Our new projects [Archive] - Lateral-g Forums

SN65

09-29-2006, 06:53 AM

Here is a link to our new project. The current "name" is just the working title. We have a couple of creative alternatives we are considering.

http://sn65.com/Fire%20&%20Ice.htm

Here is a link to the chassis design section. We are attempting to bring the 65 Mustang chassis up to date in regard to torsional stability.

http://sn65.com/Fire%20&%20Ice%20unibody%20reinforcement.htm

Already, on our test bed, with minimal modification, we have reduced torsional deflection by about 60%.

camcojb

09-29-2006, 07:21 AM

Pretty cool projects!

Jody

907rs

09-29-2006, 08:03 AM

Pretty cool projects!

Jody

Very!

Looks like you guys have done your homework. Good luck, and keep us posted. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

syborg tt

09-29-2006, 08:19 AM

Good to see you guy's are working on another Mustang

XcYZ

09-29-2006, 09:50 AM

Cool, another project to follow along with. :thumbsup:

SN65

09-29-2006, 12:41 PM

Any input on the struct mods? We are right in the middle and any input would be appriciated.

BC69

09-29-2006, 01:48 PM

Awesome! You just keep rolling out the innovative Mustangs huh!

Tim

67Sally

09-29-2006, 07:01 PM

Interesting project(s). I will have to come by some time and check them out.
W.

race-rodz

10-01-2006, 12:20 AM

Any input on the struct mods? We are right in the middle and any input would be appriciated.

rocker/floor mods?SFC's: A+

rollbar: C-, (green drawing)the side "x" braces are useless, as they are "dead tube" connections. meaning, if there is no joint or bend for the tube to intersect, then it does ALMOST nothing. in the red drawing the "x's" meet at joints and is acceptable, however "most" of the other bracing is redundant and not needed. the "roof" bars in the last pic that mimic a "T" top and tie back to the A-pillars bothers me, because, welding the min thickness .120 wall tube to sheetmetal is pointless. i do like the structural foam, because it is minimal added weight, and it add to the rigidity.

BUT
i would work towards getting rid of all the chassis deflection BEFORE adding a cage. IMO, adding the cage is "cheating" if your are trying to "improve the chassis to the point where it will be comparable to the finest production vehicles produced today." as i dont recall seeing an actual production vehicle with a "real" roll cage. i think the cage should be added as a safety measure AFTER the chassis reworking has been done.

GBodyGMachine

10-01-2006, 06:18 AM

Just thought I would let you know of a sweet 65 in my shop right now. Someone took a fox body mustang and cut from the rockers up off. Then took a 65 mustang shell and cut the floors out, deleted the strut towers, and mated the two together. It is the coolest thing that I have ever seen. Top quality work too. I would post pics, but I cant. Sorry.

JEff

fatlife

10-01-2006, 08:01 AM

Van B

10-01-2006, 08:06 AM

Is it me, or does the spec sheet listed under the "Fire" project look like the spec sheet for SN65?

SN65

10-02-2006, 06:50 AM

rocker/floor mods?SFC's: A+

rollbar: C-, (green drawing)the side "x" braces are useless, as they are "dead tube" connections. meaning, if there is no joint or bend for the tube to intersect, then it does ALMOST nothing. in the red drawing the "x's" meet at joints and is acceptable, however "most" of the other bracing is redundant and not needed. the "roof" bars in the last pic that mimic a "T" top and tie back to the A-pillars bothers me, because, welding the min thickness .120 wall tube to sheetmetal is pointless. i do like the structural foam, because it is minimal added weight, and it add to the rigidity.

BUT
i would work towards getting rid of all the chassis deflection BEFORE adding a cage. IMO, adding the cage is "cheating" if your are trying to "improve the chassis to the point where it will be comparable to the finest production vehicles produced today." as i dont recall seeing an actual production vehicle with a "real" roll cage. i think the cage should be added as a safety measure AFTER the chassis reworking has been done.
Hi RR,

Thanks for the input.

I agree with everything you posted. 100%. Well... maybe 95%

The overall chassis modifications will be evaluated before the roll bar is added. The roll bar is only being installed as a safety measure to satisfy certain sanctioning bodies. We are expecting 1/4 mile times to be somewhere in the 10's and we don't want to be kicked off the course because we are sans roll bar.

But, just because it is mainly a safety item, does not mean that we are not going to use it to our advantage. It’s main function will be to tie together and reinforce the rear suspension mounting points and reduce flex in this area of the chassis.

The roll bar is being modified from the original sketches. Yes we are eliminating the scissor truss from the sides of the cage. After mocking things up, we felt it was a bit of over kill. But, I will argue the benefits of this type of design. There are two major benefits of this type of truss. First it is almost as effective (at maintaining the distance between two points) as a straight pipe between the bottom legs of the roll bar. Also, it reinforces the major legs by reducing their unsupported span by 50%.

Today we work on the firewall / cowl reinforcements. When these are complete, we will test and see just how far these modifications have taken us.

SN65

10-02-2006, 06:53 AM

SN65

10-02-2006, 07:14 AM

Is it me, or does the spec sheet listed under the "Fire" project look like the spec sheet for SN65?
It is not you. We are currently debating the drive train for "Fire". I want to drop in a blown 5 litter (we have a nice, built 5.0 engine with a power charger on it sitting in the shop right now). Wayne wants a Roush stroked 351 (427). We are also working out the trans and rear end.

I think I will defer to Wayne on this one. If he wants a 427 with a paddle shifted 4R70W and a 9" Detroit locker rear, then who am I to argue. It is only money, right. :-)

After all, I am getting my turbo straight 6 with a manual 6 speed and a 9" posi rear.

67Sally

10-02-2006, 05:20 PM

Bob, Have you seen this? Chasis Stiffening (http://www.mustangsplus.com/tech/chassis/index.html)
W.

race-rodz

10-02-2006, 10:43 PM

Bob, Have you seen this? Chasis Stiffening (http://www.mustangsplus.com/tech/chassis/index.html)
W.

i have that kit..... took all the peices out to look at em.... thats as far as that project has moved. my coupe has nice original rust free floors, so the mustangsplus kit was much more logical than vert braces and floors. if the kit stiffens it up 75% of what SN65 has accomplished i will be happy.

SN65

10-03-2006, 05:56 AM

Yes I have seen that kit.

While the Mustang's plus kit does address some major issues, we are hoping to take things a bit further.

The inner convertible rocker assemblies add a huge amount of stability to the rockers (in two directions). The Mustang plus kit gets most of its strength from the short channel they weld to the bottom of the rocker.

They are adding a torque box, which is a major structural item. And, adding it in two pieces makes for an easy installation, but I wonder what gage material they are using and if there box is actually as strong as the factory design. The torque boxes we added are very heavy items with a number of contours that help in the overall strength. Also, the factory inner rocker reinforcements pass through the factory torque boxes and are tied together well making for a very strong assembly.

Also, the shape of the steel contributes greatly to the overall strength. And the way it is attached makes a difference in the strength. I prefer spot welds to stitch welds for almost all connections. Even though we will weld an edge to seal the seam and clean things up a bit, we always spot weld the material together before we seam weld it.

That is basically it for the Mustang’s Plus kit. They do box the end of the frame rail to the rocker, but that connection adds little to the overall strength of the chassis.

In our plan, the convertible seat pan assemblies are a major item. They tie the frame rails to the rockers and the rockers to each other, adding a tremendous amount of strength not only to the floor, but to the overall chassis assembly.

When done, we will have added about 180 to 200 lbs of steel to a 2,500 lb car. I am predicting a 90% reduction in chassis twist/flex on our test platform. At that point, we will have a chassis that can handle the high performance drivetrain and suspension modifications we intend for the car.

Sound like a plan???

SN65

10-09-2006, 06:34 AM

Currently, we have reduced torsional deflection by 70%. We started with 1.062" of deflection and are now down to .319". Not bad so far.

Here are some photos showing the rocker, floor pan mods

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-09-27%20011.jpg

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-09-27%20012.jpg

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-09-27%20038.jpg

Here is a photo showing the cowl, firewall, shock tower reinforcements.

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-09%20027.jpg

We need to add the final shock tower brace and weld the floor to the rockers before we can take our final "test". After that, we can add the cage and see just how much we gain at that point.

Also, we are working on a modified Monty Carlo bar that not only helps maintain the distance between the shock towers, but also helps reduce overall front clip deflection.

SN65

10-09-2006, 06:41 AM

i have that kit..... took all the peices out to look at em.... thats as far as that project has moved. my coupe has nice original rust free floors, so the mustangsplus kit was much more logical than vert braces and floors. if the kit stiffens it up 75% of what SN65 has accomplished i will be happy.
Installing the converible items to your rust free floors would not be that big a project.

To install a convertible inner rocker on a coupe or fastback is pretty simple. First, you would remove the stock seat pans. Next you would drill a series of holes in the floor pan all along the inner rockers (about .75” away from the rocker). Then you cut the floor pan away from the rocker (we recommend a plasma cutter, but it can be handled by a “saws all”.). You just pull it along the inside edge of the rocker and you are done in a flash). Use an air chisel to remove the strip still attached to the rocker, and, after a bit of grinding, you are ready to rock.

At this point the inner rocker (trimmed and formed to mate up with the rear torque box) just slides into place and sits right on top of the floor. The lip of the inner rocker reinforcement slips down into the slot you just cut and everything is ready to weld in place. Granted, there are quite a few spot welds, but welding is the fun part, isn’t it?

At this point, welding in the convertible seat pans (top and bottom) is a snap. Just position as desired (we shifted ours back about 1.5” for additional leg room) and weld in place.

SN65

10-12-2006, 01:34 PM

Here are some photos of the roll bar setup. More photos are available on our website.

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-12%20006.jpg

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-12%20020.jpg

SN65

10-26-2006, 01:37 PM

Just finished the roll bar. Here are some photos. The last on is trying to show the quality of the welds. I think they came out great.

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-26%20004.jpg

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-26%20006.jpg

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-10-26%20007.jpg

SN65

11-14-2006, 07:02 AM

Just got back from SEMA and an extended vacation in Aruba. Had a great time at both, but, I am happy to say, it is now time to get back to business. If we are going to get both of these cars ready for the Detroit Autorama, we are going to have to get our butt's in gear. :-)

I just spent about an hour talking to Chris over at Maximum Motorsports. He told me that they did some before and after testing on Fox body sub-frame connectors.

Did you know....

Sub-frame connectors have little to no effect on improving torsional stability. They do help improve “beam” deflection of the frame rails, but do nothing to reduce torsional deflection or "twist".

Rick D

11-14-2006, 07:27 AM

Looks real nice. So what does pervent body twist other than o full roll cage?

Project seems very cool!! :hail:

SN65

11-14-2006, 12:26 PM

Looks real nice. So what does pervent body twist other than o full roll cage?

Project seems very cool!! :hail:
reinforcing the cowl area, torque boxes and also the seat pans greatly improve torsional deflection.

hotrods

11-14-2006, 08:18 PM

Just had to give my 2 cents on this one since SN65 has so much to say about the way I build cars. I heard all this talk about how a cage was not needed and how it takes away from all the grocery getting seat area that your so called street cars have, now I see a rediculous bar installed in the car. I looked around SEMA for the yellow car in Magnaflows booth but did not see it there. I dont know if you had the time to come inside and see Rosie but did you figure out that it is a tucked away Moly chassis that is completely welded unibody car tied to the car almost everywhere. you know it doesnt take alot of models and drawings to produce a chassis that works, we can jack the car right off the ground on one front corner and the door gaps do not change and they close as if the car was on all 4 wheels on the ground. with out all your " haha " as you said can you say triangulation. but hey keeping doing your thing and asking everyone who will listen how to build your cars. one thing you never asked me about the car is if I was trying to build the best chassis in a mustang or if I was adding what I felt the car needed to do what I am going to ask the car to do, IE huge stereo, handle, be a show car, run high MPH, have a new style and look unlike what everyone else is building Ie Elinore type looking mustangs, have a slammed look with out being an air bag car that will handle like crap but look cool only when it is parked, the way you see Rosie is the way she rolls. I hope no one takes offence to this as I feel I am allowed to have my opinion and make any comment I like as SN65 has been able to make any comment about my build he has wanted to in the past. OHyah I already did the new style glued in glass all the way around the car all 4 windows and the whole interior of the car is all steel not fibreglass. even the headliner is steel. well hope no one is pissed and is ok with me having my opinion. if anyone wants to call me 778-863-7571 I dont hide behind a computer.

fatlife

11-14-2006, 09:19 PM

^^^^^^^
where did this come from??? :eek:

hotrods

11-15-2006, 01:03 AM

I agree with your every comment. Did you get a chance to look at the tube chassis that these guys built?

http://www.kerrst.com/hotrods/rosie_gallery/index.htm

I have a few issues with their design. Can you say triangulation?

For a giggle, read the following thread.

http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20751

They are looking to break the 200 MPH mark. They might just do it, but the front (MII) and rear (Jag IRS) suspension, along with the cage, raise a few questions in my simple mind.
__________________
Bob
http://sn65.com/

posted on corner carvers with other stuff is where it came from actually and posts on here just dont feel like going back and looking at them all to find them. I had held off judgement untill I had a look at his work and felt he no longer had any right to make an opinion on my work but I was going to give mine now. these posts will not be up here for long but what the hell.

CraigMorrison

11-15-2006, 05:52 AM

SN65

11-15-2006, 07:30 AM

Hi HotRods,

Whew... not to much pent up frustration there. Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be fine. :-)

I did get a chance to check out your car at SEMA. Your fabrication skills are exceptional. The quality of the sheet metal work is exceptional. Overall, while I may not agree with some of your styling choices, it is an exceptional looking product.

With that said...

I question your choice of components as well as the overall cage design.

For example.

You have installed a huge HP power plant and put the power to the ground with a Jag rear end. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the overall design of the Jag rear lends itself to ultra high HP applications.

Also, in the design of you cage, you only used cross bracing in two areas that I saw. You have one in the door opening and one at the top of the cowl. Everything else is basically rectangular in configuration. Follow the link bellow and check out the cage build by Aronson’s Motorsports and compare their design to yours. I know that their car is a purpose built race car, but the same principles apply to all cage designs.

http://www.fordracingparts.com/builds/buildsindex.asp

Also, in the design of your cage, you do not pick up any of the suspension mounting points. Look at the rear of your cage for example. The coil over’s land nowhere near the cage mounting points. Also, the rear mount of the cage, at the extreme end of the frame rail, is something that you would employee only if you were using the stock leaf springs. When you went to a coil over design, you should have relocated that section of the cage to pick up the new suspension mounting point. Even at that, the current rear location is a problem in many ways, but the greatest of these is safety. This configuration is both unsafe for the passengers of your car, but also the passengers of any car unlucky enough to rear end you. You have completely eliminated any rear crumple zones and, on top of that, you carried a cage out to pick up a suspension mounting point that isn't there.

On another note, your main attachment points of the cage to the chassis are 4 rectangular tubes that cantilever away from the main chassis about a foot or so. This is not a very effective way to transmit the loads of the chassis to the cage. The main purpose of the cage is to protect the passengers in case of roll over or impact AND to pick up and reinforce the suspension mounting points. When complete, a cohesive, well designed package should do all these things and also improve the likelihood that a passenger will survive a high speed impact.

So, is your car cool? Yes, it is very cool.

Will your car do what it is supposed to do? Maybe, I am not sure what the overall performance goals are. But I go back to my earlier statement about High HP applied to a Jag rear end. I am not sure what you did to improve the internal structure of the rear but the control arm intermediate shaft configuration may suffer when exposed to excessive torque and high shock loads off the starting line.

But enough about Rosie.

You attributed a comment about “how a cage was not needed and how it takes away from all the grocery getting seat area that your so called street cars have” to me. I do not remember making such a comment. In fact, I tend to make all my Mustangs into 2 seaters, so maybe you have me confused with someone else in this regard.

And then, you said “now I see a ridiculous bar installed in the car”. What is so ridiculous about the roll bar we are installing? The drivetrain components we are using should put our car in the 10 second range. A roll bar is required. We did add some cross bracing at the front of the cage to reduce torsional deflection. Also, the rear cross bracing was installed to pick up the rear coil over and panhard bar mounting locations. I don’t think that these are outlandish concepts in the world of performance auto design.

As far as SEMA goes, MagnaFlow had two locations. The SN65 was parked next to a Foose and Coddington. I met a couple of people from LG and PT at the display, sorry I missed you.

In closing, I am not pissed. Your opinion is what it is. That being the case, you should not be pissed at any comment made by others. You invited comment when you posted your build on the forums. In fact, here was the first post…

“WHEN SUPER JUST ISN'T SUPER ENOUGH, AND ITS NO LONGER UNIQUE, THEN STEP UP TO THE ULTIMATE MUSCLE CAR......its definatley the year of the Mustang but there is going to be no comparison to what is being built in an Igloo up here in Canada...........Go to WWW.HOTRODSRESTOS.COM
to see the Ultimate 66 Mustang that will be at SEMA”.

A comment like that invites critiques of everything you do. Good bad or otherwise.

OBTW, I can be reached at 630-762-0387. I don’t hide behind a computer either.

SN65

11-15-2006, 08:09 AM

Before this goes down the tube and turns into an all out flame war, I would like to respectfully make one correction to your above statement Bob. The front suspension used on Rosie is not MII. Yes, it does have MII spindles (2" dropped) but that is it. The geometry & control arms are ours, steering is a 79-93 Mustang (not MII) power rack from AGR.

To end this confusion we will be debuting the spindle that we helped develop with Wilwood.

Hope this clears things up a bit. Time to bail! Hope the Aruba trip was good. How was the diving?

http://images17.fotki.com/v8/photos/4/453080/1755002/flamewar5zo-vi.jpg
Hi Craig,

Don't wory about me, I have on my flame retardent underware. :-)

Sorry about the MII comment. Saw the spindles and made an assumption. My Mistake.

Aruba was great, but did not do any scuba or even snorkling this time. Just layed about the beach and tried to relax. I feel much better now, ready to jump right back into the projects. I did see your vette, but everyone was so busy I decided not to distract anyone and let you attend to your business. Killer Vette. Will we be seeing you in the Hot Rod open track smackdown if they decide to have it next year?

CraigMorrison

11-15-2006, 08:37 AM

Aruba was great, but did not do any scuba or even snorkling this time. Just layed about the beach and tried to relax. I feel much better now, ready to jump right back into the projects. I did see your vette, but everyone was so busy I decided not to distract anyone and let you attend to your business. Killer Vette. Will we be seeing you in the Hot Rod open track smackdown if they decide to have it next year?

I hear you about trying to relax - off to Mexico to do a bit of the same to get set for our Stude project.

Open track smackdown? Is that still going to happen? Haven't heard much about that since last January.

Look forward to shooting the bull sometime.

ProdigyCustoms

11-15-2006, 08:40 AM

Pass the popcorn!

SN65

11-15-2006, 09:49 AM

Pass the popcorn!
Hi Frank,

You want butter with that????

OBTW, it was great chatting with you at SEMA. Hope you saw all you wanted to. I have been to a few trade shows in my time, but nothing quite like SEMA.

SN65

11-15-2006, 09:53 AM

I hear you about trying to relax - off to Mexico to do a bit of the same to get set for our Stude project.

Open track smackdown? Is that still going to happen? Haven't heard much about that since last January.

Look forward to shooting the bull sometime.
AHHHHH.... Mexico. I love it down there.

Where abouts you heading. Maybe I can talk the wife into a quick trip and we can rent a couple of VW bugs and have our own off road rally. :-)

Last I heard, HR was hopeing to get something (in regard to the OTSD) set up for next year. Only time will tell.

SN65

11-16-2006, 07:13 AM

Hummmm....

When I turned on my computer this morning, I expected to see a reply from HotRods. I was surprised when I found no response.

I went back and tried to remember what pushed me to make the infamous "giggle" comment. If I have the time frame right, Rotrods had basically ignored a comment in regard to cage design and said that you have to make compromises when building a car in order to make everything work.

While this may be true in a lot of ways, the suspension and drivetrain components must be selected based on the overall performance goals of the project. And the structural integrity of a car designed to handle 1,800 HP and hit a max speed of 220 MPH plus should not be compromised based on other considerations. I for one would be more concerned with the structural integrity of the car and the safety of the passengers than any other consideration.

It was your basic "non" response to what I felt were legitimate concerns that caused me to reference you project on a thread at CC.

Sorry if I had stepped out of line in that regard.

SN65

11-17-2006, 08:34 AM

New update at the site

http://sn65.com/Fire%20&%20Ice%20unibody%20reinforcement.htm

Check out the fuel door we are currently evaluating.

With that said, it is time for the suspension gurus to chime in and help with the front end geometry.

Here are our issues....

We are going with a strut front suspension. We intend to use the early Mustang lower control arm and the front strut.

When we set the suspension at ride height, we have about 1" of suspension travel before the lower control arm buries itself into the frame rail.

Is this enough? I don't think so.

To gain more suspension travel we can modify the lower control arm and front strut or we can go with a 2" drop fox body spindle and strut.

If we alter the lower control arm assemblies by sectioning and "bending" we will end up with about a 1" rise from the control arm mounting position to the ball joint pivot point. If we go with the 2" drop spindle we will end up with about a 1" drop from the control arm pivot point to the ball joint pivot.

I am thinking that it will be better to go with the 2" drop. I can always relocate the control arm mounting point down a bit if the goal is to end up with a true horizontal plane from the inner pivot point to the center line of the ball joint.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

SN65

11-27-2006, 06:33 AM

This weekend we finished up all the chassis mods. Just some grinding and sanding and we should be ready to drop her back on the frame rack for the final torsion test.

Here is a link to the latest photos.

http://sn65.com/Fire%20&%20Ice%20unibody%20reinforcement.htm

It will be interesting to see what the final numbers come in at. I am guessing that we will have reduced torsional deflection by somewhere in the 80 to 90% range. Not to bad for a car without a cage.

SN65

11-27-2006, 02:12 PM

Hummm....

We just performed our final torsional test and the numbers have not changed from the last test.

Hummmm.......

We are currently at 70% reduction in torsional deflection. I would have guessed that all the welding and the last few mods would have netted us some gain, but evidently not.

However....

We did cut the lips off the rear quarter panel / wheel opening in preparation for the fender flares. Right now, the quarter is not attached to the outer wheel housing. And, the quarter draws tight on the side under pressure and loosens up on the side under compression.

This must be throwing off the numbers. I guess we will have to weld the quarters back up before we can finish the test.

It is funny how little things can have profound effects.

SN65

12-06-2006, 08:18 AM

Well... Things are moving along.

We have the fender flares roughed out. We won't be able to do the final fit until we test fit the 3 link rear end.

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-11-22%20065.jpg

Also we have finished boxing the motor mount reinforcements.

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-11-22%20081.jpg

syborg tt

12-06-2006, 12:19 PM

Looks very nice. Really i am going to stop by your shop one day.

SN65

12-07-2006, 04:48 AM

Looks very nice. Really i am going to stop by your shop one day.
You are welcome anytime. Just give us a call at 630-762-0387 before you stop by, just to make sure that we will be in the shop that day.

SN65

12-15-2006, 09:31 AM

We have been working hard on areas of the car you will never see.

Here is the cowl before we started....

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-09-15%20093.jpg

Here is the completed cowl....

http://sn65.com/images/Fire%20&%20Ice%20Images/06-11-22%20102.jpg

We just have to weld up all the holes we are not going to use and we will be sending it off to the media blaster.