Am interested whether the new Haynes Roadster is a real advancement over the old Ron Champion vehicle.Has anyone finished or later stages of a Haynes build to say whether it is the way to go...the old Champion vehicle is so well proven and parts easy to obtain I am tempted to build the older design.

I haven't built a haynes roadster but that would be my choice.
I would base my choice on parts that are easier to source and having the self centering sorted...............

Roadster as Chris has done a grand job with the book..

I'd have to say Roadster, a number of changes make it a better chassis, and from a visual point of view i think it looks better proportioned to the Sierra parts. A standard Locost with extra wide arches doesn't look right.

If i was building a Locost it would have to have a narrowed de-dion to look right.

Just my opinion.

Regards

John

personally i think it may boil down to how much you are willing or feel able to fabricate.

Fabrication wise the older locost deign requires a bit less fabrication than the roadster - basically the chassis (can be bought as a pre-cut kit), wishbones, can also be bought ready made, and some bits and bobs to the rear axle assembly.

The roadster requires IRS (just more wishbones really) but the just looking at the rear hub carriers was enough to scare me off!

So really the Locost is a simpler design so would probably be better suited to somebody who has never done anything like this before (another reason I'm basing mine on it) but as Trton said, Chris Gibbs Book is very helpful, also Chris himself frequents both this and the Haynes roadster forums so he's not far away if you need help or anything explained further.

At the end of the day it's your build, your car - do whatever YOU want to do - that's the beauty of building your own car from scratch.

i went for the haynes. so far the build has been very easy due to the book being very good compared the old one (make sure you get the second edition as it has 99.9% of the amendments in it).

there are plenty of people out there like 3ge triton armoto etc all producing loads of cool bits already. plus you have the backup that chris the writer is on most of the kit car forums daily to help out and that mk engineering had a hand in its design

the other big bonus for me was that other than the steering rack its all sierra parts meaning hubs brakes etc etc are much easier and cheeper to come across/replace as time goes on.

A lot more thought has gone into the suspension mainly irs but remember the design has been tweeked and optimised using one of those magic box puter things to improve bump steer and ackerman etc etc. also 3ge do an inboard shock/spring rocker suspension setup for it making it very appealing.

Locost - its the right size!

I find all the larger cars (MK / MAC / etc) too big. They just don't (to me) look right.

Therefore Locost every single time. I'd then get de-dion rear axle. Its easy enough to do and if you need help with any dimension i'll happily measure it.

I'd still get Chris's book as its excellent and any time you're wondering "hmmm, how should i do that" its 90% likely its covered in chris's book.

Don't go large - go right!

p.s. i'm 6'3" and i fit with room to spare in the locost chassis. The trick is not to use one of those huge seats but to make one out out foam and mould it to your body. You'll get a much comfier and better fit meaning you get more sensation out of the car.

Fabrication wise the older locost deign requires a bit less fabrication than the roadster - basically the chassis (can be bought as a pre-cut kit), wishbones, can also be bought ready made, and some bits and bobs to the rear axle assembly.

The roadster requires IRS (just more wishbones really) but the just looking at the rear hub carriers was enough to scare me off!

If it were me I'd go Haynes because of donor availability and the lack of screwing around trying to make things fit that don't... With all due respect though, the nosecone is not the best feature. I much prefer the Caterham or Locost ones.

I have gone the Locost route- I prefer the smaller car and when your trying to keep the weight down every little counts.

I have started building my locost some 6 years ago. I find the Escort parts/ cortina uprights are difficult to source, hence the price is high. Same goes for my 1.6 Kent engine. Cost me a lot of money and a month argueing with my wife!!

If I wanted to build another one, it would be with IRS, more Sierra parts and a modern engine, possibly BEC...

Maarten

Edit: Note that I live in the Netherlands, so maybe that's why the Ford parts might be more difficult to source than in the UK.

[Edited on 13/11/08 by maartenromijn]

Too be honest I prefer the Caterham but they are silly money and as I'm a tad short and weigh nowt the Locost suits me better but everyone seems to be getting bigger these days so Chris making the Roadster 2" wider was a canny move.
With the lads at 3GE doing inboard suspension it shows there is commitment from suppliers even though the Roadster is still the "new kid".

The kit Industry needs to be doing the weird and wonderfull not just 7's and Cobras....I kinda like the Outspan Orange car...

Mark

A road legal fibreglass pastie would be a giggle but intstead of beef and other weird stuff inside it would need to have a bike motor...

Dont be nasty.....eat Marks Pastie swap u for a jock pie??? standard fare at footie matches up here???? Or even better a Killie pie, makes yer pasty look way inferior
Shug

Shug,
Have you heard from Gig lately? Be nice to know how he is doing as not heard from him in ages.

Some pasties are good but some are really bad and safer to have a kit kat instead...

Mark

Iv gone for haynes roadster because it is an advancement of the original locost and there are less errors in the book. Also you can use pretty much any donor. Im using a Jag

quote:

---

A lot more thought has gone into the suspension mainly irs but remember the design has been tweeked and optimised using one of those magic box puter things to improve bump steer and ackerman etc etc. also 3ge do an inboard shock/spring rocker suspension setup for it making it very appealing.

---

Hi Syd,

Some interesting points there, just a few observations of my own.

I'm sure you're used to designing racing chassis, in which the ultimate is possible but in a project such as the Roadster I have to take account of the sometimes opposing requirements of cost and complexity, in short I have to take account of a potential builder's budget and skill level.

For road use, the chassis is adequately strong and this has been tested by FEA. It's not perfect, and no doubt it could be improved if, as I said, you're looking for the ultiumate. I'd also reccomend the ADR modifications, whilst bearing in mind that just adding all the ADR tubes would, in my opinion add a lot of unnecessary weight. If the builder is hoping to use their car to the extreme, hopefully they would be able to get such modifications from the internet.

The same goes for the suspension, not the ultimate but, again, in my opinion, very good for road use. The Akerman is set by the use of Sierra upright with the cast in steering arms, It would be difficult to alter this without moving to a bespoke upright - cost/complexity again.

The fact that people have been trying to design the perfect suspension for a hundred years and there is still no definative solution made it unlikely that I would discover it!

Nobody's perfect and a book of this type is a very difficult undertaking, and I think we've done pretty well.

I apreciate the constructive comments and I'd love to meet up one day and talk suspensions, I find it utterly facinating, more than is healthy I suppose.

Who knows we might come up with the perfect suspension and become billionaires!

Cheers

Chris

Don't lose sleep over it: you can't design a copy of a 1959 car and expect to have 2008 F1 level suspension geometry. Although tossing in a bit of CF never hurt anybody anywhere but the wallet.

F1's don't have 'suspension geometry' these days. Just bits that hold the wheels/hubs out in the open. It's 99% in their tyres.

The Roadster...A few extra diagonals would weigh stuff all, not add to the complexity, and help prevent a Westfield type catastrophe.

Cheers,
Syd.

I've got to ask - what's a Westfield type catastrophe?

it is rumoured that westfield may have made a car that has fractured around the diff mounting tubes. This car may then have been badly repaired by westfield (and costing the ownwer for the bad repair when they originally said it would be free).

On the other hand welding a bit of what looked like angle iron (but may have been a bit of FEA designed strengthening - i don't know and westfield never commented) onto the chassis and leaving hte original fractures open to the elements may have been the best possible way to repair the car for long term durability. I'm not an expert in these things, just a city and guilds qualified welder.

I have heard it said that the owner was they VERY unhappy to later discover the front of the chassis tube on the top right completely cracked in two and hte top left cracked.

Of course i can't point you to any threads as the westfield boardroom locked them.

approximately, aledgedly.