Sirpent "Z"

[Sirpent]

LOL

 

That's uncanny Peter, what a coincidence !

 

When you touch base with him, send him a big thankyou and also tell him that he better have not swapped the C32 AMG for the C32 Honda like he said he would LMAO

[KatoKid]

Hey John.

 

You know how we discussed engine/trans mounting as well as chassis strengthening? Have a look at this for some inspiration....some pretty interesting tube work going on here http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=99393.100 Realise this is very drag orientated but some good ideas worth considering.

 

David

 

 

[Sirpent]

David,

 

Past few days I have been checking out some stuff on the web similar to this, Peter Mac was over my place today and he looked at me half cocked when I explained what I had in mind, mind you he left about 5 minutes later, sorry Pete LOL

 

Going full tubular would be great, maybe overkill for a street car, plus you really need the car on a hoist next to a Mandel bender to attempt that degree of intricacy, but nevertheless inspirational every time you see some of the work out there.

 

I'm afraid mine will have to be something much simpler, but nice to dream.

[KatoKid]

Didn't mean to imply that level of intricacy or incorporation, just looking at the concept and what could be done with bolt in alternatives. More or less an expansion on the X frame we discussed.

[Sirpent]

Dave,

 

Sorry mate, I didnt mean my response to come across the wrong way, I appreciate the post, I think its fantastic fabrication and wasnt meaning to dismiss it in any way, or your reason for posting it, if only that $15M tatts draw would fall my way then I think the sky would be the limit.

 

Cheers

 

John

[KatoKid]

No offence taken....I think one of the great strengths of this forum is the different perspectives and creative solutions offered up. There is so much out there (on the interweb) and some amazing builds that I think its worth drawing attention to anything that could be utilised as an alternative, even if just a small component is utilised. My favourite cliche'..."you don't know what you don't know"!

 

Whats been done in that build isn't outside of the realms of any back yard builder.... reproducing the quality of fabrication would be a big stretch though! The man can weld!

[Sirpent]

OK Update time.

 

So went to see my engineer with the idea I had with regard to upgrading the chassis for the new power / drivetrain set up.

 

What I wanted to achieve was 3 things.

 

#1 Create a very rigid structure capable of dealing with the torque that's expected.

#2 Build it in a way that would allow for almost the entire structure to be bolted in allowing for ease of removal.

#3 Attempt to use the structure as the platform from where the engine, trans and diff mounted too, this would allow for the mounting and alignment of these components with the superstructure outside of the shell.

 

So after creating a scaled drawing of the S30 from dimensional plans I had at hand, I came up with the attachment.

 

The legend shows 3 color codes, the white areas are the OEM rails, Green the bolt in superstructure I have named a companion chassis, and the yellow weld in outriggers which will be welded into the floor and existing rails.

 

The front cross member for the engine will become a solid welded feature into the new companion chassis allowing me to specific weld the crossmember for the mounts to the position of the engine.

 

There is also a crossmember which will become a welded in feature also for the trans mounts and dual members at the rear which will cater for the diff allowing hang down mounts to suit the diff position, this should allow me to dispense with the rear diff cap mount period.

 

The new chassis will bolt at the original engine cross member mount points, dual bolts will secure the chassis at each outrigger, and at the rear the chassis will bolt in at the moustache bar member, all bolt areas will utilise crush tubes where required.

 

I know this may seem like overkill, however all up weight should come in at approximately 90Kg, considering that the new engine will be some 60kg less than the L6 it doesn't phase me.

 

I should know back from the engineer within the next few days if this concept will fly with regard to statutory requirements, but at the moment I have an initial thumbs up.

 

Cheers

 

John

[Sirpent]

Raining out,

 

So decided to scale draw up the Companion Chassis.

[peter mc]

hi john

has the engineer got back with the size Reg for the job ,,, looks real cool 

[Sirpent]

Still waiting for his call back, fingers crossed today.

[Sirpent]

UPDATE for those interested

 

My certifying engineer, Paul Bottomley emailed me a short time ago followed by a chat over the phone about some of his remarks and concerns (See notes in main email body)

 

I have the green light to go ahead with the chassis design as I drew it up, so as soon as the motor lands, I will be calling on a few favours from some of the Lads on the forum to come down for a build weekend.

 

As it stands, if or when the Companion Chassis I have come up with is certified, it will be available as a stop gap alternative for those that may be looking at upgrading to some high output power plants and minimising the amount or need for drastic chassis welded reinforcements.

 

I now need a standard more or less car loaned to me so as Paul can do a beam test, this will not cause any structural damage or stress to the car, so if someone can assist please email me, unfortunately my car in bare form cannot be used.

 

Not mentioned here but also relayed in my conversation post the email was that the diff and cradle design I have come up with isn't a problem and he likes the thinking behind disassociating the suspension and diff action from each other as per the original OEM design, I wont have to use the rear diff mount of the diff hat at all to mount it, just the 2 side mounts with bushings, and the diff can be hung from the companion chassis as opposed to being mounted from beneath.

 

I have also decided to tie in the rear inner cabin suspension towers into the build with a removable tower floor brace (see attached) which will bolt through the rear floor to the companion chassis.

 

This is Paul's email response with supplementary comments from our later phone conversation.

 

Hi John,

 

Well done on your work so far, I know what is involved in developing designs.

 

All looks good and do-able in principal. I ref our earlier correspondence re tare mass – you need to be above 1100kg for this to work.

(The car comes in over this weight requirement)

 

We still need to show that 260Z was >1100 TARE, RTA NSW may have data on this. Another thing that comes to mind is ADR10 steering column collapse and intrusion into the cabin, altering anything in front of the rack/box is often difficult especially with SRS cars but we are well before that !

 

(I will still be using the original cross member for the rack albeit less the engine mount points so this wont be a problem)

 

You are stiffening the structure which is probably directionally correct, however we may look at adding some crumple areas to at minimum maintain or improve the OE crash-worthyness, stiffer is not always better. 

 

(The companion chassis will need a number or crumple zones built into them, this will mean in a few key areas the rails may need to narrow to a smaller surface area so as they are capable of colasping in on themselves in case of a VERY hard hit)

 

M600 is only appropriate for pre 1976 vehicles unless we do a drive cycle test.

 

(This is emissions related, however as my car is a 05/75 vehicle this wont apply, basically using a latter motor in a retrofit requires the use of the OEM management system for any car post 1976)

 

The first step after the tare issue is to do a torsion and beaming test on an std OE vehicle as a baseline, then a follow up using your companion arrangement. We need to show that we have not introduced stress raisers or areas of great change in stiffness, I believe you have that covered well, fairly uniform structure and extending beyond the wheelbase. Any questions please ask, if you gather questions from other members interested in doing the same I would be pleased to respond next week or I could come along to a meeting at a later date if that would be helpful and appropriate.

 

Paul Bottomley

 

Director

 

Automotive Performance Solutions

Factory 1, 29 Hanrahan St, Thomastown 3074

Victoria, Australia.

Ph : (61 3) 9466 4222

Fax : (61 3) 9466 4822

[benny]

awesome progress john!! My car is here and your welcome to use it for the test just tell me when and where ;D

[Sirpent]

Hey Ben

 

You are a champ, but I have to warn you that he needs it for 2 days.

 

Would that be a problem?

[Riceburner]

Great work John. The added stiffness to chassis will transform how the car feels. I couldn't believe the difference after fitting the 6point bolt in cage, even putting around town.

 

Probably a silly question as you seem to have thought of everything.... will all engine/driveline components be individually removeable for servicing or replacement while leaving the companion chassis in place?

[Sirpent]

Great work John. The added stiffness to chassis will transform how the car feels. I couldn't believe the difference after fitting the 6point bolt in cage, even putting around town.

 

Probably a silly question as you seem to have thought of everything.... will all engine/driveline components be individually removeable for servicing or replacement while leaving the companion chassis in place?

 

Yeah Peter Mac and I had a long discussion about this one night, the car should really feel tight as a result but then it will all come down to setting up the suspension correctly with the right spring rates and dampening so it will be interesting to see how it drives.

 

Short answer is yes, I will be able to mount up the entire drive train on the chassis then wheel it in under the car and into position which will be a God send rather than trying to suspend everything in place and do it that way.

 

As far as removal, the engine will unbolt as normal, but to get the box out i suspect I will have to release the motor then remove the box as the cross member will be a structural welded part of the chassis unless I make it a bolt on item, as far as the diff, just drop the control arms and unbolt the diff and let it down, pretty simple operation.

 

Here is how the box will sit in the Zed, I Hijacked this off a build thread on Hybrid where the guy is using an LS1 and T56.

 

Cheers

 

John

[Cozza]

Hi John

 

More impressive progress, it sounds like you have a very helpful engineer.

 

[All looks good and do-able in principal. I ref our earlier correspondence re tare mass – you need to be above 1100kg for this to work.

I'm intrigued as to why the vehicle tare mass must be over 1100kg's also, what's the process behind the torsion and beaming tests?

I notice your engineer talks about being to stiff, do you think it's possible you could have vibration or fatigue issues? Is that what your engineer is thinking?

 

Love your work and good luck.

Cheers

Mick

[Sirpent]

Mick read pages 19-21 of this thread for the long explanation.

 

Basically acceptable engine capacity as far as a retro fit is determined by its aspiration, a formula exists for current laws which uses the vehicles TARE weight to determine the maximum capacity allowed, in the case of forced induction this dramatically restricts capacities, in my case 3.2 litres of super charged motor is at the max allowable.

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/pdf/NCOP3_Section_LA_Engine_01jan2011_v3.pdf

 

The torsion and beaming test determines the vehicles base OEM capabilities, inertial forces caused by torque translate to torsional stress on the superstructure and with 450 nM of torque it will basically twist itself apart under load, after the chassis is built and installed, another test is done to advise the registration authorities of the % increase in torsional rigidity so as to satisfy them that the thing will hold up under driving conditions.

 

As far as being to stiff, I believe that he is referring to 2 matters for consideration here, first the fact that this chassis will not carry the suspension therefore effecting how the body reacts at these points to the solid mounted drivetrain and the second with respect to frontal impact, this is why he mentions the steering shaft and the capability of the car to fold and absorb impact forces, in an accident, if the body dosnt absorb the impact, the human driver will by being pushed into the steering wheel, equal and opposite effects of the structures characteristics.

 

Vibration and fatigue issues, No I doubt it, simple reason being that the entire drive train is not reliant on the original body, suspension mount point fatigue, possible but remote, I don't plan to drive this on the track more than once or twice just to see how it performs, 90% will be normal road use when its used.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers

 

John 

[benny]

 

shouldn't be a problem!! send me a pm with dates!!

 

 

 

 

[KatoKid]

Isn't Benny's car a 240 and you need a 260 for the test?

[benny]

mines a 74 260Z... actually John is yours series 2 260Z if it is my chassis is different!!

[MaygZ]

My favourite cliche'..."you don't know what you don't know"!

 

I didn't know that.

[Sirpent]

As long as its a 260Z it will be fine, the weight rating will be used based on mine for the engine capacity and if Bens chassis is slightly weeker it will show my chassis to have a higher % rating at the end, all good 

[Cozza]

Hey John,

That is one epic thread that dips and dives through some big sagas, you could make a movie about it, something like "Love The Beast"

Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to open the links at work but the posts seem to relay the idea.

 

Another ground breaking project to follow, keep up the good work and best of luck

 

Mick

[Sirpent]

Hey John,

That is one epic thread that dips and dives through some big sagas, you could make a movie about it, something like "Love The Beast"

Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to open the links at work but the posts seem to relay the idea.

 

Another ground breaking project to follow, keep up the good work and best of luck

 

Mick

 

LOL

 

Seems to describe my life actually, dips and dives !

 

And you mention "Love The Beast", well I never actually met Eric Bana (Banadinovic) but we did hang out at the same places at one stage, at the time I had an XC Cobra and of course he had his XB Coupe, I totaled the Cobra on the Eastern Fwy and got the Zed a month later and have had it for 27 years, so yeah maybe one day I will get my aspiring son who is working towards film making to do a backyard film on his crazy old mans flight of fancy.

 

Cheers

 

John

[zedevan]

(This is emissions related, however as my car is a 05/75 vehicle this wont apply, basically using a latter motor in a retrofit requires the use of the OEM management system for any car post 1976

 

Do you know of the exact date/adr which applies to the above? I just tried to do a quick search on m600 to see what it was but too much irrelevant stuff came up. Last time i looked into the emissions stuff from memory it was ADR12b, which came in March 1976.

 

The only reason I care is my car was made 01/76. It's still availible for testing if you need it, however in the state it's in would need half a day spent on it to move/stop under its own power, therefore is really only ideal if you're happy trailering/rolling it around...so Ben's is a better option!