@aircooled posted:Your welcome.....Wgat is your first name ?
Paul. Nowhere near as Australian as Bruce unfortunately (Monty Python reference)
@chines1 posted:............
I've never seen a Spyder pulled out of a body mold prior to receiving chassis and internal panels, but in your case that may be somewhat of a benefit as you can build and/or reshape your internal panels to match your needs. The front of the front wheel wells is pretty easy to reshape with little adverse effects. Reshaping the rear of the front wheel wells immediately starts to get into the chassis and pedal box area, which is tight already.
I'm not entirely sure what their thinking is with selling the body and chassis separately? Although having them completely separate makes importing them easier, as they don't fall into the grey area of local import rules, between a car, and car parts.
The body seems well made, although I don't have a lot to compare it to. Others I know that have 356 kits were impressed with the quality though. I'm going to mock up the body on the chassis as best I can before I start bonding/fixing any panels, to make sure everything lines up as it should. Everything certainly fits well in its current state
@550aus 4.5 steels with the proper tires will not require a narrowed beam. You can get away with running slightly wider tires as long as you run enough front ride height, or are willing to live with a little rubbing on hard cornering.
The newest AC Industries brake kits are the closest I've seen to the stock 4 lug widths and are considered a "zero offset" kit, as some others are also, but a Danny said even the "zero offset" kits can add track width. As little as 1/8 - 3/16" (3-5mm) compared to the 4 lug. Many of the other kits (CSP, CB) can add 1/2" - 7/8" (13-19mm). I know that may not seem like a lot, but when you're playing with just a few mm of clearance it can make all the difference.
As for rear suspension I certainly don't want to discourage you. There is some benefit to being able to run a Subaru 5MT or a 901/915 gearbox (or whatever). There's a lot of neat conversions happening in the VW world (Bus/Beetle/custom) to piggyback off of also, and most of the aftermarket Subaru stuff comes from your part of the world anyway, so you have a nice benefit there too (Subarugears, Bremmer, Reversaru).
I enjoy watching other's builds, ideas, customization, etc... with my morning coffee and e-mails.
Paul.....The "Meaning of life" is one of my favorites !......../.Bruce
@550aus
Just thinkin' - - I've always been a big fan of Paul Foreman. I believe this is a chassis for one of his 550 recreations (in aluminum) with a 'modernized' chassis including double-wishbone front and IRS rear. Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
Edit: Actually, in reading instagram comments, the chassis is destined for a fiberglass body shell.
If you can spend some time on his instagram site I think you'll find a lot of interesting solutions to quandaries many of us have had: Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
@chines1 posted:@550aus 4.5 steels with the proper tires will not require a narrowed beam. You can get away with running slightly wider tires as long as you run enough front ride height, or are willing to live with a little rubbing on hard cornering.
The newest AC Industries brake kits are the closest I've seen to the stock 4 lug widths and are considered a "zero offset" kit, as some others are also, but a Danny said even the "zero offset" kits can add track width. As little as 1/8 - 3/16" (3-5mm) compared to the 4 lug. Many of the other kits (CSP, CB) can add 1/2" - 7/8" (13-19mm). I know that may not seem like a lot, but when you're playing with just a few mm of clearance it can make all the difference.
As for rear suspension I certainly don't want to discourage you. There is some benefit to being able to run a Subaru 5MT or a 901/915 gearbox (or whatever). There's a lot of neat conversions happening in the VW world (Bus/Beetle/custom) to piggyback off of also, and most of the aftermarket Subaru stuff comes from your part of the world anyway, so you have a nice benefit there too (Subarugears, Bremmer, Reversaru).
I enjoy watching other's builds, ideas, customization, etc... with my morning coffee and e-mails.
Thanks again Carey, the AC Industries kit was actually the one I was looking at locally. I'm thinking I might start off with a new adjustable beam too, rather than sourcing and rebuilding an old one, it'll probably end up costing the same anyway, and a little bit of height adjustment can't hurt.
The gearbox is pretty much the only reason I'm looking at rejigging the rear suspension. The thought of a swingaxle doesn't bother me at all, I'd just much rather a stronger gearbox that is built to fit the Subaru motor and costs nowhere near as much as a modified VW box. The Subaru adaptor guy you mentioned in Western Australia has been really helpful actually, and his products are excellent. There seems to be quite a lot of activity, using his adaptors etc, in the 914 scene. A far few of those guys are into using the Subaru motor and/or transaxle.
There was a Beck for sale not too long ago that had been modified/rebuilt with different suspension front and back. I'm not sure if you saw this one, but I'm assuming you probably did?
https://myemail.constantcontac...&aid=ZFi4UrWyOBE
To my very untrained eye, it looks like they've lopped off the two lower frame rails after the motor mount, and fabricated extra bracing and structure above?
Thanks again for your advice 👍
Attachments
Images (4)
@RS-60 mark posted:@550aus
Just thinkin' - - I've always been a big fan of Paul Foreman. I believe this is a chassis for one of his 550 recreations (in aluminum) with a 'modernized' chassis including double-wishbone front and IRS rear. Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
Edit: Actually, in reading instagram comments, the chassis is destined for a fiberglass body shell.
If you can spend some time on his instagram site I think you'll find a lot of interesting solutions to quandaries many of us have had: Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
That 550 frame is quite a piece of work. I can't get the rest of his photos up on Instagram. Did he get it finished?
@550aus posted:That 550 frame is quite a piece of work. I can't get the rest of his photos up on Instagram. Did he get it finished?
Probably: Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
He did amazing aluminum 550, 718, and 356 recreations with aluminum bodies. No reason to think he didn't do a 'econo-version' with a fiberglass body for someone.
Try to get onto his instagram pictures somehow. I seem to recall he had something like photobucket files that provided detailed build progress (of at least the 718, that I know of)). You might even want to reach out to him personally and ask if he can link you to some of these files.
@RS-60 mark posted:Probably: Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
He did amazing aluminum 550, 718, and 356 recreations with aluminum bodies. No reason to think he didn't do a 'econo-version' with a fiberglass body for someone.
Try to get onto his instagram pictures somehow. I seem to recall he had something like photobucket files that provided detailed build progress (of at least the 718, that I know of)). You might even want to reach out to him personally and ask if he can link you to some of these files.
Mark, post some of the pictures of your chassis work!
@RS-60 mark posted:Probably: Paul Foreman (@outlaw718) • Instagram photos and videos
He did amazing aluminum 550, 718, and 356 recreations with aluminum bodies. No reason to think he didn't do a 'econo-version' with a fiberglass body for someone.
Try to get onto his instagram pictures somehow. I seem to recall he had something like photobucket files that provided detailed build progress (of at least the 718, that I know of)). You might even want to reach out to him personally and ask if he can link you to some of these files.
Instagram is working for me again, must have been a glitch. Some nice work on there, and he's seems pretty prolific too.
I did find a 550 for sale that he had a hand in "restoring", using one of his chassis. It looks like he's using a pivot or watts link of some description under the gearbox with a solid connection across the top?
Attachments
Images (1)
I think that's a De Dion suspension. Here's a LINK to an explanation. The idea of a De Dion was to get the camber control of a solid axle without the high unsprung weight penalty of a solid axle. A couple of early Becks had a De Dion, some Alfas had it, and I think Ferari even messed around with it some.
@JMM (Michael) posted:I think that's a De Dion suspension. Here's a LINK to an explanation. The idea of a De Dion was to get the camber control of a solid axle without the high unsprung weight penalty of a solid axle. A couple of early Becks had a De Dion, some Alfas had it, and I think Ferari even messed around with it some.
It's a better description of it than what I came up with 😄
I should have recognised it, I had a late 70s GTV until recently which was a similar concept 👍
@LI-Rick posted:Mark, post some of the pictures of your chassis work!
These are probably familiar pictures to many on speedsterowners. And, most know the story: I started with an inherited (literally) basket-case mess of 718 body shell and cluster-f*** frame that was bought from a long defunct (deservedly) wanna-be spyder builder in Southern California.
The "roller" was a true throw-away. The body was maybe salvable, but the frame needed a serious come-to-Jesus with the cutting torch. During the process of cutting the whole thing up into pieces small enough to throw in the trash I got to thinking: What the heck, what would it look like if I did it myself?
So, I pushed the body shell together on the garage floor, dropped a plumb bob from the center of each fender wheel arch and marked a dot on the floor where it touched. I compared the 4 dots to the wheelbase of a real 718; and then said to myself: Build a car that fits those 4 dots and the body will fit. What could go wrong?
Uh huh, well two years later I had acquired a PhD education of Learning-by-Mistakes.
Anyway, for the chassis inspiration, I didn't get very far out-of-the-box from what others had been done before. I wanted something kind of like pictures I had of a real 718, but the rear suspension needed to be more adjustable since I really didn't know exactly how dimensions were going to evolve. So, I copied ideas from Colin Chapman's 60's era open wheeled Lotus racers. Basically, a 5-link IRS.
Attachments
Images (4)
@RS-60 mark posted:These are probably familiar pictures to many on speedsterowners. And, most know the story: I started with an inherited (literally) basket-case mess of 718 body shell and cluster-f*** frame that was bought from a long defunct (deservedly) wanna-be spyder builder in Southern California.
The "roller" was a true throw-away. The body was maybe salvable, but the frame needed a serious come-to-Jesus with the cutting torch. During the process of cutting the whole thing up into pieces small enough to throw in the trash I got to thinking: What the heck, what would it look like if I did it myself?
So, I pushed the body shell together on the garage floor, dropped a plumb bob from the center of each fender wheel arch and marked a dot on the floor where it touched. I compared the 4 dots to the wheelbase of a real 718; and then said to myself: Build a car that fits those 4 dots and the body will fit. What could go wrong?
Uh huh, well two years later I had acquired a PhD education of Learning-by-Mistakes.
Anyway, for the chassis inspiration, I didn't get very far out-of-the-box from what others had been done before. I wanted something kind of like pictures I had of a real 718, but the rear suspension needed to be more adjustable since I really didn't know exactly how dimensions were going to evolve. So, I copied ideas from Colin Chapman's 60's era open wheeled Lotus racers. Basically, a 5-link IRS.
I think the adjustability you've built-in to that setup is what I'll be aiming for. By comparison, that "De-Dion" system in the photos/link I shared seems to require a lot more accuracy in the initial measurement and build.
The Beck build pictured a few posts above doesn't have the parellel trailing arms yours does, I'm assuming the triangulated arms takes care of that factor?
Attachments
Images (3)
Copy Mark's frame. He owned it for 20 years and put miles on it.
@550aus posted:The Beck build pictured a few posts above doesn't have the parellel trailing arms yours does, I'm assuming the triangulated arms takes care of that factor?
Disclaimer: I am not an automotive suspension engineer or formal voice of authority. My logic rests on the idea that if you copy Colin Chapman, how wrong can you be?
To answer your question:
The 5-Link's (parallel trailing arms) is by-far the most adjustable. You can adjust wheelbase length, caster, track width, camber, and toe. 9 heims (per side) are available for adjustment, usually twisting only one is required, for example to adjust toe.
The 4-Link (upper/lower H-arm) that you have pictured on a Beck is less complicated, but also less forgiving in fabrication. And you lose wheelbase length and caster adjustability. So, you do have to be more precise to engineer in-advance exactly where the wheel bearing hub and transmission hub are going to line up on top of the final wheelbase before locating the suspension pick-up points (and fabricating the arms between them). The upper and lower H-arms are like a 3-dimensional trapezoid. The upper pick-up points must be on a line parallel with the lower pick-up points, otherwise the suspension will bind.
The De Dion suspension as seen illustrated in pictures above is kind of a 'please-don't- make-me' answer to the question: What do you do if you have a Beck, Thunder Ranch, Kitman, etc. 550 ladder frame chassis and want to us IRS axles. In your case, you have no real choice but to use IRS axles. The De Dion is not an IRS suspension, it is a solid axle. But it is a suspension you could do instead of chopping up the chassis you have. To some degree, it has advantages over the usual swing axle suspension (like wheel tuck).
The 2-link (single trailing arm) suspension pictured from Vintage is the simplest of all. It was an easy way to go for Vintage, since their chassis was already a single trailing arm / swing axle. In conjunction with switching to IRS axles, adding an upper and lower control links provided the addition of camber adjustment to an otherwise somewhat fixed geometry.
So many choices -- so lucky to be you! 
@RS-60 mark wrote- "Build a car that fits those 4 dots and the body will fit. What could go wrong?"
Thanks for the 1st laugh of the morning! I'm so glad I wasn't drinking orange juice when I read that- the keyboard won't survive another o j bath...
@RS-60 mark posted:The 2-link (single trailing arm) suspension pictured from Vintage is the simplest of all. It was an easy way to go for Vintage, since their chassis was already a single trailing arm / swing axle. In conjunction with switching to IRS axles, adding an upper and lower control links provided the addition of camber adjustment to an otherwise somewhat fixed geometry.
It is important to add to the comment above that Vintage likely uses a threaded heim at the pivot end of the trailing arm, since that's what they use on their swing-arm axle's trailing arm. If a threaded heim is used, additional adjustability is included. The wheelbase might be lengthened/shortened maybe +/- 1/2" and toe might be adjusted by adding/removing washers between the swing arm pivot heim and the frame.
It seems to me that unless you actually need a lot of suspension tunability, the Vintage example has more than enough adjustment for initial build, then "set it - forget it" real-life ownership.
@RS-60 mark posted:It is important to add to the comment above that Vintage likely uses a threaded heim at the pivot end of the trailing arm, since that's what they use on their swing-arm axle's trailing arm. If a threaded heim is used, additional adjustability is included. The wheelbase might be lengthened/shortened maybe +/- 1/2" and toe might be adjusted by adding/removing washers between the swing arm pivot heim and the frame.
It seems to me that unless you actually need a lot of suspension tunability, the Vintage example has more than enough adjustment for initial build, then "set it - forget it" real-life ownership.
Mark, interesting that you should mention toe on the Vintage setup. I was thinking about this also. I think the washers you mentioned would probably be enough, but it also looks like Vintage is using a bolt on bearing housing, which could also be shimmed if necessary for more adjustability.
I don't know exactly what settings will work out as "best" for Greg's new IRS rear suspension.
I run 1/16" of total toe-in on the rear suspension, and yes in swingaxle form there is a single LARGE heim joint at the forward end which allows a small amount of wheelbase and toe-in adjustment.
I installed the special "keeper" large washers outboard of the heim joint under the bolt head in case of joint failure. The joint is mounted in single-sheer, the bolt goes through a heavy-wall tube that is welded into the frame(very strong). Ideally, the joint should be mounted in between two tabs in double-sheer. The bolt is 1/2" and grade 8 so it is plenty stout as-is.
I'd like to see some more pictures of RS-60 Mark's front suspension. That one looks NICE also. Mark built a really well-executed and though-out frame and suspension, both front and rear. I'll bet it took a while to get it exactly the way he wanted. And I can see the Chapman influence for sure!
Here is a link to standard and metric retaining washers for heim joints:
@DannyP posted:I'd like to see some more pictures of RS-60 Mark's front suspension.
Hi Danny,
Sorry, nothing special up front. Vanilla VW torsion beam and trailing arms, with 3/4 sway bar.
That said, it can also be said this is a fairly well proven suspension; to say the least. Not counting the millions of VWs, this is the Porsche front suspension from the 356 all the way to through 718, including the formula Grand Prix cars.
Is an IRS better than swing axle? Of course it is. Is a double wishbone front suspension better than torsion bar trailing arms? Of course it is. The real question in my mind is: When does it really matter?
Attachments
Images (1)
Sorry, Mark. I thought you had unequal length A-arms and coilovers up front.
This is as close as I got to a photo of the trailing arm. I'll get some better ones this November.......Bruce
Attachments
Images (1)
Our coupe and 904 are both very similar to the 5 link, with geometry copied from the Chevron B16 race car, which Chuck had a lot of familiarity. As mentioned above, it affords a full range of adjustability with a bottom mounted reverse a-arm, a pair of forward links on each side, and a camber link.
Likewise, and also as mentioned above, the DeDion was OK but lacks seriously in adjustability. In fact, I still think a properly adjusted swingaxle will outperform a DeDion in many instances. Anyway, our hubs bolted onto the ends of the DeDion tube, so we created tapered spacers that could bolt between the end of the Dedion tube and the hub and they could be rotated to adjust both camber and tow. In my opinion, the real drawbacks to DeDion were both the sympathetic camber change on the opposing wheel, and the overall handling of a live axle.
Chuck did this rear suspension for a 6 cylinder Spyder drag car for industry event "Run 'n Gun", meant for the straight line strip, and it worked VERY well for that. It was OK on the road corse IF you knew the limits of the car and kept it under 10/10, but when it snapped, it was all over...
The other limitations of the DeDion on a stock Beck chassis were: A) that the axles could hit the 3" chassis rails at droop. Not likely in a driving scenario, but not impossible, so we made limiting stops for the hubs to prevent this as a possibility... but that also limited overall suspension travel in general. B) The sheer amount of room that the DeDion tube occupied was not ideal. Ours was designed specifically for an Audi gearbox, and without complete redesign of the tube, it would not fit many other gearboxes due to interference, usually with the starter. C) the additional chassis changes required to return the torsional load of the chassis back to the center line of the chassis since the weight was largely being carried by the coil springs and no longer torsion bars. It changed the polar moment of the chassis, and even after being triangulated it was better but still not as good.
Just my $0.02
I agree Carey. I'll keep my properly set up swing over a DeDion every time.
Ok, so, a little bit of actual build progress today. I figured I'd do some test assembly of as many parts as I can to see what works and what needs modification.
The bodywork needed a bit of "trimming" to make room for the front suspension beam support to slide in. Obviously the chassis people weren't on speaking terms with the bodywork people...
Attachments
Images (4)
That's not a kit, it's an idea.
I hope you have stamina, @550aus (and I mean that sincerely).
@Stan Galat posted:That's not a kit, it's an idea.
I hope you have stamina, @550aus (and I mean that sincerely).
I also hope that he can see it through all the way. Just for reference this is the early Vintage Spyder frame, which is a bit more substantial than what you've got there. It uses some different(and larger diameter in some spots) tubes today.
Looking forward to seeing your forward progress.
Attachments
Images (1)
@DannyP posted:I also hope that he can see it through all the way. Just for reference this is the early Vintage Spyder frame, which is a bit more substantial than what you've got there. It uses some different(and larger diameter in some spots) tubes today.
Looking forward to seeing your forward progress.
Thanks, this kitman frame is admittedly quite basic. I'll be adding to it quite a bit. Something similar to the bulkhead loops and side bars in your photo, are already on the list.
I don't think anyone from Kitman had even attempted to sit their chassis in their body. Unfortunately, the options for bringing a 550 into Australia these days are extremely limited. Kitman is the best/only option unless you find a very old Beck and bring it in as a finished car, which would be ridiculously expensive.
@Stan Galat posted:That's not a kit, it's an idea.
I hope you have stamina, @550aus (and I mean that sincerely).
I have time, and I'm obviously a masochist 😄
I'm sorry Australia is so difficult for you. You've gotta do what you've gotta do...
@DannyP posted:I'm sorry Australia is so difficult for you. You've gotta do what you've gotta do...
It's the price we pay for living in paradise 😄
Everything comes at a cost. Please keep us posted on your progress.
@550aus posted:I have time, and I'm obviously a masochist 😄
You know what? I think we're gonna be friends.
I'm Stan. Your name?
@Stan Galat posted:You know what? I think we're gonna be friends.
I'm Stan. Your name?
Hi Stan, Paul here 👍
@DannyP posted:I also hope that he can see it through all the way. Just for reference this is the early Vintage Spyder frame, which is a bit more substantial than what you've got there. It uses some different(and larger diameter in some spots) tubes today.
Looking forward to seeing your forward progress.
Am I correct in thinking that most of the main frame sections are 2" on that?
Yep. They're 3-inch round on yours I think. That's how Chuck Beck envisioned as simplified 550 chassis. But yours is different from a Beck in that the beam bolts in. Beck (and Thunder Ranch) welded that stuff in.
FWIW, if your tubing is of sufficient thickness and made out of the right sort of steel, it should be plenty stiff. What's your wall thickness?