The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

The Number One Club for owners of Triumph's range of small saloons from the 1960s and 1970s.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:25 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:33 am 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:02 pm
Posts: 350
Hi all

I know that the club sell fibreglass wings and front valance but my understanding of the DVLA rules is that you can’t modify the structure of a car before you need to submit for an IVA.

I think I’ve asked before about the wings and I know they aren’t included as part of the structure, but what about the front valance?

Is it considered part of the structure and have to remain metal or can it be replaced with a composite piece?

Tbh I’ve loads of questions on the DVLA point system because it’s quite vague and I’m unsure what you can get away with but I’ll save that for a different place haha

_________________
So many ideas... So little budget... So little time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:53 pm 
Offline
Future Club member hopefully!
Future Club member hopefully!

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:04 pm
Posts: 1549
Why do you need an IVA for your Dolomite? Unless you are making very large modifications it shouldn't be needed.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:21 am 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:46 am
Posts: 424
Location: Midhurst, West Sussex.
The front wings and outer front panel are not structural. If they were The Club would not be able to offer them in fibre-glass.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:36 pm 
Offline
TDC Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:57 am
Posts: 713
Location: Dorset
Not sure the rule actually differentiatees between structural or not.
Quote:
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)
Given it's a welded-on part I'd say it was part of the body shell.

Tricky one!

Steve


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:02 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7014
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:
Not sure the rule actually differentiatees between structural or not.
Quote:
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)
Given it's a welded-on part I'd say it was part of the body shell.

Tricky one!

Steve
The wings are also welded on! So by that token......

But I don't get the point of the query, If the car is sufficiently modified to NEED a BIVA, all questions regarding original shell construction are totally irrelevant! I build cars that comply with the infamous 8 point rule (just) so I don't have to go through all the faff.

But if you are forced by the proposed mods to cut lumps from the shell or don't have sufficient points left from retention of original parts to make the extra 3 beyond the 5 points for the shell (or both) then a BIVA is legally mandated. At that point, you have made your decision to proceed with the job and take the thrice cursed BIVA (congrats, you're a braver man than me!) you can now do what the hell you like in terms of mods! All you have to follow is construction and use regs and the BIVA rules, most of which are not concerned with engineering specs but pedestrian and passenger safety.

Now, back to the GRP front panel, I've looked at the construction of a Dolomite with a jaundiced and pessimistic engineer's eye and, playing devil's advocate for a moment, can see an argument for considering the inner and outer front panel together as forming at least 1 box section that may be considered structurally significant as a transverse crossmember tying the flitches together. A bit of a flimsy and inefficient one, if you ask me (but nobody did!)

Against this you have to weigh several other factors, the front panel doesn't NEED to be all that stiff as the subframe does the bulk of the work in that department. Personal experience shows me that if an impact hits the subframe, the frame will stay square and twist the shell instead! Also a properly fitted GRP front panel (screws AND Tiger Seal or similar) will remake the box to a standard I would consider as good as the original 24swg steel. That's all i've done on the Carledo, it works, has stayed together more than 10 years now and survived a small impact without bumpers to impede and without significant damage. A lot of moderns are completely glued together with Tiger Seal type products rather than spot welds and stay together despite this!

What I HAVE been considering for some time and will probably incorporate in my next GRP fronted project, is a pair if stiffeners in the form of 25x25x2mm box section steel welded betwen the flitches at the top and the chassis legs at the bottom and attached at several points to the inner front panel. 1 would be inside the box formed by inner and (GRP) upper outer front panel and the second at about the level of the lower radiator mount bolts or just below the grille openings. This should stiffen the front end of the shell nicely! Yet still be invisible to the casual observer! :lol: 8)

Steve

PS The 8 point rule desn't preclude ALL mods to the shell, you are specifically permitted to ADD structural stiffeners and mountings, what you may NOT do is cut stuff away, even if you replace it with something just as strong but different!

Honestly, there ARE "grey areas" in the 8 point rule. I prefer to look at them as loopholes to exploit!

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 5:04 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:02 pm
Posts: 350
My query was because the modifications I’ve made do keep the car on the right side of the points system (Unmodified chassis, steering, and suspension) as I’ve engine, gearbox, and axle swapped my Dolomite. I was wanting to make use of the clubs fibreglass parts (or make some Carbon Fibre parts) to lower the nose weight and if the wings and front valance are considered part of it, it’s not something I can do.

I’ve been thinking about adding some form of strengthening bar as well, just seems like a good idea as there isn’t much strength added by the front inner and outer valance but just aweld-in (depending on clearance) bar across should help, similar to a strut brace.

My other questions on the points system is what counts as a change to the suspension? If you changed the suspension arms to allow for alignment adjustment or changes the bushes for polybush, does this count as a change?

For my axle swap, I’m going to change the inner rod mounting points from the triumph style to a simpler tie rod mount, does this count, even though the geometry is the same?

_________________
So many ideas... So little budget... So little time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:45 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7014
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:
My query was because the modifications I’ve made do keep the car on the right side of the points system (Unmodified chassis, steering, and suspension) as I’ve engine, gearbox, and axle swapped my Dolomite. I was wanting to make use of the clubs fibreglass parts (or make some Carbon Fibre parts) to lower the nose weight and if the wings and front valance are considered part of it, it’s not something I can do.

I’ve been thinking about adding some form of strengthening bar as well, just seems like a good idea as there isn’t much strength added by the front inner and outer valance but just aweld-in (depending on clearance) bar across should help, similar to a strut brace.

My other questions on the points system is what counts as a change to the suspension? If you changed the suspension arms to allow for alignment adjustment or changes the bushes for polybush, does this count as a change?

For my axle swap, I’m going to change the inner rod mounting points from the triumph style to a simpler tie rod mount, does this count, even though the geometry is the same?
Since the clubs GRP panels are perfect replicas of stock production steel panels (made on moulds drawn from geniune NOS panels)
I wouldn't worry in the least about using them rather than expensive/unobtanium steel ones. The Carledo is as modded as your car with 9 points for shell, steering and suspension just as yours is and has the GRP panels fitted, I'd never given it a second thought till you raised the issue.

The suspension should fix to all the original mount points and duplicate what was there from the factory in style and design. You can change spring RATES, bushing material, shock absorbers to adjustable versions of the same design, thicker ARB and stuff like that. I see no problem with fitting adjustable front tie bars to replace fixed factory originals, Leyland ST did these for sale in the 70s. If you intend to replace the upper wishbones with tubular adjustable ones with different balljoints, I might get a bit nervous about that!

The rear tie bars, i'm not sure about, i've kept the original design to be on the safe side, just added Chris Witor's hardest shore (red) bushes at the rear ends to control the rampant axle tramp I was getting during line lock burnouts :P . But i'm not putting anything like as many horses through it as you will be. What I FANCY is to change the axle lugs for TR7 ones that work the same way but use a bush the same as on the front end of the rear tie bar. Then use TR7 bars, cut and modified to include an adjustment feature and with the relevant poly bushes of course. I can see pro's and cons for this from officialdom's view It IS a change of design, albeit a very minor one, and the general layout of the rear suspension isn't altered. More to the point, nobody but a real Triumph anorak is gonna notice! I guess the question you have to ask yourself, is "do i feel lucky?" Well, do you? :lol:

Steve

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:58 pm 
Offline
Future Club member hopefully!
Future Club member hopefully!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:48 pm
Posts: 1635
The outer wings and front valance are not part of the shells structural element.
if you are worried about body flex a strut brace across the turrets will be much better than a bar welded across the valance

_________________
Some people are like Slinky's, they serve no real purpose in life but bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:13 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:02 pm
Posts: 350
Quote:
Quote:
My query was because the modifications I’ve made do keep the car on the right side of the points system (Unmodified chassis, steering, and suspension) as I’ve engine, gearbox, and axle swapped my Dolomite. I was wanting to make use of the clubs fibreglass parts (or make some Carbon Fibre parts) to lower the nose weight and if the wings and front valance are considered part of it, it’s not something I can do.

I’ve been thinking about adding some form of strengthening bar as well, just seems like a good idea as there isn’t much strength added by the front inner and outer valance but just aweld-in (depending on clearance) bar across should help, similar to a strut brace.

My other questions on the points system is what counts as a change to the suspension? If you changed the suspension arms to allow for alignment adjustment or changes the bushes for polybush, does this count as a change?

For my axle swap, I’m going to change the inner rod mounting points from the triumph style to a simpler tie rod mount, does this count, even though the geometry is the same?
The rear tie bars, i'm not sure about, i've kept the original design to be on the safe side, just added Chris Witor's hardest shore (red) bushes at the rear ends to control the rampant axle tramp I was getting during line lock burnouts :P . But i'm not putting anything like as many horses through it as you will be. What I FANCY is to change the axle lugs for TR7 ones that work the same way but use a bush the same as on the front end of the rear tie bar. Then use TR7 bars, cut and modified to include an adjustment feature and with the relevant poly bushes of course. I can see pro's and cons for this from officialdom's view It IS a change of design, albeit a very minor one, and the general layout of the rear suspension isn't altered. More to the point, nobody but a real Triumph anorak is gonna notice! I guess the question you have to ask yourself, is "do i feel lucky?" Well, do you? :lol:

Steve
That’s kind of what I’m aiming for, to make the inner rod but use spherical bushings rather than rubber ones. After looking at some reviews of the triumph when it came out, they all seem to mention a sudden oversteer characteristic, which looking at the way the axle is bushed. I remember someone mentioning my that the lowest ride height drop you can to is an inch because of the roll centre causing this, but I’m putting down to the rubber bushes binding and basically having a sudden increase in the effective spring rate when the rear is in equal compression.

And when rear is in roll, you get a strong anti-roll characteristic from the twisting of the trailing arm and binding of its bushes (maybe that’s why there’s stories of the race Sprints having little to no anti roll bar) so changing them to a spherical bushing might help there. This might make the ride quality absolutely plummet but might be interesting to test

_________________
So many ideas... So little budget... So little time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2021 2:19 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7014
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:
The outer wings and front valance are not part of the shells structural element.
if you are worried about body flex a strut brace across the turrets will be much better than a bar welded across the valance
[/quote

The engine swaps we've indulged in, both my Vauxhall swaps and, I presume from subtext, Boost's Jag powered car all sit too high in the bay to permit a strut brace to be used. There simply isn't room for one!

It's also my opinion, shared by competition oriented people who've been racing Sprints forever, that, because it doesn't have Mac Pherson strut suspension and there's no turning moment on the strut tops, a strut brace is completely un-necessary.

Whereas the flimsy, body-guage steel that comprises the inner and outer front panels is sadly lacking in rigidity and folds up if you look at it too hard! Apart from the subframe (which is plenty strong enough) there is little in the actual shell that ties the front chassis rails together and stops the subframe from twisting the shell under severe engine torque loads imposed by 300BHP+. So, to my mind, it's better to reinforce a weak area, especially if doing so doesn't interfere with the precise reason you need to reinforce it in the first place!

Steve

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:17 pm 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:02 pm
Posts: 350
Quote:
Quote:
The outer wings and front valance are not part of the shells structural element.
if you are worried about body flex a strut brace across the turrets will be much better than a bar welded across the valance
The engine swaps we've indulged in, both my Vauxhall swaps and, I presume from subtext, Boost's Jag powered car all sit too high in the bay to permit a strut brace to be used. There simply isn't room for one!

It's also my opinion, shared by competition oriented people who've been racing Sprints forever, that, because it doesn't have Mac Pherson strut suspension and there's no turning moment on the strut tops, a strut brace is completely un-necessary.

Whereas the flimsy, body-gauge steel that comprises the inner and outer front panels is sadly lacking in rigidity and folds up if you look at it too hard! Apart from the subframe (which is plenty strong enough), there is little in the actual shell that ties the front chassis rails together and stops the subframe from twisting the shell under severe engine torque loads imposed by 300BHP+. So, to my mind, it's better to reinforce a weak area, especially if doing so doesn't interfere with the precise reason you need to reinforce it in the first place!

Steve
correct on that assumption, my throttle bodies are pretty much touching the bonnet so no space for a strut brace. I did think that wh would a strut brace be necessary when in theory all the forces are acting up so it wouldn't add any strength unless tied to the bulkhead (which I've seen a lot more done in recent years) but assumed that it helps in some other way which is less obvious.

ill need to brace the hell out for the front of the subframe anyway as I had to remove the front cross member bit for clearance to the sump. the jag sump sticks about 4 inched proud of the front of the engine, putting it right where the cross member was. if I had more cash and time, I'd probably modify the sump instead, which would allow me to move the engine forward and away from the bulkhead.

_________________
So many ideas... So little budget... So little time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:54 pm 
Offline
TDC Shropshire Area Organiser

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:12 pm
Posts: 7014
Location: Highley, Shropshire
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The outer wings and front valance are not part of the shells structural element.
if you are worried about body flex a strut brace across the turrets will be much better than a bar welded across the valance
The engine swaps we've indulged in, both my Vauxhall swaps and, I presume from subtext, Boost's Jag powered car all sit too high in the bay to permit a strut brace to be used. There simply isn't room for one!

It's also my opinion, shared by competition oriented people who've been racing Sprints forever, that, because it doesn't have Mac Pherson strut suspension and there's no turning moment on the strut tops, a strut brace is completely un-necessary.

Whereas the flimsy, body-gauge steel that comprises the inner and outer front panels is sadly lacking in rigidity and folds up if you look at it too hard! Apart from the subframe (which is plenty strong enough), there is little in the actual shell that ties the front chassis rails together and stops the subframe from twisting the shell under severe engine torque loads imposed by 300BHP+. So, to my mind, it's better to reinforce a weak area, especially if doing so doesn't interfere with the precise reason you need to reinforce it in the first place!

Steve
correct on that assumption, my throttle bodies are pretty much touching the bonnet so no space for a strut brace. I did think that wh would a strut brace be necessary when in theory all the forces are acting up so it wouldn't add any strength unless tied to the bulkhead (which I've seen a lot more done in recent years) but assumed that it helps in some other way which is less obvious.

ill need to brace the hell out for the front of the subframe anyway as I had to remove the front cross member bit for clearance to the sump. the jag sump sticks about 4 inched proud of the front of the engine, putting it right where the cross member was. if I had more cash and time, I'd probably modify the sump instead, which would allow me to move the engine forward and away from the bulkhead.
The strut tops are already braced to the bulkhead by the factory, you just can't see it cos the braces are under the wings.

I have to open up the front bar of the subframe for my conversions too, adding a U shaped extension about 140mm forwards. This is made of 25x50x3mm box and means relocating the ARB UNDER the tie bars and bolting it up to the underside of the subframe extension, like so:-

Image

Sorry about the crap pic, couldn't find the one I really wanted to show, but you can see the extension poking out in front of the rad and probably the ARB if you look close!

BTW, on road or track it all works fine, but this is what caused me to "lose" my 2 axle points!
Pic also shows the factory O/S strut brace, directly above Tony's head!

Steve

_________________
'73 2 door Toledo with Vauxhall Carlton 2.0 8v engine (The Carledo)
'78 Sprint Auto with Vauxhall Omega 2.2 16v engine (The Dolomega)
'72 Triumph 1500FWD in Slate Grey, Now with RWD and Carledo powertrain!

Maverick Triumph, Servicing, Repairs, Electrical, Recomissioning, MOT prep, Trackerjack brake fitting service.
Apprentice served Triumph Specialist for 50 years. PM for more info or quotes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Body panel questions
PostPosted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:10 am 
Offline
TDC Member

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 12:02 pm
Posts: 350
Quote:
Quote:

correct on that assumption, my throttle bodies are pretty much touching the bonnet so no space for a strut brace. I did think that wh would a strut brace be necessary when in theory all the forces are acting up so it wouldn't add any strength unless tied to the bulkhead (which I've seen a lot more done in recent years) but assumed that it helps in some other way which is less obvious.

ill need to brace the hell out for the front of the subframe anyway as I had to remove the front cross member bit for clearance to the sump. the jag sump sticks about 4 inched proud of the front of the engine, putting it right where the cross member was. if I had more cash and time, I'd probably modify the sump instead, which would allow me to move the engine forward and away from the bulkhead.
The strut tops are already braced to the bulkhead by the factory, you just can't see it cos the braces are under the wings.

I have to open up the front bar of the subframe for my conversions too, adding a U shaped extension about 140mm forwards. This is made of 25x50x3mm box and means relocating the ARB UNDER the tie bars and bolting it up to the underside of the subframe extension, like so:-

Image

Sorry about the crap pic, couldn't find the one I really wanted to show, but you can see the extension poking out in front of the rad and probably the ARB if you look close!

BTW, on road or track it all works fine, but this is what caused me to "lose" my 2 axle points!
Pic also shows the factory O/S strut brace, directly above Tony's head!

Steve
i need to do that to my shell and sort all the bodge jobs out and straighten it all out. I took the front cross member out all the way to the sides, including the brace from the tie rod mount. I've left the ARB in place for now and going to make my brace sit above it.

i was going to maybe try to use an MX5 ARB at some point so that I can change how it is attached to the tie-rod as I'm not happy with how the triumph design works and heard a few issues with polybushed ARBs riping the subframe mounts apart. plus MX5s have such an aftermarket that you could get any strength ARB you'd ever want and can get proper adjustable ones.

and if youve lost the points for that, ive deffinetly lost mine haha, well was going to lose it anywat with m escort axle anyway

_________________
So many ideas... So little budget... So little time.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], PetalBot and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited