Category Archives: C4

Building Your First Roll Cage: What You Should Know

By | | , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

If you are going to race you need to be safe.  Now, I don’t have a roll cage in my cars and I do race them from time to time (on a track or SCCA – not on the street.) but I’m not going to be putting down numbers where you really need one.  But still building one is always a “safe” bet.  This build is for a C5 Corvette but the principles are the same for any car, even my Mustang.

This is from Corvettesonline.com

Andrew Wolfby on July 17, 2012

Most race cars are required to have one. Most street cars don’t. Get on your lid and you’ll wish you had one. It both keeps you safe and keeps your car stiff.

We’re of course talking about roll cages, and in this featured tech piece we’re going to take a look at the in’s and out’s of the basic roll cage, from the materials they’re constructed of, to where you can have one installed, what it will cost you, and what NHRA regulations you need to know before you chop up your prized vehicle and start bending and welding.

To really get a good understanding of the business of roll cages, who better to sit down and chat with than some of the veterans in the industry who make their living building race car chassis and chassis components? Below, you’ll hear from the likes of Chris Alston’s Chassisworks, Wild Rides Race Cars, Alston Race Cars, and Ridetech (for the street and muscle car inclined) as they share their knowledge and experiences in this pseudo beginner’s guide to roll cages.

The Basics

At the surface, a roll bar and a roll cage are designed to accomplish one very critical goal — to keep the driver safe should they be involved in an accident;  particularly a crash that involves the shiny side down. But as chassis builders found early on, there’s more function to that puzzle of bars than just safety, which we’ll get into later. As most of our readers know, a roll bar and a roll cage are not the same thing. Same purpose, different execution.

Shown here is a visual difference between your basic 4-point roll cage and an 8-point roll cage from the Chris Alston’s Chassisworks catalog. The bars shown in blue are optional.

The basic, 4-point roll bar consists of a main hoop behind the driver, two rear struts, and an optional cross brace on the main hoop should you need it or the rules require it. From there, you can go with a 6-point roll bar that includes a driver and passenger side door bar, while an 8-point setup includes a pair of rear-facing side bars for extra support of the main hoop.

Moving on to roll cages, you first get into the 8-point roll cage, which includes a main hoop, cage sides that route along the A-pillar, a windshield brace across the forward section of the roof, a back brace bar, roll cage gussets, and subframe struts. A 10-point cage includes rear struts and commonly an X-bar through those rear struts for torsional support.

Once you go beyond the basics, you start getting into 12-point and 14-point cages and on into full tube chassis cars with Funny Car cages that fall under the SFI 25.X certifications. Today, however, we’re going to focus on your first roll cage — the basics.

NHRA Regulations You Should Know

So even though the rules say you don’t have to run it, we really suggest you put at least an 8-point in any car that’s going to be raced. – Jim Wright

The National Hot Rod Association, the premier governing body in the sport of drag racing, outlines a number of requirements for roll bars and roll cages for racers competing at sanctioned tracks and events the world over, based on elapsed time and, in some cases, on speed.

Vehicles running 11.00 to 11.49 in the 1/4-mile or 7.00 to 7.35 in the 1/8-mile (including those with T-tops), convertibles running 11.00 to 13.49 (7.00 to 8.25), and dune-buggy-type vehicles running 12.00 and slower are required to have a roll bar installed in the vehicle.

Stepping up the performance ladder, a roll cage is mandatory for any vehicle running 10.99 (6.99) or quicker or exceeding 135 mph. In any full-bodied vehicle however that maintains an unaltered firewall, floor, and body running between 10.00 and 10.99 (6.40 and 6.99) a roll bar is permitted in place of a roll cage.

In these two photos, you can see the comparison between a frame and unibody car. On the left is a unibody car with the NHRA mandated 6 x 6 x .125

Despite the regulations, nothing says you can’t overdo your setup and run a full 12- or 14-point cage on a 12-second car. Fact is, you can never be too safe. “Our philosophy has always been that in the case of a rollover, the roll cage that protects the top of the windshield is much stronger and provides a lot more protection,” explains Jim Wright of Chris Alston’s Chassisworks. “So even though the rules say you don’t have to run it, we really suggest you put at least an 8-point in any car that’s going to be raced.”

If you’re working with a car with an OEM frame, the roll bar/cage must be attached to the frame, while in unibody cars (which make up most late model cars), a 6-inch square steel plate measuring 1/8-inch thick must be welded to the floor as a base for each bar that makes its point of contact inside the car. Bolted-in bars require a pair of 6-inch steel plates — one underneath and one above, with four 3/8-inch bolts through the rocker sill to hold the two plates together.

Digging into materials, all tubing has to measure 1-3/4-inch outer diameter, with mild steel .118-inch thickness and chromoly .083-inch. Swing-out side bars, popular for many cars that will be driven on the street and climbed in and out of, are permitted on cars running 8.50 and slower, with a number of caveats in terms of the clevis, bolts/pins, and more.

The NHRA, in conjunction with the SFI Foundation, has put in place mandates for welding processes that must be used on both mild steel and chromoly. As well, plating and grinding of the welds is expressly prohibited.

All roll bars/cages constructed of 4130 chromoly tubing must be welded using an approve TIG heliarc process, while mild steel must be done with an approved MIG wire feed or TIG heliarc process. Grinding and plating of the welds is prohibited, so keep these points in mind if you’re a do-it-yourselfer.

The 2012 NHRA Rulebook has 12 pages in the General Regulations section that pertain to frame requirements, which is far more than we could ever outline here in detail. If you’re considering building a roll bar/cage yourself, we’d suggest if you’re not already an NHRA member, to either get yourself signed up or pick up a copy of the NHRA Rulebook, which is available for $10 from the NHRA Store online.

Moly Versus Mild

Your choice of material for a roll bar/cage comes down to one of two options: mild steel or chromoly. Each one, when built within the specifications of the NHRA rulebook, offers the same amount of strength and protection. What it really boils down to then is a tradeoff between cost and speed. How fast do you want to go?


The Weight Debate
By nature and pound for pound, chromoly is a stronger material than mild steel, and that allows for chromoly to be a thinner wall tubing (.083″ compared to .113″). This gives chromoly a distinct advantage in terms of weight, but that advantage comes at a cost that customers must weigh (no pun intended) before they build.

Mild steel is far less expensive than chromoly, but comes with the disadvantage of more weight. For the grass roots racer on a budget that we’re targeting here, that cost versus weight decision can be a big one.

“The only reason to use chromoly is if you’re building something that the class requires it or if weight is a real big factor, because it will be lighter,” explains Wright. “Technically they’re the same strength, and chromoly is an upgraded material that will certainly save you some weight, but 99-percent of people buy the mild steel because of the price.”

For comparisons sake, using a 12-point roll cage from Chassisworks as an example, the mild steel version will tip the scales about 50-60 pounds heavier than the chromoly, according to Wright, but is nearly double the price.

As pointed out above in the NHRA regulations, the minimum wall thickness on mild steel is more than that of chromoly to achieve the same result, and that is because, by nature, chromoly offers more strength pound-for-pound, so to speak.

“Some people say ‘well chromoly is stronger’, and it is stronger on its own, if you took equal tubing of the same wall thickness and tested them side-by-side, but they’re allowing you to run a thinner wall thickness with chromoly to save some weight and still equal the same structure, strength-wise,” explains Gene Giroud of Wild Rides Race Cars.

Two Birds With One Stone

The primary means of a roll bar or cage is to protect the driver, but barring such an incident, those bars will serve a daily purpose of stiffening the entire vehicle up and creating less body roll and twist. Each bar added to a roll cage adds another dimension of structural support and rigidity. For example, the X-brace shown here is not only stronger than the straight rear struts, but also provides added torsional strength to the car. The downside, however, is that the X-bar essentially eliminates your back seat.

The benefit of a roll cage is really two-fold. It’s designed to protect you first and foremost, but the every day bonus to the existence of a roll cage is improved stiffness of the vehicle, and that’s a big plus for drag racers planting the tires to the ground.

“On the surface, the primary purpose of a roll cage is crash protection, but in reality, you only use the cage in that context one time,” explains Bret Voelkel of RideTech. “But every time you start the car and drive it, the roll cage offers a lot of structural and torsional strength, and that gets applied every time you use the car.”

On the surface, the primary purpose of a roll cage is crash protection, but in reality, you only use the cage in that context one time. – Bret Voelkel

Adding more bars to a roll bar/cage not only adds to the structural integrity from a safety standpoint, but each additional bars presents more rigidity to the chassis.

“The more points you put in the car, the stiffer the platform of the car is going to be. And if you put an “X” in it for example, that’s going to make it even stronger,” says Mike Ruth of Alston Race Cars. “And the more horsepower and torque you have, and the better ‘bite’ the car gets, the more it’s going to try twisting on the launch, so more bars you add the more rigid the chassis will be.” By maintaining that stiffness within the body and chassis, the shock and suspension tuning adjustments that you make will deliver results you can truly see.

Buying A Cage For The Street Versus The Strip

Something to keep in mind when you’re in the market for a roll cage is the fact that what’s designed to save your life in a dedicated race car isn’t necessarily optimum for a car that spends all or most of its life on the street. Most chassis builder, including those we spoke with in this article, generally build their roll bars/cages to NHRA specifications regardless, but these chassis builder also know there are safety discrepancies between a street and a race car.

What’s designed to keep you safe on the track can be your worst enemy on the street. Imagine getting broadsided and striking the cage seen here without a helmet on. For this reason, many chassis builders will shy a customer away from a full roll cage if the primary use of the vehicle is street driving.

Said Giroud, “The roll cage that’s designed to save your life on the track is meant for an environment where you’re using proper safety gear — a helmet, harnesses, and everything else. You don’t want to put a person in unsafe situation by putting too many bars in it, because it presents what I would consider a more unsafe situation than too few bars on a race car. You don’t want to put a bar by the drivers head and then they get broadsided and hit their head on that bar and not have a helmet on. What’s there to save your life at the track can be your worst enemy on the street.” There’s no specific rule of thumb for track versus street split time, but if you’re doing a considerable amount of street driving, a roll bar might be your best, and safest, bet.

This Ain’t The Zoo’s Tiger Cage

Though not currently NHRA legal, RideTech offers a bolt-in, stainless steel roll cage known as the Tiger Cage that’s easy to install and form-fits a number of specific and popular early and late model muscle cars. Shown here is the complete Tiger Cage system, with a seat brace bar and door bars.

For the muscle car crowd amongst us or for those looking for affordable and easy-to-install alternatives to the weld-in roll cage, the folks at RideTech offer their Tiger Cage stainless steel roll cage system. These bolt-in cages are pre-engineered and designed for specific makes and models, with patented clamp collar components that tie the cage to the structure of the car for safety and rigidity. And the best part is, you can install these at home in 4-6 hours using just three simple tools found in any basic toolbox. “The Tiger Cage is basically a modular, bolt-in, stainless roll cage system for muscle cars,” says Voelkel.

Here, you can see the clamping system used to hold the Tiger Cage together. Although geared toward the muscle car and street crowd, this kit is in fact NHRA-legal for cars running 10.99 and slower.

“We used stainless for a number of reasons,” continued Voelkel. “Beyond the aesthetic benefits of it, you don’t have to paint it or worry about scratching the paint. The stainless that we used actually has a higher tensile strength than mild steel and approaches that of chromoly.”

The Tiger Cage is sold in modules, beginning with a base 4-point roll bar containing a main hoop and  two rear struts that will allow you to retain the back seat. Additions that include a door bar that are situated down low on the door can also be added for more structural support. Tiger Cage’s are currently available for 2005 and later Mustangs, ’67-69, ’70-73, and ’74-81 Camaros, as well as ’64-67 and ’68-72 GM A-Bodies and ’68-74 Novas.

How Do You Find A Good, Quality Chassis Shop?

The world wide web and magazines are your friend. Publications like National Dragster feature extensive ads for chassis builders and chassis manufacturers, and the use of web search engines like Google and Bing will turn up plenty of builders in your area.

But chances are you don’t buy many things without trying them out first, or at the very least, finding out everything you can about the product beforehand. And the same applies to a roll bar/cage. So, if you really want to find a good, quality chassis man in your area, the best thing you can do is to visit the local track, take a look at some of the cars, and ask questions.

Here, you can see a number of different roll cages installed in a variety of cars out of the Alston Race Cars shop. In addition to complete in-house chassis service, Alston also sells complete roll cage kits that are ready to notch and weld.

“Without a doubt, going to the track and talking to people and asking who did their chassis or cage is the best way to go about it,” says Giroud. “If you see something you like, you can ask who did it, and how their experience was. Word of mouth is the best way.” After you’ve talked to the racers and asked the questions you’d like to ask, a visit to the chassis shop will often give you tell-tale signs of the service you’ll get.

“I always tell customers to come to our shop, and then visit some others, and make a mental note of the cars that are in their shops, and then go back three weeks later and see how much work has been done to those cars. If they’re covered in dust and in the same condition as the last time, chances are your car is going to sit a while,” says Ruth.

Manufacturers like Chassisworks, which make and sell components but don’t construct/install them, do have networks of chassis shops that use their products around the country, and in the example of Chassisworks, Wright relayed to us that they can generally find a customer a shop within 100 miles of their location. But again, the rule applies that asking questions at the track is always best case. With decreased racing budgets and an influx of tools commonly used by chassis shops more readily available these days, many racers today are taking on the project themselves in their own garages in increasing numbers.

With easy and affordable access to tools used by chassis builders these days, more and more people are going the DIY route for installation of their roll cages. Alston Race Cars’ Mike Ruth cited a $49 tubing notcher available at Harbor Freight as a prime example of a tool plenty capable of doing the job at home.

According to Ruth, the DIY route has become more popular for entry-level customers looking for a roll bar/cage. “Our pre-bent roll cages come with great instructions, and it’s really not that difficult to install a roll cage,” says Ruth. “The average guy that’s out there hot rodding has used carpenter tools and knows what a level and all that is. You can buy a very inexpensive tubing notcher that hooks to a drill press and after a few cuts, you could make a cut as good as anybody.”

What Should You Pay?

The cost to have a roll bar/cage varies widely from region to region, and a lot depends on which shop you have it done at. A one-man band that does chassis work in his sop on the side may be much cheaper than a full-time shop with dedicated welders and fabricators, with overhead costs and insurance. But don’t be fooled by presentation, as there are countless part-time chassis guys out there that do exceptional craftsmanship.

As Wild Rides Race Cars’ Gene Giroud stated, I always tell people to keep in mind they’re not buying tires here, so don’t go price shopping.” The craftsmanship and level of service you’ll recieve will always play a pivotal role in how much you’ll pay for a roll cage, and as always, keep in mind that you do in fact get what you pay for. Seen here is a roll bar with a swing-out drivers door bar in a ’55 Chevy out of the Alston Race Cars shop.

Like anything else, you get what you pay for in a roll bar/cage. Go to the track, check out the quality of the work you see, and compare prices amongst those shops. The ones that charge more may not always deliver the better product, and vice versa, the cheap shops aren’t necessarily rolling shoddy jobs out, either.

“I always tell people to keep in mind they’re not buying tires here, so don’t go price shopping,” says Giroud. “You don’t get the same product from everyone.”

Whether you’re on the hunt for a quality chassis shop to install your roll cage or you’re diving into the project yourself, the best thing you can do for yourself is take the time to do your homework. Consider how you’ll use the vehicle, both now and several years down the road. Weigh the cost versus weight debate, and decide what meets your needs. Again, the primary goal here should be keeping you safe regardless of your driving habits, and remember, you can never be too safe.

Engine Building/Mods – Piston Speed

By | | , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment 
OK, if there has one thing that being a forum surfer has taught me over my brief tenure of being such, is there are a lot of things that affect, generate, hinder and enhance engine performance that are not understood or simply just ignored.

Most of this stuff is simply just not shared, be it that they are considered speed secrets or the lay person simply does not understand it, whatever.

I wanted to start a thread to discuss some factors that affect engine performance and the parameters that performance engines live within. Read, argue, whine or cry, this is the truth.  And as Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"- "you can't handle the truth".  Well, maybe you can, let's find out.

Get your calculators ready, over the next few weeks, you will need them.

Now, with all of that out of the way, let's start by nailing down the first thing we need to consider when wanting to build a new engine and get the maximum performance out of it.  Knowing what we want to use it for will deliver the best possible results.  Building a high strung engine to take the family to picnics on Sundays will probably not deliver the experience you are after. Well, maybe the experience you are after, but probably not everyone else in the car.

The best place to build a starting point is to determine intended purpose of our engine and then correlate this to a range of piston speeds.

Piston speed will have a crazy-huge effect on how the engine performs.

I am going to break this down into different categories.  For those of you playing along at home, I will give you several examples to experiment with, I am not going to lead you down a primrose path to a result that I have predetermined.  Your rules, build what you want without spending a dime.

OK, the categories are:

Street engines (stock)
Mild performance or street/strip
Endurance/NASCAR/Road Race
Maximum effort (Mileage limited/drag race)
AYFKM effort (Component failure limited)

Now, the classification for each of these categories are split by how fast we fling the piston. But first, I guess we need to know how to determine piston speed so we can then determine which category we belong in, or vice versa.

The formula for Mean Piston Speed (MPS) is MPS in ft per minute=(inches of crankshaft stroke x (engine RPM/6))

Depending on the stroke of the crankshaft, and the RPM you expect to see, we can categorize our engine. This will affect our pocketbook, because it will directly affect the type and quality of parts we need to buy to support our performance objectives.

Now let's put these categories in a manner where piston speed can help us determine what we are building. Or, what we need to build to fit into a certain performance category.

Street engines (stock)                                   2000 to 3000 ft/min
Mild performance or street/strip                         3000 to 4000 ft/min
Endurance/NASCAR/Road Race                               4000 to 5000 ft/min
Maximum effort (Mileage limited/pro class drag race)     5000 to 6000 ft/min
AYFKM effort (Component failure limited)                 6000 to 7500+ ft/min

OK, so if you tried a few different combinations, you probably realize we can change the category by solely changing the stroke, changing our RPM, or both.  So great, wow, what a speed secret.  Thanks a whole pantload Parker, I read through all of this for that?  You're an asshole.  Yeah, I know I am, thanks. But the thing that we need to understand about the formula is you need to understand engine speed (RPM) is power.  Let's take a look at two theoretical engines and another formula, this one you have probably seen.

Horsepower = (Torque x RPM)/5252

By solely changing RPM, I can make one of these engines a grocery getter and the other, an F1 contender.

Two little six cylinders; both make an eyeball popping 246 pound feet of torque  :lol 

In the first one, my maximum usable RPM is 4500, and when plugged into the above formula (go ahead and do it, doofus), we see the engine is capable of making about 210 horsepower.  :facepalm: 

Now we will leave everything the same as far as torque, but let's give the engine an F1 race car caliber RPM of 19,250.  After you do the math (I don't have to call you doofus this time, do I?) we see that though my torque stayed 246 lb/ft, my horsepower climbed to a panty-dropping 910!  :willy 

RPM is power folks, RPM is the shit.  RPM can also stand for "Ruins People's Motors" if you don't know how to handle your newfound knowledge.

Piston action has a dramatic effect in the way air and fuel enter, and exhaust leaves the engine. Going back to our categories, we are going to relate the effectiveness of this piston action with our engine and piston speed categories. We do this using something called Volumetric Efficiency, or VE. VE simply put is; if I have a 100 cubic inch engine, and that engine can breathe in and expel 100 cubic inches of air for every camshaft (two crankshaft) revolution(s), it is 100 percent volumetric efficient. If the design of the heads, intake and exhaust only allow 85 cubic inches of airflow through the engine, it is 85% volumetric efficient.  If it can move 110 cubic inches of air flow, then it is 110% volumetric efficient.  Are engines over 100% VE possible?  Why yes, yes they are, and I am going to show you how to build one. Wow, a 350 cubic inch engine that can move 385 cubic inches worth of airflow?  Oh yes, yes indeed.

But that will wait until the next installment, for now, let this digest.

Street engines (stock)                                   2000 to 3000 ft/min              80-90% VE
Mild performance or street/strip                         3000 to 4000 ft/min              90-110% VE
Endurance/NASCAR/Road Race                               4000 to 5000 ft/min              110-120% VE
Maximum effort (Mileage limited/pro class drag race)     5000 to 6000 ft/min              120 to 127% VE
AYFKM effort (Component failure limited)                 6000 to 7500+ ft/min             125 to 128% VE

So we have learned that how fast the piston moves has a great affect on the performance I can expect.  And we also learned that piston speed is primarily controlled by the stroke of the crankshaft and the RPM of the engine. We also see how changing piston speed makes my engine fall into different performance categories.

Next time I will give you some real world examples I have tuned on the engine dyno and tested on the drag strip, as well as begin to talk about hw we get the air into the engine to take advantage of all of this piston speed we just talked about.

Cheers,  Parker


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The topic can be found here:
http://www.arizonacorvetteenthusiasts.net/arizonavette/forums/index.php?showtopic=21188

Steve’s C4 Update

By | | , , , , , , ,
2 Comments 
I've been fiddling a bit with the Vette.  I have a few projects to do now that I've become a lot more familiar with the car in the last two and a half months.

Although the car sounds cool, the cheap aftermarket mufflers are completely rusted inside.  The baffles are all loose with lots of holes.  On the outside they look new.  They are the source of most of the rattles.

The lumbar supports on the sport seats don't work.  I can't hear the pumps run so inspecting electrics first on those.

Rear speaker amps are toast.  Expensive so it's not high on the list.

Steve’s 1990 C4

Tranny service due.  No biggie and not expensive.

PRNDL lights are out.  Not bad considering it's 22 years old and all other lights work.  I was amazed at the sheer number of lights inside.  Courtesy lights and mood lighting.  The interior alone must have 15 individual lights.

Drivers side headlight motor needs to be repaired.  It works most of the time. LOL.

It's a pretty short list considering the age.

It pretty much sits in the garage.  We are in the 100's (110 today) this week so it's morning and evening use.  The ac does not work but it still has the factory seals on the service ports so I'm hoping for good news there.  We do have R12 available here.  I unbolted the roof when I got it and it hasn't been back on since.  I always wanted a convertible and the coupe is a good compromise.

The most annoying thing about the car is the static electricity. It doesn't shock me or anything but dust sticks to it like glue and the California duster only moves it from place to place.  I never thought about a "plastic" body in that way.  The duster works just fine on my steel cars.

C5 250 mhp

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

Listen if it’s a Corvette and  you want to make  it go faster…I’m fine with that. Who cares, why you want to make it go faster?

From http://www.corvetteonline.com

What would possess someone to create a Corvette with over 2,200 horsepower? Does it really matter? With an amazing feat like that, we didn’t think so. Take a look at the unbelievable Top Speed C5 Z06 that has over three times the amount of horsepower as a modern ZR1 at the April Ohio Mile event in the Wyldfantasies Media Studios video above.

 Images: Hinson Motorsports

Built by Hinson Motorsports, “Record Hunter” is among the most powerful Corvettes we’ve ever seen and there’s reason for that. Bringing the car to its astounding 2,246 HP rating at 7,800 RPM is a massive build the crew completed back in March.

Under the car’s hood you’ll find a 427 cubic inch RHS Aluminum Tall Deck Block assembled and machined by Butler Performance. Stuffed inside this block are aluminum connecting rods, Diamond pistons and a Callies Ultra Center Counter Weight Billet Camshaft, as well as a custom high capacity oil pan from Doug Lee Engineuity.

Making up the engine’s top end are TEA-ported Trick Flow 245cc heads, Crower roller rocker arms, COMP Cam pushrods, a custom COMP solid roller camshaft and a GM EFI carb-style intake manifold. But these components alone aren’t what gives Record Hunter its massive amount of horsepower.

That extra boost comes from an intricate custom turbocharger system featuring a 118mm turbo, custom air to water intercooler, Tial wastegate and blow off valves, and a 5-inch downpipe all working to the tune of 34 PSI manifold pressure.

Of course, a build like this makes for extra fuel needs, which the team has dialed in using a Holley Dominator EFI system and Bosch 160 pound-per-hour injectors, as well as a regulator and fuel pumps from Fuelab.

The whole build is backed by a RPM-built TR6060 transmission with a SPEC twin disc clutch and an RPM ZR1 differential with Quaife LSD.

Surprisingly, the Corvette looks relatively like the C5 production car it started out as, minus the modified hood, roll cage and custom adjustable rear wing, of course. But obviously, looks can be deceiving. And 18-inch wheels from True Forged Wheels wrapped in Hoosier R6 rubber make sure that as much of Record Hunter’s power as possible is delivered successfully to the ground to turn heads like no other C5 can do.

 After completing the build in March, the Hinson Motorsports crew took Record Hunter to the Ohio Mile, an East Coast Timing Association event in Wilmington, Ohio on April 29th to see what it could do. As the first standing mile event the Corvette raced at since its build, the April Ohio Mile proved to be a great tuning opportunity for the crew since the mile race was speed-limited to 150 MPH.

It may not look too far off from stock, but Record Hunter packs nearly 2,000 more horsepower than a stock C5 Z06.

As the car’s name suggests, future goals for Record Hunter are to set new standing mile records. With a car potentially capable of topping out at over 250 MPH, we’re sure Hinson Motorsports will be making history with the car this season. Be sure to watch out for Record Hunter at any of the standing mile events this year. To check out some in-car footage of the first standing mile pass the Corvette did since its build, watch the video below.

http://youtu.be/cry4XC0H1Ow

http://youtube/cry4XC0H1Ow

Happy 4th of July 2012

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Freedom starts as a dream, then a desire, then a want,  then a need, then a right, but it requires action and sacrifice to obtain.

Thanks to all those that came before us.

Car Show in – Rothrist, Switzerland

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Remember a few post ago that covered MOPAR’s in Sweden? (Short Link:  http://wp.me/pKHNM-174)  I wrote how interesting it was to see US sheet metal in other countries.

Well check out this car show in Rothrist, Switzerland.  This is from Andres Palomares who lives in Bern, Switzerland.  There are some great examples of US car history in this show.

Switzerland is beautiful and visited Interlaken several times while living in Europe.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

NEW VETTE OWNER!!! Steve’s 1990 C4

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments

Well another reader (long time reader) has gone where few dare to tread.  Yes I’m talking a Ford car guy, a Thunderbird owner and former owner of a very cool  Mercury Cougar wagon, is now a proud owner of a    1990 C4 Corvette!!!!

It’s a great looking Steve!!!!!!

Steve’s White C4

It’s in great shape and I am liking the wheels!!!

I’m sharing this Steve!!!!

Tim,

As a Ford guy I guess I’ve come over to the dark side.

I bought a 1990 standard Corvette with all the sporty stuff. Seats, suspension and all the electronic gizmos.

Super well cared for condition with all maintenance history since new. I does have a worn right muffler cushion.

Last evening was my first ride ever in a Corvette and of course I was driving. Rides rougher than a cob on a rough road as expected.
It also makes all the cool dual exhaust music. Two tops, one glass and more switches and gauges than I’ve ever seen before. No deterioration of the
interior or paint so it must have been garaged. It also has a fine sounding Bose system which was standard I think.
I did find a 1/8″ chip on the drivers front fender.

Yup, I’m on the dark side and was wooed by the devil himself to get me in a Chevy…..
We have some streets in various stages of reverting to dirt here. Some very rough streets. The right muffle mount is collapsed (rubber) so it rattles. Roof panel does not rattle at all.

It’s in quite good condition for 22 years old. No interior or exterior work required.

It runs sooooo good. I think it may have never been driven in the rain. Underneath looks new, no tarnishing of the aluminum suspension bits.

The PO provided replacement “dew wipes” for the doors and a new power antenna that’s to replace the one that is stuck up. Please don’t tell me I have to remove the rear fascia to replace the antenna. LOL.

I did manage to scare myself a bit last Saturday. I’m not used to a posi-trac rear end…Ha Ha. Just a little sideways. It sure accelerates quicker than expected for only 245 horses. I’m averaging high 17’s around town which actually is unexpected. I guess the trick is 345 lbft or torque……..”

Thanks for sharing your Vette Steve…..NOW LETS TALK ABOUT SOME MODs!!!

Thanks for reading.
Tim

It’s Spring Time….and Beehives are the Buzz Part 1

By | | , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

No this isn’t going to be one of those talks and no we aren’t going to run out and hung a tree, ok…if you must…go ahead I’ll wait…..(insert bored whistling)……(more bored whistling)…..Ok…are you done?!!

As I get closer to getting the heads on the Mustang, I’m going to have to begin picking any changes I want made to the CJ heads. While cruising the web checking out options, I ran across this piece (Corvette related but springs are springs as far as an engine is concerned) and there are some good tips here.

Good reading.

Beehive Springs Sound Great, But Will They Work For You?

by on April 18, 20

Quick! What the fastest moving component in your engine? If you’ve taken a hint from the title of this article, you probably guessed correctly – it’s your valve springs, those tight little bundles of joy that open and close your engine’s valves.

Beehive springs come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The benefits of moving to Beehive springs where possible (and today few situations are not Beehive compatible) are many.

Beehive springs, such as those offered by COMP Cams, offer a huge number of benefits over stock-style cylindrical springs; reduced valve spring mass, faster valve acceleration, increased valve train rigidity, reduced valve train component stress and a whole laundry list of other positives.

Best of all, the word has gotten out and folks all over the country are using them for a wide variety of applications from street performance to extreme racing endeavors. That’s a really good thing.

Along with their success has come some confusion over exactly which beehive is right to purchase. Currently there are over a dozen beehive spring styles out there, each offering some unique take, be it in the seat pocket diameter, ovate wiring diameter, pitch or internal spring “frequency.” Regardless increased selection has bred some minor confusion, albeit easily cured.

Beehive springs are conical shaped springs that employ this powerful shape in the creation of a spring that can deliver both excellent performance and lowered seat pressures. With lower seat pressure, valve train components (especially the pushrods, rockers and lifters) are less stressed to perform the same work.

This beehive spring weights in at 99 grams, while a comparable conventional spring is 121 grams.

The difference between beehive and conventional cylindrical springs is obvious especially when you compare them in this manner. Note the dramatic difference in retainer diameter equating to less valve train weight.

According to COMP, effective beehive springs can support an additional 700rpm over stock cylindrical springs. How? It just stands to reason that the smaller coils at the top of the spring don’t require as much force to get the valve moving quickly, much quicker than conventional style springs. The higher rpm potential equates to better durability and performance.

There are some very knowledgeable engine builders who don’t understand how a single coil spring can be better than a dual conventional spring.

“Its like watching a race car running 60-foot elapsed times on the drag strip,” stated Bill Godbold, Chief Engineer for COMP Cams. “For example, take two identical cars with equivalent 500 hp engines.

“One has stock suspension and the other a sophisticated racing suspension. The car with the race suspension will get going more quickly and achieves better 60-foot time. The same principle works with beehive spring mechanics.”

 

Thanks for reading.  Part II coming up.

Tim

Taking the Vette project for a test drive.

By | | , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

image

You know the feeling.  When you JUST have to take ‘her’ out for a spin – no matter the condition.

You can’t see in this pic, but there’s no hood, no t-tops and lots of body work to be done….. but great looking rims and new meat (tires)…it was running a bit rough but still sounded good!!!

Got an unfinished project but still take it for a spin.  Post up  a note and a pic.

Tim

Larry Shinoda – Corvettes Designs

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments

I ran across on ton http://www.corvettereport.com and thought I pass it along. If only they made some of these!!!  You got to check out the 1991 C4 body.

Wow – Thanks for reading.  Tim

A Look Back At Corvettes Designed by Larry Shinoda

Dateline: 3.30.12

Hot rodder Shinoda teams up with Bill Mitchell and defined the “Corvette look.”

Perhaps it was “in the stars” that Larry Shinoda was in the right place at the right time. If you strictly look at Shinoda’s resume in 1956, you might ask, “How did this guy get in the front door?” As a young man, the only thing Larry ever graduated from was high school, Army boot camp, and the School of Hard Knocks. Twelve-year-old Larry had his life turned inside out when along with thousands of Japanese-Americans, he and his family were sent to interment camps for the duration of WW II. The experience had a profound effect on his personality. A self-professed “malcontent” Shinoda could be a little difficult to work with.

After his Army tour of duty in Korea, Shinoda attended Art Center School of Design in Los Angeles, but truly hated being there. He could see no purpose in taking the classes in design and the various art mediums, such as watercolor painting. He was a car guy/hot rodder and he wanted to draw and design cars! So he left Art Center without graduating and based strictly on his car illustrations, landed a job at Ford, then Studebaker/Packard. Just a year after starting his career, he landed a job as a designer at General Motors.

The rest is the stuff of legend. Street racing and blowing the doors off of Bill Mitchell’s souped up Buick and quickly being taken under Mitchell’s wing. Things like that happens, but rarely. There was obviously some chemistry between the two men, perhaps it was because both men could be brash and had strong opinions.

Shinoda got his first big break when Mitchell tapped the 28-year-old to translate the body design of the ‘57 Q-Corvette on to the mule chassis from Duntov’s aborted Corvette SS project. The finished car became Mitchell’s 1959 Stingray Racer, which formed the styling theme for the ‘63 Corvette. From there, Shinoda got one peach project after another. It’s worth noting that the design of the Stingray Racer is held in such high esteem that current Corvette chief designer, Tom Peters (C6 Corvette and late model Camaro designer) is on record stating that his ‘09 Corvette Stingray Concept (aka Transformers Corvette) was influenced by the ‘59 Stingray.

During his almost 13 years at GM, Larry designed numerous special Corvettes, Corvairs, and several race cars, as well as his usual duties working out the styling details of various production cars. Presented here are Larry Shinoda’s most important Corvette designs. Later this week, we’ll take a look at Larry’s very slick Corvairs, and race cars, including the body design for Pat Flaherty’s 1956 Indy 500-winning Watson-Offenhauser.– Scott

1959 Stingray Racer
The 1959 Stingray Racer is still a stunningly beautiful car design. The idea of a “broad, flat top surface” was to create a reverse airfoil that would pull the car down. The problem was that the sharp leading edge was too high and at high speed, more air was knifing under the car rather than going over the car, causing a serious front lift problem. The production Sting Rays and even the Grand Sport Corvettes all had the same trouble. This could have been corrected with a slight forward rake, if the nose had drooped down a n inch or so, and a chin spoiled was added. The Grand Sport replica cars from Duntov Motors use these corrections and front end stays where it belongs at high speed – DOWN.

1963 Sting Ray Concept Art
The road to fully worked out new car designs was littered with concept art – most of which was probably thrown away. Here we see a headlight treatment study. Sorting out the production car’s rotating hidden-headlight design was a brilliant but challenging project. Note the absence of hood lines and windshield wipers. It also looks like they were considering scoops on the back edge of the doors.

1961 Mako Shark I Showcar – AKA “The Corvette Shark”

With the basic Sting Ray design approved for production, Bill Mitchell had Shinoda design an exaggerated version for a teaser show car. Known today as the Mako Shark-I, the car’s original name was simply, “Corvette Shark.” 1961 was still the “Jet Age,” so the car was originally shown with a plexi bubble top. It was kind of “Jetsons” neat-looking, but would anyone really want one for their daily driver?

1963 4-Seater Sting Ray Split-Window Coupe

The XP-720 4-Seater Corvette Sting Ray was an exploration into the possibility of the Corvette competing with the much better-selling Ford Thunderbird. Ed Cole, head of the GM car and truck group, thought it was a pretty good idea. After all, GM is in the business of selling cars – LOTS of cars. Since the public bought 73,051 Thunderbirds in 1961, compared to 10, 939 Corvettes, it seemed like a no-brainer. The story goes that a tall executive got stuck in the back seat and needed quite a bit of help getting out. The 4-seater concept was quickly dropped. Good!

1963 Production Corvette Sting Ray Split-Window Coupe

Look at 1963 cars from America and Europe and there’s NOTHING like the Corvete Sting Ray. The split-window was one of Bill Mitchell’s pet design elements and was a one year deal. Although the design concept of a “split rear window” wasn’t new with the Sting Ray (the 1950 VW Beetle had a “split” rear window), the overall presentation of the Split-Window Coupe Sting Ray looked like NOTHING else.

1964 XP-819 Rear-Engine Corvette Engineering Study

The Corvair was the only production car to come out of Ed Cole’s ‘57 Q-Chevrolet initiative and was considered very exotic when it came out in 1960. But trouble quickly set in and it wasn’t just Ralph Nader’s doing. The early Corvairs were not good cars. But the “rear-engine” concept was very alluring to Chevy engineer Frank Winchell. Frank insisted that with the correct size tires the inherent oversteering problem could be corrected. Winchell envisioned a rear-engine Corvette and Zora Duntov said, “No!” To prove his point, Winchell had Shinoda design a pretty body to cover the big V8 engine hanging out behind the trans-axle. Upon seeing Shinoda’s rough full-size drawing, Duntov asked, “Where did you cheat?” Where he cheated was that there were no real rear bumpers or crash zone on the back end. The concept was quickly dropped. it was also discovered that the car did excellent wheelies!

1966 Running Mako Shark-II Showcar

Bill Mitchell verbalized the parameters of the design and Larry Shinoda and a small group of designers and stylists worked out the details. It was as if lightning had struck twice – first with the Sting Ray and a few years later with the Mako Shark-II. The exaggerated fender humps have become THE signature Corvette profile. A non-running full-size version was shown to GM’s management in ‘65 and received unanimous approval as the next Corvette. While the new body and interior designs were being worked out, a second “running” Mako Shark-II was built to keep the Corvette fans stoked. Almost 50 years later, the Mako Shark-II is still a jaw-dropper!

1991 Mears-Shinoda C4 Corvette Body Kit

Larry left GM in 1968, stayed at Ford for one year, then formed his own design studio where he worked on all kinds of automotive and non-automotive design projects. Corvette body kits and add-on parts became very popular though the ‘70s and ‘80s. Three-time Indy 500 winner, Rick Mears teamed up with Shinoda and businessman Jim Williams in 1991 to create and offer the Rick Mears Special Edition Corvette.

Arguably the cleanest full-body-kit ever offered for a C4 Corvete, the coupe version lowered the coefficient of drag on the car from .34 to .30. The complete kit cost approximately $5,200, plus $3,000 for installation, and around $1,000 for a new paint job. With a cost of just over 10 grand on top of a $32,455 new ‘91 Corvette, there weren’t many takers. But, it was a very nice design.

Shinoda C5 Sting Ray Concept

The all-new C5 1997 Corvette was released in the Fall of ‘96 and Larry Shinoda got right on it. Note the date on the rendering, “1-6-97.” Obviously, Larry wanted to see more “Sting Ray” in the new C5. If you’re a mid-year Corvette fan, Shinoda’s concept looks pretty good. Larry died the following November and to the best of my knowing, there was never an effort to make a full-body kit based on what may well have been Larry’s last Corvette design project. Any fiberglass fabricators out there that would like to take a shot at the Shinoda C5 Sting Ray???