Original 4 inch vs. Billet Poll

[David Kirkham]

Al, sorry, I missed you! Yes, we are on Mountain Time here in Utah and this project certainly keeps me up late!

David

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by HI Cobra

David,

How about 142 formerly owned by Budman?
Looks like it is closer than most.
Now owned by me!

HI Cobra,

You are right! Anything under serial number 172 (I edited this as it used to say 171--further research from Ron Richards reminded me which car was Jeff's car) will have all original parts (unless they were later updated with our billet suspension parts--which many of the cars were!) KMP172 was the first car to get billet aluminum parts. It left with billet front upper control arms.

Nevertheless, the list is still quite small.

Of the 171 cars that had the original type suspension on them, around 100 were sold to Shelby. Some are now gone. Many, (I imagine around 20) had the suspensions updated to the billet stuff later in their life. At most, there might be 50 or so of our cars with the original type suspension, wiring, etc. out there. We still do make original spec cars, but they are pretty rare. (Even though we are delivering 5 of them in the next week or so.) But almost all of them are on their way to (or already in) Europe.

David

[Jamo]

Like you note, depends on build date as well...mine (184) and Jeff's (173) were built original-style, but then Jeff went all blingy up front. Pat's (now Dave's) 185 was also built original-style chassis-wise.

Ron's (178), when completed in the year 2037, will be the most original of all, but will likely be converted to run on bio-diesel given the probable lack of any more refined petroleum products left on this particular planet by then.

[computerworks]

ha....ha.....



Jeff is 173.

[David Kirkham]

Correction here:

Any car after 172 will PROBABLY not have the original type suspension on it. Jeff's car (173) was the first car to have billet parts. Now, that doesn't mean no way guys after that ONLY had billet stuff. We would have put on whatever the customer wanted. That's just how business goes. But from what I remember, there were very, very few that would have gotten original parts after 172.

David

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

---Besides, that chassis is starting to look like a billet Corvette chassis .

Oh and BTW Jamo, FFR's frames look just like your Kirkham frame (dual 4" round tube)

I think too many people put too much emphasis on frame design, when I think for the most part, assuming the frame is of sufficient strength, it doesn't matter what type of frame it is, tubular, square, space frame, etc. I think of far greater importance is suspension design and settings, the take off points for the control arms, camber settings and change rate with travel, spring rate, tire pressure, etc. I just don;t think the frame has that much of an impact on how the car handles.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Kirkham

You will have to be pre KMP0175 or so and Kirkham sold many of the first 175 cars to Shelby. In actuality, there are very, very, very few accurate cars. From what I remember, Shelby changed their cars very early on with welded uprights and other changes. I doubt there are many Shelby's that are absolutely accurate to original either. I would like to know, however, when Shelby actually changed things in their production. Maybe someone from Shelby could chime in and help???

David

It depends on how accurate you mean. The early cars had girling brakes as standard, but later ones have the vented discs, with the girlings as an upgrade. As far as the suspension, I think all the CSX4000 cars, the early ones, with tubular front control arms had adjustment nuts on them, unlike the original, for easier camber adjustment. Obviously, the CSX4000 cars had aluminum diffs, where the original had cast iron diffs. I wouldn't think anybody would make everything compltely accurate, and just accept the car from Shelby as delivered/optioned.

[thorconstr]

No aluminum blocks or heads! Proper carbs and tranny.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by computerworks

ha....ha.....



Jeff is 173.

Yup...corrected it. I think some swarmy displaced Mongolian had 182...printed all over the radiator if I recall correctly.

David...Jeff's came with steel suspension bits, and was converted to bling when Cheerleader and I brought it out to Provo in the dead of winter while he was feasting on kim chi.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I think too many people put too much emphasis on frame design, when I think for the most part, assuming the frame is of sufficient strength, it doesn't matter what type of frame it is, tubular, square, space frame, etc. I think of far greater importance is suspension design and settings, the take off points for the control arms, camber settings and change rate with travel, spring rate, tire pressure, etc. I just don;t think the frame has that much of an impact on how the car handles.

Obviously, the context in which Sal was responding to my post (both in humor) was lost on you. There is another thread where folks are trying to bore each other on the dynamics on frames being square or round, etc. That's what we were making fun of.

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Yup...corrected it. I think some swarmy displaced Mongolian had 182...printed all over the radiator if I recall correctly.

David...Jeff's came with steel suspension bits, and was converted to bling when Cheerleader and I brought it out to Provo in the dead of winter while he was feasting on kim chi.

As much as I think our esteemed moderator is correct in most things in life...

If I remember correctly...not sure that I do as that was 500 cars ago...but I am pretty sure I am remembering correctly. Jeff's car was the first one delivered with the billet front upper control arm. Later he did indeed come back for more mods--I don't recall what now--but I am about 99.999% sure of that. The reason is we were having a problem at the time getting front upper control arms out of Poland. (Wouldn't you know it, I have 20 of them on the wall right now )

Anyway, I remember talking to Jeff about the control arm and he said, "Hey, looks cool to me; I'll try it." So started our love affair with billet.

David

[Jamo]

Okey dokey...maybe you put on the lower ones when we brought it back there. There was something done to the front suspension, cuz it lowered it slightly and I had to lift the front a bit when Pat and I rolled it off the trailer at his house.

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I think too many people put too much emphasis on frame design, when I think for the most part, assuming the frame is of sufficient strength, it doesn't matter what type of frame it is, tubular, square, space frame, etc. I think of far greater importance is suspension design and settings, the take off points for the control arms, camber settings and change rate with travel, spring rate, tire pressure, etc. I just don;t think the frame has that much of an impact on how the car handles.

The frame matters most in how it holds said suspension components. A tubular chassis is typically the low end of the spectrum with regard to stiffness. It doesn't really matter if your suspension is 100% kinematically correct if the chassis is so weak it flexes out of shape with the suspension loads. I can immediately tell a tremendous difference between the original 0.090" wall chassis and our 0.130" wall chassis. The flex of the original chassis winds up the frame as you go into a corner and it then unloads as you leave. When you are driving on the edge it is quite unnerving.

That is why all F1 chassis are made from carbon fiber--very light and very stiff (so their suspensions move as they intend them to.

David

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Okey dokey...maybe you put on the lower ones when we brought it back there. There was something done to the front suspension, cuz it lowered it slightly and I had to lift the front a bit when Pat and I rolled it off the trailer at his house.

Now that you mention it...I think you are right. We did put new front lower arms on at that point. But the BLING had already begun. The die was cast; we were now on the path to the dark side.

David

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by David Kirkham

Now that you mention it...I think you are right. We did put new front lower arms on at that point. But the BLING had already begun. The die was cast; we were now on the path to the dark side.

David

Ha, dark side, us "younger" customers prefer the "bling's" strength and weight reduction characteristics. You go David. In the future, your market is the younger set.

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Ha, dark side, us "younger" customers prefer the "bling's" strength and weight reduction characteristics. You go David. In the future, your market is the younger set.

Of course, our customer is in his early 60's and this is what he wanted. Then again, he has always been ahead of his time.

David

[What'saCobra?]

Voted for billet. Prefer LeMans/FIA cars. Small blocks, but 8000rpm.

Not on the list: monocoque. i know it is very very difficult and still keep the interior look.

Chassis stiffness is just so very important for control and predictability, IHMO. CV joints are simply de rigor. They correct a horrible world of hang-ups and chassis jacking. Getting the inside front tire to bite and turn really demands a stiff chassis and rising-rate sticktionless linkages and spring/shock geometries.

Once you've tried a stiff chassis, you will never go back. Low weight & more aft CG & low polar moment are also primo on the list of reliable performance mods. All these point to monocoque.

On the other hand, a billet chassis was also considered 'impossible'. But, very beautiful and likely a serious improvement in every specification.

Check my flicks. We still take the M6B out for a Sunday drive or two and it always rewards, although the lift and loss of downforce in a 90 degree crosswind (you know, sideways!) has been proven in practical tests to be not acceptable.

Having said all that, i don't really care much for the old frames either, stiff or loose, they were flexible flyers. But Superleggera construction is our history, tubes and trusses were in aircraft first, then metal monocoques took over the world. Then composite monocoques.

But, the billet is absolutely a beautiful artistic expression and you ought to do a paper for the SAE. i know of no engineer that would not contratulate you both for such beauty and advanced engineering as art.

[decooney]

Hi David.

What makes the original KMP chassis format and approach most attractive is it's raw simplicity and vintage curves right down to the visible welds and vintage style bits. Going with precise Billet components on an aluminum vintage style Kirkham Cobra for me is sort of like the expression of trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. I vote for applying the passion to use billet on something more modern and edgy.

Now if you were to create a completely NEW Cobra car, larger and slightly restyled body, as a modernized version of the vintage Cobra (sort of like the one that Ford never built - using the modern drivetrain too) and applied the billet components passion there, I bet you'd find a whole new chapter of customers. Just think, now they'd have to have the vintage and new KMP car too. I can visualize the new car in my head right now. Go for something new and apply the billet passion there. Can't wait to see it.

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

Voted for billet.

...

But, the billet is absolutely a beautiful artistic expression and you ought to do a paper for the SAE. i know of no engineer that would not congratulate you both for such beauty and advanced engineering as art.

THAT is what I was trying for! My feeling is if something is really engineered well, then it will always be beautiful. Thanks for the kind words.

David

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by decooney

Hi David.
Go for something new and apply the billet passion there. Can't wait to see it.

It takes a ton of money and time to make a new car. I hope it turns out like what I see in my head as well.

David