Is Inboarding the Frame Legal?

[SundanceKid]

I have a long bed frame that once I have the engine/trans/t case set, I am going to section the frame so that my drivelines are the same length. The extended frame should have plenty of length to notch and bend the frame to match the front spring width. In my mind this will save me some time and money when considering other options.

First the rules don't provide a spec for wheelbase. (Hendrix site shows 103") but it's not stated in the rules?

Second Can you inboard the rear section of the frame?

Thanks.

[Nissan Recovery Team]

Just to clarify what you are asking..you want to basically re-bend your frame in the rear so it matches the front? Meaning taper it inboard as your describing?

Second, save's time and money over what??

If the rules don't spec it...then run what you want. Wheelbase can be anything you can make work with the approved chassis.

[SundanceKid]

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

| |
/ \
| |
\ /
| |

Save money from having to buy an 85+ axle. Saves time because I can french the leafspring mounts into the frame instead of making an offset mount that ties into the cage. Which would also cost more money to fabricate.

Time is money

[Nissan Recovery Team]

Originally Posted by SundanceKid

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

| |
/ \
| |
\ /
| |

Save money from having to buy an 85+ axle. Saves time because I can french the leafspring mounts into the frame instead of making an offset mount that ties into the cage. Which would also cost more money to fabricate.

Time is money

Well, the rules say what frame years to use, but nothing about what you asked so I can't see why not.

Just had to clarify...that's thinkin' outside the box and haven't seen anyone do it or talk about it yet.

Good luck.

[a2b]

no you cant inboard the frame. you dont need an 85 frame, an IFS frame will work, just cut off the back end. also to make an inboarded hanger for the rear, doesnt take long and not much money. some .25" plate and your good.

what is so hard about this?

[SundanceKid]

Originally Posted by a2b

no you cant inboard the frame. you dont need an 85 frame, an IFS frame will work, just cut off the back end. also to make an inboarded hanger for the rear, doesnt take long and not much money. some .25" plate and your good.

what is so hard about this?

Nothing is hard about it. It would just be easier to inboard the frame since I am cutting the frame anyway.

[a2b]

Originally Posted by SundanceKid

Nothing is hard about it. It would just be easier to inboard the frame since I am cutting the frame anyway.

why are you cutting the frame anywhere but the end of it. i guess i dont quite understand what your doing

[Nissan Recovery Team]

Originally Posted by a2b

i guess i dont quite understand what your doing

Me either I thought again about this at the shop and can't figure out how this is more economical and easier unless I'm just missing something.

[SundanceKid]

I guess there really is no point in explaining it if it isn't legal?

[Nissan Recovery Team]

Originally Posted by SundanceKid

I guess there really is no point in explaining it if it isn't legal?

Other than it's good tech and thinkin outside the box. Personally, I'm intrigued by it.

[SundanceKid]

Originally Posted by Nissan Recovery Team

Other than it's good tech and thinkin outside the box. Personally, I'm intrigued by it.

It's probably lack of experience then good tech. I come from more of a road racing/drag racing back ground. Back halving a frame for extra tire clearance is a fairly common practice. This will be my first attempt at a rock buggy.

I actually had two ideas...the one I presented was way in the box compared to my second idea which was to take two fronts of a frame and weld them together in the center...I had no delusions that would be allowed. Possibly a front axle in the rear, which depending on how you read the rules would still be legal.

What I planned to do but am re-thinking now was to flat belly the frame...and I mean flat. I was going to french the leaf hangers so that they were dead flat to the frame. The belly pan would go from leaf perch to leaf perch. The front leaf would have the shackles reversed of course.

By in boarding the rear frame I could more easily accomplish the total flat belly spring perch to spring perch idea. The strength of the perches would be stronger then if they are offset, way easier to make, I mean get some square tube stock cut to shape and weld.

The reason for the splitting of the long bed frame in the center as opposed to just loping off the end was to reduce the wheel base without having to move the axle into the cross tube and possibly causing a clearance issue. After a second measure, and a re-think of the exact same length driveshaft goal, it looks like I only need to move the axle forward an inch or so.

Nothing really intriguing, just a keep it simple stupid approach.

[Nissan Recovery Team]

Originally Posted by SundanceKid

It's probably lack of experience then good tech. I come from more of a road racing/drag racing back ground. Back halving a frame for extra tire clearance is a fairly common practice. This will be my first attempt at a rock buggy.

I actually had two ideas...the one I presented was way in the box compared to my second idea which was to take two fronts of a frame and weld them together in the center...I had no delusions that would be allowed. Possibly a front axle in the rear, which depending on how you read the rules would still be legal.

What I planned to do but am re-thinking now was to flat belly the frame...and I mean flat. I was going to french the leaf hangers so that they were dead flat to the frame. The belly pan would go from leaf perch to leaf perch. The front leaf would have the shackles reversed of course.

By in boarding the rear frame I could more easily accomplish the total flat belly spring perch to spring perch idea. The strength of the perches would be stronger then if they are offset, way easier to make, I mean get some square tube stock cut to shape and weld.

The reason for the splitting of the long bed frame in the center as opposed to just loping off the end was to reduce the wheel base without having to move the axle into the cross tube and possibly causing a clearance issue. After a second measure, and a re-think of the exact same length driveshaft goal, it looks like I only need to move the axle forward an inch or so.

Nothing really intriguing, just a keep it simple stupid approach.

#006 Frenched his springs into his frame and seems to work well. That Ftoy has one more than any other I beleive. Regardless of driver

Be careful on the wheelbase thing, Mike designed these for 103 and 37s ( if memory serves) so make sure you keep that in mind. IF your trying to build a spec Ftoy.

How about a Frame Jig? Have any plans for that? Thinking your gonna need something to keep it straight.

Hell, build this thing I say. Just don't plan to compete with it.

[SundanceKid]

Originally Posted by Nissan Recovery Team

#006 Frenched his springs into his frame and seems to work well. That Ftoy has one more than any other I beleive. Regardless of driver

Be careful on the wheelbase thing, Mike designed these for 103 and 37s ( if memory serves) so make sure you keep that in mind. IF your trying to build a spec Ftoy.

How about a Frame Jig? Have any plans for that? Thinking your gonna need something to keep it straight.

Hell, build this thing I say. Just don't plan to compete with it.

I was told that wheelbase is open anything goes? I'm currently at 112" I want to be in the 108ish area.

Careful 1" stiches while alternating sides and top bottom is (was) the plan.

Well if I compete or not remains to be decided. I want to build it to Ftoy spec. regardless.

[a2b]

Originally Posted by SundanceKid

What I planned to do but am re-thinking now was to flat belly the frame...and I mean flat..

have you seen mine. same thing. sean just did his too.

[Brian Ellinger]

Technically there is no rule about dovetailing the back end. In fact Hobie and I were talking about it at Globe. There are no rules governing orientation of the frame, narrowing it, flattening the rails out, dovetailing, shaving it, notching it, or even how much of it you have to have. Want more? There's no rule saying I cant chop the frame up, keep the 6" of vin, weld it to the top of the chassis as a flower pot, and run tube for the rest of the chassis. Now that may not be the "spirit" of the rules, but it is the "letter" of the rules. Racing is about gray areas.

Hobie, you need help rewriting these rules now?

[a2b]

Originally Posted by Brian Ellinger

Technically there is no rule about dovetailing the back end. In fact Hobie and I were talking about it at Globe. There are no rules governing orientation of the frame, narrowing it, flattening the rails out, dovetailing, shaving it, notching it, or even how much of it you have to have. Want more? There's no rule saying I cant chop the frame up, keep the 6" of vin, weld it to the top of the chassis as a flower pot, and run tube for the rest of the chassis. Now that may not be the "spirit" of the rules, but it is the "letter" of the rules. Racing is about gray areas.

Hobie, you need help rewriting these rules now?

ya, there wont be any additions of "new" rules. but just some to clarify stuff people already know. like the frame needs to be as long as the chassis. stuff like that.

[SundanceKid]

Originally Posted by Brian Ellinger

Now that may not be the "spirit" of the rules, but it is the "letter" of the rules.

That was my main concern...to be within the spirit of the rules. I'd hate to show up and have someone contest my buggy.

Originally Posted by a2b

have you seen mine. same thing. sean just did his too.

No, not that good of a pic anyway. Nice posser shot!

Since we are talking frames I do have a few questions and I need some advice. I have two frames in my possesion. One is an 84 longbed 170" long that is the trans and axle donor, the other is a stripped 94 longbed 182" long.

The 94 is absolutely rust free and has all the brackets removed it just needs grinding. At 182" long I will need to remove 30" of frame somewhere.

The 84 as alot of rust scale, (approx 1/16" but it doesn't look like the rust has ate down into the frame. Well placed hammer whacks and some pokeing around indicate the frame is still very solid.

I'm concerned about the rust on the 84. (I'm way anal about rust) I don't like the lack of front frame arch on the 94. Is there any advantage to using a SA frame over an IFS frame? As far as I know no one has used an IFS frame to build an Ftoy yet.

Buying another frame is out of the question. What frame would you use and why?

[a2b]

use either one you like. and i think there are 3 ftoys with IFS frames.....

mines one of them see where i notched the frame for the tie rod clearence

[Pook]

mines an ifs frame aswell. I think the steel in the newer frames is better, but the lack of tierod clearance isn't the greatest. I haven't clearance mine yet but have hit it a few times. Hasn't been much of a problem.

[SanDiegoCJ]

Originally Posted by Pook

mines an ifs frame aswell. I think the steel in the newer frames is better, but the lack of tierod clearance isn't the greatest. I haven't clearance mine yet but have hit it a few times. Hasn't been much of a problem.

I have a question about the 85 and older vs the 86 and newer frames.

Pook, you stated that you think the steel is better, why ?
Also, I've seen that the older frames are 2 "C" channels welded together,
are the newer frames that way too ? Also, are the newer frames made
of a thicker steel ?

[SundanceKid]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoCJ

I have a question about the 85 and older vs the 86 and newer frames.

Pook, you stated that you think the steel is better, why ?
Also, I've seen that the older frames are 2 "C" channels welded together,
are the newer frames that way too ? Also, are the newer frames made
of a thicker steel ?

The 86-96's frames are made with the 2 "C" channels like the 79-85's.

Actually the older frame looks to be just ever so bit thicker. (we're talking mils here) If anything the newer frames have less carbon in the steel.

Pook, I'd also like to know why they might be better.

A2B, Thanks for the notch pic. I had no idea that the tie rod would even be a problem. That gives me some good ideas if I do use the IFS frame.

Has anyone used the Hysteer arms from 4X4 Labs? They place the tie rod behind the axle.

[Brian Ellinger]

Originally Posted by a2b

ya, there wont be any additions of "new" rules. but just some to clarify stuff people already know. like the frame needs to be as long as the chassis. stuff like that.

Thats going to be hard, as I know at least one has the frame cut shorter than the chassis, as the downtubes angle towards the front. I dont know that it needs to be full length of chassis, I was thinking a run of "even with midline od rear end at ride height" or just something simple like "frame must extended at least 24" behind center of rear axle" Careful what you require of frame being stock as well , think of Lisa's new front xmembers for instance, and geiger/marlins front hanger frenched in to the front of the frame. Since rules werent in place to limit this.... Those cars would either have to be reuilt, or rules made to allow.

Honestly stock width frame rails, stock dimension apart at every given point. And using a minimum of 130" of each rail would do well. Frame rails cannot have the bottom shaved for better clearance, but frenched in hangers and thru mounted shackle pivots are allowed.

And Im serious about helping rewrite. I spend 36 hours in the truck with Scott last weekend. We've got plenty of creative ideas that are technically legal.