The Gentleman's Roadster, Bismarck Build: Dash finished

[Highplainsdakota]

I need some help with the other side as well. There is no way to hook up the aluminum fork to the wilwood brake pedal to meet the specifications of 1.1” of travel. The wilwood master cylinder instructions say there must be this much travel for them to work safely if the front or rear depressurizes. With the fork out as far as possible so the brake pedal arm hits the crossmember, the travel is only 3/4” into the hydroboost system. I ground down a significant about of metal on both the fork and pedal to achieve even this. I noticed the cap head bolt he welded onto the hydroboost arm was also hitting the mouth of the hydroboost system unless it’s perfectly lined up.

Finally, I would like to reduce the overall brake pedal travel to decrease the pedal height somewhat. I drilled another hole in the pedal farther down so there was more arc of travel (fork pivot point farther from top pivot where the pedal connects.). This impinged the welded on screw head, the fork on the pedal, and the steering shaft.

I feel like I have to cut off his bolt and reeled something else that will work and change the pedal geometry as well. Not as turn key as I would have liked. Please help!

[Highplainsdakota]

Here are some pictures of the pedal at rest, all the way out against the frame

IMG_4926.jpgIMG_4928.jpegIMG_4933.jpeg

[Highplainsdakota]

Here are some pictures with the brake depressed. Notice the fork impinging on the pedal, the socket screw trying to fit in the hydroboost hole, and the measured length difference, about 3/4”IMG_4929.jpegIMG_4934.jpeg

[Highplainsdakota]

Anyone with pictures of the pedal side of mikes hydroboost system would help!

[dbo_texas]

Anyone with pictures of the pedal side of mikes hydroboost system would help!

I had to do a bunch of modifications to get my all working. I detailed my issues in post #104 and #108 (solution). I had to remove my hydroboost and cut off a portion of the threaded rod that goes into the brake pedal clevis. Hope this helps.

[Highplainsdakota]

So this is what I started with. I ground it down so it would have a chance of fitting in the hole of the hydroboost. The blue mark is 1.1”, or the minimum it is supposed to travel to bottom out the tandem master cylinder. Right now I’m at about 3/4 - 7/8”. That’s the full travel of my pedal. The only way to get more travel is to mount the clevis fork lower on the pedal.

IMG_4944.jpgIMG_4940.jpg

[dbo_texas]

So this is what I started with. I ground it down so it would have a chance of fitting in the hole of the hydroboost. The blue mark is 1.1”, or the minimum it is supposed to travel to bottom out the tandem master cylinder. Right now I’m at about 3/4 - 7/8”. That’s the full travel of my pedal. The only way to get more travel is to mount the clevis fork lower on the pedal.

IMG_4944.jpgIMG_4940.jpg

I'm not 100% sure i follow, but just comparing where I started (my thread post #104) to where I finished (my thread poste #108), your setup sure looks like my #104 post. I had to shorten the threads on the welded bolt so that I could screw the rod into the cleavis more (otherwise it would hit the back of the pedal arm. This allowed the piston to fully extend to its resting position. From my pics you can see that puts the head of the welded bolt just behind the cleavis...I couldn't even fit a standard nut in there to lock it in place, I had to grind it down to about 2mm thick so it would fit. You may be in a similar situation?
If your piston is pre-loaded (i.e. not in its resting position), that would explain why you aren't getting full pedal travel. I guess the part I don't get is that you say you have clearance to the 3/4 frame already? If so, then maybe your piston is all the way extended towards the pedal (and isn't pre-loaded). In my case, the pedal arm was pushing ON the frame rail initially and the piston was compressed by quite a bit (thus reducing travel and essentially having the brakes "always on").

It's worth noting we have different master cylinders mounted on the front of the hydroboost, so that could explain the differences in our setups. I think my master cylinder is from 2014 Mustang. I was never able to fully determine what model master cylinder I have but just Google searching, that's what I think I have.

[Highplainsdakota]

So this is what I started with. I ground it down so it would have a chance of fitting in the hole of the hydroboost. The blue mark is 1.1”, or the minimum it is supposed to travel to bottom out the tandem master cylinder. Right now I’m at about 3/4 - 7/8”. That’s the full travel of my pedal. The only way to get more travel is to mount the clevis fork lower on the pedal.

IMG_4944.jpgIMG_4940.jpg

[Highplainsdakota]

So I just went out and measured the actual travel of the mounting point in the pedal arm. It’s about 7/8” from crossbar to footbox aluminum. 1.1” travel is impossible without cutting the cross frame bar. Honestly even with the pedal arm touching the cross bar the pedal is really close to the driver. I was hoping for less overall pedal travel, and to start with the pedal a little farther forward.

This seems to me either everyone just mounts it like this ignoring the safety recommendations from wilwood, or the piston/pushrod travel of the hydroboost isn’t the same distance as the MC piston is traveling. Thoughts?

IMG_4948.jpegIMG_4949.jpegIMG_4952.jpegIMG_4945.jpeg

[Highplainsdakota]

I'm not 100% sure i follow, but just comparing where I started (my thread post #104) to where I finished (my thread poste #108), your setup sure looks like my #104 post. I had to shorten the threads on the welded bolt so that I could screw the rod into the cleavis more (otherwise it would hit the back of the pedal arm. This allowed the piston to fully extend to its resting position. From my pics you can see that puts the head of the welded bolt just behind the cleavis...I couldn't even fit a standard nut in there to lock it in place, I had to grind it down to about 2mm thick so it would fit. You may be in a similar situation?
If your piston is pre-loaded (i.e. not in its resting position), that would explain why you aren't getting full pedal travel. I guess the part I don't get is that you say you have clearance to the 3/4 frame already? If so, then maybe your piston is all the way extended towards the pedal (and isn't pre-loaded). In my case, the pedal arm was pushing ON the frame rail initially and the piston was compressed by quite a bit (thus reducing travel and essentially having the brakes "always on").

It's worth noting we have different master cylinders mounted on the front of the hydroboost, so that could explain the differences in our setups. I think my master cylinder is from 2014 Mustang. I was never able to fully determine what model master cylinder I have but just Google searching, that's what I think I have.

Did you actually have your pedal bottom out to a firm stop before it hit the firewall before your system was primed and bled? If you look at my recent posts after yours it is impossible to get 1.1" of travel from the wilwood pedal box as designed. So what are people doing?

[dbo_texas]

Did you actually have your pedal bottom out to a firm stop before it hit the firewall before your system was primed and bled? If you look at my recent posts after yours it is impossible to get 1.1" of travel from the wilwood pedal box as designed. So what are people doing?

I'm not 100% certain but if I recall, before I added brake fluid and bled the system, I don't think I was bottoming the pedal on the firewall...maybe that means I was bottoming out the MC piston travel? But I could be wrong about that....I just don't remember.

I do have on my list this safety critical item to check (losing pressure in front, but maintaining in the rear, and vice-versa). I came across a thread several years ago which seemed to point out this exact safety flaw in the hydroboost setup with the Wilwood master cylinder so added it to my list to verify before I get on the road. I followed this thread for a while and it's on my list to check but I haven't done it yet (I'm still building). But you may want to read through this POST --> the last time I asked on this post from 10/3/2022 the original poster didn't give an update so not sure if swapping to a different MC solved his issue. But it's worth a read - you might be having the same issue and you could try sending a PM to JIMLAND (original poster on that thread) to see if he figured it out. If you haven't already, I'd highly encourage you to also call Mike Forte - the guy is a wealth of knowledge and in my personal experience, he will bend over backwards to help you figure this out. Please keep posting updates here for the collective mind! I'm sure folks more knowledgeable than me will chime in too.

[Rian_Colorado]

I'm at this exact point in my build as well, so I'm interested in the input you get. I read this yesterday, and like you, measured the total throw of the pedal from cross member to firewall. (yes, right about 1" total). As both of you have mentioned, it looks like I'm going to have to cut some off of the bolt so that the pedal doesn't contact the cross member (easier for me since it's at the build stage!). I talked to Mike a few days ago about that, and he said that shouldn't present any problems. I just have to figure out exactly how MUCH to cut off.....

What I'm thinking one of 2 things is the case:

1) That the 1.1" of travel is going to be way overkill. Many people have this setup, and I've not read anywhere that others have had any problem. I'm assuming that the recommended 1.1" is in the event of power fluid pump failure (i.e., if the motor dies, and you lose power boost). Then you wouldn't get full MC travel with LESS than 1.1" of movement of the piston bolt at the brake pedal end. (Which yes, could be concerning). Then again, that unlikely situation is what emergency brakes are for.

2) The "1.1" of throw" looks to come from the Wilwood information regarding movement of the MC rod. I'm wondering if the amount of travel of the pedal vs the amount of travel of the Wilwood piston is NOT proportional? (i.e. - .5" of travel at the pedal side = 1" of movement at the MC side of the hydroboost?) This should be easy enough to check by removing the MC, and measuring the movement of the pushrod relative to the pedal side.


I'm VERY curious though about what others who have this setup in place have to say about it. As you mention, I'm REALLY hoping to adjust the pedal AWAY from the driver a bit to increase legroom. It appears that shortening that "throw" will be the only way to accomplish that....

Hoping someone with this setup chimes in. I know Lidodrip has this setup in his car, might reach out to him .....

RR

[Highplainsdakota]

I'm at this exact point in my build as well, so I'm interested in the input you get. I read this yesterday, and like you, measured the total throw of the pedal from cross member to firewall. (yes, right about 1" total). As both of you have mentioned, it looks like I'm going to have to cut some off of the bolt so that the pedal doesn't contact the cross member (easier for me since it's at the build stage!). I talked to Mike a few days ago about that, and he said that shouldn't present any problems. I just have to figure out exactly how MUCH to cut off.....

What I'm thinking one of 2 things is the case:

1) That the 1.1" of travel is going to be way overkill. Many people have this setup, and I've not read anywhere that others have had any problem. I'm assuming that the recommended 1.1" is in the event of power fluid pump failure (i.e., if the motor dies, and you lose power boost). Then you wouldn't get full MC travel with LESS than 1.1" of movement of the piston bolt at the brake pedal end. (Which yes, could be concerning). Then again, that unlikely situation is what emergency brakes are for.

2) The "1.1" of throw" looks to come from the Wilwood information regarding movement of the MC rod. I'm wondering if the amount of travel of the pedal vs the amount of travel of the Wilwood piston is NOT proportional? (i.e. - .5" of travel at the pedal side = 1" of movement at the MC side of the hydroboost?) This should be easy enough to check by removing the MC, and measuring the movement of the pushrod relative to the pedal side.


I'm VERY curious though about what others who have this setup in place have to say about it. As you mention, I'm REALLY hoping to adjust the pedal AWAY from the driver a bit to increase legroom. It appears that shortening that "throw" will be the only way to accomplish that....

Hoping someone with this setup chimes in. I know Lidodrip has this setup in his car, might reach out to him .....

RR

Thanks for the reply. You hit every point I'm making.

1: 1.1" travel with the wilwood pedal box is not possible.
2: Likely only a problem with one sided failure (which is why I think everyone who has this setup has this issue and hasn't noticed it, measured, or cared) Perhaps a calculated risk?
3: Maybe I have a different wilwood pedal box for some reason? (I think this is highly unlikely. Matches the build manual and other forum posts, also Mike didn't say anything when he modified it)
4: Throw of the hydroboost piston arm is different than the MC. I'm not sure this is likely but certainly possible. I admit I'm not sure how to check this. I will probably take them apart and snoop around. I tried to press the hydroboost piston in just to see if it actually traveled that far and I couldn't generate enough force. I'll have to make a mount out of some steel in my vice and rig up a lever. I'll report back.

As far as cutting off some of the bolt. Just take 1/4". I would mill off some of the pedal aluminum first as well as the bottom of the clevis/fork so it doesn't hit. As far as a solution, I think I'm going to make another clevis/fork out of steel that has longer arms and extends to the front of the pedal arm and below the factory hole. This will give me more linear motion and more of an ark. Should get me the 1.1 I need. Another option is to make an angled bushing of aluminum or steel to tilt the angle of the hydroboost on the firewall footbox steeper so the arm points lower on the pedal, giving more arc and throw. I talked to Mike Forte and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm crazy. Then again maybe I am...

[Highplainsdakota]

I'm at this exact point in my build as well, so I'm interested in the input you get. I read this yesterday, and like you, measured the total throw of the pedal from cross member to firewall. (yes, right about 1" total). As both of you have mentioned, it looks like I'm going to have to cut some off of the bolt so that the pedal doesn't contact the cross member (easier for me since it's at the build stage!). I talked to Mike a few days ago about that, and he said that shouldn't present any problems. I just have to figure out exactly how MUCH to cut off.....

What I'm thinking one of 2 things is the case:

1) That the 1.1" of travel is going to be way overkill. Many people have this setup, and I've not read anywhere that others have had any problem. I'm assuming that the recommended 1.1" is in the event of power fluid pump failure (i.e., if the motor dies, and you lose power boost). Then you wouldn't get full MC travel with LESS than 1.1" of movement of the piston bolt at the brake pedal end. (Which yes, could be concerning). Then again, that unlikely situation is what emergency brakes are for.

2) The "1.1" of throw" looks to come from the Wilwood information regarding movement of the MC rod. I'm wondering if the amount of travel of the pedal vs the amount of travel of the Wilwood piston is NOT proportional? (i.e. - .5" of travel at the pedal side = 1" of movement at the MC side of the hydroboost?) This should be easy enough to check by removing the MC, and measuring the movement of the pushrod relative to the pedal side.


I'm VERY curious though about what others who have this setup in place have to say about it. As you mention, I'm REALLY hoping to adjust the pedal AWAY from the driver a bit to increase legroom. It appears that shortening that "throw" will be the only way to accomplish that....

Hoping someone with this setup chimes in. I know Lidodrip has this setup in his car, might reach out to him .....

RR

Maybe wait to make the 1/4" cut off the bolt. I cut off about 1/2" from the hydroboost bolt. Since i also took a significant amount of aluminum from the clevis fork as well as the back of the pedal arm, I now have the angle of travel I need. The aluminum I removed from the back of the pedal arm was enough to probably make the cutting of the bolt irrelevant. Maybe do that first. The pedal is probably easier to replace than the difficulty welding on another bolt. With my 1/2" cut off, and the fork bolted to the factory hole in the pedal arm the bolt is recessed about 1/4" to 3/8" in the fork. If we conclude that people usually set up the hydroboost and don't ever measure this 1.1" that we are after, then I would rather have as much bolt through the fork as possible.

If I stick with the factory location and accept the 7/8" pedal throw, I shouldn't have cut that much off. If I make a longer fork I don't need that long of a bolt anymore anyway.

I also had problems with the head of the bolt hitting the hydroboost mouth and had to grind it down so it would fit. I can confirm you can rotate the bolt in the hydroboost with a channel lock since it is usually welded on at a slight angle. You may have to turn it to clear.

[Rian_Colorado]

So I took probably 3/8 off of that bolt (Didn't take anything off of the clevis or the pedal) Works perfectly. I have it installed in the car, with the pedal setup as far forward as possible (basically 1/16 off of the cross member). When I bottom out the pedal, I can get 2 fingers between the pedal and the firewall. When I say "bottom out" I mean the threaded/welded component will no go ANY further (I'm betting that the Wilwood MC is bottomed out at this position).

This appears to be the full range of motion of the hydro-boost. I have to assume that the hydro-boost/pedal side of this setup isn't moving anywhere near the 1.1".

Of course this is all with NO hydraulic fluid/power installed yet! Hard to get to test the whole thing yet with no motor in the car yet!

Let me know if you want pics of anything in my setup or a video of how mine is functioning to compare it to

RR

[Highplainsdakota]

So I took probably 3/8 off of that bolt (Didn't take anything off of the clevis or the pedal) Works perfectly. I have it installed in the car, with the pedal setup as far forward as possible (basically 1/16 off of the cross member). When I bottom out the pedal, I can get 2 fingers between the pedal and the firewall. When I say "bottom out" I mean the threaded/welded component will no go ANY further (I'm betting that the Wilwood MC is bottomed out at this position).

This appears to be the full range of motion of the hydro-boost. I have to assume that the hydro-boost/pedal side of this setup isn't moving anywhere near the 1.1".

Of course this is all with NO hydraulic fluid/power installed yet! Hard to get to test the whole thing yet with no motor in the car yet!

Let me know if you want pics of anything in my setup or a video of how mine is functioning to compare it to

RR

That’s really interesting. It was at this moment in my build that I found the bottom of the clevis fork was impinging on the back of the pedal arm stopping the continued rearward motion of the pedal. Might want to check that.

The next thing I checked was the head of the bolt welded onto the hydroboost arm. Mine was hitting the edge of the opening into the hydroboost. Once I sanded it down it allowed it to go further in.

Finally, I measured from the opening of the hydroboost to the front of the bolt head at rest then at full push to determine how much actual travel there was. If not just for your own curiosity, I would love to know if these are happening in your build. Thanks for taking the time to compare! Any information really helps.

[Highplainsdakota]

IMG_4926.jpgIMG_4929.jpeg

I posted these before, but this shows how much metal I took off the pedal and the bottom of the clevis fork in order to allow more pedal travel. I don’t see how anyone would have pedal travel without doing this. Also you can see the head of the welded onto bolt hitting the opening of the hydroboost. I think it would fit if it went straight in but the angle doesn’t allow that. This is why I shaved that down.

[Highplainsdakota]

Update:

I installed my under dash I fabricated from 12 g aluminum. It’s really rigid. This was rivited with the firewall so that’s done. Since I used the deeper firewall modification I decided to cut two of my wire holes in the bottom instead of the back so I didn’t hit the back of the engine.


IMG_4960.jpg

[Rian_Colorado]

Good catch on the clevis contacting the brake pedal arm, that turned out to be exactly where my contact (so stop point) was indeed!

Like you, I notched the brake pedal ever so much, and just took off a tiny sliver of the lower part of the clevis arm. This now allows the pedal to contact the front of the footbox. Mine actually contacts the bottom of the steering bearing (non-rotational part, so not worried about it.)

My setup showed up with SOME grinding on that bolt (I assume from Forte / his guys). I DID grind on it a bit more as you show, and it does enter inside the hydro=boost about 3/32".

None of this tells us anything regarding the recommended travel of the pivot point however. I'm confident that we are getting as much (or likely far more) travel that many other builders that have this system installed however. The biggest benefit is that if the required travel ISN'T that much, we'll have quite a bit more room to move the pedal towards the firewall to gain legroom. (Then again, I might have to take more off that bolt, which I'm not keen on doing)

REALLY the only test is running the system at getting a feel for where it "locks em up". That's obviously going to depend on a NUMBER of things at the other end (what calipers/rotors/pads/wheels/tires). Still, the largest worry in my mind is some type of hydraulic boost failure that would require maximum travel to achieve maximum braking. I can't think of a real good way to test that either once the entire system is up and running. I'm confident that I would get quite a bit of brakes in that situation, but the e-brake COULD come into play....

I'm sure Mike has sold his fair share of these, and I would think others would have mentioned any kind of failure had there been one. That gives me enough confidence - Not that I'm interested in being the failure guinea pig!

I'll try to remember to post something once I've got it at go-cart stage

Rian

[Highplainsdakota]

Good catch on the clevis contacting the brake pedal arm, that turned out to be exactly where my contact (so stop point) was indeed!

Like you, I notched the brake pedal ever so much, and just took off a tiny sliver of the lower part of the clevis arm. This now allows the pedal to contact the front of the footbox. Mine actually contacts the bottom of the steering bearing (non-rotational part, so not worried about it.)

My setup showed up with SOME grinding on that bolt (I assume from Forte / his guys). I DID grind on it a bit more as you show, and it does enter inside the hydro=boost about 3/32".

None of this tells us anything regarding the recommended travel of the pivot point however. I'm confident that we are getting as much (or likely far more) travel that many other builders that have this system installed however. The biggest benefit is that if the required travel ISN'T that much, we'll have quite a bit more room to move the pedal towards the firewall to gain legroom. (Then again, I might have to take more off that bolt, which I'm not keen on doing)

REALLY the only test is running the system at getting a feel for where it "locks em up". That's obviously going to depend on a NUMBER of things at the other end (what calipers/rotors/pads/wheels/tires). Still, the largest worry in my mind is some type of hydraulic boost failure that would require maximum travel to achieve maximum braking. I can't think of a real good way to test that either once the entire system is up and running. I'm confident that I would get quite a bit of brakes in that situation, but the e-brake COULD come into play....

I'm sure Mike has sold his fair share of these, and I would think others would have mentioned any kind of failure had there been one. That gives me enough confidence - Not that I'm interested in being the failure guinea pig!

I'll try to remember to post something once I've got it at go-cart stage

Rian

I agree and I think we're thinking about this correctly and I'm getting my mind around this issue. I'm more confident now that others with this system simply don't know it's supposed to go further in, and don't find out because the brakes probably work fine. Even in a rear or front failure they would likely start to get braking after 50% travel (manual says 50-80% to engage other tandem MC) and at least have some brakes. At 3/4" or 7/8" they're approaching 80%. Those that had a failure and didn't have any brakes probably aren't around to complain! Sorry, terrible joke.

Here's my latest fix: I thought hard about a scissor system with two pivot points but it would be very difficult geometry to get right and make it robust enough to trust. The factory starting point is just below the top pivot so the "swing" of the arm makes the clevis pivot go back and up. I figured if we could start in front of the top pivot we would get more horizontal travel instead of losing rearward motion as the pedal arm swings up. So I drilled this hole and measured it. It looks like my new hole swings 1 3/16". This equates to 1.1875"! It looks like I made it, but that's ALL of the travel. If I go cross bar to footbox with no insulation or carpet behind the pedal arm I'm home free. Next step is to make sure the pushrod fits in the hydroboost with the new angle. If that does, then I can truly tell if the MC bottoms out. I'll report back!

[Highplainsdakota]

IMG_4962.jpgIMG_4963.jpegIMG_4965.jpegIMG_4966.jpeg

[Highplainsdakota]

I figured it out!

I decided to give up on the clevis fork that came with the pedal box and make my own. A longer version wouldn't impinge and would allow a lower pivot point on the pedal arm to increase translation. While I was making this, I realized I could make one that angled 45 degrees and attached even lower! Two more drill holes in the pedal arm later and I had the pivit point figured. Wow, what a difference. I achieved nearly two inches of travel instead of the 3/4" the factory hole allows!

Since I ground down the head bolt on Mike Forte's hydroboost and found his welds, I ground it down further and welded it again for extra strength. Hopefully there were no nearby seals to be damaged by the heat. I had a wet rag nearby to keep it cool. After yet another trial run (I think I've uninstalled and reinstalled the hydroboost about 20 times now) I was impressed with the motion. Not only did I reduce my over all brake pedal throw, but also increased the piston travel to just over 1.1" that is recommended. I'll post some pics below. Now that I have that and the pedal box firmly and finally mounted, and the firewall siliconed and rivited, I can move forward with wiring. It was a great feeling getting past this part. That being said, I do wonder how many people out there are running short throws with this system.

Below is the description for my modification.

I took some pictures of the new fork I made for future reference. The fork is made from 3/4" x 3/16" mild steel bar stock. I cut and welded the arms of the fork at a 45 degree down angle. The arms are about 2.5" long from the center of the back of the fork to the center of the pivot holes. I think you could get away with shorter because mine is adjusted all the way onto the hydroboost bolt and my pedal stops about 1/2" from the footbox wall. If you need the pedal to push in farther make it shorter. There's a nut welded on the inside of the fork.

The 3/8" hole to drill in the pedal arm can be identified by the aluminum ribs. Just snug the drill bit into the angled portion of the aluminum. This resulted in about 2" of travel overall from crossmember to foot box wall allowing for pedal adjustment. I used a second nut on the bolt to secure the fork. I also ground away some material from either side of the pedal arm to account for the thickness of the steel arms in the fork. This allowed it to clear the steering shaft. I added a washer to the left side (outside) of the pedal arm pin to keep the cross pin away from the steering arm as well. The aluminum webbing around the drill hole should support the hole enough for stepping on the brakes.

I hope this helps guys!

[Highplainsdakota]

IMG_4984.jpegIMG_4985.jpegIMG_4987.jpegIMG_4982.jpgIMG_4983.jpg

[Highplainsdakota]

IMG_4980.jpegIMG_4977.jpgIMG_4975.jpgIMG_4978.jpgIMG_4974.jpeg

[Highplainsdakota]

Another note on this hydroboost thing. Now that I have a bunch of travel, I still don't get the MC to bottom out. I'm comfortable now with the travel, but if someone is hitting an endpoint when using this system, you are probably binding or impinging on the clevis fort, bolt head, pedal arm, or something.

[Highplainsdakota]

Hey Guys,

So the hydroboost is in and the tandem MC is in place with the bias controller. This has one port for the rears and two for the front brakes assuming I would plumb one line for each wheel. I had followed the directions up to this point so I have a T in the brake lines at the driver’s front wheel. The instructions say I can plug one and plumb both front wheels with one output, but it would be easy to plumb both. Would I lose much just using one output? Chime in if you have experience with this product. Thanks

[Highplainsdakota]

I decided to plumb the front brakes separately. The passenger side connection doesn’t look great so I may redo that. I think I’ll use the jack stands and my jack to tilt the chassis in order to level the master cylinder while priming and bleeding the system.IMG_4994.jpgIMG_4993.jpg

[Highplainsdakota]

I need to start looking into my custom roll bar. Someone suggested that Whitby's has a 2" single roll bar but I don't like the height and I'd rather keep it at 1.75". I've been shopping around to see who can bend 1.75" pipe but haven't found someone that can do it yet. My plan was to use mild steel, 0.120" diameter. I don't plan on racing so I shouldn't need to meet any specs. I would like to rake the single roll bar back about 15 degrees just as it leaves the body, then a larger 90 degree radius to the cross beam. I need the roll bar to be lower because of the hard top I'm going to use.

Here's the question. Some roll bars seem to have a smooth radius on the bend with a consistent diameter of the tubing. In some roll bars you can see the tube is flattened at the radius. I would like the consistent tubing diameter look but I'm not sure how to achieve this. The factory five 1.5" roll bar seems to have a perfect diameter throughout their 180 degree bend.

#1: Can this be achieved by simply bending the tubing? (As long as I can find someone to do it)
#2: Does the steel have to be cut, welded, ground down for this effect?

I was also hoping to fix the rear supports in place just below the body for a seamless appearance, but I'm not sure that's possible. Has anyone tried a robust coupler instead of the usual male / female connection? Thanks

[Highplainsdakota]

Finally got my brake lines where I want them. I’m waiting to rivet them down until they pass the brake bleed. I was supposed to bench bleed the wilwood tandem MC, but it sounded like a mess. I decided to tilt the chassis instead. Should work the same.

.IMG_4996.jpgIMG_4997.jpgIMG_4998.jpg

[Highplainsdakota]

Update: I bled the brakes with the car tilted to make the MC level and it went very well. Nice firm pedal feel. As soon as I check for leaks I can finish the trunk aluminum.

[Highplainsdakota]

Update:

I had no leaks with the brake test so it looks like I can move on. I put a full day in yesterday and riveted the fuse box in place, added a support bracket like many have done, and made some progress on the drop trunk. I removed both diagonal supports that run through the drop trunk, but we noticed some flex of the frame with stress. Since the body is supported on the rear as well as the gas tank we decided to weld the longer diagonal back in. I also must have bought the wrong kind of aluminum plate because it broke in my metal brake instead of bending. I decided to use aluminum angle on these areas instead.

I finished the trunk side walls and the upper floor as well. I have a lot of gaps to fill to seal the trunk and cockpit. I like the JB weld paste but it’s hard to get into those corners to roughen the metal up and remove the powder coat. That will take me some time.

Finished the clutch safety switch and brake switch. Riveted down the last of my hard brake line as well. After I get all the gaps filled I can spend some time on dynamat and koolmat.

I’m looking for some brown or tan carpet to use in the car. What type of carpet do you guys recommend? I’ve looked into the square weave stuff but I can’t tell what would work well and look good in the roadster. Opinions welcome!

[Highplainsdakota]

IMG_5046.jpgIMG_5045.jpgIMG_5044.jpgIMG_5043.jpg

[Highplainsdakota]

Update:

More work on the drop trunk, adding support and sealing with metal tape. I also installed the trunk floor covers and foot box duct fans. Still looking for a place to install the valve gates. They are pretty big, but I might put them just behind the brake vents in the front. I did a test run on the fans and electronic valves. The fans are simply on-off when powered. The valve has one power input and two ground slots. When connecting one ground the valve slowly closes and stops drawing power when closed. The other ground opens. I may do a three way toggle switch where the middle position opens the duct, and the top position turns on the fan giving me a powered option if I want it.

Does anyone have a source for a vent duct attachment that fits just behind the fiberglass brake vent ports? I’m using 3” hose but 4” would be fine as well.

I fitted up my reservoirs but I need to get a needle and syringe to the shop to back fill the top of the master cylinders and hose so I don’t have a bubble of air on top of the MCs.

IMG_5070.jpgIMG_5071.jpgIMG_5072.jpg

[dbo_texas]

Does anyone have a source for a vent duct attachment that fits just behind the fiberglass brake vent ports? I’m using 3” hose but 4” would be fine as well.

I went with these for the connection to the body but after receiving them I can't say I recommend them....they seem really big and will need to be trimmed to get the shaped to match the body: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Another option which might fit a little better (others have used): https://prdcrrct.com/product/nose-ve...v=0b3b97fa6688

The 3rd option is from the vendor who's name shall not be mentioned, so I won't post the link

[Highplainsdakota]

An update and a thank you in general to all the support here. After perusing some threads here in my down time I ran across some people who found errors in the Ron Francis wiring harness. ie427 has a video discussing this as well. I went through my wiring harness which is already zip tied in place and found an entire weatherpack connector pinned mirror image wrong from the opposite side. It was all the turn signals. I had it connected properly but the wire colors were opposite the other side. Now I need to find the tool to unpin them and fix it. I wouldn’t have thought to check if I hadn’t seen it on this forum as an issue!

I finished attaching my reservoirs for my brakes and filled them. Finished my drop trunk and drilled for the cubby divider wall. There is a lot I can’t move on with before I test fit my body to check for panels to trim.

Many say the rear trunk panel is a usual trim piece. Some say the passenger shoulder panel. Which one is this? My plan is to place the body without any bulb seal or 3/4” tube felt just to see where things lie. Do an initial trim and recheck with some of that felt and bulb seal in place. Then I can decide on seat location, check my dash bends, reservoir heights, etc. I noticed some are placing bushings, stacked grommets or bumpers, etc on the front 3/4” hood rails to bump the body up. I’m all for this if it doesn’t mess with the door fitting etc. Someone even used part of a hockey puck. Is there a general recommendation here?

I’ve gone off script a bit with all the wonderful additions from breeze and other customizations, and I suspect some of these will alter my body fitting. I have the forward firewall from ffmetal, cubby divider, and a subwoofer box between the divider and rear 3/4” hoop. Let me know if I’m missing something.

Also on the bulb seal. Does it go all the way across the rear cockpit wall or just on the outer wings and back along the trunk uprights? Should I get bulb seal for my cubby divider? Thanks

[Highplainsdakota]

Hopefully someone will chime in on my above post but I wanted to put another thank you out there to Mike Forte for his help with the custom parts. His brake hydroboost system that I had a hell of a time installing to get the pedal situation right also had a mismatched fitting that was too small for the hole. He's sending me a new part and he covered shipping on his end. It can be difficult for me to tell if I have an incorrect part or if I simply don't know what I'm doing. I've rebuilt a CJ7 before but I'm still pretty weak in my automotive knowledge, so I have to rely on the vendors and the forum here for insight and help when I run into a problem. Mike has been very helpful and is a wealth of knowledge. He's been pretty patient with me too! I wouldn't hesitate to purchase his gear for these projects. He's finishing up my engine right now and I'm excited to get to the next steps.

[John Ibele]

An update and a thank you in general to all the support here. After perusing some threads here in my down time I ran across some people who found errors in the Ron Francis wiring harness. ie427 has a video discussing this as well. I went through my wiring harness which is already zip tied in place and found an entire weatherpack connector pinned mirror image wrong from the opposite side. It was all the turn signals. I had it connected properly but the wire colors were opposite the other side. Now I need to find the tool to unpin them and fix it. I wouldn’t have thought to check if I hadn’t seen it on this forum as an issue!

I finished attaching my reservoirs for my brakes and filled them. Finished my drop trunk and drilled for the cubby divider wall. There is a lot I can’t move on with before I test fit my body to check for panels to trim.

Many say the rear trunk panel is a usual trim piece. Some say the passenger shoulder panel. Which one is this? My plan is to place the body without any bulb seal or 3/4” tube felt just to see where things lie. Do an initial trim and recheck with some of that felt and bulb seal in place. Then I can decide on seat location, check my dash bends, reservoir heights, etc. I noticed some are placing bushings, stacked grommets or bumpers, etc on the front 3/4” hood rails to bump the body up. I’m all for this if it doesn’t mess with the door fitting etc. Someone even used part of a hockey puck. Is there a general recommendation here?

I’ve gone off script a bit with all the wonderful additions from breeze and other customizations, and I suspect some of these will alter my body fitting. I have the forward firewall from ffmetal, cubby divider, and a subwoofer box between the divider and rear 3/4” hoop. Let me know if I’m missing something.

Also on the bulb seal. Does it go all the way across the rear cockpit wall or just on the outer wings and back along the trunk uprights? Should I get bulb seal for my cubby divider? Thanks

Hopefully this pic tells you what you need to know about the bulb seal locations. Not on the cockpit back, but yes for the rear corners. There is foam strip padding on the top of the trunk hoop in the foreground of this shot. Then bulb seal on the firewall as shown. Note the foam strip going down the front rails as well - you can see this next to the bumper in the second photo as well.

I think you should be able to click or double click on the photo to blow it up ... and maybe cruise around in the photo album as well.


Untitled by John Ibele, on Flickr

For the bumpers on the front, you'll be able to tell how much you need when you do a trial fit of the body (and plan on many trial fits). I found some rubber strip I had sitting around, cut 3 thicknesses for about 5/8" total, and called it good.


Untitled by John Ibele, on Flickr

[Highplainsdakota]

That helps a lot. I’ve taken the body on and off 3 times now to make sure everything fits and it seems OK. Kleiner and others recommend the 5/8” rubber on the front of the frame which worked perfectly. My sub box needed to be ground down but it fits well now.

I still have the extra electrical circuits to run but things are coming together.

[Highplainsdakota]

Well I suppose most builders have a time when they hit the wall with their build. Mine came shortly after my last post when my engine showed up. I was so excited to unpack the engine and check out my 363 stroker. When I unpacked the crate, the engine mount welds had cracked. The engine had been rocking back and forth in the crate. There were gouges in the aluminum head and block, dents in the oil pan, oil filter was crunched, a spark plug wire was bent, and the clutch slave cylinder was damaged. Several other cosmetic scratches were found as well. I was pretty disappointed. I’m still working with insurance, shippers, and the builder to make things right although a non-damaged engine doesn’t seem likely anymore.

It took all the momentum out of the project. Life events started to get in the way and I had to walk away for a few months. The roadster still sits just as I left it. Tools and bolts of the various steps in the same spot. Yesterday I took the first few steps relearning where I was and what my next steps will be. I’m sure this will all add up the to feeling of success when I reach the end of the project.

What’s been interesting is that I feel like I’ve lost touch with all of this community’s build threads as well! I had been following along and gathering the tidbits of info to help me and trying to add some info of my own to help others as well. I’m going to spend some time reading through all of your roadster builds to catch up on what I missed. I’m sure I will have several questions for the community in the coming weeks as I get my momentum back. I’ve had some challenges, but getting back into the swing of building is taking some time. I’m looking forward to a cold winter to give me plenty of shop time.

These build threads are for documentation of the ups as well as the downs so I figured I’d share the struggle. Glad to be back and pictures to come in the next few days.

[Blitzboy54]

That is a bummer. I’m sorry to hear about your troubles. Brand new drivetrains are not cheap. I hope you get your engine sorted and get back into the build. I promise it’s worth it.


Good luck