sgraber
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 12:11 AM |
|
|
Yet another scratch built middy
This link showed up on another forum I frequent. Ford Taurus SHO (yamaha) powered.
This is a link - Click me
Very, VERY interesting frame design. I'd be curious to know how you designers react to this one! 
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 12:55 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the link Steve. That certainly is ummm.... interesting!? I'm going to assume there's extra tubes to go in those cockpit side
pods yet because, as they are, they might look strong but I doubt they actually are all that stiff, particularly in torsion. I wonder what the
eventual bodywork is going to look like to cover that?
The reuse of the Ford subframe looks like it'll work pretty well - I tried out the Corolla subframe in my chalked out frame and it's all
in the wrong places  That new rear wishbone is fascinating! Must be one of the widest base wishbones ever created But simultaneously,
extremely short effective length. If he's reusing the stock lower arm or something of equivalent size then there's going to be some
interesting camber control issues (to say the least).
Overall, it looks very interesting and I look forward to seeing the finished product.
Dominic
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 02:15 AM |
|
|
Hi guys....yes it is interesting, and a good choice of powerplant for the US market...
I'm always reluctant to comment on any frame designs until a) I'm told it's complete, and b) I see it all properly.....
(This doesn't mean I don't like it or I do like it, just hard to say yet)
Agree, about the wishbone, it IS wide, but should work although as you say Dom it is short....I found that was a problem with transverse
middys...somewhere to put an upper wishbone is a challenge....
Steve, do you know or chat with the guy?..maybe he would interested in this forum?
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 04:04 AM |
|
|
First I heard of him was this p.m. I have an email into him. By the looks of his website he seems to have some decent mechanical expertise. Ie- not a
complete yahoo like myself.  But Alan, you are right about the frame. Too early to tell.
Graber
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 09:27 AM |
|
|
looks single seater to me?! maybe hes just sat in the middle...
|
|
|
Hugh Paterson
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 10:00 AM |
|
|
Had a gander to see what all the fuss was about, going to be an interesting rear end body to cover that lump
Shug.
|
|
|
GTAddict
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 02:02 PM |
|
|
Oooh, I'm not so sure about the inclined side pontoons... there's a real safety issue there. If one of the vertical braces comes
dislodged at the top in a side impact, it's heading straight for the occupant. I don't think an observant SVA inspector would pass the
frame in the UK, although I don't have my manual to hand (being at work.)
Everyone hates a critic, but that's a nasty one I'd prefer to shout about.
As for the rest, looks sturdy - some of my American metal fabrication books show frames similar to this in material and style - NASCAR stuff.
I've seen that type of wishbone construction before, and I'm fairly sure it was a road car too. I agree with others here that it is a
little short. Not bad in bump, necessarily, but could be nasty in droop.
Mark.
|
|
|
violentblue
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 03:51 PM |
|
|
I'd be tempted to reuse the macpherson strut suspension on a setup like that, body design would be about as limited as its going to be by the
big engine.
definatly got me rethinking my choice in power plants though. I'm thinking it'll look nice when complete.
body style, looks as though it will be a faceted design (think stealth fighter) similar to one style I was thinking of doing.
a few pics of my other projects
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
I got stuck at the first sentence, about it being for autocross. For that reason the drivetrain is needlessly heavy; a lightly worked Honda/Toyota
could give the same power and save a lot of weight. Of course it'll be faster at an autocross then a normal car, but he'll be carrying
around a 100-200lb liability forever (nearly a 10% penalty.) There's nothing wrong with that drivetrain for ordinary driving, but autocross
applies rather harsh laws of physics as to what works and what doesn't. Weight, CG height, and width become paramount.
As for the frame... like Alan said, too early to tell. Torsional rigidity looks very low as is, unless he hasn't completed it yet. I wonder
where the shocks attach.
BTW, I see he knows something about handling. On the wall is a cart chassis, you can see the wheels. And that's a nice lathe, so he knows how
to build stuff.
To be fair I know a lot of people would look at what *I'm* building and say it's all wrong. Oh well, to each his own and I wish him well.
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 06:55 PM |
|
|
Gents,
Kurt B. was kind enough to let me know y'all were disecting my car. First, I just posted the car to my website a couple weeks ago. Up
'till now, only a few people were aware of it. I havnt had time to add any real description of whats going on with it.... hopefully soon. I
wanted to say thank you all for you interest and comments... its fun reading you guy's debate it Steve Graber emailed me for the first time
last night (car looks great, Steve!) and invited me to your site. I've only read a few posts, but it seems that you all are open minded and have
a passion for learning... very cool. Hence, I registered this AM. I am anxious to read more. Anyhow, glad to "meet" you.
To answer some of your questions, I'll try to clarify some things on my site this week.
Cheers, Ron Tyler
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 07:14 PM |
|
|
Ron, So glad you are here. Welcome to the best place on the net to talk about scratch built cars.
Graber
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 07:48 PM |
|
|
Guess I should confess that I don't know how heavy the SHO drivetrain is. The stock Honda Prelude engine/tranny was a disappointingly heavy
475lbs with accessaries. How much does is the SHO drivetrain?
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
Ron, welcome...
You've come to a good place...although most of us do have opinions (who doesn't) at least they are based on experience gained by getting
our hands dirty...
|
|
|
GTAddict
|
| posted on 6/1/04 at 08:12 PM |
|
|
Yeah, welcome, hello. Just joined myself. In fact, better introduce myself since I don't have a scratch-built to do it for me.
I'm Mark. I work with cars, but I've been toying with the idea of creating my own car since the early nineties. I even tailored my
degree to help me out - I took composite materials as one of my final year options.
Last summer, my better half decided she liked the look of the GTM Libra. She also likes the sound of a V6, so that was it. When I took a closer
look, the GTM is a seriously funkly concept - a glassfibre monocoque, no less - very similar to what I, ultimately, had in mind for my car.
Now we're sort of nearly finished (hah!) and my mind wanders back to creating again. So here I am lurking on the mid-engined thinktank site.
My idea for a car is a bit more Grand touring than most. A little bit of luxury (if not refinement) and a little more grunt (read, more than 2.5
litres) might suit me better than a lightweight screamer. The Libra is getting there, but it's very compact. I think I could design more
practical storage, longer range, and more go in something wider, lower and prettier.
Talk about blowing a trumpet. 
I look forward to chatting with you all. Hopefully, when I get a bit more sorted, I will be able to share my visions with you.
Mark.
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 7/1/04 at 04:31 PM |
|
|
All,
Thanks for the warm welcome. Been perusing your site. You guy's are building some pretty neat stuff.
To answer a couple questions...
Gecko... yes the upper arm is short. For obvious reasons it has to be. In terms of camber curves, its not as bad as you might think, due to the short
travel of the suspension (2" bump, 1.75" droop). For example, in full bump it gains only 1.25 deg neg. In droop it looses only about 2
tenths. RC is set at 2". My only complaint about the rear geo. is that the RC moves laterally by a significant amount BUT under autocross
conditions, that is relatively unimportant.
JoeIP... 2 seater.
GTAddict... The pontoons will be framed on the interior and all of the square tube gets stress skinned with alum. (the reason I choose square tube)
thusly enclosing the pontoons. I expect, after sheeting/bonding/riveting there will be a minimum of flailing tubes... that's the hope anyway
:-)
kb58... you are absolutely correct... a lighter, less powerful power train would probably be "faster" BUT I wanted a car that was FUN on
the street as well. Unfortunately I have a pretty big appetite for street power, ergo the motor may someday be supercharged. Realistically, if I were
building the car solely for autoX I would build it "to the rules". I am not. I am building a car tat suits ME (hopefully) and is COMPETENT
on course... but not necessarily a "class killer". Regarding torsional rigidity, as I stated earlier, the pontoons and bulkheads will be
boxed and skinned. I am confident that torsional rigidity should be at least adequate. Of course the desire is that it be downright impressive. Time
will tell. I visited your website... Kudos dude
--rt
|
|
|
suparuss
|
| posted on 7/1/04 at 08:10 PM |
|
|
hey ron, i hope you know now you are here you cant leave without a straight jacket and an escort of at least 5 psychiatric nurses!! we are all nuts
for doing what we do! 
Russ.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 7/1/04 at 08:21 PM |
|
|
Hey Russ...speak for yourself...
I'm as sane as the next guy...
Oh, I see what you mean....
Nurse......nurse.....
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 7/1/04 at 09:05 PM |
|
|
Hmmm... that explains the new twitch.
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 7/1/04 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
Holy crap. 99.9% of all threads on this board degenerate into some sort of lewd ending...
... I'm glad that I can be a part of it!
... A little to the left nurse....
ahhh...
that's better. LOL
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 8/1/04 at 01:09 AM |
|
|
I don't usually bother with the minor details, BUT I would like to know what you are going to fasten the rear coilover to Ron. There
doesn't seem to be anywhere to attach it to the hub or the chassis yet and very little space to accomodate it.
yours, Pete.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 8/1/04 at 02:07 AM |
|
|
"I don't usually bother with the minor details, BUT I would like to know what you are going to fasten the rear coilover to Ron. There
doesn't seem to be anywhere to attach it to the hub or the chassis yet and very little space to accomodate it."
Actually Pete, its not a minor detail ... All along I have been planning on welding a rocker arm on the back of the upper arm and mounting a
coilover to the rear crossmember of the factory cradle. Yeasterday it dawned on me that this won't work becuse it would load the rear hiem joint
vertically and likely would fail in that application. To answer you question.... I'm stilling working on a solution (got a couple idears in the
oven). The upside is that I chose to take a break from the rear of the car and start on the front... I roughed in about 80% of the front frame.
I'll update my site this weekend.
TTFN, rt
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 8/1/04 at 02:52 AM |
|
|
Yeah, it was similar for me wondering how on earth I could put some springs somewhere....but of course a solution did pop into my mind.....
Always good to have other bits to work on while you think things over IMO
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 10/1/04 at 12:25 AM |
|
|
Looks like you would be better off doing away with the top wishbone altogether, it doesn't look like it has enough travel anyway. Weld a turret
onto the top rail and use a Mcpherson strut. It will be easier.
yours, Pete.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 10/1/04 at 02:04 AM |
|
|
But a strut means he looses camber compensation...
|
|
|
rontyler
|
| posted on 10/1/04 at 04:26 AM |
|
|
Pete,
There's more than 2" travel (at the wheel). Also a strut is taller than I'm willing to accept.
thanks, rt
|
|
|
