RBR...Red Baron Rebuild

[Mark]

Aligning the panels on my Vitesse was a pig. The panel gaps changed when or four wheels were on the ground after getting the gaps pretty good when on stands, not helped by the straight six boat anchor hanging out at the front. You maybe ok with the four cylinder, but gaps could change when sat on the ground.

[Steve 13-60]

Both doors aligned and open/closed nicely.

But looks how much I had to kich the back end up!!!!

But it was like that before, so it's roughly how it came off.

It's had new rear chassis legs welded on so no telling if they were done correctly or not.

Just the 6 bolts on the centre join to do tomorrow.

[Nick Jones]

1 hour ago, Steve 13-60 said:

It's had new rear chassis legs welded on so no telling if they were done correctly or not.

How much spacer in the spring tunnel though?

[Steve 13-60]

Approx 200mm gap!

Now that it is aligned together I'm thinking tomorrow I'll slowly drop the rear and raise the front - effectively pivoting in the middle.

[Steve 13-60]

Or even 20mm!!!

[Nick Jones]

That’s a lot for there. Normally 0-5mm in my experience. I think you need to pivot the bulkhead back. That is to say not necessarily raise the two key mounts on the front outriggers (or at least not much), but do lower the side rail mounts so it pivots about the front mounts and the screen tips back.  You’ll likely have to raise the bonnet pivot points to maintain the nice gaps you have there.

[Escadrille Ecosse]

1 hour ago, Nick Jones said:

That’s a lot for there. Normally 0-5mm in my experience. I think you need to pivot the bulkhead back. That is to say not necessarily raise the two key mounts on the front outriggers (or at least not much), but do lower the side rail mounts so it pivots about the front mounts and the screen tips back.  You’ll likely have to raise the bonnet pivot points to maintain the nice gaps you have there.

Never done a 'full Herald' but I would tend to agree with Nick on this. Raise the bonnet pivots and rotate the body from the bulkhead and if possible get the rear edge of the front floor directly onto the rubber strip on the centre outrigger for maximum stiffness of that critical area.

[Steve 13-60]

I don't mind it being a tad high as fully expecting some positive camber, which will entail a lowering block.....and I don't like lowered cars.

With boxing in the side rails the chassis is quite a bit stiffer already.

I'm not using any rubber between the body and the chassis......just caused rust.....hard mounts for me!

But at least it's in a good starting point, hopefully have it sorted by the weekend.

[Escadrille Ecosse]

22 minutes ago, Steve 13-60 said:

I'm not using any rubber between the body and the chassis 

Don't really understand the bit about the rear suspension/lowering block. Getting a neutral rear camber using an appropriate thicness of lowering block is the same as having a spring with slightly less camber.

If the suspension is a bit too much positive relative to the chassis, then having the body high above the chassis will only make the car look ever more tail up/ nose down.

If not rubber then you need a thin support of some sort between the rear of front floor panel and the centre outriggers. Anything more than 5 -10mm max is too high and compromises the car's structural strength. You are going to have to have some solid structure between the body and the chassis. Threaded rod on its own is unsafe.

Boxed in side rails notwithstanding the body is otherwise effectively floating above the chassis and basically undoing the benefit of boxing in the rails. 

Edited January 22 by Escadrille Ecosse

[Nick Jones]

I think the threaded rod is purely for setting up. The size of the gaps to be filled is unusually large though. I don’t think I’ve ever needed more than 15 - 20mm anywhere.

Agree that the floor joint between rear tub and bulkhead needs to pull down to the middle outrigger. Or to something solid if that’s really not achievable, though I can’t envisage a reason that would make it so.

I take the point about the boot riggers being previously changed but if the gap on the mounts in the spring tunnel can be brought right down, a big chunk of the bootrigger gap will go.

Incidentally, the point someone mentioned about the panel gaps changing depending on whether the car is supported on its wheels (or at least as if it was on its wheels), or in some other way, is entirely true, and often not subtle changes either!

[Steve 13-60]

I'm not concerned about the middle joint as there's no structural strength in that area, they just overlap and are floppy as fook.

It was supported on the threaded rods for the last 4 years and was fine, the issue with a floppy body ( the doors gaps would open/close when driving over a field) was due to the side channels not being fully welded due to being replaced with the body on so unable to weld properly.

But now it's all boxed in it's solid and you can jack the car up anywhere on the side rails without any movement in the chassis. Before the car would bend like a banana!

[Steve 13-60]

11 hours ago, Escadrille Ecosse said:

Don't really understand the bit about the rear suspension/lowering block. Getting a neutral rear camber using an appropriate thicness of lowering block is the same as having a spring with slightly less camber.

If the suspension is a bit too much positive relative to the chassis, then having the body high above the chassis will only make the car look ever more tail up/ nose down.

A lowering block is just that...a lowering block, it will lift the spring allowing the axles to go parallel(ish) and the only way it can achieve that is by the chassis ( and thus body) going lower to the floor.....wheels going further into the arches. Hence raising the rear tub will make it look normal again.

Tail up/nose down is ok, I have GAZ adjustables on the front so can easily raise the front ABIT if needed, I'd much rather be tail up than dragging it along the road!

But like I stated before, I'd prefer longer drive shafts to correct the camber rather than a lowering block. A quick calc came up with approx 1" longer shafts, which unsurprisingly is just what Triumph came up with.

But until it's all back together I'll not know how it stands.

[Escadrille Ecosse]

3 hours ago, Steve 13-60 said:

they just overlap and are floppy as fook.

Yep. Why they need to be on something solid.

All the mounts need to on something solid. The bolts are for clamping not supporting.

 

Edited January 23 by Escadrille Ecosse

[RedRooster]

Don't think I fancy using studding (which is low grade 5.5 usually and bends easily) without spacers being involved, the first bumpy road and everything will move, just my two penny worth. 

Anyway don't let me stop you two having a little playground scrap about it 😉

[Escadrille Ecosse]

2 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Anyway don't let me stop you two having a little playground scrap about it 😉

I ain't scrappin'

Done my "duty of care bit".

[Steve 13-60]

So, spent all day redoing it, without studs wherever possible. I was going to look at it again anyway and not cos Mr Escadrille shouted at me and made me cry 😢 but then, could have been worse, he could have misgendered me!!!!

I like studding, see nowt wrong with it, works a treat, more than strong enough, but that's just my opinion as an auto and aerospace design engineer. And it's my car so there! 😁

[Escadrille Ecosse]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:50 PM, Steve 13-60 said:

So, spent all day redoing it, without studs wherever possible.

Just concerned about that nice car. And you too I guess

 

On 1/23/2025 at 5:50 PM, Steve 13-60 said:

but that's just my opinion as an auto and aerospace design engineer.

Edited January 31 by Escadrille Ecosse

[Escadrille Ecosse]

21 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

There's a few of us in 'engineering' here,

It's why I like Sideways so much. Always someone I can ask for good, knowledge based advice