cymtriks
|
| posted on 22/11/03 at 09:24 PM |
|
|
MK GT1 chassis
Is this the least triangulated spaceframe ever?
In all the most critical regions, front suspension, rear suspension and engine bay the triangulation is either not there at all or is minimal.
MK would be a lot better off ( I reckon possibly about three times better off ) copying the Lotus 23 chassis. Alternatively why not help Project LMP
on this forum to offset his costs by offering to buy a licence to copy his chassis?
A simple ladder frame would beat the stiffness of the MK chassis but with a bit of triangulation it could be good.
I happen to have something rather similar to the MK chassis in my finite element analysis files and will have a quick look at how to make the MK
chassis decent.
I'll need some pictures of the bare chassis from various angles and some basic dimensions such as width (top and bottom)and height (floor to top
rail) at the rear suspension region, front suspension region and the middle of the chassis.
I'll put the results of a quick look on this forum. All MK have to do is take a few pictures, get out a ruler and join this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 22/11/03 at 10:32 PM |
|
|
Dare I dip in my toe....?
I can't work out why you say this... is it because:
You don't like life...
You don't realise what you said...
You live on the moon and knowone can get to you...
You have a terminal illness and no longer care...
From your comment - your ignorance is way ahead of your knowledge. The GT1 has ceased production by MK and has been for quite some time.
I'm only having a small dig - dare say you will get many more...
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 22/11/03 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
I'm not defending MK here as I'm not familar enough with design of the GT1...however, and this is important, as a company they have built
a lot of stuff and have raced it...and in IMO this counts for a lot...
I have asked Mr C before to show us some example of his handiwork, but without response...
It is very easy to look at almost any spaceframe and find places for diagonals but often there are many other factors which make it rarely as simple
as it appears..
On the whole I do not doubt the general gist of Mr C's suggestions as they usual seem to be logical......but to come on here picking on a
respected manufacturers just on the basis of theory only will not win him many friends....
My advice to Mr C...put your money where your mouth is...build something, show us how good it is...then you will have earned some respect........
Again, not picking on his theory....it's pretty much all common wisdom of spaceframe design..but..
an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory....
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 22/11/03 at 11:00 PM |
|
|
It's good of you to agree to put everything right, but as Hellfire says they don't make them any more.
Perhaps you could post us a picture of the "ideal chassis"?
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
tony9876
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
I agree put your money where your mouth is. If you want to build better do it that is what i would do if capable. I do know as probably everyone else
on here does that a gt1 was in quite a severe rear collision with a tyre wall and from what i seen it handled the impact excellently(rear suspension
took the brunt of the impact).
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
Yep, that was some hit, 80 mph+ into a wall, and no intrusion into the cockpit area, perhaps a crumple zone is better than a more solid back end?
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
tony9876
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 05:02 PM |
|
|
I know what i would rather drive. An exact triangulated chasis over engineered to death or a tried and tested to one which can take a hit.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 06:07 PM |
|
|
Misunderstanding?
I suspect that Cymtrics is looking at the picture in the Pop Quiz thread posted by ChrisG of what is not actually a GT1 but it's as yet not
officially named replacement. (Nicknamed the GT2 by some people).
I don't know anything about Finite Element Analysis but looking at the picture the front of the chassis does appear to be lacking a few
triangles! But, before anyone jumps on me I'm quite happy to be told that in this case they are not needed or that the chassis is still in
development and more will be done to it.
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
Ah James...ever the diplomat...
I think it's not so much as what is said as the patronising way it is said...
"and will have a quick look at how to make the MK chassis decent. "
Also,
"Alternatively why not help Project LMP on this forum to offset his costs by offering to buy a licence to copy his chassis? "
Now I would agree that Paul's chassis does "look" good..very good actually....but does MrC's apparent approval mean he has
crunched the numbers on it?...or his he just agreeing with the rest of us that it "looks good"...(curious to know the basis of this
comment)
Either way very a patronising comment.
Once again I'm not questioning MrC's theoretical expertise...nor any theorising in in general...I'm a design engeer too...but,
without some proven real life examples and track record, I'd be inclined to keep quiet...
BTW, if the "GT2" was meant instead of the GT1 then I would have thought anyone could see it was work in progress....or are wooden engine
mounts the current "latest thing"?...
|
|
|
Metal Hippy
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 07:44 PM |
|
|
I'm thinking about it...
Nice solid piece of hardwood.
Should look good when polished... 
Be stronger than anything I can fabricate to mount the Beemer... 
Cock off or cock on. You choose.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 07:48 PM |
|
|
Hippy...
F**K off making me laugh....
Trying to be mad here....
[Edited on 23/11/03 by Alan B]
|
|
|
Metal Hippy
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
Alan, you're as charming as ever mate....
Cock off or cock on. You choose.
|
|
|
tony9876
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
I have ran some thorough stress tests on different gauges of timber but i have to say oak makes the best engine mounts.As i see MK have used some
inferior rough sawn timber so when my chasis arrives i will be replacing the mounts.
|
|
|
Metal Hippy
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
I know where to lay my hands on some nice sized lumps of oak....
Thanks for the tip....
Cock off or cock on. You choose.
|
|
|
robinbastd
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
Oak? Pah,you want Lignum Vitae. 
Ian ( for once I think I know what I am talking about)
Only a dead fish swims with the tide.
http://smuttygifts.com/
|
|
|
Metal Hippy
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 10:53 PM |
|
|
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs_lignum_vitae.htm
Cock off or cock on. You choose.
|
|
|
robinbastd
|
| posted on 23/11/03 at 11:35 PM |
|
|
Its laxative greenish-brown heart-wood should not be confused with other hardwoods of Australasia that also have the name "lignum
vitae."
The wood, the hardest in commercial use, is so loaded with these fats and resins that objects made from it are self-lubricating and nearly impervious
to water. Until the advent of high quality plastics, lignum vitae was the material of choice for such items as pulley sheaves, machine bushings, and
propeller shafts for steamships. It has also been used to make axles, bowling balls, chisel handles, mallets, and other objects that must absorb great
stress- sounds like it's made for the job!
Excuse the blatant nedding
[Edited on 23/11/03 by robinbastd]
Only a dead fish swims with the tide.
http://smuttygifts.com/
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 24/11/03 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan B
Ah James...ever the diplomat...
Why thankyou Sir!
As regards getting good wood:
I preferred this bit:
"The wood was originally taken to Europe as a much-needed cure for gout and syphilis. The treatment for syphilis achieved great if misplaced
acclaim during the 16th century. It involved giving massive doses of the resingonen by boiling the wood-to patients who were wrapped in tight,
head-to-toe plasters and confined to very hot rooms for a month. During this time they received little food, but in addition to the resin, they were
fed large doses of mercury. Many died from this treatment; few, if any, were cured of syphilis."
And this is what they did to you when trying to be nice to you! Sounds more like some sort of elaborate torture to me.
Thinking about it, I've been to the London dungeons and seen some elaborate torture methods!
/shudder/
Cheers,
James
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 26/11/03 at 09:55 PM |
|
|
Various replies
Hellfire,
Answer 2 if you want to know. I really didn't think how bad that sounded until I read all the responses. Sorry to anyone offended. I can't
find any mention of the GT1 being made by anyone else other than MK. The MK website still quotes a price for the kit. Are you sure it isn't
still an MK?
Alan,
The nearest I can offer to a an example of my work, given that I'm a number crucher by trade, can be found on the Rolls Royce website. Take a
look at the EJ200 engine and you'll notice a triangulated latice reinforcing the outer skin. I did a lot of FE analysis work on that feature and
also managed the test programme for it at RR. It was this project that really got me into the field of FE analysis. If you mean just cars then apart
from basic stuff like adjusting tappets and fitting exhausts on my own car I've done not a lot so far.
I admire MK for making their book chassis cars, they've done well out of it and have a good reputation, but I do think that the GT1 chassis
needs a bit of a rethink. It's not as if they are making a one off for their own ammusement, they are selling it as a race car and the chassis
is such a shame as it could be very good.
I have not done any work on the LMP chassis but it looks very good and even if it is a bit complex and OTT this paves the way for excellent handling
and leaves room for more powerful variants of the car. The Lotus 23 is a decent design, I have done the numbers on this one, and is probably long out
of copyright. Why not buy in or copy a part that isn't within your own expertise?
If I can dig out a picture of the GT1 chassis, it hasn't changed judging by the popquiz pics, then I'll post it and show what I'm on
about. I think this nice looking car at a great price deserves a great chassis.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 26/11/03 at 10:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cymtriks
I can't find any mention of the GT1 being made by anyone else other than MK. The MK website still quotes a price for the kit. Are you sure it
isn't still an MK?
If I can dig out a picture of the GT1 chassis, it hasn't changed judging by the popquiz pics, then I'll post it and show what I'm on
about. I think this nice looking car at a great price deserves a great chassis.
The GT1 is no longer produced, the design has not been sold to anyone else.
The picture on the Pop quiz thread is the unfinished new GT car, the chassis is about 30%complete, perhaps we should reserve judgment.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 27/11/03 at 12:20 AM |
|
|
Errm, you happened to mention the lotus 23 chassis - don't suppose you've got any details on it. It looks like thats heading to be my next
project or something similar. Any head start would be appreciated especially if you've modelled the chassis to do the numbers.
Cheers,
Mike
|
|
|
