|
Originally Posted by DFASTEST951
(Post 6323655)
Wow, I miss alot being gone for a short time.
Patrick, I'm so glad you only want this thing for a track car. Your car looks so nice as it is, it would completely ruin the look on the street. Tony, great analogy. Get this though. It's the Damndest thing. Since everyone has a rack, and each girl pushed it to the next level of size, it got to be outrageous. It was like touching overinflated balloons. Now, the girls with their "stock" or "factory" racks are getting more attention because the over inflated racks went too far and you just couldn't get over the Michael Jackson fakeness. On another note, and you guys aren't going to believe this but since I'm in the industry, I'll share. The beaver bush is coming back in style. I'm not saying a rain forest mess but the growth is actually coming back in. I guess we all like a little change now and again and now it's going back to a more, "factory" look. Ok, back to your regular scheduled programming. THE BUSH?!?!....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Maybe a little hitler..... |
Originally Posted by CPR
(Post 6323740)
THE BUSH?!?!....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Maybe a little hitler..... |
Originally Posted by DFASTEST951
(Post 6323655)
Tony, great analogy. Get this though. It's the Damndest thing. Since everyone has a rack, and each girl pushed it to the next level of size, it got to be outrageous. It was like touching overinflated balloons. Now, the girls with their "stock" or "factory" racks are getting more attention because the over inflated racks went too far and you just couldn't get over the Michael Jackson fakeness. On another note, and you guys aren't going to believe this but since I'm in the industry, I'll share. The beaver bush is coming back in style. I'm not saying a rain forest mess but the growth is actually coming back in. I guess we all like a little change now and again and now it's going back to a more, "factory" look. TonyG |
Originally Posted by 333pg333
(Post 6323902)
What, the combover???? :p
sorry your thread has degraded to this point Patrick! |
You guys ain't right...
Isn't this a car forum?? I come here to ESCAPE these feminin concerns........... |
Originally Posted by Lorax
(Post 6323590)
Unless you reinforce said panel.
If you don't want to put holes in the hatch you could go to the rear body panel and properly reinforce it. I do agree that mounting to any outer panel means you need to reinforce it. If you get rid of the flex, there is no problem. So A) exactly how do you plan to properly reinforce it? and B) How do you plan to do it without adding 10lbs? I'd be interested to see exactly how the the load is transferred off the top of the rear quarter panel, at an angle, to anything really structurally strong. TonyG |
Originally Posted by special tool
(Post 6323922)
You guys ain't right...
Isn't this a car forum?? I come here to ESCAPE these feminin concerns........... Wha? We're just trying to speak the language. TonyG |
Originally Posted by CPR
(Post 6319592)
Amen...and as stated above, the new 997 racers now have them, while other manufacturers have been using them for a while. Makes you wonder for a minute just who is actually on top of the technology.
BTW...ritz your avatar is making me blind :) I have read and re-read the postings from last night in an attempt to understand the implosion. As I cannot find any such reason for the unfortunate event, I will assume it was my comment (shown above) from earlier in the post. If it was indeed this comment it was sorely misinterpreted. By manufacturers I meant Auto manufacturers (factory racers) and which auto manufacturers are/have been on top of the technology (e.g. Dodge-Viper, Mustang-Saleen, Aston, etc...) by implementing the "ricer" wing years ago. Not manufacturers/vendors here. |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6324239)
Sure.
So A) exactly how do you plan to properly reinforce it? and B) How do you plan to do it without adding 10lbs? I'd be interested to see exactly how the the load is transferred off the top of the rear quarter panel, at an angle, to anything really structurally strong. TonyG An anchor piece connected to the frame rails that then leads up to a flange that is on the rear body panel. You have several small bolt holes in the rear body panel where a similar flange attached to the wing bolts onto the outside. The overall weight wouldn't be that much more than the kokeln design and it would retain all the functionality of the hatch. |
Back to the hairy taco making a comeback.....just kidding...on with this thread. lol.
|
Originally Posted by Lorax
(Post 6324486)
Well what if you did a design similar to the kokeln, only through the rear body instead of the hatch for people who want to remove the wing for street driving.
An anchor piece connected to the frame rails that then leads up to a flange that is on the rear body panel. You have several small bolt holes in the rear body panel where a similar flange attached to the wing bolts onto the outside. The overall weight wouldn't be that much more than the kokeln design and it would retain all the functionality of the hatch. But that's not the case here. If you went down through the top of the quarter panel, under the hatch seal, which has nothing below it, you don't have a vertical shot to a load bearing member. You'd have to angle your support inbound towards the frame rail (not really a frame rail, but we call it that because that's what it looks like) like 30 degrees. And that's where the problem lies. There's no real clean way to do it without adding a good deal of weight. And even then, it just doesn't really make sense after you build the structure to support transferring the load at that angle. TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6324600)
The problem is the angle that the load is transferred to the load bearing structure. If the brace was going through the quarter panel straight down vertically to something that could support the load it would be a no brainer (which is the case of the Kokeln wing through the rear glass).
But that's not the case here. If you went down through the top of the quarter panel, under the hatch seal, which has nothing below it, you don't have a vertical shot to a load bearing member. You'd have to angle your support inbound towards the frame rail (not really a frame rail, but we call it that because that's what it looks like) like 30 degrees. And that's where the problem lies. There's no real clean way to do it without adding a good deal of weight. And even then, it just doesn't really make sense after you build the structure to support transferring the load at that angle. TonyG I'm talking about mounting to (through) the rear body panel. similar to how 95ONE did it, only using the design I described above. https://rennlist.com/forums/attachme...ictures041.jpg |
I'll also say that even that design looks like it would do quite well. Seems like it might not have as much of an issue with flex.
|
Originally Posted by Lorax
(Post 6324636)
I'll also say that even that design looks like it would do quite well. Seems like it might not have as much of an issue with flex.
TonyG |
Originally Posted by TonyG
(Post 6324640)
Maybe we could have a structural engineer step in here.
TonyG Do you see what I'm saying about going through the rear body panel, the same way you go through the hatch? It would allow the wing to be similarly mounted to the chassis and retain hatch functionality, you would be able to mount the wing further back, and you would easily be able to remove it for street driving. Thinking about it, it might be quite possible to do what I'm saying but there could be significant problems with the design in practice. It would be a PITA to do that just for the sake of not having some holes in the hatch. Sometimes in my head I get carried away with what could be done instead of what should be done. I suppose the easiest way... look at the wing above... imagine that behind each of the two top mounting points, there is a brace that is welded or somehow attaches that spot on the rear body to the "rails". The problem isn't all that complicated when you think about it. |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands