SteveG Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Noticed this on another forum, and as I know a number of you are interested in tray backs I'd thought i'd post it here too. You can read about the 10 day build here.. 90 tray back Cheers Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LR90 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Good link and a bit different. Rear half of chassis completely replaced on this one and Dana 44s as well inc 3 link front. Guess the next round of developments will see the cab's replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honitonhobbit Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Day 11 - booked my VOSA inspection so that I could comply with the law and be road legal. My Ar*e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landrover598 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 There seems to be a lot of these being built at the moment, how long before the ministry catch up with them all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark90 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Traybacks the new clitoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Traybacks the new clitoris Enough of your rudeness Mr90 , don't you have a 90 to finnish this week? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark90 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 I have an MOT so coming whether it's actually finished or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nas90 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Why did they buy the 90 Station Wagon? Apart from the front chassis and perhaps the steering box they have sold or thrown everything else away! Even the cab is now a truck cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderman Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 There seems to be a lot of these being built at the moment, how long before the ministry catch up with them all I cant see a problem with VOSA ,so long as the vehicles in question are built properly and to a high standard with all lighting and body modifications matching the guidelines. Not sure about radical chassis modifications ,Surely they must be subject to an SVA test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernchris Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 I cant see a problem with VOSA ,so long as the vehicles in question are built properly and to a high standard with all lighting and body modifications matching the guidelines.Not sure about radical chassis modifications ,Surely they must be subject to an SVA test. Think you are right there!!! That is main reason i have not gone to a "full tube set up" cant be botherd with the paper work rubbish and insurance probs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 I have an MOT so coming whether it's actually finished or not Nice one! Well done. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reads90 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 looks nice but as someone who lives in Aus . this is not really a try back Well not aus style try back anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Im just curious to see it and other traybacks on the scales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Think you are right there!!! That is main reason i have not gone to a "full tube set up" cant be botherd with the paper work rubbish and insurance probs. OK Add a cage to a standard truck cab Then why not do a tubular tray back, then get the man from VOSA to sign it off.... Then 'modify' that to put into a set of 'converted' tubular front wings... Which leaves you with a full tube vehicle which is signed off by the man from VOSA... Cheers Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michele Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 This reminds me of certain winch bumper registrations here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Not sure what the point is of cutting the chassisrails of, unless you like to achieve more bump, but that is not the case here. the main rails are only 2 mm thick so I cant see the weight being an issue either. Do I miss something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 the rails have been replaced with 3.5mm wall ERW, hence the interest in nett weight gain/loss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 From a purely engineering point of view, I'd be concerned about that trayback. The chassis forms a (nearly) planar backbone for the car, and is heavy because of it. Weight can be saved by going tubular and passing stress through the cage higher up, effectively you use the roof rails to recover the second moment of area for the whole structure. My concern here is that the cage isn't able to bear that stress around the windscreen hoop (unless it's invisibly reinforced beneath the body, but it still can't be great) and the four tubes that form the 'chassis rails' on the conversion aren't really far enough apart to give the kind of rigidity that the car needs. I'd be willing to bet the torsional stiffness is well down, and won't recover much when the diagonal is put in the main hoop. Interesting idea, but IMHO you can't convert half the vehicle to spaceframe and leave half chassis-based without some nasty bending stress concentrations. There's serious weight savings available in a carefully-stressed full frame, but you can't go half and half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthy boy Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 So if this and vehicles like it turn up to an event where scruineering requires road legal vehicles what will happen? It needs an SVA for the tube conversion. NO SVA no entry?? Somehow I doubt it but it needs to happen. (Same for people running non-approved tyres.) The only reason to do this to the rear of a vehicle is to use decent tube and change all the suspension to 4 links and coilovers (or quarter eliptics). Otherwise it is seems pretty pointless. But if it's what the guy wants to do then more power to him. Just get an SVA. But then they say "its a spaceframe rear chassis". What does that mean??? Is it a spaceframe or a chassis? Get the basics right before you do radical engineering. By the way, been looking at a "true" spaceframe with torsional rigidity of 7500 Nm per degree. Thats about twice a "normal" monocoque saloon car! FB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtydiesel Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 There seems to be a lot of these being built at the moment, Yawn! 3 years out of date. Tube back ends are soooo last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 So if this and vehicles like it turn up to an event where scruineering requires road legal vehicles what will happen? It needs an SVA for the tube conversion. NO SVA no entry?? Somehow I doubt it but it needs to happen. (Same for people running non-approved tyres.)FB eeeek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtydiesel Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 eeeek Would that be an "eeeek" my tyres aren't E marked or speed/load rated? or "eeeek" sva req? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dollythelw Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 me? nah, Ive never bent or broken a single law I hate the nanny state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtydiesel Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 It might just be me working slow, but unless there was a small army working on that car there is no way it was built in 10 days. Really bad front suspension geometry, looks like a recipe for chronic bump steer, no articulation and a bent axle case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Hiatt Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 From a purely engineering point of view, I'd be concerned about that trayback. The chassis forms a (nearly) planar backbone for the car, and is heavy because of it. Weight can be saved by going tubular and passing stress through the cage higher up, effectively you use the roof rails to recover the second moment of area for the whole structure.My concern here is that the cage isn't able to bear that stress around the windscreen hoop (unless it's invisibly reinforced beneath the body, but it still can't be great) and the four tubes that form the 'chassis rails' on the conversion aren't really far enough apart to give the kind of rigidity that the car needs. I'd be willing to bet the torsional stiffness is well down, and won't recover much when the diagonal is put in the main hoop. Interesting idea, but IMHO you can't convert half the vehicle to spaceframe and leave half chassis-based without some nasty bending stress concentrations. There's serious weight savings available in a carefully-stressed full frame, but you can't go half and half. Exactly my thoughts. There is no visible triangulation to the stress points, it relies upon the strength of the steel rather than the design of the frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.