and what about a price? do you have any idea of what it would cost to put them in "production"?

_________________

Settle there Tiger.

I've always thought Z Cars had know idea about what they're doing.......

_________________
But he's thriving and striving and hugging the turns.

I'm not the one making the claims..........

_________________
"Not Speeding Officer..........Qualifying"

"Controversy" Rabs Warren on any given Sunday

_________________
But he's thriving and striving and hugging the turns.

hee hee,,, well you see "some" of Cons 2nd attempt yeah? well ours is a bit better in that dept,,, he was onto the right idea tho, like i said, he learnt from the first one & i know from personal experience & hands on with that first one with the Yeagar bros not listening to me in the first place while they were building it the first time, then the 2nd time, then the 3rd time etc etc etc & it continued to give all sorts of problems, Just ask Con & he was the 3rd owner of it & it was still gi\ving trouble.... My statement stands--> he learnt from the first one.

Not bagging you Archangle (or anyone in particular) ,,, definately not,,, i havn`t seen your frame in person so i havn`t commented on yours "In-particular",,, like i said above

But, i`ve not only seen quite a lot of jap engined subframes but i`ve also """experienced""" some as well,,, & those that i`ve driven have been quite poor indeed,,, hence one of the reasons for getting into the production (with a few other people interested in the same) producing a dam good frame.... i was never really a big fan of converting to a jap engine but the time came for me to realise there is a "NEED" for this type of conversion so i`ve chosen to apply what i`ve learnt & help out a few friends sort theirs out & at the same time make it avaliable to the general public (when they`re ready)

Like i`ve said,,, the product will speak for itself,,, anyone can say whatever they like about it right now because they havn`t seen it yet, but my ""claims"" WILL be substantiated i absolutely & positively guarantee it ... i don`t work on "Anything" that isn`t a wickedly good thing... it would be totally pointless & detrimental to do otherwise ... & my "Word",,, (as you all know,,, anyones "Word") means everything & if i were not so sure of this design then i wouldn`t be here sprooking about it hey?

It`s a relatively small world our wonderfull little mini world & the last thing i would be doing is speaking crap about a subframe we are making,,, i might take a while doing things (everyone already knows that)---> but my products work & work well.

please be patient & yes the cost will be well more than the "Average" jap subframe, but that`s because there is way way more put into it than just a few pipes stuck to the towers & an engine hanging from them.

If anyone knows Con & can have a chat with him, then please do, as he knows a few people involved & surrounding "OUR" frame design, he`s even seen the beginings of it & even tried to have a part in the deal.

like i said,,, he learnt from the first one.

Edit--> & yeah, "Alstonville",,, i actually used to go see the old fella who used to own the wrecking yard before the Yeagar bros took it over,,, i used to go jumping into the massive sink holes around that area when i was a teenager & the old guy at that wrecking yard was a mini speedway nut

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Still a big call anyway you sell it.

_________________
But he's thriving and striving and hugging the turns.

of course you`re right with that John, it certainly is a big call,,, but at the same time it`s a fairly easy one to make... i`ll get my kombi gearbox fixed, pick up all the stuff from my metal fab mans place & take some pics for you all,,,

like i said, & as you will all see--> the product will speak for itself.

& again, i hope everyone can understand that i havn`t meant any offence to anyones frame in particular, just relaying the poor design & weaknesses in the ones i`ve seen & driven so far.

Nathan (another friend of mine) has a Honda powered round nose down the coast, ("Roundie" on here--> Shane Hall will testify it`s existance & you will see it at the muster) & it`s frame is a massive overkill,,, he`s taken my criticism really well because he understands what i`m on about, but at least it`s not just a hanging engine frame & actually supports the suspension assys quite well.

There are many ways to stuff a chook, some are simply better than others & we`re all entitled to our own opinion & i`m not "TELLING" anyone that they`re wrong,,, I could say that my mashed potatoe is the very best in the whole wide world & that`s because i honestly believe that it is,,, (It really is good) but in saying that i`m not telling anyone that their mashed potatoe is no good hey?

_________________
No offence intended here but--> anyone writing a book about minis 30 years ago may not have experienced such worn or stuffed-with components as we are finding these days.

You should put your heart & soul into everything you do.

Not really, it is made from 3mm plate, not the 6 plate that is more commonly used in custom frames. It could have been made from 2.5 plate like most parts of the stock frame but that size isn't common at local steel merchants.

I know that GTi_Mini has issues with the car and made further mods to it after I took the photos. I dunno whether he made frame mods.

I'd love his feedback on how the frame is holding up. As with any steel srtucture under variable loads. It isn't how it works in the first week that counts (except for being too flexible and affecting suspension geometry), but how well it resists cracking to pieces.

I've got a question that relates the unsubstantiated weakness of ALL the "hanging engine frames".

Given the 'cost effective' design of just about every component of the mini why on earth do people believe the original subframe design brief was nothing more than "build the cheapest thing we can"?

Secondly, why is it that people think it is a better idea to mimick the original subframe design and bastardise the jap engine mounts over bastardising the frame and retaining the jap engine mounts?

Yes there have been cases were a frame builder using the 'hanging engine frame' has had frames crack and bend but there is no need to tar them all with the same brush.

_________________
But he's thriving and striving and hugging the turns.

and how HEAVY will it all be then


and i tooooo like mashed potato, but it better have pepper in it or it's no good...

_________________

Well all you had to do was ask. Im back sort of, after a long break.

With regards to the frame. Its holding up fine. Really cant complain about it. I had the engine out (again) due to another blow out, but things have been done properly now so all good. I had a check over the frame, looking for any signs of stress over joins, welds and bends. Happy to report nothing of the sort. All I can say is that I wish the rest of the car was built to the same standard as the subframe. Would have cost me a shyte load less cash.

_________________

Torque Steer is a very evil thing. Fun..... but evil.

West Aussie Mini Boys Represent...!!!

Thanks JC, and very well said.

I would just like to add one thing if I may.......

JC is exactly right. The original Mini subframe was line of best fit in terms of materials, cost, machinery, capability, design objectives and weight. It was not the best type of subframe for strength, but it was cheap. It was not the lightest subframe, but it was the easiest to make. Do you get my point!!! The whole car was designed in 6 months for God's sake.

So, in terms of engineering, QBR did not base its design on a structural element that was designed in 1959, at the cheapest possible cost, using the cheapest possible materials, with the least outlay for specialist equipment. We could do better, much better and we did. QBR uses modern construction methods, better grade steel, and a better design that mounts the motor stiffer, and more structurally sound than the original. This allows the suspension to work better as well. Less flex means one can isolate the suspension, making for better suspension tuneability.

If one follows the design philosophy of the original, then I think that the ability to improve on that design is limted, seeing the design was flawed to begin with. Let me give you an example - the QBR subframe is designed, in a frontal collision (heaven forbid), to carry the engine down and back under the car, totally avoiding the chance of penetration into the passenger compartment. The original on the other hand, does not take this safety factor into account as it was not a design directive to begin with.

Now, throw into the mix the issues of buildability (we didnt want to have million dollar computer controlled machines to build it), cost (if its too dear, then we wont get any clients), quick (who wants to wait 6 months for a subframe), weight (its got to be light for its strength), strength (its got to be strong for its weight), aesthetics (round tube is sexy) and most of all simplicity (KISS principal is still the best principal). Also, we use the right tools. We use SolidWorks for design, and CosmoWorks for all our FEA studies. Does anybody else bother to computer stress test their frames?

And finally, there are many ways to skin a cat. The QBR subframe is just one of those ways. It meets all the design criteria that was meant for it. It does this as light, as strong, as cost effective and as simple as it could. I just dont understand why you would want to a) make things more complicated than they have to be, or b)start with a design that was compromise to begin with and now is 50 years old.

My $0.02

Cheers,
Tricky

P.S. QBR owes a big debt of thanks to Matt Power who is the actual pioneer for the QBR design, simply, we just improved on the design and optimised its buildability.

_________________
"Not Speeding Officer..........Qualifying"

Amen

F**** Spot on bevin

_________________

I hope you're not taking my posts as criticism Tricky. I was just pointing out that this mini (the blue one at COR) has a dodgy (in my opinion) connection detail between the tower and the tube. I think that, with time, the tube to plate weld WILL crack. Your subby, as noted in my post above, has a decent set of gussets and does not have the issue I raised.

The reason I like Con's Suzi frame is that the original load paths are maintained and with relative ease one could confirm that the frame is as strong and as rigid as the original.

I believe the width of a 4EFTE would make this frame strategy much more difficult to achieve.

I do a lot of design reviews as part of my work (i'm listed here: www.bpeq.qld.gov.au ) and you get to be a bit blunt with your comments after a while. If it helps, there were plenty of details about that single seater buggy above that I didn't like when I saw it at the Muster.

M