|
|
 Author |
 Tank for Mini Marcos (currently 3,466 views) |
| Klaus_Witzig |
| Posted on: August 14th, 2011, 05:29:26 |
  |
|
Baby Member
Posts: 6
|
|
For the restoration of my Marcos it would be interesting to know which donor car the petrol tank is from. I also would like to fit a rollcage; where should I have a look for a good one?
Thanks a lot for your help
Klaus Witzig |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Niels |
| Posted on: August 14th, 2011, 10:23:03 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 40
|
|
Hello Klaus,
normally the tank for a mini marcos would be a mini van tank, that is available from any mini parts shop. A rollcage could be fittet for around 1000 Euro at marcos heritage or in germany from Wichers at around the same price, depending on where you are based (name sounds german?) .
Greetings from Hamburg, Germany
Niels |
|
|
|
 |
Reply: 1 - 34 |
|
|
| Klaus_Witzig |
| Posted on: August 14th, 2011, 14:49:37 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 6
|
|
Hi Niels,
thanks a lot for the info.
Yes I am German, from the very south of Germany.
Compared to the distance to Hamburg I am rather north of Italy.(400 Km to Milan)
Could you give me more details of that company please.
Regards
Klaus Witzig |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 2 - 34 |
|
|
| Niels |
| Posted on: August 14th, 2011, 16:52:02 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 40
|
|
Hi Klaus again, wichers sport are based in nienburg near bremen, and i just had a look at their internet shop, marcos are not mentioned, but i know they made some cages for mini and minimarcos, just try to contact them (see webside).
They are selling full fia cages, i dont know if you are going for a full cage?
Another company from the south would be isa-racing, the could possibly help, but are a bit on the expensive side...
Greetings from Hamburg
Niels |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 3 - 34 |
|
|
| laurent laval |
| Posted on: August 25th, 2011, 10:25:53 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 13
|
|
It is a little bit far from Germany, at like from your area Klaus, but in belgium, there is also M Frame that makes rollcage. Look at the pictures on the website... it is a marcos. I don t have any idea of the price: http://www.mframe.be/
Otherwise there is as well rollcenter in UK but farer... |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 4 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 25th, 2011, 13:22:08 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
It's great to see such good pictures of a cage for a mini marcos, particularly on a manufacturers web site, do we know whose it is?
The following may sound pedantic but I've literally just got my car back from the roll centre, many £'s lighter, after having to have my cage modified because of 'clarified' MSA regs. I also had them slightly improve the main hoop mounting because of the issues highlighted below. I've walked out of a bad crash before because of good cage so it's a subject dear to my heart.
Initially the MFrame cage looked fantastic but looking closer there are problems with it which anyone getting a cage for a MM should be aware of. Firstly it might comply with Belgian regs, I wouldn't know, but it doesn't comply with UK or FIA regs as it has a hinged joint between the main hoop and the lateral (side) bars. This is specifically banned in both UK and FIA regs, the hinged joints elsewhere are OK though.
More generally it highlights the problem that few if any roll cage manufacturers know much about monocoque fibreglass cars and MM's in particular. The main mounting feet for both the main and front roll bar land in relatively weak areas of the MM tub. This is the normal location for most cars, and complies with the regs but in a MM they will probably just punch through in a roll. The MFrame cage has a large vertical plate on the foot of the main hoop but it wouldn't appear to do a lot. The only place of any real strength near the main hoop in a MM is the upstand that holds the rear subframe, but if you land directly on that the hoop is a bit too far back and a bit short . You need every bit of height you can get as the main bar should be at least 50mm above the drivers helmet which is very difficult to get! Even so this is the most common mounting location. There is no easy solution, in mine the main hoop lands on a cross tube infront of the upstand, plated back to top and front of the upstand and also attached to all the subframe/beam axle mounts. That spreads the load over a big substantial area and uses 16 bolts into the body rather than the 6 specified in the regs. But it does add a lot of weight.
The front is even more difficult as the floor where the front foot ends up has no inherent strength neither has anything near it, the sill beam being the strongest. Mine lands on a very big plate that also goes up and spreads the load into the sill. Even so it's not particularly strong so the cage is triangulated onto the front top subframe mounts in the hope that most of the load is transferred there.
Most other fibreglass cars have a chassis and the roll cage is mounted onto that rather than the body but fibreglass monocoque's like the MM are very rare and different to the normal cars that roll cages are made for, so don't automatically assume the manufacturer knows what they are doing. You almost certainly know far more about the strong and weak points of the car than they do. It's your life! |
Last modified August 25th, 2011, 13:23:06 by jimnaylor |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 5 - 34 |
|
|
| laurent laval |
| Posted on: August 25th, 2011, 14:43:18 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 13
|
|
Interesting because I was wondering about an efficient way to fit a rollcage in a marcos...
To get it clearer, is it possible to have some pictures of your roll cage and the mounting plates? |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 6 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 25th, 2011, 15:00:12 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
The cage is back out of the car awaiting painting at the moment, but I can take some photo's of it in that state. It might even be clearer!
I'm not saying mine is the best way of doing it BTW, but I am now happy enough with it. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 7 - 34 |
|
|
| laurent laval |
| Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 06:33:43 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 13
|
|
| Even it is not with the final painting, it could be interesting to see it... If you have time to take some pictures, it will be great. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 8 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:30:32
 Attachment: image1.jpg - 53.85 KB (2027 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
Sorry can't work out how to attach more than 1 picture to a message so it's going to have to be lot's
To start this is the cross beam |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 9 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:32:31
Attachment: imgp0632.jpg - 86.27 KB (2025 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| Attached to the rear cage - the attachment has just been changed to a more conventional foot, it was a plate in shear before which I was not totally happy with. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 10 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:34:47
Attachment: imgp0629.jpg - 67.62 KB (1010 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| Detail of the top of the attachment the two bolts go into the reinforced section of the shell infront of the wheel arch and above the sub frame. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 11 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:37:37
Attachment: imgp0628.jpg - 77.25 KB (2022 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| The front of the attachment. The bolt hole on the right is to the top subframe bolt. The two in the middle into the reinforced upstand. The three on the left pick up on anchorages on my rear beam axle. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 12 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:39:28
Attachment: imgp0633.jpg - 88.12 KB (2019 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| The main hoop attachment. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 13 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:42:37
Attachment: imgp0634.jpg - 75.66 KB (1013 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| My old front leg. The MSA don't like the lower bend so I've had to change it, but I always thought that if it did bend there in a roll it would transfer the load into the sill which is stronger than the floor.... still I had 19 years of use out of it. |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 14 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:44:22
Attachment: imgp0635.jpg - 72.89 KB (1318 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
| The new leg without the bend.... which required a new cross brace and new door bars... £'s..... |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 15 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 13:55:40
Attachment: cage_now.jpg - 91.37 KB (1315 views) |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
This is how it was mounted in the front. The foot loads both the floor and the sill. Even better would be to have an even bigger plate extending on t the top of the sill.
The bars that go to the top of the front subframe can just be seen. Also the door bars are tight on the sill. We always thought that this was a last resort, if the cage is moving in a roll relative to the body the door bars would spread some load across the sills from front to back. The cross beam is tight on the centre tunnel for the same reason, but no spreader plate is fitted.
Having the rear cross beam means that the rear hoop is about 100mm further forward than if mounted directly onto the body infront of the wheel arch. That gives a cage nearer the driver and about 10mm higher. Not a lot but with the tiny head clearance of the MM that might make all the differance between breaking my neck or not.
It was the Roll Centre's idea, but mainly because they thought it needed to pick up as much of the suspension points as possible. They considered that they were the only points they could rely on. Even so they told me I was completely mad to be in it ! |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 16 - 34 |
|
|
| laurent laval |
| Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 14:52:47 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 13
|
|
| Thanks a lot for all this details!!! |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 17 - 34 |
|
|
| Peter Bremner |
| Posted on: August 26th, 2011, 20:19:21 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Ongar, Essex
Posts: 410
|
|
While your wallet is undergoing surgery, are you going to powder coat?
To put on multiple pictures, open an account with Photobucket (or similar), upload the pictures then copy and paste the IMG codes underneath each picture in the album. If you leave a line between each code, the photos will have a white line between them. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 18 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 27th, 2011, 12:19:48 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
Thanks Peter for the info on posting pictures.
As for powder coating although I'd like to, I can't justify the cost or prep time so I'll just spray it. That's the reason the Roll Centre didn't paint it, the new bits are easy but the old bits more difficult.
This series of posts has made me think and if I was having a brand new cage built I don't think I'd go for the rear spreader bar, but just land in front of the rear wheel arches. But I would try and spread the load using similar sized plates. i.e. into both the top and into the rear beam and subframe. The minimal gain in height and side to side protection gained by the bar is probably not really worth the complication or weight. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 19 - 34 |
|
|
| Phil Smethurst |
| Posted on: August 28th, 2011, 00:00:22 |
|
|
Medium Member
Posts: 145
|
|
Sorry if this doesn't work - I'm just trying Peters advice and have opened a photobucket account to try and post a picture of my own rollcage. I would like to modify it as per Jims car to pick up the front subframe.
 |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 20 - 34 |
|
|
| admin |
| Posted on: August 28th, 2011, 14:43:19 |
|
|
 Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,368
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
There's no reason why you shouldn't do multiple posts with one photo per post. I've put a size limit on attachments to stop very large images being uploaded but 153.5kB should e adequate.
The interior looks nice! |
|
|
|
 |
Reply: 21 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 29th, 2011, 17:57:15 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 22 - 34 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: August 29th, 2011, 20:34:42 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
| This will also be one of my first things to do on 7012. I was wondering if would be a good idea to attach the drivers seat to a frame seperate from the body welded the rollcage? What happens if the roll cage bolting points break? |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 23 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 29th, 2011, 20:49:38 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
Attaching the seat to the roll cage is a very good idea and the roll centre were very keen that I did it. But to date I've never found a way to do it and still have any headroom! Suggestions welcome!
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 24 - 34 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: August 30th, 2011, 18:24:15 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Yeah i see the problem, i was thinking about a gurney bubble, but that might not be enough?
Do you know if a mod like this is accepted by FIA rules? |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
Last modified August 30th, 2011, 18:25:02 by dalla |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 25 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 30th, 2011, 18:48:49 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
Strictly speaking you need 50mm above the drivers helmet to the top of the roll cage, but I've never known a scrutineer check that. I certainly haven't got it, I think I might have about 5mm! I've had to pad the roof to stop scratching my helmet, I also only do UK events. But a Gurney Bubble rather shouts at the scrutineer that you have no clearance. There is at least one MM I've seen photo's of with a Gurney Bubble but I don't know if it's caused problems. Malcolm Anderson used to compete in a Clan with a wedge shaped raised roof section but the roll bar went into the highest part of wedge.
When the requirement to fit FIA seats came in, that created problems for me, as the cushion of all FIA seats that I looked at were at least 30mm higher than the seat I had been using. I considered raising the roof but dropped the floor under the seat instead a bit like a mk1 (mine is MK3). I droped it about 25mm which still left the floor higher than the sump guard plus it made the floor more rigid..... I far prefered my old Cobra Clubman seats though. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 26 - 34 |
|
|
| Allan Brown |
| Posted on: August 30th, 2011, 19:39:35 |
|
|
Administrator
Location: Billingshurst, UK
Posts: 452
|
|
I have got a gurney bubble in my roof. My head doesn't go up into it but it does make it easier getting my helmet off in the car. I lowered the floor originally but found the driving position to low, making it hard to see the apex of the corners. So I put the floor back to normal and put the bubble in the roof.
I have sprinted and hillclimbed the car across the south of England for 10 years and have never had a scrutineer complain about it. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 27 - 34 |
|
|
| admin |
| Posted on: August 31st, 2011, 09:27:52 |
|
|
Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,368
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| I hadn't come across the term Gurney Bubble before, but it seems it's yet another innovation of Dan Gurney to get his 6'3" frame into a GT40 which has a notoriously small cockpit. He also devised the Gurney Flap and (I didn't know this either) accidentally initiated the ritual spraying of Champagne around on the podium. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 28 - 34 |
|
|
| Glenn_Merrigan |
| Posted on: August 31st, 2011, 18:34:42 |
|
|
Baby Member
Posts: 30
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 29 - 34 |
|
|
| Damien Marais |
| Posted on: August 31st, 2011, 19:02:12 |
|
|
Minimum Member
Location: France, La Rochelle (17)
Posts: 58
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Reply: 30 - 34 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: August 31st, 2011, 19:24:19 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 31 - 34 |
|
|
| Neil KilBane |
| Posted on: August 31st, 2011, 22:15:42 |
|
|
Maximum Member2
just a little fine tuning left to do.
Location: Newtown Forbes, Ireland
Posts: 1,391
Reputation: 0 (tot: ) |
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 32 - 34 |
|
|
| Damien Marais |
| Posted on: September 1st, 2011, 07:10:29 |
|
|
Minimum Member
Location: France, La Rochelle (17)
Posts: 58
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 33 - 34 |
|
|
| Neil KilBane |
| Posted on: September 1st, 2011, 09:43:45 |
|
|
Maximum Member2
just a little fine tuning left to do.
Location: Newtown Forbes, Ireland
Posts: 1,391
Reputation: 0 (tot: ) |
|
Minisport is £118.07 with the VAT
Somerford is £95.70 with the VAT
thats 23% cheaper.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 34 - 34 |
|
|
|
Mini Marcos Forum > General Boards > Mini Marcos > Tank for Mini Marcos
Logged
