Where can i get the chassis plans for an MK Indy?
Is the Ron Champion about as near as ill get.
I want to use the MK bonnet,Nose and Aero screen
the MK glassfibre fits a standard locost perfectly. probably looks better than on the indy. you'll not get chassis plans for an indy, but
it's locost size apart from an extra vertical inch in the sides to accomodate the pinto.
the nosecone hangs an inch below the front lower chassis rail, but still fits well.
tom
So the Locost s higher or the MK is?
MK is higher
Does the MK have Fibreglass side panels or is it Alloy sheet
fibreglass
MK (martin keenan) is involved with the new book so build that chassis not the ron champ
book!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Build-Your-Own-Sports-Car/dp/1844253910/ref=pd_sbs_b_njs_title_1/202-4163342-5955828
or a tiger!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Build-Tiger-Sportscar-Track-Speedpro/dp/190478822X/ref=pd_sbs_b_njs_title_5/202-4163342-5955828
check the difference between buying MK chassis and the true cost of you welding it up! (steel /rods/gas/electric/time/material to make jig's etc)
and the sva man won't look as hard at a bought chassis!
The Indy uses a sierra diff and the lo cost live axle . small size diff ,personally i think the the Mk is a better product and Has more finished off look to it. Look out for part built or unfinished projects that's the cheapest way to get started . unless your after the challenge of starting from scratch.
Hi although if you copy the indy chassis you will be copying all the major faults with the rear geometry and the front suspension too.
For simplicity and a good handling car the original Ron book chassis whith the live axle is the way to go. You just have to sort out the dimensions
that are wrong. But theres plenty of info on this site and the web to get round that.
Cheers Matt
i've built 2 indys, the second one because it used all the bits from the first, but if i built again, it'd be a locost. MK isn't what
it used to be.
tom
no MK is not what it use 2 be much better now INDY SPEC R awsome
quote:
Originally posted by mad gaz
no MK is not what it use 2 be much better now INDY SPEC R awsome
Well, as a successful businessman and sales and marketing guru , I find it strange that
the imminent introduction of type approval
has not brought the kitcar manufacturing
companies closer together. A show of solidarity is required, rather than the constant bickering over whose kit is best.
A positive sales attitude is concerned with convincing the potential customer as to the reasons for choosing you, rather than the reasons for not
choosing someone else. Just remember, customers vote with their cheque
books, and Mk sales outweigh their competitors by approximately 3:1
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi although if you copy the indy chassis you will be copying all the major faults with the rear geometry and the front suspension too.
Cheers Matt
quote:
Originally posted by mad gaz
A positive sales attitude is concerned with convincing the potential customer as to the reasons for choosing you, rather than the reasons for not choosing someone else. Just remember, customers vote with their cheque
books, and Mk sales outweigh their competitors by approximately 3:1
What do you mean by there attitude changes.
After you've paid they dont want to be as helpful any more etc.
Building it isnt a problem,Our workshop guys will make my chassis after work and are all qualified so shouldnt be an issue with SVA
Hi there was me thinking that the discussion was about a MK INDY chassis and a Ron type chassis. And one mention of the undeniable facts surrounding
the indy's handling problems that even it's original designer Martin Kenan admits. And Mk owners start jumping up and down.
Cheers Matt
The handling problems are not unique to Mk.
The '7' is a 50-year old design and problems with it are inherent to all designs subsequently based on it , throughout the industry.
Hi you really should do some research on the indy and the mach#1
I am getting a repetitive headache now i will leave it there.
Cheers Matt
Having done my research, having built 3 MK Indy's and having looked around the marketplace, the MK represents the best all-round package at its
price point.
The after-sales service and back up is very good, considering that this is a 'cottage industry' and not some bluechip company.
With this in mind, obviously some discretion and time allowance has to be made, on the part of customers. Other than that, there is no
'gang' or 'in-crowd' at MK, and all reasonable after-sales issues have been dealt with professionally.
Having dealt on numerous occasions with MK Sportscars, Mac 1 and MK Engineering,
I have found them all to be very informative
and helpful, and never disparaging of other companies for their own gain.
Having owned both the original MK Indy and
the MK Indy R, I feel that MK Sportscars are to be commended for their decision and financial bravery in introducing the Indy R when the old Indy
sells in such great numbers.
The new model, with a little investment and development could easily be as good as any 'seven', including Caterham & Westfield. Well
done MK Sportscars, you will get the rewards you deserve, even if some can't resist taking cheap (locost) shots!
Hi But what was talked about was problems with the handling that both Martin Kenan and Mk admit are there. Maybe you are happy with the poor handling
of the indy . But to try and compare it to the Westfield and caterham. 
.
Cheers Matt
Oh and those so called cheap shots are facts that as i say both Martin and MK admit are problems on the cars. And yet they have never been corrected.
Yes they really should be commended for that. Other manufacturers sort there problems out not just burry there heads in the sand.
What handling issues has the MK got?
As this always ends up in a flame war I'll keep it brief and to the facts.
'Old' design
Front suspension - doesn't self center properly leading to all sorts of cheating at SVA (valve springs under the steering rack gaiters FFS).
Rear suspension - read this
To be honest it will handle better than most tintops even with the faults, but it certainly wont touch a Caterham on a track.
'New' car
Don't know if the faults have been fixed (you have to hope) but starting to win races/sprints/hillclimbs is the only way they'll prove
anything. Doing a good sales job and getting good writeups in the kitcar press mean little.
Matt, you knew exactly what kind of reaction your post would get. Isn't that's why you post the same thing time after time? Or maybe for
some strange reason, you get an overwhelming urge to bring this known issue to peoples attention..........
Trouble is, you seem very biased towards MK. I don't see you posting about the handling capabilities of MK's competitors chassis. You must
have seen many of them by now, so are the others perfect?
You also keep claiming that MK know about these issues but bury their heads in the sand. So are you saying that the new Indy Spec R has the same
issues as the old Indy?
Just curious.
Phil
Im going to build a book chassis but use the haynes IRS setup.
So has the Locost got any faults or are they well covered on here to how to correct them during my build
quote:
Originally posted by colt_mivec
Im going to build a book chassis but use the haynes IRS setup.
So has the Locost got any faults or are they well covered on here to how to correct them during my build
Because i want to use MK body panels and the roadster is 50mm wider
[Edited on 11/2/08 by colt_mivec]
Hi Phil did you actually read the posts.
The original question was about a MK INDY and a ron chassis.
I simply pointed out that if he was to copy the indy chassis he would be copying all the inbuilt faults with the indy chassis.
Now these faults are there and has been admitted by both Martin Kenan and MK. So given that just about every one knows about these faults why should
be such a big surprise if they are talked about when someone is looking at copying the indy chassis. All i did was point out to someone who was
obviously not aware of them. That he could do better than copy a chassis that has faults with it.
I call that trying to help someone and save them a whole heap of wasted time effort and money. The fact that every time it is mentioned MK owners
start jumping up and down is expected. But why they all know of the faults at both the front and the rear of the car. So the question is WHY do MK
owners keep getting so touche when it is mentioned.
And for your info Phil if you look through my posts you will see numoruse references to manufactures from what i call the WORLD OF LOCOST ie MK MAC#1
LUEGO GTS MNR who are all producing kits that fall below what the wider kit car market place calls an acceptable quality these days. It just seems
that MK owners are the ones that do the most jumping up and down when their manufacturer is mentioned.
And yes i do call it burying your head in the sand when a manufacturer produces a kit over as many years as the indy has been produced for without
changing or sorting out the problems that where known about since the very early stages.
And i do like the way that people try to make it look like i have a personal vendetta against MK and Martin. But in actual fact i have never made it
personal ever. I simply stick to the fact regarding the product's. I have met Martin a few times in the early days and he is a very nice bloke
and i have given him credit for his efforts to help people who wish to have there MK's rear end modded to get rid of the problem there. So i
think it is actually certain MK owners who have a vendetta against me. Because i simply talk the truth about a certain product and they do not like
that. Why they do not like that is down to them. I have offered many Mk owners help and advise on their cars Including TEAM HELLFIRE when you sent me
a u2u me asking for advise regarding the rear end problems.
I think this should be left at that. As the facts remain and no matter how much Bickering goes on. The fact will remain that the indy chassis has some
majore problems with it.
Cheers Matt
Matt, I understand what you're saying but from what I understand, there has been a lot of time and money spent developing and designing the new
spec R chassis and the whole suspension geometry has been re-designed. This doesn't sound like MK burying their heads in the sand and it seems
as though they've made some real progress with the new chassis. So I have just one question;
Does the Indy Spec R chassis have the same faults as the old Indy chassis?
Phil
Hi so what you are saying then is that they had there head's buried in the sand until they realised they had to do something due to the fact that
they could no longer keep selling the indy due to every one knowing how bad it was.
If you are asking dose the spec r have problems then yes it dose. Someone had a top joint run out of travel at donnington . ( already discussed else
where and not going there again) The dampers supplied with the kit are not of the right valving to go with the front application. Especially as they
are right behind the rad and the dampers are getting way to hot.
And the one that was raced in the 750 kits was clearly lacking in the handling department compared to other cars YES.
Cheers Matt
Ps can we leave it there as my views are clearly aired else where and going over and over it again and again is getting boring. Not to mention not
doing MK's reputation any good which is what i thought you where concerned with.
Matt, please don't put words into my mouth. I'm quite capable of saying what I think.
The problems you mention above are not inherent to the Indy Spec R chassis. Things like radiator location, ducting, dampers etc are the choice
of the customer/builder and the top ball joint issue (which has been discussed elsewhere) was never really convincing nor concluded.
My question to you was and remains unanswered - Does the Indy Spec R chassis have the same faults as the old Indy chassis?
Given your remarks above, I suspect the answer is NO.
Phil
Can I comment as a NON MK owner ?
Its sad but every time MK gets a mention certain people whom shall remain nameless jump in and dish as much dirt as possible.
The word design "fault" seems a popular one.
I see 750mc logos banded about in a few signatures so lets take a little look at 750mc regs.......
Stock hatch for example, suspension pretty much free apart from you cannot move pick up points. Now why would they put that in the regs ?
Could it possibly be Ford, Peugeot, Citroen, Rover and any other main stream manufactures have designed "faults" into their suspension pick
up points or could it be by moving them things could be improved ?
The MK Indy is a very capable car, its not perfect, handling can be improved as it can in most cases, are not F1 teams blasting round in Spain for 3
days as we speak ? Are they joy riding or looking for improvements ? They will be spending a fair few more beer tokens too btw.
Self centering comments and valve sprigs (ffs) ? Its a much longer list of 7 type cars that don't self center than do (ffs)
The indy is a compromise like most cars designed to be built on a budget with readily available cheap components, enjoyed by the owner, nothing is
achieved by slagging ANY manufacture off especially when done by another.
It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and makes you look elsewhere, the high ground should be taken by how good you are, not how bad others are.
If it was comments in context then maybe but I'm getting repetitive ear injury.
Right suns out so I'm off into garage to make a new brake pedal for the "locost" as I got the ratio wrong and its been a job on the
"to do" list for years.
Hi Jon That was obviously aimed straight at me regarding dishing dirt. But the fact remains that i have not started any thread regarding MK and
handling problems. I have however taken part in public forum discussions on the subject and all my comments are based on TRUE facts That both myself
and many others have commented on over the years.
Yes all cars are a compromise in the handling department as it is simply not possible to have the best of everything in one package Hence as you say
F1 teams go testing. But in the case of the indy the rear camber problem is not a compromised feature it is a case of the camber going the in the
wrong direction Ie positive when it should be going in a negative direction.. I don't think any one is arguing that this is not the case.
So when a discussion is tacking place regarding an indy chassis are you saying that i can not contribute to the conversation with facts that have been
acknowledged by it's designer amongst others. Freedom of speech comes to mind.
Hi Phil given that i have not as yet had a spec r in for a full setup ect i can't comment on weather it has the same features as the indy. But
upon changing a top ball joint on one it was found that the joint ran out of travel before the suspension had reached full travel which is a problem
also on the front of the indy setup. And it was also found that the front dampers where running far to hot absorbing the heat from the radiator. So
those are the comments i made. Again facts So until i get a specr in the workshop i will not comment on the rest of it. Which is why i have not made
any comment about the rest of the car.
Now given that this tread started of with discussion of a indy chassis and a ron book chassis and it was not me who brought the specr chassis in to
this discussion that has ended up as an argument. I will not make any further posts in this thread. As i have said all my comments are based on facts
and i do not see where this lot is leading other than a complete waste of time. As all this has been discussed time and time before. I genuinely do
hope that the spec r chassis is an improvment on the indy chassis. As i certainly take no pleasure in seeing the look on people's faces when they
discover that all there hard work and effort has ended in a project that dose not live up to the expectation they had of it.
Cheers Matt
So the problems are?
1.
2.
3.
4.
I want to build a chassis with the best option from every chassis,Trying to iron out these flaws
Self centre on the steering must be an issue due to the geometry of the setup.Did the Locost chassis suffer from this
Re Locost chassis, the original book suspension didn't include enough caster so (lack of) self centering was an issue - hence the plethora of bodges emerging to get around it. Mine just starts to self centre but will not go all the way - it's a matter of knowing this and driving round it. The better option would be to relocate the top wishbone mounts 10mm further back. I will be doing this at some point in the future.
I have the scond edition book,Did his have the flaws ironed out
So, the Haynes roadster is an improved MK Indy? Is it so simple?
Also, i wouldlike to ask this:
How a Haynes chassis/configuration/suspension is compared to a Westfield of a Caterham?
Yes, and I would like to know how the MK compares to the Audi A4 (specifically the A4 Avant). While you're at it, can you explain how I've
had 4 flat tires in that car since I bought the car new in October, 2005?
This was once an interesting thread, but now it's basically an argument you have after about 5 pints...