Landracing Forum Home

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Build Diaries => Topic started by: Stainless1 on October 03, 2017, 09:59:00 PM



Title: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 03, 2017, 09:59:00 PM
Well I have been thinking about putting a new frame in the Bockscar for several years.  Pork Pie started working on new canopy and top drawings to eliminate the engine bumps.  The old frame held up quite well for one that was out there for the first time 41 years ago.   The helmets outgrew the cage we installed in 1984.... we redid it... but they seem to be headed that way again, so the cage will grow a little with the top. 

Since the accident I have been trying to decide if we really want to build another car from scratch... and spend half my retirement money... with the salt in such a questionable condition.... and I have decided no!

That's no to spending half the retirement.... I think I can do it on 30%... going to reuse as much of the old car as possible.  Will it be ready for SW18? Couldn't tell ya

I have to start this by saying thanks to my first sponsor Sparky Bill Smith, he gave me the 20 ft long 29 inch wide build table he had stashed in his back yard.  I picked it up after WoS on my way home.  It needed to be mobile, so I put wheels on it, then it needed to be stable so I put retractable legs on it so it won't rotate unless I want it to. 
Started welding and squaring up fixtures on it today so I can put some pipe on it soon


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on October 03, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
YES!
I'll pick up some lubricant for you . . . :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 03, 2017, 11:16:53 PM
Looking good. The shop floor looks clean :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Peter Jack on October 03, 2017, 11:48:06 PM
That's a nice looking jig. You should be able to build something really nice using that. Good luck!

Pete


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: fordboy628 on October 04, 2017, 06:22:30 AM
YES!
I'll pick up some lubricant for you . . . :cheers:

Bob,

Hmmmm . . . . .   66 huh?   Same age as I am, so I have some suggestions:

A/   DO NOT let the build budget negatively impact your suds budget.   Seriously, there have to be: PRIORITIES

2/   Refining/updating the design seems like a smart idea to me.   I'm thinkin' you are not going to want to do this over because of some small unconsidered detail.

d/   Another member of our "66" club, Tom Petty, has recently departed to places "unknown".    I'd say: "Git 'er done!!"   After all, we are all "walking wounded" at this age . . . . . .

As always, if you need anything from me, you know how to get a hold of me.    Even if it is just an infusion of "Dragon's Milk" . . . . . .

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Fordboy


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 04, 2017, 09:19:31 PM
FB, not to worry, that 20% is my lubrication budget...  :roll: so I can't really count it against the car. 
Usually spend most of my money on racing, women and booze.... and waste the rest...

So I have decided to build the front 140 inches of the car (less the nose) first, that will be front suspension, drivers area, engine bay and rear suspension mounts.  Hoping to not screw it up, we have been refining this thing for 33 years.  I know I want 2 or 3 more inches of climb in room, for the knees that are not getting any younger.... or more agile...
I am trying to figure out how to make an engine mount that just installs the mount and engine in the bay to eliminate the major fight we have getting engines in and out.... it may include the removable frame rail or not... time will tell if I can figure it out. 

I will make all the curved parts and weld them to the 24 X 16 rectangular section later. 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on October 05, 2017, 07:30:34 AM
George Burns once said something to the effect, "My doctor said I had to give up women, booze and cigars! Worst five minutes of my life! That doctor has been dead for 15 years now!"  :-o :-D :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: floydjer on October 05, 2017, 08:03:50 AM
Excellent idea on the wheels...the only thing is my shop that isn`t on wheels are my cars..........


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 10:56:50 AM
FB, not to worry, that 20% is my lubrication budget...  :roll: so I can't really count it against the car. 
Usually spend most of my money on racing, women and booze.... and waste the rest...

So I have decided to build the front 140 inches of the car (less the nose) first, that will be front suspension, drivers area, engine bay and rear suspension mounts.  Hoping to not screw it up, we have been refining this thing for 33 years.  I know I want 2 or 3 more inches of climb in room, for the knees that are not getting any younger.... or more agile...
I am trying to figure out how to make an engine mount that just installs the mount and engine in the bay to eliminate the major fight we have getting engines in and out.... it may include the removable frame rail or not... time will tell if I can figure it out. 

I will make all the curved parts and weld them to the 24 X 16 rectangular section later. 

Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stan Back on October 05, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
Is that how the Manta is?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 04:42:09 PM
Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

One might think that the mass of the drivetrain, if still firmly attached, would slow the deceleration of the vehicle upon impact, and limit damage to that bag of bones and water inside the roll cage.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: NathanStewart on October 05, 2017, 05:08:19 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force.  I think the benefits of a break away chassis is fairly well understood and adopted in a few different forms of motorsports.

Stainless, Bockscar has always been one of my favorite cars for as long as I could remember - Ben Jordan was an early and great influence on me and my brother.  I'm glad you're bringing it back and hope you can maintain a majority of it's original form.  Looking forward to seeing it out on the salt again.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 05:45:17 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force. 

F=MA. Reduce the mass and you increase the acceleration. Lighter vehicles are easier on things they run into, but that's not the issue here.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 06:11:10 PM
Is that how the Manta is?

Yes, Stan. My chassis is designed to separate between the rear of the roll cage structure and the chassis members that contain the engine, transaxle, and rear suspension & tires. I like the idea of the heavy stuff bouncing along separately from the part with me in it. In a mid- or rear-engine layout this is feasible; a front engine, not so much.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 06:14:36 PM
Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

One might think that the mass of the drivetrain, if still firmly attached, would slow the deceleration of the vehicle upon impact, and limit damage to that bag of bones and water inside the roll cage.

Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 05, 2017, 06:17:34 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force.  I think the benefits of a break away chassis is fairly well understood and adopted in a few different forms of motorsports.

Stainless, Bockscar has always been one of my favorite cars for as long as I could remember - Ben Jordan was an early and great influence on me and my brother.  I'm glad you're bringing it back and hope you can maintain a majority of it's original form.  Looking forward to seeing it out on the salt again.

Ben Jordan changed our lives in a very positive and lasting ways :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 07:44:43 PM
Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

If they go further, starting from the same speed, then they are decelerating more slowly. Speed doesn't kill, it's the deceleration.

I have a feeling that it's a more nuanced question, and am not entirely convinced by my own argument. You guys may be right, but the case has not been made. A relevant question, which perhaps some of you may be able to answer, is in a fatal accident on the salt, is it more likely caused by deformation of the cage, or subjecting the driver to massive accelerations within an intact cage?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Interested Observer on October 05, 2017, 08:12:23 PM
Since you are embarking on a clean- or near clean-sheet build, one might consider the following:

Some years ago, on the long drive home from Speed Week, a particular team fell to discussing the various vehicle configurations then extant on the salt.  In due course Jim Feulingís streamliner came up for consideration.  Recall, front wheel drive, engine in front of the front axle, necessary bits in the middle, driver in the rear.  This was seen to offer a number of advantages and only one disadvantage (which could be lived with).
   Predominant weight on the driving and steering axle
   CG well in front of the CP
   Ready access to engine and driveline
   Superior driver sightlines
   Possible tapering profile


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 05, 2017, 08:48:13 PM
Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

If they go further, starting from the same speed, then they are decelerating more slowly. Speed doesn't kill, it's the deceleration.

I have a feeling that it's a more nuanced question, and am not entirely convinced by my own argument. You guys may be right, but the case has not been made. A relevant question, which perhaps some of you may be able to answer, is in a fatal accident on the salt, is it more likely caused by deformation of the cage, or subjecting the driver to massive accelerations within an intact cage?

If a roll structure is still in tact after a crash, I would submitt it is sudden deceleration G's that kills. My first encounter with a high profile racer killed by sudden deceleration was Mark Donahue. After a high speed crash into a chain link fence, Mark walked away looking quite normal only to collapse and die within minutes after the crash. I am not sure if I understand exactly the cause but it has to do with sudden deceleration tearing brain connections from the skull. So, anything that can lessen deceleration G's, the better chances are of survival.

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 05, 2017, 08:50:11 PM
Since you are embarking on a clean- or near clean-sheet build, one might consider the following:
   
   Superior driver sightlines
   


In the Bockscar the motor in the back is about at the drivers sight level
John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 06, 2017, 12:42:28 AM
Nathan, don't worry, you will be able to recognize it when we are done...

We probably won't build it to break apart in a crash... I would be afraid the rough salt might make it come apart prematurely... Besides I'm not that smart  :roll:

IO, semi clean sheet... unfortunately if we made it front engine that minimal sight line we have would become nonexistent....

As the picture shows, the build table is getting closer, all the fixture pieces have been squared, leveled and welded on.... the kiln has been disassembled for new quartz tubes and heating elements.... Yep Jerry, that is some of the non-race related stuff I do to keep the home owner association (Linda) happy. 

With any luck I will get the tube stops cut and fitted tomorrow


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: BHR301 on October 06, 2017, 02:54:54 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 06, 2017, 06:43:39 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill

Bill, at that point, the chute is useless.

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: jacksoni on October 06, 2017, 07:30:04 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill

Bill, at that point, the chute is useless.

John
I was going to question this as well. Need two chutes, one for the engine, one for the driver and surround........ :roll: :roll: :?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: NathanStewart on October 06, 2017, 02:14:07 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force. 

F=MA. Reduce the mass and you increase the acceleration. Lighter vehicles are easier on things they run into, but that's not the issue here.

Okay, maybe I was lazy with my physics reference but it's about reducing energy.  The more mass and velocity an object has, the more kinetic energy it's going to have.  Having parts shed away during a crash gives the benefit of releasing energy to remove those parts and then reducing the energy of the parts the driver is still attached too.  The driver is going to have momentum and will want to keep moving while the chassis is slamming into the ground.  If you can reduce the chassis's momentum by reducing it's mass, less energy is going to get transferred to the driver.  You highlight this point above.  If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle. 

Bockscar is a fairly small and lightweight car so it's kinetic energy is already going to be much less anyways. 



Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: CNC-Dude on October 06, 2017, 03:20:21 PM
  I am not sure if I understand exactly the cause but it has to do with sudden deceleration tearing brain connections from the skull. So, anything that can lessen deceleration G's, the better chances are of survival.

John
[/quote]

Yes, that and other internal organs continuing to stay in motion when your body is stopped suddenly and tearing loose internally causing exsanguination .


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 06, 2017, 05:58:53 PM
  If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?



Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WhizzbangK.C. on October 06, 2017, 06:32:59 PM
 If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?



It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 06, 2017, 07:04:17 PM
It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?

That may indeed be correct. My last post addressed only the argument presented by the post I was responding to.

Are post-crash analyses in SCTA events ever made public?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WhizzbangK.C. on October 06, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?

That may indeed be correct. My last post addressed only the argument presented by the post I was responding to.

Are post-crash analyses in SCTA events ever made public?

As far as I've been able to see, they do not make the analyses public. Not just the SCTA, but all the sanctioning bodies seem to operate the same way. The only results that the general public can see are the rule changes that come down, and even then they usually don't directly reference the incident that brought about the change. Most times that is pretty obvious from circumstantial evidence, but they rarely state it explicitly.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 06, 2017, 10:42:48 PM
Well guys, this one is planned to be built like the last one... the entire car being a roll cage.  The old car didn't kill us, with any luck, the new one won't either.... The weaker parts of the car bent and broke... every corner of the suspension was broken, torn from the mounts,  and by my guess absorbed energy. 

I think building a weak point in the frame will lead to premature failure in the rough courses we have been experiencing. 
And guys... the engine weighs about the same as the driver.... it ain't a BBC
So if the guys that want their car to break apart are smart enough to know how it is going to wreck so they can make it break when and where they want it to.... more power to them....
I am not that guy.  :cheers:

The table is ready for pipe.... no pic today


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on October 06, 2017, 10:44:28 PM
 :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 07, 2017, 03:54:01 AM
it's always from the point of view...

if you be in vehicle which goes 35 mph, your weight is about 150 pounds, and you decelerate in 0,1 second to Zero mph your body mass will became 1,5 ton....now here the seat belt starts to work...in a passenger car the seat belt is so designed that it allowed you to move forward...this increase the time you are moving....means it needs longer that you come to the stop than the vehicle.....and in this way it is reducing your mass...and this will be protecting you to get hurt.

in a LSR vehicle, with the seat belt we using, you became a part of the vehicle....only in the direct direction of the seat belt there is a stretch effect which reduce the stress on the body...sideways there is no movement possible....

now it's depends how you "crash"....pencil roll, this will be never an issue to your body because the deceleration force on your body is very low. if the vehicle start to fly it is totally different...every time the vehicle has a contact with the ground...as a part of the racer...the deceleration moment goes on your body......

if the impact to the ground is a instant stop (albeit for a very short time) your body will create a big mass as I explained with the sudden stop inside of 0,1 seconds....and this is the critical moment.....so long the vehicle is at high speed in the movement....means rolls or fly's...your body is not creating a big mass

a very good example is Stainless Birthday party 2013.....due to this that the streamliner was tumbling over and over...the force on Stainless stayed low...if the streamliner had a longer stop contact on the ground than it could be serious for him.

now to the weight of the vehicle "slowing" down at high speed.....a heavy weight need longer to slow down....at the salt there is nothing we can crash in (except the salt...)...that means in the other hand....the vehicle needs longer to come to the rest......for your body it means more time to decelerate....but this counts only if the vehicle change not his direction or comes to a sudden stop.....means, when the racer stand on his wheels and spin....or pencil rolls into the moving direction.....

all changes from the moving direction into a other direction creates a deceleration effect on your body.....

it will be always a matter of how the racer crash.....and depends on that....have the luck that he does it the right way  

 If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?




Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
An idea for attenuating the impact of a high speed crash might be to package the driver in a crash structure isolated from the vehicle chassis. In the Ken Carter Lincoln jump car (donít ask) a complete sub-chassis (?) was suspended within the actual chassis (monocoque) structure by shock absorbing coiled wire rope attachments. These were commercially available hardware items used to protect shock sensitive equipment being transported in containers. The ability of the sub-chassis to move independently of the outer structure absorbs some of the shock. Pork Pieís analysis shows the value of even tenths of a second in substantially reducing the impact G loads on the driver. This design solution would be a more predictable method of reducing crash impact than a self-destructing chassis.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
This wire rope isolator was what I had used. Other designs are commercially available. I hope the photo is here.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:34:25 AM
An additional advantage of this driver isolation strategy is that it would be omni-directional so you donít have to plan for a particular crash scenario. Also, it will be continually effective in a multiple impact event. :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 07, 2017, 11:56:15 PM
Dick, I like that idea, but we don't really have room for it.  We are 24 x 16 outside the frame rails.

Speaking of frame rails I cut 2 140 inch ones and put them on the table.  Stops are squared and welded to 24 inches.  These are the bottom rails...  The tube is 1020 ERW .140 wall according to the printing on it. 

Then life jumped in so tomorrow I  will cut some cross pieces. 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Freud on October 08, 2017, 12:21:46 PM
Looks like a rotisserie.

Smartest idea imaginable.

Cheaters always prosper.

FREUD


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on October 08, 2017, 04:45:41 PM
My Good Dr. -- is that supposed to be wisdom of a Sage or just musings???


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on October 08, 2017, 07:17:37 PM
Definitely the musings of a wise Sage!  :-D :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 09, 2017, 12:09:16 AM
Definitely the musings of a wise Sage!  :-D :cheers:

Woody, you forgot old... I think he is the oldest guy to ride a motorcycle in competition at Bonneville....

OK, cut a few cross braces, added the crouch belt attach point to one, need to make one more.... for this part I think... Coping with the Mill, straight cuts are easy... space plus 3/4 cut on the saw, then hole saw 3/8 per side. 
I could work faster if I didn't have to think about how I need to change things and help the neighbor fix his mower.

Only tacked the first one so far... still thinking.... can you hear it where you are?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 12, 2017, 12:02:50 PM
Stainless,
Great to see you are building a new Bockscar!!! Looking forward to watching your build and see what ever new modifications you will be incorporating. After running the old car for so many years I am sure you have a long list of "If I every do this again I am going to change (insert long list of changes and new ideas here)" .

Rex


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Sumner on October 12, 2017, 03:01:38 PM
.....So if the guys that want their car to break apart are smart enough to know how it is going to wreck so they can make it break when and where they want it to.... more power to them....
I am not that guy.  :cheers:...

I have a feeling most of us are "not that guy".

Great to see you working on the car  :cheers: :cheers:.  Since the last one set so many records, I imagine big changes are not in your plans,

Sumner


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 24, 2017, 11:32:26 PM
Sumner, hopefully I won't do anything that slows it down too much.   :roll:

OK guys, been a little quiet because I was out checking the breweries and distilleries in Little Rock, Memphis, Birmingham, Columbus GA, Orlando, St. Augustine, Savannah and Nashville.... unfortunately I didn't find one in Poplar Bluff.  There are some really good beers being produced out there.... and some tasty craft whiskey.  Corsair in Nashville makes both.  :wink:

Back to business... been cutting and pasting.... only screwed up once, got a little ahead of myself and shortened a main rail before I should have, but no big deal.... it just made it a little harder to square up the back.  I am planning a removable frame rail to make changing engines easier, and maybe even make a mount system that includes the frame rail... we will see.

Spent a lot of time today making sure everything was square before and after tacking... the drivers compartment will be between the 2nd and third set of bars.  So far only the first and second are tacked in.   The back of the drivers compartment needs the top bar coped for the roll bar... so been calculating, and cross checking the numbers on our drawings.  Ideally we would do a 8.438 inch CL radius on the bar, but I don't know anyone with one of those cnc benders that seem to spit pipe in any shape you want it... so I will be looking to see if anyone local has a 7.5 inch radius shoe.  I don't know if anyone even makes an 8...
This will make a lot more room for the helmets, the old cage was a 6.25 CL radius
So here are a couple of pics to see I haven't fixed Linda's kiln yet... waiting on parts  :-D


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WhizzbangK.C. on October 25, 2017, 08:03:10 AM
Sumner, hopefully I won't do anything that slows it down too much.   :roll:

OK guys, been a little quiet because I was out checking the breweries and distilleries in Little Rock, Memphis, Birmingham, Columbus GA, Orlando, St. Augustine, Savannah and Nashville.... unfortunately I didn't find one in Poplar Bluff.  There are some really good beers being produced out there.... and some tasty craft whiskey.  Corsair in Nashville makes both.  :wink:

Back to business... been cutting and pasting.... only screwed up once, got a little ahead of myself and shortened a main rail before I should have, but no big deal.... it just made it a little harder to square up the back.  I am planning a removable frame rail to make changing engines easier, and maybe even make a mount system that includes the frame rail... we will see.

Spent a lot of time today making sure everything was square before and after tacking... the drivers compartment will be between the 2nd and third set of bars.  So far only the first and second are tacked in.   The back of the drivers compartment needs the top bar coped for the roll bar... so been calculating, and cross checking the numbers on our drawings.  Ideally we would do a 8.438 inch CL radius on the bar, but I don't know anyone with one of those cnc benders that seem to spit pipe in any shape you want it... so I will be looking to see if anyone local has a 7.5 inch radius shoe.  I don't know if anyone even makes an 8...
This will make a lot more room for the helmets, the old cage was a 6.25 CL radius
So here are a couple of pics to see I haven't fixed Linda's kiln yet... waiting on parts  :-D

For that large radius bend, call Machine Head in Kansas City and talk to Dick, https://machine-head.hub.biz/ . Last time I was down there he had a Baileigh power roller with a full set of dies. One of these https://www.baileigh.com/manual-ring-roller-r-m40 can make any radius you need. He's a great guy and really easy to work with too.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 25, 2017, 09:02:52 AM
Hammers, lots of hammers. How would we ever build cars without them. Stainless, I didn't see the one pound. That hammer is an absolute must!

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 25, 2017, 09:10:01 AM
John, so far the soft hammer has been the only one required... the "one pound" is still sitting by the door, hoping to not need it on this project.   :roll:

For the guys that don't understand the use of a one pound hammer.... it is not the weight of the hammer.... it is the one that only requires one pound.....


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 25, 2017, 11:27:25 AM
Stainless;

I had a similar problem when I built my chassis. The roll cage front hoop needed to be bent to follow the profile of the rear edge of the windshield. This was a large, non-constant radius bend. I took two lengths of tubing to an off-road 4x4 fab shop and explained how I thought the bends could be made- make a slight bend, move the tubing forward a bit, and make another slight bend, etc. It worked out just fine and the second length of tubing wasn't needed after all. I made a Masonite template of the inside of the windshield curve and the bender operator followed that curve. It worked out nicely. Maybe you could try the same trick?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 25, 2017, 05:10:21 PM
Stainless, my motorized SWAG modified HF tube bender is ready when you are. Use a template like Neil suggests and bend to fit.

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: floydjer on October 26, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Hammers, lots of hammers. How would we ever build cars without them. Stainless, I didn't see the one pound. That hammer is an absolute must!

John
I prefer calling it a Linear Impact Adjustment Implement. :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Buickguy3 on October 26, 2017, 07:51:43 AM
      This one ought to do the trick.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot0Cxmk2aa4
  Doug  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 26, 2017, 11:00:20 AM
Wow!  :lol:

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 26, 2017, 10:21:45 PM
Yep, that's the one nobody has and I can't afford....

OK, here is my concept for the roll cage... just front and back bars, required bracing to follow in pictures or metal... we will see how it works out.  Feel free to comment... I am not a professional car builder....

Just so you know... I didn't draw this, my good friend Ross Powers (MC2032) listened to my description of how I was thinking I wanted to do the bars and put it on paper for me.  This adds about 1/2 inch to the height of the current cage and is about 1.5 inches longer.  I am hoping it makes a little extra room in there for helmet growth.  We will see how this works out.... 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: jacksoni on October 27, 2017, 07:43:50 AM
The half inch higher helps for helmet growth and exit ease, the 1.5" longer makes exit ease worse. With the lay down position, with neck flexed already it makes exit harder. Having built a car with inadequate cage height and a front bar that made it ok to get in, impossible to get out (removed the bar which worked for a while and then the inspectors said "nah, nah") be sure of your measurements and adjustments before cutting and for sure welding anything. But I know you know all this, just sayin.... :dhorse: :cheers: Looking good and will be watching your progress.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 27, 2017, 09:43:38 AM
Jack, thanks... the 1/2 higher is in the hard plan... the deeper cage number will be helmet dependent... our old cage shrunk to being a "how you measure the 3 inch minimum" front clearance... and can you keep your head off the cage during a run.  The rougher salt made it a lot harder. 
We are all getting older, our knees not working as well as they once did.... so the bar at the front of the cage will move about 3 inches.  Of course my plan is to make and tack in the parts except the front bar, and then see where that one needs to go. 
The old cage was very tight in and out, but we never had a bailout problem with anyone that drove.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 27, 2017, 10:13:22 AM
it's actually very easy to go in and out....the trick is to slide backwards into the roll cage and opposite to get out....

...and Stainless, what problem you getting....I went out without taking the steering wheel off..... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

a real issue is the space between helmet and roll cage....at rough salt you come very easy in contact with the upper roll cage bow and than the view is gone....so much vibration... and you have to "shorten" your neck to get free of the roll cage and has to keep this position during the run....not very comfortable....OK...the Bockscar was never a comfortable racer....but therefor he was not built.... :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


Jack, thanks... the 1/2 higher is in the hard plan... the deeper cage number will be helmet dependent... our old cage shrunk to being a "how you measure the 3 inch minimum" front clearance... and can you keep your head off the cage during a run.  The rougher salt made it a lot harder. 
We are all getting older, our knees not working as well as they once did.... so the bar at the front of the cage will move about 3 inches.  Of course my plan is to make and tack in the parts except the front bar, and then see where that one needs to go. 
The old cage was very tight in and out, but we never had a bailout problem with anyone that drove.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 27, 2017, 11:24:26 AM
Yep, that's the one nobody has and I can't afford....

OK, here is my concept for the roll cage... just front and back bars, required bracing to follow in pictures or metal... we will see how it works out.  Feel free to comment... I am not a professional car builder....

Just so you know... I didn't draw this, my good friend Ross Powers (MC2032) listened to my description of how I was thinking I wanted to do the bars and put it on paper for me.  This adds about 1/2 inch to the height of the current cage and is about 1.5 inches longer.  I am hoping it makes a little extra room in there for helmet growth.  We will see how this works out.... 

Why not tie the roll bar into the top tube instead of going all the way to the bottom tube?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Mr. Schimstock on October 27, 2017, 11:51:30 AM
Sharpe Products has a 3D tube bender.   They are located in Wisconsin but shipping couldn't be too bad.  Might be worth sending the a drawing to quote.

http://www.sharpeproducts.com/sharpe-pipe-and-tube-bending-videos.aspx


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 27, 2017, 12:15:14 PM
Neil,

the answer is

CREMONA


Yep, that's the one nobody has and I can't afford....

OK, here is my concept for the roll cage... just front and back bars, required bracing to follow in pictures or metal... we will see how it works out.  Feel free to comment... I am not a professional car builder....

Just so you know... I didn't draw this, my good friend Ross Powers (MC2032) listened to my description of how I was thinking I wanted to do the bars and put it on paper for me.  This adds about 1/2 inch to the height of the current cage and is about 1.5 inches longer.  I am hoping it makes a little extra room in there for helmet growth.  We will see how this works out.... 

Why not tie the roll bar into the top tube instead of going all the way to the bottom tube?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 27, 2017, 12:54:20 PM
Thomas;

What is "CREMONA"?  :?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: jdincau on October 27, 2017, 01:54:26 PM
Thomas;

What is "CREMONA"?  :?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremona_diagram


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 27, 2017, 02:31:56 PM
CREMONA?

1. this Wikipedia note is maybe 10 percent of what Cremona really is.

2. Cremona is a mathematic rule for frame design.

3. mathematic rule for a compression strut - tension member - reaction and counter reaction
    you got a frame - on one point of the frame you put an energy on - the result - this part of the frame likes to move/escape.
    other parts of the frame are involved into a force reaction...one part of the frame will be length other compressed....
    they all like to escape from that force and finally somewhere the force will "go out" on a other area of the frame...

    simple!

    yes, it is maybe a little bit more complex....but the easiest way to say what happens in a frame construction

4. the base idea behind Cremona is:

    - with the same weight done right to Cremona you can get a double stiff construction as a poor design

    - or with half the weight the same stiffness as the poor design

5. in a combination you can design a frame which is in one area very stiff in an other area very flex

    Jack Costella is here a real master....I don't know if he ever heard from Cremona...I think what he is doing is just the result of thinking outside the box.

6. Cremona is the base mathematic rule behind all crash simulation programs...


Now, why I said to the Bockscar design....the reason for the roll bar design is Cremona.

 - what would be the reaction in the frame design if the roll cage would be only on the top cross member.....

   thinking about the racer rolls sideways, full contact of the top of the roll cage with the ground....if there would be no connection to the bottom cross member the top cross member would be pressed "down" (to the bottom one) and the side wall frame tube would be bend inside and the whole frame system would collapse.

Now the roll cage frame tube is going down to the bottom cross member - same rolling situation - the top and bottom cross member with the connected roll cage tube is creating a very strong frame (rectangular) which can absorb a high power input....the outside frame tubes creating also a strong frame - both - cross frame and main frame combine to more stiffer combination....the compression strut and tension bar in this frame works against the force of touching the ground.....the top cross member will be not bend down and the outside frame tubes will bend not inside.....


The Cremona rule helps to get the members and cross members to the correct position where they work together to create a frame system which pick a high force input without bending......

in the same way you can weaken an frame area so the part will bend and reduce the force on other parts of the frame as also slowing down the deceleration to protect the driver



Sorry, Cremona is tough to explain and it needs you a long time to understand the idea behind....but used the right way it is a fantastic tool to create a racer frame.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 27, 2017, 03:09:57 PM
Wow, learn something new everyday.... but then I drink my coffee black.... Oh wait, that's Cremora  :roll:
OK my original answer is I hope it gives me more room in the cockpit and fit inside the canopy as well as provides strength.  Here are some old frame shots, the front hoop is tough to make at the size it is.. wider will be harder and I don't think stronger to make it the old way.  It interferes with entry and exit, and the braces pinch your arms in... leaving bruises on all including Thomas.
I'm thinking I have the bars attached to the top and bottom rails making it stronger.... did I mention I don't do this stuff for a living...
The old one didn't kill anyone, hoping the new one will last as long and never hurt anyone either.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 27, 2017, 03:18:21 PM
Yep, learn something every day. The only "Cremona" I was familiar with was the violin maker.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 27, 2017, 03:33:05 PM
Hope, my explanation is understandable....how Cremona works....and yes, Cremora is the strong way to drink your espresso.....


Yep, learn something every day. The only "Cremona" I was familiar with was the violin maker.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Interested Observer on October 27, 2017, 07:36:54 PM
I think Pork Pie has somewhat oversold Cremona.  Classically, it is a graphical technique to determine the loads in the members of a planar truss taking into account the applied loads and locations, the reaction loads and locations, and the geometry of the (proposed) truss design.  It is basically static analysis of the framework.  Once the member loads are determined, that information can be used to size the members for their appropriate tension or compression capacity. 

In the U.S. this is normally simply termed static analysis.  However, it may be that in Europe the Cremona name is used more popularly due to its origination in Italy.

In this day and age, manual analysis of this sort, which is laborious, has been supplanted by Finite Element Analysis programs which, for spaceframes, is an automated version of the same technique but also is more advanced in that it takes into account the elasticity and deflections of the members.   (Which can also be done manually, but is REALLY laborious, iterative, and open to human error.)


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 27, 2017, 08:15:06 PM
IO;

Thanks for the explanation.

Back in the late '60s I built a chassis for a small Corvair-powered Sabel mid-engine sports racer. I used a computer, an IBM 360 Mod 50, to do the stress analysis on the tubular space frame. We had a program called "STRUDL" that was an early structural analysis program. All structural members were defined on punched IBM cards; the stack of cards was about 7" high and the program on this big mainframe ran overnight during unused periods. The output was on fan-fold printer paper that was about 3/4" thick. We've come a long way since then! I think a desktop personal computer could probably do the same job in less time these days.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 28, 2017, 02:50:58 AM
IO

just to tell you

FEA is currently the final USE of Cremona and another mathematic rule - STEINER

FEA based on this two rules.......

FEA is nothing other than the name of a Computer Program....it also had could call STUPID CRASH DUMMY....

....because, reading FEA results creates more human error, than making a Cremona calculation by hand and with your mind


I'm working now for more than 30 years with Cremona, Steiner and FEA....the biggest risk is the HUMAN who use this tool..... :roll:




I think Pork Pie has somewhat oversold Cremona.   by Finite Element Analysis programs


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 30, 2017, 02:25:15 PM
The "state of the art" in tube chassis fabrication are off road race trucks. I have attached a pic of a truck chassis being built at the Herbest Brother's shop in Huntington Beach. Note a couple of things: 1. No tube connects to another tube without an additional tube attached such that it will carry any load from the first tube to other parts of the chassis. 2. Look at the tube joints where multiple tubes join together, each tube has "overlap" of the other tubes, not easy to do but it provides the strongest and stiffest welded joint. 3. There are no plate gussets, they are stress risers and an admission that the joint was not properly designed.

Stainless,I realize that this type of frame is pretty far from what you are building for the new Bockcar but you should be able to get some good fabrication ideas from these pics.

Note the pic of the multi tube joint, one part of the coped tube was cut off to be able to install the tube and then re-welded into place to make a perfect joint! Now that is detail.

Rex


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 07, 2017, 01:33:53 PM
Yep, really nice work... and yep, if I used that much tube there wouldn't be room for a driver.... :roll:
I am back from my wine country trip so I will be back to work on the lakester later today. 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on November 08, 2017, 09:26:24 PM
 :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 12, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
I suspect y'all think I've been eating Bon Bons and drinkin' whiskey all day, the truth is not far away....  :roll: but a little progress has been made.  Still looking to bend or get the roll bars bent, searching for the right bending guy, Johnboy is starting to look in Denver, I am checking a guy up by KC next.  I think I want an 8 inch CL radius but maybe I really want 7.5  :|  Need the roll bars soon to keep moving.

Still getting a little done during all the research, search.... and re-search

Added some floor bars made from 1.5 x 1 x .125 wall.  They will get a little triangulation besides the seat back bar.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 12, 2017, 11:10:27 PM
Then the seat got checked... I guess I should run by to see Max, check on his bike progress and borrow his English Wheel to see if I can flatten a couple of the seat panels that seem to have Johnboy's hip and butt prints dimpled in.  Yep he was snugged in tight, but belts stretch a little and let him flop a little.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on November 13, 2017, 10:20:52 PM
Nice clamps under the back of the seat :-D


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on November 13, 2017, 10:27:41 PM
Stainless;

Was your seat 6061-T6? What thickness did you use?

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on November 13, 2017, 10:33:25 PM
I think the seat is 5052. Bent and welded :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 14, 2017, 12:10:26 AM
Yea really nice clamps... manna from heaven... they just miraculously showed up in the mail  :cheers:
I think the seat pan is .050 or .063... I moved placement of the frame member to the crouch belt attachment, so the bottom of the pan will also need to be adjusted a little... lot to do before that.  Found JD2 has a 7.5 CL radius die for 1 5/8 tube... may be the new solution, that will be plenty of room compared to the old 6 inch CL cage.  Just have to find someone that has one or someone with a JD2 bender....


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on November 14, 2017, 10:27:58 AM
We have that capability do not have 1 5/8 die I used 1.75" and 2"


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: kiwi belly tank on November 14, 2017, 03:54:57 PM
I have an Eastwood hydraulic bender 1-5/8 X 8" CL.
  Sid.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on November 15, 2017, 04:15:59 PM
SS  I will work with you on the die if it helps you


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 15, 2017, 11:46:40 PM
I have an Eastwood hydraulic bender 1-5/8 X 8" CL.
  Sid.

OK folks, anyone plan to be traveling the NW corridor I15 at hiway 30 in Idaho toward Denver, Nebraska or Kansas in the very near future... and willing to pick up a bender and drag it toward me?
Sid has offered it up, any help would be appreciated with beer, wine, whiskey and dinner on this end.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 16, 2017, 10:56:37 AM
Floor structure is made and tacked in place except the seat back which requires the rear roll bar before it can be finished.  This is what I think will work and be safe.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 17, 2017, 10:41:27 PM
Well, this is why we post build diary's... one of my team mates disagreed with my last post.... Pork Pie thought I needed a little more structure on the floor, and made a pretty good case... so here is now what I think is a pretty safe and strong floor structure for the car.... well at least until Pork Pie sees it... :|


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on November 17, 2017, 10:57:48 PM
Just a thought...

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kLxEoECYL._SL500_SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

...or maybe not.   :mrgreen:

Mike


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Buickguy3 on November 18, 2017, 08:57:02 AM
  If you do everything Porkpie's way you will exceed the weight limit of the tires.  :-D
  Doug [Just kidding, Thomas]  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 18, 2017, 12:46:39 PM
Well this is a driver containment area as well as part of the structure to keep the frame and driver protection in place.  The braced area is where the drivers butt lands and where the lapbelt will end up attached to the main frame rails. 
We started planning the new Bockscar after I went 246... my 228 record was nearly 100 MPH faster than the first record we set back in 1984 with the car.... we knew we were already pushing the safety limits... over the years we added and changed keeping up with the safety within the rules.... but we also were the original builders and always kept in mind how old the car was... and the repairs from past changes and incidents. 
So we are trying to build a car for 250+... The old one stayed together for the 190 experience... a lot of the structure is bent, but nothing broke, our biggest fear that the car was rusting from the inside... at some point, I plan to dissect a few spots to see what we had.  I don't plan to make a lot of the "mistakes" we made, most were correctable.  There were parts of the frame and sub-frame that were drilled and tapped to attach parts, opening those to salt exposure... not our best ideas...  :| but we never expected to be where we are now, back then.
Pork Pie knows what we want to build and how safe we want to build it.  If it weighs in a couple hundred pounds more than the original...
maybe I won't need to put the ballast back in.    :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stan Back on November 18, 2017, 04:11:28 PM
That's no way to talk about your drivers!


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 18, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
 :-o  :-D  :roll:  :cheers:
Thanks Stan.... point taken


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Buickguy3 on November 19, 2017, 10:30:41 AM
    Stainless, I'm glad you are doing this and putting it on here for us to watch. I never miss a chance to give Porkpie a little "dig" but his points are well taken. Safety is his job.
  Doug  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 26, 2017, 11:56:57 AM
Moved the build into the heated part of the shop, not because it is climate controlled, but because that is where the Tig is.  I have 220 out in the other shop, but the plugs are different and I'm to lazy to build an extension cord that will convert them right now. 

I decided to weld in the floor while I wait for the bending die to show up for the roll cage.  Sid, I appreciate the offer to use your bender, but the logistics seem to be a bit difficult.  I ordered a 7.5 CL radius die from JD2 since they were 10% off for Black Friday.  A friend offered to lend me his JD2 Model 3 hydraulic bender, I just need to drive over and get it. 

I started welding in the floor bracing and figured out one thing.... I need to make better tacks with the Mig.  The tacks were lumps that were hard to weld over... I welded the underside... wow is that frame table rotisserie nice... Thanks Sparky   :wink: 
Flipped it back over, cut the remaining tacks off and welded the parts in.  Some of the welds aren't pretty, but I'm not worried about them falling apart.  Note to self... better tacks make it easier

So here are a couple of pics of the fun.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on November 26, 2017, 12:30:50 PM
BC II will be the fourth car built on the table that Skip Higginbotham built  it is handy


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on November 26, 2017, 01:11:07 PM
Stainless;

Better check the size of that rectangular tubing in your floor structure. The inspectors at Speed Week looked askance at the same size tubing that I used in the floor of my chassis. I also had a 7075-T6 stressed panel riveted to the bottom. There needs to be clarification between primary and secondary structural members in the rule book. Some inspectors think that any chassis tubing needs to be 1 3/4" 0.125.

I submitted photos of my bare chassis but so far, no word at all.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: kiwi belly tank on November 26, 2017, 07:10:30 PM
If it's around the driver it will be considered as part of the roll cage & in this case would be 1-5/8 minimum.
You probably should seek prior approval on that before moving on Mate.
  Sid.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 26, 2017, 08:03:01 PM
The old floor structure was 1 x 1 tube between 1.5 inch frame rails... and about half as much as I am adding here.  I will send an inquiry to Lee Kennedy, but I am not concerned.   There are 1.66 frame members and cross members integrated with the 1.5 x 1 sub-frame floor members.   I finished the floor except for a couple of inches of welding that I can't get to... yet.  So far the car is built a lot tougher and safer than the last one.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: kiwi belly tank on November 26, 2017, 10:29:14 PM
Would hate to see you get caught out by rule 3.B.1 "minimum 1-5/8 round tubing - including the bottom & rear".
  Sid.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 27, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
I see what you are saying, but there are 3 larger than 1.625 x .120 cross tubes in the driver protection area on the bottom.  There will be 4 across the back, God only knows how many on the sides and 3 on the top.  Note to Lee going out this morning.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: kiwi belly tank on November 27, 2017, 11:55:53 AM
Yeah, best to cover your a$$, no pun intended! :-D
  Sid.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 27, 2017, 07:14:40 PM
Yeah, best to cover your a$$, no pun intended! :-D
  Sid.

Sid, that looks like pun intended to me  :cheers:
Just ordered axle materials (necessary for those of us that live in the boonies) onlinemetals.com has 25% off thru Wednesday.  No I am not pitching products, just helping my fellow racers find material at a reasonable price.  These guys had the best price before 25% off.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Sumner on November 27, 2017, 07:31:31 PM
... onlinemetals.com has 25% off thru Wednesday.  No I am not pitching products, just helping my fellow racers find material at a reasonable price.  These guys had the best price before 25% off.

I get all my aluminum from them, just got a bunch.  I get all my steel from a local shop.  I usually buy full sticks and the guy gives me great prices.  A few years ago when steel went up I wondered so call all the places in Farmington, NM and he was way under them.  For aluminum I do better with onlinemetals.com.

You are moving along quickly.  Thanks for the posts,

Sumner


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 27, 2017, 08:35:06 PM
Sum, I find a lot of my material at the Yard here in Wichita, but no one has 1 & 1.5 x .250 4130 tube around here.  Found one place that had it in their Chicago warehouse for twice the price...


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tauruck on November 28, 2017, 06:44:20 PM
Ihaven't been online much lately but the project looks good guys.
Thanks for the inspiration. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Rex Schimmer on November 28, 2017, 08:16:28 PM
Stainless,
Did you mean 1.5 inch dia x .25 wall, 4130 tubing? not 1inch x 1.5 inch x .25 wall 4130 tubing? which I don't think is a size that is available.

Rex


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on November 28, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
Rex, ordered both 1 x .250 for the spindle holder tube and 1.5 x .250 for the axle. When assembled it will look a little like this... although the locating divots may be in different places since the front end suspension design may change if we eliminate the VW front suspension and go 4 bar.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on December 08, 2017, 12:33:49 AM
I picked up the JD2 model 3 bender from my friend Eric.... the 7.5 inch CL radius die set showed up, so I made my first bend.  The calculations said start with 57.4 inches of tube... I decided to play it safe and did 60, bent the tube, cut the legs off since there was extra on both and here we are....
I need to cope the bottom of the legs, then the cross bar a little for the hoop and I think I have the back of the hoop ready to weld in.... or at least tack in. 
The bender did a nice job on the bend.  Front hoop next after that...


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on December 08, 2017, 12:37:14 AM
Sweet!  :cheers:

Mike


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on December 08, 2017, 09:51:13 PM
Just for fun, I put the new hoop next to the old hoop so I could see how much more helmet room we have.... I looks like we will be able to move our heads.... going from 6 inch CL radius to 7.5 and planning to be about a 1/2 inch taller.  We will see what we get.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on December 08, 2017, 10:08:24 PM
I am trying to figure out how I'm going to cope the bottom of the hoop legs to fit the bottom rail.  So far all of my cuts have been with the mill but I can't find a way to hold the hoop to cope the legs, they are too short to clear the mill table support.  I guess I will drop by Max's or Turk's place and borrow a drill press tomorrow.
I did get the top rail coped for the hoop.  As soon as I cope the legs, I can do a little more welding on the frame and get the seat back welded.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on December 09, 2017, 01:25:38 PM
Just for fun, I put the new hoop next to the old hoop so I could see how much more helmet room we have.... I looks like we will be able to move our heads.... going from 6 inch CL radius to 7.5 and planning to be about a 1/2 inch taller.  We will see what we get.
Just don't get a big head over your results!  :-o :-D :-o :-D :cheers: :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Ron Gibson on December 09, 2017, 02:07:45 PM
I don't supose Stainless stopped to think of it, but a smaller head would give less frontal area and better AERO, and everyody like a little head.

Ron


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on December 09, 2017, 02:41:49 PM
While a little head is always good, as we all know.... it is the size of the head receptacle that we all have a problem with.... especially when working in tight spaces....

How that for an answer Ron.... enough innuendo or should I try harder  :-D  :cheers:   


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on December 09, 2017, 05:53:40 PM
I was waiting for you to call out the poster a couple back -- a guy named "Woody".   I mean, c'mon, too easy? :roll: