kb58
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 06:18 AM |
|
|
latest on the Attack
As some of you may recall, I was in a battle over on the Attack forum about how 1.6" of wheel travel was a really bad idea. I was flamed left,
right, and center, lectured about how I didn't know what I was talking about.
Turns out their spec was wrong... Due to an English translation problem on the manufacture's site, it's actually 4.9".
But guess what. Even in the admission of the goof, they still flamed me. The moderator also censored my post! Never in my life have I seen such a
one-sided, censored view of a product, where anything "contrary to the views of the church" is eliminated. What a pathetic way to
"support" a kit car.
The last issue was me pointing out that (in California) a non-DOT gas tank will make the car fail emissions inspection. The reaction?
"That's BS, prove it!" I pointed out that since they don't believe anything I say, how could I. "Call the Air
Resources Board, since you'll have to anyway before you start building, and ask them," I said. My post was removed.
Truely pathetic. Hopefully I've instilled some "self thought" over there, maybe a few will question the myopic teachings. If you
are interested in the car, try to find an independant source of information, other then that forum!
I'm done there... I don't like cults.
[Edited on 14/1/04 by kb58]
|
|
|
|
|
Spottty
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 08:29 AM |
|
|
"I dont like cults"
LOL 
I pretty much stopped even looking there too. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to monkey's! You say something and explain it
and they do their best to make you try and look wrong.
I think it's because there is a young following for that car, it must be the look. Not many younger people now want a historic car like a 7.
Best thing to do for a build....
Ditch the wife! 
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 09:27 AM |
|
|
nowt worse than close mindedness....
except close minded kids!
i'd go back in under a new name and keep up the campaign to open eyes!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
i was just thinking the other day i haven't been to that site for a while ...... hmmm, i think its time i revisited 
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 12:02 PM |
|
|
I don't know if age is necessarily the dividing line. There are a lot of young guys that post here who are as open-minded as anybody.
Speaking of age, I was floored when a twentyish fellow I was talking to at a Christmas party knew what a Locost is (they're generally unheard of
in the States). Turns out that a video game, Gran Turismo 7, features a Locost as one of the cars! Then a young niece knew what a Lotus 7 is from
another video game. There may be a new host of Seven fans coming up because the video 7s run the wheels off most everything else (as in real life)
Back to topic, it seems like there are slavish devotees in any group. Even in the Locost world, there are some builders who will not stray a jot from
the RC formula, not just because they want a "safe" build (which is OK), but because of what can only be described as cultic fervor.
Maybe at attackforums the lunatics are in charge of the asylum??
Pete
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't be too concerned Kurt (says me after a heated exchange on Locost N/A)..leave them to it, at least you tried...Thier chickens will
come home to roost......
(is that expression used here in the US?)
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
Just looked again.....
I don't see how...
"The whole suspension trajectory is only 4cm (1,57in)"
Can ever be 4.9".......
Not disputing you KB......just not convinced they really know themselves..
Still too many anomalies about whole thing really...also shocked to see how much frame hacking they are doing..
To much marketing hype for me....like..
"How safe is this car in the even of a crash, it has no crumple zones and the force transmitted to the drive may be high.
As far as tested on "AUTOCAD 2" PC program, yes, it is O.K."
WTF does that mean? Do they mean AutoCAD rel 2...from about 10+ years ago...purely 2D with absolutely NO analysis ability....
OR...
"Our custom made frame was finally tested by known american computer analyses specialist, and the results surpass even NASCAR regulations!
"
Erm...in what sense is that...??
Nope, still feels not right to me...
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 02:25 PM |
|
|
I raise a few questions along those lines a while ago. I've had a look at the forum again and to be honest, can't be bothered. I feel very
much like king kanute (guy who tried to stop the tide in case anyone can't figure out who i mean from my spelling).
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I know I'm wasting my time there, trying to change the world. In fact I feel a tiny bit childish even starting *this* thread. But
it's so frustrating seeing some people heading toward a cliff, ready to drop $16,000 on the kit, with seemingly no idea what it takes on the
*builder's* part. They seem to feel that everything has been taken care of by the manufacturer.
At least I tried...
Alan:
Yeah I know what you mean about the car specs. Check out the "qualifications" of their designers:
"The Attack was built be team of engineers and car racers. The “father” of concept frame finished the highest Education University of Industrial
Design – Transportation faculty. This gentleman works for AUDI and Volkswagen in Germany."
Doesn't the guy have a name? What was this school he attended? Does his degree actually have anything to do with chassis design? In fact the
way it's worded, it doesn't actually say he designed it... Sounds a bit evasive.
BTW, when I went to their FAQ,
http://www.euroworksltd.com/ATTACK/faq.htm
... to get the above quote, I see they STILL say it has 1.57" of total suspension travel!!!
Nice.
[Edited on 14/1/04 by kb58]
|
|
|
kingr
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 05:34 PM |
|
|
Jeez, what a scary FAQ, it looks like something Robin Hood would produce.
I especially like the part that says :
"We are working on the crash testes in Europe."
Well, they're certainly not going to use my testes for crashing!
I can't say I'm enormously enamoured with the though of chassis members being used a coolant pipes, certainly not for a road car.
Kingr
|
|
|
GO
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
Hmm... can't say I find that an appealing idea either, all you need is some muppet to change the coolant with just water... nice.
Made me curious about the chassis though, found this...
interesting.
cymtriks, I'd be interested in your opinions if you're about.
or anyone else for that matter.
the main rhombiod base bit looks pretty chunky but there's not much depth to the sides.
dont know if I like the engine bay either, I'd like to see some more crossbeams in there.
looks like they use struts at the back too.
cant see any obvious route for the coolant in there, can you??
[Edited on 14/1/2004 by GO]
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 05:56 PM |
|
|
Do they say they run coolant through the frame? I don't remember seeing that in the shots of the completed car, but who knows.
On the chassis design, it looks like it has very low torsional rigidity, but that may be faily common for an open-top two-seater.
[Edited on 14/1/04 by kb58]
|
|
|
GO
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
I am loving that FAQ though, its fantastic, you could rip it to pieces all day long.
This is my current favourite...
quote:
Q. Lastly, although I find the car to be extremely attractive I did have some criticisms, which I thought I might share with you. I find the shock
towers that protrude from the hood to not look good. Perhaps it is possible to have the shocks lower under the hood so that they don’t stick up, it
messes up the cars otherwise great looks.
A. This is the way we think they look "cool". We are progressively adding design features to things, which normally are just functional.
Isn’t it the same as with muffler or alloy wheels? Muffler is just an exhaust pipe, but why do you love to chrome it and advertise it as much as
possible?
so the looks of having the suspension sticking out the bonnet were more important than the geometry of it??
KB, I'm agreeing with you on the point that the site seems to say a lot of stuff that surely isnt true about the car and how it was designed, at
least I hope so!
[Edited on 14/1/2004 by GO]
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
I've already raised the point about the coolant (esp as Lotus used to do it till the FIA banned it). Seems the tube runs alongside the chassis
not in it.
I mentioned the point about the designer (but i think i only did it on here, didn't have the heart to do it on the attack forum).
What concerns me is the roll over protection. The rear hoops aren't braced (but its not that high i suppose) and the front frame almost looks
like its supposed to be structral .... errm.... should i wonder where thats going to end up should the car turn over - naah, bound to be fine, they
are crash testing it in europe!
Oh and crumple zones, that front section is braced right into the middle of the front of the main compartment
Damn, you're getting me started again  Luckily they are doing a racing version for europe so that will give us some more cannon fodder.
Oh, does anyone have any idea why they are crash testing this car in europe? Do they really think they'll be making more than 100 cars a year?
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
I knew I read that somewhere. I too refrained from questioning the designer's background over there...
Regarding crash testing, I think they get themselves off the hook by saying they "plan" to do testing. So if they do sell lots of cars
then they'll do it... otherwise, like you said, what's the point.
About the frame, yes, there are plenty of tubes that appear to meet at the center of other tubes. That doesn't look good structurally. But
again, I felt pointing that out too over there would make the situation go from bad to worse.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 14/1/04 at 07:49 PM |
|
|
well i must say, ive made my car with many tubes ending in the middle of other tubes. But the chap who designed mine has a degree (oops, in
biochemistry) so it must be ok, plus he is a keen F1 critic (many sundays in front of the telly!).
even i realised that mine was poorly designed, too late to change it but the lesson is now learned! at least i have 9 lives left!
their chassis looks pretty, as in square and finished, but the design might not be perfect as you guys point out. the crumple zone in particular,
appears to be around the drivers knees
[Edited on 14/1/04 by JoelP]
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 15/1/04 at 11:47 AM |
|
|
don't worry, about your knees, get the next one as an automatic with steering wheel controls
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 20/1/04 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
I placed an invitation on the Attack forum to visit here. I added this is an objective forum where many different design and construction issues are
discussed... not just a single "isn't it a great car" thread. Perhaps we can open some eyes.
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 20/1/04 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
Look out, Incoming!
Spyderman
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 20/1/04 at 07:22 PM |
|
|
Yeah you know... my antics have gone on long enough over there. I've removed the shortcut to that forum from my PC, in an effort to stay away
from such time-sucking silliness, which only drags me into things I end up not being proud of. I said what I needed to say, and if they don't
want to listen, so be it. I'll stick around here more, me thinks.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 20/1/04 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
Eeeek, i've been hoping that they didn't find this forum. I've seen interforum wars destroy message boards. Oh well, lets hope that
if they do come here, they read, think and critcise in a constructive manner as some of us have tried to.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 20/1/04 at 10:49 PM |
|
|
Oy!!!
Who said you could have an argument without my input?
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!
|
|
|
Broberg
|
| posted on 26/9/13 at 10:00 AM |
|
|
Hi! New user, And I'm sorry to revive an old thread.
But since the Attack kit-car is yet again available for sale from b-racing (http://www.b-racing.cz/en/)
I wish to debate the function of the frame with those who know more (I'm a complete newbie when it comes to frame design/construction).
What are the drawbacks with the front suspension?
Are there any advantages?
What improvements could be made to the frame to make it better?
What current issues does the frame have (just by looking at the design, I guess more detailed inspection is required to develop the answers more)
Here are some pictures of the frame
I need this discussion before dropping any money in a project of this size
|
|
|
geoffreyh
|
| posted on 28/9/13 at 11:19 AM |
|
|
Hi,
I'm definitely not a specialist and I don't know the figures belonging to this chassis but I'm a bit surprised to not see more
triangulation in some vital parts of the car. It looks like they are relying on the tube size to get some strength. The suspension mounting points are
horizontal beams and are on the top of the beams. If someone is would like to adapt the suspension, it might be an option to create connections
between the horizontal beams. Mounting points on top of the beam are sometimes tricky to hold kinetic forces. They need to be really well designed if
done like that.
KB58 from the Kimini car as well as the Midlana car writes a lot of good information in his kimini book and will probably do the same in the book
he's finishing at the moment. He is well informed and skilled and has good contacts to talk through his designs. You might want to have a look
over there to get some basic understanding. There are lot's of books over chassis and suspensions but I think his books bring a good general
overview.
Regards
Geoff
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 28/9/13 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
Tbh their car looks very professional and well put together
I'd love to own such a nice car, looks a damn sight stronger than a 7 chassis for a start
|
|
|
