> I have been thinking about adding some bracing to the birdcage as well.
> The two steps I have been considering are 1) tying the rear of the
birdcage
> to the frame with two braces that would follow the line of the hatch and
> thus be relatively unobtrusive.
=======
The front portion of the car flexes more than the back due to the
semi-monocoque design of the birdcage / bodywork.
=======
2) Using metal or very hard urethane
> washers when rebolting the birdcage to the chassis. The latter would
> reduce the flex of the body, but might also introduce too much stress into
> the birdcage.
=======
Maybe not, but if the frame is stiffened against flex, it shouldn't be an
issue.
=======
Anyone know why Bricklin put rubber washers in there in the
> first place?
=======
My guess is monkey see, monkey do engineering. The Bricklin is little
different than a Vette in design and execution. The Vette frame is seriously
weak. With metal spacers in lieu of rubber donuts, the frame / cage would
flex enough to pop the 'T' tops off. The Bricklin's birdcage appears to be
much more rigid, contributing more to stiffening the frame and probably
doesn't need the rubber.
=======
I also plan to add shock tower bracing. I haven't thought
> about any other interior bracing because of the space constraints.
=======
What's needed is a tubular perimeter that ties the birdcage to the towers,
arcing down to the front horns. This will completely change the character of
the car.
GM
> George Schiro
|