MikeRJ
|
| posted on 22/5/03 at 07:24 AM |
|
|
Wide Chassis builders
All you guys that have built or are building a +4 inch chassis, have you kept the height of the chassis the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 22/5/03 at 08:43 AM |
|
|
Mike,
My +4" chassis is identical to the book except all cross pieces are 4" longer.
Believe Craig is doing same.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 22/5/03 at 12:08 PM |
|
|
Cheers for the reply. I ask because I've just realised the chassis I bought is 1" taller than book as well.
Hopefully this may help to keep the proportions simmilar to the book car, but it does mean a bit more work sorting out the front suspension mountings
(and undoubtedly lots of other things I've yet to find!)
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 22/5/03 at 04:16 PM |
|
|
Im building the mcsorly 7+4 combined with the 7+442 with a slightly wider front just to be different
I have a huge engine to take..
|
|
|
elewayne
|
| posted on 22/5/03 at 04:40 PM |
|
|
Taller chassis
I made mine 2" wider, 2" longer( for my 6'3" tall son), and 1-1/2" taller because my engine is a bit on the tall side at
26" overall. I did a cad drawing and the proportions seemed to still look OK.
Shouldn't be any real problem.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 23/5/03 at 09:00 AM |
|
|
I've made mine 10% longer and wider (though I wouldn't recommend doing it this way to others) but not added any height to it.
I've since decided I wish I had added height (I'm trying to fit in a Pinto!) so I may be going to cheat by welding on an extra rail on top
of the current J1/2 rails.
The only benefit to doing it the way I did that I can see is that the nose end isn't much wider so it's ok to have the nose cone and FU1/2
to Book sizes. Means that the front suspension is the same as the book.
The main problem with widening +4 (or even +2) I can see is the front suspension geometry. How have you guys resolved having to add extra into the
wishbones? (Assuming you're using Sierra running gear that is?)
I'd have thought the ratios of The Book wishbones between top and bottom was relevent. If you're just blanket adding in 3"
(1.5" each side) doesn't the geometry screw up?
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 23/5/03 at 06:17 PM |
|
|
I'm wide and I've built a chassis!
Mines +100mm wide(we've gone metric btw) all the way through but the standard height, details on the website.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
jbmcsorley
|
| posted on 16/6/03 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
+4 and front suspension
FWIW, the +4" drawings on my website reflect the same compound angles as the original book design... so the front suspension brackets mount in
exactly the same position.
In theory, if the rear track is +4", then the book wishbones should work without modification on a true +4" chassis.
I also have a chassis design that is +4" in the back, but still fits a standard nosecone (it's not on my website, but email me if
you're interested).
This one will require some front suspension design because I've also eliminated the compound angles (somewhat like the Tiger). It's a lot
easier to build than the book (IMO) and it provides a lot of options for the upper mounts because the FU and LA/B are perfectly coplanar, unlike the
book.
Cheers,
-Jim M.
[Edited on 16/6/03 by jbmcsorley]
|
|
|
