Barracuda owners - 2 seater questions

[Lance-W]

I've been trying to dream up a way to turn a single seater Barracuda into a two seater Barracuda.  I thought I would throw out these pictures and see what every one else thinks.  I haven't come up with a solution for the aft upper a-arm mount.  It seems like it definitely has to move if you try and widen the buggy enough to put two people in it.  Moving it outboard is going to screw with the travel geometry big time (not my first choice).  Anybody with a Cuda with a front end complete that can take a look and see how much area above the arm you would need for full travel?  The reason I ask is I'm thinking you could just make a clearance pocket for the arm to travel in.  It wouldn't be very freindly for the occupants feet but that would depend on how big of an intrusion to the foot area it would be.  I'm open to any and all thoughts on this.....

[SPEC]

Hey Lance,
Your gonna hate me...Arms outside the car are a serious  NO NO NO
It's just bad you need to have the cage wide enouph for both occupants to have room to be comfortable and not have appendages flying out side the cage in a crash, The cage is there to keep the outside world out, In order for it to protect you you need to be inside of it, and not make contact with it during a crash,.

[Doug Heim]

Spec he knows. he just has the single seat chassis CAD generated and wanted to get and idea in relation to the suspention mount points in relation to 2 people side by side. 

[Lance-W]

Spec he knows. he just has the single seat chassis CAD generated and wanted to get and idea in relation to the suspention mount points in relation to 2 people side by side. 

Yup what he said 

[fabr]

I may be a little dense but I'd say it should be no problem widening that.

[fabr]

Put a spine down the center and tie all into that.

[Pacman]

I may be a little dense but I'd say it should be no problem widening that.

I agree....from the pictures it looks like both sets of feet are behind the a-arm attachment points so just widen the chassis aft of the a-arms.

[Doug Heim]

If I were to go off on my own i would split it down the middle and run the front woder anyway using the same A-arms. I would them make the PIRCV A-arms woder as I would like the wider footprint.

I have already made 2 sets of A-arms to suit 28" axles for the PIRCV. Thats about 10 - 11 inches wider than stock.

[plkracer]

I'd scrap the edge design with that wide top a arm. I'd make a similar plate for the back of both a arms like the front mount. If you make the buggy a tad longer, you can widen out the cab while keeping the front narrow.

[Engineer]

If you bought some Southwest Airlines seats, you might be able to fit two in side by side in the existing chassis design.  :P


I am just saying.........  How well do you know your co-pilot. 

[plkracer]

If you bought some Southwest Airlines seats, you might be able to fit two in side by side in the existing chassis design.  :P


I am just saying.........  How well do you know your co-pilot. 

lol, You are going to get to know them real well. Just like the people on airplanes.... And they usually are the ones you don't want to get to know.

[trojan]

I agree....from the pictures it looks like both sets of feet are behind the a-arm attachment points so just widen the chassis aft of the a-arms.

+1

there were a couple of piranhas widened for 2 people. They all (from memory) ONLY widened the passenger compartment.
If you must widen the suspension, do that in the "between" space, get another rack long enough and keep all the arms as they are.

[Camel]

This is a two-seater Barracuda concept Jet and I worked on, (he did the 3d in solidworks).  It utilises the standard Barracuda suspension geometry (more or less), but has a stub nose (looks better IMO).  The final design replaces the PIRCV with a Lockrite diff which is driven by a Honda ST1100.  Do-able.

Camel

[Lance-W]

This is a two-seater Barracuda concept Jet and I worked on, (he did the 3d in solidworks).  It utilises the standard Barracuda suspension geometry (more or less), but has a stub nose (looks better IMO).  The final design replaces the PIRCV with a Lockrite diff which is driven by a Honda ST1100.  Do-able.

Camel

I like what you've done and it defintely sparks some ideas for me.  BUT  in my opinion I think you've lost alot of structure by not bringing the hip tube back to the roll bar hoop.  I also think you've lost support of the front end by not taking the forward roll bar tubes into the hip tube.  From the one view it appears that you only have support to the front end suspension platform coming from the dash bar and the unsupported hip bar? with smaller tubes?
Also don't forget those front lower A arms travel right up into the area where the peoples feet are and therefor where the pedals must be.....
Please don't take the criticism in a bad way I'm taking a look at it with a second pair of .  Maybe you have already considered the comments I have made and have a stress path different than the standard Cuda loading?

Can we see an Iso view?

[Camel]

Thanks for your feedback Lance-W, I like an honest approach rather than the pocket-pissing obsequiousness of a few....

Nah, you're right, there's a lot of tubing not included in that image.  I'll attach a few more concepts I played with.  Jet did some isometric views but I can't find the fxxkin' things at the mo'.

Keep in mind that this isn't a final drawing.  I decided to finish the Monster-Truck Barracuda first.  The last image (Snub Nosed special) is how the single seater is being built.  I'll be using a similar arrangement for the two seater as it gets the hiprail up and out of contact with the upper a-arms.  It also moves the upper shock mount forward and gives the shock a more upright stance (and more in line with a-arm travel).

The a-arms don't move into the footwells, those front wheels are too big. (720mm o.d.).  The cab has been stretched to provide more room and the rear hoop angled (it will be cross-braced) to provide even more room.  The seating position is more upright than a std Cuda.  Front hoop is one piece compound bent, and goes all the way to the base (unlike std Cuda).

Yep, the front shock bracing appears excessive, and I would even say it definately is.  But the original plan was to use much lighter walled tube (and lots of it).  Looks too busy eh?  It also supports the front hiprail and was meant to provide a crush zone forward of a safety cell.

Camel