Outriggers...does anyone out there make them ?
Discussion
the trouble is how would you fit them?...you would still need to cut the old ones off and weld the new ones in place....and i bet the mounting holes on my car would be in a different place to the ones on yours.
There are so many discrepencies i do not see how you could make a kit that would be easy to fit...
I can quite easily make a set of outriggers, including the seatbelt bolt brackets and all the angle brackets to bolt the floor down....thats the easy bit....joining them to the car is the hard part...
There are so many discrepencies i do not see how you could make a kit that would be easy to fit...
I can quite easily make a set of outriggers, including the seatbelt bolt brackets and all the angle brackets to bolt the floor down....thats the easy bit....joining them to the car is the hard part...
andy-w said:
....joining them to the car is the hard part...
A few options, using a jig and reference points to ensure correct alignment in all 3 dimensions: Remove the whole of the old outrigger assembley and weld in the new as per the original.
Leave the roots of the old frame (provided they are still sound) with enough length to insert and weld in close fitting internal sleeves, slide new frame tubes over. Outer tubes provided with slots / holes to plug weld the internal shank both sides of the join and then seam weld at the joint.
As above with external sleeves , but this would always be visible as a mend.
The diagonal tubes would need to be welded in last as complete replacements.
If your welding skills are up to the joining bit then making the frame isnt going to be a problem.
Edited by Tahiti450 on Saturday 19th January 19:57
From my understanding it's just race/sports car frame tubing and although a bespoke job there are lots of people who do this. Chris Floyd who lives near me and I think his PH name it Pink Floyd had his outriggers done recenly by a local company that makes MC sidecar frames. I think the's really pleased whith the result but you's have to ask him.
Fact is, it's nothing special to TVRs, it's just frame tubing.
Fact is, it's nothing special to TVRs, it's just frame tubing.
spend said:
That may be far more dangerous than you think... Mild steel has some valuable properties. I wouldn't want to use stainless bolts on the suspension for similar reasons.
Dave
Dave
Mechanical properties completely different - it may be possible but some major calculations and likely redesign certainly required.spend said:
That may be far more dangerous than you think... Mild steel has some valuable properties. I wouldn't want to use stainless bolts on the suspension for similar reasons.
Dave
Er, no offense intended but I'm guessing you're not an Engineer. The type of loads, magnitude of the loads and number of stress cycles on a suspension bolt are very different to those on the outriggers which are substantially tension/compression with pretty low torsion/bending/shear. I would be quite happy with stainless steel outriggers made from the correct grade and welded using stainless filler wire (or preferably closed head orbital welding). Dave
When I eventually do this on the Griff I will go for stainless and use the boroscope to check the other tubes and possibly the Closed Head Orbital Welding gear from work. Although I cant be certain at this stage, with the exception of the centre tube it may be possible to do without lifting the body. If this proves to be the case, the centre tube could be done by cutting a 7" square hole in the floor and later replacing it with a removable cover. I'm surprised no TVR indie's have investigated this approach as I recon there would be a reasonable trade there. Having said that Closed Head Orbital Welding gear is not common outside the high integrity piping industry.
spend said:
Chad speed said:
torsion/bending/shear
Sounds like you have considered the static loading, I would be more concerned with the performance in a crash, ie a nice controlled deformation. Dave
Chad
Will stainless be more liable to fatigue as the chassis twists in normal use?. The outriggers also triangulate to resist the torsional force on the backbone between the engine & diff as I understand the design.
I think the concept of the chassis being rigid is a misnomer, we try to make it stiff but it does flex in use.
Dave
I think the concept of the chassis being rigid is a misnomer, we try to make it stiff but it does flex in use.
Dave
TVR built PW a Tuscan racer with an all stainless chassis. I have no idea why this didn’t become standard, but costs may be a big factor. This of course is often stripped and inspected and a road car must go many years between body removals, especially if the outriggers don’t rust.
I am not an engineer, but it seems to me as the outriggers do relatively little work. The suspension mounts entirely on the central spine and the outriggers play only a small part in resisting the twisting forces imposed by the suspension. They seem to be there to support the body and locate it to the spine. Obviously this is not entirely true, but the loadings are fairly light in comparison to the spine.
As for crash protection, the best protection is not to buy any car like a TVR. Buy a Volvo instead. However, although the characteristics of mild steel may be superior when it is in good condition, it will rust. Despite inspecting our chassis to the best of our abilities, or placing our trust in those who service them, it is often the case that owners are shocked by the corrosion found when the body is finally removed. I would far rather have a stainless outrigger that is of constant strength, than the mild steel one that is good for a while, but (perhaps unknown to me) rusts and becomes weaker than the stainless one.
If anyone is so concerned with side impact protection, perhaps they should be redesigning the outriggers to provide proper support for side intrusion bars. TVR did do them but they were a joke and only for those markets requiring them by law. Putting a bar in without providing any way of dispersing the impact energy to the chassis is pointless at best and may even be worse than nothing. As has already been said, the outrigger design is too low to do anything against another car.
I am not an engineer, but it seems to me as the outriggers do relatively little work. The suspension mounts entirely on the central spine and the outriggers play only a small part in resisting the twisting forces imposed by the suspension. They seem to be there to support the body and locate it to the spine. Obviously this is not entirely true, but the loadings are fairly light in comparison to the spine.
As for crash protection, the best protection is not to buy any car like a TVR. Buy a Volvo instead. However, although the characteristics of mild steel may be superior when it is in good condition, it will rust. Despite inspecting our chassis to the best of our abilities, or placing our trust in those who service them, it is often the case that owners are shocked by the corrosion found when the body is finally removed. I would far rather have a stainless outrigger that is of constant strength, than the mild steel one that is good for a while, but (perhaps unknown to me) rusts and becomes weaker than the stainless one.
If anyone is so concerned with side impact protection, perhaps they should be redesigning the outriggers to provide proper support for side intrusion bars. TVR did do them but they were a joke and only for those markets requiring them by law. Putting a bar in without providing any way of dispersing the impact energy to the chassis is pointless at best and may even be worse than nothing. As has already been said, the outrigger design is too low to do anything against another car.
Chad speed said:
spend said:
That may be far more dangerous than you think... Mild steel has some valuable properties. I wouldn't want to use stainless bolts on the suspension for similar reasons.
Dave
Er, no offense intended but I'm guessing you're not an Engineer. The type of loads, magnitude of the loads and number of stress cycles on a suspension bolt are very different to those on the outriggers which are substantially tension/compression with pretty low torsion/bending/shear. I would be quite happy with stainless steel outriggers made from the correct grade and welded using stainless filler wire (or preferably closed head orbital welding). Dave
When I eventually do this on the Griff I will go for stainless and use the boroscope to check the other tubes and possibly the Closed Head Orbital Welding gear from work. Although I cant be certain at this stage, with the exception of the centre tube it may be possible to do without lifting the body. If this proves to be the case, the centre tube could be done by cutting a 7" square hole in the floor and later replacing it with a removable cover. I'm surprised no TVR indie's have investigated this approach as I recon there would be a reasonable trade there. Having said that Closed Head Orbital Welding gear is not common outside the high integrity piping industry.
with the correct grade of stainless and the correct filler wire there will be no problems at all, but not something for the DIY welder with a mig set.
Uncle Fester said:
I was talking to CliveF the other day. Clive runs a welding business and V8 Enhancements.
He said that it was possible to fabricate and weld on stainless steel outriggers to the original chassis.
When the time comes to do mine, I shall try this.
I was thinking of going the stainless route myself if I end up fabricating my own..He said that it was possible to fabricate and weld on stainless steel outriggers to the original chassis.
When the time comes to do mine, I shall try this.
So Fester.. what do you think of a mild to stainless tig weld, with a stainless infill ?
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff