Birkin42

Looks like link has dropped the last bit so you might have to cut and paste it. I'll try it again: http://www.flickr.com/images/slideshow/thirdparty_thumb.jpg

The Toronto Triumph club hosts a British car show once a year at Bronte Creek Provincial Park in Oakville, Ontario. This years show was yesterday. The weather and turnout was great. They claim this is the largest show of it's kind in Canada with something like 600 or so cars attending. There were 17 7's present. Most were originals or Caterham's with one home built and one Superformance. Here's a link to a few pictures I took of a small sampling of a few interesting cars. http://www.flickr.com/images/slideshow/thirdparty_thumb.jpg Hope the link works. Enjoy

Like many, he was my favourite ralley hero's. I thought Rossi was pretty cool in dedicating his MotoGP win yesterday in a tribute to Colin. Never the easiest on cars but always spectactual. He will saddly be missed.

Oil pumps are positive displacement so the flow is directly proportional to the rpm minus a very small amount for internal leakage. Therefore the flow at redline (9000 rpm) should be 87.6 L/min. If the motor cannot flow this amount, the relief on the pump will dump the excess. You will know if this is happening since the pressure gauge will be pinned at the relief valve setting, which in the case of the S2000 is at 85 psi.

My Honda factory service manual states the stock internal oil pump's capacity as 58.4 L/min at 6000 rpm and it's pressure limit as 85 psi at 3000 rpm. I have a hard time believing that the factory manual is wrong and the actual pump output is 100 L/min. Based on my industrial hydraulics experience, for the 100L/min the recommended line size ID would be nearly 3/4" on pressure side (this is based on a recommende 20 ft/min max velocity, hydrualic oil viscosity, and typical hydraulic system pressures of 1000 psi and up). The recommended suction line size would be a wopping 1-5/8" ID. I know the stock Honda oil passages are smaller on both accounts. By comparison, the line sizes would be 9/16" and 1-1/4" for the 58.4 L/min. The 9/16" seems to closer match the stock engine. I am dry sumping my engine, but a still a long way off getting to the point where I know whether I've sized the pump and belt drive ratio correct. I used the info from the service manual to size the pump. I figured this was safer then basing it on unconfirmed information. I have the flexibility in my setup to speed the pump up and get significantly more flow out of it if required, but hopefully it will work correctly as intended.

I would assume you would need a 2nd fuel pump between the swirl pot and the engine? If not, how does this work? Is there a fuel line out of the swirl pot from the bottom? Is that the line we see behind the pot at the bottom? I know that Birkin's stock tank have only minimal baffling and have an issue with fuel starvation on the track when the tank is getting low. I was going to add a surge tank near the fuel tank. I was going to feed this with a low pressure pump from the main tank. Overflow from this surge tank would be routed back to the main tank. I would run the main fuel pump from the bottom of this tank to the engine. The return line from the engine would go back to the surge tank. This makes sense to me but maybe there is a better proven way to do this.

When you try to terminate a feature on the surface of another part using the 'up to next' or 'up to surface' feature, it is important that 100% of the cross section of the tube gets terminated by this command. If not, SolidWorks will not be able to calculate the termination. Even a hair line will cause problems. Just wait until you get to running FEA on models. Many time joints that work in SolidWorks can still cause problems in the FEA meshing. Keep up the good work. It really is 95% experience though this often means learning the hard way.

I am shoe horning an S2K into a Birkin, a narrow body car. An very tight fit requiring fame mod's to make it fit. I don't have anywhere near the room to use the stock S2K engine and transmission mounts. I have bought some universal urethane bushing mounts for the engine and am using a GM transmission mount that I found will fit. Haven't got to wiring and controls issues yet. Good luck.

Looks like you are getting the hang of it. Are you modeling the frame as 1 piece or as an assembly? It looks like 1 pc, which is how I did mine.

You definitely loose it if you don't use it! CosmosWorks is fine, its just the free CosmosExpress that comes standard with SolidWorks that I think is useless if not down right dangerous. CosmosWorks is not the ultimate by any means but as long as you understand how you are applying loads and restraints and can read between the lines to understand the results it is giving, it is OK for most stuff. It can really start to struggle with thin wall structures though. Of course, a lot of car parts fall into this catagory. I used CosmosWorks to analyze my frame modifications as well as my DeDion axle and other parts. Some of them including the frame I had to do things like analyze in sections or other tricks to make it work. Much rather go through this pain though then create it and hope it doesn't break. Part of the fun of building my own car I guess. What I mean by 'in context' is having geometry of one part being driven by the geometry of another part through mating the parts in the assembly. We cab take a simple example of bolting 2 flanges together. You could design each flange independantly and then mate them together in the assembly using the bolt pattern which is simple enough but does not garranty that all the holes in the pattern line up. Alternatively, you can create the 'parent' part with the hole pattern, create the 'child' part without the hole pattern, mate the flanges together in the assembly by some geometry other then the hole pattern, and then create the hole pattern of the 'child' flange with its size and location of holes driven by the 'parent' geometry. This can be done in the assembly model. This method assures that the hole patterns line up. In this simple case, it works easily, but when you start using the 'child' part elsewhere and have different 'configurations' with parts repositioned, things can start to screw up unless you've kept proper track of eveything as you go. This can be a powerful feature, but can cause you to pull your hair out when things don't work as expected. Feel free to email me if you have specific questions if you prefer. Have fun. Jack

If you are just getting use to SolidWorks, I'd recommend not designing stuff 'in context'. This is very easily done when designing in the assembly. It looks easy enough with simple parts and assemblies, but can easily get away from you as things get more complex. I have seen way too many try it when they are relatively inexperienced and just create a lot of problems that are hard to trace down and fix later. Years ago, I my company had a railway car manufacturer as a customer. They had just switched from AutoCAD to SolidWorks. They sent 75 engineers/designers to a 4 day SolidWorks course and then had them design a brand new railway car from the ground up with everything possible as in context. It was a total disaster. They eventually hired us to redo the whole thing from scratch. Most of my customers that are in the business of designing custom equipment won't allow designs with in context features. I would recommend you keep it simple to start with until you are more familiar with using the software. One other comment. The Cosmos Express that is included with SolidWorks is very dangerous in my opinion. Compared to using a proper FEA program, it can give some very bad results. I would highly recommend you verify all analysis with manual calculations and only us Cosmos Express to get you in the ball park to start with. SolidWorks is a fairly powerful tool. I'm sure you will have lots of fun creating designs in it.

As far as I know, they were only produced for a few years and are no longer available new. I believe an S1 rolling chassis was about the same price as a Birkin or maybe just a bit more, but I could be off on this.

Nice engines to drool over but likely a fairly expensive way to get hp, but I guess not too many options if you want light ponies, partictularly normally asperated ones. Should include the prices on those babies.

Are the Vette calipers floating with 2 pistons on 1 side or opposed piston? If you have a lot of take up travel as well as fairly light pedal force for a lot of stopping power, these are both signs that the M/C bore could be on the small side. Also, if you have significantly changed the front caliper effective bore area and have non proportionally enlarged the rears, the brake bias front to rear could be off. I suspect though that most of the pedal take up travel is the result of a combination of pads bedding in, alignment of the caliper to the rotor, how much the seals in the caliper draw the pistons back, how easily the caliper floats (if it is a single sided design) and how much the pads want to pull back via the spring plates etc. It can also be loose wheel bearings or a rotor issue like run out, taper or warpage. I would think the residual pressure valves would help with some of these. I would see if your front to rear bias is in the ball park with all the changes you've made. Jack

I'm assuming you've changed the front calipers when you changed the uprights. Are the pads that you are using new or have they been bedded in? Some time you have a long pedal until the pads are seated. Do you know the bore size of the new calipers compared to old? The ratio of the effective area of the old versus the new should give you a good idea if a master cylinder bore change is in order, and if so, how much. Jack

I believe their primary intended purpose is for applications like a formula car where the master cylinders are close to or lower then the brake calipers. This keeps the fluid from bleeding back and pulling the pads away. Don't know if they will do much for a more typical application, but I've never tried. Let us know how they work out.

Draw a vacuum in the frame. Lighter still!

mhc, Do you have a link or contact info for the person or company building the F20c powered Westfield? Getting the gearbox to fit is definitely one of the bigger challenges. Using another gearbox like a T-9 would make it a lot easier, but then you have the mating of the tranny to the engine to deal with. Jack

I bought my 2003 through Hayes at Wirewheel. At that time, Hayes had bought a few cars from Dennis Tobin when he was getting out of being the US rep for Birkin. I bought one of these cars from Hayes but it was direct shipped from Dennis. I thought Hayes was professional to deal with and wouldn't hesitate to do business with him again. Dennis on the other hand, is a different thing. I can understand why he decided to get out based on my experience. I have also had contact and dealings with Dick. He has been very helpful with information and questions, and was good to deal with for some parts I sold him. Jack

I use ThreeBond silicone liquid gasket #1211 for sealing the joint around the seal. I don't have a Zetec but it looks simiple to a number of other engines. This sealant is intended for sealing cases together on motorcycles and works great. This sealant does not glue the parts together but seals great. You can source it from most motorcycle shops. The stuff I have is a few years old now so they may have superseded by a new grade. Hope this is of some help. Jack

When I looked closely at Deman's car, I would say the primary reason they are running a 2 piece drive shaft is to keep the tunnel narrow while allowing the connection to the engine to be as far to the right as possible to centralize the engine. I did look closely at a BEC, a Deman in specific, before I decided I wanted to the car engine route. I spent the better part of a decade road racing motorcycles and know the thrill of their engines. These engines have to be one of the best bargains going in terms of technology and performance per dollar and weight. I also know that these engines, as good as they are, are designed specifically to power a motorcycle and not a car. They typically have a very tall first gear (my last street bike was a Honda RC30 with an 80 mph first gear!), and their clutches and gearboxes are not overly robust. A motorcycle has a high CofG, short wheelbase and low weight. This all adds up to the bike not being able to use all it's performance in lower gears and not putting too much load into things. You can easily fry the clutch in 1 launch in a race if you abused it. Also the lubrication system is not designed for the G loading a car can generate while turning. To some degree you can modify things to improve it, but you are still working around its fundamental design. I wanted a car that I could comfortably cruise with my wife as well at take to a track day or autocross for fun. That's a big spread that requires some compromise. I choose the car engine route since that made more sense to me, but I can easily justify going the other way. In fact, I can see myself building a BEC some time in the future, though that will need approval from the minister of war and finance, my wife. I think the suggestion to look for an engine like a FZ1 is a good idea. They will give you almost the same power with a better torque curve and a wider ratio transmission. You might be able to get the gear set out of a FZ1 and put it into an R1, but I'm not sure it would bolt right in. Not cheap either. I would think sport tourer, or big bore top speed bikes like the Busa or ZX14 are better then the 1000cc race oriented bikes as a donor for a BEC. Both are great options but likely one is more right for a given person and their desires.

Looks like I missed all the fun on the weekend. Had to take advantage of the great weather that finally showed up. Jack

I find the fit of a helmet very important and can very considerably from brand to brand and even models within a brand. I'd recommend you go to a place where you can try on a helmet and see how it fits. When you find what you like, you then can shop around for deals on the net or buy it locally. If the helmet doesn't fit right, particularly if it is too loose, it may not offer the protection it was intended to.

Are you trying to put it in the wider SV chassis or in the traditional width car? I'm in the process of putting as S2000 engine and transmission in my Birkin. It's a very tight fit. To get it to fit in, I am reworking most of the chassis tubes in the engine bay as well as the transmission tunnel. The good news is that the chassis torsional stiffen is up by 45% with almost no weight gain according to my FEA analysis. The mods that I'm making to the engine is to dry sump the motor, cut the oil pan down, and cut the valve cover down. Surprisingly , the valve train is about 1 1/2" below the top of the valve cover. It looks like this is all for venting the crankcase as well as the coils. I believe that with cutting down the sump and valve cover, it will fit without a bulge in the hood and the sump hanging about 2 1/2" below lower frame rail, but it is a very tight fit. It may prove that I need a bit of a buldge in the hood in the end though. I looked at an SV chassis earlier and it will likely fit in the width in the engine bay, though not sure about the transmission fitting in the tunnel. I think the engine's height will still be an issue unless you want to take the same route that I am following, and even then, it still might not clear the hood. It definitely won't just drop in as stock and clear your hood assuming the dimensions of a Birkin and Caterham are relatively the same.

After that race, which was in 2004 I think, Rossi (the rider that won) told Gibernau that he'd never win another race. Up until then, the two of them had been pretty competitive rivals, each winning a lot of races but usually Rossi coming out on top in the championship. The funny thing was, Gibernau never won a race ever again in 3 seasons of trying and retired at the end of last season. Love MotoGP.