Daeron Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 That Z photo really has me thinking about putting heavy bars in the rockers under the doors to help stop that. Any comments? I get the same ideas, but I also wonder about stronger braces between the rocker panels and the transmission tunnel. I think that probably the best idea would be minimal strengthening of both fronts. I want to clarify something, though: I am almost home engineering a crumple zone with my idea, and that is a DANGEROUS zone to try to walk. If you make the car TOO rigid, you risk transferring too much energy to anything potentially loose in the cabin, like that big melon flopping around on top of your neck. I certainly would stop short of welding a pair of 1" pipes "supporting" the rocker and a pair of similar pipes "reinforcing" the "seat-support" area; but I think that probably the addition of some mild channel to complement the steel that is already there would be a wise choice. Another potential risk in doing this could be the door. I could see where strengthening the lower support areas might embellish the weakness of the door, and the older gen (pre '77) doors do not have the strongest latch mechanism, so integrating them into any sort of "re-engineering" outside of a full race cage seems over the top to me. However, I don't know that strengthening the doorframe area would weaken the door; it might have the opposite effect as well. Just thoughts I have been wondering myself. I am curious to see what other opinions are on this, though; this is just what I have been mulling over and it is all pure conjecture. Anyone think much about this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 That Z photo really has me thinking about putting heavy bars in the rockers under the doors to help stop that. Any comments? That's a great idea. If you search for "chassis stiffening" or "strengthen chassis" you'll find some examples of people who have done just that. It really is in my opinion a better way to strengthen the chassis than installing subframe connectors. Too bad I didn't figure that out until after I installed my rollbar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(goldfish) Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 That's a great idea. If you search for "chassis stiffening" or "strengthen chassis" you'll find some examples of people who have done just that. It really is in my opinion a better way to strengthen the chassis than installing subframe connectors. Too bad I didn't figure that out until after I installed my rollbar... Heh, I never made the connection with the safety and performance strengthening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Dale Earnhart's car had a cage. He's dead because he didn't use his seatbelts correctly (or that is the supposition)... You can not design for every eventuality, you can only design for the most reasonable forseeable eventuality. If you want a safer car, buy a new one. As for the rockers, I have seen a 'hidden cage' installed in a 280Z by someone in Holland. The guy cut open the rockers, and installed some largish CrMo tubing that tied into a full hidden cage system within the whole framework of the car. There was over 400 hours of preparation in the modifications to the unit body to accomplish this---all under the watchful eye of former a F1 Engineer and FIA Certified Cage Installer/Engineer. If you have that level of expertise, go for it, cut those rockers open! And yeah, on an S30. 400+ hours of chassis prep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinOlson Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 Tony, you make it sounds like you have a to be an F1 engineering to make the chassis safer. I think with some careful thought and logic, anyone could add some rocker bars for safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoeightythreez Posted May 20, 2007 Share Posted May 20, 2007 I actually think that Z held up pretty well, considering the post it first showed up in admitted to hitting at 30-40mph, hitting an object that's one foot in diameter, and solid as rock. A modern car might do well but even 5 years ago they weren't much safer than the Z in a side impact with a telephone pole. (stiffer but heavier, more kinetic energy to dissipate on the same size object) A few weeks ago two kids died in a 2002 eclipse, here in Allentown, on hanover avenue. I was walking my dog and came upon it as the firemen were trying to get the passenger out (who died before they did) That Z looks good in comparison to the eclipse, the front bumper was touching the back bumper. Witnesses said shortly before the crash the car flew by doing 80-90 (in a 35, but the curve is marked 25)before losing control on the deceptively sharp curve (it starts out easy and suddenly turns sharper) but they slid about 100-200 ft before crashing, so impact speed couldn't have been much above 45-50. So I really don't think a Z is too unsafe for what it is (30+ yr. old tiny little car) All I'm saying is that the Z isn't an unsafe car, it's just not as safe as today's cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonomaz Posted May 21, 2007 Share Posted May 21, 2007 This thread really caught my attention but before I wrote I wanted to do some research. If your a geek like me try CDC.gov and IIHS.org for statistics. This is your tax and insurance dollars at work. What I found from 2003: Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for ages 1-45. Of that Motor Vehicle Accident is number one for ages 1-65. By the way MVA is twice as large as the next category (which is homicide for ages 15-34). In other words if you want to be safe don't get in a car and stay away from other people who have guns. So I was ridding with my wife in her Lexus RX and thinking about this thread. Her car has a huge crush zone, energy absorbing bumpers, drop out engine (engine breaks off the mounts to absorb energy, totals the car), front air bags, tensioning seat belts, and on and on. (oh, forgot to mention the cruise control that slows down when it approaches another car from behind). That’s just for front end protection. So how do I compete in a head on in my Z with this goliath? What I have is a roll bar anchored to the wheel wells and a solid crossbar behind the seats. My Simpson belts are wrapped around that bar. Other than that I talk to Jesus often while driving. For side impacts I got nothing but 18 gauge sheet metal. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texis30O Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 I have been in several wrecks. some my fault some not. Flipped my lowered chevy truck in the mid 90's on Nantucket racing from town to Sconscet......slid on the roof about 80 feet after turning over......( that was a balls out fast truck , p.s. I had the Mustang beat too.) I was wearing my seatbelt and had to cut myself out of the restraints with a knife and well " I had a momentary laps of reason" I walked away with two broken fingers from punching a sign cause I totaled my truck. I ripped the body off the frame of my lifted Chevy truck.....( after jumping railroad tracks several times) no harm I flipped my CJ-2A in the desert several times playing on the dunes. I was strapped in. ( I grew up in Saudi Arabia) I was in a head-on collision with another car while in my IS 300. NOT my FAULT. He crossed the median and was drunk. I tried to get out of the way but, it wasn't in the cards for me to miss. I walked away. I typically drive 80+ on the streets in Houston. Traffic permitting I will go faster, I still get passed in the freeway. I am always careful and watch the traffic around me. All of the times that I wore a belt I was saved. In the Z it is a different story. These cars need to have updated safety restraints. Period end of story. I am planning to get a rollcage and 4 point harness for the car with newer seats. But there is only so much that you can do foir safety if you are not seen you will get plowed. I park my Z next to my IS 300 which is lowered tucking 18" wheels and the Z is still a healthy 8" lower than my IS 300. That is Sick. Sitting in my FX 45 and looking out the driver's side window I can't even see the roof of the Z. these cars are so low, and light that our safety have to be seriously taken into consideration. I am installing HID's and LED tails in mine to help with the lighting visibility. I have escaped death many times ( not braging just a fact) and I want to be around to see my children be born..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartman Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 ...These cars need to have updated safety restraints. Period end of story. I am planning to get a rollcage and 4 point harness for the car with newer seats. ...I understand your concern and desire to improve the safety of your Z, but having a roll cage in a street car may not make your car any safer...in fact, it could actually make it more dangerous. Roll cages are designed to be used in a car where the occupants are wearing helmets. If I thought it would make my car safer I would consider installing one as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiz Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Although any major accident has the potetial to kill Im mostly worried about getting hit at the drivers door by an SUV/Truck with the taller bumpers. Since I was following this thread and was bringing a junker down to the crusher I thought I sawall up a door to take a look. So looking at these pics the door does have some sustantial bracing bar inside but my concern is how low it is, its halfway down in the middle of the door where it should be up near the top by the window. Looking in theres not any room at add anything above. Sitting in my lifted 4x4 Jeep Liberty with its Good side protection and 5000#s I feel pretty confident of survial in a bad crash. Ive just decided to be extra carefull for now unless you guys come up with something. Peace HawaiiZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Those side impact beams were a 280Z thing. 240's have a door frame and skin and a window regulator in them. They're basically just sheet metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Yeah that door is beefy! My early 260 door is flimsy! it is pretty much an outer and inner skin with a bit of C channel made out of more of the thin body steel. I could probably kick the door to the inner skin with a couple of kicks. What if you cut a hole in the back end of a door and slide in a 1.5" tube and weld it on the front and back sides of the door frame with some steel plates on the end? (not to the body but in the door itself) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Those side impact beams were a 280Z thing. 240's have a door frame and skin and a window regulator in them. They're basically just sheet metal. by "280Z thing" do you mean all 280, or later 280 with the totally redesigned doors? I would check, but my 75 280 has a pair of 240 doors on it right now.. They aren't the *greatest* but they are easily repaired. However, if genuine 280Z doors of the earlier style have that metal reinforcement in them, I just might be convinced to source a pair of doors after all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 My '77 280Z has the Autopower 4-pt roll bar in it. I bought it primarily for side-impact protection and then roll-over if I even caught a curb sideways on after hydroplaning. I'm 6'4"o the main hoop is about 3" behind my head which makes it a potential skull crusher in a rear impact situation. That is where heavy padding on that section of the bar comes in. Easy to do and acts as kind of a head rest extension. Fire extinguishers. Used to carry one in my '70 Cuda. Put out fires in two other cars but never my own. Still not a bad idea for anyone running a '75-78 280Z with stock L28 fuel rails with all the hoses and clamps. I had fuel leaks a half dozen times over 10 years that could have resulted in a really nasty fire but I lucked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 by "280Z thing" do you mean all 280, or later 280 with the totally redesigned doors? I would check, but my 75 280 has a pair of 240 doors on it right now.. They aren't the *greatest* but they are easily repaired. However, if genuine 280Z doors of the earlier style have that metal reinforcement in them, I just might be convinced to source a pair of doors after all.... Not sure what you mean. I thought the 240s and early 260s had the doors with no reinforcement, and the 280s had the reinforcement. I have not verified this in any other way than moving 80 something doors to my brother-in-law's place and noticing how much heavier the 280 doors are than the 240s, so maybe I'm missing something. Not sure what the ZX has. Maybe that's what you mean by "later 280s"??? The 240s have a completely different latch mechanism on them from the 280s. Was it hard to get the latch to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted May 23, 2007 Administrators Share Posted May 23, 2007 Not sure what you mean. I thought the 240s and early 260s had the doors with no reinforcement, and the 280s had the reinforcement. I believe its correct to associate the latch change with the door reinforcement... that happend circa '77, near as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjhines Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 late S-30 door bar... 240Z door bar... or lack of... Some of the 280Z doors with the reinforcement will fit on the early 240Z latches. I have seen the late model door strikers on the last models of the 280Zs but they seem to be rare. Most 280Z doors are interchangable with the earlier models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Yes, the change to the 'internal striker mechanisim' for the door latches is what makes them not-interchangable with the earlier cars. The bulge on the door where the internal striker mechanisim makes for a door that won't close on an earlier chassis. This change happened post 6/76...there may be some 'build out cars' but for US and North American Market Models, chances are good if the doors are 6/76 or later you will not be able to forward/reverse interchange the doors. Before that, they are completely interchangable as a complete assembly. There are some interior panel dimensional changes, but nothing that is insurmountable as long as you have the complete door assembly. Fairlady Z's on the other hand, had gloriously unreinforced doors 69-77. It's the only way the factory power window assemblies would fit in the ZL cars for 76 and 77 anyway... Oh, and I'm not saying you need to be an F1 Engineer to tackweld in some bars. Go for it. But if you want a chassis engineered properly for transfer of forces....well you simply don't go adding 'some rocker bars' and hope for the best. Which goes back to someone's original post about 'doing more harm than good' in most cases. Poorly thought-out modifications can kill you, period. "Thinking them out" is one thing, "Engineering them" is something totally different, indeed. Ever see a roll bar break? I have. Ever see the transmission come up through the floorboards during an impact? I have. You don't wan't poorly attached poles swinging around inside the car, hinged from an anchorpoint, and propelled by an outside immovable object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Not sure what you mean. I thought the 240s and early 260s had the doors with no reinforcement, and the 280s had the reinforcement. I have not verified this in any other way than moving 80 something doors to my brother-in-law's place and noticing how much heavier the 280 doors are than the 240s, so maybe I'm missing something. Not sure what the ZX has. Maybe that's what you mean by "later 280s"??? The 240s have a completely different latch mechanism on them from the 280s. Was it hard to get the latch to work? Well, as has been mentioned and made abundantly clear, the striker mechanism changed in (quoting an above post) 6/76 and he doors are not interchangeable between the two sides of that divide in time. That was all I meant by "late 280;" I would have said 77-78 except I was uncertain it was a model year specific change. After jmortensen's comment, ron tyler said he believes that the latch change, and the addition of the reinforcement, went hand in hand; then bjhines said that there WERE some earlier (pre 6/76) 280Z doors that had the re enforcement, and unless I am mistaken tonyd was just clarifying that the "later 280Z door" classification primarily referred to the different latching mechanism.. but (and maybe I am being pedantic here) two relatively less-than-certain statements that basically contradict each other dont really constitute an answer to my question.. I suppose its not important, but I was curious. I shall have to examine any doors I come across in the THOUSANDS of Z cars I find in the junkyards down here (that last comment was a bit of sarcasm, because i don't exactly have a surplus of doors to choose from so it kinda makes my question moot point, ) I wonder how difficult it would be to add a similar narrow "bow" of sheetmetal to the existing door? Thanks for the excellent photos of the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaiiz Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 (and maybe I am being pedantic here) I learned a new word today pedantic 1. ostentatious in one's learning. 2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching adj. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details. Now I dont feel so bad staying up till 1 am. I have still been thinking about adding more upper door area support. I have to more z cars to dispose of eventually and will experiment on the whole idea. It must in my mind somehow bolt into the existing door hinge and then possibly.... Ok got some ideas now. Will post when I get a chance to try something. Be Safe out there - HawaiiZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.