[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [FOT] frames

To: <>
Subject: Re: [FOT] frames
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:22:08 -0500
16 November 2006

Hello Fellows,
        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!
Tony Vigliotti

 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "riverside" <>
To: <>
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
> ===
> -- 
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>