the JoKeR
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 12:30 AM |
|
|
Comparing "the book" to reality
Has anybody compiled a list of errors, ommissions, or missing information from 'the book'? Obviously I'm a little new around here,
and I could spend weeks digging for pieces of information here and there. It'd be handy to have it all in one place for quick reference. I try
to stay three steps ahead mentally when I build and hate going back to fix things.
__________________________
Jeff
http://www.midwestwelding.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/
|
|
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 12:31 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the JoKeR
Has anybody compiled a list of errors, ommissions, or missing information from 'the book'?
Nah, no datacentre on the planet is capacity enough to store them all!
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
madman280
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 02:04 AM |
|
|
http://www.mcsorley.net
Jim McSorley has a nice copy of corrected drawing, cutting lists and larger options. There are a few other ideas worth changing, such as using round
tubing for the top bars of the cockpit, angleing them downward toward the rear like on the original Lotus. A few others may have some other
sugestions
CJ
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 08:23 AM |
|
|
Lots of mistakes and conflicting info and whole sceerds of info left out --- best advice is download mcsorley and keep a eye on the discussion in
the forum for things like seat belt mountings and other stuff that the book is poor on --- if you can't find it don't be scared to
ask.
As for dimensions many of the errors in the book are due to sloppy conversion from imperial to metric combined with rounding errors. Others are due
to the fact the book is based on several different chassis with minor variations.
Working from even the best plans always apply a sanity test to any dimension, while chassis members such as diagonal are best measured on the chassis
before being trimming to exact length.
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 17/3/05 at 12:06 PM |
|
|
There is a significant error in the book with regard to the placement of the L and FU tubes in the front, because the book layout does not give enough
caster/castor angle. Here's an illustrative thread, and there are more elsewhere:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=4652
Many builders have modified the book plans for increased torsional stiffness, comfort, safety, esthetics, ease of build or economy. Hence all the
discussion  You'll see comments about the "Aussie mods" and the "Cymtriks mods"; the details of these can be
researched here:
http://locost7.info/mirror/chassis.php
The kitcaranalysis documents are by our very own poster Cymtriks, and you might want to search the forum for posts by him.
Pete
|
|
|
the JoKeR
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 02:46 AM |
|
|
Although this doesn't pertain directly to the book, the plans for the +442 are shown in metric and inches. Unfortunately, finding 25.4 inches
on a tape measure isn't all that easy without figuring out what that really corresponds to. The big question: are the plans more accurate in
metric or in inches? I'd be happy to build the body using the metric system if that means it's accurate and I don't have to try to
convert to inches w/fractions.
__________________________
Jeff
http://www.midwestwelding.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 02:17 PM |
|
|
I'm comfortable in either system, but I found metric easier to manage in this project. 1mm is more than good-enough accuracy for most of the
chassis, and there's no danger in getting a fraction wrong.
With the McSorley plans both forms of dimensions are accurate but, as you say, tenths is not an easy fraction with imperial measuring tools!
David
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
The plans would probably be better if they gave metric and imperial fractions. most of the work I have done in metric because the imperial is so
unuseable in decimal, what with imperial measuring devices being fraction or very small things in thou.
And thats coming from some one that was only ever taught decimal at school.
|
|
|
kreb
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 04:08 PM |
|
|
I have actually seen rullers with inches and decimals! Bought it by accident - kinda drove me batty e.g. 3.45 inches et cetera. Have a look about and
you may be able to find one set up that way.
https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1966_FiatAbarth_1000SP1.jpg
|
|
|
the JoKeR
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 04:04 AM |
|
|
It looks like everybody has their own opinion on how to achieve the proper front suspension geometry. Do the +442 plans take care of problems with
the book around the L pieces, and having those pieces sit far enough back at the top? I realize that this might all be out the window based on what I
come up with for uprights. All the different designs leads me to think I might be best off custom designing my own A arms and mounting locations to
make the front wheel track agree with the rear end. Thoughts?
__________________________
Jeff
http://www.midwestwelding.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 04:29 AM |
|
|
There's no reason to make the front track match the rear.
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
