Rorty
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
That's two notches for MX5 gear so far. It certainly sounds promising, though I have to admit, I've never even looked undernesth one.
Bob, you seem to have done quite a bit with the MX5 stuff, do you have any dimensions or useable photos of an upright (for the stub axle) hub and disc
etc. that I could use to make models of? I suppose I could model the stub axle from just the hub and bearings. What's the MX5 rack like?
I think I would still prefer to design the upright from scratch as it offers the most oportunities and fewer compromises.
For those who have fitted bodywork to their chassis; how much room is there between the angled front of the chassis and the nose cone? I'm just
wondering if I have any leeway for siting the wishbone mounts, or if I really need to adhere to the Book chassis dimensions.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
i think ive posted somewhere the picture of a hub , that was milled from ally and used a sierra hub , been used on darrians for a while now - i was
around when it was being developed
now to find that pic .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
here it is
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=19196
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Rorty
I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have
duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components. I am hesitant to suggest it but we
may be heading for a mid engined design to use all the available FWD parts that are around now. if not we need to look at a mechanical solution to
adapting an FWD set up to drive the rear axel, ideally this would mean a donor that allows the transaxel to be separated from the gearbox fo we might
need a torque tube rathr than a prop shaft.
Quite frankly you seem to be a man capable of thinking this one through with some help from others here but basically this will be anew car and might
start to look a bit different from the 7 we all know and love. What do you think?
Caber
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 11:37 PM |
|
|
Rorty - I have quite a few solidworks models of the mx5 bits, though these tend to be functional rather than photorealistic - holes in about right
place but outline wrong, you can have any of these. There are a few photos in my archive & on my website plus all the suspension dimensions and
some drawings in "edrawings" format.
The drawings do tend to be of my modifications rather than the real thing (eg my front upright has the TRE above steering arm) but I can get
dimensions of stock discs no trouble.
U2U me with any specific requests & I'll do what I can.
cheers
Bob
|
|
|
Bob C
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 11:44 PM |
|
|
Oh yeah - the rack: the common one is the power steering one, not ideal for a 7. They do a non-power one too (only common in VERY early mk1s) I also
believe the bones are shorter on the mx5 than the 7 so the rack middle is long for what we want. I used an escort rack shortened 3" with
4" track rod extensions on each side.
The mx5 track rod ends are bent back to cope with the crazy angle machined on to the steering arms.
cheers
Bob
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 8/11/05 at 11:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
...
I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have
duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components.
...
Caber
RWD:
Still plenty of RWD donors out there if you move beyond ford -
BMW - you can get a 320i with an MOT for less than <£500.
Volvo - some with the gearbox in the boot which is interesting, not sure how tunable the common ones are.
Porsche - 924's aren't insanely expensive these days
Sierra DOHC - put in a Zetec from a mondeo? but agreed they are going to dry up as well in the not too distant future.
FWD:
A midi-7 will tend to look like a Sylva riot, a bit rear heavy, but not too bad. Though don't go for the racing side-cage for a road car.
LC is brewing up something interesting (more ariel atom) here: http://www.mistrale.blogspot.com/
That's not including the more enclosed bodies being developed on the mid-engine forum.
[Edited on 8/11/05 by iank]
|
|
|
WIMMERA
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 01:48 AM |
|
|
Hi Lozec Have pics but no idea how to post them here,(computer illiterate) if you wish to give me your address will forward them, bear in mind that
they were made to reduce scrub radius without reverting to huge amounts of KPI which is a different criteria to this thread.
Wimmera
|
|
|
Lozec
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 02:42 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by WIMMERA
Hi Lozec Have pics but no idea how to post them here,(computer illiterate) if you wish to give me your address will forward them, bear in mind that
they were made to reduce scrub radius without reverting to huge amounts of KPI which is a different criteria to this thread.
Wimmera
You have U2U!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 04:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
Rorty
I have been thinking about this a lot recently due to the increasing scarcity of RWD cars in scrappies and those sierras that are left generally have
duff enginges (DOHC) I think it is time we started thinking about the Locost from scratch to use FWD components. I am hesitant to suggest it but we
may be heading for a mid engined design to use all the available FWD parts that are around now. if not we need to look at a mechanical solution to
adapting an FWD set up to drive the rear axel, ideally this would mean a donor that allows the transaxel to be separated from the gearbox fo we might
need a torque tube rathr than a prop shaft.
Quite frankly you seem to be a man capable of thinking this one through with some help from others here but basically this will be anew car and might
start to look a bit different from the 7 we all know and love. What do you think?
Caber
Because the Seven shape is now iconic, I doubt if the Locost as we know it will ever die.
Building a mid-engine sportscar in the same vein as a Locost from modern components would be far more appealing to me, but that's a complete car
you're talking about then. Perhaps next Christmas.  I already have a few partially completed tube frame mid-engine designs from years ago
which could be revisited.
Was the Golf engine ever fitted in-line in anything popular? I'm still keen on Golf/Jetta stuff because of the interchangeability of the brakes
etc. and global dispersion.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 05:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
Oh yeah - the rack: the common one is the power steering one, not ideal for a 7. They do a non-power one too (only common in VERY early mk1s) I also
believe the bones are shorter on the mx5 than the 7 so the rack middle is long for what we want. I used an escort rack shortened 3" with
4" track rod extensions on each side.
The mx5 track rod ends are bent back to cope with the crazy angle machined on to the steering arms.
cheers
Bob
That's a pity, but I'm not surprised. I think we'll just have to raid a number of different parts bins to sort this out.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 05:15 AM |
|
|
I've just had a thought; as I'm pretty much resolved to doing an upright from scratch, what about using the rear hubs and disc from
basically any rear disc-braked set-up? As long as the disc isn't much smaller in size to a Cortina disc, it should be OK. And of course, any
calliper could be used.
Here I go again with Golf stuff, but IINM the mid 80s (and possibly later too) 1.3 and 1.5 Golf's rear disc is the same fitment as the front
(both 10mm thick) and some larger and ventilated front discs from later models fit the front hubs. Soooo, if that's true, then it should be
possible to create a new upright and stub axle and fit the Golf rear hubs with whichever front discs people want. Again, callipers can be varied, but
perhaps Golf (to match the discs) or Wilwood or whichever.
I read on another thread where Quintin Hazell are stil producing new Escort racks and seemingly there are a few quick rack kits available for them
too.
If they are going to remain a current item, then they would be quite a good option. As most people seem to lob about 3-4" out of the Escort rack
it would make sense for me to make the Escort rack fit in its standard length. This would bring the front and rear track widths closer to equal too.
I'd have to compare a few drawings to make the best of it all.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
BradW
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 07:36 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Yes the MX5 is a World car, but here in South Africa it's not that common, finding one in a scrap yard would be very rare.
Rorty, the Golf idea is good, there are thousands of them here, in fact the Citi Golf is manufactured here, basically it's a Mk I (or II
I'm not too good on my Golfs) Golf that never died.
One thing talking about rear hubs though, on the Golf aren't the wheel bearings built into the brake drum or something?
Using the Sierra track the Escort rack fits in nicely on the 'inboard' side, and rack extensions to the steering arms are an easy
solution.
I deal with QH and they can supply both standard and Quick racks new. Even here in SA we can also get cheap 'Chinese' Escort steering
racks brand new.
As to a FWD to mid engine car, yep that is something that keeps going through my mind, but I agree with Rorty the 7-style Locost will continue,
I'll look forward to next Christmas Rorty :-)
Brad
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 08:03 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BradW
As to a FWD to mid engine car, yep that is something that keeps going through my mind, but I agree with Rorty the 7-style Locost will continue
What, something like this?
 
Gecko model with silver sides
Haven't made alot of progress in the last 12-18 months but things are getting back on track now.
Dominic
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 08:53 AM |
|
|
I see several trains of though colliding here.....
See here
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=30627
and here
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=33978
Go for it Rorty on the uprights, I'm starting to be very glad I haven't finalized my front end yet
Cheers
Fred WB
[Edited on 9/11/05 by Fred W B]
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 11:29 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BradW
One thing talking about rear hubs though, on the Golf aren't the wheel bearings built into the brake drum or something?
Using the Sierra track the Escort rack fits in nicely on the 'inboard' side, and rack extensions to the steering arms are an easy
solution.
Brad
You're quite right, the Golf rear disc also carries the bearings. Might still work if the diameter is OK.
I thought the Escort rack was too long and produced loads of bumpsteer? If the geometry is wrong, simply fitting tie rod extensions to join the dots
is a shonky practice in my books.
Does anyone have reliable dimensions of the Escort rack? I'd like to examine the rack in conjunction with Locost front geometry.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 11:32 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fred W B
I see several trains of though colliding here.....
No fears. A middy Locost replacement is the last thing on my mind at the minute. Hopefully someone else will do the honours.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
Brad, we're both right. The later Golfs have separate hubs and 256mm vented
discs, which look like they may very well fit the bill. I'll continue to research the hubs. I know the bearings are a single, twin row
radial ball bearing, as I have one sitting around the office here somewhere. I've used them for a number of projects because they're a
nice pre-loaded and press fit and circlip fitment.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Rorty wrote:
No fears. A middy Locost replacement is the last thing on my mind at the minute. Hopefully someone else will do the honours.
No, no, don't get me wrong. I mean its a good thing that all seem to be heading in the same direction - towards designing a midengined
"newcost".
Rorty, I have both a Escort rack and golf (unvented disc) rear hub/brake assemblies in my car/garage - what exactly do you need to know?
Here you can see my very rough mock up of a attempt to improve the Cortina KPI / scrub radius, using Escort Rack
 
Front suspension mock up
Cheers
Fred WB
[Edited on 9/11/05 by Fred W B]
[Edited on 9/11/05 by Fred W B]
|
|
|
andyd
|
 posted on 9/11/05 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
Rorty, any good to you?
Not sure how accurate this is of course as it's from another site.
Andy
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
shortened sierra rack ? the high ratio ones are available from rally design .
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
BradW
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 02:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rorty
I thought the Escort rack was too long and produced loads of bumpsteer? If the geometry is wrong, simply fitting tie rod extensions to join the dots
is a shonky practice in my books.
Does anyone have reliable dimensions of the Escort rack? I'd like to examine the rack in conjunction with Locost front geometry.
Yep, I stand corrected, Checked the drawing and the pivot points show 582, comparing that to the QH rack I have in stock and it agrees.
Taking the book dimensions between the top mounting points is 594, and the bottom 418, then it becomes obvious the rack would need to be located just
below the top wishbone mount to be in the 'ideal' position.
However if we are using the Sierra track shouldn't we widen the front chassis, and hence wishbone mounts, then maybe the Escort will do,
although widening the track then brings into play other things like Ackerman angle etc
Has anyone checked the dimensions of the McSorley +4, maybe that might help.
Although we have now moved into a whole new chassis rather than just new uprights.
Where will this end :-)
Brad
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fred W B
Rorty, I have both a Escort rack and golf (unvented disc) rear hub/brake assemblies in my car/garage - what exactly do you need to know?
Fred, what vintage are the Golf items? Do they consist of separate hub and disc, or are they the earlier combined unit?
If the latter, then I'll give them a miss thanks, but if the former, then could I ask you to measure every width, thickness, diameter, PCD and
also let me have the bearing Nos. as well please. Do you also have the matching rear stub axle?
Big ask, but it would really help me sort this out.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 08:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyd
Not sure how accurate this is of course as it's from another site.
Thanks Andy, I'll boot my CAD puter and have a look at that. I'm sure it'll be what I need.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 9/11/05 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BradW
However if we are using the Sierra track shouldn't we widen the front chassis, and hence wishbone mounts, then maybe the Escort will do,
although widening the track then brings into play other things like Ackerman angle etc
Has anyone checked the dimensions of the McSorley +4, maybe that might help.
Although we have now moved into a whole new chassis rather than just new uprights.
Where will this end :-)
Brad
My point exactly, though the front track doesn't necessarily have to be the exact same width as the rear.
I think a proper job of the front end can only be done by altering the front of the chassis (given the width of the Escort rack). Whether that works
out to be a full 4" wider remains to be seen, but it would be perfect if it did work out so, because there are already sources for 4"
wider nose cones.
I'm not concerned about the effect of widening the front of the chassis on Ackermann, because, if I'm scratch building the uprights, then
I have the opportunity to play with the Ackermann angle.
I asked previously about the relationship of the nose cone with the front of the chassis as I would like to modify that awkward and damned ugly
frontal area of the chassis to try and make the positioning of the wishbone brackets a bit easier for constructors.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
