356 replies to this topic

[jayare]

I'm in the same situation as The Matt (the photo of the trimmed inner wing he posted earlier is my car - did you really find that on google??!!!)

I'm going to be retaining the fixed front end and actually intend to weld in re-shaped lower inner wings which clear the subframe. It's one of the main reasons I need to know what is classed as the original suspension, steering, etc. I'm retaining rubber springs all round and the rear will be pretty much stock except HiLo's and adjustable dampers. The front uses Mini top arms, hubs, etc but with HiLo's, rose jointed bottom arms and tie bars and uprated dampers (it would be downright dangerous to use standard parts here with the intended power output!)

Steering would be all standard if it includes just the rack, column and steering arms on the hubs (hubs are Mini but non-standard for the car as it had drums originally - again it would be dangerous without the upgrade to discs).

I could build a car which (assuming my minor inner wing mods will allow the shell to retain the 5 points) will get a total of 9 points by using standard suspension and brake parts but I'd never drive it because it would most likely kill me and possibly others in short order!

JR

[benb12]

Surely the brakes will be fine if they are Mini brakes?

[camp freddy]

I've just gone back to the team for further clarification and the way it stands is this.

My apologies to Bungle, Ishould have said that the front panel can be included in the flip front.

The inner wing should remain structurally sound as it serves the same purpose as the stay bar but is the ORIGINAL OEM and any holes MAY become an issue due to the structure being considered borderline on strenth by VOSA with the front flipping .

So, provided the inner wings are kept intact and un-modified, a flip front should not be classed as a monocoque mod.

Thanks for you continued help and interaction in this 1960Zody - hopefully it will provide educational to both Mini owners AND the DVLA.

Unfortunately their last response to you shows they do not know the vehicle in question well enough and are clutching at straws. The inner wing does NOT serve the same purpose as a brace bar as it is not connected to the subframe. Once the front panel and outer wings are made into a flip front the inner wing does nothing and is connected to nothing.

(In fact there is an arguement that even the brace bars are a superficial requirement and do not provide any support to the front of the subframe - but that is a discussion for another day!)

'Once the front panel and outer wings are made into a flip front the inner wing does nothing and is connected to nothing'. totally agree

I also agree with you on the brace bars! as when the car is excelerating the force produced will be
applied to the front subby rear mount (compression force)...

[Bungle]

1960Zody do you know mini's well ?

if your not familiar with minis and the flip front conversion i'm sure we could find someone in your area with a flip fronted mini for you to have a look

it would seem the DVLA don't know much about classic minis and hopefully would take advice from a organisation like ACE

[mini93]

Surely the brakes will be fine if they are Mini brakes?

no, not if your upgrading to a vaux engine or something else, the alloy callipers you buy on the market are much better

[Bungle]

I also agree with you on the brace bars! as when the car is accelerating the force produced will be
applied to the front subby rear mount (compression force)...

as you accelerate in a mini the top of the engine moves backwards so i'm guessing the back of the subframe is trying to move down and the front of the subframe up

the brace bars from the front of the subframe to the inner wings form a triangle with whats left of the inner wing and subframe helping stop this twisting force

now i'm not an engineer and others might see this differently but it's just a thought to those that say brace bars are not needed

[Mini Mad Max]

After reading a few topics on the ace website and reading the bit about modifying bulkheads

"Monococque.

Q) What is the definition of a monococque ?

A) A design in which body and chassis are all one unit.

Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before.

A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity.

Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make?

A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure. "

i asked a question about modifying the bulkhead for webber boxes and turbo boxes.I said that the likes of ERA and before them the works rally teams carried out these mods to the bulkhead with out problems in the past

today i received this answer


"Hi Geoff , it may be that Rover didn't actually condone or sanction ERA
mods but it would be difficult to prove either way now .Likewise rally cars
are often prepped outside of official channels and may never last long
enough to end up being inspected re roadgoing identity.

I spoke with VOSA are this and they say that whilst THEY ( unofficially as
no press release to verify ) have no issues with some minor clearancing for
bellmouths or a turbo pipe, cutting and fitting an ammo box size hole will
fall foul. Bear in mid that in the first instance it is DVLAs call NOT
VOSAs as to what affects the vehicles identity.

cheers
Kev Rooney ( ACE Admin Team )

Ps It doesn't help anyones case when they speak to VOSA complaining that
DVLA have unfairly pulled their logbook when 'all' they have done is change
to a motorbike engine and then in the process of questioning it turns out
there is a 2 foot section of floor removed !"

so it would seem anyone with a turbo or webber box will need an IVA test and possibly end up on a Q plate

i think my next question will be about flip fronts and engine conversions that require a different subframe (metro ETC ) but from reading the ACE site and topics on Volkszone you are also lightly to end up needing an IVA test

i will let you know more when i have answers

What's more, I heard that you now have to get engine conversions done by a professional with reciepts and pictures for proof of build along with a certificate from the professional. I'm not sure whether this was certain or not though.
Seriously you don't want to end up taking the IVA test. I am building a mini based kit car so will have to. It costs £450 for the test and £90 for a re-test if you fail. There are many strict regulations which the old mini would fail on easily like correct markings for things on the dashboard, Fuel tank location, Sound level, braking power, engine emmissions, sharp edges and the list goes on. But it is possible to keep an age related plate if you retain your plate with the DVLA within 6 months of the car being taxed or as long as you can prove most of the mechanical parts come from the original car.
But still a massive pain all the same,
Max

[The Matt]

Surely the brakes will be fine if they are Mini brakes?

no, not if your upgrading to a vaux engine or something else, the alloy callipers you buy on the market are much better

Well, common sense would suggest that if you improve performance, you should improve stopping power. Yes.

But, when you think about how brakes work at any given speed (let's assume that you are driving VX Mini along side a 998 mini, similar weight vehicles)..... What do the brakes have to do?

The wheels provide a torque arm, which is acting on the hub. The velocity of the rolling vehicle mass is what you're trying to counteract. You have two "similar" masses rolling down the road.... As long as you've got a similar mass in the VX mini and the 998, along with wheels that are the same size on both vehicles, you require the same amount of stopping force. Ergo; for road use, Mini brakes will work just as well on a VX mini as on the boggo 998.

[jayare]

The first time you use them, yes - after that if you have to use them soon again after, no!

JR

[benb12]

Surely the brakes will be fine if they are Mini brakes?

no, not if your upgrading to a vaux engine or something else, the alloy callipers you buy on the market are much better

Sorry, not what I meant, I meant if you upgraded your mini drum brakes to mini disk brakes surely you would still retain the 2 points for brakes.

[Bungle]

i think the answer is yes it's ok

there was this question on volkszone about up grading camper brakes to disks and the answer was it is ok as long as you use later parts from the same model

[mini93]

Well, common sense would suggest that if you improve performance, you should improve stopping power. Yes.

But, when you think about how brakes work at any given speed (let's assume that you are driving VX Mini along side a 998 mini, similar weight vehicles)..... What do the brakes have to do?

The wheels provide a torque arm, which is acting on the hub. The velocity of the rolling vehicle mass is what you're trying to counteract. You have two "similar" masses rolling down the road.... As long as you've got a similar mass in the VX mini and the 998, along with wheels that are the same size on both vehicles, you require the same amount of stopping force. Ergo; for road use, Mini brakes will work just as well on a VX mini as on the boggo 998.

the principle i was going on, although it is assuming its usualy the case if a car has a foregn engine in there more likely to be used harder than a 998 say, especialy if your breaking from a higher speed more often, obviously

[The Matt]

Oh, I agree David. If you improve your car's performance, you naturally want improved braking.

But we're talking regulations, rather than common sense. All that the regulations are probably concerned about is that the brakes are up to stopping the car in normal use.

[mini93]

bit daft really though isnt it, if a person was boarderline on the point mark and changing the breaks would tip him over that some would take it upon them selfs to leave the less powerful brakes, in a sence they could be allowing MORE dangerous cars on the road, if the brakes give good efficiency on a MOT testing roller thingy surely that should be sufficient? seeing as another test in handbrake and there visualy checked in the MOT anyway.
What would they test the brakes for on an IVA thats different than the efficiency test on a MOT?

[old original]

After reading a few topics on the ace website and reading the bit about modifying bulkheads


i asked a question about modifying the bulkhead for webber boxes and turbo boxes.I said that the likes of ERA and before them the works rally teams carried out these mods to the bulkhead with out problems in the past

today i received this answer


"Hi Geoff , it may be that Rover didn't actually condone or sanction ERA
mods but it would be difficult to prove either way now .Likewise rally cars
are often prepped outside of official channels and may never last long
enough to end up being inspected re roadgoing identity.

I spoke with VOSA are this and they say that whilst THEY ( unofficially as
no press release to verify ) have no issues with some minor clearancing for
bellmouths or a turbo pipe, cutting and fitting an ammo box size hole will
fall foul. Bear in mid that in the first instance it is DVLAs call NOT
VOSAs as to what affects the vehicles identity.

cheers
Kev Rooney ( ACE Admin Team )

I've edited the above post for brevity but as far as ERAs are concerned, they were type approved and condoned and sanctioned by Rover as they were sold their dealer network in this country with a normal Rover warranty. So, as I've pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't see a problem

Here's a question though. What would be the case if an ERA needed to be reshelled. I dare say there are no ERA shells left therefore you would have modify a heritage shell. Would you then fall foul of the regs?


Can of worms anyone??

Edited by old original, 26 February 2010 - 07:42 PM.