JMortensen

When you fixed the shafts the last time did they put a longer center section in, or switch the shafts side to side? I don't remember reading what fixed that situation. Regardless of that one issue, that must have been a hell of a test drive. Seems to me that on a build like yours having only one issue pop up should be considered wildly successful. Congratulations.

Pedestals under the tubes, then door bars. And that will be it. Looks like a simple X door bar that doesn't go into a gutted door is now legal, so that will be the way I do it. I think it's superior from a stiffening perspective than a bent X to go into the door, and it's a heck of a lot easier from an installation perspective. I was going to do a bar just above the rocker panel and tie it in with a shear panel. I think I've given up on that one, figuring the X door bars will provide the necessary stiffness there.

More progress. This last leg was giving me fits yesterday. I got it cut today and notched the tube, but it didn't look right. So I did it again. It still didn't look right. So I did it again. The third time I measured the angle between the strut tower bar and the V to the diagonal, and also the angle from the X to the V on both sides, and it's within 1 degree everywhere. It just looks really wonky. I think the problem is that it is intersecting the main hoop which is laid back and the diagonal which is at an angle. You can see from the straight behind pic it looks like the left side is lower than the right, then from the above shot it looks pretty good. I think I'm ready to weld it in, I just wish it looked more even.

I don't recall, but it was like 168 lbs of tube with the door bars figured in. This addition will add another 7 lbs or so (1.625 x .060 DOM tube is about 1.1 lb/ft).

Do you have any idea why this won't work, or are you just saying that it is so because YOU said it? When I made this same argument one guy at cc.com (the "give me something better than 'No because no' argument"), he did some FEA on it. The FEA showed that it would be OK. Even to the point of another guy over there assuming that I did the FEA to prove that the design was good enough. I took this part of the cage directly from Keith Thomas (screen name katman). He wrote a magazine article on how to build an ITS cage, and this was in that article. The rocker where the bar attaches is MUCH stronger than the floor. The guy who bent my main hoop claimed that having the tube open on the bottom was the problem. The guys at cc.com claim that I need a box to transfer the stress to the 24 gauge floor. You are apparently saying that there needs to be another bar tied in here. Why? For the record the plan is to build a box under the end of this tube. With that done it will be tied vertically into the rocker and the floor and should be a hell of a lot stronger than tying it directly into the floor. I'm not putting any other tubes into the attachment point, although the X for the door bar should be relatively close to this point.

Oh, you mean the amputee thing. That was a triangle between the A pillar, center of the dash bar, and the rocker panel where the A pillar hits it. I have NO idea where that guy plans to put his feet.

I never thought of that as an X, I guess it is though. There are two reasons why I didn't run the tube to where the horizontal and diagonal intersect. It's pretty far off to the passenger side for one so it might be impossible to fit a passenger seat in the car, and there's still no load path from there back except for the main hoop supports that go to the rear strut towers. So the thought is that the main hoop and diagonal would flex fairly easily by comparison to what I'm working on. By tying into the rear strut towers the load path is completed from the front struts to the rear struts. The reason the center tube hits where it does on the diagonal is because the tube is centered in the car. Don't worry about pushing your ideas as right. I'd love to hear your ideas and I'm still very thankful to you for posting your main hoop diagram.

It really was pretty ridiculous. A lot of "No, that won't work" with no explanation. Still, the Norm guy sounds knowledgeable, and was willing to converse with me and actually had what I felt were some decent ideas. Not sure what you mean Dan. I don't have an X in the main hoop. There is the X that ties the strut towers down at the bottom rear of the rocker panel. I could have added this bar to that spot, but that would completely eliminate any possibility of taking passengers for rides. I also could have done a bar from the top of the hoop, but I don't have a very good load path there, unless it tied right into where the halo bar hits the hoop, and there is a little gusset right there. That also would have nixed taking passengers. This seemed like the easiest way to go.

Took a page out of the Herb Adams Chassis Engineering book and added a couple more bars. After being torn a new ******* over at cornercarvers.com I decided this was actually a good idea. The drivers side bar to the diagonal will be done tomorrow. Ran out of patience tonight.

You could just install a 280Z isolator. It's an inch taller than what you've got.

Search the internet and you'll find lots of auto body sites that basically echo the guys above. I cut out all the brazed patches in my shell and mig welded in replacements. For the cost of having a shop do several patches (which I'm guessing you need if you have a hole in the fender) you could almost buy a good welder.

EXACTLY!!!

Sure there are differences in the two forms of racing, and I'm sure that you can make the case that since you're climbing around on a motorcycle that you have more input. That doesn't mean that it takes a rocket scientist to race a motorcycle, and likewise it sounds like you are also seriously underestimating what it takes to be a good car driver. Regardless of any of that, we're getting way off topic. Let's keep it to cars, preferably Z's, and how much power is enough and what it takes to scare you.

da-man, watch yourself. You're new here and we don't take to flaming very kindly. Claiming that you can run with national level drivers in similarly prepped cars is pretty bold. Best to be providing proof for outlandish claims like that. What's more, racing bikes assumes a much greater personal risk than racing cars. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. It sounds to me like your confusing "balls" with "skill". You use basically the same skills in each game (picking a line, matching revs when downshifting, threshold braking, etc), but the bike rider has to have the balls to put himself at much greater risk than the car driver.

It's not true everywhere except maybe in straight acceleration. Examples: I beat two different Vipers on two different days in my '93 Toyota P/U at autox. I also LAPPED a 97 911TT in my Z on a road course in a 20 minute session.