FrontEngineDragsters.Org Forum
Technical => Roo Man's Room => Topic started by: wideopen231 on March 13, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
-
Need to know what most have in lower frame for diagonals. Ive seen some that have nothing and wondering how mcuh they effect how chassis works.If I do install them Im thinking 3/4" should be more than strong enough, Maybe Roo Man can chime in.
-
I thinki I found out part of answer while veiwing some photos of Scott Parks car from year before last when he won SWJFA championship. Still would loike input from others.
-
Chris I borrowed a picture from Chuck I hope he dosn't mind . Is this what you mean . Mine has one similar to this about a foot in front of the motor and that's it My chassis is very very flexible
-
That looks good, would be even better if it continued forward and finished the X.
-
That looks good, would be even better if it continued forward and finished the X.
I’d personally think in avoiding the ‘X’ bracing on the sides, as it'd add undesirable rigidity on the vertical plane of the chassis. My nostalgia 173" FED has no bracing (diagonal or ‘X’) from the front motor-plate forward, just ‘empty rectangles’.
-
Yea Im thinking of going right to left then left to right in next bay. I do not want to make chassis stiff would counter act the work I put into slipjoint.
Had a bad experiance with a funnycar chassis that had update and went from a top 4 car to a DNQ and almost 2 dnq's before we cut bars and it sounded like tuning fork. Next run it went back to #2 qualifier on early shutoff.Kind of makes you leary of overly stiff chassis,especailly in new car and your first FED chassis build from ground up.
-
That was between the lower tubes, not the lower and upper, making an X between the two lower tubes prevents the car wandering around going down the track and nothing about it's ability to arch up.
-
masracingtd1167 do you have any more of the chassis pics you borrowed from Chuck it looks pretty nice.
-
Larry chuck's user name on this forum is coupmerc . He has a brand new Neil and Park's car and it is awesom looking absolute state of the art F.E.D. He has a whole album over on the HAMB . Hey Chuck post some more pictures.
-
Here are some, I hate to keep posting pictures of my dragster, I do not want people to get the wrong idea.
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_03_23/P3230010.jpg)
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_03_23/P3230011.jpg)
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_04_06/P4070039.jpg)
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_04_06/P4070044.jpg)
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_04_06/P4070036.jpg)
(http://www.leverfamilysite.com/images/2010_Dragster/Progress_2010_12_31/PC310016.JPG)
-
Hey Glen Keep posting. Loving it make me feel better and better about my chassis. I feels almost like I am looking at it in your pic. I did pick up on cpl things a little different but not much. Looks like your chassis is 2.2C spec also. Great pics.
-
Hey Glen Keep posting. Loving it make me feel better and better about my chassis. I feels almost like I am looking at it in your pic. I did pick up on cpl things a little different but not much. Looks like your chassis is 2.2C spec also. Great pics.
All Roo Man's work
-
Using the sleeves for the uprights I see, very nice......
-
Glen Keep posting your pictures we enjoy them and all the other guy's builds. One thing I have alway's wanted to do is build my own dragster . Don't get me wrong I love my Park's car but I would like to say I built one myself .
-
Hey Glen Keep posting. Loving it make me feel better and better about my chassis. I feels almost like I am looking at it in your pic. I did pick up on cpl things a little different but not much. Looks like your chassis is 2.2C spec also. Great pics.
Yes, 2.2C
-
Yea same book Ive been reading like bible. I should have weighed the extra pieces to see how much weight differance for building to 2.2c,just for the knowledge if nothing else.
Went and looked at pic of Parks work,dang thought I would machine everything down.Now boack to mill to remove more weight.
-
glen, roo, anybody with the book and some brains: can the k member be an x member on the bay forward of the rear end? I would think that an X member would be the strongest bay design? and is 1-1/4 .058 legal for the x member? just curious if my overbuilt 6.0 would pass that spec.
Thanks
matt
-
Matt,
a "K" is only required for 2.3C certification and then only if the rear end upright is rectangular tube. With a round tube upright that uses plates to mount the rear end housing a single diagonal (1.25" x .058") or an X or K ( 1" x .058") will certify.
At 2.4 level the diagonal can be 1.25" x .049" or 1.125" x .058" and X's or K's can be 1" x .049" or .875" x .058". Max bay length is 38" at the top rail and 28" along the lower. If the max length is exceeded and the bay is divided the upright in the middle must be 1.125" x .058" and then the diagonals can be 1" x .058" and the X's or K's can be as small as .875" x .049 or .750" x .058".
Roo
-
awesome, thanks roo. yea the new car is a tube type rearend upright. has two bays between the motorplate and rear end due to being out 42.5".
Want to X at least that rearend bay to stiffen up the chassis around the drivers pod. Will most likely do x the second member to the midplate upright so it will be built over spec and then just diagnols from the engine forward. I would think the two X bays would be the strongest and safest way to build it. that way its nice and rigid through the drivers pod of the chassis.
matt