hi iv just been looking on mnr website and they are doing a comprehensive kit for (mnr rt+) at £4450 including vat. my question is has anybody bought 1 like this as i would like to know exactly what parts are need to 100% finish the build (apart from engine)

cheers jim

I cannot in anyway comment on the MNR comprehensive kits but some kitcar manufacturers use the word 'comprehensive' with quite a lot of truth bending. If its smaller than about the size of a small melon then it's not included.

Welcome by the way

one way to find out whats not included is to look in the options / extra's section of the price list

again I'm not familiar with MNR's kits but I've seen some 'comprehensive' kits that don't include wheels, seats, lights.... and so on

of course you may find it much cheaper to get the 'extra' bits elsewhere

you'll be spending at least the same again to get the car finished and on the road. Mine cost nearer 3 times that to get to how i wanted it

Click on the starter kit button at the bottom of the RT+ page - that tells you what's in the kit. Basically what's supplied is enough to make a rolling chassis with the body on (except the wheels / tyres). The things that are left out of the kit are pretty much what you'd want to choose for yourself anyway - wheels & tyres, brakes, engine, seats, instruments. Add to that lots of nuts, bolts and rivets to hold it all together with.

Speak to Chris and Marc, they can give you a good idea of what else you'd need, and costs for them to supply. As well as our kit, we ordered stuff like the exhaust, quickrack, wiring loom from them, which added to the cost, but took away a lot of the hassle (especially the loom).

HTH


Vince

Yep as above budget that times 2 or 3 and thats where mine stands

[Edited on 26/5/11 by bassett]

the kit is very good.and if you want you can include various extra parts if you want mnr to source them but i think the kit is a great starting point. it gives you enough to go at for a while until you have a bit more cash to continue the project bit by bit. its the same with most companies, but the help given from chris and marc is exceptional,including after sales service. if i ever built another i would look no further than mnr.

My MNR ran into thousands of pounds, I alone spent £7000 and this was sourcing via a friend with a huge discount, total cost on this MNR was around £30K but it was quite a ridiculous amount to spend in comparison to a standard one. the best thing to do is pop along and speak to Chris at MNR and then you will know exactly where you are, both Chris and Marc are very helpful. As 7 styled cars go, I have to say this is my favourite as I love the shape of the nosecone alone. :-)

[Edited on 1/6/11 by The Venom Project]

Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

---

there's absolutely nothin wrong with them, the tubes that the rod ends go into are a little longer than usual (and maybe a bit longer than they need to be) but they don't affect suspension performance in any way as far as i can tell. there was another thread about it somewhere, but i can't find it

I think they are the nicest looking wishbones out there( i don't have a wishbone fetish) i'd be interested to know why you think they are a ill design

Re: costs of building, i think about the 12K is a good average figure

[Edited on 1/6/11 by Johneturbo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Venom Project

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

---

That in itself is a stupid comment. I don't know what kind of engineer you are? But I have been looking at wishbones for sometime now for my custom reverse trike and I can tell you that some of the major long standing companies produce some real garbage, crappy welds, awful designs, MNR cars and framework is some of the best I have seen. The wishbones alone are a very strong very good looking wishbone and also very easy to setup even with rose joint fixings.

Of course thats just my opinion, and I am bias I suppose as my first build was an MNR

---

Description

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Venom Project

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Personally, as an engineer, not a stress expert, I think the MNR front wishbones are one of the ugliest I have seen and a most ill conceived design.

---

That in itself is a stupid comment. I don't know what kind of engineer you are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blakep82


+1 on it being a silly comment. like saying, the fisher fury is a beautiful car, but completely useless, because you can't sail it to the Med.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adithorp

quote:

---

Originally posted by blakep82


+1 on it being a silly comment. like saying, the fisher fury is a beautiful car, but completely useless, because you can't sail it to the Med.

---

I've driven mine to the Med'. Does that count?

---

Funny how the days of free speech have disappeared on this forum!

I never said the wishbones do not work! I never said they did not do their job! They could be the best wishbones ever! I am not demeaning the car, or any owner. I just said that the design, as in construction, is to me, not right.

I'm sorry that I said it was MY opinion. But I have a right, or don't I?

I think wishbones should have straight tubes, in line with the centres of the joints, not a dog leg. Simple, but that's the way I think it should be.


[img]
[/img]


BTW I settled on a Robin Hood after having FIVE other 7's, so I am not a novice, it suits me and it's perfect for the roads around here.

I see your point, and agree even more after seeing that diagram. lots of people/engineers comment on my wishbones saying they are too long, bad angles, stress points etc - they may be of not perfect design but just as long as they do there job ill be happy!


Oh and yes there is no free speech unless you blessing someone on this forum, if you dislike something or complain then your posts may magically dissapear.

i though the top wishbones were supposed to be slightly offset to help with the self centering problems which many suffer from?

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Funny how the days of free speech have disappeared on this forum!

I never said the wishbones do not work! I never said they did not do their job! They could be the best wishbones ever! I am not demeaning the car, or any owner. I just said that the design, as in construction, is to me, not right.

I'm sorry that I said it was MY opinion. But I have a right, or don't I?

I think wishbones should have straight tubes, in line with the centres of the joints, not a dog leg. Simple, but that's the way I think it should be.


[img]
[/img]


BTW I settled on a Robin Hood after having FIVE other 7's, so I am not a novice, it suits me and it's perfect for the roads around here.

---

For my 10c the adequacy or otherwise of the wishbones depends on the design criteria which is the starting point for a designer. You may say they are structurally imperfect, which they are, but that may not have been the design criteria.

The manufacturer may not have had the tooling and the press required for the alternative design, the design may have been required to be adjustable which it is and the alternative is not or it may have been required to use "rose joints" purely as a marketing ploy.

I would defend to the death Designers right to air his opinion as he should also defend others right to say that this particular opinion is shallow with no depth

Good debate! Go ahead and reinforce your free speech Designer with justifications rather than opinions. What are the differences in the forces here and how significant are they ?

Cheers and good luck!

All forces react in a straight line and any load bearing structure should, ideally, be aligned with this force, otherwise larger, heavier, materials have to be used.

[img]
[/img]


Of course in many case, this is impractical, but the design should have the structure as close as possible to the load path and any welds as near to the ends as possible to reduce bending loads on the weld and any joints.

Absolute rubbish

Well, that's your application to be a structural engineer refused, especially if you think force reacts in a curve and bending moments don't count!

quote:

---

Originally posted by designer
Well, that's your application to be a structural engineer refused, especially if you think force reacts in a curve and bending moments don't count!

---

And my 'inept' designs rotate at 200,000 revs, fly at Mach 2, are used on Formula cars and at SERN, and one is wending it's way to Venus!

This is a forum for the layman.

'Fit for purpose' is the cheap route and many parts work, no matter how badly they are designed; a part made from old bed ironwork will function just as well as a suspension component. If you mount a jet engine onto a barn door and send it down a runway, it will take off, is it still a plane?

Just in the same way that CAD does not make a bad engineer good.

Now now, this is getting personal and isn't going to help anyone. An open and friendly discussion is more likely to be of help to everyone!

Now IMHO, Designer has a valid point about how forces act and how it is best to avoid bending moments around weld areas. However, this is out the window to a degree as soon as you build a wishbone with adjustment at the outer end (top ball joint) because the very adjustment will alter the line of force. Adjustment on the inboard end will mean a dogleg and again the line of force will not run exactly along the tube.

It can thus be seen that a compromise must be entered into if the bone is to be adjustable. If the jigging of the suspension brackets is spot on (rare indeed) then a non adjustable arm with perfect force alignment would be possible, but with no scope for any adjustment except by substituting other bones with differing geometries, possibly the best solution engineering wise but a PITA to implement!

That's how I see it anyway. I guess the question should be, has there been any failures of the MNR wishbones or are they fit for purpose. I guess they are or there would be a lot of crashed MNR's and some seriously disgruntled owners. The rest is down to aesthetics and what you personally think looks good!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strontium Dog
Now now, this is getting personal and isn't going to help anyone

---

Very true mcerd1 and Strontium Dog point taken but it's fun

Should we have an "Insult each other" or "Handbags at dawn" forum - it might catch on?

Cheers!

quote:

---

Originally posted by v8kid
Very true mcerd1 and Strontium Dog point taken but it's fun

Should we have an "Insult each other" or "Handbags at dawn" forum - it might catch on?

Cheers!

---