bsimon

If the car is a Caterham, there are threaded bosses in the top lateral cross member behind the seats. The holes are about shoulder width at each seat position and will be hidden by the boot cover. Caterham supplies steel shouldered bushings that bolt through holes cut in the boot cover into the bosses. The bushings allow the belt hardware to pivot properly. Look at section 7 page 6 of the built manual HERE. There was a safety harness thread sometime back that you might wish to read here.

Bart, I looked at using the Caterham system as well. There were just enough issues with that system that I decided to go with the Pace system. The Caterham bell tank tends to blow the hydraulic seal for the integrated throwout bearing. Heat from the clutch tends to french fry the seal. De-aeration is a concern since I believe the swirl section of the bell tank is a bit small in diameter to be effective. I have a bit of concern about total oil volume as well. Of course this is just my opinion. I'm sure there are a lot of CC dry sump systems out there that are working just fine. I must admit there is a bit of security with the Caterham system as the pressure pump is internal. If you throw a scavenge belt, you'd still have OP until the tank is drained. With an external pressure section, if the belt parts, so does the OP...instantaneously! One of the chaps on BC built a nice enclosure for the oil pump drive belt to protect it from whatever perils it might encounter. He plans to manufacture them for cheese motors. Unfortunately he has no plans for VXs or Zetecs. I'm thinking fabing something along the same lines for my car. My chassis is right hand drive with the alternator on the victim's side of the engine. The hard part of fitting either the CC system or the Pace system is working around the steering shaft and under the intakes. I'm currently running sump foam and the CC cast sump as you are. During some parking lot skid pad "experiments" I did see some dips in the OP after extended right hand turning. I added a 2 quart accumulator (Accusump) for peace of mind. I guess there aren't many of us Vauxhall guys in the States. I've only met 2 in person and chatted with one from Canada and one from California via e-mail.

That car looks to be one of the last Mallock U2 front engined clubmans, a MK31. I understand that Richard Mallock has reintroduced a front engined car called the MK 35 that looks strikingly similar.

Anyone interested in aero mods for the Seven should take a long hard look at the development that went on in Clubmans racing. Here's a few examples. The Gryphons, Mallocks, and such have taken aerodynamics about as far as one can go with a Seven type chassis.

That's along the lines of Ford thinking. Of course, it was not implemented. BTW...I'm driving my Corvair to the park today for a spirited game of lawn darts...

I'm surprised that Caterham or Birkin don't offer a "next best" solution for fuel tank safety. Most of us would like to see improved safety for track days and general street use, but not necessarily want the expense and service problems of a full blown ballistic racing cell. Obviously if one has to meet the scrutineers standards for organized racing, an expensive bag tank would probably be required. I believe a cost effective approach would be a cross linked propylene tank housed in an aluminum enclosure with replaceable anti-slosh foam. A JAZ type tank with the added protection of an aluminium enclosure, if you will. The stock Corvette gas tank is a good example of this type of construction. It has one of the best safety records of any stock vehicular gas tank. Here's what a JAZ tank looks like. Here's some interesting reading on tank safety. The Corvette tank is mentioned in brief. Here's an interesting study done by ford when Police departments made requests for fuel cells in radio cars. Seems product quality and longevity were major issues with the specific brand of bladder they tested.

McMaster-Carr About $25/square foot, 3/8" and 1/2" thickness. Looks like 24"X48" is the largest sheet. It will probably have to be cut on an abrasive waterjet table, although it might be able to be cut with a saber saw or router. I can picture the saw or bit grabbing the thin cell structure and evacuating it from between the face sheets in a most spectacular manner. :cry: Maybe someone here has some experience cutting the stuff with low tech tools?

Thanks Jack, I'll take you up on that. Solidworks files are fine. YHM

I heard it was a 260 CSR.

Here's the poop on the Peterson "lightweight" oil tank. The lightweight and drag tanks have a bolted split that replaces the standard band clamped split. The tank construction is identical in every other way, including material thickness. The 1.5 gallon bolted split tank is 14 oz. lighter than the clamped version. All the ports are male AN fittings in the lightweight version. The clamped version uses female AN o-ring ports. The only downside I can see to the 6" lightweight tank is they only have 6 bolts at the split. There would be less choices on how one could clock the inlet and outlet. Peterson said they will add another vent fitting to the lid for $30.00. Current lead time is one week.

As you suggest, their tank sizes are based on the OD of the spun body, in this case 6". The 8" dimension takes into account the pinch bolt and the inlet fitting. The band clamp's basic OD is 7" I see there is a light weight 1.5 gallon tank with the bolted split. I'm going to call them back an see about the one.

Jack, Thanks for the tip. :thumbs: I called Peterson and found an acceptable off-the-shelf tank. If I deal directly, the tank is $304 plus $52 for clamps. That's 40 bucks cheaper than the going rate for a Mocal with no clamps. The engineer I spoke with mentioned that the Peterson tanks don't have the O-ring issue that made the Mocal "Easy Leak" tank so famous. The tank still splits at an O-ring, but he claims they never have complaints about leaking. The overall diameter is 8" and overall height is 15.5". The tank split clamp is only 7" not counting the pinch bolt.

Anybody have a 6.3 quart Mocal Easy Clean DS tank that could be measured? I'm looking for the maximum OD over the clamp that holds the two halves together. Think and Pegasus show the tank being 6.5" in diameter, but this is rather ambiguous as I'm not sure if it's the absolute MAX dimension. I'm reconnoitering the removal or trimming of the victim's foot well to make room for a DS tank in my car as well as Alaskossie's new Duratech installation. Needless to say, space is at a premium in both chassis.

Brilliant!:thumbs: I'm envious. My car is registered with Classic Car 5 year plates. Colorado won't extend personalized numbers to Classic plates. :cry:

It sure looks as though the formula type belt set would be of prime consideration. Attaches to existing belt fixations. The individual crutch straps can be separated so you wouldn't be sitting on them when not in use.(although you should probably always use them) The outward angle and minimal intrusion in the crotch area means you probably won't damage your junk in a shunt.:cry: I to am curious as to what the SCCA e-prod Caterhams are using.

That's what I first thought, but look at the second "don't do this" illustration under the warning block. It shows the belt over the sides. That makes sense. I couldn't understand the reference to Profi-F after searching the document. Seems I should have been looking for Profi-(something)F. Makes me wonder why Caterham designed the crutch strap mounting points on the rear bulkhead structure behind your bum. Not ideal. It looks as though the "F" style belt would be the best choice for a Seven. I'm still a little skeptical about the Schroth break-away style 4 point system.

Crap, adv. .242 That would have been a .742 at the strip. The hamster must have fallen asleep in the wheel.:sleep:

The Shroth document is an excellent reference. After reviewing it, here's my thoughts; If you look at pages 25 you will see an installation of the crutch straps to the lap belt mounting points. It's a little confusing since they have a stern warning on page 26 that leads one to believe that they are contradicting the previous page. I think the point they are making is running the crutch straps over high sides of a wide side cushion seat will add unwanted slack. The Seven's plywood bench-board or type-S seats really have no cushioning at that point. I believe that, although not ideal, sitting on the crutch straps would probably be OK in a Seven. Points to ponder; 1) Any additional slack in the harness system is a real no no! 2) Take a look at how you are restrained in a Seven and ask yourself this; where is the lap belt going to end up in a frontal impact. With a four point system the lap belt will restrain you with all the soft squishy bits in your chest cavity above your hips. 3) Crutch straps should be mandatory. Jochen Rindt refused to wear them and had his guts extruded through his facial orifices at Monza in 1970, thus ending his life and subsequent career. Any thoughts?

Just double up the crutch straps with the side belts as RMSC suggests. I've been told that if the straps are mounted in front of the seats, "other" vital organs could be crushed in a shunt.:ack: I don't know if I completely understand the dynamics rationalizing this claim, but I decided I wasn't about to experiment. The proper crutch strap location is behind the seat. There are two tabs protruding from the rear bulkhead on each side of the car. The straps were supposed to be anchored to these with a bolt and spacer through the bottom skin of the car. Herein lies the rub; If you are using older S-type seats, the back of the runners set on the tabs. Also, one of the passengers side (RHD) anchor tabs is in line with the exhaust bracket if you have a JPE zorst. Since both the JPE exhaust bracket and the seat rails were issues in my car, I placed the crutch straps and the side belts together as RMSC suggested. I suppose a hole could be bored through the seat bottom at a trimming shop if you don't want to sit on the straps.

It looks as though this is a decorative cover that bolts on top of your existing cam box cover. The gasket should not be an issue. Not exactly "added lightness"

Count me in for one mens watch.

In a related study, it was found that women who drink tea are twice as likely to get pregnant. Further studies have revealed that women who drink Long Island Iced Tea are twice as likely to wake up in the back seat of a Camaro with sticky hair.

Oddly enough, fiddle brakes (cutting brakes) were incorporated into Colin Chapman's first design which subsequently became the Lotus Mark 1. This car was designed for trials competition. The fiddles allowed sharp turning maneuvers in the off road segments of the trial. I guess that make this discussion appropriate for a Sevens forum.

Fiddle brakes are good for "spirited parallel parking" as well.

http://www.usa7s.com/aspnetforum/upload/183451345_IMG_0363.jpg RST V8! Same spacer installed in a left hand drive standard Dedion chassis. Photo was taken in Vail Colorado during the USA2005 tour. This car belongs to Mike Biddle from Dubai UAE. Quite impressive...