243 replies to this topic

[mk3 Cooper S]

What durability has been done on these shells to confirm rigidity, strength and durability?

I presume that a full range of mileage accumilation, durrability( on special surfaces Pave etc) has been completed to determine where any stress fracture may occur and more development completed to rectify them? (Hence the defence of the lack of need to use spreader plates etc?)

What form of crash testing has been completed (I know this is not a legal requirement) but I am interested if this has been completed?

I should imagine that you 22 year experience will have led you to perform a full durrability program and I am interested in what that program consists of.

Thanks

Edited by mk3 Cooper S, 08 January 2009 - 12:41 PM.

[CharlieBrown]

Hi Mr Cooper,

Sample strength tests have been performed on the car to approximate equivalent steel strength.

A durability test has not been performed on the shell, this is a small time development and as such there is no budget for full car testing and I don’t believe it is a requirement.

I think this is the same for any mini fibreglass shell that was ever made, unless you know different. It’s not something I’ve heard of.

Again, crash testing is an expensive part-time and has not been done, and I don’t think it was done for other fibreglass kit cars.

As stated before the car will be taken for an SVA test as the government requirement.

This is not a full production car it is a shell for a kit car.

Experience of past/current fibreglass cars shows that washers and/or spreader plates are sufficient.

[998dave]

A full durability program of the sort you seem to be aiming for here would cost millions of pounds, and take a good year, even manufacturers like Caterham don't do this, so why would you expect SprintWorks to?
Furthermore with the crash testing, building a dozen or more shells, and then paying to have them crashed would be hugely expensive, and result in a massive increase in the eventual cost of the shells, not the point of Sprint cars, and also the reason such testing is not deamed necessary in small production/kit runs.

I'd imagine the odds are on that it'll be better then a rusty 30 year old mini...

[Body stylist]

What durability has been done on these shells to confirm rigidity, strength and durability?

I presume that a full range of mileage accumilation, durrability( on special surfaces Pave etc) has been completed to determine where any stress fracture may occur and more development completed to rectify them? (Hence the defence of the lack of need to use spreader plates etc?)

What form of crash testing has been completed (I know this is not a legal requirement) but I am interested if this has been completed?

I should imagine that you 22 year experience will have led you to perform a full durrability program and I am interested in what that program consists of.

Thanks

Allthough no crash tests etc will ever be carried out on a 'kit car' the strength of fibreglass composites is widely underated, however, im sure that the manufacture is fully covered by insurance??

its a question worth asking, especially on something that you will putting your (and others) life into.
you will be amazed how many companies dont have any product insurance yet still sell the products

[The Matt]

to be honest, these shells are better than a new steel one in many ways when it comes to durability, strength and stiffness where it counts.

Test and validation of design is far more important than mass-testing an actual completed component or assembly. If you've designed something to have the correct safety and reserve factors, then there's nothing to worry about.

Not to mention extensive cyclic mechanical damage testing of components, extensive analysis of structural members as individual items and in their assembled form. I imagine that's the kind of testing that's been carried out, rather than testing completed items to destruction for the sake of it.

It just seems that people are too happy to assume that because it's composite, it's a mystical unknown material that needs smashing up to prove it's good enough.

[CharlieBrown]

Manufacturers insurance has not yet been obtained. As of yet it is only the demo car (this one) that has been made.

[rayjake]

Hi,

the project is looking amasing!!!!!!! my mayfairs shell isnt looking to good atm so i was looking into a GPR shell from ABS, but the recoment putting in a multipoint roll cage.

Just wondering if your putting one in??? and would it just be a case of using a bolt on one instead of a weld cage??? or would any extra work need doing to the mounting points??

Cant wait to see it completed

Cheers

[scrippo]

I'd say it's pretty much impossible to fit a weld in cage in a fibreglass shell?

[mighty mini jack]

I'd say it's pretty much impossible to fit a weld in cage in a fibreglass shell?

You could always bolt one in (i think?)

I wouldn't fit one personaly, i wouldn't think it would need it.

[THE STIG]

yes is having a cage because charlie is a wimp

can use either sort of cage

a bolt in cage is bolted together

a weld in cage is welded togther once in not welded to the car !!!!!!

[scrippo]

Ah ok gotcha

[mk3 Cooper S]

Hi Mr Cooper,

Sample strength tests have been performed on the car to approximate equivalent steel strength.

A durability test has not been performed on the shell, this is a small time development and as such there is no budget for full car testing and I don’t believe it is a requirement.

I think this is the same for any mini fibreglass shell that was ever made, unless you know different. It’s not something I’ve heard of.

Again, crash testing is an expensive part-time and has not been done, and I don’t think it was done for other fibreglass kit cars.

As stated before the car will be taken for an SVA test as the government requirement.

This is not a full production car it is a shell for a kit car.

Experience of past/current fibreglass cars shows that washers and/or spreader plates are sufficient.

I was refering to the 20 years of experience meaning that spreader plates were not required rather than any durrability testing really.

I am genuinly interested in these shells (who wouldn't be - a mini that does not rot!!) but I also have a lot of experience in the durrability field and nothing sustitites testing in my experience but I also appreciate the immense cost of this.

Edited by mk3 Cooper S, 13 January 2009 - 04:05 PM.

[rayjake]

Any up-dates???

[mini13]

just spotted this on direct.gov....



Kit Conversions
This is where a kit of new parts is added to an existing vehicle or old parts are added to a kit comprising a manufactured body, chassis or monocoque bodyshell. The general appearance of the vehicle will change and result in a revised description on the registration certificate.

A vehicle will retain its donor registration mark if either the original unmodified chassis or unaltered monocoque bodyshell and two other major components are used. If a new monocoque bodyshell or chassis from a specialist kit manufacturer is used (or an altered chassis or bodyshell from an existing vehicle) together with two major components from a donor vehicle, an age related mark will be assigned. The mark will be based on the age of the donor vehicle. An ESVA, SVA or MSVA test will be required to register the vehicle.

Where there are insufficient parts from a donor vehicle or in cases where the original registration mark is unknown, an ESVA, SVA or MSVA certificate will be required to register the vehicle and a 'Q' prefix registration number will be allocated.

taken from link

http://direct.gov.uk...cle/DG_10014246


from this it looks like you could get an age related plate

[THE STIG]

from A series to c16

Edited by THE STIG, 22 February 2009 - 12:15 AM.