Doing a lot of research on which kit to go for if I buy new
A few design Flaws
The rear panel does not fit right alot of posts on here from a year back seem to be that the real panel is too wide and that the panel has a round
trim that meets a square trim.
Has this been sorted yet
Also noticed hat the rear hub carriers arr not pefectly the right sizr when fitting the drive shafts
Is there any more faults that any one can point out
I would be going for the MK Indy R
Hi Neil,
So far as I'm aware there's no issue with the rear upright to driveshaft fit. However, if building with driveshafts taken from a donor car
with ABS you might need to have the ABS serated ring machined off the outer joint in order to clear the upright - a quick call to MK will
clarify this though.
Do yourself a favor, keep looking. There are many many flaws with mine. The biggest flaw i have found is with the managers attitudes!
The Indy bodywork has been revised and reworked to meet the latest IVA requirements, this includes the rear panel where the side panel meets the rear
panel, both are now round. The rear uprights are designed to take standard sierra shafts, if you have the ones with the abs rings fitted these will
need to be removed, a simple job, MK will do this for you free of charge, just take your shafts to them when you collect your kit, Ive built two Indys
over the last few years, a standard one and the Indy R, and would not hesitate to build another, a great bunch of guys down there, and the Indy R is a
great bit of kit
I'm with Paul - very happy with my Indy and had no major problems with the guys at MK.
My chassis and body don't fit together brilliantly but from what I've heard none of them are perfect.
I think MK are probably good if you can visit their workshop but if your like me and miles away then don't expect anything to arrive in any
sensible time.
Hey guys cheers for the response I am from Northern Ireland
Glad to hear they have the rear panel and side panel fixed..
Ahh i see this is where I have gone wrong with the drive shafts
Because I am from Northern Ireland I hope everything would run smoothly for me.
Too me it seems like one of the best kits on the market. I looked a the GBS Zero but dont knoe if I would fancy the aluminium bodywork
Have a word with noc231073, he's in NI too.
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Kirkpatrick
I looked a the GBS Zero but dont knoe if I would fancy the aluminium bodywork
Cheers I will do what other Flaws did you find with your car.
Hopefully the manager was just on a bad day
Would you recommend the the MK Indy R
quote:
Originally posted by Alfa145
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Kirkpatrick
I looked a the GBS Zero but dont knoe if I would fancy the aluminium bodywork
You can get it with stainless panels instead of the aluminium, presumably extra cost. Or like someone else has done, they've Vinyl wrapped the ally so its not a problem.
it depends what you want the car to do. but if it was me and i was looking for something with ultimate ability i would be visiting procomp, raw, or
mnr. all of their cars have been designed well and improved through some serious track abuse. there are lots of other great cars and manufactures
out there but those are the three that stand out to me
in regards to the indy/r etc etc yes it has a couple of flaws most of which would only show up if you were a very good on track driver.
as for building one its the same as many other kit cars. you will find little niggles etc but that is just the nature of what you are trying to do,
and that is why locost builders exists. remember you wont be on your own just ask and 99.99999999*% of the time someone will offer some form of help.
I think the Indy R has more than proved itself as a race winning car, take a look at the link below for just one example of many race wins last
year.
video of race here; 3rd video from the bottom, October 02/10/10 program 1 part 2 "Allcomers"
http://www.750mc.co.uk/index.php
Think positive, they're not flaws they're engineering challenges 
Neil send a message to NOC231073 he is in South of Ireland and finishing Indy r with 1350 Hyabusa . I am awaiting the gren / duratec race car at
factory for delivery to South next month. NOC is superb in his attention to detail.
Alex W.
See my comments in MK section under AJW
The Indy R has had a lot of work put into the design and build and is building a reputation for a trackday weapon, and racecar. The car has been
further developed following on from Danny and Chris Maries racing it over the last two seasons.
The MK Indy in its own right also had many successes in different classes so again should not be dismissed like all cars each will have a weakness.
Many of these can be caused by the builder and the quality of their build. Personally I find the guys at MK to be very sociable and builders of a very
reliable and sound product yes they do have their flaws as do well all, and you have to remember attitude breeds attitude "he who casts the first
stone" and all that. People mention that parts where missing question is how long have you had the kit and could the part have been misplaced ?
The sturdiness of the product Indy R can be seen in the chasis that hangs on the wall of the workshop which nose to tailed a couple of times and then
did several barrel rolls. Initial impact was in sixth gear possibly hitting 110 going airborne over the top of a Westie
Description
For many a completed car comes in under the £7k mark (CEC)and gives enjoyment to the builder both in the garage, on the road and track which aint a
bad price when you consider the opposition.
Neill, where abouts are you in N.Ireland, I have my indy almost finished if you wanted to view . David
My MK is a rolling chassis which you can view.
Where are you?
Only Flaws aI saw with the the Older INDY chassis were :
1)If you didn't use seats with harness holes then the Top seatbelt mount was to low. Typical off all of these style cars
2) I'm still blighted with the "won;t" self center problem...... But of course it's not a design flaw.
Still need to pay me lot more than my Indy is worth to get me to part with it - Still puts a big smile on my face 
[Edited on 2/303/11 by mad4x4]
Snoopy is that really you charlie, long time no hear, welcome back oh guru of the MK.
tony
snoopys back, how goods that, welcome back
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
mmmm having read this its worth thinking about the indys history a little it started life as a humble locost in design a design by good old Ron allegidley and was mk2 escort based this design was hard to find doner parts for so it was adapted for the sierra parts not designed just adapted firstly it was widened and the chassis hired to get the sierra engine in the rack of the sierra had to be modified again a compromise of original design the first versions had dedion axles not independent rear suspension i still think these were the best cars we ever made following the original book design to date but thats just my opinion again these cars were not true indys more like locost hybrids the indy came about due to market forces really not due to being better or worse but because people wanted the independent rear suspension because it was in fashion and modern so the book design was yet more compromised to allow this and the indy was born so you can see it wasn't designed as such just an existing design dramatically altered so of course there are drawbacks to this. this was done in an age with no computers to model everything i personally think the indy as such does a great job for what it has gone through the design of the indy must work because of how many indy clones there is and theres quite a few isnt there guys anyway the indy r was designed on computer to well lets say maximise the indys potential but this design also had constraints to its design as it was limited to the bodywork of the original indy having to fit a kit car is a car you build yourself its what you put into it and how satisfied you are its about being stubborn and making things fit where you want and its your car unique to you and for what you want it for its an experience a journey sometimes its easy sometimes hard sometimes you will want to give up its apart of you and all in all at the end of it you will feel proud and stand back and say to yourself WOW I MADE THAT ALL BY MYSELF
LIKE THE FIRST ONE WE DID
[Edited on 2/3/11 by snoopy]
Come on... Give the guy a break.
Its called a brain dump ramble. We all do it occasionally...
quote:
Come on... Give the guy a break.
For those not aware Snoopy (Charlie) used to work for MK mostly building customers turn key cars and unofficial customer services guy never got
involved into the reason he left but deffo MK's loss, have a look in his photo archive at some of his work. I personaly come on here for advice
on locosts not for a lesson in how I should use the english language
tony
EDITED hi guys thought i would post on this subject i couldn't log in for ages but fozzie sorted it out for me many thanks fozzie .
well first post and nothing but grief again welcome back nothings changed :mad
[Edited on 3/3/11 by snoopy]
I have to agree that people should really try to proof read their posts. however Snoopys posts was not that bad, compared to some others ive read here
recently.
If your gonna spend all that time making a valuable contribution to a website, then may as well make it as legible as you can!
come on charlie take no notice, you always were the sensitive type,welcome back matey
loggyboy does proof reading include yourself it's i've not ive
tony
quote:
Originally posted by mad-butcher
come on charlie take no notice, you always were the sensitive type,welcome back matey
loggyboy does proof reading include yourself it's i've not ive
tony
I'm a mechanical engineering student so my viewpoints are probably not applicable to everyone... I tend to go through these intellectual
masturbation periods where I feel like efficiency and function should triumph over everything else.
That said... MNR uses round tubing... MK indy uses square. Sure square is easier to manufacture and easier to put together, but it is not as strong in
tension and compression (how every tube in a space frame is supposed to be loaded... loads through nodes please).
It's things like this that I feel give you an insight into the design philosophy of a certain car. The right way is never easy.
Another dead give away is if rod ends are used in bending on the outboard side of controls arms. Super easy to make, easy to adjust. If rod ends are
used on the outboard lower control arm you have an incredibly dangerous situation.
MNR uses an encapsulated spherical on the LCA... this is the best option and is very difficult to manufacture. I know because it's what we use on
our Formula Student cars and they are a pain in the ass to make. What MK uses on their outboard LCA's is absolutely ridiculous... maybe (maybe
not)_ dangerous but my god what were they thinking.
So I've only made two points but you can't deny that a even a single flaw represents a flaw in the design philosophy of the entire car.
I was going to buy an MK Indy R until their US distributor stopped being helpful. Obviously that's not MK indy's fault but I'm glad
things worked out the way they did because it got me to take a good hard look at the differences between cars. Eventually I discovered MNR.
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I'm a mechanical engineering student so my viewpoints are probably not applicable to everyone... I tend to go through these intellectual masturbation periods where I feel like efficiency and function should triumph over everything else.
Sure square is easier to manufacture and easier to put together, but it is not as strong in tension and compression .
Sorry I guess I meant to say stronger per unit mass. That's the only fair comparison as a square tube is going to have about 30% more
material. Funny you say to run these numbers because I have classwork to do for strength of materials right now.
Honestly I thought the whole round is for tension and compression and square is for bending was practically a law of nature, I may have just pulled it
out of my ass though!
My apologies for adding the already rampant misinformation on the internet. I'll straighten my story out and report back
Hi
And the MNR with the pushrod setup that bends the lower arms is marvelous. 
Cheers Matt
Another boring thread pulling down a well know kit manufactuer, when all the kit manufactuers have been put out of buisness because of idiots on this
forum what will you moan about next
Nobody in the whole world makes anything that is perfect cars,planes,trains,boats etc etc all have flaws 
If after all that you think a better job can be done then go ahead set up in buisness
Time to engage brain before gob speaks
[Edited on 3/3/2011 by DRC INDY 7]
[Edited on 3/3/2011 by DRC INDY 7]
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I'm a mechanical engineering student so my viewpoints are probably not applicable to everyone... I tend to go through these intellectual masturbation periods where I feel like efficiency and function should triumph over everything else.
That said... MNR uses round tubing... MK indy uses square. Sure square is easier to manufacture and easier to put together, but it is not as strong in tension and compression (how every tube in a space frame is supposed to be loaded... loads through nodes please).
It's things like this that I feel give you an insight into the design philosophy of a certain car. The right way is never easy.
Another dead give away is if rod ends are used in bending on the outboard side of controls arms. Super easy to make, easy to adjust. If rod ends are used on the outboard lower control arm you have an incredibly dangerous situation.
MNR uses an encapsulated spherical on the LCA... this is the best option and is very difficult to manufacture. I know because it's what we use on our Formula Student cars and they are a pain in the ass to make. What MK uses on their outboard LCA's is absolutely ridiculous... maybe (maybe not)_ dangerous but my god what were they thinking.
So I've only made two points but you can't deny that a even a single flaw represents a flaw in the design philosophy of the entire car.
I was going to buy an MK Indy R until their US distributor stopped being helpful. Obviously that's not MK indy's fault but I'm glad things worked out the way they did because it got me to take a good hard look at the differences between cars. Eventually I discovered MNR.
quote:
MNR uses an encapsulated spherical on the LCA... this is the best option and is very difficult to manufacture. I know because it's what we use on our Formula Student cars and they are a pain in the ass to make. What MK uses on their outboard LCA's is absolutely ridiculous... maybe (maybe not)_ dangerous but my god what were they thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Dave
quote:
MNR uses an encapsulated spherical on the LCA... this is the best option and is very difficult to manufacture. I know because it's what we use on our Formula Student cars and they are a pain in the ass to make. What MK uses on their outboard LCA's is absolutely ridiculous... maybe (maybe not)_ dangerous but my god what were they thinking.
Very difficult to manufacture? Maybe for a novice
MK use a Maxi ball joint on the lower control arms. Oh my god, what were they thinking when they designed the Maxi???
As well taking roughly 1/2 the man hours to produce the bare chassis square section is much easier to put brackets on and panel.
Also because no chassis is a perfect space frame structure and individual members such as the lower tubes the engine mount pads bear on are loaded as
a beam in bending, a load case to which square section is better suited.
quote:
Originally posted by DRC INDY 7
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Dave
quote:
MNR uses an encapsulated spherical on the LCA... this is the best option and is very difficult to manufacture. I know because it's what we use on our Formula Student cars and they are a pain in the ass to make. What MK uses on their outboard LCA's is absolutely ridiculous... maybe (maybe not)_ dangerous but my god what were they thinking.
Very difficult to manufacture? Maybe for a novice
MK use a Maxi ball joint on the lower control arms. Oh my god, what were they thinking when they designed the Maxi???
Novice (student) same thing
Like you said snoopy nothings changed, if anything this forums got a bit more clicky and it has one or two more pricks, but welcome back anyway
(sorry for my grama and Snelling)
The maxi
Good to see that a trader feels the need to once again have a little poke at other companies, I note that MNR and MK, GBS, MAC 1 amongst other
manafacturers havent started to slate other manafactures on this forum. For this guys, I commend and applaud your proffesionalism no doubt you too
would be able to pick holes in products supplied by others should you wish.
I always believe the best way to sell your own product is on its strengths and not to look at ways to discredit your opposition. I believe that some
of thread is driven by personal differences, biased oppinions and with a quest for financial gain by some involved in this all.
I truly see this as a forum for helping people and have received a fair level of responses and help in both car and none car related subjects saving
me large amounts of money. Hopefully I have been able to return this by offering advice and knowledge on subjects familiar to me. I feel that on the
forum there are a few hell bent on the destruction of others.
So guys whats the chance of quitting the slagging sessions off and get back to what this forum has previously excelled in
Look like the suspension is well tried and tested
maxi
quote:
Originally posted by DRC INDY 7
The maxi
Charlie! Welcome back, old bean.
The constant squabbles on here are making it a bit of a joke of late. It's one manufacturer that's technically on the ball, but
simultaneously crushing his reputation by slating every competitor under the sun, coupled with a few keyboard warriors that are just out for an
argument.
If both parties would grow up, LB might get back to its glory days.
Stick around, MK was better with you. Hopefully LB will be too.
Tom
quote:
Originally posted by indykid
Charlie! Welcome back, old bean.
The constant squabbles on here are making it a bit of a joke of late. It's one manufacturer that's technically on the ball, but simultaneously crushing his reputation by slating every competitor under the sun, coupled with a few keyboard warriors that are just out for an argument.
If both parties would grow up, LB might get back to its glory days.
Stick around, MK was better with you. Hopefully LB will be too.
Tom
Yes you were all right about the square vs round tubing thing... I'm really not sure how I got that in my head backwards in the first place.
Thank you guys for correcting me I was really trying to say stiffness per weight but most of the time when I type replies on a forum my brain
turns off... something I obviously need to work on.
As far as why I was so offensive about the lower balljoint thing on the indy it just looks like an afterthought to me. The outboard on the front lca
experiences a lot of stress (the highest in the whole suspension from what I know) and in this case its gotta flow through some additional fasteners?
Anyways I suppose I should not comment on it because I haven't looked at it carefully enough to knock on it as hard as I did so I take it
back.
PROCOMP, I really like your chassis, and I was talking to an MK Indy owner who said he tried to get you guys to do a chassis setup on his car and he
there were so many things wrong you couldn't do much with it. He did say that you did what you could and the car handled 1,000 times better. The
indy owner told me that if I wanted a car that was executed properly I should talk to you... but he said I would be happy with MNR also. I was really
interested in the procomp but I NEED IRS as I run at a very bumpy site.
Anyways guys maybe my subconcious is making me troll on the indy because secretly I think it looks much better than the MNR I will try to grow
up... sry again.
[Edited on 4/3/11 by ffrgtm]
Now we can bring this thread to a end case closed
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I will try to grow up...
[Edited on 4/3/11 by ffrgtm]
Oh, also I should add that I am absolutely pished, so please disregard everything typed above!!!
I had no problems at all with the kit or the guys at mk, I have the old rear panel, which was a little too wide, but it pulled in nicely...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
There will always exist a party which has an allegiance to a manufacturer, and they will have an anti supporters group, just has Man United...
If you care about what you are building then you will look outside this forum and see some of the video shot of the MK winning races and the MNR doing what it does, the Procomp doing well in the Locost series and the Westfield doing well in lots of stuff and the Caterhams doing well in loads of stuff, but for a price etc...
Oh for F**ks sake Loggyboy you f**kin pr*ck, nobody wants your f**kin opinion you a***ole, just f**kin leave it alone you f**kin w**ker...
JOKE!!!
That took every bit bit of sobriety I had left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
Oh for F**ks sake Loggyboy you f**kin pr*ck, nobody wants your f**kin opinion you a***ole, just f**kin leave it alone you f**kin w**ker...
JOKE!!!
That took every bit bit of sobriety I had left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pic is current as of 28 seconds ago...
ahem, it alsoa shot of my new harstyle as of a fewminutes ago...............
I wasn't trying to say everyone is wrong about the tube section thing. I did finally figure out where I got it nailed into my head in the first
place though... looks like it got a little convoluted as it bounced around in my skull before regurgitating it here though.
From formula student Germany judge Pat Clarke
quote:
Firstly, do you use round or square section tubing? A structure made from round section tubing will usually be stiffer in torsion and one of square section may be stiffer in beam. Square section tubing is easier to fabricate (no ‘fishmouth’ joints) but the tube distorts under load by ‘lozenging’ or ‘panting’.This adds to compliance and may lead to fatigue cracking. Round section tube is preferable, and should a team choose to build a square section chassis, they would need to justify that to the Design Judges. Just stating ‘Easier to fabricate’ will not be enough, after all you could easily have nailed together a wooden chassis if that was sufficient justification. Having said that, there are areas in the chassis where the use of square section tube is preferable.
oh and nice hair style
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi
And the MNR with the pushrod setup that bends the lower arms is marvelous.
Cheers Matt
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I wasn't trying to say everyone is wrong about the tube section thing. I did finally figure out where I got it nailed into my head in the first place though... looks like it got a little convoluted as it bounced around in my skull before regurgitating it here though.
From formula student Germany judge Pat Clarke
quote:
Firstly, do you use round or square section tubing? A structure made from round section tubing will usually be stiffer in torsion and one of square section may be stiffer in beam. Square section tubing is easier to fabricate (no ‘fishmouth’ joints) but the tube distorts under load by ‘lozenging’ or ‘panting’.This adds to compliance and may lead to fatigue cracking. Round section tube is preferable, and should a team choose to build a square section chassis, they would need to justify that to the Design Judges. Just stating ‘Easier to fabricate’ will not be enough, after all you could easily have nailed together a wooden chassis if that was sufficient justification. Having said that, there are areas in the chassis where the use of square section tube is preferable.
quote:
Originally posted by Rocket_Rabbit
MNR and MK have both designed their car's to be optimal with the materials used.
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
You have to remember that these are formula car chassis that he's talking about so torsional deflection and weight targets are waaay harder to hit. That may be why he is saying it is harder to justify
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Quinn
quote:
Originally posted by Rocket_Rabbit
MNR and MK have both designed their car's to be optimal with the materials used.
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
Do you mean using the minimum amount of material, minimum numbers and ease of welds, shortest amount of time to fabricate etc?
Your point seems to be based on ease of fabrication and optimisation in this respect.
If you are looking at strength please see below this is the chasis that Chris Maries went airborne in some of the pictures of the roll can be seen on
MK's website, the pictures only catch a small portion of the roll. The car nose to taieled and then went on to do posibbly 6 or more roll'.
Personally I think the chasis stood up well and is a testimony to the designs and strength. Injuries sustained broken wrist, broken rib and punctured
lung. None of thes caused by the chasis collapsing . as you can see the cockpit area and roll cage have suffered minimal damage.
Description
[Edited on 6/3/11 by austin man]
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
If you are looking at strength please see below this is the chasis that Chris Maries went airborne in some of the pictures of the roll can be seen on MK's website, the pictures only catch a small portion of the roll. The car nose to taieled and then went on to do posibbly 6 or more roll'. Personally I think the chasis stood up well and is a testimony to the designs and strength. Injuries sustained broken wrist, broken rib and punctured lung. None of thes caused by the chasis collapsing . as you can see the cockpit area and roll cage have suffered minimal damage.
Description
[Edited on 6/3/11 by austin man]
analyse this one all walked away ok
Well said Snoopy.
This topic has become so ridiculous, with pointless comments from posters who may never have even seen an Indy.
I have built one, been involved in others along with cars from other manufacturers. I am not an engineer, don't claim to have knowledge of some
of the things being discussed.
The Indy driven by Chris Maries had a very high speed crash with, under the circumstances, really quite minimal injury to the driver. And it
certainly must have hit the ground at some point.
As snoopys picture above shows, another very big shunt where those involved walked away.
The record of race wins for the Indy can't be disputed.
These facts are exactly that - FACTS!!
While an enginering student certainly knows more than I do about his subject, he is with all due respect still a student.
I think it's time to stop bashing a very competent car that hundreds of people are very happy and very impressed with. All of the seven type
cars will have some faults. But so do all production cars, regardless of the manufacturer.
This forum has become a bickering ground for traders promoting themselves or idiots who know nowt.
john
People who didnt see the accident of the MK chasis in picture shouldnt make comments on what it did and did not do, having been at Oulton park and watched the full incident you would realis that this chasis went nose to tail a couple of times and then barrel rolled so the rolcage and sructure did indeed take quite an impact. The whole underside was clearly visible as the car left the ground it was a 6th gear accident at 110mph at least
^^^^ exactly
john
So they're prone to crashing then? 
Seriously though, I am not going to comment on the engineering aspects of any cars on here. But what I think has riled most people is the phrase
'Design Flaws' or rather 'Desgin flaws' .
I am an engineer by trade, I design vehicles. If I look at one of my designs from 5 years back I will instantly see areas where I would have done
things differently. Which is whats being talked about here. Different ways of doing things DOES NOT make something a design flaw. Square tube vs round
tube is a stupid argument to have, especially on the internet.
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
People who didnt see the accident of the MK chasis in picture shouldnt make comments on what it did and did not do, having been at Oulton park and watched the full incident you would realis that this chasis went nose to tail a couple of times and then barrel rolled so the rolcage and sructure did indeed take quite an impact. The whole underside was clearly visible as the car left the ground it was a 6th gear accident at 110mph at least