dashin_dave
|
 posted on 7/9/02 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
Robin Hood Sub-K
was just working out, and figure its pretty darn hard to build a locost for less than the Sub-k kit can be bought. does anyone have an opinion on this
kit???
handling wise, how would it stock up against a std locost, or a scratchbuilt IRS one??
i'm not adverse to doing work to save money, or get improved handling or what have you, but if something equivilent is available cheaper without alot
of the labour....
(forgive me die-hard locost fans, i cant help it if i'm lazy  )
|
|
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 7/9/02 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
hi
take a look on
http://groups.yahoo.com
and search for robinhood2b
there is a list like TOL on there that might be able to help you.
However......if its anything like the 2b, i was suprised how much work there is to do in the kit. Its not what i would call a kit. its more like a
locost with all the metal bits cut up with you to do all the real work. not just a simple assembly job.
the MK Indy. although not a comprehensive kit, is nicely presented........but if you want a RH they have many happy people - as the list can show.
However, RH seem to be famed for their cunning low cost design and not so for the quality. There after sales service is also reputed to be second to
all.....but i cant verify that.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 7/9/02 at 10:23 PM |
|
|
Also IMO the RH's look crap, really wide across the body. I was looking at RH too, until I discovered locost. Only confirmed my decision when I saw
them in the flesh, the RH doesn't look like a lotus 7 should...
|
|
|
Roeland Uitslager
|
 posted on 8/9/02 at 09:25 AM |
|
|
Don't go for the Sub-K. It is ill engineering.
You can do better yourself. I know I owned one of the older Robin Hoods and they are not a true Lotus 7 replica.
|
|
|
eddie c
|
 posted on 8/9/02 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
I'm interested in this question also (although I'm looking at the Robin Hood 2B). There seem to be a few references on these pages suggesting RH
should be steered clear of and MK are to be greatly preferred - however I can't see a great difference between the 2. I'm attracted to RH
because
more people have successfully completed the kit and overcome many of the problems I might expect to encounter.
I also like the fact that RH uses only a single donor and appears to supply all(?) of the fiddley bits and bobs.
My question is - what does anyone have for or against RH or MK? The shape is a matter of personal taste, but does anyone know of any engineering
shortcomings? Is either the MK or RH chassis to be preferred - does it matter that neither is fully triangulated? For the cost of a chassi I would
take a LOT of convincing to learn the skills to make my own - I am hugely impressed by those of you who have followed the locost route.
Thanks for all advice and forgive any stupid mistakes - my first post.
cheers
eddie
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 8/9/02 at 09:45 PM |
|
|
please do read the robinhood2b group on yahoo before you build a 2b.
to me, it was sobering, at the stoneleigh show, to see that the kit was basically a load of burnt edged laser cut steel sheet that needed a lot of
fettling.
Just the bare MK chassis on their stand made me depressed - it would take me an age to weld up something as professional as that.
dont part with money until you see them both.
Some 2b look totally crap. You are expected to use the original sierra instruments poking out from a hole in a leatherette covered dash. I imported my
guages from detroit - honestly!
the 'standard' sliding pillock - as its termed - suspension that needs attention every 1k miles is a bit duff too. then when they shipped wishbone
as an option, it didnt have full movement and they had to send modified struts out. very iffy in my view.
look on the 2b list
atb
steve
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 8/9/02 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
I also considered the 2b and the subk and even subscribed to the yahoo site to see what build problems existed. They seem very cheaply made (obviously
at the price), all the parts are the cheapest available, but really put me of was the weight, the builders are booking them into the SVA at 900Kg!
What are the chassis's made of? Also RH seem very unhelpfull if you want to fit any engine except the tank like Pinto.
You pays your money.............
Build it your self, you will probably be happier with the result
Mark
|
|
|
redeye
|
| posted on 8/9/02 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
appently the robin hoods are heavier cause they use the sierras rear sub frame
i was told this by mk
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 9/9/02 at 10:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
For the cost of a chassi I would take a LOT of convincing to learn the skills to make my own - I am hugely impressed by those of you who have
followed the locost route.
It's really not that hard to build you're own chassis.
I have no welding gear and had no welding experience. I just phoned round a few colleges and found one doing evening classes in welding.
On my first lesson there I spotted a built Locost chassis and knew I'd come to the right place! 
I did the 10 week welding course (covered gas, Mig, Arc, Brazing and gas cutting). Having spoken to the instructor he said if I signed on again I
could build my chassis there so that's what I've done.
My chassis is now 70% built and in the end I used the colleges Tig machine to do it.
My biggest tip would be: don't skimp when it comes to the chassis jig. I tried to do my jig cheaply and am now reqretting it slightly. Make sure
it's flat!
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
Rob Allison
|
| posted on 9/9/02 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
I have a 2b plus this is the one with double wishbone front suspension. The other types have odd front suspension, Sliding pillar!!! Or mini strut (I
don’t like the look of either). The build of the kit is pretty straightforward. Currently I am helping out with the build of a locost as per the book.
When the two are compared (build wise) the locost does have advantages i.e. Panelling out is much easier. The 2b has a lot of odd shape holes to fill
between panels and chassis. The locost is much lighter, but the 2b has a “built like a tank chassis”. But at the end of the day the 2b does the job
seven type motoring at a cheep cost. The same can also be said for the locost with the added advantage that you built it all yourself. The choice is
yours!
Rob...
|
|
|
zetec
|
| posted on 9/9/02 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
I have heard lots of reports about poor fit and finish of the parts supplied by Robin Hood. I started looking at kits from Dax and Tiger but when I
saw the MK I was sold. I found that the quality of the MK chassis very good and well finished, and appears as well put together as the best on offer
regardless of price. I also found that the "kits" supplied by other people were just a collection of bits which are easily sourced direct from kit
part suppliers, and I came to the conclusion that I would have a better idea of what I would want during the build rather than try and decide before
even taking delivery.
If you source the all the bits from MK £4K looks like a fair figure for a well finished and good spec car. It looks as if a lot of people are also
willing to spend a lot more on different engines etc so there does seem to be a lot of confidence in the basic chassis.
MK can supply almost all you need chassis, body panels, seats, dash, engine mounts...the list goes on. I am a first time builder and cannot fault the
back up I have got from MK. Getting to the stage of rolling chassis is probably a lot easier with the MK as they weld in a proper floor pan and
bulkhead rather than leave you to cut and rivet panels. Just get your Sierra parts and off you go! And you won't have to fit a Pinto if you don't
want.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 9/9/02 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
I also considered the 2b and the subk and even subscribed to the yahoo site to see what build problems existed. They seem very cheaply made
(obviously at the price), all the parts are the cheapest available, but really put me of was the weight, the builders are booking them into the SVA at
900Kg! What are the chassis's made of? Also RH seem very unhelpfull if you want to fit any engine except the tank like Pinto.
You pays your money.............
Build it your self, you will probably be happier with the result
Mark
The 900 kilo probably isnt the actual weight. Its the max axle weight. When the car is booked in you need to spect the weight 2 up with max weight and
a bit more. If you get the weight too low it screws up the braking calculations and you fail.
the rear of a sierra / granada is a heavy mother. however, for the weight you save, unless you are building a BEC blaster, its a lot of hassle doing
your own rear end. If you can use the sierra complete rear end its a massive start.
Just like mr lasermans prototype front end looks to be.....hows it coming on laser?
atb
steve
|
|
|
