paulbeyer
|
| posted on 26/11/02 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Sorry Jimbo, didn't mean to make you choke. 
|
|
|
|
|
liftarn
|
| posted on 5/12/02 at 09:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rallyslag
i know the standard locost chassis is strong
but i am buiding a locost yank tank with a stupid amount of ponies and torque
will the 1" 16swg be enough?
or should i use a thicker metal tube
Racetech made an ESTfield chassis for a small block Chevy V8 and they increased some of the tube from 25x25 to 25x40 mm in some places.
See http://www.racetech.ee/a/cars/f-estv8.htm for information and pictures.
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 5/12/02 at 11:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by liftarn
Racetech made an ESTfield chassis for a small block Chevy V8 and they increased some of the tube from 25x25 to 25x40 mm in some places.
See http://www.racetech.ee/a/cars/f-estv8.htm for information and pictures.
I had a look at that, and I think that the 1/4mile time of over 13 seconds for a car with a newly built chevy engine shows what a cr*p concept a
locost with a big and heavy v8 engine is. The problem is to get the traction that is going to be needed to get the extra weight (lots) off the line
quickly. The idea would better in a mid-engine car.
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
liftarn
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 09:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I had a look at that, and I think that the 1/4mile time of over 13 seconds for a car with a newly built chevy engine shows what a cr*p concept a
locost with a big and heavy v8 engine is.
It doesn't say it was a new engine, just that it was newly prepared and tuned. To their defence it must be said that they did use road tyres.
But I agree that putting a big engine in such a car is probably done more for the driver than the car. Some people just lige big, noisy engines.
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 11:16 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by liftarn
quote:
Originally posted by interestedparty
I had a look at that, and I think that the 1/4mile time of over 13 seconds for a car with a newly built chevy engine shows what a cr*p concept a
locost with a big and heavy v8 engine is.
It doesn't say it was a new engine, just that it was newly prepared and tuned. To their defence it must be said that they did use road tyres.
So what is the difference between a 'newly built' and a 'newly prepared' engine?
Also, of course it was on road tyres, this is not a competition forum, all the cars here are on road tyres.
The thing that makes the 'seven' concept work so well is that the cars are small and light. People should by all means use a large V8 engine if
they wish, but they should make sure it is a light one
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
John
Like the Rover perhaps?
I agree with you entirely, but then I may be slightly biased here (see pics!!).
And, of course, the R V8 can be taken out to 5+litres (with very little weight penalty), which makes it not quite such a small V8:-)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
I believe the Rover/Buick V8 weighs about the same as a pinto. The LT77 g/box weighs slightly more than the Type 9 and the R380 is about the same.
All in all a very nice setup with approx 150 bhp from a 3.5 in standard form!
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 12:26 PM |
|
|
The Rover V8 is one of the great engines of the 20th century, small(ish), light, powerful and with torque characteristics which make it ideal for a
medium or lightweight car which has occasionally to drive in traffic. Given regular oil changes it will last for a very long time indeed, and the
rebuilding required for use in a Locost is inexpensive and easy unless you are very unlucky
Other V8's good for Locost use include the all-alloy Chevrolet LS1 and the Cadillac North Star though not so easy to come by in the UK
Even having said all the above, I've come to the conclusion that the ideal engine for a Locost, bearing in mind power output, tractability, ease of
installation and purchase/tuning costs is the 2ltr Zetec
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 12:31 PM |
|
|
Ian,
Whilst the engine in my car may look like it came from a Range Rover, the engine number and C/R stamp indicates it's one of the 164 bhp Rover P6
motors.
To quote Bill and Ted
Excellent!!
Another point that may be of interest; when I built my chassis, it was around the 1.8 CVH / Type 9 combo. Was concerned about g/box fitting - given
starter on other side. Well it's not a problem. However, the clutch actuating mechanism housing is a bit tight!!
Also, my chassis 4" wider than book!!
ATB
Simon
[Edited on 17/12/02 by Simon]
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 17/12/02 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
There was a chap who I believe lived out Kempston (Bedford) he rebuilt a P5B coupe. Bored it to 3.9, dropped Vitesse heads & single plenum injection
on it, ----- ---- --- ---- Then added Nitro, all through std auto, suspension & brake. Boy did it go (without hitting the funny button). only used
the buttonn twice I think, made front end lift so high that he had little control on the steering mind the skid marks.
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
| posted on 21/12/02 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
Simon,
If you are struggling on bellhousing/clutch fitment you can get the T5 gearbox to fit and it is lighter/neater. Downside is they are like hens teeth
and therefore expensive.
Good luck,
Ian
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 23/12/02 at 09:45 AM |
|
|
Ian,
Thanks for suggestion, but, for the time being I'm just keeping costs down to the minimum, in traditional Locost fashion.
However, once car on the road, I'll be looking at a continuing development programme!!!!!!
So some things may get changed / replaced.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
deneo
|
 posted on 28/12/02 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
alloy chassis
HAS ANY INFO ON ALUMINIUM CHASSIS
FOR LOCOST.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 29/12/02 at 12:08 AM |
|
|
Yes...don't
Generally considered not to be a very good idea...although no doubt some will disagree...
There are easier, cheaper and safer ways to save a few pounds in weight if that is the intention.
[Edited on 29/12/02 by Alan B]
|
|
|
liftarn
|
| posted on 2/1/03 at 02:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by deneo
HAS ANY INFO ON ALUMINIUM CHASSIS
FOR LOCOST.
Racetech have started making one. Have a look at http://www.racetech.ee/a/cars/f-aluminium_1.htm
But please note that they sometimes seem do things just to show it can be done, not because it's a good idea.
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 3/1/03 at 04:04 AM |
|
|
The biggest problem with an aluminium car, is that even when you tie a ruddy big magnet to the rear bumper, it doesn't bring all the bits home!
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 3/1/03 at 10:26 PM |
|
|
I have taken a look at the elan chassis and got a result of 4000 ftlbs per degree which is very close to quoted figures I've seen.
This chassis type is often used on cars with full fibreglass bodyshells which need either to be self supporting (Elan) or need additional bracing
(TVR) to keep them stable.
The advantage of a very efficient structure with low weight for a given stiffness is partly offset by the need for the above details and is also
offset by the very large and intrusive transmission tunnel that often results.
On a slight deviation I've often thought that a step beyond the spyder upgrade of the Elan plus 2 could be a great car. I'm thinking of the elan
plus 2 but about 4 inches bigger in height, width and wheelbase to get modern standards of accomodation and possible designed to take one of the many
2.5 or 3.0 V6 engines available. The result could be viewed as a modern Elan plus 2 or as a kit form junior sized TVR Cerbera. There doesn't seem to
be much like a two plus two with rear drive on the market in kit form at the moment. An opportunity perhaps?
|
|
|
jcduroc
|
| posted on 4/3/03 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
Loads in Locost chassis
Cymtrick
When evaluating a given chassis stiffness you apply certain loads to points of the chassis which propagate (?) as tension, compression or Flexion(?);
can you vector them on your Locost chassis design layout?
Joćo
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 4/3/03 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
The torsional stiffness results that I've posted here and elsewhere are all calculated byapplying the following loads and restraints to the
chassis.
1) a vertical load at each front suspension mount, up on one side and down on the other side. This loads the chassis in torsion.
2) vertical restraints on the rear suspension mounts which react the applied torsional load.
3) a lateral and longitudinal restraint towards the rear of the chassis and a vertical and lateral restraint at the front. These restraints provide an
axis about which the chassis twists.
|
|
|
SteveF
|
 posted on 5/3/03 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
Cymtrics
I'd be very interested if you could run through an analysis on a variation to the standard chassis - to see its effects, as this is how the MK Indy
chassis is made up.
Based on the standard chassis -
Centre sections of C & Q are removed from above and below the tunnel
R and inner (tunnel) Hs are removed
Q and R are radiused from where they meetG1/G2 to meet P. There is also a lower chassis rail (P') going between D1 and D2 - identical to the upper
P.
The radiused sections are plated from the outer remaining Hs to P,P'
Thanks
|
|
|
