fot
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [FOT] TR6 frame stiffening

To: <JWoesvra@aol.com>, <BillB@bnj.com>, <britcars@bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: [FOT] TR6 frame stiffening
From: "Kramer, Robert" <RKramer@rdoequipment.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:53:45 -0500
....and that is the rest of the story.

Bob Kramer
Sales Manager
16415 North IH35
RDO Equipment Co.
Pflugerville, TX  78660
800-775-3838

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fot@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-fot@autox.team.net] On
Behalf Of JWoesvra@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:27 AM
To: BillB@bnj.com; britcars@bellsouth.net
Cc: awashatko@wi.rr.com; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [FOT] TR6 frame stiffening

In a message dated 7/26/2006 1:31:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
BillB@bnj.com writes:

Of course it is, and your point is...?  Of course once I take  my  
tongue from my cheek I have to admit that the biggest challenge  in  
getting my cheater TR3 back into some kind of acceptable state  is  
going to be the chassis. I did pretty much everything described  to  
it, as any of the FOT'ers that visited my garage can  testify.

On Jul 24, 2006, at 4:29 AM, barry rosenberg  wrote:

>      I thought there was a restriction of 6  points for the roll  
> cage to
> contact the frame? with two  behind the driver for main hoop, two to  
> the rear
> and  two under the dash, there isn't supposed to be any going  
>  forward. Seems
> it is illegal in vintage racing to  me.>>>>>


>From my point of view as the rules interpreter at SVRA; we have no  
restriction on the number of "points" per se. That is an artificial
condition  posed by 
some organizations. Esthetically, earlier cars should have simpler  roll
bars.
 
Historically there was never a restriction on roll bars. They only had
to 
meet minimum specifications which were a main hoop behind the driver and
a  
simple brace to stat with. By 1967, tubing specifications and more
specific  
design recommendations were published.
 
"The basic purpose of the roll bar is to protect the driver in case the

vehicle rolls over. This purpose should not be forgotten", (SCCA GCR,
1967).
 
However, most drivers opted for less, than more bracing in a effort to
keep 
weight down. It was "recommended" that sedans and coupes utilize a roll
cage. 
I believe that the Trans-Am teams were the first to recognize that stiff
was 
good. It was during this period (1969-70) that roll cages started to
appear 
in open cars.
 
SCCA inspectors encouraged the safety aspect of these cages and it
wasn't  
long before the braces where extending farther and farther in the name
of  
"safety". I think Group 44, Sharp and Huffaker were leaders in this
trend.  
Obviously, a stiff chassis does make spring and shock settings more
predictable and 
hence, ultimately faster.
 
Bill Warner's TR6 actually represents a car as raced about 1974. By that

time bars to the pick-up points were becoming common. That is entirely  
appropriate in SVRA Group 8 which embraces the late sixties and early
seventies 
period. At the recent Kohler International Challenge we had the
recently restored 
Huffaker Jensen-Healey which won the 1973 D-Production  nationals. It
has 
extensive bracing fore and aft.
 
In Vintage Racing, the time period is key to what is correct. We
consider  
TR3s and TR4s to be sixties period cars. Simple hoops and braces are  
appropriate, but we certainly don't want to limit door bars and dash
hoops.
 
Sometimes stiff isn't good. I know of one guy with a Morgan plus 4 who
was 
still competitive during the late seventies. Over one winter he
installed a 
roll cage with bars to the front and rear suspension points. The  car
was 
undriveable after that and he never did get it back to where it was.
Some of these 
old dogs work pretty well with chassis flex. That is what makes  them
fun, 
isn't it?
 
Jack Woehrle





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>