Jump to content
Click here if you are having website access problems ×

Silly confusion over rad install


CtrMint

Recommended Posts

Would it not be easier if the rad mounts had slots rather than holes?  The gauge of the ali looks like it would take it.  In fact, might that be a useful mod for current builders (until CC come up with something better)?

Derek @ CC confirmed I need to cut the bolt installed behind the plate on the rad down.

In which case, surely CC should do that themselves prior to shipping the kit!

JV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see the rad failing as the mounting plate is separate from the core, the fold stiffening it nicely and separating the stresses from the main rad.  But I can see the bobbin failing if it's stressed under more than the rad weight if the fold back and the mounts on the chassis aren't parallel.  It's not going to happen for a while though.

My 17yr old bobbins seem to be doing well, having outlasted one rad so far.

You can get M8 hex head screws in lots of lengths - that looks like M8x10 would have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first picture does seem to show slots in the ali plate on the rad - already trying to allow for the differences that will happen between radiator and chassis fabrication.

I did wonder if there was enough room to wangle the screw out, cut it down, and wangle it back in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought. As Simon mentions in #34 if the 620 (which has probably the same rad) does not come ex factory with bobbins in the installation there may be a point on Mark's 420 build. The 620 has a different nose cone from the 420, but given the size of the larger rad, packaging may be tight on both variants with all the hang-on bits in place.  It might be worth a cautionary check to see if the 420 nose fits over your the rad with bobbins in the installation as they will make the rad sit further forward than without.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a piece of engineering this is a botch and Caterham should hang their heads in shame for delivering such a crappy mounting design when all that is needed is a slightly longer mounting leg before the 90 deg bend . This would move the rad forward by perhaps only a centimetre but not knowing what the clearance is between the top of the rad and the inside of the nosecone the fit might then get tight. 

Whatever, the design looks like its not been given appropriate thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Leadership Team

They certainly used to ... but having disassociated themselves with the club it would be assumed they no longer have a membership and therefore can't post. Rather like shooting oneself in one's foot.

Stu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

does CC ever read this forum?

Given that it's a public forum, it would be naive to think they don't read it, but it's unclear whether they still have posting rights. Simon Lambert used to post occasionally before the "divorce", but presumably no longer can? Perhaps someone with access to the membership records could clarify?

JV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I see on your other thread you mention an alternate rad is being sent.

On my 1998 vintage copper cored rad the two sets of fixing holes in the rad were both compromised - using to lower ones meant the rad touched the top of the nose cone. Using the upper ones meant the lower hose was hard against the chassis tube.

So, I just drilled 4 new holes inbetween the upper and lower holes and it fits perfectly!

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...