Guys [and girls of course] just thought I'd join up and introduce myself, as a fellow nut with the Mid engined, mid life crisis.
I am in the process of building a track only car with a mid mounted Mitsibushi 4G63 2ltr turbo power plant, i have got to the stage of finalising
chassis design and its now all tacked together ready for final welding. plenty of pics of build todate here.
http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff257/stryka_01/
http://
look fowared to your opinions
Cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 29/1/08 by Kaspa]
Hi John, glad you took my advice and are sharing your work on here amongst fellow midi-nutters....looks great..
Alan
Thanks Alan , yeh i took your advice, even at our age all help and advice is welcome thats for sure, and this seems to be the place for both
Cheers John
[Edited on 29/1/08 by Kaspa]
G'day Kaspa,
Good to see you in here. This has become my usual hangout for mid-engined-ness now - OzClubbies is fine for local activity and parts but there's
much more middy builders here.
Dominic
Welcome to the loony bin - good to see we're getting a few more people who understand which end the engine is meant to go!!!
Welcome from me too.
You can tell the guys in the colonies, we have some space to work in
You might want to do yourself a favour, and make a sturdy bench on castors that you can position near where you are working on the chassis, so you can
put the tools and parts on it, so you don't have to bend down all the time.
We trust you are going to be adding a few diagionals around the engine bay?
Cheers
Fred W B
[Edited on 29/1/08 by Fred W B]
Hi guys thanks for the welcome , great to see some familiar faces , Dominic and Doug , from Aus ,
re more diags in engine bay , yes a few more have been added, i posted the wrong pic, it should be a stiff as a school boy on his first date now.
, lateste pics on the photo bucket site
Cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 29/1/08 by Kaspa]
welcome, welcome, welcome.
ditch
Looks fantastic - Please keep us updated!
Woohoo! another middy 
Is it an EVO engine you are using? what gearbox is bolted to it?
Looks great by the way.
Hi Graig, yeh its an evo 3, i have had to find and use a Sigma turbo FWD box, and change flywheel to suite, as cost of locking up the 3rd diff in 4WD
box was way over the top. otherwise its all pretty straight foward. only down side will be the rear COG will be a bit higher than i would have liked,
due to axe centre line on gearbox being below the crank centre line.
but its just one of those things you have to live with going this way i suppose.
should be a fun beast though, even with a min weight penalty in class of 700kg.
cheers Kaspa
spent acouple of hrs this arvo playing with seat and fuel cell. whats the concencos of opinion of having the fuel cell in behind the seat,like
this,
there will be a fire wall between me and the cell, also radiator, it will be angled in slightly ,but should i tilt it, or is it ok vertical.
some times you just cant see the forest for the trees, either that or i'm just getting old.
appreciate your thoughts.
Cheers Kaspa
The radiator would benefit from a 20 degree tilt as it apparently maximises the exposure of the fins to airflow.
The fuel cell is perfect where you have mounted it, keeping the weight central and low, but have you considered changing the shape to more of a wedge?
This would give a bit more clearance between your seat and maximise the space for a bit more fuel if required - that looks a bit 'sharp' up
against the seat like that, although I appreciate it will be behind a firewall 
[Edited on 30-1-08 by RazMan]
Thanks for that Raz, i should have known without asking, so a few degrees off the straight and narrow it is, Fuel cell is a 14ltr Jaz, and theres
about 30mm clearance behind the seat where its sitting temporarly.
getting there slowly,
one other thought for the masses, doing my rear wheel position mock up and oh dear its wider than i thought it would be, rear track will be 1620mm
with an overall on 10" tyres of 1880mm, at least it should go round cnrs, thoughts
cheers Kaspa
Best place for the fuel cell, keeps it nicely out of the way of impact damage. Nice looking project!
Could I ask you to chop your avatar to make it a little smaller though, it's taking up half the page on my screen and making things a bit...
cramped!
Kaspa,
Here's a smaller version (cropped and shrunk) of your avatar image - a bit more screen friendly.
Dominic
Rescued attachment JohnSteiner-1.jpg
Hi Kaspa, welcome to the forum!
The fuel tank is exactly where I plan to put mine, its ended up triangular in cross section to get it to fit nicely behind the seats.
My car is going to end up ~1950 wide, 2m is LMP max right? Qualify well and then weave!
One question I have is why theres such an apparent big gap between the front of the engine and the main roll loop?
Your fellow Kiwi John Britten had genius ideas regarding a lot of things and radiator location was one of them.
Somewhere in this picture there's a radiator 1/4 the size of what is normally used. Personally I think if ducted properly the orientation of the
radiator is irrelevant. But I am sure someone will be along shortly to disagree with me!
[Edited on 30/1/08 by Doug68]
Sorry about the Avatar size, i linked to the smallest one i had, thanks Dom, your a whizz, have loaded up your one , Monty looks much better.
Doug re gap, thats just what i ended up with after setting wheel base to desired length, it could have gone another 200mm fowared to get optimum seat
position, balance etc, but to late now. plus if i win Lotto i will have room to fit an Ftr box behind it, i wish.
so now i will have to make some new front wish bones and widen the front track, or it'll look and handle like a Billy cart, who said this was
easy, i just hope I'm still mobile enough to get into it by the time its finnished.
BTW in case your wondering what the car is in my Avatar, link to build diary here
http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r197/Monty155/
its a monster Fraser clubman with almost 300hp, and all the toys.
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 30/1/08 by Kaspa]
Hi Kaspa... I've been reading posts and catching up. great build you have going there. Are you planning to race it? Why I ask is that if you are
then you will need to have the roll protection certified. You probably know this.. but this can be a real struggle if you don't use a std plan
using specified materials. I got round this by just cutting off the half cage I had and getting a certified guy to weld in a new one. Your's is
integral with the frame... the best way to go... so it would be a real chore to have to replace it at some stage in the future.
Cheers, Brian
Brian , i agree on that one, thats why i had the cage made up by the guy in Palmy that dose them for Saker cars, its all to spec so shouldnt pose a
problem.
started the enviable chore of welding it all up yeserday, why did i fit so many tubes
guess what I'm doing this weekend.
Cheers kaspa
Deviating from the topic a bit.. Monty, the car in your avitar, could be run with either the "wedge" front end or a conventional 7 nosecone, I believe. How much difference did the wedge make in top speed and lap times on the track? Is this a good alternative for a 7?
Hi Brian, yes the wedgy splitter is a add on, we can still refit the orig nose for road use as its still a road car
we did one race at taupo with the orig nose and top speed of the end of the back straight was 19kph down and 6 sec a lap slower, so yeh it works, we
have taken a mould of it and they are available at a reasnable price if anyones interested.
have sold two already ,one to Auck and one to Aussie.
have made a bit of progress on the Mongrel, chassis is all welded up, and two thirds done with making new longer front wishbones, just one top one to
go
with a bit of luck il get that done tomorrow.
Brian if you look in the directory of the C.C.C., book [Spare Parts] you should find my ph number
give me a call re the splitter.
you can see in the back ground why we did the last race without the splitter, throttle jammed took to the grass and tore the floor off it b#gger,
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 2/2/08 by Kaspa]
that much difference with the wedge! That should make a few Locost build plans get an update.
Brian to give you a better idea, data off the data logger from turn 9 at taupo.
with splitter , 4th gear, 81% throttle 172kph, 1.6g
with out splitter, conventional 7 nose
3rd gear 88% throttle,151 kph 1.2 g and just starting to push.[understeer]
thats with a rear wing as well dont forget. but it dose make a huge difference. the biggest noticable one is the car dosnt get light and scary as
7's do at top end
cheers Kaspa
PS tried to ring you but keep getting Fax?
[Edited on 2/2/08 by Kaspa]
A bit more progress, chassis now all welded up ,thank god, no more alterations
stuck it on the scales and with steering rack, pedal box, front wishbones, gear change and cables fitted, 86kg, much better than i had hoped for.
considering i was a we bit generous with tubing. pluss roll cage is integeral.
one happy chappy
Kaspa
[Edited on 4/2/08 by Kaspa]
Kaspa, your rate of progress is making me ill 
What type of tube is the frame constructed from? I'd have expected it to be the blue painted GR350? The non-painted material we get here has a
good finish but is GR250.
What paint have you used on the front portion of the chassis?
James
"What paint have you used on the front portion of the chassis?"
Hi mate , just a couple of cans of brake caliper paint that was sitting on the shelf.
Doug, tubes are just 25mm seamed furniture tube, 2.6 mm i think, but roll bar and braces are FIA aproved roll bar tubing. its a helluva lot stronger
and stiffer than the original Stryka Chassis thats for sure, and it is yet to be panelled.
dont worry to much about progress , this is the easy part, ie little effort lots to show. now all the hard stuff starts, where no one notices a weeks
hard work
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 4/2/08 by Kaspa]
Just curious. Did you consider adding some diagonal members in the plan of the rear tubes from the top of the roll bar? I know these would need to be
removable, but they could well increase overall chassis torsional stiffness by several times. This would be especially effective if you could put a
diagonal or K-brace across the square under the engine. This would get you very close to a complete box made of triangles. You can't do better
than that.
[Edited on 5/2/08 by Ratman]
[Edited on 5/2/08 by Ratman]
HI Brian, i do intend to x brace the square under the engine, what i had in there i didnt like so ripped it out, and waiting for a couple of off cuts
to finnish off.
now i'm waiting for bits and peices to get machined up, 16 off, tube nuts for rose joints to wishbones, two rear uprites, and a couple of tie rod
extenders for steering rack, [wish i had a lathe]
and a trip to Auckland to pick up body moulds
dont think ill make whittakers some how.
cheers Kaspa
Not an awfull lot to report i'm afraid, progress has come to a hault while i still await some bits and bobs i'm getting machined up and rear
uprights. all ive done latly is remount the rad to the front of the chassis, well frame and ducting are done will have to get some mods done on rad.
and have finalised and mounted the sterring column, wasnt as easy as it looks butits done finaly.
one question i do have for the masses, i have weighed up all the options and it looks like an inboard front set up will be the only way ,
so question what rocker ratio should i use, 1-1, 1.5-1, 2-1, everyone i speak to gives me a different opinion, for different reasons, so who has used
what and how did they find the result,
i havnt got any shocks or springs as yet so total design is still free.
progress to date
await you thoughts on rockers
Ps as some of you may have picked up, the front end is an early Stryker, if that helps at all. Thats all that remains of the old chassis I'm
sorry to say [engine was at wrong end]
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 19/2/08 by Kaspa]
IMHO the thing is to get as much damper travel as possible out of the arrangement. This reduces the loads you'll be putting into the frame as
the springs will be lighter as a result of the ratio used.
The other thing is why do you feel the need to go with rods & rockers? Whats the intended benefit?
quote:
Originally posted by Doug68
IMHO the thing is to get as much damper travel as possible out of the arrangement. This reduces the loads you'll be putting into the frame as the springs will be lighter as a result of the ratio used.
Doug , going inboard because now that iv'e widened the front track the shock angle will be very accute to say the least.
also if you look at the above pic you will see theres not a lot of clearance between the fork of the top wishbone for a shock. let alone a spring.
the pluss is of course less unsprung weight and easier ride height adjustability.
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 19/2/08 by Kaspa]
I think I'd have to disagree about the unsprung weight.
If it's in between the wheel and the spring then then its unsprung, so the unsprung mass has to go up surely due the rod and other parts
added?
I assume in either case you'd mount the damper with the body of the damper bolted to the frame.
Oh dear the things we do, saw this for sale recently at the right price, and couldnt resist, so a change of plan looks likely, all set up for Subaru
EJ20T and trans, which are included.
its very well designed and built, comes with all CAD drawings etc for both chassis and body, a 1/4 scale model shown below
the chassis is missing a couple of diagonals in the front in my opinion but other wise looks very good,
front suspension set up, push rod with Konis, Mazda RX7 uprites and brakes etc,
Rear suspension set up to be completed, no shocks or push rods as yet
Cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 6/3/08 by Kaspa]
G'day Kaspa,
Can't help yourself can you 
Oh well, there no such thing as too many projects - just not enough time.
That 1/4 scale model looks interesting and very detailed. Is it made from tin-plate or something? (judging from the rust visible at the front) It
looks like an attempt (successful too!) to prove that you can make a good looking body almost entirely from flat planes and simple curves. Quite nice
- I'd be interested to see how it looks with a coat of paint.
Good luck with the new project - I look forward to seeing updates.
Dominic
Hi Dom, now you understand why when the boss said OK i jumped at it.
I havnt physicly seen it as yet but my mate inspected it [who has the Nemisis} and gave it the thumbs up so we bought it last night for a song.
i think the body model is metal and theres a model of the chassis under that as well. he has obviously done a lot more homework than i did with the
JRC, and the end product shows it.
i will get to see it next weekend when i go to Auckland for the next race meet.
cheers Mate
John
[Edited on 7/3/08 by Kaspa]
Hi Kaspa, that looks like a great buy, again there's room for another engine in between the motor and the roll frame.
Do you plan on keeping the Suby drive line or doing something else?
What are the class rules you have to work in BTW are ground effects forbidden?
and what are the 2 trays for in front of the inter-coolers?
Hi Doug trays are for two alloy fuel tanks which i wont use, no intention of enduro runs.
ground afects free tell me more , its physicaly the same size as a Saker so will be putting some serious thought into ground effects
will run with the subby 450hp cant be all that bad
Kaspa
Just harking back to the discussion above on inboard suspension. It seems to me there is no "unsprung weight" advantage as the inboard mechanism adds additional inertia to the suspension movement. One valuable part of an inboard system is to keep the coil/damper unit out of the slipstream in a car with open wheels or cycle guards. But to me the greatest advantage is that by using a bell crank it is possible to create a steeply rising rate to the suspension enabling the car to be set up with lower ground clearance. Curiously, the geometry of many bell cranks that you see are often set up to give falling rate... I wonder if the builders appreciate the opportunity they have. A negative feature of inboard systems is that you then have to accept full suspension loads at several points in the chassis structure. The bell crank fulcrum loads are higher then the coil over mount loads. To provide all this additional stiffness and strength adds weight. If it is not provided adequately then the chassis will distort under sever suspension loads and vibrations. On the other hand .. if you do an inboard system like a race car eg F1 .. then both of the struts are taken to a single unit which takes care of spring, damping and roll with hydraulics and computer control. this will save weight and add all sorts of advantages.. but not the sort of thing most of us can cobble together in the garden shed.
Kaspa, most classes these days say the floor in between the axle lines should be flat.
If thats not the case then you're free to make the side pods into wings.
To cut a very long story short to make the things work properly the car needs to be very close to the ground to make it work properly and preferably
the side pods need to be sealed against the ground preferably.
You'll need to a good deal of research to make the thing work properly. Staniforths Race & Rally Car Source book covers the development of
such a car he was involved in the design of.
I'm sure someone can give a better explanation of the subject than me.
correct Doug same for us , but front and rear diffuser designs are pretty much free, so will be putting some thought into that area, its a pity an
affordable wind tunnel wasnt available as we have a very accurate 1/4 scale model to play with, a luxery i've certainly never had before.. i
believe there are some simulation programs out there some where though, do no of or have heard of any of these.
btw i had a lot more pics sent to me this morning , if you PM your email ill send them over for you to have a look at , much more detail than what ive
shown you to date
cheers John
Doug i dont think we will have to worry about wind tunnel testing the body design.
it turns out Porsche have already done all that for us, the body is a copy of the TWR-WSC-95 le Man LMP1 car from 95-96 era.
the Black no 7 that won in 96
i bought everything home last night and am amazzed at the degree of accuracy in the build, hope i can keep the same standard in the completion
cheers Kaspa
well progress has been a bit slack lately, what with moving house and all, then having to find new job in new town ,not much time been spent in
shed.
but alas things are almost back to normal and i started on some minor work, but hey its a start.
also had a visit this morning from the designer and builder of the Saker, and for what its worth Bruce was very impressed, and pointed out a couple of
design features that i hadnt noticed,[ one, the whole of the chassis has been TIG welded] and has given it a 100%, he was also very interested in a
number of features that he wished he had incooperated into his cars, so that made me feel good, and after a couple of coffes and much discussion i now
have access to a top engine and gearbox combo to go into it, so that has been finalised.
am going to spend the next week or two getting the front bulk head , side and floor panelling done, which i started today, so when ive finaly got
something to show i will post some updated pics.
watch this space
Cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 27/4/08 by Kaspa]
Hi all, sorry to butt in, but is anybody else made nervous by that photo of Kaspa's rear suspension? I see several bending moments applied where
they shouldn't be.
Cheers R
Very observant there Mr R, whats still missing is a x brace between the front of the rear suspension pick ups , will go over top of bell housing, and
be removable, reason it isnt there yet is rear shock ,bell crank position hasnt been finalised, just waiting for Drawing from Andrew,
But rest assuerd the engine bay will be braced, and the bottom will have a 3mm alloy floor attached.
good to see eagle eyes are out there though,
cheers Kaspa
cool looking cars, sorry i havent been on in ages but thought id just show you how my build is progressing. i have now built a 6 litre ls1 engine for
my car should knock out 450 bhp this has meant replacing the renault gearbox and bell housing that i need to now sell for a porsche box , turns out it
was a 4wd so have designed and made an adapter to turn it into 2wd so have a porsche box now that cost me £500 car is progressing slowly but at
least its progressing any way the web site shows better as i could chat here for hours
www.minotaur-kitcar.co.uk
havnt posted much for a while but theres been a little progress, engine is in, as is new gearbox, tub is all paneled and seats in and shifter made and
working.
pics here if your interested
http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff257/stryka_01/Stanton%20WRC-95/
cheers Kaspa
havnt posted much for a while but theres been a little progress, engine is in, as is new gearbox, tub is all paneled and seats in and shifter made and
working.
pics here if your interested
http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/ff257/stryka_01/Stanton%20WRC-95/
cheers Kaspa
quote:
Originally posted by Kaspa
your right as chassis was originaly designed for a Chev, but i can assure you the EG33 thats in there now, takes up a lot more room that that little
EJ20.
cheers Kaspa
the tub looks fab
Havnt posted for a while as weather has been shocking , a realy wet and cold winter, so not a lot of time spent in the shed, but its finaly on wheels,
so last weekend was the first fine day for ages i wheeled her out for a couple of pics
what do you think.
front splitter done, [sitting beside wall in shed] removable braces on top rear of engine bay still to go in, and rear shocks still to mount.
getting there slowly
Cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 6/9/08 by Kaspa]
two very rewarding updates from the last couple of days, 1/ i solved my dilema about how to reposition or manufacture a new inlet manifold to fit
under the rear body work,as the orig was facing the wrong way and the high side was at the rear , so as it sat it wouldnt fit under the body work
without major mods, the answer was stareing at me but i couldnt see it.
simply unbolt the orig and turn it around, gota love those japanese enginers, the only down side is i will have to reposition the alternator, no
drama's there.
the second one was weight, i weighed it the other night with some new digital scales from work and what a surprise, as it sits in those latest pics,
458 kg with a split of 190kg fr and 268kg rear, so my estimate for a finnished race weight is approx 530-550kg max
should be reasonably competitive
cheers Kaspa
[Edited on 13/9/08 by Kaspa]
what class does it fit into in NZ?
it will run in the NZ Sports car series in Super sport class
link
http://www.nzsportsracecar.co.nz/5.html
cheers Kaspa
Very nice project and chassis you've got there, and what type of Subaru engine are you using ?
Cheers
Italo
Hi mate glad you like it, the engine is a 95 EG33 out of the SVX, 3.3 ltr 6 cyl, 230hp stock.
cheers John
quote:
Originally posted by Kaspa
Hi mate glad you like it, the engine is a 95 EG33 out of the SVX, 3.3 ltr 6 cyl, 230hp stock.
cheers John
hi mate, it will be strickly a track car only, with a few extra mods it could be made road leagal, down here any way, but for me it will be just a
race car
cheers Kaspa
quote:
Originally posted by Kaspa
hi mate, it will be strickly a track car only, with a few extra mods it could be made road leagal, down here any way, but for me it will be just a race car
cheers Kaspa