I've spent some time trying to source a 'new' classic and decided that all 
those available are of too low a standard for what I'm after, so I'm 
commissioning someone to build me one from scratch. Been to see the chap and 
viewed a chassis/bulkhead that will eventually become my car and am very 
happy with the standard of it and have agreed a rough indication of price 
for completed vehicle. This is a guy I've known and dealt with for more than 
ten years on smaller works and who I have complete faith in, but 'quality' 
is a subjective term, so are there any pointers that have been successfully 
used in the past to cover this scenario? Its not going to be a cheap project 
(five figures) so I just want to be sure we're both singing from the same 
sheet, so to speak!
Any advice much appreciated

"nully" <nully@nully.nully> wrote in message 
news:yOnbk.140822$312.113066@newsfe12.ams2...
> I've spent some time trying to source a 'new' classic and decided that all 
> those available are of too low a standard for what I'm after, so I'm 
> commissioning someone to build me one from scratch. Been to see the chap 
> and viewed a chassis/bulkhead that will eventually become my car and am 
> very happy with the standard of it and have agreed a rough indication of 
> price for completed vehicle. This is a guy I've known and dealt with for 
> more than ten years on smaller works and who I have complete faith in, but 
> 'quality' is a subjective term, so are there any pointers that have been 
> successfully used in the past to cover this scenario? Its not going to be 
> a cheap project (five figures) so I just want to be sure we're both 
> singing from the same sheet, so to speak!
> Any advice much appreciated
>

Apart from the fact that it will take twice as long and cost three times as 
much as estimated,  more info needed for a sensible reply.  What is the 
chassis/bulkhead from?  Are we talking ash frame or all metal?

A couple of "new" classics have impressed me - the Suffolk SS100, an 
inch-perfect replica based on more modern Jaguar oily bits, and Le Riche, a 
delightful Austin Swallow replica built in Jersey.  Two very different cars, 
but I'd be happy to own either.  Or both.

Frankly, I'd be extremely wary of giving a build-from-scratch job to someone 
who hasn't done it before.  Of course there are obvious indicators of 
quality such as material used, panel fit and so on, but if you are talking 
about an entirely new car, who is going to design the coachwork?  Or are you 
copying something?  Then there's minor matters such as suspension, steering 
and so on....

Don't wish to be a wet blanket, but if you really are starting with just a 
chassis and bulkhead, adding engine, gearbox, back axle, suspension, 
electrics, coachwork, interior trim and the many other bits you will find 
you need, to end up with something that looks good, goes well and handles 
properly I seriously doubt if it can be done for "five figures".  Think six.

Geoff MacK

The message <yOnbk.140822$312.113066@newsfe12.ams2>
from "nully" <nully@nully.nully> contains these words:

> I've spent some time trying to source a 'new' classic and decided that all 
> those available are of too low a standard for what I'm after, so I'm 
> commissioning someone to build me one from scratch. Been to see the
> chap and 
> viewed a chassis/bulkhead that will eventually become my car and am very 
> happy with the standard of it and have agreed a rough indication of price 
> for completed vehicle. This is a guy I've known and dealt with for
> more than 
> ten years on smaller works and who I have complete faith in, but 'quality' 
> is a subjective term, so are there any pointers that have been successfully 
> used in the past to cover this scenario? Its not going to be a cheap
> project 
> (five figures) so I just want to be sure we're both singing from the same 
> sheet, so to speak!
> Any advice much appreciated 

You don't say what it is. Chassis/bulkhead might point to an early Land
Rover but the price doesn't. 

On the same sort of subject anyone know where I could get a Lotus Elan
Sprint rebuilt for less that the price of a road going example. I am
never going to find the inclination to complete it myself now and I
wouldn't want to see it broken for spares.

-- 
Roger Chapman

"Geoff Mackenzie"  wrote in message 
news:6d727hF16nqdU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "nully" <nully@nully.nully> wrote in message 
> news:yOnbk.140822$312.113066@newsfe12.ams2...
>> I've spent some time trying to source a 'new' classic and decided that 
>> all those available are of too low a standard for what I'm after, so I'm 
>> commissioning someone to build me one from scratch. Been to see the chap 
>> and viewed a chassis/bulkhead that will eventually become my car and am 
>> very happy with the standard of it and have agreed a rough indication of 
>> price for completed vehicle. This is a guy I've known and dealt with for 
>> more than ten years on smaller works and who I have complete faith in, 
>> but 'quality' is a subjective term, so are there any pointers that have 
>> been successfully used in the past to cover this scenario? Its not going 
>> to be a cheap project (five figures) so I just want to be sure we're both 
>> singing from the same sheet, so to speak!
>> Any advice much appreciated
>>
>
> Apart from the fact that it will take twice as long and cost three times 
> as much as estimated,  more info needed for a sensible reply.  What is the 
> chassis/bulkhead from?  Are we talking ash frame or all metal?
>
> A couple of "new" classics have impressed me - the Suffolk SS100, an 
> inch-perfect replica based on more modern Jaguar oily bits, and Le Riche, 
> a delightful Austin Swallow replica built in Jersey.  Two very different 
> cars, but I'd be happy to own either.  Or both.
>
> Frankly, I'd be extremely wary of giving a build-from-scratch job to 
> someone who hasn't done it before.  Of course there are obvious indicators 
> of quality such as material used, panel fit and so on, but if you are 
> talking about an entirely new car, who is going to design the coachwork? 
> Or are you copying something?  Then there's minor matters such as 
> suspension, steering and so on....
>
> Don't wish to be a wet blanket, but if you really are starting with just a 
> chassis and bulkhead, adding engine, gearbox, back axle, suspension, 
> electrics, coachwork, interior trim and the many other bits you will find 
> you need, to end up with something that looks good, goes well and handles 
> properly I seriously doubt if it can be done for "five figures".  Think 
> six.
>

Sorry, shouldn't have been so elusive in previous post. I'm not talking 
about anything so exotic, just a vanilla Morris Traveller. The 
chassis/bulkhead has been rescued from a scrap car and rebuilt, and I'm 
happy with whats been done so far. I'm commissioning someone to build the 
car from there with new panels and timber frame.

In article <3zybk.84251$ft1.74975@newsfe14.ams2>, nully says...

> Sorry, shouldn't have been so elusive in previous post. I'm not talking 
> about anything so exotic, just a vanilla Morris Traveller. The 
> chassis/bulkhead has been rescued from a scrap car and rebuilt, and I'm 
> happy with whats been done so far. I'm commissioning someone to build the 
> car from there with new panels and timber frame. 
> 
As it is a monocoque construction, it has no chassis. I'd be very wary 
of doing that from scratch especially as aftermarket panels are 
notorious for shite alignment which you can work around if you're 
replacing like for like but you have no idea how far out it is when 
you've not got the original to go from. Some of these panels are WAY 
out. 

There are some really nice cars out there but TBH I don't think that 
people part with the best ones unless they really need the money.

But personally at the end of the day, its not a path I'd go down for a 
Morris Minor. I reckon you'll end up with a car that cost you £10,000 
and is as bent as a 13 bob note.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:6d91gqF1ejrdU3@mid.individual.net...
In article <3zybk.84251$ft1.74975@newsfe14.ams2>, nully says...

> Sorry, shouldn't have been so elusive in previous post. I'm not 
> talking
> about anything so exotic, just a vanilla Morris Traveller. The
> chassis/bulkhead has been rescued from a scrap car and rebuilt, 
> and I'm
> happy with whats been done so far. I'm commissioning someone to 
> build the
> car from there with new panels and timber frame.
>
As it is a monocoque construction, it has no chassis.

Not true.
All MM's have a common floorpan/chassis, inc convertibles and 
travellers.
The main thing at this stage is whether the OP's floorpan/chassis 
is straight and has been rebuilt to the correct dimensions.
If it were mine I'd be checking it very carefully. Any errors 
could make all the difference to the fit of the body panels.
Mike.

On 5 Jul, 14:32, "Mike G"  wrote:

> Not true.
> All MM's have a common floorpan/chassis, inc convertibles and
> travellers.

Not quite all ... the vans have a "real" chassis at the back!

Ian

"Ian"  wrote in message 
news:4334ac60-d7b6-4170-bedb-1a8bceb96994@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Jul, 14:32, "Mike G"  wrote:
>
>> Not true.
>> All MM's have a common floorpan/chassis, inc convertibles and
>> travellers.
>
> Not quite all ... the vans have a "real" chassis at the back!

You're right of course. I was thinking cars, travellers, and 
convertibles. Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything 
that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris Minors 
were built as monocoque vehicles.
Mike.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" 
saying something like:

> Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything 
>that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris Minors 
>were built as monocoque vehicles.

All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a figment of my
fevered imagination then.
They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel legs which
are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded to the side
and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other modern car
which has a monocoque construction.
-- 

Dave
SE6a

"Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in 
message news:g6nkb9$s03$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, 
> when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" 
> 
> saying something like:
>
>> Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything
>>that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris 
>>Minors
>>were built as monocoque vehicles.
>
> All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a 
> figment of my
> fevered imagination then.
> They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel 
> legs which
> are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded to 
> the side
> and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other 
> modern car
> which has a monocoque construction.

Not quite.
Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on 
it's bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque 
design. Of course a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but 
the body is not an integral part of it's design strength.

A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon.
I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without 
having to add stiffening to the floorpan.
Mike.

Mike G wrote:
> 
> "Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
> news:g6nkb9$s03$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" 
>> saying something like:
>>
>>> Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything
>>> that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris Minors
>>> were built as monocoque vehicles.
>>
Some would reach the opposite conclusion about saloons, tourers, 
convertibles, and travellers.

>> All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a figment of my
>> fevered imagination then.
>> They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel legs which
>> are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded to the side
>> and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other modern car
>> which has a monocoque construction.
> 
> Not quite.
> Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on it's 
> bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque design. Of course 
> a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but the body is not an integral 
> part of it's design strength.
>
Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" correctly.


> A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon.
> I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without having to 
> add stiffening to the floorpan.

Hmmm.  So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts (only) on 
the convertibles serve?  Or the stiffeners at the foor of the B-posts? 
Or the extra channels in the sills?

I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion than Mike 
G's.


-- 
Kevin Poole
****Use current date to reply (e.g. jul2008@mainbeam.co.uk)****

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:00:16 +0100, Kevin Poole
 wrote:

>> Not quite.
>> Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on it's 
>> bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque design. Of course 
>> a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but the body is not an integral 
>> part of it's design strength.
>>
>Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" correctly.

Especially not that many times...

Kevin Poole wrote:

>> A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon.
>> I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without having to 
>> add stiffening to the floorpan.
> 
> Hmmm.  So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts (only) on 
> the convertibles serve?  Or the stiffeners at the foor of the B-posts? 
> Or the extra channels in the sills?
> 
> I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion than Mike 
> G's.

I always thought the Traveller had "a chassis of sorts", but only in the 
same way as the van/pickup models. I'm aware of the strengthening on the 
convertibles though. Not that this means anything, plenty of 
body-on-frame cars need body strengthening or chassis mods when you take 
the roof off!

Richard


-- 
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
124 cars/16 years - 125 = C6 2.7 HDi Exclusive C6 RTK. BBE 2015.
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it" - Skippy.

In article ,
   Richard Kilpatrick  wrote:
> I always thought the Traveller had "a chassis of sorts", but only in the 
> same way as the van/pickup models. I'm aware of the strengthening on the 
> convertibles though. Not that this means anything, plenty of 
> body-on-frame cars need body strengthening or chassis mods when you take 
> the roof off!

Of course. Every car has some sort of floor pan that could just about
stand alone. US cars used to have a perimeter frame that perhaps made the
actual floor pan stronger - but all the variations are simply shades of
grey.

-- 
*Is there another word for synonym?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Kevin Poole"  wrote in message 
news:KpmdnUW66-LRSw3VnZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
>
> Mike G wrote:
>>
>> "Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in 
>> message news:g6nkb9$s03$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, 
>>> when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G" 
>>> 
>>> saying something like:
>>>
>>>> Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything
>>>> that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris 
>>>> Minors
>>>> were built as monocoque vehicles.
>>>
> Some would reach the opposite conclusion about saloons, 
> tourers, convertibles, and travellers.
>
>>> All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a 
>>> figment of my
>>> fevered imagination then.
>>> They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel 
>>> legs which
>>> are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded 
>>> to the side
>>> and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other 
>>> modern car
>>> which has a monocoque construction.
>>
>> Not quite.
>> Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on 
>> it's bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque 
>> design. Of course a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but 
>> the body is not an integral part of it's design strength.
>>
> Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" 
> correctly.

Not a spelling mistake. A typo. I do know the difference between 
'its' and the abreviation of 'it is'.
>
>
>> A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM 
>> saloon.
>> I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without 
>> having to add stiffening to the floorpan.
>
> Hmmm.  So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts 
> (only) on the convertibles serve?  Or the stiffeners at the 
> foor of the B-posts?

They merely stop the body sides from flexing. They don't 
contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the chassis.

> Or the extra channels in the sills?

I'm not aware of any extra channels in the convertible

> I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion 
> than Mike G's.

Accepted by whom? I don't think you'll find it's accepted within 
the MM Owners Club.
Note the correct use of it's.:-)
Mike.