xcarguy

jevs, Ran Speedhut in my Birkin; nice gauges. I've had my relatively small 346 cid LS6 powered car near the limit of my 160 speedo with a little room to spare. If I had a choice, I'd opt for the 180 . . . . or the 200 if your a complicated man. :jester: This may very well be something you have already considered, but on a more serious note, if you plan on running your car well into triple digit speeds (as I know you are ), you will need to address the issue of adding down force to the car. M-Spec or not, the inherent design of these cars transfers weight to the rear wheels at speed. John Meyer, who hit 170+ at VIR running the UTCC, ran with a large wing up high and just forward of the roll cage (about mid chassis). Without down force at such speeds, your front end will have a weight deficient.

Perhaps you guys purchased the all new Next Gen SX . . . . who has 54? :jester:

An older video, but worth a revisit. Heikki's locost spin at 2:18.

The horn wouldn't work if he relay was bad. Ditto on a bad switch.

Congrats!! Buyer wasn't Sharkey was it? :cheers:

That particular type of switch mounts to the column. If you're not set on having that type of switch, you could opt for a simple three-way toggle switch (ON-OFF-ON): http://www.skycraftsurplus.com/heavydutytoggleswitchdpdton-off-on.aspx

Allen, Would Brooklands be a consideration?

Dave, Sent you a pm. Shane

I thought you said I trashed your paint job. :jester:

The annual Stalker Ambush will be happening in a couple of weeks in that area. Part of the activity is to head over on Sept 14 to either spectate or participate in Chasing the Dragon hill climb.

Not yet. Did NJMP in July with no issues. Next planned event is COTA.

Tommy Ivo was doing some pretty radical stuff back in the 60's with multi engined AWD dragsters. Here's a few photos and a link to the article (food for thought): http://www.speedhunters.com/2009/07/guest_blog_tony_thacker_nhra_museum_gt_gt/

Nonsense! . . . . . Drive it like you stole it! :jester:

Not sure if the cutoff needs to be reachable by the driver. On my Birkin, the cutoff switch was located on the side of the scuttle (driver's side).

jevs, I'd go with 11Bulite's Caterham location suggestion; that'd keep it external, close to the battery and handy.

jevs, With regard to on-track driving, I’m a big fan of having a cutoff switch located somewhere on the exterior of the car so someone else (corner worker?) can get to it (relatively easy) for those ’just in case’ moments. I chose to locate the external cutoff up high on the rear of my Storker and directly beneath the roll bar down tube. On track (off track :ack: ), the location is easily visible and (hopefully) one area of the car that's least likely to end up in an accident; that was the kiss of death. :jester: Even if the car were to end up on its side or upside-down , the cutoff will more than likely still be exposed and accessible . . . . . just a thought. However, having said that, nothing is really fool proof. :willy_nilly: Also, for an external cutoff, I'd reccommend installing a switch that does not use a removable flag key such as this one: http://www.jegs.com/i/Moroso/710/74101/10002/-1?CAWELAID=1710737726&CAGPSPN=pla&catargetid=230006180000848284&cadevice=c&gclid=CP3n0-mMucACFWho7AodjFMAOQ

Mike Sharkey, the fellow who bought my Stalker from me in 2007 (the guy from whom I purchased my Stalker back from in 2012) owns an SLC.

I have two battery cutoffs on my car. One is inside the cockpit and within reach of me. This switch removes power to everything except the ECU. The other switch is located on the car's exterior with the location placarded. This switch cuts power to everything, ECU included. Internal switch: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=25309 External switch: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=23547

seschm1234, Thanks. Been needing that link in this thread.

Do the cars come with it?

Sweven: someone who was smitten at young age for all things Seven.

There ya' go, Mike, pick'n on Storkers again. :jester: However, when Autocar did the Caterham wind tunnel testing in the 2001 article that's been mentioned on this thread and one other, they did so because of the over steer they were experiencing due largely to the amount of lift generated on the front of the car. The goal of the testing, as I saw it, was not to necessarily add grip (down force) but rather to reduce frontal lift by balancing the existing (available) grip at both the front and rear of the car. At the onset of the testing, front end lift at 100mph was in excess of 70 lbs. By the end of testing, down force for both the front and the rear was just north of 30 lbs. Any of us who have added a full cage (if for no other reason than safety’s sake) to our cars (Storkers or otherwise) know that we’ve added weight, increased drag, increased front end lift and reduced acceleration and decreased top end speed. In the sixties, when Carol Shelby’s Cobra started getting a bit ‘long in the tooth’ and less competitive, he took the car’s chassis and added a fully enclosed body. That car became known as the Daytona Coupe. While that car was substantially heavier than the Cobra, it was also more competitive because of the aerodynamic improvements. Adding the airfoils to the roll cage of an open car should (in theory) decrease the car’s overall drag coefficient and hopefully transfer some weight to the front wheels (decrease front end lift) at speed. A gain in useable rear wheel HP may also be experienced with the weight transfer. In this situation, adding the weight of the roll bar airfoil may be good. Again, this is theory (wearing out that word) and something I’m willing to try. If it doesn’t work :puke: I have space already reserved on my big ‘wall of shame’ for the airfoil. :cheers:

I must have missed this broadcast during Paul Harvey’s day. Now I know the rest of the story. :cheers:

Brit, You're not alone. I remember having to do a bit of 'creative' drilling here and there. One example: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=7644

Hey, Mike, Good points/considerations. However, my being a pilot doesn’t by any means put me ahead on understanding any of this. I simply enjoy, from a layman’s point of view, using aerodynamic theory to try and find ways to make the Storker getyup and go a liittle better. :jester: There are aerodynamicists who aren’t pilots but could answer, in great detail, every question we have about what will work, how well it will/will not work, what the tradeoffs are, etc. And, there are pilots (the majority of them) who aren’t aerodynamicists and cannot explain any of this beyond the simple correlations of lift, drag, thrust and weight (this is me). I really can’t tell you what the effect will be on the car in a turn with airfoils covering the roll cage tubes. I can only ‘theorize’ (again, based on my limited understanding) that the angle of attack of a vertical round roll bar, enclosed with a symmetrical airfoil, would be minimal during a turn and would produce (overall) less drag than the bare round tube. A John Deere moment might be a better indicator. As for adding weight, that’s a given. Any time you add something with mass to a car, whether it weighs an ounce or a pound, you have added weight to the car . . . . period. The small airfoil covering that’s been touched on in this thread weighs 1.45 lbs. per 8' section and the large airfoil weighs 2.3 lbs. per 10' section. I’ve estimated that I will need to use most of two sections of the large airfoil and about 38” of a small section. That’s roughly around 5lb of airfoil. Aside from doing extensive wind tunnel testing, the only means I have available for testing such a mod is to simply install it and try it. I and one other forum member have discussed the idea of adding this product to our roll cage to see if we can cheat the elements and perhaps gain a bit more speed. To borrow from one of our previous conversations, in theory, if you can decrease the drag on any part of your car (using that term collectively for all of us) then, in theory, it should reduce the overall drag which, again in theory, should yield a better top end speed for a given distance (such as the straight on Lightning) as well as reduce the time it takes to reach a certain speed with in a given distance (quicker lap times); yes, I know, there is still the issue of having added additional weight to acheive the outcome. It may be that the actual yield of such a mod is so minor, that it would take a data logger to capture the results. However, someone such as yourself, with lots of experience at a given track (such as NJMP’s Lightning course) with a given car and extremely consistent lap times, might add the airfoils and be able to tell right away if there is any noticeable improvement. If what I have written tonight seems choppy, rushed and sort of thrown together, please forgive me. I’ve had three very long days back-to-back due to our being short on pilots this week and I am a little tired. :nopity: Perhaps someone on here would be willing the test the airfoil during a 'John Deere' moment to see what effect they might have on the dreaded death wobble. :ack: