15 replies to this topic

[midridge2]

http://www.theminifo...howtopic=209880 following on from this topic i am curious.



have you fitted either a fg or carbonfibre panel to your road going mini and the MOT tester has failed it?

i am talking about what many members call structual panels, i am looking at A panels, rear valance and boot floors.

[Bungle]

yes in theory a bonded in boot floor and rear valance should fail the MOT because you are changing the mini's construction in a area around the subframe mounts

you are also altering the monocoque that might leave you with identity problems with VOSA/DVLA

[Carlzilla]

Bond and rivet them, If you use the right stuff to bond them with you wont have a problem, after all, f1 cars are put together in the same way, CF panels bonded together.
I doubt an MOT tester would fail it if the panels are fit for purpose and arent about to fall off after a quick poke.

[Bungle]

but take a F1 car with carbon fibre monocoque and cut a big section out a pop rivet some steel in

i bet the designers will be wincing and very worried about the structure

[midridge2]

because i cannot now edit my original posting i will add some more on this new one.

because some panels are classed as structual and as rightly pointed out removing them and bonding in new ones is dangerous, as shifty has pointed out were do people stand with the MOT and insurance companies,? if these bonded in panels are dangerous because the shell was never designed to accept bonding how do the makers get around selling them?

maybe some of the makers of these panels could come onto tmf and explain how they get around this as shifty has said, what if vosa examined your car after a accident and it was fitted with these bonded in panels, how do the insurance companies look at this and if its a MOT failure how can the companies sell these panels?

[Bungle]

if a insurance company can get away with out paying up they will

i bet after a clam one of their first questions will be for a copy of a engenders report or BIVA certificate

a lot of these parts are sold to build a race car where the roll cage will add the strength where bits of the shell have been removed

Edited by Bungle, 18 December 2011 - 03:13 PM.

[joakwin]

i guess im gonna have to go and talk to my mot guy, im about to put in a carbon fiber boot floor
and i want to use a fiberglass rear valance and fiberglass bumper on the rear only

got fiberglass doors and clubby clip also

[Carlzilla]

You wont have a problem with any of those. There's lots of people who do that, although i would advise telling your insurance about it.
By removing the front end and fitting brace bars, it effectively makes the a panels, front panel and wings non structural, as those arent now what hold the subframe in place. Nor are the inner wings around an inch in front of the shock mount. I'd advise sticking to metal a panels though, i tried FG ones that are bonded to my front end, but its not really ideal. That said, i can quite happily perch myself on the corner of my FG front without problems.

Edited by Carlzilla, 18 December 2011 - 08:43 PM.

[Carlzilla]

but take a F1 car with carbon fibre monocoque and cut a big section out a pop rivet some steel in

i bet the designers will be wincing and very worried about the structure

But this is not an f1 car, this is a mini, it does not do 200mph+

What i was saying was that the methods used are sufficiently strong enough for race use, therefore suffiecently strong enough for road use when used in the correct manner.

[joakwin]

i got a clubby clip with the A panel built in, from absmotorsports, de-seamed the car also, so it flows nice

and i made some brace bars out of 1.25 cds and they connect to my roll cage inside the car,
and i got tigerseal to use to bond the cf boot floor in, going in this week

Edited by joakwin, 18 December 2011 - 08:48 PM.

[Carlzilla]

More than ample to support the front of the subframe, also used in conjunction with solid rear and top mounts it's far stronger than a steel front, eliminates a lot of flex from the subframe and makes the steering more responsive. I'd personally be much more confident in those steel bars holding out than a steel front end in the event of an accident. At the end of the day it's each to thier own, if somebody doesn't like what your'e doing with your own car as long as it isnt a danger to the roads, then stuff them, they don't have to drive it.

[The Matt]

Just reading through this.

Though bonded boot floors etc may well be strong enough, an MOT tester will look for a repair to a panel to be seam welded, or for a replacement panel to be fitted as per the OE method.

It's not about whether it's up to the job, it's about whether it falls within test criteria really.

[Jordie]

i wouldnt have thought tigerseal would be upto the job, much better products available

id use sikaflex 255 its for bonding panels, body kits, spoilers, fibreglass parts etc.

[The Matt]

Tigerseal is very over rated IMO. There are FAR better adhesives out there.

But the point remains that we're talking about replacing the OE production method with something that could be deemed an insufficient repair in the eyes of some Mr MOT Men.

[M J W J]

Composite and bonded panels can often be stiffer than metal welded ones. Lotus bond their chassises together instead of welding them as it produces a far stiffer chassis. People assume that adhesives are weaker than welding. They are often stronger (due to larger surface areas being joined), more consistent than welding and don't have problems such as oxidation, HAZ, ******* induction, etc.

The part in a mot test saying that all repaired panels must be seam welded is stupid. What happens if the car is built from composite materials or was never welded together in the first place? How am I supposed to weld carbon fibre back together?