thinking of going w/ the RH L/W, and using commercial grade glue to bond the body panels, w/ the rivets serving to hold the panels in place while the glue dries. I have seen quoted that the right glue is STONGER than a weld!!! This is exactly what RH actually *recommends* for the l/w. I still have not got a response for what type of ally the l/w is (nor responses for the REST of my questionaire!!! ;-), but does anyone have recommendations for the glue?

 

Also, other than repair, does anyone see a negative to the bonding approach?

 

Thanks again for all the info guys, and again sorry for usurping your thread Peter....and yeah, where is that jig!!!! ;-)

 

Cheers, -sm

[Guest salty_monk]

Is the rule the same for importing cars to California or is that a bit different?? (plan starts to bubble in mind... )

[Guest ScotMac]

The last sentence:

 

In 2002, another Senate Bill passed, SB 1578, which allowed previously registered vehicles to be allowed this special consideration by BAR in addition to initial registrations.

 

Would seem to imply that the rule is very lax. ie, not only does it allow ANY vehicle, including ones that were previously registered as SOME OTHER year, but also, it seems, any initial registration (which i would assume would include your import registration).

 

However, the first 500 rule would seem to apply to the manufacturer produced turn-key cars. Though, i guess u could simply say that you built it urself, instead of the manufacturer. ie, there appears to be enough of a grey area.

 

U r right, it is lauching some interesting ideas in my (small) head also!!! ;-)

 

Cheers, -sm

[Guest macca]

Where did the jig go

Mick

I was wondering that too. Can't wait to see a pic of it

[Guest docter fox]

Where did the jig go

Mick

 

Last seen heading North East towards Utah, trying to find the other piece of chipboard, but as it's got away I guess it must have had a duratec

 

how much does it cost to ship a whole car across to america?

[Guest salty_monk]

£600 give or take in either direction I believe... may be a bit cheaper now with the exchange rate...