Risen from the ashes

BMK · #1 (**permalink**) 05-29-2007, 07:41 AM

Well it was bound to happen.

The RF GT40 has risen from the ashes.

Importantly, the new owners who have absolutely no link or business arrangement with listed creditors or the previous owner of RF GT40 have started selling parts and kits again in Victoria Australia.

I understand that the parts and kits are marginally more in price.

Well the best of luck to those guys.

BMK · #2 (**permalink**) 06-05-2007, 04:29 PM

After attending one of our club meetings the other night, it appears that the guys are supplying parts and asistance to owners of the existing kits only at this stage.

I heard that they are not selling actual kits at this time. Kits will follow shortly.

Mmmm

Will keep you 'Posted".. I certainly have a real interest in what's going on.

Luckily - if that's the word - I was fortunate as I was about to place a deposit down when it all turned 'belly up'.

I still believe and know that the RF40 was one of the better kits available.

Perhaps the new owners will find/reach this site.

BMK · #3 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:54 AM

Thought I would update.

Have heard again after being at a club meeting that RF GT40 are for sale again.

Good news and the best of luck to the new owners.

Perhaps someone has more information on the business...

richardferguson · #4 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 06:49 PM

Bernie,
sounds like you got an itch that needs a scratch!
Richard

BT SNAKE · #5 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 09:00 PM

Hi Bernie,
Good for the new RF guys. I wish them well and continued success.
They have a great car as mine is a true testiment to that.
I have well over 70,000 miles on it and it is still going strong.
There are several posts on another forum that pertain to the suspension geometry of the RFGT40. I could never grasp the complaints about this cars lack of setup. Several pros have driven my GT with nothing but high praise as to it's handling. At R&G Don Barnes (owner of Texas speedway experience) drove my car and was totally impressed with the handling. He stated that the only thing he would change is the brakes. Don claimed that another 3 or 4 seconds could be had off of the 109.80's that he turned. That was with me in the car. I am currently changing those brakes.
I truly hope that these guys stick to their recipe.

Hersh

BMK · #6 (**permalink**) 11-20-2007, 05:59 AM

BT SNAKE

Hersh,

Good to see you here.

I heard that someone from the club was going to invite the new owners of RF GT40 to a club meeting to tell all members what they are up too. There was some interest from members at the drinks bar after, wanting to organise a trip to the RF GT40 premises if it is approriate/able to have visitors.

Hope all is well.

Bernie

Jac Mac · #7 (**permalink**) 11-29-2007, 01:38 AM

Hersch, Bernie,

If the car on the 'other forum' is the one I am thinking of I had a bit of involvement in help solve the 'problem'. At the end of the day I believe the particular problem on that car was a front rim offset issue which had led to some mods/adjustments on the front suspension that did not allow camber'castor to be set at optimum along with a less than ideal scrub radius. Since the RF40 ( along with most replicas ) follows the original in basic layout of wishbones etc, as long as front wheels/rims are kept to a reasonable offset and width to enable a suitable scrub radius few problems should arise in the handling dept, if you wish to fit very wide modern rubber at the front for racing , then a rethink of pickup points etc is in order to gain maximum benefit.

Jac Mac

BT SNAKE · #8 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 09:25 AM

Jack,
Thanks for that mate. I do believe you have it correct. I
am trying to learn the black art of suspension tuning.

It is a very complicated thing to learn because things change other things making it difficult to get all your ducks in a row so to speak.

Hersh

Jac Mac · #9 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Hersch,

The 'adjustabilty' of the RF & other spaceframe cars can be made a lot more user friendly if the inner bushes of top/bottom wishbones are replaced with spherical bushes( similar to a rod end, but press in & retained by circlips ) and the chassis pickup points reworked so that all bolts run parallel to the car centerline. This also dictates that the top/wishbone ball joint be either a rod end or threaded type ball joint ( I think they use a Ford Transit tie rod end in the UK ) for camber adjustment.

With the pickup points reworked in this fashion the castor can be changed without affecting camber or wheelbase at the same time-by shifting the lower w/bone fwd & top w/bone rearward the castor can be increased without altering the wheelbase. All this is acheived by simply altering the spacer stack on each side of the spherical joints. Doing it in this manner virtually eliminates the possibility of the tire contacting the wheel arch or sponson at either lock limits.

[NB- this only works if the inner ends of w/bones re modded as above- will not work with plain bushes or nolathane etc]

Jac Mac

BT SNAKE · #10 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 09:24 AM

Jack,
Thanks again. I don't think you know how much that last
post helped me.
I'm currently trying to understand how the tire slip angle works with all this . Kinda hard to picture . I've heard that tires are the first consideration.
I think I will learn how to set up a suspension but the real secret is knowing what setup to use on a peticular track. It's the undersdtanding of what effects you get when you change something. Like what to change when you need the rear to be more stable in a decreasing radial turn.
I will say one thing, it's damn interesting but confusing at times.
One question Jack... I have seen front and lower wishbones with verticle spherical bearings perpendidular to the centerline of the car. What are the good - bad points of this design?

Hersh

Fran Hall RCR · #11 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 11:55 AM

Hershal,
there are many things to consider when designing suspension.
Rod ends can be used in both directsions and on some race cars are actually mixed on the same arm.

If you want to be really trick ...you could CNC yourself some new arms and actually encase a spherical ball with two snap rings for location in the end of the arms and then have rod ends on the other end and have all the advantages of real race`car suspension....much like the ones RCR has manufactured for a 2006 Ford GT track car....

Jac Mac · #12 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BT SNAKE

Jack,
Thanks again. I don't think you know how much that last
post helped me.
I'm currently trying to understand how the tire slip angle works with all this . Kinda hard to picture . I've heard that tires are the first consideration.
I think I will learn how to set up a suspension but the real secret is knowing what setup to use on a peticular track. It's the undersdtanding of what effects you get when you change something. Like what to change when you need the rear to be more stable in a decreasing radial turn.
I will say one thing, it's damn interesting but confusing at times.
One question Jack... I have seen front and lower wishbones with verticle spherical bearings perpendidular to the centerline of the car. What are the good - bad points of this design?

Hersh

I will answer the last Q first. The vertical bolts allow you change roll center heights and antidive @ front or squat @ rear. As Fran has pointed out you can have combos of both on one w/bone. Take the front lower as an example. If the inner front pivot has the bolt horizontal while the inner rear bolt is vertical then raising the rear of the w/bone will build in some antidive.

Dont sweat the confusion part, without a great deal of thought it very hard ( if not impossible ) to design a suspension layout where one change does not create another unwanted change at the same time- the 'trick' if there is one is to minimise these unwanted changes.

One change at a time is the safest way & keep notes. I can tell you that the car I have been involved with out here has achieved approx 4secs per lap improvement from suspension work only over the last three seasons, most of the problems were built into the car originally. With hindsight it would have been quicker to build a new chassis, but then we were not aware of what we were in for! Strengthening a weak area of the chassis that was causing a mechanical bind in the rear suspension while under power was the single big gain- a simple test of chassis torsional strength showed that up!

Jac Mac

BT SNAKE · #13 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 02:32 PM

Fran,
That is a slick aproach. I'm starting to see where thinking outside the box can pay off as long as you make sure the engineering is good. Fran, I have always been impressed with your business and engineering choices. The consumer wins. and so does the industry as a whole.

Jack,
More nuggets of good advise. Thank you and I will heed those words of wisdom.

Hersh