Opinions please!

[biggles]

As per the title, any input on the 'extra shoulder room mod' and the roll hoop fitment would be useful!
Happy new year to all!

[Westfield 129]

The roll hoop looks pretty good, but here, a forward brace through the passenger side to the firewall frame would probably be required. It looks pretty stout.

As far as shoulder room goes I don't need any more but your alloy bulkhead looks good. I may do one for my car when I start the cosmetic restoration.

[adamwilkinson]

slightly off topic but are your tyres directional?
the rears look like they are the wrong way round...

[biggles]

I should clarify - this is not my work or car, but a car that I found featured on the US 'Lotus Talk' site:

http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f94/wes ... ven-26172/

I will eventually sell my Eleven racer but first need to copy a few bits as I need to build a bitsa with a special chassis due to the fact that I can't comfortably get in to the standard Westy chassis even with no seat at all, just sitting on the floor and up against the rear bulkhead - my footwell is too narrow & not long enough. The round section chassis tube that links the rear bulkhead to the top side rail is also right in the way vis a vis shoulder room, so multi[ple adjustments are needed - ie I might as well start from scratch, and I stumbled across this car with just the mods I need.

So I thought I would ask the collective for some input before I commission my chassis build....

Cheers all
Tim

[Splat]

If I were commissioning a chassis, then I'd definitely go with the roll hoop. Even if it's unbraced, and therefore not track compliant, it'll provide some protection. Race tracks allow cars to roll repeatedly and so roll cages are required. Roads are different. The hassle comes in integrating the hoop with the fin. Personally, I'd have the hoop and the flat-back rear body. It's much more dainty.

Now, speaking of bodywork, what occurred?

Edited to add: I've just looked at the Lotus Talk article. Two things to note. He got around the roll hoop/bodywork problem neatly (the fin is a dzus-fastened addition to the bodywork on most "original" cars). And I love the vanity plates (the "Elise" is a Lotus Type 111).

[jonclancy]

Yep - road or track, I'd certainly think very carefully about a hoop.

ROPS (roll over protection system) designs can be sent to MIRA for testing and approval. Costs, but if I were producing like WSC, I would do so - I'd also include ROPS in the chassis design.

IIRC, and the Blue Book will have guidance, that you may have a ROPS approved for racing without MIRA involvement if the tubing is over a certain diameter.

[adamwilkinson]

or if you have one of the original chassis' then you can get away with a skinny roll bar, as we do (I think ours is ~1" dia tubing), and is completely legal for racing. if you have a new batch chassis then you need to comply with the bluebook as Charles found out...

[Westfield 129]

I have one of those 1" tubes tucked into the head faring of my early LHD car. I want to reinforce it a bit, but fortunately, at 5'5", I fit beneath the roll bar nicely enough.

[biggles]

I will definitely go for a hoop, hopefully to be concealed fully under the hump (Splat I like the non hump too but want the single config option) or just poking through the top if i end up sitting too high.

Any thoughts on the wide shoulder mod as seen at the right hand root of the hoop?

Cheers all
Tim (biggles)

[Westfield 129]

Unless one makes the car wider, there is no room for wider shoulders. Either you fit or you don't. If your shoulders are outside the car, well, then they fit... Depends on how far the driver sticks out...

Tucking a roll bar beneath the faring is difficult, as it would have to be slanted to the rear (to get the base attached to the frame) which reduces the height. If you put one in that slants forward so that it can use the full height of the head faring, there is no place to mount it. Its a problem unless the driver is short.

The best bet is a bar external to the faring, with a forward brace.