|
|
 Author |
 7012 Project thread (currently 4,395 views) |
| admin |
| Posted on: September 20th, 2011, 22:20:55 |
  |
|
 Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,368
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| What's at the bottom of that hole? Anyway, fibreglass is stronger than steel, weight for weight, but it needs to be thicker. You'll need the tubes for the subframe bolts and the bit surrounding it, to give you something to tighten the bolts up on. All the other bits of embedded steel are there to allay the fears of customers rather than as a structural necessity. The thick fibreglass might be a problem where the master cylinders are bolted on because it reduces pedal travel. |
|
|
|
  |
Reply: 30 - 96 |
|
 |
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 20th, 2011, 23:12:32 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
The hole goes through to inside that car.
I removed the pedal assembly today, and it didn't seem like there was any issues with pedal travel.
Iam just wondering why my car doesn't have a full beam running the with of the car? This must have been modified? Any idea if this was done when the car was built up by the club, at Stoneleigh in 1991?
Anyways, i guess i should try and get it opned up, as i don't want to paint a car with potential rotten subframe mounts.
But you don't think it will be a problem without the steelbeam? The fibreglass is pretty thick. Maybe close to 10 mm. |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 31 - 96 |
|
|
| Stuart |
| Posted on: September 21st, 2011, 06:44:53 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Peak District
Posts: 284
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
“ |
Quoted from dalla, posted September 20th, 2011, 23:12:32 at here |
” |
But you don't think it will be a problem without the steelbeam? The fibreglass is pretty thick. Maybe close to 10 mm.
|
|
a Midas doesn't have any steel embedded in the shell and they have no issues with strength.
|
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 32 - 96 |
|
|
| admin |
| Posted on: September 21st, 2011, 15:13:13 |
|
|
Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,368
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| The shell wasn't modified at Stoneleigh and I'm pretty certain it didn't have anything major done to it beforehand. Ideally we would have liked a new shell but there wasn't one available so we got that one and returned it as far as possible to its original state. We also took the donor van to bits, cleaned up the parts we wanted and put it back together again so we knew there wouldn't be any problems at the show. |
Last modified September 21st, 2011, 15:13:59 by admin |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 33 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 07:20:05 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Hi Guys
More progress.
Today i removed the rest of the glue from headliner and carpets. So it should be ready to go to the fibre glass doctor soon.
After this i started stripping the rest of the car. Took of the doos and rear hatch. The lights and indicators were also removed. The tank is also off the car, think i have decided to close the original hole for the tank, and go for a round one for the spare wheel well.
I also took out the wiper motor and are wondering wether i should put a saw to the wood work behind the dash?
After this i took some time (between sitting in the bare shell making engine noises) accessing the fibre glass damage.
There is the odd hole in the floors, which is probably where i will start, as i have never worked with fibreglass before.
I have made a deal with a fibre glass company very close to my garage. They have agreed that i can come there with the car, and do as much of the job i can myself, and then they will help me along the way. We haven' agreed on a price yet though. 
These are the places i found that needs repair.
Furthermore there are going to be quite a lot of repair to the steel reinforced parts of the body.
Shock towers in the rear, one is cracked, and both metal inserts looks to be rotten.
Steering rack mounts are also looking quite "red"
Door mounts on the front fender. Looks like theres also metal in there. A bit concerned about replacing this and make everything line up.
As for lining the steel inserts up, i think i need to get the rear subframe bought and assembled, so i can use that to maintain the position of the inserts. My plan was to bolt it all up to the shell, and then take on steel plate at a time. That way iam sure the geomtry doesn't slide? Any other suggestions?
As for the steel reinforcing plates, i have readily acces to stainless steel. I have thinking about making the plates in stainless, as it would basically last forever then. Is that a bad idea? I know that stainless is a bit more brittle than ordinary steel, but when it is laminatied in i guess its main purpose is to dispatch stress over a bigger area, and it doesn't really bend as such? What do you guys think?
|
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 34 - 96 |
|
|
| Craig Smith |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 09:39:57 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bury
Posts: 245
|
|
Hi Dennis,
I replaced all of the steelwork in my shell with Stainless, including the cross member inserts (& Fuel Tank!) - I can't see any issues arising from using Stainless in the bonded in areas, it certainly won't rust and cause the fibre glass to delaminate in the way mild steel invariably will. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 35 - 96 |
|
|
| jimnaylor |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 12:18:44 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 221
|
|
“ |
Quoted Text |
” |
That way iam sure the geomtry doesn't slide?
|
|
If your cars geometry was correct to start with, it would be a first !
MM's are notorious for their suspension alignment being way out. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 36 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 13:17:12 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Yeah, but i guess it will be nearly impossible to check as it is now? Then i should build up the entire subframes and ad weight for all ancillyries? The second best thing must be assuming that the mounting points are some what in the right place?
Thanks for your replies guys. They are very very useful for a newbie like me.
Think i will go for stainless then. Then i don't have to wonder about it anymore. |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 37 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 17:53:43 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Today i got a picture of one of the other Mini Marcos's in Denmark.
The red one belongs to Per who also has a page on here:
http://www.minimarcos.org.uk/memcars/hahn/index.html
I think i might steal the details with the two big holes either side of the number plate, and also the matt black under the headlight covers.
 |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 38 - 96 |
|
|
| Peter Bremner |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 19:34:56 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Ongar, Essex
Posts: 410
|
|
Hello, I put my car on its roof and fitted the subframes. The rear needed spacers over 2.5cm thick on one side to get the axles to line up. It proved impossible to get the front and rear wheels to line up, the rear is offset to the left by a couple of cms as well. The reference points don't make a rectangle, they make a parallelogram.
I had steel plates in the doors, the hinge studs completely missed them! I took them out and just rebuilt with layers of glass fibre. I think you're better off putting the steel plates (if any) directly under the nuts and washers. Then the plate has to be pulled through the entire thickness of the glassfibre, rather than just half or less the thickness. |
Last modified September 22nd, 2011, 19:35:36 by Peter Bremner |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 39 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 20:23:39 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Thanks Peter. I guess your are right about the doors. But i am pretty sure that my doors doesn't have any steel reinforcement. So will probably just make a backing plate like you suggest.
I am a bit concerned about the whole reinforcement vs. tracking afterwards issues.
But i think i have heard about the rear subframe being offset before? This is commom on a MM isn't it? |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 40 - 96 |
|
|
| Peter Bremner |
| Posted on: September 22nd, 2011, 20:30:40 |
|
|
Big Member
Location: Ongar, Essex
Posts: 410
|
|
Hello, the original moulds were faulty and were never fixed.
These were the first spacers I fitted, in the end I had to remake them another 6mm thicker! |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 41 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 23rd, 2011, 07:08:20 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
| Cheers mate. I will have to check this too i guess. |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 42 - 96 |
|
|
| admin |
| Posted on: September 25th, 2011, 09:17:10 |
|
|
Administrator
Location: Maidenhead, UK
Posts: 2,368
Reputation: 1 (tot: 1) |
|
| Heritage had a stand at Castle Combe yesterday. They had a later type (large bolt) engine bulkhead crossmember for £88.00. |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 43 - 96 |
|
|
| dalla |
| Posted on: September 26th, 2011, 13:55:42 |
|
|
Medium Member
Location: Aarhus Denmark
Posts: 112
|
|
Cheers mate, i have seen it on their homepage.
Do you think it is possible to modify it to the earlier type? |
Mini Marcos Mk.II 7012
Dennis Overgaard Nielsen
Denmark |
|
|
|
| |
Reply: 44 - 96 |
|
|
|
Mini Marcos Forum > General Boards > Mini Marcos > 7012 Project thread
Logged