I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Tony. The use of foam, and a 300# improvement in chassis
stiffness is NOT MINISCULE…and NOT soem bogus trumped-up number, as the note
implied.
Our E-type endurance racer is now 4 years old…still with the original alloy floor
and sills…still with the foam filled sills. Still giving a 20% increase in chassis
stiffness…
Don’t you think that this polyurethane foam, as it is used in aircraft and subjected
to extremes in stresses, and which is tested and approved by the FAA and the NTSB,
might actually be something of value?
Sorry for the rather pointed response, but if you wish to challenge our submissions,
you should do a little leg work…just like we have for the past 25 years…
Tom Owen
Toronto.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please do not insult those of us who have spent
years working on these improvements…we have worked our lives in this business and
freely share our discoveries…without any profit motive.
I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…
While a 300 pound/inch of deflection improvement sounds good in
principle, what is the design stiffness of the e-type? If it’s 3000
lbs/inch of deflection, that’s a worthwhile, 10% improvement. If the
chassis is designed for 300,000/inch of deflection the potential risks
may far outweigh the rewards. I’m not being critical, I am genuinely
curious. I don’t have any idea of the e-type’s stiffness. I do know that
metal cutting machine tools are often designed to a deflection of
500,000/inch, but that’s of course apples to oranges.
Can anyone enlighten us with facts?
Erik
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:>
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Tony. The use of foam, and a 300# improvement in chassis
stiffness is NOT MINISCULE…and NOT soem bogus trumped-up number, as the note
implied.
Our E-type endurance racer is now 4 years old…still with the original alloy floor
and sills…still with the foam filled sills. Still giving a 20% increase in chassis
stiffness…
Don’t you think that this polyurethane foam, as it is used in aircraft and subjected
to extremes in stresses, and which is tested and approved by the FAA and the NTSB,
might actually be something of value?
Sorry for the rather pointed response, but if you wish to challenge our submissions,
you should do a little leg work…just like we have for the past 25 years…
Tom Owen
Toronto.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please do not insult those of us who have spent
years working on these improvements…we have worked our lives in this business and
freely share our discoveries…without any profit motive.
I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…
As for the improvement in performance, I remember one of our listers telling us that
after putting the foam in his OTS the difference he experienced going over rail-road
tracks was tremendous. After driving over those tracks for years, the foam made it feel
like a whole different car.
LLoyd -that was the point where I decided I will do it some day…-
Erik Koik wrote:> Tom and Tony,
While a 300 pound/inch of deflection improvement sounds good in
principle, what is the design stiffness of the e-type? If it’s 3000
lbs/inch of deflection, that’s a worthwhile, 10% improvement. If the
chassis is designed for 300,000/inch of deflection the potential risks
may far outweigh the rewards. I’m not being critical, I am genuinely
curious. I don’t have any idea of the e-type’s stiffness…
Erik, if we could only DREAM of a 3,000 pound chassis!!!
Try about 1,100 pounds! These cars are not very rigid, and the mounting of the front
frame rails to the tub are an exceptional weak spot…
The hot ticket is the addition of a central tubular sub-frame which connects the front
rails to the diff cage, gussetted to the tub in the appropriate places…but of course,
that might be illegal in some vintage classes…
Tom
Burning midnight oil in Toronto
Erik Koik wrote:> Tom and Tony,
While a 300 pound/inch of deflection improvement sounds good in
principle, what is the design stiffness of the e-type? If it’s 3000
lbs/inch of deflection, that’s a worthwhile, 10% improvement. If the
chassis is designed for 300,000/inch of deflection the potential risks
may far outweigh the rewards. I’m not being critical, I am genuinely
curious. I don’t have any idea of the e-type’s stiffness. I do know that
metal cutting machine tools are often designed to a deflection of
500,000/inch, but that’s of course apples to oranges.
Can anyone enlighten us with facts?
Erik
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Tony. The use of foam, and a 300# improvement in chassis
stiffness is NOT MINISCULE…and NOT soem bogus trumped-up number, as the note
implied.
Our E-type endurance racer is now 4 years old…still with the original alloy floor
and sills…still with the foam filled sills. Still giving a 20% increase in chassis
stiffness…
Don’t you think that this polyurethane foam, as it is used in aircraft and subjected
to extremes in stresses, and which is tested and approved by the FAA and the NTSB,
might actually be something of value?
Sorry for the rather pointed response, but if you wish to challenge our submissions,
you should do a little leg work…just like we have for the past 25 years…
Tom Owen
Toronto.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please do not insult those of us who have spent
years working on these improvements…we have worked our lives in this business and
freely share our discoveries…without any profit motive.
I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…
That is a real noodle, I had no idea, the coupe must be what 15% stiffer
torsionally than the OTS? God, you’re not quoting coupe numbers are you?
Erik
realizing now why the fine paint cracks at the cowl a-post junction.
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:>
Erik, if we could only DREAM of a 3,000 pound chassis!!!
Try about 1,100 pounds! These cars are not very rigid, and the mounting of the front
frame rails to the tub are an exceptional weak spot…
The hot ticket is the addition of a central tubular sub-frame which connects the front
rails to the diff cage, gussetted to the tub in the appropriate places…but of course,
that might be illegal in some vintage classes…
Tom
Burning midnight oil in Toronto
Erik Koik wrote:
Tom and Tony,
While a 300 pound/inch of deflection improvement sounds good in
principle, what is the design stiffness of the e-type? If it’s 3000
lbs/inch of deflection, that’s a worthwhile, 10% improvement. If the
chassis is designed for 300,000/inch of deflection the potential risks
may far outweigh the rewards. I’m not being critical, I am genuinely
curious. I don’t have any idea of the e-type’s stiffness. I do know that
metal cutting machine tools are often designed to a deflection of
500,000/inch, but that’s of course apples to oranges.
Can anyone enlighten us with facts?
Erik
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Tony. The use of foam, and a 300# improvement in chassis
stiffness is NOT MINISCULE…and NOT soem bogus trumped-up number, as the note
implied.
Our E-type endurance racer is now 4 years old…still with the original alloy floor
and sills…still with the foam filled sills. Still giving a 20% increase in chassis
stiffness…
Don’t you think that this polyurethane foam, as it is used in aircraft and subjected
to extremes in stresses, and which is tested and approved by the FAA and the NTSB,
might actually be something of value?
Sorry for the rather pointed response, but if you wish to challenge our submissions,
you should do a little leg work…just like we have for the past 25 years…
Tom Owen
Toronto.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please do not insult those of us who have spent
years working on these improvements…we have worked our lives in this business and
freely share our discoveries…without any profit motive.
I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…
Erik, the number quoted was for a roadster…the coupe is stiffer…PROBABLY by about 200
pounds…but I have not verified this.
Tom
Erik Koik wrote:> That is a real noodle, I had no idea, the coupe must be what 15% stiffer
torsionally than the OTS? God, you’re not quoting coupe numbers are you?
Erik
realizing now why the fine paint cracks at the cowl a-post junction.
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:
Erik, if we could only DREAM of a 3,000 pound chassis!!!
Try about 1,100 pounds! These cars are not very rigid, and the mounting of the front
frame rails to the tub are an exceptional weak spot…
The hot ticket is the addition of a central tubular sub-frame which connects the front
rails to the diff cage, gussetted to the tub in the appropriate places…but of course,
that might be illegal in some vintage classes…
Tom
Burning midnight oil in Toronto
Erik Koik wrote:
Tom and Tony,
While a 300 pound/inch of deflection improvement sounds good in
principle, what is the design stiffness of the e-type? If it’s 3000
lbs/inch of deflection, that’s a worthwhile, 10% improvement. If the
chassis is designed for 300,000/inch of deflection the potential risks
may far outweigh the rewards. I’m not being critical, I am genuinely
curious. I don’t have any idea of the e-type’s stiffness. I do know that
metal cutting machine tools are often designed to a deflection of
500,000/inch, but that’s of course apples to oranges.
Can anyone enlighten us with facts?
Erik
Brown’s Lane Jaguar Parts wrote:
I ABSOLUTELY agree with Tony. The use of foam, and a 300# improvement in chassis
stiffness is NOT MINISCULE…and NOT soem bogus trumped-up number, as the note
implied.
Our E-type endurance racer is now 4 years old…still with the original alloy floor
and sills…still with the foam filled sills. Still giving a 20% increase in chassis
stiffness…
Don’t you think that this polyurethane foam, as it is used in aircraft and subjected
to extremes in stresses, and which is tested and approved by the FAA and the NTSB,
might actually be something of value?
Sorry for the rather pointed response, but if you wish to challenge our submissions,
you should do a little leg work…just like we have for the past 25 years…
Tom Owen
Toronto.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please do not insult those of us who have spent
years working on these improvements…we have worked our lives in this business and
freely share our discoveries…without any profit motive.
I
can think of no circumstance where any sane person will exploit the slight
stiffness advantage (purported) that might be gained by the foam.
Sorry that is a wrong … We have used this along with the insert we
pioneered in 1989 inthe sill and which we also use in the LDC
Couple
that observation with the many well thought out negatives that have been
presented on the list and what I learn is “leave it alone” for a street car.
also wrong…
Remember, that race car body may not last the season…
Again, wrong… just like we saw on the ali water pump discussion some year ago…
wrong…