Introduction and your opinion please

Hello, my name is Stefan Vapaa and I recently dragged home a couple 1969 Macon MR7s. Both cars are completely disassembled but mostly complete. Both cars were taken apart following significant crash damage.

This is the photo the seller sent me as incentive to come and get the cars out of his paint booth...
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...33485a5ebf.jpg

The cars are chassis #100 (last raced by Joe Mendel in 2013) and chassis #105 (last raced by Jay Thier in 2012).

- Chassis #100 has most of the damage repaired and sits as a sandblasted chassis at this point. I have a fair bit of history on this one.

- Chassis #105 is "as-was" and still has the crash damage from a T-bone impact to the right side of the engine bay. I have no history on this car apart from the previous owner.

My plan is to restore both cars, keeping one for myself and selling the other to recoup some costs.

I race with the VRG on the east coast and hope to join the FF field in 2018.

Now, for the opinion part...
These cars originally ran the coolant through the chassis tubes. One chassis (#100) retains this setup while the other (#105) has the tubes capped off and last ran converted to a traditional setup with separate coolant tubes. Which configuration is the more valuable when it comes time to sell the car, original or converted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the value of the car would be effected in any way if you don't use the original chassis tubes. I have a '69 Titan that I've nearly finished restoring and I won't run water through the chassis anymore. If, at a later date someone else wanted to they can easily reconfigure the water system. I'd go with aluminum pipes if I were you.

If you are going to make it a show car leave the water in the tubes. If you wish to race them take the water out! It is a safety issue (ever seen someone scalded with hot water from a shunt) and a driver comfort issue on hot days.

I have an Alexis MK14 and the water runs through the chassis. No problems except, as noted above, it does get a little warm. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ralph Z.

I have an Alexis MK14 and the water runs through the chassis. No problems except, as noted above, it does get a little warm. :thumbsup:

---

Any maintenance issues?

None so far. Key point: The chassis is less than 10 years old. The previous owner had a new chassis made. The only maintenance is replacing the water with anti-freeze for winter storage here in Ohio. :(

As I bought one of these cars to keep and one specifically to restore and then sell, my primary concern was with making it as good as possible for that day when I put it on the market. Would a potential buyer of a Historic FF look at it and say "Yikes, it still runs through the chassis!" or "Darn. Too bad it no longer runs through the chassis like it used to."

I imagine that many cars were converted even back in the day, after a crash damaged the water-tight qualities perhaps?

Just a single data point to consider, but as a potential buyer I would look at the two options and prefer water through external tubes. Simply to reduce any corrosion concerns about the chassis tubes.

I would "guess" that folks might be willing to pay a bit more for originality, but that the size of the market would be smaller.

Another vote for external water tubes. I have had 3 Titan Mk6 chassis 2 of which has significant corrosion damage to the water carrying main tubes which in my opinion required replacement. It is easy to say it won't be an issue in the next 10 years, but what about 40 yrs from now. Also as noted the hot tubes can be an annoyance during normal operation and worse during a crash. I don't think you will find too many actual FF buyers who will frown on the external tubes as the goal fro most of them is to race the car, not show it and they either know or can be easily convinced of the advantages of external tubes.

P.S. All my Mk6's now use external tubes (so I'm biased). Todd

Cool. At least it looks like there's no groundswell movement to keep the original coolant routing. I will likely just cap off the tube ends to keep dirt and moisture out and if I (or a future owner) ever want to go back to original, it will be a simple enough affair.

I recently purchased a Mk6 Titan. I was deciding between an original restoration vs a car that had been converted to external aluminum tubes. The original car was pretty but in the end I opted for the converted car that Tstrong was offering since I was planning on being a racer and not a collector. EVT

If done properly the aluminum tubes are almost invisible anyway. On my Titan they run inside the lower bodywork section so you need to look hard to see them.

I have a friend who had a FF with coolant through the chassis tubes. His choice in the end was a new frame or give up the car.

Coolant through chassis tubes should be prohibited by any reasonable sanctioning body on the grounds of safety. No way to check the condition of the tubes without cutting something open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

Coolant through chassis tubes should be prohibited by any reasonable sanctioning body on the grounds of safety. No way to check the condition of the tubes without cutting something open.

---

How does the SCCA check the quality of the chassis tubes on the 1978 Van Diemen that has spent its entire life in Florida or the coast of the PNW?

I'm not a dealer of classic or vintage race cars but my guess is that if this was a 'historic" car for some reason or had been driven by someone famous then originality would matter. But if it was a club racer thats going to be a club racer than reliability, safety and ease of maintenance would out way originality to my way of thinking.

That being said…… personally I don't like the looks of water tubes running down the side of the car. Could one slip an aluminum tube inside the chassis tube and run coolant in that? It would have to be thin walled to not reduce flow. Could one seal the inside of the chassis tube somehow like the sealant used for rusty gas tanks in motorcycles and classic cars?
Just some thoughts, your shop, your tools, your car….
Thanks. J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

How does the SCCA check the quality of the chassis tubes on the 1978 Van Diemen that has spent its entire life in Florida or the coast of the PNW?

---

Ultrasonic thickness testing, courtesy of ASNT. SF Region Tech uses a UT instrument to check roll bar tube wall thickness. I use one at work.

http://ndtsupply.com/dakota-ultrasonics-pr-82.html

An explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_testing

A competent machine shop usually uses UT to inspect cylinder bore thickness on engine blocks. They can do the same on a tube chassis or most any uncoated part.

Usually the chassis tubes have curved ends to mate up with hoses. That makes it difficult to slip an aluminum tube inside to carry the liquid. Even if the chassis tubes were straight, it is hard to telescope alu tubing very far becase of dimensional tolerances, straightness, and chassis bow. Internal coatings would be tough because the tubes must be cleaned to bare metal first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVT

I recently purchased a Mk6 Titan. I was deciding between an original restoration vs a car that had been converted to external aluminum tubes. The original car was pretty but in the end I opted for the converted car that Tstrong was offering since I was planning on being a racer and not a collector. EVT

---

Hey, Fast Eddie, have you ever tried to race with SOVREN?? I know they are really, really sticky about 'as original' when it comes to getting a 'vintage' log book from them. I'm not at all sure how they would feel about a converted cooling system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Soule

I'm not a dealer of classic or vintage race cars but my guess is that if this was a 'historic" car for some reason or had been driven by someone famous then originality would matter. But if it was a club racer thats going to be a club racer than reliability, safety and ease of maintenance would out way originality to my way of thinking.

That being said…… personally I don't like the looks of water tubes running down the side of the car. Could one slip an aluminum tube inside the chassis tube and run coolant in that? It would have to be thin walled to not reduce flow. Could one seal the inside of the chassis tube somehow like the sealant used for rusty gas tanks in motorcycles and classic cars?
Just some thoughts, your shop, your tools, your car….
Thanks. J

---

I do have a number of race results for whom I think was the first owner of the car in the USA (it seems to have raced some with a factory driver in the UK first). But, the fellow who drove it here in the northeast in the early 70's, did not, shall we say, "cover himself in glory". ;)

I admit I am somewhat enthralled and enticed by the feature of the coolant running through the chassis. However, since the car is not historically significant and I need to make it reliable and practical more than I need to make it a curiosity or historically accurate... Chances are that when the time comes I will run external pipes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

How does the SCCA check the quality of the chassis tubes on the 1978 Van Diemen that has spent its entire life in Florida or the coast of the PNW?

---

How often have you seen cooling lines being inspected at ANY SCCA tech??

Although I agree there is a safety concern here, I just cannot recall hearing of any driver being injured by boiling water from ANY cooling lines breaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanW

Ultrasonic thickness testing, courtesy of ASNT. SF Region Tech uses a UT instrument to check roll bar tube wall thickness. I use one at work.

http://ndtsupply.com/dakota-ultrasonics-pr-82.html

---

I get that for the roll bar tubing, where there is a minimum spec in the GCR, but the other tubes....not so much. Even if they do find tubes "too thin" what are they going to do other than alert the entrant that he may have an issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

I get that for the roll bar tubing, where there is a minimum spec in the GCR, but the other tubes....not so much. Even if they do find tubes "too thin" what are they going to do other than alert the entrant that he may have an issue?

---

There is nothing in the GCR that mandates minimum wall thickness for chassis tubing. Only the roll bar, roll bar braces, forward hoop and braces require a minimum thickness.

The nominal wall thickness of the chassis tubes can be determined with UT. Same with the tubes that carry coolant. It's up to the entrant to decide how thin is too thin. If the tube has lost the equivalent of 1 gage size, i.e., 0.049" to 0.035, then perhaps its time to replace the tubes or the chassis.

Tech will not check chassis tube wall thickness. You can build your chassis with as thin a tube as you can source, just like Colin Chapman always did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Soule

I'm not a dealer of classic or vintage race cars but my guess is that if this was a 'historic" car for some reason or had been driven by someone famous then originality would matter. But if it was a club racer thats going to be a club racer than reliability, safety and ease of maintenance would out way originality to my way of thinking.

That being said…… personally I don't like the looks of water tubes running down the side of the car. Could one slip an aluminum tube inside the chassis tube and run coolant in that? It would have to be thin walled to not reduce flow. Could one seal the inside of the chassis tube somehow like the sealant used for rusty gas tanks in motorcycles and classic cars?
Just some thoughts, your shop, your tools, your car….
Thanks. J

---

Contact between the aluminum tubing and the steel chassis tubes will cause electrolysis resulting in severe corrosion to both.

When I was restoring the first Lotus 61 I wanted the " no tube " look, but wasn't comfortable about using chassis tubes that were more than fifty years old.

It took awhile, but I was able to snake aluminum tubes down low inside the bodywork, and the results ended up pretty good. It's a bit of a challenge, and may require some fabrication/welding, but well worth the effort.

In many sanctioning bodies the coolant tubes can not run inside the driver's compartment.

Once you witness burns such as Chuck Cecil received, you can understand why.

YMMV

What would constitute 'inside the drivers compartment'? I wouldn't consider the above Lotus water pipes to be inside.

I know in the U.K. Historic FF championship you can't run water in the chassis tubes.

There is no barrier of any sort between those pipes and the driver when they start shooting steam into his hip. Just saying.

Think... a few months of skin grafts. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanW

There is nothing in the GCR that mandates minimum wall thickness for chassis tubing. Only the roll bar, roll bar braces, forward hoop and braces require a minimum thickness.

The nominal wall thickness of the chassis tubes can be determined with UT. Same with the tubes that carry coolant. It's up to the entrant to decide how thin is too thin. If the tube has lost the equivalent of 1 gage size, i.e., 0.049" to 0.035, then perhaps its time to replace the tubes or the chassis.

Tech will not check chassis tube wall thickness. You can build your chassis with as thin a tube as you can source, just like Colin Chapman always did.

---

:thumbsup: That was my point. In response to the post made by Steve Demeter about no sanctioning body worth their salt (paraphrasing) allowing coolant through the chassis tubes, I was posting questions to make a point. You can run tubing as thin as you wish in all those areas you mentioned. I could have a chassis that never had coolant running through it with chassis rails in very poor internal condition and nobody in SCCA is going to check.

I agree that the tubes pictured in the Lotus above aren't "inside the drivers' compartment" in that they are outside the chassis rails, but then they are inside the body work and can be reached by the driver while seated, so maybe they are....

I'd err on the side of safety, but much of this is false sense of security if you ask me. After a shunt the car isn't always in the proper orientation, tubes inside or outside the chassis aren't necessarily going to be intact. Chassis tubes aren't always going to remain intact either. Scalding hot water is going to find a way down to whatever is below it. People have mechanical oil pressure gauges and accusumps in their drivers' compartments. Front mounted radiators with front bulkheads that are swiss-cheese like. There are many risks involved and I don't know that either solution is markably safer than any other in an accident.

My post was not recommending the checking of the condition of chassis tubes in tech, but not allowing coolant to run through them on the basis that it would almost certainly guarantee catastrophic failure if the car was run long enough. The results would be not good.

Kudos to those who have figured out how to eliminate this and the clever ways they have maintained the original appearance of their cars.
It would be very easy to check for chassis tubes with coolant running through them by a simple visual inspection of what the water hoses are attached to.

I'm looking for a formula Ford to race, is your second car completed or available to purchase ?

Tom

Don't know if it is still there or not in the pre-'86 rules, but sometime in the early '80s, running water through chassis tubes was outlawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Wirtz

I'm looking for a formula Ford to race, is your second car completed or available to purchase ?

Tom

---

I have a Citation/Zink Z10C that needs freshening/restoration. Are you looking for one to work on or race immediately?

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FormulaSAAB

Hello, my name is Stefan Vapaa and I recently dragged home a couple 1969 Macon MR7s. Both cars are completely disassembled but mostly complete. Both cars were taken apart following significant crash damage.

This is the photo the seller sent me as incentive to come and get the cars out of his paint booth...
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...33485a5ebf.jpg

The cars are chassis #100 (last raced by Joe Mendel in 2013) and chassis #105 (last raced by Jay Thier in 2012).

- Chassis #100 has most of the damage repaired and sits as a sandblasted chassis at this point. I have a fair bit of history on this one.

- Chassis #105 is "as-was" and still has the crash damage from a T-bone impact to the right side of the engine bay. I have no history on this car apart from the previous owner.

My plan is to restore both cars, keeping one for myself and selling the other to recoup some costs.

I race with the VRG on the east coast and hope to join the FF field in 2018.

Now, for the opinion part...
These cars originally ran the coolant through the chassis tubes. One chassis (#100) retains this setup while the other (#105) has the tubes capped off and last ran converted to a traditional setup with separate coolant tubes. Which configuration is the more valuable when it comes time to sell the car, original or converted?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I also race with VRG, curious who this is?

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BorkRacing

I also race with VRG, curious who this is?

Rob

---

I haven't been racing with the club recently. Our cars are not currently set up for VRG events. That's why I bought the Macons!

However, I am always at the Jefferson 500 because I am one of the VRG instructors and that is where they run their school. I usually leave after the school has completed on Friday because standing around a racetrack without being able to race is more frustration than I care to subject myself to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickb99

How often have you seen cooling lines being inspected at ANY SCCA tech??

Although I agree there is a safety concern here, I just cannot recall hearing of any driver being injured by boiling water from ANY cooling lines breaking.

---

It happens!. We had driver severely burn his lower legs by a broken water line caused by an two car accident. Don't recall if they were original frame tubes or replacement ancillary tubes. SCCA requires the lines to be converted from frame rails to outside the body. But since these are vintage FFs, not a consideration here. Probably safer to be be run along the outside. If done correctly, it's not a cosmetic issue. My new aluminum (Titan Mk6) front to back tubes run just over the front lower A-arm, then inside the belly body work. Not sure it's as safe as being outside the body work. Just the way I decided to do it when I abandoned the frame rails.

Welcome, Stefan, to the dark side (FFs).

In 1971, I crewed for two Lotus Type 61 FF, and during summer races at Road America, Donnybrooke, and BHF, these two Gents would be near heat prostration after a session.

Dale Wilhite, owner of Midwest Crossle in Mason City Iowa, campaigned a magnificently prepared Crossle FF that had factory external water tubes as well as open nose cowl to vent radiator heat up and out of the car at the front. The Lotus' vented heat through the cockpit, save a piece of aluminum on the fore bulkhead. But a significant heat stressor was introduced to the drivers because of the poor engineering design. It was what it was.

In talking to several Type 61 owners, the biggest issue in running fluids through the chassis is pinholes from rust. I suspect there is a history of chassis being ruined in such a manner. Go with the external tubes.

Like Carroll Smith writes in Drive to Win, ...care and feeding of driver and your crew..... this is a classic example.


V/r

Iverson