fredswain wrote:You can see in the third picture that I posted that it is a separate piece.
thanks. i was trying to figure out its purpose. to further brace the shock tower? looks like their arms were binding with the front bulkhead too. they took away some material from the arms.
With front bulkhead, not so much... but with steering bellcranks, yes. With full steering and suspension compressed place you pointed out drags heavily on bellcrank... without that cut obviously.
Niki wrote:With front bulkhead, not so much... but with steering bellcranks, yes. With full steering and suspension compressed place you pointed out drags heavily on bellcrank... without that cut obviously. You can imagine I have stared and tested these details with my CAD model for quite some time
-Niki-
looking at these new pictures of the 91 stealth car, are you planning any changes to the parts?
Fred and I have talked about that front bulkhead from the beginning of our project and we always discussed modifying it and the top deck. I plan to cut a chassis with a 1.5mm top deck (accurate replica) and another with 3mm for racing. If you are going to race I think the 3mm makes the most sense; especially if you are ever on a track during practice with SC trucks. One pop from those suckers and the deck could be snapped!
Among other reasons this is probably why the car never made it to production. If the best driver in the world cracked it could you imagine what would have happened in the hands of the avg. joe
That brings up an interesting question. It looks like it sprung up about 5°. Did the car have a 20° kick in some iteration and then go to 25° for the race but retain the same bulkhead?
fredswain wrote:That brings up an interesting question. It looks like it sprung up about 5°. Did the car have a 20° kick in some iteration and then go to 25° for the race but retain the same bulkhead?
i don't know how far curtis went on hand cutting most parts for that buggy, but it could also be a possibility that the top portion of the bulkhead wasn't cut at an angle? with a right hit it was probably what caused the upper deck to break.
fredswain wrote:That brings up an interesting question. It looks like it sprung up about 5°. Did the car have a 20° kick in some iteration and then go to 25° for the race but retain the same bulkhead?
If the bulkhead was cut for a 20 degree kick-up but the angle ended up being 25 then the broken piece of carbon fiber would be pointing downward. Increasing the angle of the kick-up would've sloped the top of the bulkhead down. For something like what you are suggesting to have happened the bulkhead would've had to been cut for a 30 degree kick-up.
it was made for either 30 or 25 and the chassis was fabbed 5 degrees less, 25 or 20. Kind of falls in line with the questioning of the kickup angle earlier. Only the guys that have physical samples of the genuine article now would be able to tell for sure. It's all conjecture otherwise.
Curtis will be resolving this issue for us once the car gets back from Japan. I was about to have a 20 degree mold fabricated but with his willingness to help us I decided to wait
Pretty awesome when the original designers/builders are willing to take time to help on a project like this.
fredswain wrote:That brings up an interesting question. It looks like it sprung up about 5°. Did the car have a 20° kick in some iteration and then go to 25° for the race but retain the same bulkhead?
If the bulkhead was cut for a 20 degree kick-up but the angle ended up being 25 then the broken piece of carbon fiber would be pointing downward. Increasing the angle of the kick-up would've sloped the top of the bulkhead down. For something like what you are suggesting to have happened the bulkhead would've had to been cut for a 30 degree kick-up.
Good point. I was thinking backwards. The question still remains whether they tried a different front kick after that bulkhead was made.
Amazon [Bot], 
