First Shots of Hennessey Performance Venom GT

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by thebarron1989, Dec 9, 2009.

  1. It's not as bad as it might look...and that's an MT900R, which is setup a little different than the street car.

    As for the push/pull-rod thing on the Hennessey, that's a "setup shock", ie its put in, inplace of the coil over, to keep the suspension from moving while the car is in the air.
     
  2. That was probably somebody from sc.net #$%#ing around. But Hennessey has been known to go on forums and threaten to sue people for libel.
     
  3. and single shear pins connecting the wishbones to the uprights.
     
  4. #30 RLQ, Dec 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  5. Single shear, but they are large ball joints, so there shouldn't be any issues.
     
  6. The problem isn't the ball joint, the problem is the pin/bolt attaching the ball joint of the wishbone to the upright.
     
  7. #$%#ing gorgeous car
     
  8. That surely was not John Hennessey...
     
  9. ooo good call. definitely not a good plan. might be OK based on the size of the though.
     
  10. aww looks like a babby CGT
     
  11. #37 Gunman, Dec 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    We use single shear (Howe brand) ball joints on a few of our cars, without issue. The shank diameter is pretty large. We could use spherical joints, and smaller NAS bolts, in double shear, but the cost would go up. So it depends on the car, which route we go.

    http://www.howeracing.com/c-510-howe-precision-ball-joints.aspx
     
  12. #38 Vision K2, Dec 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Also, I wasn't saying it wouldn't work, I was just saying that is wasn't the best way to do it (if money isn't involved).

    Also, I live very close to Howe Racing, just thought i would share.
     
  13. Henessey over inflates performace figures ALWAYS. He's almost as bad as Steve Saleen
     
  14. But nowhere near vector's claims.
     
  15. IT'S ALWAYS ME, ALWAYS!
     
  16. #42 thebarron1989, Dec 17, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  17. Are these the shear things you're talking about? If not, why are these tubes connected this way? It seems odd (cheap and weak looking). Keep in mind I know nothing about chassis design.
     
  18. This is what I was talking about (see picture). What you are talking about is also in single shear, however it is hard to get around single shear in those areas. The reason the parts are connected like that is because that part of the frame is removable, to be able to get the engine and transmission out of the vehicle. This method of connection is pretty popular for removable sub-frames.
     
  19. Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks.
     
  20. heres a diagram of single vs double shear, in cross section.

    the problem with single shear is that it creates a moment, thus kinda kinking the pin/bolt/whatever sideways, then it puts all the stress of the joint on that little area where its contacting instead of distributed over the whole joint. Double shear is always preferred.
     
  21. why you circle the ball joint? and the toe linkage is a no biggie if good parts are used.
     
  22. theyre both in single shear. The effects can be minimized by using proper hardware and such, but its still not an ideal solution.
     
  23. Canondale did a similar thing with one of its old Al frames. The dropouts were effectively on the chainstay behind the node with the seatstay instead of being at the node, as is convention. They ALL #$%#ing cracked. Good frame otherwise, but I can't imagine that's the ideal solution. It'll either break or be heavier than it could be.
     

Share This Page