I have just noticed that yet more bits are missing from my chassis. After dropping the engine in and attaching all the bodywork I didn't really want to discover that my "bought" chassis is also missing the triangulation between the engine bay and the tops of the footwell bulkheads!!

What I ideally need to know is, will this fail an SVA as a poorly braced chassis or will it get away without? I know for a fact that it is meant to have these struts shown as W7DE-241 on the CAD drawings.

This is now the Forth missing chassis part I have found to add to the 15 deviations to the official plans. Cheers GTS!

provided the rest of the chassis is welded properly, i doubt you will fail sva. Is it powder coated? You can easily weld in a few bars where required anyway.

I would get in touch with Darren if I was you...

Darren (Surprise surprise) won't take any calls from me anymore as my kit has caused way to many problems for him over the past year.

I still don't have top wishbones that fit properly either!

might be worth a trip to the newark show

Picture?
Not sure what triangulation you are talking about.

I do, look at this pic:
http://locostbuilders.co.uk/upload/Progress.jpg

the triangulation from the sides of the car to the footwell bulkhead is missing...

That's the cookie.. I have just put a top-down piccy in my archive to highlight the issue.

Hmm.. Should I try welding the missing struts with the side panels on? The side panels were such a tight fit that they have already started cracking and I fear they won't go on a second time.

Mine doesnt have that brace and I have a MK.

What my solution is to put a bolt in tube much like the ones you get in for production cars between the turrets across the engine bay

It is not the end of the world and having a go at anyone online is no way to sort the problem.

As for the 15 changes Ive yet to see a seven replica that matches its stablemates. Even in a production run.........

PS your w7de wind screen is coming soon.....

AFAIK - no MK Indy's have that triangulation. This is likely due to the interference it would cause with different engine designs.

Steve

You are right in the fact that having a go at anyone online is not the way to sort the problem.

I have however, had nothing but problems with this kit and was very glad that the end was in sight. However, discovering that yet again I had to suffer due to bad quality control (Company confessed) was a little more than I could cope with today.

So, apologies for the mini rant, but I think I am entitled to a little whine once in a while. :-)

I can't see a problem. There are Indys running round with every engine you can think of including V8s and none of that bracing in the engine bay and it hasn't caused any of them to fail SVA. They aren't bending in the middle or falling apart either.

Whilst it won't fail the sva, those tubes are fairly important for chassis stiffness, as they leave the engine bay as an open box. This was what I did on my chassis in the same place:
PS this isn't quite finished at the front yet.

[Edited on 24/5/06 by DIY Si]
Rescued attachment PROGRESS2.jpg

Well thanks for all the suggestions. I think I am going to skip adding bracing for the time being, and when I add the V8 that I am rebuilding I will then weld in as much bracing as possible

Sorry for the rant earlier. I am just fed up of finding issues that shouldn't be there. I have enough issues coping with the issues that should be there!!

Here is a pic of my bay showing the missing braces. I think this shows that these should be fitted in order that the chassis performs as designed.
Rescued attachment brace.jpg

The kit was meant to be the first W7DE produced. At the time of purchase it was by no means meant to deviate from any other W7DE produced and was the one the moulds were meant to be taken from.

However, the chassis was sent out to me before the moulds were taken (Why?) and the designs were apparently "lost".

This means that Darren has no idea what my chassis looks like and explains why I have had to butcher the fiberglass to get it to remotely fit. It also explains why the top wishbones still foul the shock absorbers. And why both the fuel tank mounting tubes and the aforementioned bracing is missing.

So, what I have received is not what I agreed to purchase I would have liked to still had a dialog with Darren but he has refused to talk or deal with me since (I have done him such an injustice?).

I would say that those braces ARE quite important to the overall stiffness of your car. Those braces are designed to replace the standard Locost "R" tube which goes from the inboard corner of the footwell to meet tube "S" (IIRC) just above the offside rearmost suspension mount.

Cymtriks (you know the FEA guy) stated several times that the removal of tube "R" was a bad thing although unavoidable if you want a V8 or other wide engine. The best solution was "Y" braces like those shown above by DIY SI but having two 45 degree braces (one either side) was much better than nothing at all.

My McSorley 7+4" chassis has the same 45 degree braces either side and I firmly believe that they add a great deal to the strength of my chassis. You should be okay for SVA but I'd fit the braces as soon as possible and certainly before any spirited driving!

Here is a photo from a couple of years back:



Cheers,
Craig.

[Edited on 24/5/2006 by craig1410]

[Edited on 24/5/2006 by craig1410]

Everyone will have a personal view.

The FEA analysis i've seen seems to suggest that they are a good idea. Personally I would stick with the locost original design as it works. If you can't then the two Y braces are a very good compromise (perhaps marginally better as there is two of them), then the small braces which a lot of manufacturers use including westfield. I've not seen any chassis without any bracing before.

From my own limited understanding of mechanical engineering I can see how the cross bracing would help substantially. It would be good to get figures of the "flex" in the chassis before and after though. I have decided to put this one to a mate of mine who works with ansys all day to investigate. :-) I will try and post some figures in the future to settle this one once and for all :-)

Hopefully you can all see why I am a little disgruntled though. You pay for something and it arrives not as described and blatently not to designed spec!

I had to lop mine out to alow my engine cradle for the R1 to fit.

I also had to lop out the diagonal round tube that runs upwards from the rear of the engine compartment to the top of the suspension mounting to allow the R1 exhaust to exit.

I will however replace this one with a suitable alternative.

My engine cradle will go someway to replacing those diagonals that were removed to allow correct placement.


[img][/img]