CAD forecasts it to weigh ~350kgs, but I'd say less than 400. It is a bit heavier than Jedis and the like due to the nature of the chassis style. Most of the chassis is hidden under the panels before anyone says its not triangulated! Its designed for an R1 engine. Pushrod suspension all round with constant 1:1 motion ratios, but an alternative set of rockers can be fitted to experiment with rising rate. All CAD designed with each tube file producing laser cutter files.

Project put on hold due to new house, baby, lotus elise, etc etc.

Would still like to see it made one-day though.

you know its cool!

Cool, but expect to have a chat with Ariel's solicitors if you tried to put it into production

Rollbar looks a little higher than necessary, but I'm sure you've measured it and I'm talking rubbish

looks good, go for it.

I'm sure Ariel don't have a monopoly on tubular steel spaceframes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammerhead
looks good, go for it.

I'm sure Ariel don't have a monopoly on tubular steel spaceframes!

---

I was only ever doing it as a one-off, rather than a production, so it didn't really matter.

I think they'd have a hard time pinning you down over it though.

Make it a bit longer & hide the tubes & it's a Furore!! But I promise I won't sue, it's also quite similar (p'tic with the R1 engine) to the new MK Sprint - but much prettier!

Surely copyright wouldn't be an issue if you just sold the plans (say, for instance, to me!)

Looks very nice though!

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank
No they don't but they might well have registered the design and have a design copyright for curved top rails with a zig-zag of smaller tubes on cars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammerhead
looks good, go for it.

I'm sure Ariel don't have a monopoly on tubular steel spaceframes!

---

No they don't but they might well have registered the design and have a design copyright for curved top rails with a zig-zag of smaller tubes on cars.

To my eye it's been inspired in that area by the atom. So I believe solicitors would become involved if you tried to sell it - not saying they'd win, but caterham have been winning for years in similar cases.

---

Rescued attachment cars.jpg

The curse of having a basic understanding of intellectual property It's getting completely off topic, but here you go if you are interested.

May I refer you to Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

Bottom line is if there is a clear function you can't protect with a copyright, you would need a patent.

If it's form i.e. artistic (book, poem, picture, font, sculpture, design etc.) then it's protected by copyright.

It's up to a judge/jury to decide if it's a "copy" which is pretty much having a look at two photos and comparing similarities.

In this case (IMO) it's artistic as their is no function to having a curved beam in a spaceframe (for strength you want them straight and a straight beam wouldn't be protected unless it was decorative )

All pretty much irrelevant unless you start distributing them.

Zig-zag of smaller tubes?

I believe that is called triangulation..

A basic and very worthwhile engineering practice.

Just teasing, but I take your point....I'm also building a curved tube frame right now...even built my own tube roller to do it an works very well...

There looks a lot of ornamental tubing on there, not specifically doing anything towards the overall strength of the chassis, pretty pointless I think.

I'd like to see your tube roller Alan. Sounds like the sort of thing I will need when I make my artistically decorative copy of the Atom!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammerhead
I'd like to see your tube roller Alan. Sounds like the sort of thing I will need when I make my artistically decorative copy of the Atom!!

---

Description

Description

Alan,

Do tell what ^^ is.

Ned.

Thats great Alan,

Do you have much control over the accuracy?

Did you buy the guides or have them made?

Thanks

How about this one.





Mind, the stadium was built before the Ariel Atom.

ahh so the football club could sue Ariel??

[Edited on 1/12/06 by Hammerhead]

Accuracy...yes very good...you can wind on a very small increment of radius change when you get close to size. I just drew out the bend full size to check the radius against (90" in this case, with around 6" straight at each end)

I assume you are refering to the wheels?...thay were bought from a eng supply company (www.mcmaster.com) and later the vee was modified to match the tube better.

Ned, I'm not sure what ^^ means?..if you are asking what I'm making, it is a kind of Atom inspired 3 seater using a mid-mounted Honda V-TEC (can be seen in the backround......just a little fitting in job before I back onto the Meerkat...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammerhead
ahh so the football club could sue Ariel??

---

The chassis looks very complicated in that picture, so this picture shows it to be a bit simpler. The majority of it is 1.5inch 18gauge CDS. Overall it weighs 63Kgs including the nose, sidepods, rollbar and so-on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammerhead
ahh so the football club could sue Ariel??

[Edited on 1/12/06 by Hammerhead]

---

Look in the direction of the pointy things, no not those pointy things pervert, the ones in the writing.

Mr Ed,

That chassis looks like a good design. Did you use solidworks?

Yup. Nice package!

Far too complicated and expensive to make.

Looks like you've been busy Mr. Ed

Did you design the uprights? they look like ADR 1000 ones to me.

Good to see someone having a bash

Nice one!

Well spotted! They are indeed ADR uprights.

As for difficult to make, it is actually very easy. As the tubes are all laser-cut they all have castellations in the ends, and corresponding slots where they mate to other tubes. It all slots together and to a large extent self-jigs. And the only fibreglass on it is the engine cover.

So in my books it is easy to make, and wouldn't cost any more than any other 7-alike.

[Edited on 2/12/06 by mr_ed]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_edAs for difficult to make, it is actually very easy. As the tubes are all laser-cut they all have castellations in the ends, and corresponding slots where they mate to other tubes. It all slots together and to a large extent self-jigs. And the only fibreglass on it is the engine cover.

So in my books it is easy to make, and wouldn't cost any more than any other 7-alike.

---

quote:

---

I won't even start on the wisdom of curved (AKA pre-failed) chassis tubes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by russbostSo, the Atom chassis has "failed" as have all of our roll bars!! Don't remember that from my college days.

---

Curved rails in a space frame are a really bad idea if you want torsional rigidity in a struture. The atom gets away with it because it is a combination of tubular and monocoque construction.

All memebers in a spaceframe should be loaded in pure tension or compression, by putting a bend in the tube you convert this to a bending moment, which tries to bend the already bent tube even further. If you want to use bendy tubes as decoration, make them no strutural and thinwall aluminium. But its not a brilliant idea (from a performance point of view) to use bendy tubes as a strutural member.

Nice design, non the less, and it will work, just dont expect a particularly rigid chassis at the end of it, or at least one which is not as rigid as it could be.

David

Hm beter build an atom ant this formula 1 stile spoilers ar making it wery hm not cool for me at least

Looks like wembley stadium is in trouble then
There is no monocoque in an atom. The floor pan is just a fibre skin that keeps your feet dry.

Chassis upside down:


Close up of seat mounts:


Floor "tub" :



[Edited on 3/12/2006 by nitram38]

I like the design, but it seems either too tall or too short..? Either way, the proportions look a bit off to me..

I agree about the bent "pre-failed" tubes. However, if two bent tubes are in parallel, and diagonals added between them, I think and disadvantage goes away.

BTW, try finding a table for bent tubes in a strength of material text book. It would be hard to find. As others have said, a bent tube is MUCH weaker than a straight one, so you have use a bigger, heavier tube to make up for the bend. Or, do as the Atom did, basically making a bridge truss, which is very strong.

I'm annoyed I didn't come up with the Atom chassis design. It's brilliant.

If a bend is weak, then why throughout engineering are all supporting structures curved?
Look at any bridge or archway.
Careful design can make curves stronger than straight material.
For instance, take a piece of square box and bend it over your knee, then try the same with round tube but with a curve.
I am now going to suggest you try to bend it against the arch and not in the same direction as the curve.
As long as both ends are held with something so that they can't spread, the arch is stronger than flat box and can be loaded up more in that plain.
Take two opposing arches and brace them so that they oppose each other, and you now have a stronger structure than two parrallel straight box sections.
Think about bridges and you will understand what I am saying.
Hope that all makes sense!

On the design. I don't like it for various reasons, mainly it looks like cad design gone mad. I think if you keep going with it though it will get better. I've restarted my design more times than I can remember and each time its got better.

On bent tubes. Axially in compression bent tubes are useless its as simple as that.

If you look at the stadium or the atom you will see that the curves are of sufficient radius that the elements between the nodes on the triangles can be considered essentially straight.

The other thing is Architects and car designers draw whatever stupid shape they want (Pontiac Aztek fro example) and then a room full of Engineers has to actually make it work.

The bent tubes are basically just cosmetic on my car, as you can see it still has a substantial chassis even without the upper banana rails and the sidepods. Thought about making them out of 20gauge steel but found the weight saving from doing so was less than a couple of kgs.

Leave them out then and save the weight, that's the idea of sports cars isn't it?

Like I said, I dont expect it to appeal to everyone, but I feel you're somewhat missing the point!!

Conversations here tend to wander off of the point I've found, only having been here a few weeks myself.

To respond to your poll, too me it's uncool I think the whole road going formula car thing is just never right aesthetically.

Please feel entitled to rip lumps out of my design when I get balls enough to post it all.

Sorry to be "off thread", but I'm with Nitram on the bent tubes thing. Strongest 2d structure is a circle & strongest monocoque is a sphere. I think the problem here is that too many people have spent too long with CAD programmes & think that means they could actually design something!!
Anyway, back to the thread, how can the whole roadgoing Formula thing be wrong aesthetically - I could produce a car which is an EXACT copy of a current F1 car (within mm) & make it roadgoing - would that be "aesthetically wrong"?
At least Mr_Ed has had the cojones to design something for himself rather than following the herd blindly like many do!

Design is compromise.
Whenever you design a car, there will always be some sort of "fault" that cannot be ironed out.
Designers have always looked for the "perfect" car.
When you actually design and build a car, there will always be some one who will poo poo the idea.
My car is not a 7 and for a few reasons ( not bashing them in any way! ).
Firstly the design has been around 40 years and this is the 21st century (perhaps a few more improvements needed even if it is aerodynamics).
Secondly there are too many of them and the resale value is a lot lower than they cost to build (most of the time).
Thirdly, people hardly notice them now along with porches etc as they are common place.
I appreciate that a locost builder has to be more inguinuitive than the catering van brigade and that is why I am a member here and not on blatchat!
Innovation takes guts, commitment and money as you might have to do things 2 or 3 times to get it right.
I know that people want to build their own car and the book locost is an ideal start, but some people have moved on from the building of someone else's design and want to build something truly unique.
Go for what you want Mr_Ed. You are the only person that you need to satisfy.

I agree completely with the last post, really the only person who needs to like it is whoever's building it (unless of course you want to sell it).

Personally if I were driving around in a F1 or any other formula replica on the street I'd feel like a complete arse. But thats just me.

The nature of this forum is we're all doing are individual thing and one mans vision is the next guys pile of poo, and whatever you or I create we cannot expect universal acclaim for.

Individuality is great, when you see something you don't like it's confronting, you should think about why you don't like it and learn from that.

Two comments:

- Absolutely agree on the personal preference issue. At the end of the day most of us here (particularly in the mid-engine forum) are building for ourselves rather than having to meet the (lowest common denominator) desires of a customer base. If you're building something that satisfies your desires then other people's aesthetic opinions are neither here nor there. Structural/engineering advice is something else however.

- Bent tubes per se are not a problem. Bent tubes in a space frame are. A true space frame should have all members loaded only in compression and tension. By extension, that means straight elements between nodes and all loads applied and reacted through the nodes. Yes, curves can be very strong - just not in a space frame.

The Atom is a quandry. It looks absolutely fantastic and it obviously goes very well. I suspect they get away with a lot by using quite large diameter tube for the longerons and fairly large bend radii which results in almost straight loads paths along the truss work. Would it be stiffer if every curved section was replaced with a straight one? Maybe (although there'd be a lot of extra welded joins which might reduce the overall stiffness and would certainly make it slower to build). Would it look as good? Almost definitely not Is it an acceptable engineering compromise? They seem to have no trouble selling them and no-one is complaining about the performance


Dominic

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.
I agree a true spaceframe should be built from straight tubes. A true spaceframe would not need welding & could simply be pinned together by a bolt at each joining point (I believe that is basically the definition of a "true" spaceframe). However none of us are building true spaceframes - because we are welding each joint this changes the nature of the structure as a whole, making it far stiffer, & in this situation bent tubes are not (necessarily) a problem. This is why the Atom design is stiff & works well.
If you took an upper & lower chassis rail, both straight, & welded in a series of circles along the length (bit like the Audi badge, but with the circles touching) this would be extremely strong, but the only straight tubes would be top & bottom.
Back to the thread, I'd like to see Mr_Ed's car on the road!

Interesting debate, and one in which I have some extreme interest (see other thread).

Whoever used the word compromise was dead right. Yes, in pure spaceframe theory bent members are a no-no, but in reality, with welded joints (as mentioned) and numerous diagonal members which effectively create pseudo-nodes (cool made-up expression huh?) (also as mentioned) the picture is not so clear.

I'd guess the key factor would be the amount of offset from centre line between psuedo-nodes relative to the tube's buckling strength (Mr Euler anyone?)

I know that when I have finished mine there will be only small amounts of curved offset (chord?) between my nodes (real or pseudo)...