slopecombat
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 12:27 AM |
|
|
G1, G2 and E in a BEC locost ?
As G1, G2 and E are designed to hold a car engine, has these sense in a BEC?
Any one changed this configuration to suite a bike engine ?
|
|
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
Those chassis members are important for the triangulation of the engine bay. Their useage to support the engine in a CEC is almost secondary (and not
a very good design). Certainly they should be retained for the BEC IMO.
Normaly a BEC will have a subframe/cradle which is supported from the upper chassis rails.
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 01:51 PM |
|
|
I chopped mine about:
As long as you maintain triangles all is okay, mine then became the engine mounts.
Regards Mark
 
Rescued attachment Chassis front 2 april 2006 small.JPG
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
From the top, I also dragged the engine into the passenger footwell to get better weight distribution
 
Rescued attachment Engine cradle #3 2 Jan 2006 small.JPG
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 02:29 PM |
|
|
All done:
 
Rescued attachment OS_engine_bay_7oct2006.JPG
|
|
|
slopecombat
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 11:06 PM |
|
|
Thanks, I think I'll try to adapt the standard layout to the engine's subframe as shown in the pictures.
And as I can see I'll have to include the R member(s) too.
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 20/12/06 at 11:09 PM |
|
|
The R tubes are very important to the overall chassis, and if possible it's best to use one on either side. They can also be altered in a
similar way to the bottom tubes, but try hard to maintain the triangles, as this is what gives all the extra strength.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
