Ok Ive seen the cars Ive heard them go it looks like fun and "I WANT ONE".
After an initial look around and having downloaded and looked at Mr Mcsoreleys pdf file on the 4 inch wider chassis design my first questions are;
If the book was originally for an escort axle (live) and its now 4" wider will a capri axle be a better fit. I know its wider cause the shafts are longer.
I rather like the look of the tigercat panelling is there a problem fitting this to a 4" wider body.
Is the 1" box section seamless
I'm thinking of a 1.6 Xflow power plant as my son (14) at the moment is car daft and a project like this will be of enormous learing benefit to him and he may also respect the car (and his old man) a bit better when its finished and ready to race or sprint or show or---The list is endless.
Are there any other scottish lads near aberdeen out there as we would love to see thier cars (Aberdeen area)

Welcome!

The capri axle is wide enough for a +4car but you might be better looking for a Cortina as you the the (vital) front uprights as well.

From what I've heard Tiger are not very happy about selling panels for other cars, as to the fit the body won't be wide enough, but of course you could alter it.

I think the crossflow is the ideal engine for a Locost - tuneable and compact.

As for Jocks, well there's quite a few on here!

Cheers

Chris

Ok what are my body options on the +4 will ineed to make my own panels or do the locost ones fit . The only part i dont like is the rear end its very plain. Mind you a spare wheel was not fitted to the one i saw.
By the way when you buy a chassis its got a manufacturers plate but not when you build your own.
Is this a problem when it comes to sva time

Better to go the Sierra based de Dion or IRS route these days it is the easiest way to go.

Engine wise the xflo is a very good engine the right size and nice and compact but be aware that if you need to rebuild it the costs these days can be high.

As regard the McSorley plans they are well engineered but Darren at GTS will sell you a set of plans for his chassis which is designed around Sierra components. He will also sell you some very nicely made parts.
MK and MNR are also excellent while Luego also have a raft of very satisfied customers.

does the sierra axle fit the +4 chassis ok.

What do you mean by the de dion route this is a new phrase to me can you explain it.
I just thought the live axle would be a lot easier for me to set up as i have experience in the through oval racing (5 linked and lsd and servicing etc also all spare bearings etc are in my notebook somewhere.
It's easier if you got the experience was the reasoning for my choices.

The de Dion is a 5 link set up but the diff is fixed to the chassis as it is on an independant rear suspension. The axle is just a simple tube with carriers at each end for the wheel bearings and brakes.
This type of suspension dates back to the 1900s has only been used on few road cars since ww2 -- Lotus 11, Caterham 7 , Rover P6, Volvo 340, Alfa GTV, Aston Martin DBS.
For a picture see http://www.gtscougar.freeserve.co.uk/dedion.htm

Ok thanks for the de dion info i see what it does and looks favourable. If i build to mc soreleys spec should i use the book spec or the + 4 spec in your opinion. Iwould only really consider the 16Xflow or perhaps a pinto 2ltr. Having said that i'll bet a VX16 valve tuned would go like sh*t off a shovel.

Trouble with building the chassis is not constructing the actual chassis that bit is quite easy it is solving the thousands of little problems relating to mounting brackets, seat belts and all the other niggling details.
I built a slightly modified book chassis and am at the moment have to redo a lot of it because the original book engineering is iffy. If you buy a chassis or build to a "known good"set of plans it becomes a lot easier.

Choice of engine is really a personal issue complicated by a lack of suitable RWD donors but in my view weight is a major issue, the original Seven chassis just wasn't designed for a heavy unit it was designed for either a Ford Pop side valve or a all alloy 1220 cc Coventry Climax, I take the view the heavy 2 litre engine like the Pinto, Rover T16 or Vauxhall/Opel 16valve are just too heavy. If starting afresh and budget wasn't an issue I would use a Toyota or a Zetec 1.8 or more likely given my background a Rover K16 .

At the other end of the scale bike engined cars bring truly explosive performance and reliable high revving engines but the Heath-Robinson transmision arangements and insurance rates which look likely to go stratospheric put using a biike engine out the picture.

[Edited on 16/1/05 by britishtrident]

If you want to minimise time and effort, and you're building your own chassis, i'd go with live or de dion. Designing and making your own irs is very time consuming. I speak from experience!

If you want to buy a chassis, i'd stay away from live and go for a sierra based solution (de dion or irs) for ease of finding parts.

Looks like you've decided to build anyway - so good luck.

Liam

I'll agree with Liam. Doing your own IRS is a big job. I suspect on a smooth track an IRS vs de Dion or even live axle isn't much.

OTOH, if you're drivng on the street, the IRS will have the advantage of a smooth ride over real-world (non-race track) bumps.

Thanks for all the initial input lads ive been looking at pricing 25*25*2.5box section today and alloy sheeting so i'll see where i go from here. By the way how easy are these things to insure.

The usual chassis material is 25x25x1.5

I can prob get the 2.5 at a better price as a company i do work for uses huge amounts of it> apart from the weight can you see any other downside to it.

just for info if making the chassis stronger you're better off making the tube size larger than the wall thicker. all i'm saying is the extra weight isn't going to make the chassis proportionally stronger/stiffer than if you used a thinner walled, larger diameter tube.

Ned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by omega 24 v6
apart from the weight can you see any other downside to it.

---

Even using 2mm RHS give a significant weight penalty, and 2.5mm is just too thick IMO. The bare chassis is going to be around 66% heavier which is going to put a serious dent in the power/weight ratio.

[Edited on 17/1/05 by MikeRJ]

Yeah point taken lads although i am wondering if the 1.5 tube is an extruded section and seamless.

Flolded seamed --- two types exist corner welded and face welded of the the two the latter is the better, trouble is stockists don't always differentiate between the two.

[Edited on 18/1/05 by britishtrident]