Suicide door latches

[tfeverfred]

A friend showed me these. I thought someone may be interested....


Hmmm.......... won't paste for some reason.

 

[tfeverfred]

 

[tfeverfred]

Here's the Ebay listing number:

290873268672

 

[Zandoz]

I like the design, and at first glance see no reason they couldn't be flipped side to side for front hinged doors. If I were still in the game I'd probably spring for the last set.

 

[lincolnuT]

Damn I might spring for that but will have to talk myself into putting in a door..........

You are right that link will not post here I wonder why.............?????

 

[Spanky]

Is this them?

 

[Zandoz]

Is this them?
View attachment 13336

Yup.

 

[tfeverfred]

Damn I might spring for that but will have to talk myself into putting in a door..........

You are right that link will not post here I wonder why.............?????

I'm with you. If I had some spare change, I'd get them for the future. I like the simplicity of the design.

 

[Zandoz]

I'm with you. If I had some spare change, I'd get them for the future. I like the simplicity of the design.

The simplicity and the positive latching. Body flexing around the door opening always had me concerned with the other simple latch systems I've seen. That system would seem secure unless the flexing of the opening was to the point of absurdity.

 

[railroad]

DOORS, I don't need no stinkin doors!

 

[butch27]

How would those mount to a T bucket door?

 

[lincolnuT]

Interesting thing is that when I first looked at this eBay listing they had only 1 left with 17 sold. this morning I looked and now they have sold 18 and have 2 left??? Hello!!.........Does that seem strange, or only to me..........LOL.....

 

[fletcherson]

Interesting thing is that when I first looked at this eBay listing they had only 1 left with 17 sold. this morning I looked and now they have sold 18 and have 2 left??? Hello!!.........Does that seem strange, or only to me..........LOL.....

Maybe they built some more...?

 

[2old2fast]

It's a function of people "buying' the item , then not paying for it ....

 

[fletcherson]

The simplicity and the positive latching. Body flexing around the door opening always had me concerned with the other simple latch systems I've seen. That system would seem secure unless the flexing of the opening was to the point of absurdity.

Hey Bill, I had similar concerns about body flex due to cutting doors, especially both sides. I was very pleased with the rigidity of mine after the reinforcements that I added. It does not flex at all. I feel confident that the windshield and column will be rock solid as well for assisted entry, exit, etc, and I'm sure it's safer in the event of a mishap, although I don't intend to test that particular theory, lol. You can look at my post to see all of the effort that I invested into this issue. It can be done with some well thought out reinforcement.

 

[Zandoz]

Hey Bill, I had similar concerns about body flex due to cutting doors, especially both sides. I was very pleased with the rigidity of mine after the reinforcements that I added. It does not flex at all. I feel confident that the windshield and column will be rock solid as well for assisted entry, exit, etc, and I'm sure it's safer in the event of a mishap, although I don't intend to test that particular theory, lol. You can look at my post to see all of the effort that I invested into this issue. It can be done with some well thought out reinforcement.

The plan was for an 1.5" tube cowl hoop tied into the frame and door hinges, also providing steering column support. For the rear half of the body I'd hoped to get by with wooding and a pair of mounts tieing to the frame kickup. I wasn't too worried about cowl movement...to me problems would likely come from the rear half of the body. With that long pin latching, if there was enough flexing to release the pin, there was likely something catastrophic in play. <shrug>

 

[fletcherson]

The plan was for an 1.5" tube cowl hoop tied into the frame and door hinges, also providing steering column support. For the rear half of the body I'd hoped to get by with wooding and a pair of mounts tieing to the frame kickup. I wasn't too worried about cowl movement...to me problems would likely come from the rear half of the body. With that long pin latching, if there was enough flexing to release the pin, there was likely something catastrophic in play. <shrug>

I was worried about the cowl and rear sections relation to each other in the case of frame flex or twist under acceleration and the cowl with the forces of the windshield, doors swinging, column, and I wanted the windshield to be able to withstand someone using it to assist entry, etc. I have some different issues, with the big displacement engine, etc, but I don't know what else I could have really done. The cowl supports may have been a bit overkill, but I sort of built from it and tied it to the rear section with the steel under floor supports enclosed in the boxed rockers. The difference in the body strength and rigidity is night and day from when I started. It was wooded around the top and behind the door area with a seperate plywood floor. No offense to anyone, but it was a death trap and a joke. No way was I going to accept it or feel safe in it. I am very glad that I decided to put the effort into the reinforcements. I also layered the inside of the tub with biaxial to make it feel more substantial. Sure, it added some weight, but it's strong. The weak points are the hinges that I built. It's the design, original T, they work fine, but are vulnerable with the doors open, if someone would lean on them due to being long to offset the body taper. I may build a duplicate set out of a different, more rigid material, but for now, I'm using them. They can be replaced later. My floor is very strong and really tied the tub together. I know that many rely on the frame to provide the support to retain the door openings, but I felt that the body was better served to be independently rigid. Time will tell if I was justified doing it or not.

 

[Zandoz]

I was worried about the cowl and rear sections relation to each other in the case of frame flex or twist under acceleration and the cowl with the forces of the windshield, doors swinging, column, and I wanted the windshield to be able to withstand someone using it to assist entry, etc. I have some different issues, with the big displacement engine, etc, but I don't know what else I could have really done. The cowl supports may have been a bit overkill, but I sort of built from it and tied it to the rear section with the steel under floor supports enclosed in the boxed rockers. The difference in the body strength and rigidity is night and day from when I started. It was wooded around the top and behind the door area with a seperate plywood floor. No offense to anyone, but it was a death trap and a joke. No way was I going to accept it or feel safe in it. I am very glad that I decided to put the effort into the reinforcements. I also layered the inside of the tub with biaxial to make it feel more substantial. Sure, it added some weight, but it's strong. The weak points are the hinges that I built. It's the design, original T, they work fine, but are vulnerable with the doors open, if someone would lean on them due to being long to offset the body taper. I may build a duplicate set out of a different, more rigid material, but for now, I'm using them. They can be replaced later. My floor is very strong and really tied the tub together. I know that many rely on the frame to provide the support to retain the door openings, but I felt that the body was better served to be independently rigid. Time will tell if I was justified doing it or not.

My build was to be quite a different animal...A simple V6 cruiser, with not enough torque to be a worry. Right next to no windshield...just a pair of Brooklands windscreens.

For the wooding, my thought was to do lamination in place, not plywood, and of course extra glass layering. How it would have ended up, I have no idea...but it would have been better than nothing. <shrug>

 

[fletcherson]

My build was to be quite a different animal...A simple V6 cruiser, with not enough torque to be a worry. Right next to no windshield...just a pair of Brooklands windscreens.

For the wooding, my thought was to do lamination in place, not plywood, and of course extra glass layering. How it would have ended up, I have no idea...but it would have been better than nothing. <shrug>

The wood really helps if it's thought out and done well. Whoever originally built my T wasn't thinking of strength, just places to attach apolstry and they attached it with bondo, no glass encasement. I must say that the bondo glued pine was still well adhered and this thing was built in the late '70's, fwiw. I've been in a few very hairy accidents in my day and am reminded with every conscious moment by the pain, so even though I am well aware that a bucket is no safety vehicle, I am cognizant of the fact that a minor accident can cause severe injury, so I attempted to build in some additional strength to at least slow the impact down, if I'm so unlucky. i will still drive it like I stole it, lol...

 

[EX JUNK]

I was worried about the cowl and rear sections relation to each other in the case of frame flex or twist under acceleration and the cowl with the forces of the windshield, doors swinging, column, and I wanted the windshield to be able to withstand someone using it to assist entry, etc. I have some different issues, with the big displacement engine, etc, but I don't know what else I could have really done. The cowl supports may have been a bit overkill, but I sort of built from it and tied it to the rear section with the steel under floor supports enclosed in the boxed rockers. The difference in the body strength and rigidity is night and day from when I started. It was wooded around the top and behind the door area with a seperate plywood floor. No offense to anyone, but it was a death trap and a joke. No way was I going to accept it or feel safe in it. I am very glad that I decided to put the effort into the reinforcements. I also layered the inside of the tub with biaxial to make it feel more substantial. Sure, it added some weight, but it's strong. The weak points are the hinges that I built. It's the design, original T, they work fine, but are vulnerable with the doors open, if someone would lean on them due to being long to offset the body taper. I may build a duplicate set out of a different, more rigid material, but for now, I'm using them. They can be replaced later. My floor is very strong and really tied the tub together. I know that many rely on the frame to provide the support to retain the door openings, but I felt that the body was better served to be independently rigid. Time will tell if I was justified doing it or not.

To minimize frame flexing, I incorporated a K member in my frame.



Jim