loctite and torque loading figures
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default loctite and torque loading figures

    i am curious to know anyone's opinion on how much, if at all, using loctite on threads affects required torque loading specified for dry threads. and what makes you hold your belief.

    Advertisement


    it isnt a trick (ok, full disclosure.. if it was a trick i wouldnt be telling you in post #1) .. it came up elsewhere and brought out the usual range of very firm opinions, none of which seemed to be based on anything.

  2. #2
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    i am curious to know anyone's opinion on how much, if at all, using loctite on threads affects required torque loading specified for dry threads. and what makes you hold your belief.

    it isnt a trick (ok, full disclosure.. if it was a trick i wouldnt be telling you in post #1) .. it came up elsewhere and brought out the usual range of very firm opinions, none of which seemed to be based on anything.
    The TDS on Loctites own website states that no change in torque value are needed and that loctite will act as a thread lubricant until set.

    As with other thread lubrication, I suppose you could potentially reduce the torque setting by 5% compared to a dry thread if you were concerned about distortion of the surfaces being bolted together.

  3. #3
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    i am curious to know anyone's opinion on how much, if at all, using loctite on threads affects required torque loading specified for dry threads. and what makes you hold your belief.

    it isnt a trick (ok, full disclosure.. if it was a trick i wouldnt be telling you in post #1) .. it came up elsewhere and brought out the usual range of very firm opinions, none of which seemed to be based on anything.
    About the only dry thread torque settings i have come across are wheel nuts on some cars (which i don't agree with)
    Most head bolts for example stipulate a thread to be lightly oiled with light grade eng. or machine oil, or lightly smeared with a grease such as a moly. based product, including between bolt head and washer.

    As mistareno said loctite would act as a lub.agent and the torque shouldn't be an issue (unless you are working on an aircraft turbine or space craft !)

    Voila

    Alain

  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,878

    Default Opinion !

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    i am curious to know anyone's opinion on how much, if at all, using loctite on threads affects required torque loading specified for dry threads. and what makes you hold your belief.

    it isnt a trick (ok, full disclosure.. if it was a trick i wouldnt be telling you in post #1) .. it came up elsewhere and brought out the usual range of very firm opinions, none of which seemed to be based on anything.
    Hi Alexander
    That's a good question. It will be interesting to see if there are any good answers.

    Dry threads ! Not if you put a liquid on them I would think 5% is a lot less than the difference between dry and lubricated threads. However what is lubricated Singer sewing machine oil or molly grease

    These are some of the reasons to use yielding bolts. The tension is more certain.

    Jaahn

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,469

    Default

    I've been building primitive rwd Peugeot engines for a few years.

    I've always loctited main bearing and big end bolts/ nuts. And always torqued to manufacturers specs. Never has a problem.

    Head studs I've always torqued and always pulled down in three stages commencing from bolt finger tight against face. Threads have always been scrupulously cleaned and lightly oiled. I've never used angular method even when indicated.

    After the 1000 km re-tension, bolts are backed off and tightened finger tight. Then re-tensioned as per previous procedure to 60 ft/lbs (manufactures specs)then with an additional pass to 70 ft/lbs. The caveat is that the studs are checked and so are tapped holes in the block.

    This additional torque up is based on problems early on with oil/water leaks on outer periphery of the head. I also use hylomar.

    Certainly in older engines anyway actual torque is less important that the uniformity in my opinion.

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts bluey504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandenong Vic
    Posts
    1,274

    Default

    As a quick aside. At work 'we', the idiots using tools, have to replace load washers on the trip/de-rail activators. This is a fairly hefty bit of kit but to my mind TWO M24 BOLTS TORQUED TO 540 Nm IS A BIT MUCH! (By the way the trigger can be easily activated by pushing your steel capped safety boot upon it as it's a Bowden cable, AKA a Handbrake cable!!!) Brendan (Computer is playing up due to Eldest Step Lad sucking download!)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    thanks, chaps.
    i was asking generally, and not thinking of head bolts, which have special considerations, and are normally ( i believe ) installed lightly oiled anyway.

    the matter came up like this: the IRS axles on the lotus europa were taken from the hillman imp. in a word, they are shyte. it involves a stub axle with an outer spline, a hub which fits on the spline, and a big nut holding it on. they are notorious for having the nut come loose, and the hub rocking on the spline (ruining it) and axles breaking. the fit between hub and spline is so bad that Lotus supposedly did hand mix n match fittings between parts to find ones which fit best! anyway, they have to be assembled with loctite on the spline, and the washer between hub and nut. the question is whether there is supposed to be loctite on the thread to glue the nut on.

    i read the manual as saying it does, but it is ambiguous. one of the Illuminati on the largely american yahoo Europa group thinks otherwise and was MOST affronted by my questioning his interpretation. absolutely adamant that No, this thread should not have loctite on it, and it is such an important issue that, despite the manual being very clear (which it isnt) he has none the less consulted not one, but several lotus engineers about it, and they of course told him he is correct. of course!

    so we are talking about a 3/4" nut, with torque loading specified at 150 ft/lbs. information posted by someone else suggest that a 3/4" high tensile bolt requires 300 ft/lbs to take it to 75% of its yield point. one of my questions was whether using loctite actually makes any difference anyway, and i did note what richard points out ie that the manufacturers info seems to indicate a recommendation to just use the specified torque. in which case the whole argument was nothing more than pedantry about the wording of the manual (likely!). naturally, despite some very firm views about NOT using loctite on this thread, noone had any opinion at all about how using loctite would affect it.

    i called the Loctite help line. they repeated the above about using the same torque. i pressed the guy, and said that it seemed obvious that the lubrication of the thread, would cause the same torque to apply greater stress to the fastener. he went to consult a higher authority and came back with a recommendation to reduce torque by 10 to 15%. so, logically, if do use loctite with a dry thread torque spec, you are nominally putting about 10-15% too much stress in the fastener. without having any good reason to believe this other than Common Sense, i would guess that 10 to 15% extra stress would not take the structure within cooee of its yield point. which is probably why Loctite say to use the specified torque. ie it really doesnt make any difference. aviation, aerospace, Yes. axle hub nut on a 1970 sports car, No.

    americans, eh? they are so literal. everything points to lotus specifying loctite everywhere to stop the POS hubs rattling themselves to death and the nut coming off, but because the manual can be read as not using loctite on the thread, it would be the end of the world to do so. and even the (american) affronted other party, who really is very knowledgeable, couldnt consider the possibility of maybe using loctite anyway and either a/ adjusting the torque measurement or b/ just doing it up! and writing a long post criticising me and another (also non american) lister for upsetting the clinically correct world with our "mind dumps", and "smearing the issue with confusion", and obviously "liking the sound of their own typing".

    my ultimate conclusion is, like above, that i would just put on loctite and use the stated torque loading. i cant see anyway 10 to 15% extra applied stress in the fastener can make any difference to anything.

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post

    my ultimate conclusion is, like above, that i would just put on loctite and use the stated torque loading. i cant see anyway 10 to 15% extra applied stress in the fastener can make any difference to anything.
    FWIW, i'd do the same.
    With a new threads it is logical that loctite is superfluos because threads are normally cut to be self locking. Some say that a drop of oil on all threads is good practice.
    "The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"
    Stephen Hawking

  9. #9
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    thanks, chaps.
    the matter came up like this: the IRS axles on the lotus europa were taken from the hillman imp. in a word, they are shyte. it involves a stub axle with an outer spline, a hub which fits on the spline, and a big nut holding it on. they are notorious for having the nut come loose, and the hub rocking on the spline (ruining it) and axles breaking. the fit between hub and spline is so bad that Lotus supposedly did hand mix n match fittings between parts to find ones which fit best! anyway, they have to be assembled with loctite on the spline, and the washer between hub and nut. the question is whether there is supposed to be loctite on the thread to glue the nut on.

    so we are talking about a 3/4" nut, with torque loading specified at 150 ft/lbs. information posted by someone else suggest that a 3/4" high tensile bolt requires 300 ft/lbs to take it to 75% of its yield point

    he went to consult a higher authority and came back with a recommendation to reduce torque by 10 to 15%. so, logically, if do use loctite with a dry thread torque spec, you are nominally putting about 10-15% too much stress in the fastener. without having any good reason to believe this other than Common Sense, i would guess that 10 to 15% extra stress would not take the structure within cooee of its yield point.

    americans, eh? they are so literal.----- lister for upsetting the clinically correct world with our "mind dumps", and "smearing the issue with confusion", and obviously "liking the sound of their own typing".

    my ultimate conclusion is, like above, that i would just put on loctite and use the stated torque loading. i cant see anyway 10 to 15% extra applied stress in the fastener can make any difference to anything.
    Hi
    Well all is revealed Interesting problem, particularly if it is not my actual problem

    My comments relate to the tensioning of the nut. Perhaps the required information is what strength is the axle steel. Perhaps a hardness test could be done to determine this. A quick and easy test at any heat treatment or metallurgy lab. If the axle is of a high strength then you could try more tension. If it is shite then be carefull to observe signs of yield and stop. That 300ft/lbs sounds like too much. Depends on the thread too.

    americans, eh? always right, liking the sound of their own typing. Surley not the Americans we know and love.

    Here are some interesting torque tables from the net.
    http://www.cncexpo.com/InchBoltTorque.aspx
    http://www.cncexpo.com/MetricBoltTorque.aspx
    Jaahn
    Last edited by jaahn; 1st June 2013 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Add some information !

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    I think the whole argument there was just abstract pedantry. F1 and the space shuttle aside, if torque X is correct then torque X times 1.15 will be just fine .

    sent from my .GT110XZX589-P3 de luxe Peanut Butter Sandwich Hyper Tablet. not that you'd care.

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts schlitzaugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    loneliness capital of the world
    Posts
    9,415

    Default

    Can' you just use a castellated nut (even if it means drilling the stub axle) or some other mechanical method of locking the nut? Most FWD cars these days have driveshaft nuts staked, or at least nylock self locking nuts (single use). BMW (old cars - 60s-70s) use castellated nuts. Grab an angle grinder, put a small flat on the stub axle and stake the bloody nut to it. Americans on oldtimer BMW sites have more sense.

    Why are you driving a POS pommie car with a french engine anyway? Sacrilege!
    ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENPEEPERS

    Das computermachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitssparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken bei das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets-relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts Wildebeest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    From the windmills of my mind I recall an axle nut locking / device that consisted of a split tapered washer, the washer seating on a taper on the hub.
    As the nut is tightened the tapered washer wedges? into the tapered hub.
    Could have been Mercedes ?

  13. #13
    1000+ Posts driven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,624

    Default Bolt Torque calculator

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    i am curious to know anyone's opinion on how much, if at all, using loctite on threads affects required torque loading specified for dry threads. and what makes you hold your belief.

    it isnt a trick (ok, full disclosure.. if it was a trick i wouldnt be telling you in post #1) .. it came up elsewhere and brought out the usual range of very firm opinions, none of which seemed to be based on anything.
    Many torque calculators are available

    Try
    http://www.woodcousa.com/torque-calculator.htm

  14. #14
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schlitzaugen View Post

    ....Why are you driving a POS pommie car with a french engine anyway? Sacrilege!
    With sincere respects that is total BS.

    Lotus could teach most manufacturers one hell of a lot about suspension design and tuning. Colin Chapman was an inspired designer and has much success with Lotus track cars early on. There current tie with Ferrari doesn't too much harm to marque either.

    The Europa for a car built in 1966-1775(?) brought many of elements of Chapman's track cars into a road car. Single back-bone chassis and one piece fiber glass body.

    It's simply inaccurate to refer to Lotus as you have. They were groundbreaking in design for a road legal car for their time. One could argue the Renault motor let the car from a performance point of view. I understand in Britain the Europa was available with Lotus ford power plant and hewland gearbox same as the contemporary Lotus open wheelers.
    Last edited by robmac; 1st June 2013 at 01:50 PM.

  15. #15
    sans witticism SLC206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    North Parramatta
    Posts
    4,038

    Default

    From an aviation point of view, I don't recall ever using modifiers for either loctite-type products (rarely used, other than on some engine assembly) or anti-seize type applications (such as engine attach bolts).

    Standard practises charts also do not mention thread lubrication as a modifier, so far as I can recall. Perhaps it's different in General Aviation.

    Most aviation locking is via mechanical means, ie. split pin, lockwire or "out of round" nuts, for example.
    Regards,

    Simon

    2018 308 GTi 2011 DS3 DSport
    ----
    2014 208 GTi 2007 207 GTi 2004 206 GTi180 2000 206 GTi 1995 306 XT

    www.peugeotclub.asn.au

  16. #16
    1000+ Posts schlitzaugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    loneliness capital of the world
    Posts
    9,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    With sincere respects that is total BS.

    Lotus could teach most manufacturers one hell of a lot about suspension design and tuning. Colin Chapman was an inspired designer and has much success with Lotus track cars early on. There current tie with Ferrari doesn't too much harm to marque either.

    The Europa for a car built in 1966-1775(?) brought many of elements of Chapman's track cars into a road car. Single back-bone chassis and one piece fiber glass body.

    It's simply inaccurate to refer to Lotus as you have. They were groundbreaking in design for a road legal car for their time. One could argue the Renault motor let the car from a performance point of view. I understand in Britain the Europa was available with Lotus ford power plant and hewland gearbox same as the contemporary Lotus open wheelers.
    I am sure you think so, Rob.

    However, at the same time, Renault was building race winners with the same engine and their inferior suspension and so on, and not that bad cars they beat too, Jaguars, Porsches, BMW, Lancias, Ferraris you name it. And they continued to do so over the years. Actually looking back in history, I don't think you can say Renault doesn't know how to make engines to mop the floor with just about anyone else, and I think their racing pedigree might overshadow that of Lotus. The fact that Lotus may have been let down by the Renault engine is their engineers' poor choice of engine, not Renault's fault. As for innovation and so on, again, I don't think Renault would come up short in a direct comparison.

    And I don't think the comparison is fair either (to Renault). It is one thing to build large numbers of cars, and a completely different thing to have a backyard kind of production numbers like Lotus. Actually, I would expect from a backyard type of production run a quality well above and beyond something that rolled off the factory assembly line.

    I do agree that current cars are nice, and I am pretty sure very good cars, but still, there's production cars for similar or less money that would give them a good run for their money. As for engines, don't they still use other manufacturers' engines?

    But I don't care about Renault. Or Lotus. I was just poking fun at Alex.
    ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENPEEPERS

    Das computermachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitssparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken bei das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets-relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.

  17. #17
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,469

    Default

    I am sure you think so, Rob.
    Yes, I do and both fact and history back me up.

    However, at the same time, Renault was building race winners
    Renault did not have a Team nor Car in the 1966 GP. Lotus had three entries, Lotus BRM, Lotus Ford, Lotus Climax.

    In 1966 the Renault road car offerings were Caravelle, Dauphine R8 or the very new R16.
    The series 1 Europa was light years ahead of any of the Renault offerings.

    So I maintain the Lotus was well ahead of Renault in racing car and road car design.

    The fact that Lotus may have been let down by the Renault engine is their engineers' poor choice of engine, not Renault's fault.
    It was dig at you, just as your post was dig at alex.

    As for innovation and so on, again, I don't think Renault would come up short in a direct comparison.
    For the time Renault were a long way behind Lotus. Sure they caught up when they realised the cred that an entry into motor racing gave their marque.
    Colin Chapman was an exceptionally creative and competent engineer (but had major character flaws) and put his ideas into practice long before any others.

    And I don't think the comparison is fair either (to Renault). It is one thing to build large numbers of cars, and a completely different thing to have a backyard kind of production numbers like Lotus. Actually, I would expect from a backyard type of production run a quality well above and beyond something that rolled off the factory assembly line.
    I don't see this point as being at all relevant. I compared the vehicles and engineering that was employed in the Europa and contemporary Renault vehicles and made the observation for the time Lotus were well ahead. FWIW around 10, 000 Europas were produced, much less than the various models of Renault.

    I don't particularly care either but there are inaccuracies in your post which I pointed out.

    I'm not completely one eyed about French cars. I'm able to give credit where it is due and to appreciate clever engineers.

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,496

    Default

    I had the opportunity to drive a lotus a while back and thought, great..same year as my car, same sized motor, just twin cam and 'lotus' so probably better and faster....
    Maybe there was something wrong with the lotus but comparing it to my warmish motor it was increadably underwhelming.
    Lacking in torque up the big hill I tested it on, and then breathless when the revs begun to rise.
    Having said that, just to make it worse of a comparison, my motor is set up for low-rev power, but even still it screams up high compared to this lotus (ford?) motor.
    Jo

  19. #19
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,469

    Default

    So it would have been an Eclat or Excel? Most likely an Excel?

    It must have been pretty clapped out they were standard at around 160hp which should be ok performance with 1000kg kerb weight?

    My memories was a very spritely and agile little car.

  20. #20
    Administrator
    mistareno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    So it would have been an Eclat or Excel? Most likely an Excel?

    It must have been pretty clapped out they were standard at around 160hp which should be ok performance with 1000kg kerb weight?

    My memories was a very spritely and agile little car.
    The truck engine in our Fuego has max torque at 3000rpm, the 912 Lotus engine has max torque at 5000rpm.

    An Excel weighs about 1.2 tonnes.

  21. #21
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    So it would have been an Eclat or Excel? Most likely an Excel?

    It must have been pretty clapped out they were standard at around 160hp which should be ok performance with 1000kg kerb weight?

    My memories was a very spritely and agile little car.
    Excel, I think.
    One thing though.....It looked great.

    Jo

  22. #22
    1000+ Posts PeterT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Castle Hill, Sydney
    Posts
    7,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoBo View Post
    ............. because threads are normally cut to be self locking.
    What does this mean? How is a thread self locking?

    '92 205 Mi16
    '90 Mi16x4

  23. #23
    1000+ Posts schlitzaugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    loneliness capital of the world
    Posts
    9,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Yes, I do and both fact and history back me up.



    Renault did not have a Team nor Car in the 1966 GP. Lotus had three entries, Lotus BRM, Lotus Ford, Lotus Climax.

    In 1966 the Renault road car offerings were Caravelle, Dauphine R8 or the very new R16.
    The series 1 Europa was light years ahead of any of the Renault offerings.

    So I maintain the Lotus was well ahead of Renault in racing car and road car design.


    It was dig at you, just as your post was dig at alex.


    For the time Renault were a long way behind Lotus. Sure they caught up when they realised the cred that an entry into motor racing gave their marque.
    Colin Chapman was an exceptionally creative and competent engineer (but had major character flaws) and put his ideas into practice long before any others.



    I don't see this point as being at all relevant. I compared the vehicles and engineering that was employed in the Europa and contemporary Renault vehicles and made the observation for the time Lotus were well ahead. FWIW around 10, 000 Europas were produced, much less than the various models of Renault.

    I don't particularly care either but there are inaccuracies in your post which I pointed out.

    I'm not completely one eyed about French cars. I'm able to give credit where it is due and to appreciate clever engineers.

    I think you forgot about Alpines and Gordinis which made their mark around the time, true, not in GP, but in almost everything else.
    ACHTUNG ALLES LOOKENPEEPERS

    Das computermachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitssparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken bei das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets-relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    The rear suspension on the Europe is sheer brilliance but it's downfall is using garbage axles and hubs from the hillman imp. They physically destroy themselves if there is ant slight loss of clamping from the hub nut. Older BMWs have an identical setup which does not fail. Must be something to do with being made by Germans. I really love my car but am not jingoistic about it. I could own lots of other cars and feel the same. The important thing is finding one that does it for you and being happy with it.

    And of course the europa is in no way let down by having the brilliant 807 cross flow motor from the R16 TS

    I have fitted new repro axles and hubs so hopefully the issues with wobbly hubs and loose hub nuts is a thing in the past.

    sent from my .GT110XZX589-P3 de luxe Peanut Butter Sandwich Hyper Tablet. not that you'd care.

  25. #25
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schlitzaugen View Post
    I think you forgot about Alpines and Gordinis which made their mark around the time, true, not in GP, but in almost everything else.
    Lotus Europa from 1966 to 1975 keep those dates in your head.

    Renault R8 1962-1973 has been already mentioned. The R8 Gordini more powerful variant. 4W disk brakes, swing axles and wishbone (I think) front suspension Not really technologically advanced compared to the Lotus Europa with 4 wheel independent, modified "chapman strut" rear suspension (a direct copy of the F1 cars) and I think struts at the front.

    The Renault A110 was sold from 1964- 1974, it initially had R8 gordini engine and later powered by the 16TS engine. I believe it was built on a space frame but shared similar suspension style/components to the R8. (Renault experts please clear this up for me) So with respect to Renault nothing ground breaking in the design.

    The Alpine GTA was sold 1986-1991 so the Europa was well ahead being sold 5 years prior.

    I'm not intending to diminish Renault's achievements nor their design. It's just a fact that Chapman was ahead in terms of engineering vision. A really sad loss to motor engineering fraternity at the young age of 52.
    Last edited by robmac; 1st June 2013 at 10:38 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •