16 November 2006
If I had to bet which factory frame would endure the test of time
(TR4 vs. TR4A), I would put my money on the TR4 frame. It is simpler and is
comprised of one straight run of boxed steel. It simply had less places for
water and dirt to accumulate and acceleration ran the water out the rear and
deceleration out the front. Air passed without restriction. But......if you
build a TR4A frame with modern materials and foam fill or otherwise treat
the interior to a anti-rust coating, then the TR 4A is equal and in my
opinion, better. Caster and Camber are real issues that the TR4A frame deals
with nicely. It could be better and we all know that, however, modern
materials and processes have made it the superior to the original all things
Besides gentlemen, this question is mute. Consider that the TR4A/250/6
frames are at least 32 years old, they have endured the test of time
admirably. None of you building a race or street car (with a new frame) with
this design (TR4A) has to worry about frame failure in their lifetime and
possibly there children's. My opinion is that if the rules allow the change
to TR4A front suspension and TR4 SRA, then do it. It is the racers edge!
----- Original Message -----
From: "riverside" <riverside@Cedar-Rapids.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: [FOT] frames
>A weight vs. torshional and a beam rigidities
> study would be interesting 4 vs. 4A.
> My uninformed guess is that assuming equally
> minimal levels of rust, the 4 would win.
> anybody fool with this in the past?
> art de armond
> === Help keep Team.Net on the air
> === http://www.team.net/donate.html
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 11/15/2006