Lakester frame in 3 parts

[edweldon]

My current project involves a 170" wb lakester chassis too long to easily get in and out of my small shop.  I'd like to do it in 3 sections ("bolted together") the center of which is a cage structure pretty close to figure 4B on page 27 of the 2011 rule book.  My question is how to best make the connections to the nose section and the rear section (with motor and drive train).  Both sections have similar 4 tube rectangular layout as the cage.  All work in mild steel; 1-3/4" dia cage tubing. Est'd car weight 1800 lbs dry.
Should I design my own connectors for each of the tube intersections (external tube sleeves with cross bolts)  This doesn't thrill me.
How about the weld-on machined steel roll cage connectors that the off road folks use?
I could make it more elaborate with additional bolts, plates and cross bracing in the two end sections where they connect.
Who has done this before besides Al Teague?  Legend has it that his liner frame was in two sections; so it would fit in his garage.  True?   Anyone know how Al did his?
Ed Weldon

[Tman]

I forget the team but the LONG yellow lakester is done the same way. Pictures are on Sumners site.

[Dr Goggles]

Who has done this before besides Al Teague?  Legend has it that his liner frame was in two sections; so it would fit in his garage.  True?   Anyone know how Al did his?
Ed Weldon

I'm thinkin there's a bloke in the backblocks of Idaho who'll pipe up soon with the answer....

[Joe Timney]

Ed,
I have used the Camberg clamps on two pickups to allow the bed to be removed. I machined sleeves to go over the clamps for strength.
http://www.camburg.com/products/fabrication/billet-tube-clamps/

If you have any questions, give me a call. 302.378.3013
Joe

[Stainless1]

At Mountain States we have discussed this at length... no pun intended... Talking about building a stream-lakester-liner... there have been several cars over the years that have been built in sections.  We decided that the best idea was machined steel plate bulkheads, much like a lot of airplanes are built but using steel.  Our plan was like yours, a front section, a safety section and a powertrain section.  Depending on what power you are planning, you may want your lakester to weigh more, so the 1/2 inch plate bulkheads would help balance the weight distribution.  We were going to pass the tubes through the plate weld flush on the mating sides and gusset for strength.  We planned mating dowels and a ring of bolts to hold it all together....
No, we never put it all on paper, but I remember this being our last version of beergineering this idea.

[Ron Gibson]

  Al had to take off the body nose piece and the rear body panels. There was a tubular tail, body support, push bar section that bolted to the frame at the trans-axle area that had to be removed also. After it was in and on stands, the left rear wheel and tire had to be removed to give enough room to walk between the car and his parts storage room. The nose was against the grinder stand next to the big door and the right rear was next to the wall. If he needed to use the lathe, welder, etc, he had to move the body panels outside and climb over the car to get to the machines.

 PURE dedication and desire built that car.

Ron
  
  

[hotrod]

If you do this it is also worth while to consider designing those segments as break away segments in case of a crash.
This has also been done to give the structure a "safe" place to fail in a serious accident.


My understanding is that the Burland 411 car was designed that way.

Larry

[pookie]

Hey Ed, You might want to check out the "Frightliner" it was built in pieces, 2 or 3 and it was assembled at the race track. The car also had 4 tires in the back, ran a "Chizzeler Motor, but was cut across , I think either 2 or 4 cylinders with a 4:71 blower. I think Dan Warner may have good info on it, I think owner and Mr. Warner live in the same neck of the woods. I also would like to comment on the break away chassis you mentioned.. First I know I am a "Charter Member" in the "Peanut Gallery", but after looking at Chassis design of Streamliners and Lakesters I can count on one hand the number of cars having run a breakway roll cage. To me that design is the only way to go. All the front engine "diggers"  back in the day were built that way... There is flim of Jim Nickles and the Snake racing in early 70s Nickles clutch let go car broke at the breakaway and went by the snake, who thought Nickles was killed, Nickles  walked away .. Tony Shumacher had that really bad wreck where the car broke in 3 pieces, and the drivers compartment flipped and rolled at least 6 or 8 times, minimum damage to Shumacher.. Just think about all that energy, in a nose first,  wreck being transfered all the way  through the chassis.. there is no place for the impact to go except through the chassis and then to the drivers cage..and then really bad things happen... Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread,  BUT this subject has never been discussed before  on landracing to my knowledge....  Mike R.

[edweldon]

Joe Timney - Good data point on the use of Camberg clamps.  Sleeves, especially on the joint between the middle and back frames for my project, sound like a good idea.
Stainless - Your plate bulkhead thoughts are interesting.  On my project they are more applicable to the front nose to cage connection than the rear.  I'd go with thinner plate to keep the weight down with the idea that if weight there were called for a middle part of the "sandwich" of a larger thickness could be added later,
Ron - Thanks for the confirmation of the Al Teague story.  That's worth further pursuit on my part to illuminate the details of how he did it.
hotrod and pookie - The idea of a breakaway driver's safety pod is a good one in general.  It crossed my mind.  But the problem is how to design the connections for a specific application.   Kinda overwhelms me and my particular resources, which are somewhat limited.  I'm a retired mechanical engineer.  In my career some of my best learning was about what you can't do.  In my retired situation I could never muster the design, computational and test resources to attack this problem the right way.
All - thanks for your comments.  At this point I like the bulkhead idea for the front connection and the Camberg clamps with reinforcement sleeves for the rear connection.  But I'd sure like to hear more about the "nuts and bolts" details of these and other approaches, especially ones that have actually been built.
Ed Weldon

[Joe Timney]

Here is the flange rings I machined for my streamliner. The frame rail tubing has an inner tube welded to one side. Planning on doing a bulkhead between the flanges. It would allow me the take off the back end behind the drivers pod.

[Tman]

Ed, I looked but could not find the shots of the 3 piece car. Long yellow Cigar shaped A or AA lakester. There are some good shots of the frame and bulkheads here on the board somewhere.

[Tman]

Yellow Fatboyz car in reply #760

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,7465.msg133747.html#msg133747

[Stainless1]

Ed, the sandwich bulkhead Joe is using is a way you should think about... the bulkhead could also be a firewall. 
Our plan the weight of the rear bulkhead was about 160 lbs for the 2 pieces.  You could reduce to 3/8 plate and cut 40 lbs, we were looking at about 4 square feet per piece.  Be careful building light, on the salt weight is traction

[edweldon]

Joe and Stainless -- Thanks again, guys, for your suggestions.  I like the flanges with an inside tube to give a male-female fit.  I think I'd give that fit just a bit less diametral clearance than in the bolt holes. Maybe .030".  In the flanges for the horizontal rails I'll go with 6 bolts; so that for any heavy moment direction at least two bolts will be in tension.  In the back  that will be on the lower two horizontal rails only. 
The upper tubes are at about a 45 deg angle.  Since it won't assemble with a rigid male to female joint  like the other 6 I'll go with a short rabbet fit between the two flanges and an 8 bolt circle.  This is all nice easy lathe work and rotary table work on the mill and will throw a $250 bonus into the build budget vs. the Camberg cage connectors.
OK, what's this about the 45 degree angle on the two tubes?  Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm working with a car that's already built.  Just needs a new roll cage to meet tech requirements.
 I ended up buying Doug King's old Gold Digger Lakester.   I don't want to muck too much with an existing design that  worked well up to 185 with the Ardun.  I intend to stay with the flathead/Ardun and see how far I can take it.  200 or 225 is about as far as I think my budget can take me with that formula.  It came with a wing, although that's not the most efficient way to get down force.  There is plenty of room in there to add lead or a steel rear belly pan if I need it.  There are other factors in my particular program that favor keeping the weight down.  But that's another topic.
Ed Weldon

[Old Gringo]

My current project involves a 170" wb lakester chassis too long to easily get in and out of my small shop.  I'd like to do it in 3 sections ("bolted together") the center of which is a cage structure pretty close to figure 4B on page 27 of the 2011 rule book.  My question is how to best make the connections to the nose section and the rear section (with motor and drive train).  Both sections have similar 4 tube rectangular layout as the cage.  All work in mild steel; 1-3/4" dia cage tubing. Est'd car weight 1800 lbs dry.
Should I design my own connectors for each of the tube intersections (external tube sleeves with cross bolts)  This doesn't thrill me.
How about the weld-on machined steel roll cage connectors that the off road folks use?
I could make it more elaborate with additional bolts, plates and cross bracing in the two end sections where they connect.
Who has done this before besides Al Teague?  Legend has it that his liner frame was in two sections; so it would fit in his garage.  True?   Anyone know how Al did his?
Ed Weldon
 
Some images in this post from 2007.      ( http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,2629.msg31129.html#msg31129 )