42 replies to this topic

[Sam Walters]

correction

"Has run a competition car in events"

So Dave, whats the sock situation like? Turning them inside out yet?

[mini93]

i actualy have no idea what you mean there :S socks, not got any on at the mo

[mighty mini jack]

Sorry, but;

[Shifty]

Bleeding hell!!

All this over a valence??

I'm not convinced that the actual valance itself adds a huge amount of strength, it does however help tie in the 3 layers that are sandwiched together.

To the very best of my knowledge its an MOT requirement, as are the closing plates.

The cheapo hadrian closing panels just attach to the valance and the floor whilst the BMH ones go to the rear subby mounts.

I'm also not convinced by the fact that rally cars don't have em as an argument, don't forget that they also have spunking great roll cages which will more than replace any lost strength.

They will have been removed to reduce drag.

So to sum up, everyones right in there own way, yaddda yaddda yadda, who's watching top gear tonight??


Oh yeah, I'm not on my man period...............I left my menstrual cycle at home today!!!!

[mini93]

Oh yeah, I'm not on my man period...............I left my menstrual cycle at home today!!!!

you are a little bleeder tho bleeding heck eh

[Deathrow]

I shall be watching .

I'll apologise if this has all got a bit heated! I was only voicing my opinion and IMO, I'd rather have it there.

Sam Walters, what gives you the impression I'm on a personal vendetta against mini93 and Alex? I've posted a few times in Alex's thread because I love his car. I don't think I've ever really spoken to mini93 before and I hope neither of them think I'm out to get them as it's definitly not the case.

I don't see this thread as anything but a good old healthy bit of debate.

Also, note, no toy throwing .

[panelbeaterpeter]

Ok. The valance itself, is not structural. It will add a very small amount of strength to the rear of the car, but not enough to make a noticeable difference if it was removed. The closing panels form part of the strengthened area of the boot floor where the rear bolts of the subframe attach, as can be seen here


There is no reason why you couldn't replace this area of the closing panels with a plate to do the same job.

The valance is then just spot welded over top top of the closing panels and to bumper mounting lip where the boot floor and bottom edge of the rear panel are joined. This simply tidies up the lines of the rear end, and makes it more aesthetically pleasing.


To pass an MOT according to the rules and guidelines, if a panel is fitted, it should be done so as per factory specification, or better. So a steel valance spot welded on should technically be the minimum requirement. However, if you want to remove the steel valance and fit a FG/CF valance then if it is bonded/bolted on and looks like it could be original, then no-one's going to bother poking about to check, so long as there are no holes or anything obviously dodgy. If it is blatantly bolted on with the bolts or fixings visible, then technically it shouldn't pass, but it might, depending on the tester. Same applies to flip fronts, technically.

As for not fitting one at all, it would pass an MOT so long as the strengthening area of the closing panel was still present and functional, and there were no sharp edges anywhere. If you retained the boot floor to rear panel seam/ bumper lip, you would have to fit a bumper so it wasn't a sharp edge. As for putting stresses on the floor, I don't see there being any more stresses than normal, the valance doesn't support the floor much more then the rear panel does, and that is still present. If you were worried, you could weld a length of box section to the bottom of the lip, but it really wouldn't be necessary, so long as there were a lot of good solid plug/spot welds holding the boot floor seam to the rear valance. The boot floor doesn't NEED top be sandwiched between 2 panels, it's just the way mini's were made.

Edited by panelbeaterpeter, 25 July 2010 - 04:46 PM.

[alexcrosse]

if a car is designed and built to have something on it then i think it should be put back that way

There designed to have an A series engine... yet ive found there a hell of alot better without them.

[Shifty]

if a car is designed and built to have something on it then i think it should be put back that way

There designed to have an A series engine... yet ive found there a hell of alot better without them.

Burn Him.......................Burn Him!!!!

[alexcrosse]

LOL! =p Ironically something a lepricorn would say shifty =p hehe

[Shifty]

LOL! =p Ironically something a lepricorn would say shifty =p hehe

My Poo can spin his wheels quite nicely with his little A-series!!

(as you well know, along with reaching valve bounce from cold!!!)

[alexcrosse]

haha! good times =p

[midridge2]

I agree with pete, some panels on a mini shell are not classed as structual and the rear valance is one of them.

You can buy f/glass wings for a mini and these are bonded/ rivitted/ screwed etc in place and this is different from the original spot welds and will pass a mot.
Regards the strengthing plate that is for the rear/rear subframe mounts, that are part of the closing panel, these are there as they would need to put large penny washers under the bolt head to spread the weight and that would cost more than a piece of metal underneath.