Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 569
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

is there anything we need to look out for if we are going to get this logbooked in sports sedans?? anyone (dunc , i know your building one)

cheers russ

I think you'll be alright. 'floorpan vehicles' have to be based on the standard floorpan rather than a spaceframe chassis. tick. 4.2 says that in this case the floorpan is deemed to be the chassis. 4.2 (vii) says "the chassis, sub-frame and all body components other than the shape of the external coachwork are free."

unless there's a seperate section for awd vehicles that overrides this rule, but I don't see one.

log book it now in case the eligibility rules do change! Doesn't need to be finished or inspected to be log-booked.

cheers thanks for that Harry

BTW have i told you how much i love your car!! and i would buy it if my wife wouldnt leave me :D

thanks mate. I'm thinking of pulling the ads actually. got a better paying job starting next week and looks like there's a bit of overtime to be had as well, so I think I'll just tighten the belt for a few months and keep the 1200. Might not be able to play until later in the year though...

Ben, keeps fumes etc out of cabin just like the front one is spose to.

I;ts not just the fumes but should be water tight, in the case of a roll over or tail end hit to contain

fuel spillage, last year my race car failed scrutineering at qld raceway as i had gaps around the dry sump lines guess what lots of silastic fixed in 15 min.

Russ,

Thanks for the pics. I'll post some tomorrow.

They are remarkably similar, with just a few differences which don't amount to much. My only comment would be that you probably should have taken the doorway crosses up to the bends on the main hoop and on the a pillars, they are your weekest points. More a safety issue than a rigidity issue, and since this will likely not be in too many scenarios where other car collisions can occur, it's not much of a problem.

I am planning do to the rear cradle point just in front of the rear wheel arches, but I'm going to mount them differently to the cage. I'll show you tomorow.

Have you though of putting a second straigh bar under the dash below the steering arm. Only way I can see to get the box effect.

Mark

you don't need to seal the rear of the car, you just need to seal the fuel system off from the passenger compartment. Neil's car for instance had the fuel tank where the passenger would have been, and just had ally sheet blocking it off from the cabin

hey Mark

i think dave was thinking about putting a second bar under the dash but i think decided against it ( not sure why, though probably more to do with berry wants the bloody thing home to get stuck into building it:) )

it will be good to see your take on it.

and you are right, not sure whether the r34 will ever run as a sports sedan or just purely time attack ( which was original plan) , he has kept it low so we can get in and out a bit easier but i guess you never know when someone is going to try and come throught the drivers door, especially being carbon.

cheers russ

i think the cage should be pretty strong , i have seen his worked tested out many times before, as i used to mechanic for stewart reid a rally competitor & he tested out quite a few of dave's cages!! :D

including this one , second car in the vid (white evo 6) in tassie http://www.compfused.com/directlink/281/

Edited by giant

I have proof (unfortunately), sitting out in my front yard, that just about any cage with the basics will keep you safe as long as there's no direct impact. The cage in my now defunct combined touring car was fairly basic, but survived 2 good crashes without any damage at all.

The first had a lot of up and down impact as I hit a few hard ditches on the way down the hill with the car still upright and the parts that were damaged were the front and rear when the cage didn't go.

The second time it rolled 6 or 7 times and despite every panel being damaged, the cage is unmoved and unbent. The skin from the roof is actually molded around the cage so that you can clearly see the top and cross bar across the top.

I guess the moral of the story is once you've got your main hoop, a pillars and a few crosses in, the rest of the cage should be designed around rigidity of the chassis. The weakest point of the cage in terms of safety is always going to be a side impact on the doors, which you can't really do much about because the driver gets in the way of a bar across the middle!

Mark

I have proof (unfortunately), sitting out in my front yard, that just about any cage with the basics will keep you safe as long as there's no direct impact. The cage in my now defunct combined touring car was fairly basic, but survived 2 good crashes without any damage at all.

The first had a lot of up and down impact as I hit a few hard ditches on the way down the hill with the car still upright and the parts that were damaged were the front and rear when the cage didn't go.

The second time it rolled 6 or 7 times and despite every panel being damaged, the cage is unmoved and unbent. The skin from the roof is actually molded around the cage so that you can clearly see the top and cross bar across the top.

I guess the moral of the story is once you've got your main hoop, a pillars and a few crosses in, the rest of the cage should be designed around rigidity of the chassis. The weakest point of the cage in terms of safety is always going to be a side impact on the doors, which you can't really do much about because the driver gets in the way of a bar across the middle!

Mark

Im sorry to hear you had to suffer the misfortune of these types of things to be able to speak from experience on them.

Adam.

Both, but not enough of either in the last little while for my liking. I'm trying to put some effort into getting both cars up and running and getting back out there. I knot that when I start getting tempted to get my road car back on the track that withdrawls are starting to set in.

haha! bloody drivers put a bar there anyway! :)

shit mark! have you been rallying too? or circuit

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...