Scary outriggers!!
Discussion
Hi all,
After a couple of years of putting it off and knowing that my outriggers could be described at least as "past their best" I decided to bite the bullet and do a partial lift to see the extent of the rot. Using the excellent guide posted on here by TVRgit (many thanks to you my friend, I owe you a drink) and the collective knowledge of the S Massif, notably Alan461I lfted the body and discovered this:
The offside one is far worse than the nearside but could only be seen from underneath after I hit it with a hammer to expose the crack that can be seen in the top photo (also note TVR's lovely straight welding!!) the rot on the nearside one could'nt be seen at all until the body was lifted.
Progress so far is that the n/s is done and the o/s is still work in progress, fabricated and in place but still needing to be welded but I've run out of time to get it done by S Club so I will be there but the car won't.
The new o/s outrigger in place.
Anybody else going to go out and check theirs?
After a couple of years of putting it off and knowing that my outriggers could be described at least as "past their best" I decided to bite the bullet and do a partial lift to see the extent of the rot. Using the excellent guide posted on here by TVRgit (many thanks to you my friend, I owe you a drink) and the collective knowledge of the S Massif, notably Alan461I lfted the body and discovered this:
The offside one is far worse than the nearside but could only be seen from underneath after I hit it with a hammer to expose the crack that can be seen in the top photo (also note TVR's lovely straight welding!!) the rot on the nearside one could'nt be seen at all until the body was lifted.
Progress so far is that the n/s is done and the o/s is still work in progress, fabricated and in place but still needing to be welded but I've run out of time to get it done by S Club so I will be there but the car won't.
The new o/s outrigger in place.
Anybody else going to go out and check theirs?
tileart said:
PotlessPaul said:
Anybody else going to go out and check theirs?
Forgive me if the mantra of "outriggers, outriggers, outriggers" occasionally confuses me. Does anyone have a photo of their outriggers after one or both failed, and what actually happened ?tileart said:
Forgive me if the mantra of "outriggers, outriggers, outriggers" occasionally confuses me. Does anyone have a photo of their outriggers after one or both failed, and what actually happened ?
On my 350i I had a problem opening / closing the doors which was getting steadily worse. I cannot remember the exact details as it was about 15 years ago, but on casual inspection it looked as though the doors had dropped. Anyway, turned out that the outriggers were completely shot. No longer have photos as it was before I had a digital camera and the photos were in the history file that I passed to the new owner when I sold it. New outriggers fitted and the doors suddenly worked again.It would never have failed an MOT as they were not visible without removing the side skirts and for this reason I was blissfully unaware.
So perhaps I don't need to change the door hinges after all ? Oh it makes me MAD....
https://youtu.be/WzqSuHy8G-o
https://youtu.be/WzqSuHy8G-o
(also note TVR's lovely straight welding!!) .
If that refers to the angle of the corner plates to the tube, I do believe they are meant to be like that. Mine certainly were
Also nice axle stands I looked at similar ones for a few years, when under various green things
If that refers to the angle of the corner plates to the tube, I do believe they are meant to be like that. Mine certainly were
Also nice axle stands I looked at similar ones for a few years, when under various green things
Edited by chiefyo on Tuesday 19th June 17:32
I'm not letting this one go !
Unlike a normal monocoque production car where the sills are part of the structural integrity of the car, in the S's the 'outriggers' do not give any rigidity to the chassis. All the rigidity is provided by the race car type space frame chassis. And they are certainly not built to withstand a side impact as they would give no protection at all to the occupant, especially when you consider the height of them to the modern car which is about to T bone you.
I understand that it is integral for keeping the body tub rigid, but a Morgan would do that with wood. TVR would have welded in the factory as when the chassis's were built that would be the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, but in a repair scenario it isn't as cost effective. The point being that it needs to be strong enough to support the body tub (including flexing of the door apertures), not to keep the four corners of the car connected together in the way the sills do on a monocoque car.
I agree that the seat belt anchor needs to be in secure metal, I'm more challenging whether a repair section needs to be welded (needing the body lift) or more practically a professionally 'engineered' bolted connection. Aircraft wings are bolted on, not welded. I work on a chemical plant in the north east, a lot of our pipebridges and structures are welded through it being cost effective, but where needed a bolted or riveted joint would be used. It is just as strong, just more costly to manufacture.
On a monocoque car, only the structural parts are welded ? The others are bolted or even glued !
Unlike a normal monocoque production car where the sills are part of the structural integrity of the car, in the S's the 'outriggers' do not give any rigidity to the chassis. All the rigidity is provided by the race car type space frame chassis. And they are certainly not built to withstand a side impact as they would give no protection at all to the occupant, especially when you consider the height of them to the modern car which is about to T bone you.
I understand that it is integral for keeping the body tub rigid, but a Morgan would do that with wood. TVR would have welded in the factory as when the chassis's were built that would be the easiest and most cost effective way to do it, but in a repair scenario it isn't as cost effective. The point being that it needs to be strong enough to support the body tub (including flexing of the door apertures), not to keep the four corners of the car connected together in the way the sills do on a monocoque car.
I agree that the seat belt anchor needs to be in secure metal, I'm more challenging whether a repair section needs to be welded (needing the body lift) or more practically a professionally 'engineered' bolted connection. Aircraft wings are bolted on, not welded. I work on a chemical plant in the north east, a lot of our pipebridges and structures are welded through it being cost effective, but where needed a bolted or riveted joint would be used. It is just as strong, just more costly to manufacture.
On a monocoque car, only the structural parts are welded ? The others are bolted or even glued !
chiefyo said:
(also note TVR's lovely straight welding!!) .
If that refers to the angle of the corner plates to the tube, I do believe they are meant to be like that. Mine certainly were
Does anybody know if they are supposed to be like that and if so why?If that refers to the angle of the corner plates to the tube, I do believe they are meant to be like that. Mine certainly were
Edited by chiefyo on Tuesday 19th June 17:32
phillpot said:
Welding or otherwise I'd have thought the body tub will need lifting (it's not a particulaly big job) to give access?
Possibly, though you may have space to slide a larger bore tube over the top (or inside?). I guess it is really dependant of how far the rot has migrated !
How about "Kee Klamps" ....
Sort of the principle I was thinking but I think a little extra 'precision engineering' would be required !Possibly, though you may have space to slide a larger bore tube over the top (or inside?). I guess it is really dependant of how far the rot has migrated !
How about "Kee Klamps" ....
Gassing Station | S Series | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff