andyps
|
| posted on 13/5/05 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
Taller chassis - L section
Having decided to go with a 2inch taller chassis than the book dimensions I am trying to remember how to do trigonometry to re-calculate the angles
and lengths for the front L sections.
I worked it all out, cut the one of the uprights and tried it for size and realised it was wrong as I had forgotten the three dimensional effect when
calculating it all. I can see what needs changing but to save me the bother, has anyone else done the calculations for the lengths and angles which
they are prepared to share with me? Please - I will work them out if need be, but would appreciate anyone else's experience!!
[Edited on 13/5/05 by andyps]
[Edited on 15/5/05 by andyps]
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
|
|
Chris_R
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 08:24 AM |
|
|
I wrote a PDF which is I posted on my site. It's here if you'd like a look.
<edit>When I did mine I made it lean 1" further to the rear. Took two attempts to get a nice joint.</edit>
[Edited on 14/5/05 by Chris_R]
A bit of slapstick never hurt anyone.
http://www.chris.renney.dsl.pipex.com/
|
|
|
dblissett
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 08:43 AM |
|
|
pluss 4
if you look at a mcsorly 442 it has all answers because its 2" taller but also 4" wider its the way i have gone i also belive it suits the
sierra rear track better as a sandard book chasis is based on a escort
good luck dave
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
I did look at the McSorley plans for his 442 as I hoped this would solve my problem, but unfortunately the widths are differnet to the book which is
the dimensions I am working to - I want the smaller car, but am going taller to make engine installation easier.
I will probably end up with the trial and error method - run out of time again today unfortunately.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
Mr Mk's is 14" deep if memory serves me right and they have no problems fitting allsorts under the bonnet.
Then there is the Caterham which is maybe the lowest of the lot and they do ok.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 09:12 PM |
|
|
I am building to the book, but with H tubes 2 inches taller which should make an overall chassis height of slightly under 15 inches - as some
MK's need bonnet bulges I hope this should make mine OK to fit the enormous 2.0 DOHC I have without leaving much sticking out of the top!
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 10:07 PM |
|
|
Doing that changes more than you think.....
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 14/5/05 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
You can use simple pythagoras and trig in 3 dimensions, by combining two perpendicular sets of dimensions. Last time i did this was at high school, so
i cant really remember quite how to do it. I'll see if i cant remember in the morning!
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 07:36 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
You can use simple pythagoras and trig in 3 dimensions, by combining two perpendicular sets of dimensions. Last time i did this was at high school, so
i cant really remember quite how to do it. I'll see if i cant remember in the morning!
David
The trouble is - it is so long since I was at high school that I can't even remember when that was!
Triton - I am expecting more changes to be needed, but hopefully the angles on L will be the worst I have to sort.
[Edited on 15/5/05 by andyps]
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 09:59 AM |
|
|
Andy,
Do it like me with round top and bottom and just lean it back!
Should be easy to work out the height using a piece of wood and leaning it back!
Just a thought,
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Chris_R
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
Try this.
A bit of slapstick never hurt anyone.
http://www.chris.renney.dsl.pipex.com/
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Avoneer
Andy,
Do it like me with round top and bottom and just lean it back!
Should be easy to work out the height using a piece of wood and leaning it back!
Just a thought,
Pat...
I might come knocking on your door to pinch some round tube yet! Actually, once I have the lengths sorted the angles hopefully won't be too much
of a problem - particularly with the help of the basic trig pdf. Thanks.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
Triton
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 04:58 PM |
|
|
brain fade as the sun has been out but going taller will change angle of uprights that carry wishbone brackets, making pivots closer together and top
'bones too short......but like i said the sun has been out so who knows what i am talking about
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 15/5/05 at 09:13 PM |
|
|
Thanks for that one - a consequence I hadn't considered but if I go ahead with my thoughts for suspension might not be too much of a problem.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
