The Hurricane chassis in 3-D

[DrivinWest]

As requested, here's a few images of the Hurricane chassis that I took while messing around with their interactive 3D model:

[tkb289]

Very nice!

Interesting to see all of the different components from a variety of perspectives. I noticed the dropped foot box on the driver's side ... any thoughts as to doing the same on the passenger side? Just curious.

[Bill Bess]

Is this the new frame? and is it exact, or is it your interpretation? Anything pictures showing the frame design should be from Hurricane Motorsports in order to avoid any misconceptions .
Very cool though, hopefully their new web site will show any changes they made.
Bill

[dlampe]

Thanks for posting Aaron. Yes Bill it is exact. It is off of the Hurricane web site. They have a 3=D interactive model. Just go to the web site and click the file. By using this type of modeling the frame team can cut 10 frames at one time then weld them together. I am not a computer guy but the engineer said each piece is exact and to scale. The passenger side has a drop foot box as well. The driver's side is deeper to accommodate the floor mounted break system. There are a few things not on the model like the bars that go over the top of the foot box down to the front suspension support. It will be in the car. I have opted to not have the drop boxes in my car. I like the more original floor look. I'm 6'3 and I didn't need the drop box.

[rustyBob]

It will take a lot of labor to build that one.......not anything like the original Cobras....
but looks very strong.....good for raceing........

[ERA Chas]

At the risk of sounding like an 'ERA snob' (a title held by my friend, counselor PatrickT) I would say that it would benefit the Hurricane builders and customers to compare this chassis to ERA's.

If the above drawings are accurate and do not omit any parts, there are significant structural differences between the two. Especially if racing is planned. On an ERA, the main rails are 3 x4 and the 'x' member is 2 x3.

Namely: the ERA has a larger 'x' member which runs from the door leading edge all the way to the main rear crossmember. This 'x' is one tube welded to 2 legs to make the 'x'. The H'cane shows the x rails cut short of the main rails and joined by short rectangular tubes to the main rails-obviously to lower the trans mount. ERA accomplishes that with a rectangular gusset welded just forward of the x. The trans mount sits on that pad and the tail shaft is above the 3" dimension of the 'x'. Trans comes out from the top.

The H'cane main chassis rails do not extend all the way to the front of the radiator mount. Further, the ERA has a full 'k' member front crossmember below their 'x' member, which ties the lower, rear, control arm pivot to the whole chassis. There is nothing below the H'cane front 'x' member.

The ERA has a substantial double vertical post at the door hinge/cowl brace area. The door latch on an ERA is a steel plate which is welded to a rectangular upright which ties into the rear cockpit brace. The H'cane shows no latch plate and only what looks like a 1" round tube for fiberglass attachment.

The H'cane shows no engine mount structure but an ERA has 2, 2 x3's angle welded to the chassis with flat plates for motor mounts.

A look at the diagrams on ERA's site will make things more clear than I described them. Here are two views of mine:




My car is 25+ years old, has no stress marks in the glass, has been raced and weighs 2650 wet.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Namely: the ERA has a larger 'x' member which runs from the door leading edge all the way to the main rear crossmember. This 'x' is one tube welded to 2 legs to make the 'x'. The H'cane shows the x rails cut short of the main rails and joined by short rectangular tubes to the main rails-obviously to lower the trans mount. ERA accomplishes that with a rectangular gusset welded just forward of the x. The trans mount sits on that pad and the tail shaft is above the 3" dimension of the 'x'. Trans comes out from the top.

Is Hurricane's intentions to have a design in which the transmission can be dropped from the bottom? This is somewhat (depending on your own views) of a knock against both ERA and SPF, as pulling the seats and tunnel just to service a clutch sounds extreme. At the least the first time is a PITA...after that it isn't as big a deal.

Cool drawings.

-Dean

[elmariachi]

The Hurricane is designed so that the transmission be installed from the bottom up. The X crossmember comes up under the transmission and bolts in 4 places to the frame braces. The rear transmission mount secures to the x brace. It's an ingenious design and with my car on a lift and air tools, I can have the TKO 600 out and on the ground in 15 minutes.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by RedBarchetta

At the least the first time is a PITA...after that it isn't as big a deal.-Dean

Absolutely true but with that stuff gone it's a breeze to work clutch/flywheel change.

[patrickt]

Chas. -- your pics don't come up (at least not for me, that is). Could you repost them?

[Bill Bess]

I looked at most frame designs prior to buying my Hurricane and determied that most of them are adequate to handle the weight and suspension on the cobras.
I think FFR is one of the best, ERA and Hurricane are as good. Hurricane had numerous additional attributes, including the subframe (top part in engine compartment), fiberglass cockpit and trunk liners, X - cross member, all of which added up to the best for me.

I looking forward to seeing the new Hurricane when they arrive, best to everyone , Bill

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Chas. -- your pics don't come up (at least not for me, that is). Could you repost them?

Jeeze, 'da hell day go?
Sure Pat.

[jwd]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

At the risk of sounding like an 'ERA snob'

You mean there is some other type of ERA owner?

Jim

[ERA Chas]

Pat-you could post yours too-nobody would see much difference.

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by jwd

You mean there is some other type of ERA owner?

Jim

Yeah-big block, solid lifter ERA owners...

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA Chas

Pat-you could post yours too-nobody would see much difference.

Unless, of course, I posted a shot of my outboard-braked rear. After all, true ERA-snobs do not settle for the Jag rear.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Unless, of course, I posted a shot of my outboard-braked rear. After all, true ERA-snobs do not settle for the Jag rear.

I'm happy to see you snapped out of your funk of late. You've been way too diplomatic.

[ERA Chas]

You have 'out-snobbed' me! My bad- please tell JWD we have another reason to be snobs.

He's not talking much about the H'cane frame design...

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I'm happy to see you snapped out of your funk of late. You've been way too diplomatic.

Ehhh, it's just not the same when your car's in a bag. I did roll it a few inches today inside the bag. I do that once a month. That's my Cobra excitement for January.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Ehhh, it's just not the same when your car's in a bag. I did roll it a few inches today inside the bag. I do that once a month. That's my Cobra excitement for January.

Like rotating your fine wine bottles in the wine cellar.

Eh, it's been raining here in the SF Bay Area for a couple weeks, and with the Holidays just passed, my garage door hasn't opened and the car cover come off in a very long time.

My apologies to the OP. I wish I knew what you guys were looking at in terms of frame design. I can barely keep my car from running out of gas on nice breakfast cruises.