colt_mivec
|
| posted on 11/2/08 at 10:24 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
onzarob
|
| posted on 11/2/08 at 10:31 PM |
|
|
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
Why not build the complete roadster?
|
|
|
colt_mivec
|
| posted on 11/2/08 at 10:39 PM |
|
|
Because i want to use MK body panels and the roadster is 50mm wider
[Edited on 11/2/08 by colt_mivec]
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 09:31 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 10:05 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 03:46 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
colt_mivec
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 04:34 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 05:35 PM |
|
|
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.
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
colt_mivec
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
I have the scond edition book,Did his have the flaws ironed out
|
|
|
Echidna
|
| posted on 12/2/08 at 07:04 PM |
|
|
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?
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
RK
|
| posted on 13/2/08 at 12:12 AM |
|
|
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...
|
|
|
