Opinions please!

[biggles]

Hi Jan

If you compare the top left and top right sides of his bulkhead, you can see the wide shoulder mod - he has extended the top bulkhead rail outboard and moved the diagonal round section drop rail (to the chassis top side rail) outboard, freeing up some shoulder room. This is what I need to do to mine as I currently sit against the rear bulkhead with my torso twisted due to the position of the bulkhead side section that wraps around the drop rail.

I wonder if that will affect the stiffness of the rear end at all? I note he has braced it in to the hoop using a single small diagonal tie tube on the right side.

If you have a look through his other pics on 'Lotus Talk' via the link, you can see the different treatment against stock of the forward rear wheelarches.

Best regards
Tim

[Splat]

Hi Tim,

A couple of observations:

Firstly, I don't think that there's any reason to be concerned about the structural integrity of this particular car. To me, it doesn't appear that the frame has been cut at all. All the extra work is by additions. In addition to the roll hoop, the little "wing" and brace are just welded-on extensions to the top rail. The Westfield fibreglass rear bulkhead has been scrapped in favour of an ally panel, allowing the shoulder-height "fold" to be a little further outboard on the drivers side. The only "difficult" thing here seems to be the neatly made ally rear arches at elbow height in the cockpit. In addition, the drivers footwell has been extended and the pedals rehung, and the seating has been severely reclined. Looking at the padding, he's never driven on a UK B-road! All together, a simple and effective way of altering a Westie for a 6'5" body.

Secondly, as for the single seat set-up, forget it. We haven't met yet, but I'm envisioning someone a little taller than my own (rather too stout) 5'11". I've tried a real single-cockpit 11 for size and it's awkward. If you've ever tried a Pitts for size, the resulting effect is somewhat similar. But clambering in and out is "tricky". Add your increased size, shoulder width and probably inevitably near-recumbent seating, and entry/egress will be all but impossible.

Off to the pub to watch the Tigers sock-it to Bath!

ATB

SImon

[Splat]

Buggereybollox (which in newspeak must be written as "Oh dear!". 27/27)

I forgot to say: With the exception of the butchered head-fairing, the rear bodywork looks unaltered.

And you haven't posted as to whether or not you've got the bodywork back to the south east................

[Westfield 129]

The "wide shoulder mod" doesn't seem to be for wide shoulders. The chassis is unaltered up to the rear bulkhead, but with a little outside brace added for the roll bar, as it doesn't seem to increase the width of the driver's position at all. I am assuming that the door is unaltered, as is the rear deck, other than the holes cut for the small brace for the roll bar. The structural integrity of the chassis is unaltered, but the roll bar does have another side brace.

Having flown the Pitts, and a "Shoestring Racer", I can attest as to how being under 5'6" is a advantage. However, my LHD W11 has an "extended pedal box", and I have quite a reach to get to the pedals. My seating position is, of course, very low as I slide down into the cockpit to reach the pedals. Reclining is about the best way to describe it, and I have plenty of foam to form a new seat.

I am designing a new pedal quadrant for the early LHD cars (mine has a fabricated steel setup for a single brake master cylinder, with clutch and throttle) to incorporate dual master cylinders (the currently available tandem probably fits, but the brake feel is not very good). There wont be enough room for a bias bar, so rear brake bias will be handled by a proportioning valve.

[biggles]

Beg to differ chaps - I think he has moved the round section tube that links the outboard top of the bulkhead to the chassis top side rail, as can be seen below:

The arrow shows said tube angling down. If it was in the standard location, we wouldn't be able to see it. Jan, moving it about 4 inches outboard would, I think, allow ones shoulder to sit under the rear clam flange further outboard than the stock arrangement allows, when combined with his inclined seating position.

In any case I think you are right that it wouldn't compromise the frame as the triangulation looks neat to me.

[Westfield 129]

It looks just like my car. The damper/suspension mounts have not been relocated, so the frame has not been widened at all. The angled roll bar brace mounting is creating an illusion. We can't see what is supporting it, but we can see where it has been added to the chassis.

To get more shoulder room, the body would have to be widened, which I suspect was done to fit the 40 series, wide tires. The back bulkhead in alloy is higher and wider which is where the shoulder room would come from.

I am sure that if you took a tape measure to the chassis, the width would be the same, other than the little outboard brace for the roll bar.