LocostBuilders - powered by XMB

IVA Fail today at Gillingham - Sylva Striker

pekwah1 - 18/8/17 at 03:07 PM

Really good day today at Gillingham.
I had Lawrence who was my tester and i found him to be very fair, and involved me with all stages.

It was a fail, but i agree with the points that were brought up on the most part, so didn't argue too much.

The main points:

1. One of my brake pipes from the M/C has too much of a bend exiting the cylinder. To be fair, this was commented on my previous post, so not a massive surprise.
2. They were not happy with my Harness upper mounts. On the striker they are welded to the main chassis rail at the top, but this chassis rail is apparently not strong enough on its own and would deform. They want to see some extra triangulation to strengthen it which is a pain. Also the mounting points are too low and must be raised around 30mm. If anyone has photos of this area from a later Raw Striker, that would be appreciated!
3. My upper steering column had too much play - should just be a case of fabricating a more sturdy mount.
4. My wheel arches/wings do not cover all of the surface of the wheel (width wise). I thought this was just the tread that needed to be covered, but apparently not! Should be an easy fix.
5. The prop is very slightly hitting the tunnel at the diff end) on a hard right corner (live axle). Might need to just adjust the panhard to centre a bit more.
6. Emissions - Zetec blacktop on standard ECU. Pretty sure the car's running lean, suspecting an air leak. Anyway, was fine on CO2 and hydrocarbon, but lambda was about 1.3 (should be 1.03 or less)

And then a few stupid ones where cables need more support/covering etc.

All in all, could have been better, could have been a lot worse!
Overall i'm pretty happy with the day and thought they were pretty fair.

Main thing is the harness mounts, again if anyone has some photos of theirs for inspiration that would be appreciated!

Regards,
Andy

[Edited on 18/8/17 by pekwah1]

bonzoronnie - 18/8/17 at 03:31 PM

Shame about your IVA fail today

At least you had a very constructive experience & you now have a modest to do list.

Seatbelt mounts sound like they are going to be awkward to resolve.
I hope you manage to sort it ok.

Well done for getting your build to the test stage, you'll soon be on the road.

pekwah1 - 18/8/17 at 03:33 PM

Thanks, it's actually my second car i've done the IVA with and both good experiences.
I didn't actually expect to pass if i'm honest, but it does give you a "to do" list which is quite helpful!

steve m - 18/8/17 at 04:49 PM

Andy

But, at least you have a definitive list of jobs to be done

as for the " 2. They were not happy with my Harness upper mounts. On the striker they are welded to the main chassis rail at the top, but this chassis rail is apparently not strong enough on its own and would deform. They want to see some extra triangulation to strengthen it which is a pain. Also the mounting points are too low and must be raised around 30mm. If anyone has photos of this area from a later Raw Striker, that would be appreciated! "

Is this because you are so tall ? as if I was to present the car, they would probably be to low

steve

pekwah1 - 18/8/17 at 05:34 PM

Haha steve, no unfortunately nothing to do with my height, they measure from the base of the seat by the look of it.....
I was thinking about some fibre glass seats anyway, so might get some as these would actually have a lower base meaning i don't need them so high.

That would be that part sorted i think, just need to look at how to strengthen the top beam.
I've taken a couple of photos of my current setup:

gaz_gaz - 18/8/17 at 05:34 PM

good effort. won't be long till it's through.

Is Gillingham closest for us?

loggyboy - 18/8/17 at 05:52 PM

My 09 raw chassis only has seat belt brackets welded into top chassis horizontal which is an 1 piece 25mm bar.
Best picture i have:

loggyboy - 18/8/17 at 05:54 PM

Difference appears to be mine have the threaded bolt holes within the chassis rail itself.

pekwah1 - 18/8/17 at 05:59 PM

Thanks loggy, yeh that what my last striker looked like (that was a later sylva).
Basically the IVA man is saying that's not strong enough apparently, although don't know if your box section is bigger than mine, i'll go measure.
Also you look to have 2 diagonals down to the bottom rail, i just have one...

loggyboy - 18/8/17 at 07:09 PM

Tbh. I would guess the mean the bolts, they look like m10, and manual request min 11mm. Also, the brackets dont look that substantial.
Manual diagram clearly shows the style of the striker chassis is what they believe is 'important structure'.

pekwah1 - 18/8/17 at 07:15 PM

So to elaborate:

1. Yes the bolts are not substantial enough
2. The brackets themselves were not the issue, they suggested that the main box section did not look substantial enough
3. Due to no. 2, it was suggested some kind of "triangulation" was needed on that bar.

The suggestion was to look at what other kits do and "copy that".
I made the point that i'm sure this is what Raw still does nowadays, and if i can show that this is the case will that be ok? The answer was a resounding no, i need triangulation.

loggyboy - 18/8/17 at 07:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1
So to elaborate:

1. Yes the bolts are not substantial enough
2. The brackets themselves were not the issue, they suggested that the main box section did not look substantial enough
3. Due to no. 2, it was suggested some kind of "triangulation" was needed on that bar.

The suggestion was to look at what other kits do and "copy that".
I made the point that i'm sure this is what Raw still does nowadays, and if i can show that this is the case will that be ok? The answer was a resounding no, i need triangulation.

Sounds like youve shot yourself in foot. If the bolts had been up to scratch it may not have gone any further. I would split the harnesses so they have 2 mounts each and spread the load at the same time as adding the spacer brackets to raise them. Might be worth a call to/email to vosa headoffice iva guy with photos not mentioning it has already failed merely asking if the principal of what you have is acceptable.

One option would be to weld a thick steel plate to the back of the bar, that would reinforce and given an easy bolt on solution to raise mounting points.

[Edited on 18-8-17 by loggyboy]

ian locostzx9rc2 - 18/8/17 at 08:10 PM

2 thick metal plates welded to the top rail with the two mounting points on each plate to spread the load that's how my strikers mounts were made.

alfas - 19/8/17 at 11:03 AM

standard striker mounts....had similar ones on all my sylvas. never liked them as they are far too narrow / not enough space for a proper mounting if you have 2 seperate shoulder belts.

you could strengthen those brackets like this:

[Edited on 19/8/17 by alfas]

pekwah1 - 19/8/17 at 11:06 AM

I'm planning on putting two separate mounts for each harness on the top rail and doing similar to what you've drawn, but mr Iva has said I need to triangulate the main bar as this is likely to deform in a crash

peter030371 - 19/8/17 at 01:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1
I'm planning on putting two separate mounts for each harness on the top rail and doing similar to what you've drawn, but mr Iva has said I need to triangulate the main bar as this is likely to deform in a crash

My original Striker that I got in about 97 or 98 was exactly like yours is now. I hit a brick wall at 50-60mph and it did not deform that area at all (can't say the same for the rest of the chassis though!). The replacement chassis was the same but I never liked the single rear mounting point.

My new car (which passed SVA in 2004/2005 like this) is very different but still no cross bracing.

Harness mount

If he insists on cross bracing then its going to be a pain to add so maybe Raw can help with a 'manufactures note' to say its never been a problem area before (and countless Strikers with both seatbelt mounts have passed IVA before)?

pekwah1 - 19/8/17 at 02:35 PM

blimey, i would not want to hit anything at 30 in these let alone 50-60!!!
I trust you were ok...!

Thanks for the photo, that helps a fair bit, i think i might just bite the bullet and add a couple of beams down near the mount points to appease them, it would probably be harder to argue with them....!

peter030371 - 19/8/17 at 04:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1
blimey, i would not want to hit anything at 30 in these let alone 50-60!!!
I trust you were ok...!

I walked away....tough little cars these

gremlin1234 - 19/8/17 at 05:51 PM

quote:
I would guess the mean the bolts, they look like m10, and manual request min 11mm.

M8 bolts should be ok as long as they are at least marked 8.8 or equivalent, the 7/16th 11mm refers to the common size for 'domed' seat belt fixing bolts (which are usually unmarked, though presumed to be good enough).

ref: S19 Annex 3 - Seat Belt Anchorages Strength Assessment

quote:

Bolts used in structural areas should be of grade 8.8 or better. Such bolts will be marked 8.8 or 12.9 on the hexagonal head, however, cap-head bolts or 7/16" ( 11mm ) UNF seat belt anchorage bolts (with an anodised finish) not marked in this way may normally be considered to be of equivalent strength. Bolts should be M8 or larger.

02GF74 - 19/8/17 at 05:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1

Thanks for the photo, that helps a fair bit, i think i might just bite the bullet and add a couple of beams down near the mount points to appease them, it would probably be harder to argue with them....!

Don't look at it as if it's a battle. You may think it's over the top but ultimately these rules may save your life.

pekwah1 - 19/8/17 at 06:02 PM

Hi, thanks and no I was writing it in the sense that people have suggested ways of not welding in extra braces or triangulation, but I'm saying I think I will just do it.
The funny thing is that I'm certainly not a structural engineer, neither are the IVA guys, but they are still able to look at something and say whether it is safe or strong enough for a seatbelt mount just from looking...

gremlin1234 - 19/8/17 at 07:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1

Thanks for the photo, that helps a fair bit, i think i might just bite the bullet and add a couple of beams down near the mount points to appease them, it would probably be harder to argue with them....!

Don't look at it as if it's a battle. You may think it's over the top but ultimately these rules may save your life.

indeed the regs are the MINIMUM standard they require, do it better if you can

02GF74 - 19/8/17 at 07:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by pekwah1
Hi, thanks and no I was writing it in the sense that people have suggested ways of not welding in extra braces or triangulation, but I'm saying I think I will just do it.
The funny thing is that I'm certainly not a structural engineer, neither are the IVA guys, but they are still able to look at something and say whether it is safe or strong enough for a seatbelt mount just from looking...

Yes you are correct. The examiners are probably no better qualified than the builders and they base their experience on what they see. Of course they could be totally wrong in this case but you'll have a huge battle to convince them.

You are correct in your approach.