Factory Five Racing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Charter Member
Joined
·
1,776 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been mulling this one over ever since I started the build and after getting the passenger side footbox done and mocking up the driver footbox I decided to remove it. I'm about 6'2" with size 12 shoes. There was just no room for my left foot in there even before I bend the clutch and brake pedals. I thought about this a lot and was really concerned from a safety perspective. Rightly so, as you can see in the pics below this is some thick steel that should provide some good protection. For me it was remove it or not be able to drive the car with any comfort. I'm planning to weld in some additional support similiar to what John Philips has done and then to add in a dead pedal like Bob Mac and a few others have done. Just wanted to share some pics of this in case anyone was wondering about it and trying to make the same decision.
J_B

1) Cut bar off with angle grinder with cutting wheel
2) Used grinder wheel to grind areas flush
3) Finished smoothing with a file and will use some sandpaper to smooth it out.
4) Weld in additional supports and dead pedal
5) Cover it up with some POR15







 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Originally posted by J Marshall:
You still have more foot protection than the early frames...I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That makes little sense.

Sort of like saying - well, in the 50's we didn't have seatbelts so why do we need them now?

JB - you did a good job cutting it out. Now let's see you weld up a good support structure for that corner of the car that clears your feet.

I am just a hair under 6'4" and wear size 13's. I seem to clear the diagonal support just fine. Re-adjusting pedal position and height will play a major role in your comfort as well as your safety.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
I really do like this mod for freeing up space in the footbox and making room for a dead pedal. I am wondering what you are going to do to compensate for the loss of protection. Whould replacing the aluminum outside panel with a 1/4 piece of sheet steel, mig all around. Would that compensate? I do not think you would see it either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,585 Posts
Man,
You are gonna get soooo flamed, but hey, those are your feet.
I'm really tired of the government, among others, trying to take away our right to be stupid.
I say:
You know what the consequences are of your action,
your action has no affect on me,
why not do it?
It's a Cobra for crying out loud. No airbags, no ABS, no skid control. You're accepting certain risks by your choice of car to begin with.
I would probably consider it if my tube interfered with me.
Rock on. :D
d.



 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
I've been looking at this and am thinking about pressing in a long (maybe 6 inches) "dimple" on the inside of the diagonal tube.

Got a nice steel frame bicycle? Look at the outside of the right-side chainstay, right at the point where the inner chainwheel comes really close to the stay. All high-end builders press a dimple into the steel tube right there to create clearance.

And it doesn't affect rigidity or strength. When a steel bicycle frame fails in the general area of the bottom bracket, it's always at the joint of the stays to the bottom bracket, not at the dimple, which is only a few inches away.

Just haven't figured out yet how I'm going to do this. It will probably be a new tool, just like the brake pedal bending required a new tool.

AJ
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,679 Posts
I sell a nice 90degree bent tube, made of the same material as the original brace.. makes the place to put your left foot and a neat bar to hang a dead pedal on.

I have several of these in the field...
HEY GUYS, any photos available of the finished unit???

Photo of the way it will look, (held up to a laguna spider frame).


earl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,719 Posts
There have been several posts and threads on this. Once again do a search on the subject. The bar was put there for a reason. People have been talking about spatter on the frames from welds, yet people are taking off structural members.
This worries me a lot!



 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,679 Posts
Originally posted by Buggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CobraEarl:
I sell a nice 90degree bent tube, made of the same material as the original brace..
How much? </font>[/QUOTE]$38 plus $7 s/h.

One guy bought one for both sides of the car.

Earl
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,585 Posts
Earl,
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see your mod show up on the next FFR Mark. It's the perfect solution. Remember the trunk brace mod?
d.



 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
I tend to agree with CC about safety. We have plenty of engineers on-line. What do you think of Cobra Earls modification? Does anyone have any insight on the Mark III already having a mod like this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
I like a lot of Cobra Earls products. I understand the need for a product like this, but I think the implementation is lacking.

The fact that this tube has a 90* bend in it establishes a weak link. If hit from above/below the 90* bend will continue to bend or straighten out until support is lost.

I would feel a whole lot better if Earl's kit included an 1/8" steel plate that was welded to the complete length of the bent tube as well as the 2x2 upright and the 1.5" chassis tube.

This can be fab'd up without a lot of fanfare - just time and materials..
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
I'm afraid I agree with Randy. This was debated at great length several months ago, with multiple opinions from people a lot smarter than me that the 90* bend introduced a weak link in the event of a frontal impact.

Didn't get any feedback at all on my dimple idea (above), which would add maybe 3/4" to 1" clearance on the side, while retaining the strength of the diagonal tube. Thoughts?

AJ
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Originally posted by AJ Cobra NJ:
Didn't get any feedback at all on my dimple idea (above), which would add maybe 3/4" to 1" clearance on the side, while retaining the strength of the diagonal tube. Thoughts?

AJ
Whups... I knew I was forgetting something..

The dimple will cause a stress riser (the point at which a failure (collapse) "can" begin. I know about the bike frame thing. I think if you cut the tubing apart where the frame is dimpled, you would find that they used substantially thicker tubing than what is used in the rest of the frame. This is also a good reason for the failure to be at or near the weldment. As any welder will tell you, it is difficult to get the exact proper heat for two differing thicknesses of metal that need to be welded together. Either one is too cold or the other is too hot. Too cold is usually the problem point whereas too hot can be a problem as the metal oxidizes and it's properties change dramatically at that point. Either way, it is a losing proposition.

On to YOUR proposed fix - I think it would be better than whacking the tube out and replacing it with a 90* tube, but I would also consider plating it with 1/8" as I outlined in my previous message.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,760 Posts
Originally posted by Big-Foot:

I think if you cut the tubing apart where the frame is dimpled, you would find that they used substantially thicker tubing than what is used in the rest of the frame.
Thanks Randy. You are correct that the tubing has a thicker wall where the dimple gets pressed into the stay, but that's true thoughout the bike...all high-end steel bikes use 'butted' tubing, where the wall thickness at each end of the tube is greater than the thickness in the middle of the tube. This is to save overall weight, while keeping strength where all the stress is (the joints).

I didn't know that my dimple would create a stress riser. I'll think about it some more, if I do it I'll post a thread. Maybe I'll just leave it alone and see what happens, I only wear size 11 (which seems like pretty small feet in this crowd for some reason).

AJ
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
You just have to love this forum. I liked the way Mike Forte's footbox came out. And I am almost embarrassed with my size 9 1/2 to even be worried about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
Originally posted by Big-Foot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Marshall:
You still have more foot protection than the early frames...I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That makes little sense.

Sort of like saying - well, in the 50's we didn't have seatbelts so why do we need them now?
</font>[/QUOTE]NO BIG FOOT, it's sort of like saying that the first 2000 FFR's were built this way...what should we (owners of early frames) do, rip off the body and add foot protection? Why not add air bags or ABS, we didn't have those in the '50s either.

Go buy a Volvo...this thing is a race car, and if you think that piece of steel is that important, so be it. That's your opinion.
 

·
Charter Member
Joined
·
2,649 Posts
Here is the mod that J_B referred to. Not quite as strong as a big bar but does provide good suport for the dead pedal. I welded 4 nuts on the outboard side to attach the bolts to. I slotted the angle iron for the foot pedal so I could slide it forward and aft as well as on an angle. Between the tow nut locations and the slots I can accommodate different seat positions and leg lengths.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,090 Posts
Originally posted by J Marshall:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big-Foot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Marshall:
You still have more foot protection than the early frames...I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That makes little sense.

Sort of like saying - well, in the 50's we didn't have seatbelts so why do we need them now?
</font>[/QUOTE]NO BIG FOOT, it's sort of like saying that the first 2000 FFR's were built this way...what should we (owners of early frames) do, rip off the body and add foot protection? Why not add air bags or ABS, we didn't have those in the '50s either.

Go buy a Volvo...this thing is a race car, and if you think that piece of steel is that important, so be it. That's your opinion.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry dude... I didn't mean to take a good healthy leak in your Post Toasties... :eek:

Soap-box mode ((ON))

These Street Roadsters are exactly that - STREET ROADSTERS .... If they were racecars - they would have the protection there (as the current design is from FFR).. I build racecars. I have very little issue with the way FFR has engineered the Spec Racer or the Mk-II Chassis. However, I would have a HUGE problem with people racing wheel to wheel with the street roadster chassis.

The Spec Racer is built on the MK-I platform and the foot protection was added in. There is absolutely NO reason why you could not add this same protection to the MK-I street roadster.
Now - there may be a better way to add a considerable amount of protection to the street roadster. Build a BOX around the footwell out of .125" wall steel. Weld all unions and weld it to the chassis. I would encourage anyone who values their ability to walk to REALLY give careful consideration to modifications they are doing to the MK-II chassis and also to consider making modifications to their MK-I chassis to afford them the protection they SHOULD have.

Racecars. You know - I have been racing for over 35 years now. I feel far safer in my racecar than I have ever felt on the street. In wheel to wheel competition, you don't have to worry about some bimbo in a Suburban running a red-light while she is putting on her mascara.. You get hit in one of these cars, you will be doing good to not get hurt. Modify this car the wrong way and you are just asking for it..

Now - I know that opinions are like noses. You have heard mine. I am sorry if I have ruffled any feathers, but sometimes the truth is not always easy to hear.

Soap-box mode ((OFF))
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top