SNAIL

JoZeF · Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject:

found it

I can post you the pages of the article if you wish

Wink

_________________
"We dont have topic of "Junk Crap" cause that would be most popular topic." Laughing

azurblade · Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject:

Did you search one of the first A type engines? Its i thinks 1951/1952?

look at this:

http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/65084990.htm?ca=17_s
_________________
2cv rolls beter then a rolls!

Meeuw · Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject:

Sorry guys, was occupied with other stuff for some weeks......

Josef, this is the article I am still looking for..... If you can mail it to me than I will be verry pleased. It's the Bruno Viet replica I think?

Azurblade, I have found an engine near Eindhoven and collected it. There is also a huge (I mean really huge) pile of engines at the EEEC warehouse in Soest (NL). If you need original A parts than that is the source to look after. You need to be a member but they are really nice and there is a lot of knowledge.... And most of them are verry kind to Snailers Cool

Anyway, here's an update of the work so far:

It's only a part but I have the entire chassis build in wood. Everything on 1:1 size and here you see a part of the firewall (A section) of the car. Doors and rear fenders are also fitted but I don't have a decent picture of that yet......There is also a scoop (!), but that later........

I also obtained the original headlights. They are from Marchal and Barbot used the Equilux series. Barbot used a larger diameter than a 2cv had so I remeasured the pictures and searched for a suitable model. It turned out to be either the TP434 or the TP435 (for the rebuilders.....)

The rims where another issue; what to do with a car with no tyres huh? Well, you spend hours and hours on the internet and then you'll find the right tyre just around the corner.... Pretty dumb don't you think? They are from Dunlop.... 450x17

And now for the scoop!

FIRST: I'am going to offend a lot of people and there wil be a lot of arguing about this issue..... But after a lot of measurements, thinking, rebuilding and a full week of rest I think the time is right.

The Barbot Speciale is originally based on a 1951 2cvAU Shocked

!

Yes, that's right. It is not an 2cvA from 1951 but an AU from 1951...... Why?

According to the people who ' know' the Barbot is shortened by 25cm. This is a fact wich I will not argue but nobody has thought about the length of an A chassis (378cm) versus an AU chassis (360cm)....... Makes you think?

I had a problem reconstructing the back of the car and whatever I tried, I could not get the back-end fit..... After some hefty moments in my garage I looked at the size of the AU chassis which I knew was a bit shorter and I found out that this was almost the 20cm (18 to be exact) which I had left on the end of the shortened chassis.

Now you'll think 'what the f*** is he talking about? Use a grinder and cut the end!' .... You're right, it is not that important if you build a so,so copy. But I want to reconstruct the car as it was and this is also collecting all the information on how the two original Barbot's were build. Call it modern archology Wink

but it is soooo nice to know what the man did. Barbot created a legend we all dream of and I think it is a tribute to him and the Vinatier's to build and drive a car just like they wanted it....

Anyway: This means that the replica's I know of, including the Norev cars, are too long.... And I know this is food for arguing...

LAST: If anyone has the right connections to look into the French car tax archives of 1951 to 1953 than please send me a PM. According to the licenseplates there must be a registration for car tax (?). If so than the original chassisnumbers and registration must be available too.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge (Einstein)

backfire · Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:58 pm Post subject:

No arguing from my side only respect. Cool

_________________
2CV, with Visa turbo charged

Olli · Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject:

I dont really get why he would use AU on this build. Its that 3minutes
operation to shorten the chassis. + all the body panels are from A,
so he would use AU and A to make this car and just because he would
not need to cut rear arms of the frame, when he already shorten the
wheelbase...? Sounds very odd. Those cars were hard to get and I quess
expensive for many people on that time.

-Olli

ps. remember that A and AU has same wheelbase.
_________________
www.ollierkkila.com

I love Lexus.

Meeuw · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:33 am Post subject:

Olli,

I can follow your way of thinking but let me explain:

There are several small items that made me think, the point of changing my mind was when I had the back-end issue in my garage.

The waitinglist for a 2cvA in 1951 was +/- 6 years. On the other side, the waiting list for a Fourgonette was only one year. Not to mention the pricing of the cars...

Reconstructing the car I found out that the floor section from the A pillar to the B pillar is exactly the size of an AU floorpanel.

The shortening of the chassis is (after remeasuring several times) exactly the 18 centimeters of an AU chassis. I cannot imagine Barbot has thought about cutting the end of the chassis just for the purpose of cutting it. He could also let the back-end in its original shape, the fenders would fit. Maybe we can ask ourselves another question: Why did Barbot shorten the chassis anyway?

Despite channeling, the back-end of the car body is lifted by a certain amount of centimeters. If I do this on a shortened 2cvA chassis I need to raise the end of the body more than when I use an AU chassis. I need to have a certain degree of 'tilt' because of the angle the rear fenders have.

How does the above mentioned work? The outter legs of the AU chassis are shorter but are also more angeled upwards than on an A (See the difference between an AK 250 and a AK400 as an illustration). If you want I can make a 3D for you....

All this info and inspecting film and photos brought me to this conclusion.

Resuming: Barbot did cut the chassis by 25cm but the end of the body is also 18cm shorter than an original A chassis. If you have to build a car from scratch, what would you do?

A. Wait 6 years or only 1 year.
B. Pay more or pay less.
C. Shorten a chassis (A) so it matches another 'already existing chassis' or use the 'already existing chassis' (AU) with the proper size?

Still the only evidence lies in the archives of the French tax department.......
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge (Einstein)

Olli · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:52 am Post subject:

I dont get why he would use 2 cars to make one racer.

Its quite obvious that the body is cut out from A body
(rear fenders, light panel, rear bumber and rear doors).

So he would need to get one AU and then rear body off A?

I dont get why AU frame is proper size, if the wheelbase is shortenned
anyway. Its quite much bigger modification that cutting the rear legs of frame.

Maybe he was one of the first who order the 2cv, so he got it
1951? Or he did get car by some sponsorship cause of race use?

-Olli
_________________
www.ollierkkila.com

I love Lexus.

Olli · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:01 am Post subject:

Now when I look those pics again. I think that rear fenders do have their original shape. I would say that they are not shortenned.

http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp268/Barbotspeciale/Untitled-e.jpg

http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp268/Barbotspeciale/Untitled-f.jpg

-Olli
_________________
www.ollierkkila.com

I love Lexus.

fnqvmuch · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:03 am Post subject:

just in case you don't have this photo - http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/--sTgqNmwgKs1gm2qsVAMQ?authkey=Gv1sRgCPiD1un6q5f-MA&feat=directlink
but you are doing a fine job
cheers, steven

markus · Snailer Joined: 04 Aug 2009 Posts: 16 Location: Vienna

I think he used the AU chassis and the A-parts are just spares (2 doors, 2 fenders and rear bumper) you dont have to wait for. I dont think they used the entire rear part of an A. This would be to heavy for a racing car.

JuanNavarro · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:23 am Post subject:

First, my admiration for your project, the research, the 3D modelling, the mockups...
Then, the arguing (hoping that this can also help you):

Olli · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:08 am Post subject:

JoZeF · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:28 am Post subject:

Hi

Just a detail, but...

I personnally don't think he would have rewelded the floor supports from chassis lower.

because of the spring cans he would have had to fold a sheetmetal part to clear them in anycase, and room gain is therefore next to nothing.

My guess is that he did like the rest of us channeling their cars, but if you have a picture showing that point I'd gladly see it
_________________
"We dont have topic of "Junk Crap" cause that would be most popular topic." Laughing

Meeuw · Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:54 pm Post subject:

Okay, knew this was gonna happen.... Wink

I do not know why Barbot made some adjustments to the chassis/body but what I do know that it all fits verry nicely on the AU chassis.

Hereunder you'll see some pictures I've made. On the first picture you'll see the rear of the car with the connection points to the chassis. Cutting the rear legs and channelling the body would have had an impact to the bottom of the trunk; it won't fit...

On the next picture you'll see the reinforcement struts on the side of the car. Believe me, the measurements are exact matching with the original struts. There is also space enough to turn them upside down (you'll need to place the left strut, upside down, on the right side of the car). This is also a callibratin point for the entire body. Place a reardoor on top of a strut and you'll see what I mean.

On the last picture you'll se the difference between an A and an AU chassis. Note the steep angle of a (shorter) AU chassis. Placing an rear-end of an A body on top of this chassis will not cause any problems. It is a perfect fit and the angle of the bottom of the trunk is aligned with the legs of the chassis. Note the angle of the rear fender....

Barbot was a verry smart person. During the reconstruction I discovered that he used verry little resources to build the car and therefore I am convinced that the dimensions of the car were based on actual facts rather than randomly picked dimensions.

For the issue with the bumper I have an answer. By then it was not allowed to drive a car without bumpers on public roads. This is also why the font bumper is left in tact. If Barbot could make the car 'legere' he would certainly have done that.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge (Einstein)

SamClukkers · Lowered Joined: 23 Jun 2007 Posts: 772 Location: Belgium

Both cars have the same wheelbase, your angle measurement is all wrong. I have an all original AU chassis fitted under my A, no angle problems, just shorter legs.