Quick question...

"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
01/13/2016 at 07:19 • Filed to: None

Does anyone know of anyone who’s welded a body-on-frame car’s body to the chassis to make a monocoque?

DISCUSSION (59)

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 07:30

Being that they are designed to flex with the frame, I could see that leading to failure if it doesn’t flex right/enough, but someone who’s an actual engineer should probably weigh in.

AndyG_UK > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 07:36

welding a body to it's chassis wouldn't make it a monocoque, it would just be a body welded to a chassis!

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > AndyG_UK
01/13/2016 at 07:40

Taking a look at the majority of monocoque cars (especially early ones) and that’s all they are as well!

There’s usually a couple of box-section rails that run below or in the shell and the rest of the inner bodywork welded to that. That’s what mine would end up like :)

Those rails (along with the structure that arches over for the roof) will provide the majority of the front-to-rear stiffness. Same thing with my little plan :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
01/13/2016 at 07:43

Agreed on a proper engineer weighing in, but the Spitfire shell is semi-structural anyway so is relatively stiff. The sills are bolted directly to the chassis with the little outriggers you can see which connect to box sections in the body. Those sills then provide location for the forward radius arm on the rear suspension.

Mattbob > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie
01/13/2016 at 07:53

I’m an electrical engineer, and I say go for it.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 07:59

Yep. Even supercars are generally running a box-frame up front and back similar to what you’d find on a body-on-frame car.

Kinja'd!!!

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Mattbob
01/13/2016 at 08:02

I’m a sound engineer and also say go for it.

Rustholes-Are-Weight-Reduction > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:07

It should be no problem if executed properly, I don’t know if it would do much to the stiffness if you don’t strengthen the body too though (I guess that’s the point of doing it).
Also, if you wan’t to do it, watch out for parts that need the shell to be taken off to work on. Those might be a PITA to work on if you cannot separate it anymore.

Source: me (An actual engineer)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Rustholes-Are-Weight-Reduction
01/13/2016 at 08:09

Gotcha. I’ve already sized up the bits that’d need to be modified. I can get the diff in and out fine. The propshaft tunnel would need enlargening so I can fit the UJs through it, the fuel and brake lines would need rerouting (but seeing as I need to do that anyway that shouldn’t be too much of a problem) and the handbrake cable would need attention.

Beyond that I'm good :)

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:11

Usually body on frame cars have a fairly weak body. Welding them together could lead to failure of the body itself if its too rigid. Maybe adding extra mounting points by welding extra mounts would give you a marginal rigidity increase without issue but its hard to say it’d be worth it. Adding bracing to the frame itself would probably help you more.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:27

Engineer here, though I will caveat this with “I’m not a structural engineer.”

From a structural standpoint the body-on-frame and monocoque designs are not all that different with regards to the roof structure providing support/stiffness, etc. The key difference is that in a body-on-frame car, the load paths are through the body mounting points. Thus any flexing will be transmitted through those points.

Often times, for NVH reasons, there are bushings between the body and frame. This allows for a weaker body because the deflection of the bushings will take up some of the load that’s transmitted to the body structure. By welding everything together you are changing the load paths and lose any mechanism for deflection between the body and frame.

I think this is one of those things that’s too difficult to predict without some kind of advanced modeling.

Rainbow > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:30

I feel like that could cause some parts of the body to break. The chassis is designed to flex, but the body really isn’t, at least to the same degree. At best, you’d probably find your doors getting stuck shut after cornering too hard. At worst, your windows would burst.

Or maybe I’m completely wrong.

Trevor Slattery, ACTOR > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:38

But why bother? I am not seeing the point of the work. I love that between the removeable trans tunnel, the body on frame construction and full bonnet the car can be completely stripped to the frame, engine and trans by two people with two helper needed only for moving the main body shell.

Why give that up?

Cé hé sin > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:43

Sounds like an experiment worth doing.

Do it, and report back.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 08:45

The odd bit with sill reinforcement and frame outriggers bolted to them unbushed seems to be something in the English car industry and few if any others. It’s more or less how the Land Rover is set up, for example, but if you look at the Landy’s competitors they all end up using a whole-body “bucket” and vertical bushes connected to that. Anyway, in the case of a Spit, I imagine the weakness of any weld would crop up, that being fracture under flexing. If I were doing it, I’d probably add in some extra bracing to the body, and weld up a series of angles to the frame with complementing plates in the body to tag to... and at the end of the day, solid-bolting that all together wouldn’t be worse than welding and might be better. It’d absolutely still allow you to pull things apart and wouldn’t leave the sheet you’d fastened through weld compromised.

So, here’s how I see it: you either weld up the existing bolting points and little else, gaining very little but the possibility of cracks down the line, you find a few extra places to weld and it all stiffens up, or you do the final thing of a virtual monocoque and tie it all up with bolts directly. It’s that last I think makes the most sense.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Snuze: Needs another Swede
01/13/2016 at 09:12

Gotcha, so NVH increase and change in load paths (surely would mean more spread out if anything). Might need to reinforce some of the body structure if there's fatigue points...

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Cé hé sin
01/13/2016 at 09:19

You know I think I will :) will be quite a while before I can start as I need the propshaft and the like to check for clearances, and probably need to test through fitting and removal of all the various parts so I know everything can be got at.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 09:20

It sounds like a bad idea. But honestly I can’t really explain why I feel that way. You would probably be better off building a tube chassis and losing the box frame.

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 09:21

I’d assume there are pluses and minuses as mentioned by everyone else, but it might be worth taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture: if it’s a worthwhile plan, why isn’t it a common thing to do with BOF cars?

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Trevor Slattery, ACTOR
01/13/2016 at 09:24

Stiffness would be the thing. My next project will be a Slant 4 engine Spitfire that will keep the body on frame construction (I snagged myself a free galvanised chassis!) so I’ll have that bit on that car.

Also, it’ll still retain the excellent underbonnet space. From what I can see, the only downside maintenance-wise would be slightly trickier access to the handbrake cables and if I come to do another full restoration it’d be trickier to strip everything.

All the bits of maintenance I’m likely to do will be done with the body in place, so it doesn’t matter how it’s fastened. If anything, it’ll be easier to do that as I’d then be able to take the propshaft out without removing the bodyshell (wider prop tunnel to clear UJs) :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/13/2016 at 09:35

The plan would be to seam-weld wherever the body meets the chassis and one stops (around the gearbox tunnel, at each of the outriggers, at the bulkhead) and spot-weld every couple of inches where I can’t get underneath for a seam (around the rear suspension, the latter part of the propshaft tunnel etc.).

I’d then box in the bottom of the floorpans to the chassis rails to create a wider double-walled box-section for the central spine which is where the welding idea outstrips the solid bolted idea (a lot of racers do that).

This would also go hand-in-hand with a welded on steel hardtop creating a notchback FHC (come back to that idea after offering up my fibreglass one and discovering that it’s quite significantly out of shape) and a bit of a beefed up a-pillar (a relatively common mod as they’re flimsy enough to pop the glass out sometimes if you’re pushing the car against them).

Hey presto! A Spitfire that doesn't flex like crazy :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
01/13/2016 at 09:45

Couple of reasons why the tube-frame idea is a no-go. Firstly it would take engineering prowess (read maths) beyond my expertise to design a tube frame with the requisite design and strength which means I’d need to pay someone else to do it or do a lot of learning regarding frame design (will probably get round to the second one at some point in my life, but more for roll cages).

Second is that the vehicle laws here in the UK mean that if you’re making significant modifications to a vehicle’s base structure (chassis for a BOF car or the stressed parts of a monocoque) then it has to go through a £200-£450 test to determine it’s roadworthiness, then it’s given a modern numberplate and assigned as manufactured in the year the test was completed. My plan should avoid that as the base structure that is the chassis remains unmodified.

This means I’d have to pay road tax to the tune of ~£220 a year (unless it would then fall under the modern emissions-based tax system which would nuke my hopped-up OHV 1960s I6).

The UK is a lot stricter than the US when it comes to vehicle modifications (although not as strict as much of the continent).

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
01/13/2016 at 09:47

Interesting thought. I think most people are fairly tentative when it comes to chassis mods, especially over here. Either that or they know better than to start with a BOF car and go straight for a Caterham/tube frame thing to begin with.

I’ve read a couple of threads about people making hotrods out of 30s Fords who have welded the bodyshell to the chassis to positive effect, although their chassis’ are significantly floppier than a Spit’s.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 10:05

It’s shocking, actually, how much a solid windshield setup can add to body stiffness. I’m beefing up the A-pillar on the Ranchero with a triangulated tube-steel bit for that reason, but the Lincoln wouldn’t need a thing even if I were racing it, and even with a flimsy A-pillar. The reason?

Kinja'd!!!

The glass wraps around and is something like 3/4" thick with very solid moorings. It’s hideously strong.

The increase in the height of the box section does sound like a good plan, though I’d be tempted to build a box up to the floor pan and bolt the floor pan to it. ;) The height of a sheet steel rail is extremely critical to strength - you see that on the Land Rovers with the main boxes on the long wheelbase ones being about 2" taller with a strengthening plate. I’ve also double-boxed the rear frame on the Ranchero to serve as a better cantilever beam to the Jag rear, since removing the leaf setup has left the outer subframe rail less well supported.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 10:06

The first reason is sort of given, not many people have the necessary skills, bank account, or time a tube chassis requires.

Wasn’t aware of that UK law, but it’s definitely a good reason!

Snuze: Needs another Swede > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 10:10

NVH increase is almost a given, but you can mitigate that other ways. Besides, racecar!

The change in load paths is what would be more worrisome. You’d think it would spread the load out, but structural mechanics can be weird and stuff doesn’t always behave how you think it might at first sight. That’s why it’s hard to say without an in depth analysis and something like finite element modeling.

But I think you have the right idea. If you do it make sure you periodically check the body structure around the welds and in other high stress concentration areas - sharp points, creases, tight radius bends.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > AMGtech - now with more recalls!
01/13/2016 at 10:23

Yeah it sucks :S I'm hoping to skirt by on knowing a friendly inspection chap. If I got a stickler for the rules I'd have problems :S

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Snuze: Needs another Swede
01/13/2016 at 10:28

Gotcha. I suppose if you picture a pyramid with each side separate and then press on a corner it will transmit the force up through that rod.

If you weld together a pyramid and do the same thing, it might try and pivot the pyramid upwards and provide stress on a completely unrelated area.

Difficult to describe that in words but I can picture it...

When I get round to doing it I'll keep an eye out for cracks and fatigue :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/13/2016 at 10:40

Unfortunately the chassis rail will be increased in width rather than height so it’s not quite as good as that, but it’d be equivalent to running a second chassis rail down the side of the original one (admittedly in thinner gauge steel for 3 out of 4 walls). The floorpan is like the old Hudson Hornet in that the pans drop down either side of the chassis rails.

Bloody hell on that Lincoln glass. Never heard of a structural windscreen before ;)

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:05

You could well be right about tentativeness, but then again you’d expect that if there was a really clear benefit that outweighed the negatives, that would overcome any reluctance.

To me, the fact that a few 30s Ford guys do it and no-one else suggests very strongly that it’s not something uncommon because it’s an idea no-one’s had, but rather is one where the advantages don’t normally outweigh the disadvantages.

Does the Spit’s chassis actually need strengthening?

Trevor Slattery, ACTOR > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:07

I guess. The return on man hours just does not seem like a good deal. My dream is to drop a Suzuki V6 in one. Use a GT6 frame and rotoflex rear end with upgraded CV joint axles.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
01/13/2016 at 11:11

It’s not bad but it could certainly do with some added rigidity. I know racers here solid-mount the body to the chassis, but for that I’d need to make up some ally spacers which seems like a lot of work for a compromise.

It could all be a bit of a boondoggle, but due to the lack of evidence online I can't really say either way til I've tried it. Plus, if it does work it'd be a neat trick I could apply to a number of BOF Triumphs in the future :)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:19

I think I understand now. As you’d expect, the increase in width increases mostly lateral stiffness. Doesn’t increase fore and aft beam stiffness that much more than an extra layer on the top and bottom web, but I imagine a little bit of lateral improvement helps a lot - what with the narrow waist of that frame and the relatively limited tying in to the body in that regard. Actually, the fascinating thing about the Hornet was not that the pans were either side of the rails as such, but that it was like an extremely reinforced unit frame structure, without it being tied as directly to the body. Which *is* about where you’d end up, oddly enough. Plastic model below:

Kinja'd!!!

Perimeter beams, abbreviated front and rear frame structures connected via torque boxes to the perimeter, and some fore and aft bracing... but all done up in strong rail and not folded sheet. A Hornet with the body pan welded down would be in a state of being like a monocoque in every way but better... apart from the fact that the rails would probably be compromised as being carbon steel. Maybe brazed down?. You’d be getting a lot of that sort of idea with the Spit, but not as ideally. I recall that you’ve got something quite like a torque box in the folded metal behind the seat forward of the rear axle, so beefing that up a bit and tying it complementarily to the chassis would help make use of your outer sill beams. A bit more than just welding everything down and webbing on the belly pans, in other words. Adding a bit more outrigger to the rear frame before tying the two together to kill rear frame twist. I know there’s a bit of bracing, but there could be more.

As to structural windshields, their life was pretty brief. A short fad permitted in US barges by modern roller glass bending tech (the transition from flat sheet), and abandoned about the time people realized how heavy and expensive it was, particularly with upper limits on its strength. For Cadillac it was roughly a ‘53 to ‘64 thing, and more moderately priced and sized cars both started later and finished sooner. Here’s a ‘58 Imperial (Chrysler) to show just how little pillar it has:

Kinja'd!!!

On some models a structural wrap-around windshield made for a forward-canted vent window, which is among the more odd features of the age. ‘58 Chevy for an example:

Kinja'd!!!

No A-pillar of any substance here, no sir.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Trevor Slattery, ACTOR
01/13/2016 at 11:22

True, but it’d be an interesting experiment to see if it’d work :)

Never seen a Spit with a V6 in it, but that’d be a damn cool car :) you might be hard-pressed to fit it under the bonnet as with V engines (and slant engines like the 16v Sprint) clearance with the suspension turrets and the exhaust headers can be tricky. You might be able to slot it inbetween the bulkhead and the suspension turrets though as it’s only 3 cylinders long. That's what they do for RV8 swaps anyway...

Also, the only difference between a rotoflex GT6 chassis, a normal GT6 chassis and a Spitfire chassis is the suspension mounts (and the rad mount for the Spit chassis).

You can buy those brackets from a company called Canley Classics, who also do a CV conversion kit. Might be a cheaper way of doing it if GT6 prices are anything like they are over here :S would need a rear suspension setup from a roto GT6 as well though (uprights, fixed spring, hubs, brakes, radius arms and radius arm brackets) so might not work out depending on parts prices...

Trevor Slattery, ACTOR > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:33

I’ll post a photo of my Spitfire/GT6 spares this week. You’ll get a good laugh.

Straightsix9904 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:35

I have heard of welded body seams. But a welded body to the chassis?

I did a quick google search and it looks like this maybe somewhat popular in the G-body scene for drag racing. I wouldn’t really want to take turns at high speed as you change all the points that are designed to flex.

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 11:39

Where does it wobble? I’m surprised you can’t strengthen the chassis itself without adding much weight over just using the body, and then you’d still have the advantages of BOF.

“it’d be a neat trick I could apply to a number of BOF Triumphs in the future”

Talking of which, did you notice this post of mine?

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/late-night-bad…

I figured that’s right up your street :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Straightsix9904
01/13/2016 at 11:40

Yeah ideally I’d do some digital stress analysis but that’s way beyond my expertise. Best I can hope for really is to run it for a while, see which bits fatigue and crack and then reinforce those areas.

Would be interesting if it works though :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/13/2016 at 11:46

Very interesting :) pics didn’t show but I’ve googled the chassis/body and it’s a hell of a construction. Had to google what torque boxes are but I reckon the bodyshell has some of that incorporated (but yeah, could do with that boxing in more as well).

In the absence of anything that’s not horrendously technical online regarding vertical stiffness and two lengths of box section side-by-side I think I’ll investigate with some lengths of 4x2.

1. Put one length on some blocks and put a gearbox on top.
2. Measure deflection.
3. Put two length side-by-side and put gearbox on top.
4. Measure deflection and compare

We'll see what happens :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
01/13/2016 at 11:53

Primarily at the junction of the body and the forward part of the chassis (which I could reinforce by sticking a tube from the firewall down to the chassis), but I’d be surprised if the rest of it is in any way rigid. The issue with strengthening a chassis for vertical loads is that it really needs to be taller. There's no real practical way to do that without coming up into the body or losing a lot of ground clearance so using the body itself is an easy way of getting the strength vertically...

That is right up my street ;) it’s also near enough what the X1/9 did with the Fiat 128 drivetrain. They even kept the uprights and just used the steering knuckle to bolt a toe-link to :)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 12:07

Your 4x2 gives you the effect of a solid beam. Hollow beams are a tad bit different. In the one case you have H 3 D/12 as the second moment of area (goes into an analysis of bending), and in the other you have H 3 D/12 - h 3 d/12, where the H and D are height and depth and h and d are the inner measurements of a hollow one. Some of the same rules apply, though. The bigger the moment, the better. Side by side doubling, you have 2*(H 3 D/12 - h 3 d/12)vs. a vertical load, which isn’t shabby, but one on top of the other gives (2H) 3 D/12 - (2h) 3 d/12 or similar, which is much bigger. Now, in each case you redivide by a factor of height for stresses in the metal (complicated), so it’s only about twice as strong as the side by side (4x the original beam) and not four times (8x the original beam), but still. Your stiffness to vertical loads is profoundly greater with increase in height, stiffness to horizontal loads with width.

With your chassis rail expansion you’re only sort of adding half a box structure on the side and not twice the metal, so it’s more like 1.5x resistance to vertical loads, but it’s still a profound improvement to horizontal ones, even without taking in the web strength of your floor pans. It’s also a great increase to twisting resistance in either case.

As to what makes for a very easy increase in vertical beam strength without much weight increase, it’s a thickening of the upper and/or lower web. Your ideal beam H 3 D/12 - h 3 d/12 gets much stronger in a hurry when you make H bigger or h smaller, as I’m sure you see, because the difference in squares balloons. It’s an increase to the top web without having anything to do with where a lot of your surface area is, the side plates.

Straightsix9904 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 12:26

Is this your spitfire as it sets? If so...DAMN that looks nice.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
01/13/2016 at 15:50

Ah :) all very enlightening :) i’ll try and get some measurements and see what gives the best increase in a practicable way.

I could even get weights of the various materials and see what gives the best gain for the least weight :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Straightsix9904
01/13/2016 at 15:53

Hooo no :S mine’s way behind that. Ahead mechanical specification-wise, but way behind in actual progress :)

Straightsix9904 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 16:11

I flipped through some of your past posts. What is the overall dream. More HP? Resto-Mod? I saw the LSD posts, it looks like a fun time.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 16:13

I’ll say this - it’s a good thing I’ve got background in this sort of thing, otherwise I’d be worried by what awaits in the fixing of the Lincoln’s rocker panels. Very worried indeed.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Straightsix9904
01/13/2016 at 16:44

Sirt of a ‘if triumph had an AMG skunk-works, what would they have created?’ :)

It’ll have modified rear suspension, uprated brakes, a lot of lightweighting and a breathed-on lucas pi triumph 2.5l i6. Hoping for 180bhp/200lb-ft and ~750kg, although i’m a little ways off the weight figure at present...

Straightsix9904 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/13/2016 at 17:12

180 HP and 750 kilos? Damn dude. Sounds like a blast.

That is a pretty close ratio to my dream build - Fiat 124 w/ the modern Abarth MultiAir engine. The Fiat would weigh a little over 900 kilos but you can squeeze a little over 210 HP pretty easy.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Straightsix9904
01/14/2016 at 02:45

Ooh :) nice idea. Did they sell anything with a 16v fiat twincam in over there? Slapping a turbo on that should net the same thing (more with a little tuning) if the multiair doesn’t fit...

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/15/2016 at 10:37

Oh, I see, I was confused because I was thinking about loads in the horizontal plane. What about using tension wires top and bottom?

“ it’s also near enough what the X1/9 did with the Fiat 128 drivetrain.”

Really? You make me look like a goddamn dilettante. Is there anything you don’t know? :)

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > davedave1111
01/15/2016 at 11:29

Electrics. Witchcraft to me so far ;)

Oh, and as of last night tig-welding thin-gauge aluminium tube. That’s bloody impossible :S

Hah :) I like the idea of using tension wires. Very LeMons using a boating technique (combine it with a nautical theme on a big ol' American land yacht and you're winning already)

davedave1111 > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires
01/15/2016 at 11:34

Oh, I was thinking aviation rather than boats.

Kinja'd!!!