New build, old school shell on later spec chassis - discuss?
Discussion
May I suggest you spray it burgundy metalic ? Just to give it an even higher Titan content......
I'm not taking the mickey, and I admire your determination (and skill), but i am with Neil, as, i don't see the point in re-inventing Chixen ot Vixeara......
btw; my titan flyer is now serving as a tab in the latest Filby book, how apt is that ?
I'm not taking the mickey, and I admire your determination (and skill), but i am with Neil, as, i don't see the point in re-inventing Chixen ot Vixeara......
btw; my titan flyer is now serving as a tab in the latest Filby book, how apt is that ?
On that chassis topic, how good ARE the different chassis designs really ?
The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
RCK974X said:
On that chassis topic, how good ARE the different chassis designs really ?
The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
They all pretty much do the same thing...The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
The thurner chassis was much better than the self taught Blackpool version. The M was probably better again being a much simplified version of Mike Biglands Richard Taft Racing chassis, The chimaera chassis probably no better than the M, just using more modern components and the T chassis using a wider track.
I am pretty sure that on a circuit I will be able to drive all 4 chassis around in comparably equal times which is the fundamental point surely!!
At the end of the day...
What do you want the car to do.
What do you want it to look like??
Its up to the individual owner / builder... It would be a boring world if we all did the same thing.
Regards chassis dynamics...I would look to hillclimbing to get an answer!!
Regards a wedge chassis...well if we also want to consider a Mk3 cortina and Hyaundi stellar Then I suppose you could place them accordingly??
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Sunday 13th January 20:33
Yeah, somehow a comment like "they are all pretty good and overall one isn't all THAT much better than the others" feels much more beleiveable to me ...
I am genuinely interested - race chassis have different budgets to production ones, even for TVR !
And of course I didn't realise how much stronger CDS tube is to the 'ordinary' ERW tube. That would make a noticeable difference, I bet.
PS> Isn't it always cheating to compare a monocoque with a tube chassis ?
I think even an incompetant monocoque design will be stiffer then the 'standard' tube chassis ?
I am genuinely interested - race chassis have different budgets to production ones, even for TVR !
And of course I didn't realise how much stronger CDS tube is to the 'ordinary' ERW tube. That would make a noticeable difference, I bet.
PS> Isn't it always cheating to compare a monocoque with a tube chassis ?
I think even an incompetant monocoque design will be stiffer then the 'standard' tube chassis ?
hi 250, don,t worry about the wheelbase, just manipulate the wishbones to suit, but in saying that be wary of the outrigger supports on the tyres and neil is quite right, just do it. you do have to think a job through, but thought can bog you dowm and quite often the best way is just to start, after all it is only fibreglass. myself i love it and the best of luck to you. best regards keith
heightswitch said:
RCK974X said:
On that chassis topic, how good ARE the different chassis designs really ?
The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
They all pretty much do the same thing...The TVR books, articles etc tend to say "new chassis was much better than the previous one...scientific....stronger" and then say this for each new model, making me suspicious.
Has anyone got comments on Vixen versus Wedge vs 'S' versus Chim and so on ?
How good is that Vixen/Thurner chassis really ??
Is the wedge chassis better ? (etc...)
The thurner chassis was much better than the self taught Blackpool version. The M was probably better again being a much simplified version of Mike Biglands Richard Taft Racing chassis, The chimaera chassis probably no better than the M, just using more modern components and the T chassis using a wider track.
I am pretty sure that on a circuit I will be able to drive all 4 chassis around in comparably equal times which is the fundamental point surely!!
At the end of the day...
What do you want the car to do.
What do you want it to look like??
Its up to the individual owner / builder... It would be a boring world if we all did the same thing.
Regards chassis dynamics...I would look to hillclimbing to get an answer!!
Regards a wedge chassis...well if we also want to consider a Mk3 cortina and Hyaundi stellar Then I suppose you could place them accordingly??
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Sunday 13th January 20:33
RCK974X said:
Yeah, somehow a comment like "they are all pretty good and overall one isn't all THAT much better than the others" feels much more beleiveable to me ...
I am genuinely interested - race chassis have different budgets to production ones, even for TVR !
And of course I didn't realise how much stronger CDS tube is to the 'ordinary' ERW tube. That would make a noticeable difference, I bet.
PS> Isn't it always cheating to compare a monocoque with a tube chassis ?
I think even an incompetant monocoque design will be stiffer then the 'standard' tube chassis ?
A high degree of chassis rigidity is not just a goal for racing. Being able to accept high degrees of load with relatively little bending or flexing, both in torsion, and in the longitudinal and vertical axes is what makes modern production cars saleable to an ever more discerning customer base. I am genuinely interested - race chassis have different budgets to production ones, even for TVR !
And of course I didn't realise how much stronger CDS tube is to the 'ordinary' ERW tube. That would make a noticeable difference, I bet.
PS> Isn't it always cheating to compare a monocoque with a tube chassis ?
I think even an incompetant monocoque design will be stiffer then the 'standard' tube chassis ?
Today, there are plenty of manufacturers who do a great job with monocoque construction. They are able to achieve phenomenal stiffness. Some of those tanks also weigh upward of 5,000lb!!!! Ohe reason is that a true monocoque is essentially a tube, not pierced with four giant holes for doors, one more for a windshield, and yet another for a hatchback. None the less, today everybody uses FEA to trim mass where it's of little/no benefit, and add more where it counts.
As for tube frames, look at the Aussie racing sedans cruising around Bathurst, or the US "Stock Cars." These are essentially tube frame chassis, with some skin. Most of the skin is made of composite materials, not unlike a TVR. I believe there was even talk of having the newest DTM cars use a similar "spec" tube chassis, to bring costs down.
TVR chassis certainly went through an evolutionary process. You can see the results when you look at the generations. One difference you'll notice right away, is the addition of much triangulation in the vertical plane, along the tubular backbone. This is also how people improve the M chassis. You can, of course, add the bracing in a way that suits a second purpose, driver protection, which is what makes many racing cars quite so stiff. By justifying the addition of substantially more weight to safeguard the occupant, you can essentially use larger triangles to pick up the loads at their vertices. Just think of it as a larger truss.
In a road car, with fairly compliant suspension, the principal return of a stiffer frame is in the perception of quality, the solid feel when closing a door, or when cornering or absorbing a bump. It is not in vastly improved handling.
The below link will show you what can be done with one of the more modern versions. While I think you could do the same thing with an older chassis, if you were to heavily triangulate it (thereby utilizing the lessons learned in the newer generations), you'd still be limited, in the way of handling, by suspension design.
http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wu...
Best,
B.
Slow M said:
high degree of chassis rigidity is not just a goal for racing. Being able to accept high degrees of load with relatively little bending or flexing, both in torsion, and in the longitudinal and vertical axes is what makes modern production cars saleable to an ever more discerning customer base.
Today, there are plenty of manufacturers who do a great job with monocoque construction. They are able to achieve phenomenal stiffness. Some of those tanks also weigh upward of 5,000lb!!!! Ohe reason is that a true monocoque is essentially a tube, not pierced with four giant holes for doors, one more for a windshield, and yet another for a hatchback. None the less, today everybody uses FEA to trim mass where it's of little/no benefit, and add more where it counts.
As for tube frames, look at the Aussie racing sedans cruising around Bathurst, or the US "Stock Cars." These are essentially tube frame chassis, with some skin. Most of the skin is made of composite materials, not unlike a TVR. I believe there was even talk of having the newest DTM cars use a similar "spec" tube chassis, to bring costs down.
TVR chassis certainly went through an evolutionary process. You can see the results when you look at the generations. One difference you'll notice right away, is the addition of much triangulation in the vertical plane, along the tubular backbone. This is also how people improve the M chassis. You can, of course, add the bracing in a way that suits a second purpose, driver protection, which is what makes many racing cars quite so stiff. By justifying the addition of substantially more weight to safeguard the occupant, you can essentially use larger triangles to pick up the loads at their vertices. Just think of it as a larger truss.
In a road car, with fairly compliant suspension, the principal return of a stiffer frame is in the perception of quality, the solid feel when closing a door, or when cornering or absorbing a bump. It is not in vastly improved handling.
The below link will show you what can be done with one of the more modern versions. While I think you could do the same thing with an older chassis, if you were to heavily triangulate it (thereby utilizing the lessons learned in the newer generations), you'd still be limited, in the way of handling, by suspension design.
http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wu...
Best,
B.
bernard.Today, there are plenty of manufacturers who do a great job with monocoque construction. They are able to achieve phenomenal stiffness. Some of those tanks also weigh upward of 5,000lb!!!! Ohe reason is that a true monocoque is essentially a tube, not pierced with four giant holes for doors, one more for a windshield, and yet another for a hatchback. None the less, today everybody uses FEA to trim mass where it's of little/no benefit, and add more where it counts.
As for tube frames, look at the Aussie racing sedans cruising around Bathurst, or the US "Stock Cars." These are essentially tube frame chassis, with some skin. Most of the skin is made of composite materials, not unlike a TVR. I believe there was even talk of having the newest DTM cars use a similar "spec" tube chassis, to bring costs down.
TVR chassis certainly went through an evolutionary process. You can see the results when you look at the generations. One difference you'll notice right away, is the addition of much triangulation in the vertical plane, along the tubular backbone. This is also how people improve the M chassis. You can, of course, add the bracing in a way that suits a second purpose, driver protection, which is what makes many racing cars quite so stiff. By justifying the addition of substantially more weight to safeguard the occupant, you can essentially use larger triangles to pick up the loads at their vertices. Just think of it as a larger truss.
In a road car, with fairly compliant suspension, the principal return of a stiffer frame is in the perception of quality, the solid feel when closing a door, or when cornering or absorbing a bump. It is not in vastly improved handling.
The below link will show you what can be done with one of the more modern versions. While I think you could do the same thing with an older chassis, if you were to heavily triangulate it (thereby utilizing the lessons learned in the newer generations), you'd still be limited, in the way of handling, by suspension design.
http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/wu...
Best,
B.
We're going to have to get you a girl friend
Just in case - from the responses.....
I wasn't specifically talking racing - just sayin' that the typical racer chassis will be a lot stiffer than the 'standard' early TVR (e.g Thurner Vixen, perhaps 'M') - or would it ?
Yep totally agree, on average, even an incompetant monocoque will be FAR stiffer than even an advanced multitube (just covering myself there !!)
Yep, standard rule - the more triangulation, the stronger - I remember reading a racing design book which said the real trick is how to triangulate enough for stiffness but still be able to get engines and transmissons in and out, and of course the DRIVER in and out !!
I remember quite a few saloon cars for racing were the two door options with the doors welded up for extra stiffness.....
Agree too on handling - that's the suspension's job, once chassis (or body) is stiff enough.
I have to say my Wedge (2.8) doesn't seem to creak much for example, or 'dance' on even quite bad bumps, whereas the old/original Vixen chassis did cause worrying body creaks quite a bit (and later I discovered why, when I inspected it and found damage and dodgy repairs....)
I wasn't specifically talking racing - just sayin' that the typical racer chassis will be a lot stiffer than the 'standard' early TVR (e.g Thurner Vixen, perhaps 'M') - or would it ?
Yep totally agree, on average, even an incompetant monocoque will be FAR stiffer than even an advanced multitube (just covering myself there !!)
Yep, standard rule - the more triangulation, the stronger - I remember reading a racing design book which said the real trick is how to triangulate enough for stiffness but still be able to get engines and transmissons in and out, and of course the DRIVER in and out !!
I remember quite a few saloon cars for racing were the two door options with the doors welded up for extra stiffness.....
Agree too on handling - that's the suspension's job, once chassis (or body) is stiff enough.
I have to say my Wedge (2.8) doesn't seem to creak much for example, or 'dance' on even quite bad bumps, whereas the old/original Vixen chassis did cause worrying body creaks quite a bit (and later I discovered why, when I inspected it and found damage and dodgy repairs....)
Edited by RCK974X on Tuesday 15th January 04:14
Edited by RCK974X on Tuesday 15th January 04:17
RCK974X said:
...Yep totally agree, on average, even an incompetant monocoque will be FAR stiffer than even an advanced multitube (just covering myself there !!)...
Andy, Actually, I was disagreeing with you, on that point. I think that if we look at some monocoques, and compare them to the TVR chassis in the article, it'll give some perspective.
I chose convertibles, as they are simlar in type, and the worst application of the monocoque principal.
Chrysler Sebring convertible.................4,400 Nm/deg
Mustang convertible (2003).................4,800 Nm/deg
BMW E36 Z3.....................................5,600 Nm/deg
Honda S2000....................................7,100 Nm/deg
Ferrari 360 Spider..............................8,500 Nm/deg
Cerberus chassis + racing rollcage...8,772 Nm/deg (no body)
Another thing to think about, is that performing the test with major components or assemblies in place will increase stiffness, as the assemblies will provide resistance. Manufacturers surely don't release figures that are not of an advantage to them, so...
Finally, please note that the TVR chassis was tested without the body bolted to it. This alone would produce a significant increase. If you don't think it would, consider that the original Lotus Elite was often referred to as a fiberglass "monocoque."
Best,
B.
Slow M said:
my250gt said:
This is my inspiration, this is how i want it to look
Best,
B.
Slow M said:
hil, that's tasty. Very aggressive looking, but I think they could have made the front wheelarch extensions somewhat more curvaceous, and follow the fender top line more closely.
Best,
B.
Yes , you are spot on, that's the one bit that lets it down. I was thinking I could widen the bonnet a tad at the front to cover the wider tyre line. Will post a pic in a moment to show what I mean.Best,
B.
N. for me its the round arch every time. Not true TVR maybe, but personnel taste. Your griff is looking great, a real car at last, worth all the effort, well done that man!
E. the older bonnet fits very well width wise, very close, only the early ones are not flat across the top like the taimar, they undulate slightly (curvy) but that will be accommodated.
Thanks for all the support, will keep posting progress, next job over the coming weeks is to bond the two tubs to make one, incorporating a rollcage of course that will pickup on the chim frame.
P.
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff