http://www.roadrunnerracing.net/the-roadrunner-sr2.html
There's not a lot of photos on their site - I stole these from their Facebook page.
Nice huh!!
NOTE: Due to recent comments, this thread has been turned into a small penis waving competition.
To enter, simply post some negative comments about this vehicle.
[Edited on 2/8/12 by crafty]
wowzer
Looks superb, love the cage too
I toyed with the idea of replacing my RV8 with one (very dimensionly close apparently), but the engine would cost more than the car did.
how much travel do those front inner wishbone rose joints give in that setup?
i would have thought they should be turned throught 90 degrees
they look very - very tidy!
I can only imagine that they must be ballistically quick,... 
Sorry, but I think that is utterly pointless & a complete antithesis of the original lightweight/great handling & acceleration/braking idea
that was behind the 7. If they can ever make that handle then they deserve a prize, looks like a total waste of time, money & effort & it will
never put the power on the road, but hey each to their own - I stand ready to be flamed!
& yes, b4 someone bothers to point it out I know the LS is a relatively lightweight engine given its capacity & power, but that's still
not gonna be light by the time all the necessary gear to run & cool that is on there. Would be interested to know what the weight distribution
front/rear is???
No idea how well it will turn and stop, but it looks
Would be ace if the chassis could be designed so that Mr IVA mans sphere-of-doom couldn't reach any spikey points as that would be even more
awesome if it was on the road naked! 
Each to their own. I personally don't like road going F1 look alikes, but I'm more than happy for others to do it if that is what floats their boat. Sometimes it needs no more reason than "I wonder if I can do it?"
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
Each to their own. I personally don't like road going F1 look alikes, but I'm more than happy for others to do it if that is what floats their boat. Sometimes it needs no more reason than "I wonder if I can do it?"
quote:
Originally posted by PAUL FISHERlove the cage too
They had one at Stoneleigh... and it looked superb.
Packaging is a bit tight but neat and I've seen less space around an engine... most days on tin-tops. LS1 is pretty light and relativly cheap
from the 'states and should rival a BUSA package price wise.
As I remember, the one at Stoneleigh had been corner weighted at almost 50:50 front to rear distribution, according to the guy on the stand.
... and yes, for me, it would be a lot higher up the list of possibles than a Furore... 
quote:
Originally posted by daniel mason
how much travel do those front inner wishbone rose joints give in that setup?
i would have thought they should be turned throught 90 degrees
Looks fantastic to me!
The chassis looks like a relative work of art compared to most 7 kit chassis I'm familiar with.
Not my engine choice, but if you can and want to then why not.
quote:
Originally posted by daniel mason
how much travel do those front inner wishbone rose joints give in that setup?
i would have thought they should be turned throught 90 degrees
I think it's awesome. Ok it's not going to be 500 kg but it's still going to be a very light car compared to say a ferrari 458/MC MP4-12C. I see no reason why it wouldnt handle either, ok you would have to be carefull putting the power down. I'm really suprised how compact the engine is.
I love their chassis design - purely from an asthetic and 'different' perspective. I have no idea without studying it in detail how good the
design is, but I doubt those that are criticising it do either?!
Rose joint comments are fair - I wonder if it is sat lower than it should be in the pics though due to only being a mock up. If the joint was at its
neutral position I suspect it would provide sufficient travel in either direction. I'm sure I've seen other chassis with rose joints built
in this orientation?
As for being my cup of tea - hmmm no I like the small 4-pot approach in a seven, but I dont agree about it being pointless at all. As has been said,
sometimes its more a case of 'because I can' or 'lets see if we can'. Nothing wrong with that at all. And of course, performance
will be phenominal!!
I think their cars in general 'look' fantastic
quote:
Originally posted by Slimy38
quote:
Originally posted by daniel mason
how much travel do those front inner wishbone rose joints give in that setup?
i would have thought they should be turned throught 90 degrees
Agreed, that seems to be the completely wrong way to mount the rose joints. Even at rest they are at a severe angle, wouldn't take much compression to bottom out? There must be some reason behind them?
Where are the engineers with the comments on this?
This car can surely only be an artistic creativity effort. Noone would want to get in it and drive it, would they?
Lots of tubes, most the wrong shape and in the wrong place.
And those lower front wishbones, and the coilover mount in particular.....As MacEnroe says...Surely you cannot be serious!!!!
They haven't read the thread on Broken Wishbones, obviously.
No, this can only be an exercise in creativity, aimed at making a shocking impression. They have succeeded admirably.
No responsible engineer would let that anywhere near a track, let alone a public road.
The MX5 rear end???? That engine would pulverise it the first time the throttle was opened fully.
Come on people, wake up and recognise it for what it is. Full marks to the builders for being creative. No marks for applied engineering .
Cheers,
Nev.
predictably, this has turned into a small penis waving competition.
.... usually the faster its waved, the smaller it looks.
(not that Ive actually watched a penis waving competition)
Ive fixed the original post so that we all know how this competition works.
[Edited on 2/8/12 by crafty]
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
Where are the engineers with the comments on this?
This car can surely only be an artistic creativity effort. Noone would want to get in it and drive it, would they?
Lots of tubes, most the wrong shape and in the wrong place.
And those lower front wishbones, and the coilover mount in particular.....As MacEnroe says...Surely you cannot be serious!!!!
They haven't read the thread on Broken Wishbones, obviously.
No, this can only be an exercise in creativity, aimed at making a shocking impression. They have succeeded admirably.
No responsible engineer would let that anywhere near a track, let alone a public road.
The MX5 rear end???? That engine would pulverise it the first time the throttle was opened fully
Come on people, wake up and recognise it for what it is. Full marks to the builders for being creative. No marks for applied engineering .
Cheers,
Nev.
And it also seems to be a new Locostbuilders trend for people to post pictures of a new/proposed car then have an almost instant sense of humour
failure when people have the audacity to express an opinion (right or wrong) of their own that differs to the original posters 
Anyway, just because something appears badly engineered doesn't necessarily mean it'll stop hundreds of people buying one
How does the LS1 compare in size and weight to the AJP V8 from the Cerbera? I always thought it would make an interesting engine for a V8 kit. I'm sure its been done, (possibly in a Phoenix?) but have never seen any photos.
quote:
Originally posted by crafty
predictably, this has turned into a small penis waving competition.
... actually.... I thought you would have gathered that the penis waving competition is not REEAAALLLY that serious.
thanks for your entries......unfortunately negative comments about me don't count.... they have to be negative comments about the car to enter
the penis waving competition.
(smiling while I write this - no need to get nasty - this is all just a bit of fun)
[Edited on 2/8/12 by crafty]
Horses for courses and each to there own. What I like about locostbuilders these days is that is its just about building cars and not really anymore
about building a se7en. I like all the differing projects on here.
Personally I like the roadrunner car. An LS in that tiny chassis! Bonkers and totally awesome.
I have an Audi V8 lying around (as you do ) and toyed with the idea of bunging it in the MK,
unfortunately my penis, Woops! meant my Chassis, isn't wide enough. Gutted!
quote:
Originally posted by wylliezx9r
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
Anyway, just because something appears badly engineered doesn't necessarily mean it'll stop hundreds of people buying one
hope none of a certain persons critique were aimed at me?
i was merely asking a question regarding the front wishbone setup as i DONT know the answer. the car looks good in my opinion and if someone wants a
huge v8 its fine by me.
i personally prefer lightweight but then i onle have a 135BHP 1.4 k-series in mine.which some would say (possibly rightly so) is somewhat
underpowered.
LS1 engine weighs in at 430lbs, which is a bit heavier than my Audi 4.2. I'd not want that so far up front personally and I don't really like the execution but each to his own.
I think we should employ a system that is on a few other forums where by you can tag people's comments with a thumbs up or down.
Some people just have to say something negative and aggravate the situation, so maybe that could be their nicorette patch for whining, with any
response to the 'thumbs down', sent straight to a U2U
Just an idea!
And for the car, I think it looks awesome. Considering the amount of cars that handle well that are a tonne and over (mx5 anyone?), this should be
more than capable of being a complete hoot!
quote:
Originally posted by JekRankin
How does the LS1 compare in size and weight to the AJP V8 from the Cerbera? I always thought it would make an interesting engine for a V8 kit. I'm sure its been done, (possibly in a Phoenix?) but have never seen any photos.
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by JekRankin
How does the LS1 compare in size and weight to the AJP V8 from the Cerbera? I always thought it would make an interesting engine for a V8 kit. I'm sure its been done, (possibly in a Phoenix?) but have never seen any photos.
The AJP V8 is smaller and MUCH lighter! Remember that it's essentially a race engine, so needs to be given lots of TLC.
eBay Item
£691 for a fire damaged AJP V8..... I think not, but it is tempting
Having built Deimos with a Rover V8 I suspect that anyone saying a lightweight LSIS car won't handle with a V8 etc, clearly hasn't been in
one.
All in favour of different types of engines in these types of cars.
ATB
Simon
I think all 7 cars should be only BEC's, now that those engines have come this far with development and weight. Having said that, I just ditched my CA18DET to have a heavier, SR20DET put in. Completely stupid, I know, but it was the only way forward with the economics of my car at this point. I traded some wheels and some fibreglass seats for the short block, etc etc. So bravo for these guys for doing something mad like this. From nearly all perspectives, these cars make no sense anyways.
quote:
Originally posted by RK
I think all 7 cars should be only BEC's
quote:
Originally posted by scudderfish
eBay Item
£691 for a fire damaged AJP V8..... I think not, but it is tempting
I personal think the car is awesome! why would it not handle or stop as previously posted?.... yes its heavier than your average Zetec etc but so
what! some people would just pull there face at the power a Zetec or the like produces.
having built, tracked, toured many kit cars I think the quality is amazing, and yes before the negative people amongst you say anything I have seen
the cars in the flesh with many different engine options
as much as I love the BEC set up (previously owned one) for some people its just about the noise and the posing so why would anybody want to slate the
car because they don't think its a good idea to build?
the way I see it, people can quite easily sit behind there key board building there posts up telling everybody that somebody else's car is built
wrong/unsafe etc.... but really, what do these people actually know? have they ever been in the car above? have they ever even seen it? I don't
think so, and if they have do they really know what there looking at? no disrespect to any other seven on the market but I personally think its one of
the best out there, round tube laser cut chassis! its hardly box section mig'ed together is it!
I'm know expert in the chassis engineering scene (probably why I don't slate other people's work till iv seen it) but I over heard at a
recent show that the chassis was designed by a stress engineer! so when I read posts like 'Lots of tubes, most the wrong shape and in the wrong
place' it makes me laugh really.
I will be making an appointment in the near future with roadrunner to discuss a potential sale because I genuinely believe its one of the best!
also regarding the rose joint set up, as I said I'm not a chassis designer but you only need to search the web to find out that F1 cars use rose
joints in this position, I also remember a Westfield owner saying they are the wrong way to then find him corrected by somebody in the know saying,
'actually there the right way..... it's you with them the wrong way'. how much difference this makes I don't know but I think its
a bit unfair to judge the car when the car above is clearly in very early stage of build.
No offence to anyone, but its my personal view of a very good car,
regards Ashley
Hi,
I don't normally have much time to spend on Forums, took me half an hour to login, forgot my password.
A friend of mine sent me this link as he was concerned about some of the things being said by some of the 'experts' on here.
The standard SR2 Mazda MX5 based car, wet, with a full roll cage weighs 560kgs road legal with lights etc.
The SR2V8LS1 car weighs 720kgs both have 51/49 weight distribution.
The chassis designs have been done by a qualified stress engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering and over 10 years experience doing designs
and stress testing for one of the worlds top companies. He has also designed other chassis for kit car companies other than Roadrunner.
The horizontal rose joints prevent them popping out, which can happen when fitted vertically. Older F1 cars often had the joints fitted horizontally.
The mounting lug is also much stronger in a corner as opposed to half way along a tube or box section. The travel is almost double the travel of the
damper so that problem does not exist.
Our demo car has covered over 3500 miles on almost all the UK tracks and some abroad including Spa. It has been driven by Ben Collins 'The
Stig', top championship winning race drivers, as well as ARDS Instructors and also one ARDS Super Instructor.
Other SR2's have also been thrashed by leading Trackday companies to 'test' the components and chassis etc. This has given us fast and
excellent feedback leading to minor modifications on newer chassis.
My other company has specialized in Mazda MX5's for over 10 years, turbo and supercharging them. We have our own TAT dyno for mapping and
testing. We currently have one of only a few properly set up and in daily use MK3 Cosworth supercharged MK5. One of these is due to be fitted in an
SR2 this winter.
Regarding the uprated Mazda differential fitted to the V8 it handled over 300 bhp O.K. in it's previous home, my MK1 turbo, which weighed 1150kgs
compared to 720kgs. So far in the V8 it just likes melting rubber if a lot of power is put through it.
My thanks for all the nice comments, I don't mind negative ones if constructive and accurate. I do however mind one person in particular who
seems to have a big problem with Roadrunner due to the fact we did not reply to him a few years ago, before I even took over the company.
He is being monitored, his user name and location keep changing but needless to say my legal adviser will deal with it.
Regards Mike
he also dis-likes mk.mnr.raw,mac1,caterham,westfield etc. but loves himself. lol. well done on the project and thanks for clearing up my question on
the rose joint setup!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4opzWiXvtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCjrEpkGaGw
Yellow demo car in action, it is just a standard 1.6 engine and early weak 1.6 plated lsd. Built from a G reg 1989 MOT failure.
But still going fine after 3500 track miles and 500 road miles.
We have track tested the SR2V8LS1 but no video yet but we intend to get some good track time and videos plus some standing 1/4's in the future.
Its been proven that powerful, slightly heavier engined 7-alikes are just as good as the very best. Good luck with the project, looks like good fun.
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4opzWiXvtU
quote:
he also dis-likes mk.mnr.raw,mac1,caterham,westfield etc. but loves himself. lol. well done on the project and thanks for clearing up my question on the rose joint setup!
No,you may not agree BUT life is all about learning stuff not dismissing opinions out of hand because your limited experience
disagrees with it. Sorry to disappoint a few of you lot, but until this abomination was put in front of me, I didn't even know who Roadrunner Racing were. So,
I'm not the mythical person their 'legal team' is trying to find. (If this team even exists, as you couldn't have paid a properly
chartered engineer of suitable experience to put his name to that V8 thing, so the £200/hr that solicitors charge would be way beyong your budgets,
unless they're family or a close fiend working for free.)
I learned at an early age, not to bullshite an old man, because 99 times out of a hundred he's heard it before, and probably even tried it on
himself. This old man is not fooled or frightened.
Should you wish to put the name and contact details of your 'legal team' on here, or send them to me in u2u, then I'll gladly
correspond with them. I'm sure that they will like to hear the views of someone who has worked in the industry for more than 25 years, and can
call upon a bona fide F1 chassis engineer for backup, as well as a few of my peers who design racecar chassis full time as a living. You'll be
told to get your Product Liabilty Insurance properly in place, and make sure it's sufficient. You're going to need it. You do have Product
Liability Insurance, don't you? You'd be the only one in the kit industry if you do.
All of that aside, I asked my son what he thought of just how such a thing could be designed. His explanation left me a little lost for words and
understanding, but it boils down to cad design and FEA taught at uni's. Reliance on computers, garbage in and garbage out. Then there's the
modern thinking on flexure and bending when coupled with structures.
Me, I'm old school, but use cad as a tool, not the sole source. After all, to come first, first you have to finish. And broken cars don't
finish.
I'm too old for bulls..., and will keep pointing out poor design when it is warranted. If this poor stuff keeps turning up, one day the EC will
get its way, and kit building will be no longer, all because of irresponsible manufacturers.
Cheers,
Nev.
Stop sitting on the fence Nev! Say what you really mean man!
u2u to d beddows
Nev,
For someone who has no connection with any of this, what exactly is so wrong with it? And I'd like details please, not just it's shite.
Genuinely curious and not out to cause an argument, not that it appears you need any hand with that!
I would LOVE one!
If I was going to build a car then I would be choosing the SR2, maybe not with the V8 as that would stretch the pocket a little too much but as far as
I can see it its a nicely engineered kit with good support and it looks damn good.
I would also be interested in exactly what is wrong with the chassis according to Nev, not a sweeping "its crap" statement and what could be
done to improve it.
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Nev,
For someone who has no connection with any of this, what exactly is so wrong with it? And I'd like details please, not just it's shite. Genuinely curious and not out to cause an argument, not that it appears you need any hand with that!
Anyone for popcorn ????
Lol, so you say its shite but cant say why as you want paying for your opinion...You call it a death trap but won't tell people why? You say it
has the torsional rigidity of a jelly snake but cant/wont justify it,....think I'll discount you opinion as just inflammatory and not based on
fact.
[Edited on 5/8/12 by Alfa145]
That book locost must be really good then!
Nev.... when your not in working hours, would it be possible to post up your 'in depth' thoughts/facts? as I am genuinely interested in the
car! obviously I'm not going to pay you but you never no, you might find some positive kindness in there to help me out!
can I just say it looked pretty good in the videos! I don't think I would say it has the 'torsional rigidity of a jelly snake'
also, those exhausts on the V8 look awesome ;-)
Ashley
There's no great 'in depth' thoughts or facts to put out, just good solid, simple engineering.
Yes, the 'Book' car would be slightly better than that thing, but not by much.
I'll repeat what is known, and an acknowledged reality, and that is of the well known and advertised kits available, not one will pass the
Australian beam and torsion tests without the addition of a number of tubes and other metal. NOT ONE!!! This includes the bigger named and much older
production models, of which one (the oldest and original) had its homologation rescinded a couple of years ago.
The beam and torsion test is not demanding, nor sets unnecessarily high targets, but it says everything when not one uk produced kit will pass. That
chassis in the pics would be at the lower end of the uk scale. The front wishbones would never get signed off by any self respecting signatory
engineer also.
I'm not an exponent of greater regulation, but the UK kit industry needs some sort of additional, simple testing like those tests in Aus, if for
no other reason than to weed out the garbage and enforce at least a minimal standard of engineering integrity.
This needs to be done before being forced to by europe, and the industry being wiped out by beaurocracy.
Cheers,
Nev.
For the person who thinks round is better than square (the old chestnut still comes up), a 1" square tube is better in every respect, and
stronger, than a 1" round tube of similar thickness. This is not a debatable statement, but simple fact which any engineer should be able to
verify with some simple maths. The square is a little heavier, but not by enough so as to make the round preferable.
Don't ask for the numbers, I've put them on here at least 5 times, and others similarly.
The Elfin...You can't compare the chassis above with an Elfin. To start with, the Elfin is built using thick wall square tube, and lots of it.
It's a heavy car. The Elfin has to meet 6000Nm/degree for torsion. Four cylinder cars meet 4Nm/degree/kg mass. Which for a 7 type car is about
2800Nm/degree, which is fairly soft by most standards.
My soapbox is now in the incinerator.
The lesser capable among us who can't understand plain english and carry out simple mathematics, are now free to make whatever sarcastic and
derogatory statements they feel compelled to. Simply, I don't care any more.
[Edited on 6/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Threads like this worry me. I am not a engineer - never have been, I never will be. I have been looking into the Aus Torsion tests and I don't think my Viento would pass it. Then again I am not an engineer and I have put my trust in my manufacturer and the UK IVA test.
For what its worth an Ultima doesn't pass. No issues with their cars either.
im really glad that we have companies with the forward thinking and balls to keep pushing the 7 concept on. because all the really talented people are still building book locosts .the SR2 is the best 7 on the market today .and yes ihave driven one and owned lots of others . if the current economic climate had been different i would already have one in my garage.i look foward to owning one in the future. or maybe one the super experts that can fully test a cars from a couple of pictures will shock us all and build a the perfect car . untill then GREAT JOB ROADRUNNER
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
Where are the engineers with the comments on this?
......
The MX5 rear end???? That engine would pulverise it the first time the throttle was opened fully.
.....
Cheers,
Nev.
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
I'll repeat what is known, and an acknowledged reality, and that is of the well known and advertised kits available, not one will pass the Australian beam and torsion tests without the addition of a number of tubes and other metal. NOT ONE!!! This includes the bigger named and much older production models, of which one (the oldest and original) had its homologation rescinded a couple of years ago.
On the contrary Loggyboy.
All ICV's, kits or self builds or low volume, in Aus have to pass the Beam and Torsion test to get registered. I send chassis to Aus, and
everything that goes has to be individually tested and pass.
Here in UK, Westfield and Cateringvan have known chassis cracking issues among the racers, and some road cars, they just aren't publicised. If
these two have the issues, then none of the others are exempt.
The majority of the 7 types built don't get the use to bring out the problems, but those track car problems are a good guide.
Go ahead and buy as you please, and have fun building and driving it. Just don't go thinking any one is better than another, purely because it
has a chassis which is better suited to Installation Art, and not a properly functional road car.
All I did at the start of this was point out some pretty but poor design. Others will come and go just as these, and the breakages you'll never
hear of, but they are happening to the so called best of them. None of my chassis has cracked......yet! The day will come to get the welder out, no
doubt, but that's racing. Bounce them over the kerbs enough and the all break, from karts to F1 and Nascar.
Cheers,
Nev.
I don't think it is really worth my time to go through each point, but I will say we do have full product liability insurance, as I would expect
all the kit manufacturers have.
The chassis designer works for one of the worlds top companies, he has a mechanical engineering degree and over 10 years real world experience
including work on race cars. As well as designing chassis for other manufacturers.
Me, just the 38 years in the motor trade building engines and modifying cars. Full old fashioned apprenticeship, still a current MOT tester in all
classes and QC for four testers. I am a junior builder on here, it seems to get to be a senior builder you need to make lots of posts.
We do have all the calculations for our chassis and no they won't get posted on here, the same as all the Solidworks simulations of the
suspension working etc won't get posted either, you would not expect that information from Caterham or Ultima or any other business.
I did check a few links to see what one of the 'experts' on here was building or had built and how their vast knowledge was obtained but
could not find anything. Please send me the links as I am interested. Like all companies we learn as we go along, what I don't do is insult
people or other companies, I find most of my time is taken up in the workshop or on track and not sat at a keyboard even if I was interested in doing
something like that.
Regards Mike
PS The uprated 7 inch LSD in the V8 SR2 handled quite happily the 300 bhp in my turbo MK1 MX5 for 3 years. That burned rubber the same way the V8
does. As a previous poster pointed out the car only weighs 720 kgs the MX5 was 1150 kgs. I know it has a lot more torque than my turbo engine and at
lower revs, exact figures for it from our rolling road in fact, but testing and time will give us the answer if it is up to the job. The 7 inch diff
in my 1800 kgs 400 bhp Sierra Cosworth manged O.K. for 10 years and 80000 miles. Those where the days even Ford got it wrong with compliance bushes
made from jelly. Still excellent source of income for us all for uprating them.
quote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
I don't think it is really worth my time to go through each point, but I will say we do have full product liability insurance, as I would expect all the kit manufacturers have.
The chassis designer works for one of the worlds top companies, he has a mechanical engineering degree and over 10 years real world experience including work on race cars. As well as designing chassis for other manufacturers.
Me, just the 38 years in the motor trade building engines and modifying cars. Full old fashioned apprenticeship, still a current MOT tester in all classes and QC for four testers. I am a junior builder on here, it seems to get to be a senior builder you need to make lots of posts.
We do have all the calculations for our chassis and no they won't get posted on here, the same as all the Solidworks simulations of the suspension working etc won't get posted either, you would not expect that information from Caterham or Ultima or any other business.
I did check a few links to see what one of the 'experts' on here was building or had built and how their vast knowledge was obtained but could not find anything. Please send me the links as I am interested. Like all companies we learn as we go along, what I don't do is insult people or other companies, I find most of my time is taken up in the workshop or on track and not sat at a keyboard even if I was interested in doing something like that.
Regards Mike
PS The uprated 7 inch LSD in the V8 SR2 handled quite happily the 300 bhp in my turbo MK1 MX5 for 3 years. That burned rubber the same way the V8 does. As a previous poster pointed out the car only weighs 720 kgs the MX5 was 1150 kgs. I know it has a lot more torque than my turbo engine and at lower revs, exact figures for it from our rolling road in fact, but testing and time will give us the answer if it is up to the job. The 7 inch diff in my 1800 kgs 400 bhp Sierra Cosworth manged O.K. for 10 years and 80000 miles. Those where the days even Ford got it wrong with compliance bushes made from jelly. Still excellent source of income for us all for uprating them.
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
I'll repeat what is known, and an acknowledged reality, and that is of the well known and advertised kits available, not one will pass the Australian beam and torsion tests without the addition of a number of tubes and other metal. NOT ONE.
SYLVA RIOT passed back in 2009
MRLuke - 6/8/12 at 10:32 PMquote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
I don't think it is really worth my time to go through each point, but I will say we do have full product liability insurance, as I would expect all the kit manufacturers have.
The chassis designer works for one of the worlds top companies, he has a mechanical engineering degree and over 10 years real world experience including work on race cars. As well as designing chassis for other manufacturers.
Me, just the 38 years in the motor trade building engines and modifying cars. Full old fashioned apprenticeship, still a current MOT tester in all classes and QC for four testers. I am a junior builder on here, it seems to get to be a senior builder you need to make lots of posts.
We do have all the calculations for our chassis and no they won't get posted on here, the same as all the Solidworks simulations of the suspension working etc won't get posted either, you would not expect that information from Caterham or Ultima or any other business.
I did check a few links to see what one of the 'experts' on here was building or had built and how their vast knowledge was obtained but could not find anything. Please send me the links as I am interested. Like all companies we learn as we go along, what I don't do is insult people or other companies, I find most of my time is taken up in the workshop or on track and not sat at a keyboard even if I was interested in doing something like that.
Regards Mike
PS The uprated 7 inch LSD in the V8 SR2 handled quite happily the 300 bhp in my turbo MK1 MX5 for 3 years. That burned rubber the same way the V8 does. As a previous poster pointed out the car only weighs 720 kgs the MX5 was 1150 kgs. I know it has a lot more torque than my turbo engine and at lower revs, exact figures for it from our rolling road in fact, but testing and time will give us the answer if it is up to the job. The 7 inch diff in my 1800 kgs 400 bhp Sierra Cosworth manged O.K. for 10 years and 80000 miles. Those where the days even Ford got it wrong with compliance bushes made from jelly. Still excellent source of income for us all for uprating them.
Sensible reply there, far too easy to get involved in a slagging match over things like this.
Car looks stunning
rost - 7/8/12 at 06:28 AMquote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
I don't think it is really worth my time to go through each point, but I will say we do have full product liability insurance, as I would expect all the kit manufacturers have.
The chassis designer works for one of the worlds top companies, he has a mechanical engineering degree and over 10 years real world experience including work on race cars. As well as designing chassis for other manufacturers.
Me, just the 38 years in the motor trade building engines and modifying cars. Full old fashioned apprenticeship, still a current MOT tester in all classes and QC for four testers. I am a junior builder on here, it seems to get to be a senior builder you need to make lots of posts.
We do have all the calculations for our chassis and no they won't get posted on here, the same as all the Solidworks simulations of the suspension working etc won't get posted either, you would not expect that information from Caterham or Ultima or any other business.
I did check a few links to see what one of the 'experts' on here was building or had built and how their vast knowledge was obtained but could not find anything. Please send me the links as I am interested. Like all companies we learn as we go along, what I don't do is insult people or other companies, I find most of my time is taken up in the workshop or on track and not sat at a keyboard even if I was interested in doing something like that.
Regards Mike
[..]
This!
Saw the car at Stoneleigh and was impressed.
There are always some design choices one could debate, but that's the same with any car.
[Edited on 7/8/12 by rost]
roadrunnerracing - 7/8/12 at 09:12 AMquote:
Originally posted by KJK
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
I'll repeat what is known, and an acknowledged reality, and that is of the well known and advertised kits available, not one will pass the Australian beam and torsion tests without the addition of a number of tubes and other metal. NOT ONE.
SYLVA RIOT passed back in 2009
GD427 passed with no modification
Mike
sebastiaan - 7/8/12 at 10:41 AMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
The majority of the 7 types built don't get the use to bring out the problems, but those track car problems are a good guide.
and
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
The day will come to get the welder out, no doubt, but that's racing.
In one post? Bravo! ;-)
crafty - 7/8/12 at 01:28 PMMike,
Thanks for chipping in with a sensible response.
I've chucked a supercharged 600hp LS in an Ultima. It bends a little, I don't give a toss. (we had a bunch of engineers lurk on the Ultima forum at one stage and tell us how bendy the Ultima is)
I'm chucking an Audi S5 V8 into the back seat of a Porsche 356. I'm expecting that to break some stuff at some stage too.
I've chucked a supercharger on my R1 engined MNR and beat the crap out of it on the track. It snaps stuff all the time.
So does the caterham R500 I race against.
So does everything else I race against.
If nothing breaks or bends, it's obviously my problem for not trying hard enough, not shoving enough power in there, or not beating on it hard enough.
Good on you for building a V8 engined 7.
Its unfortunate that people like Nev feel obliged to shitcan any new ideas.
I'm sure as a manufacturer you cringe and hope that prospective customers are not scared away.
I hope that any such prospective customers do their homework and buy what they want, rather than seeking opinions on forums.
As for you Nev, I can't help it, i have to respond to you with a childish pisstake.... I'm sure there's quite a few on here that also feel inclined to take the wee out of you, so on their behalf, I"ll have a go,
I'm not doubting that you have engineering skills, I've read your posts.
I tried to decipher from posts on other threads what exactly you are building in your spare time between posting on this forum. It may very well be that you are building some great stuff, if you are, good on you.
What i am sure of is that yours is much stiffer than everyone else's..... The amount of pulling on it and waving it in the air that you seem to do, its no wonder that its very stiff. Mine would most certainly have snapped or fatigued if I waved it around as much as you do.
As an Aussie, I'm glad you're sending your stiffies down to Oz, we certainly seem to be a little too soft as a nation. Perhaps that's why they introduced the torsional testing.... Trying to get us all to HTFU
At this stage, with limited entries from other competitors, I'm going to award you the "smallest, stiffest and best engineered willy award"
Well done.
My only question now is, will you be able to resist responding to this, especially after you've won the competition.
.
crafty - 7/8/12 at 01:36 PM... This is my favorite front engined LS special.
http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/569385-pictures-completed-autocross-race-street-car.html
wylliezx9r - 7/8/12 at 03:41 PMquote:
Originally posted by crafty
As for you Nev, I can't help it, i have to respond to you with a childish pisstake.... I'm sure there's quite a few on here that also feel inclined to take the wee out of you, so on their behalf, I"ll have a go,
I'm not doubting that you have engineering skills, I've read your posts.
I tried to decipher from posts on other threads what exactly you are building in your spare time between posting on this forum. It may very well be that you are building some great stuff, if you are, good on you.
What i am sure of is that yours is much stiffer than everyone else's..... The amount of pulling on it and waving it in the air that you seem to do, its no wonder that its very stiff. Mine would most certainly have snapped or fatigued if I waved it around as much as you do.
As an Aussie, I'm glad you're sending your stiffies down to Oz, we certainly seem to be a little too soft as a nation. Perhaps that's why they introduced the torsional testing.... Trying to get us all to HTFU
At this stage, with limited entries from other competitors, I'm going to award you the "smallest, stiffest and best engineered willy award"
Well done.
My only question now is, will you be able to resist responding to this, especially after you've won the competition.
.
+99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
snakebelly - 7/8/12 at 04:56 PM+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Here as well
:-)
TheGiantTribble - 7/8/12 at 06:00 PMNot sure I want to stick head (or willy for that matter) out of the trenches but...
To the original poster Wow that's bonkers huge engine small car, it's nuts and I approve, after all I've had some pretty bonkers ideas myself. and sometimes it's good to be different just for the hell of it.
Would I buy one nope, not in a million years, I just don't like the style. (For the record I like Lotus 11, Lola mk1, Jaguar D type, ERA 'E' types, Ferrari 440 P4, GT40, Tyrell P34, BRM H16 (now that's a bonkers machine) and Lotus 49 & 72's).
And to the detractors with all your experiance in the various facets of the motor industry and engineering, I would say this...
You are sounding a lot like a man whom I respect greatly one certain Mr E Ferrari, when he was arrguing against
'putting the cart before the horse'
and we all know how that one panned out don't we!
bi22le - 8/8/12 at 11:56 AMquote:
Originally posted by crafty
Mike,
Thanks for chipping in with a sensible response.
I've chucked a supercharged 600hp LS in an Ultima. It bends a little, I don't give a toss. (we had a bunch of engineers lurk on the Ultima forum at one stage and tell us how bendy the Ultima is)
I'm chucking an Audi S5 V8 into the back seat of a Porsche 356. I'm expecting that to break some stuff at some stage too.
I've chucked a supercharger on my R1 engined MNR and beat the crap out of it on the track. It snaps stuff all the time.
So does the caterham R500 I race against.
So does everything else I race against.
If nothing breaks or bends, it's obviously my problem for not trying hard enough, not shoving enough power in there, or not beating on it hard enough.
Good on you for building a V8 engined 7.
Its unfortunate that people like Nev feel obliged to shitcan any new ideas.
I'm sure as a manufacturer you cringe and hope that prospective customers are not scared away.
I hope that any such prospective customers do their homework and buy what they want, rather than seeking opinions on forums.
As for you Nev, I can't help it, i have to respond to you with a childish pisstake.... I'm sure there's quite a few on here that also feel inclined to take the wee out of you, so on their behalf, I"ll have a go,
I'm not doubting that you have engineering skills, I've read your posts.
I tried to decipher from posts on other threads what exactly you are building in your spare time between posting on this forum. It may very well be that you are building some great stuff, if you are, good on you.
What i am sure of is that yours is much stiffer than everyone else's..... The amount of pulling on it and waving it in the air that you seem to do, its no wonder that its very stiff. Mine would most certainly have snapped or fatigued if I waved it around as much as you do.
As an Aussie, I'm glad you're sending your stiffies down to Oz, we certainly seem to be a little too soft as a nation. Perhaps that's why they introduced the torsional testing.... Trying to get us all to HTFU
At this stage, with limited entries from other competitors, I'm going to award you the "smallest, stiffest and best engineered willy award"
Well done.
My only question now is, will you be able to resist responding to this, especially after you've won the competition.
.
Ah, back to lunch time banter. A stiff willy joke!
Been watching this post unwind. Not gonna comment, know to little!
Neville Jones - 10/8/12 at 01:42 PMYou two fellas must be the ones who take those furtive little sideways looks when at the urinal, thinking you haven't been noticed. No harm done really, as long as you only get touchy feely with your partner, whatever his name may be.
Mr RR, I only point out the situation from a point of concern.
You ask my cv. Well, I manufactured kits 26 years ago, and was lucky enough for a major german mfr to offer me work, which then led on to doing design and prototyping work in LM cars, which I am still involved in today.
When you were starting in the motor trade, I had just graduated from a Mech Eng degree course, and went to work alongside fitters as a Field Engineer in the extremely big heavy equipment in the mines. Also raced modified sprint cars, and my brother had a Formula Ford. So, I have a broad experience and knowledge. I have no grudge with nor look down on tradesmen, just those who think they are something they really are not. And not pointing at you, so don't misunderstand.
That miniscule willy of mine has produced four sons, so it must have been enough to do the job, as they all resemble me. For those who have met me at shows and such, and have met my sons who were usually with me, the eldest(the bearded one) was awarded his engineering Ph.D earlier in the year. He likes to work in greasy overalls, like me, and his work involves consulting for a couple of F1 and LM teams. The third son,(the one with the blonde woolly curly hair) , works as a Chassis Dynamics Engineer, with a top F1 team up in Motorsport Valley, doing a lot of simulation work, not just in F1, but in the lower formulas and Nascar as well. He has built his own car, and again, uses his hands and gets grubby.
As well as those, I can call on my peers for opinions, as we do with one another.
So you see, I don't comment to make noise, nor from a base of no knowledge and experience, and I have shown those chassis pics to a few people. the replies were all the same.
IF that chassis has been 'Stress Engineered', then the person doing the work has input incorrect data. General opinion seems to be that shock loads have not been accounted for. Your own reluctance to post the numbers, which even people like Lotus will give for their own cars, indicates either a lack of numbers, or a lacking within those numbers.
Even FF cars are built more substantially than the front of that V8 car. Surely you have got to be wondering why? Even take a look at what the yank circle track cars have for chassis, overbuilt yes, but sure as anything they are safe.
And for the clowns who think they are funny, just think about what would happen if you were the one with a broken, out of control car heading for you, knowing the inadequacies had been pointed out previously. You'd be the first running for the ambulance chaser mobs who advertise on TV.
Cheers,
Nev.
owelly - 10/8/12 at 02:20 PMFFS Nev, you're asking a bloke to open his wallet/flies and show you his numbers/penis, which is his business which he has bought and paid for, but you're not willing to back up your comments with specific points you have made on a 'hobby' forum! You're putting more than just a toe in the troll pool.
Seriously, tell the amazed masses what you're talking about or STFU!!
Alfa145 - 10/8/12 at 02:22 PM+1
Mr C - 10/8/12 at 04:42 PMquote:
Originally posted by owelly
FFS Nev, you're asking a bloke to open his wallet/flies and show you his numbers/penis, which is his business which he has bought and paid for, but you're not willing to back up your comments with specific points you have made on a 'hobby' forum! You're putting more than just a toe in the troll pool.
Seriously, tell the amazed masses what you're talking about or STFU!!
+1
For a person who purports to have all this professional expertise, you have a very unprofessional way of communicating it.
coyoteboy - 10/8/12 at 05:57 PMPersonally I find Neville's comments fairly sensible (if occasionally without numerical backup, but that's to be expected when there's no way he can get the values/designs). I think it's a shame when people can't speak up about something they consider poor design and highlight it for others to see who might not otherwise be able to see it or have the experience to do so. Generally the less experienced folk (and I'm not talking specifically about this case) dislike being told they're doing something wrong and argue until the cows come home. The more experienced put the comments out there and really don't care if they're not accepted or come across badly as they were effectively doing everyone a favour anyway. I guess the issue with the internet is it's very hard to differentiate the two unless you're already the expert.
What annoys me most about car forums is there's so much misinformation from well-meaning folk who don't know better and experts don't join in (usually because they have more on their hands in real life and can't spare the time).
To be fair all Neville asked for was basic figures about the chassis which should be known and IMO published if it's a product you can buy. I'm an engineer with nowhere near as much experience as NJ has (or at least claims to have) and I too had some pretty immediate questions about it in my mind from a simple structure point of view, but I stayed quiet as my experience car chassis design is minimal. That said, I'd be more than willing to be proved wrong and it's possible I could be when I'm just going off a few photos
[Edited on 10/8/12 by coyoteboy]
zilspeed - 10/8/12 at 07:31 PMI'm a simple bloke.
This is a simple comment.
I don't like the top wishbones.
I especially don't like the outer end of the top wishbones.
Why on earth you would have two fabricated joints there when both tubes could simply have attached to the threaded bush is utterly beyond me. It's almost inviting failure.
Also why would the pushrods pick up the middle of the bottom bones ?
That's putting a bending moment into that member when it simply doesn't have to.
I'm not slagging off the project, but those two design decisions utterly confuse me.
owelly - 10/8/12 at 08:14 PMThat's more like it Zil. Stuff you question, with specific questions. Not just a 'your car is a killer' comment with no time to back-up the statement but enough time to reply with why you won't reply....
I'm an engineer by trade and have a degree and a job title to prove it. I can use CAD/CAM and I often do as part of my job but I still have eyes that tell me if stuff looks right and I trust my eyes more than the computer! I try not to pick holes in other peoples stuff without some sort of explaination.
coyoteboy - 10/8/12 at 08:47 PMI guess it's personal preference. If he listed a diatribe of everything he thought was wrong would you think it was just as much of a slating and complain about that too?
Ah well, each to his own I guess. I'll get back to my own design!
owelly - 10/8/12 at 08:56 PMI wouldn't complain. I'd have a look at what was said and make up my own mind with perhaps a few comments of my own. I'm not saying I'm always right, far from it, but for someone to state on a public forum that something is dangerous, without backing-up the statement, is in my opinion, very wrong.
austin man - 10/8/12 at 09:22 PMFunny old thing seems like a couple of the usual that'll never work have u seen the double bend brigade are on the lets slag another company off. Why the f cant you take your negative comments offline and offer some private help via u2u instaead of going out to damage repuatations. Obviously RRR have invested a subsatntial sum in the development of this car they as a Newer supplier need help not hinderance.
This forum I believe was set up to be friendly and help people to many of these threads now go from help me, to dont touch that its a crock of shite. If you gusy are so good then put up or shut up get your design into the market place and set the world on fire.
I think you also miss that the global companies are not perfect and many road cars suffer from serious mechanical failure after having millions thrown at their cars .
zilspeed - 10/8/12 at 10:52 PMPost one of this thread suggests "Nice huh!!"
That's surely an invitation to comment.
People must then be expected to comment on how they see it.
It's a fairly brutal world in the marketplace and it's an absolute certainty that the minute your product breaks cover, people will comment. You want people to comment.
You want everyone to say nice things whilst knowing that not everyone will.
You have to have your explanations ready as to why you made the decisions which you did.
This might sound cruel, but it's absolutely how it is.
scootz - 11/8/12 at 07:20 AMquote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
Post one of this thread suggests "Nice huh!!"
That's surely an invitation to comment.
People must then be expected to comment on how they see it.
It's a fairly brutal world in the marketplace and it's an absolute certainty that the minute your product breaks cover, people will comment. You want people to comment.
You want everyone to say nice things whilst knowing that not everyone will.
You have to have your explanations ready as to why you made the decisions which you did.
This might sound cruel, but it's absolutely how it is.
Yup!!!
roadrunnerracing - 14/8/12 at 08:03 PMquote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I'm a simple bloke.
This is a simple comment.
I don't like the top wishbones.
I especially don't like the outer end of the top wishbones.
Why on earth you would have two fabricated joints there when both tubes could simply have attached to the threaded bush is utterly beyond me. It's almost inviting failure.
Also why would the pushrods pick up the middle of the bottom bones ?
That's putting a bending moment into that member when it simply doesn't have to.
I'm not slagging off the project, but those two design decisions utterly confuse me.
I am a simple bloke too. That's why I pay a chassis designer with an engineering degree to do my design work, his full time job is stress testing
mechanical components.
The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels, adjustable via a stainless adjuster. The main load is carried via the pushrod through the cam and spring/damper to the bottom of the chassis. All calculated and tested.
The push-rod would bend first if the suspension bottomed out i.e. the car landed after being airborne. The pushrod is the cheapest and easiest part to replace.
We may simplify the design of the top wishbone when I make the next batch, for the inboard suspension design for cost reasons.
The dampers and springs are also not correct on the 'rolling chassis' it requires different spring rates and damper length. We are waiting for delivery of the custom made ones for the car. So far 4 weeks late. We needed to make it mobile so we fitted the outboard ones inboard until the correct ones arrive.
I won't make any negative comments on the picture of your chassis as it is clearly still under construction, as is the case with our vehicle.
Regards Mike
mark chandler - 14/8/12 at 08:41 PMNow I have seen this post and looked at your explanation on rose joint orientation if I made my front end again I would locate the rose joints on the chassis as is done here, I do however have issue with this statement
"The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels"
When you stamp on the brakes all the weight if the car is trying to twist the upright between the top and bottom bones so you do get a lot more load that just holding the camber of the car, although in a different plane.
Your explanation on why explains this unusual design, I have seen other top wishbones that used bent tubes, pre litigation Westfields for example which have been running for years quite happily and people here covert these cars.
That aside it looks like a nicely presented well-made bit of kit, assuming people will try for size and get plenty of enjoyment it's all good by me.
Regards Mark
zilspeed - 14/8/12 at 09:16 PMquote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I'm a simple bloke.
This is a simple comment.
I don't like the top wishbones.
I especially don't like the outer end of the top wishbones.
Why on earth you would have two fabricated joints there when both tubes could simply have attached to the threaded bush is utterly beyond me. It's almost inviting failure.
Also why would the pushrods pick up the middle of the bottom bones ?
That's putting a bending moment into that member when it simply doesn't have to.
I'm not slagging off the project, but those two design decisions utterly confuse me.
I am a simple bloke too. That's why I pay a chassis designer with an engineering degree to do my design work, his full time job is stress testing
mechanical components.
The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels, adjustable via a stainless adjuster. The main load is carried via the pushrod through the cam and spring/damper to the bottom of the chassis. All calculated and tested.
The push-rod would bend first if the suspension bottomed out i.e. the car landed after being airborne. The pushrod is the cheapest and easiest part to replace.
We may simplify the design of the top wishbone when I make the next batch, for the inboard suspension design for cost reasons.
The dampers and springs are also not correct on the 'rolling chassis' it requires different spring rates and damper length. We are waiting for delivery of the custom made ones for the car. So far 4 weeks late. We needed to make it mobile so we fitted the outboard ones inboard until the correct ones arrive.
I won't make any negative comments on the picture of your chassis as it is clearly still under construction, as is the case with our vehicle.
Regards Mike
Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's very much appreciated.
I originally typed in a whole load more at this point but on balance decided that it served no purpose.
Best wishes with the project.
coyoteboy - 14/8/12 at 09:20 PMquote:
The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels, adjustable via a stainless adjuster. The main load is carried via the pushrod through the cam and spring/damper to the bottom of the chassis. All calculated and tested.
I hope to god your chassis designer considered more than just vertical wheel load when doing your calculations!
roadrunnerracing - 14/8/12 at 09:33 PMMy point was the top wishbones are more than strong enough for the forces acting on them.
I have tried to make a point without spending too long on my keyboard and going into great detail.
A few people are amazed I have spent time replying, and have advised me not to even bother responding, I feel a lot of negative things have been said without all the facts, so a few paragraphs from me make it a bit more even handed.
The person who first copied the pictures did so with good intentions and like us has been surprised by some of the comments being made on the basis of a part finished rolling chassis in a few photographs.
The car in the picture actually has our old original bottom wishbones fitted, the new ones are slightly different, the damper hole is 1/2 inch, the rose joint is 12mm, so again just fitted while I make some of the newer ones.
Regards Mike
petrol head ash - 14/8/12 at 09:34 PMI think what was meant by 'They carry no real loading' is when the car's stationary you could quite happily loosen the top ball joint and easily move the wishbone up and down. yes, I know it will carry a certain amount of load under braking, cornering etc, but I don't think it was meant like that.
I can also understand why the top wishbone design hasn't changed 'yet' as I'm sure Roadrunner has invested a good chunk of money on the inboard front suspension, I also think having the one top wish bone is better from a company point of view due to less stock and lower production costs of two designs.
I think the Road Runner SR2 is definitely one of the better kits available and would like to congratulate Road Runner on all the hard work they have been putting in (reading the facebook page) I think its great to see different ideas/designs.....
....Least there doing and not all talk!
I work for a premium brand and see production cars 'brake'.... daily, most kit's on the market do very well to be in the position to sell a car that in my eyes will compete with high end sports cars. You 'experts' or 'old men with years in the trade' or what ever you want to be called, Iv seen 'issues' with other kits on the market but they obviously work so why sit there picking fault? if it brakes it's something that can be sorted, isn't that how it works for everyone?
roadrunnerracing - 14/8/12 at 09:39 PMquote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels, adjustable via a stainless adjuster. The main load is carried via the pushrod through the cam and spring/damper to the bottom of the chassis. All calculated and tested.
I hope to god your chassis designer considered more than just vertical wheel load when doing your calculations!
Above sentence is not even worth a reply.
roadrunnerracing - 14/8/12 at 09:57 PMquote:
Originally posted by mark chandler
Now I have seen this post and looked at your explanation on rose joint orientation if I made my front end again I would locate the rose joints on the chassis as is done here, I do however have issue with this statement
"The top wishbones are made like that to clear the previous outboard suspension design. They carry no real loading just align the camber of the front wheels"
When you stamp on the brakes all the weight if the car is trying to twist the upright between the top and bottom bones so you do get a lot more load that just holding the camber of the car, although in a different plane.
Your explanation on why explains this unusual design, I have seen other top wishbones that used bent tubes, pre litigation Westfields for example which have been running for years quite happily and people here covert these cars.
That aside it looks like a nicely presented well-made bit of kit, assuming people will try for size and get plenty of enjoyment it's all good by me.
Regards Mark
Answered the above point in my other reply.
When the SR2 chassis was first designed over 3 years ago, (it is not a brand new design this year), Roadrunner asked for there to be no bent tubes as they did not have a tube bender. I bought one when I took over Roadrunner 2 years ago, £11000 worth with all the tooling, mainly for bending roll cages. If we decide to use bent wishbone tubes in the future we now have the capability to do it.
Regards Mike
coyoteboy - 14/8/12 at 10:15 PMquote:
Above sentence is not even worth a reply.
?? You yourself just said [I quoted you] that was the only load situation and that controlling camber was the only job for them? As I say, I hope your chassis designer has more of an understanding of the loadings than just those to support the car as you seemed to suggest. It's perfectly possible the upper rod end is big enough to deal with it, but it's still not exactly ideal and if it was given to me as an engineer there's no way in hell I'd OK it for manufacture, but that's my call - I'm a bit of a stickler for detail. Your call on your car though, if you're happy it's suitable.
Mr C - 15/8/12 at 07:51 AMquote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
Above sentence is not even worth a reply.
?? You yourself just said [I quoted you] that was the only load situation and that controlling camber was the only job for them? As I say, I hope your chassis designer has more of an understanding of the loadings than just those to support the car as you seemed to suggest. It's perfectly possible the upper rod end is big enough to deal with it, but it's still not exactly ideal and if it was given to me as an engineer there's no way in hell I'd OK it for manufacture, but that's my call - I'm a bit of a stickler for detail. Your call on your car though, if you're happy it's suitable.
An example of not knowing when to walk away from the table, trying to win an argument by having the final say wth an attitude of I'm right everyone else is wrong.
You made your pont earlier and are now going over old ground, if the respondent raised a new issue (which he didn't) then reply to it, but don't keep posting and posting trying to score points on every last detail. You don't "win the argument" by making the last post. Also it doesn't help if you adopt an attitude that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.
Perhaps if the OP was taken more at face value rather than the ins and outs of a ducks arse we wouldn't end up with these heated debates, after all this was a post initially on what people generally thought of the car the focus being the engine and transmission not the suspension design.
To the roadrunner team: all the best with the project guys and well done for daring to be different.
loggyboy - 15/8/12 at 07:59 AMquote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
I don't like the top wishbones.
I especially don't like the outer end of the top wishbones.
Why on earth you would have two fabricated joints there when both tubes could simply have attached to the threaded bush is utterly beyond me. It's almost inviting failure.
Surely the extended outer joints keep the majority of structure aligned with the the loading points - as per this study:
http://www.formulastudent.de/academy/pats-corner/advice-details/article/pats-column-rod-ends-in-bending/
sdh2903 - 15/8/12 at 08:37 AMpurely out of interest for a self build how much would you estimate to get one of these on the road? (realistically)
MakeEverything - 15/8/12 at 08:57 AMI like it, and wouldnt mind a drive in it. Not sure about the plate behind the engine though, or is this to stop you being sucked into the engine?
Good effort on the design and being different. I feel that the engine might be a little overpowered, but what a laugh you'll have shredding the tyres!
Irony - 15/8/12 at 09:40 AMI have been following this thread with interest and I think it should be deleted. There is no actual FACTS contained within it only opinion. Opinions given by people who may or may not have amazing qualifications in engineering. Internet forum threads such as this can make or break businesses such as RRR. Anyone who searches for SR2 or RRR will come across and be confused by the many differing opinions contained within.
Locostbuilders should support kitcar manufacturers and try and help them promote their product because we want a better kit car industry in this country. If someone seriously objects to something as fundamental as chassis safety and design it should be done privately with the business and not on a open forum. Only then should it be made to the public if no progress is made.
We're dealing with peoples livelyhoods here.......
[Edited on 15/8/12 by Irony]
MakeEverything - 15/8/12 at 10:00 AMquote:
Originally posted by Irony
I have been following this thread with interest and I think it should be deleted. There is no actual FACTS contained within it only opinion. Opinions given by people who may or may not have amazing qualifications in engineering. Internet forum threads such as this can make or break businesses such as RRR. Anyone who searches for SR2 or RRR will come across and be confused by the many differing opinions contained within.
Locostbuilders should support kitcar manufacturers and try and help them promote their product because we want a better kit car industry in this country. If someone seriously objects to something as fundamental as chassis safety and design it should be done privately with the business and not on a open forum. Only then should it be made to the public if no progress is made.
We're dealing with peoples livelyhoods here.......
[Edited on 15/8/12 by Irony]
I agree and disagree.
Whilst we should be supporting businesses that produce good products / services and promoting them, this is a social forum and so will attract positive and negative views. Potential customers will make their own decisions anyway, and as the manufacturer has already said, he has put up some credible explanations to even the balance.
That said, i don't think (or expect) the LCB forum to support anyones business, as it is neutral ground for discussion, not a marketing board for small businesses or IT ventures.
[Edited on 15-8-12 by MakeEverything]
Neville Jones - 16/8/12 at 04:07 PMquote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
Above sentence is not even worth a reply.
?? You yourself just said [I quoted you] that was the only load situation and that controlling camber was the only job for them? As I say, I hope your chassis designer has more of an understanding of the loadings than just those to support the car as you seemed to suggest. It's perfectly possible the upper rod end is big enough to deal with it, but it's still not exactly ideal and if it was given to me as an engineer there's no way in hell I'd OK it for manufacture, but that's my call - I'm a bit of a stickler for detail. Your call on your car though, if you're happy it's suitable.
The point that the guys I showed this to was much the same, and backs up the comments I made earlier.
The FEA MAY have been done, but the opinions of people who do this work every day are that the wrong, or incorrect, loadings have been input.
Mr.RRR, your own statements seem to back this up.
I cannot believe that a properly qualified engineer, of any sort, has had anything to do with this car and the design work in it.
Maybe Mr.RR,you could get the engineer himself to post here, explaining just how he came to the conclusions that this design work is safe and correct.
You mention you have Product Liability Insurance, could you please scan the certificate and post it here, showing clearly the underwriters name? You'd be the only company in the kit industry with this, so should be proud to let the world know and show them so.
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 16/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Steve Hignett - 16/8/12 at 04:29 PMWhat makes you think the engineer "hasn't" posted on this thread?
Mr C - 16/8/12 at 04:36 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr C
An example of not knowing when to walk away from the table, trying to win an argument by having the final say wth an attitude of I'm right everyone else is wrong.
You made your pont earlier and are now going over old ground, if the respondent raised a new issue (which he didn't) then reply to it, but don't keep posting and posting trying to score points on every last detail. You don't "win the argument" by making the last post. Also it doesn't help if you adopt an attitude that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.
Perhaps if the OP was taken more at face value rather than the ins and outs of a ducks arse we wouldn't end up with these heated debates, after all this was a post initially on what people generally thought of the car the focus being the engine and transmission not the suspension design.
To the roadrunner team: all the best with the project guys and well done for daring to be different.
As above...
sdh2903 - 16/8/12 at 04:49 PMAnything else you want him to post up? Bank statements?, supplier details? pictures of the Mrs?
Please just give it a rest nev your just making yourself look a bit childish.
snakebelly - 16/8/12 at 05:09 PMNev,
Give the man a break! He is happy with his design obviously and RRR aren’t exactly newcomers to the industry. Like all these types of projects I’m sure changes and improvements will be made over time once some track testing takes place, this isn’t the mainstream automotive industry here it’s the kit car industry and R&D budgets differ accordingly.
If it’s any consolation Mr RRR I like it, personally I can’t think why you would put an engine that size in a seven but the fact you have done it deserves acknowledgement. Vive le difference!
daviep - 16/8/12 at 05:28 PMHate to say it Nev but you are starting to sound like a tit, the one man crusade against anybody who is actually doing anything is starting to wear a bit thin. You increasingly rarely post anything constructive just glib replies about being paid for your expertise or such like.
You claim to be an expert in nearly everything, you may or may not be telling the truth I don't know or care, but there appears to be no evidence to support these claims. No pics in the archive. Can we have some proof of your credentials please such as certificates of education and invoices for done.
I like this forum but all the unconstructive negative comments are starting to spoil it, or thats my opinion.
Cheers
Davie
gottabedone - 16/8/12 at 05:32 PMI've typed a response a couple of times and deleted it but it gets to the point where to be honest you have to question what Neville's motives are here.
The fact that some people don't like the design of the wishbones is one thing and well worthy of discussion/debate. The constant demands for documentation whether related to these' bones or not is a whole different ballgame and frankly none of your business what so ever.
You've already asked too many times so either stick to the debate about the design of the bones or move on.
Steve
Mr C - 16/8/12 at 06:09 PMquote:
Originally posted by daviep
Hate to say it Nev but you are starting to sound like a tit, the one man crusade against anybody who is actually doing anything is starting to wear a bit thin. You increasingly rarely post anything constructive just glib replies about being paid for your expertise or such like.
You claim to be an expert in nearly everything, you may or may not be telling the truth I don't know or care, but there appears to be no evidence to support these claims. No pics in the archive. Can we have some proof of your credentials please such as certificates of education and invoices for done.
I like this forum but all the unconstructive negative comments are starting to spoil it, or thats my opinion.
Cheers
Davie
+1 especially with that gun pointing at me
owelly - 16/8/12 at 06:20 PMquote:
FFS Nev, you're asking a bloke to open his wallet/flies and show you his numbers/penis, which is his business which he has bought and paid for, but you're not willing to back up your comments with specific points you have made on a 'hobby' forum! You're putting more than just a toe in the troll pool.
....still waiting.....
Alfa145 - 16/8/12 at 07:42 PMquote:
Originally posted by daviep
Hate to say it Nev but you are starting to sound like a tit
Agreed....
MakeEverything - 17/8/12 at 09:31 AMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
You mention you have Product Liability Insurance, could you please scan the certificate and post it here, showing clearly the underwriters name? You'd be the only company in the kit industry with this, so should be proud to let the world know and show them so.
[Edited on 16/8/12 by Neville Jones]
No he wouldnt;
Most professional (Qualified) design engineers have membership to accrediting bodies which, to be a member of, you need to Demonstrate competence and qualification in the form of a portfolio and interview panel. After qualifying for full membership, it often provides legal cover and credibility in court as well as with the HSE.
The majority of these professionals that are self employed, also have design liability which lasts the lifetime of the product to cover the design aspect of the product, not its use / misuse.
There is a whole host of legislation around corporate indemnity and levels of protection, but focusing on the smaller element in this post.
Neville Jones - 17/8/12 at 12:07 PMI haven't got a personal crusade against any one in particular. BUT, I do have a personal crusade against poor design(?) in the kit world.
RRR has every right to make and sell what he wants. He also has a responsibility to ensure that what he sells is safe.
To put that big 400lb+, 400hp+, 400ft.lb engine in that spindly little chassis is grossly irresponsible.
A piece of artwork it may be, and that's what it is best suited to, but not as a roadgoing vehicle.
I would hope that anyone buying one of these to put a v8 into it, ends up with an innocuous Rover V8, a fairly safe alternative with less power than a Zetec, and about the same weight. Buyers will see that big Chev engine, then put the Rover in when reality and the wallet kicks in.
What astonishes me in this, is the people who are vehemently defending RRR, do not appear to have any engineering understanding whatsoever. Just how many are engineers, with relevant experience and education? None by all appearances.
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Neville Jones]
snakebelly - 17/8/12 at 12:14 PMWell im head of engineering at NASA and i think its brill and that your a cock!
Easy isnt it........
franky - 17/8/12 at 12:15 PMout of interest, who do you think does make a chassis that's good for 300+bhp?
owelly - 17/8/12 at 12:44 PMMore of the same from Nev........ it's like de ja vu all over again......
Mr C - 17/8/12 at 01:08 PMPerhaps a poll may be in order?
Is Neville;
a) a bell end
b) a rocket scientist
c) has a mild form of asbergers/autism
d) a semi retired/redundant middle manager from the civil service (tax office)
e) don't give a fook, just wish he'd shut up
first correct answer wins a years membership to the Confederation Of Components & Kitcars, of which Neville is a lifetime member.
sdh2903 - 17/8/12 at 01:09 PMe
wylliezx9r - 17/8/12 at 01:55 PMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
I haven't got a personal crusade against any one in particular. BUT, I do have a personal crusade against poor design(?) in the kit world.
RRR has every right to make and sell what he wants. He also has a responsibility to ensure that what he sells is safe.
To put that big 400lb+, 400hp+, 400ft.lb engine in that spindly little chassis is grossly irresponsible.
A piece of artwork it may be, and that's what it is best suited to, but not as a roadgoing vehicle.
I would hope that anyone buying one of these to put a v8 into it, ends up with an innocuous Rover V8, a fairly safe alternative with less power than a Zetec, and about the same weight. Buyers will see that big Chev engine, then put the Rover in when reality and the wallet kicks in.
What astonishes me in this, is the people who are vehementlydefending RRR, do not appear to have any engineering understanding whatsoever. Just how many are engineers, with relevant experience and education? None by all appearances.
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Why don't you go and find something else to criticise (without actually being factual.) You really are boring.
MakeEverything - 17/8/12 at 02:21 PMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
What astonishes me in this, is the people who are vehemently defending RRR, do not appear to have any engineering understanding whatsoever. Just how many are engineers, with relevant experience and education? None by all appearances.
You're such an asshole for making that a sweeping statement. Next you're going to tell us you have an Ma in Management Studies or a degree in Personnel Management??
owelly - 17/8/12 at 02:51 PMThere are many folks on here who I respect their comments and take on board what they have to say. They provide useful information and whilst I don't always agree with their opinions, the information is usually accurate and honest. There are also a few 'names' that I see and think, "yeah. I see what you're thinking but it's not right..." or, "there he goes again, giving slightly wonky advice"........but most folks can see through the chaff to find the wheat.
And then there's the clunts who back themselves into a corner with broad sweeping, unfounded statements and start digging. Then they realise there's nowhere to dig so turn round to fight. But with nothing to fight with, they start waving their arms about. I think we're looking at a possible clunt.
snakebelly - 17/8/12 at 03:19 PMCan't one of the admins change Nevs handle to Calinx II?
wylliezx9r - 17/8/12 at 03:21 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr C
Perhaps a poll may be in order?
Is Neville;
a) a bell end
b) a rocket scientist
c) has a mild form of asbergers/autism
d) a semi retired/redundant middle manager from the civil service (tax office)
e) don't give a fook, just wish he'd shut up
first correct answer wins a years membership to the Confederation Of Components & Kitcars, of which Neville is a lifetime member.
A, but somebody else can have the prize if I'm correct
Wadders - 17/8/12 at 03:36 PMI don't intend getting involved in this thread, as it seems to be turning ugly
However bolting an unfeasibly large V8 into a weedy chassis with less than suitable running gear is hardly something new.......
Wonder what the engineers and FEA experts would make of this.....
And before anyone jumps in, i'm not in any way suggesting the RRR chassis is weedy or less than suitable etc etc
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Wadders]
TAZZMAXX - 17/8/12 at 04:10 PMHow about this then? Over 600 wheel horse power in a motorbike! This loon has appeared on another forum I frequent. Who is responsible for it, if and when it all goes wrong? Since motor vehicles have existed, people have wanted to tweak them with a bit more power and personalise them to their own needs. I can't really see too much wrong with the RoadRunner car and think it's great that someone has put a whacking V8 into a small chassis which is a bit irreponsible of me as an engineer
621whp, on 110octane 427 on optimax, boost pegged at 2.5bar
GT35r with custom wheel and housing
Tial 60mm BOV's
Motec m400 fully open with logging
AMS multistage boost controller
carrillo rods
wiseco pistons
mucho head work and custom grind cams
multistage lock up clutch
plus a ton of other bits generously coated with my tears and blood
rodgling - 17/8/12 at 08:37 PMHow does the owner of that bike stay alive riding that thing?!!
JoelP - 17/8/12 at 08:57 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr C
Perhaps a poll may be in order?
Is Neville;
a) a bell end
b) a rocket scientist
c) has a mild form of asbergers/autism
d) a semi retired/redundant middle manager from the civil service (tax office)
e) don't give a fook, just wish he'd shut up
first correct answer wins a years membership to the Confederation Of Components & Kitcars, of which Neville is a lifetime member.
you missed out:
f) syd bridge
I dont doubt he knows a fair bit, and also that he thinks he knows even more, but by god ive never met anyone else with such an insufferable attitude. I cannot believe he is actually this abrasive in the flesh.
Stott - 17/8/12 at 09:49 PMquote:
Originally posted by snakebelly
Well im head of engineering at NASA and i think its brill and that your a cock!
Easy isnt it........
I call bullsht.
Post up copies of your latest rocket design, space logs, moon landing pics with your face on display, and you standing in front of your se7en in a spacesuit holding a tin of custard then I'll believe you.
If you really are the head of engineering at NASA then you won't mind posting these things up as you'll be the only one on this forum with them and should therefore be extremely proud.
atb
Stott
snakebelly - 17/8/12 at 10:25 PMWhat! Do you mean that if I just constantly tell people how brill I am and put other people down I may not be believed! Oh well.....
By the way the thrumblewicket on the RRR chassis has a double quadruple positronic batshit defecit but what makes it worse is the nadger bolts looks like the shear force is equivalent to the stockings I was wearing last night.... Scary or what
austin man - 17/8/12 at 11:19 PMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
I haven't got a personal crusade against any one in particular. BUT, I do have a personal crusade against poor design(?) in the kit world.
RRR has every right to make and sell what he wants. He also has a responsibility to ensure that what he sells is safe.
To put that big 400lb+, 400hp+, 400ft.lb engine in that spindly little chassis is grossly irresponsible.
A piece of artwork it may be, and that's what it is best suited to, but not as a roadgoing vehicle.
I would hope that anyone buying one of these to put a v8 into it, ends up with an innocuous Rover V8, a fairly safe alternative with less power than a Zetec, and about the same weight. Buyers will see that big Chev engine, then put the Rover in when reality and the wallet kicks in.
What astonishes me in this, is the people who are vehemently defending RRR, do not appear to have any engineering understanding whatsoever. Just how many are engineers, with relevant experience and education? None by all appearances.
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Its about time that you designed a soap box Neville because the one you keep getting on must be a tad weak now. If your so good my man where is your product in the market place. Im sure it would be a perfect article finely polished and designed and worthy of every penny you ask. But where the fxxx is it. If your not moaning about double bends on rollcages your moaning about something else.
You constantly strive to belittle ,bewilder and offend people who are trying to make an honest living I implore you to help not hinder if you are the GURU you purport to be. It appears that you would be the Carlsberg of the kit car market if you actually made anything other than bad press for others.
I hope Mclaren read the posts on here if so with your credentials you should expect a call in the morning. Just have to hope Durex dont give you a call instead
daniel mason - 18/8/12 at 09:22 AMi cant understand why people even bother to argue with him? hes a complete tit!
NeilP - 18/8/12 at 09:56 AMquote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
To put that big 400lb+, 400hp+, 400ft.lb engine in that spindly little chassis is grossly irresponsible...
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Oh dear! Someone better tell the Americans...
Mike, All the very, very best with your company and your projects. Having individuals like you who are prepared to innovate is what makes this country great.
Neville, as the professionally qualified engineer that I'm sure you are, I have to say (as a professionally qualified engineer) that I find your conduct on this public forum utterly deplorable - I would suggest that you re-read the charter of the organisation to which you belong and concentrate in detail on the section in relation to professional conduct - you bring shame on our profession.
If you (and your many friends involved at the highest levels of automotive design) have genuine, professional concerns then I would kindly suggest you follow the statutory channels available to you to do so - this forum is not one of them.
Mr C - 18/8/12 at 01:16 PMHow about the chassis twst on this baby, built by a brit, clocked at 207mph looking for 250, makes the roadrunner car look like its built from girders.
phelpsa - 18/8/12 at 02:13 PMHowever often somebody who knows better will shout about it, there is no correct way to engineer a car, just different problems to overcome.
The proof of the pudding is in the metal, and if it works, whats the problem? Neither the designer nor the manufacturer has claimed that it is the stiffest, or strongest, or lightest or fastest car in the world.
There are many engineers that could point out 50 things on the RB8 that aren't based on sound engineering principles, doesn't stop it being very good at what it's meant to do though. There are a lot of parts on my own race car that would send neville to an early grave, but it's certainly proven itself this year.
So all that's required is some videos (with sound please) with this hammering round Anglesey or Brands and everyone is happy
roadrunnerracing - 18/8/12 at 08:29 PMquote:
Originally posted by Mr C
How about the chassis twst on this baby, built by a brit, clocked at 207mph looking for 250, makes the roadrunner car look like its built from girders.
Now this does look dangerous, not the fact it has a V10 8 litre Viper engine in it, but the guy riding it has bare arms and no gloves. My current bike is a K1200s and I always wear a jacket and gloves. I would love to have a go on that bike, but would not risk it with bare arms and hands LOL.
Still waiting for Neville to show me pictures etc of his cars, chassis, designs, work in progress, etc. think I may have a long wait.............
austin man - 18/8/12 at 08:41 PMsilence is golden. Keep up the work RRR and continue the development of your car. Apparently the Wright Brothers where told that thing will never fly, Just makes you wonder if the people who made the statements have any relations on LCB.
roadrunnerracing - 18/8/12 at 08:41 PMquote:
Originally posted by NeilP
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
To put that big 400lb+, 400hp+, 400ft.lb engine in that spindly little chassis is grossly irresponsible...
[Edited on 17/8/12 by Neville Jones]
Oh dear! Someone better tell the Americans...
Mike, All the very, very best with your company and your projects. Having individuals like you who are prepared to innovate is what makes this country great.
Neville, as the professionally qualified engineer that I'm sure you are, I have to say (as a professionally qualified engineer) that I find your conduct on this public forum utterly deplorable - I would suggest that you re-read the charter of the organisation to which you belong and concentrate in detail on the section in relation to professional conduct - you bring shame on our profession.
If you (and your many friends involved at the highest levels of automotive design) have genuine, professional concerns then I would kindly suggest you follow the statutory channels available to you to do so - this forum is not one of them.
Looks like a good test for the wishbones when it finally lands.
I have to say I have had a few engineers, some with PhDs who have sent me private emails, regarding our chassis design. They have been satisfied with our replies to their questions. As you stated this is the way you would expect professionals to behave. It is normally best to get accurate information before making sweeping statements above a company or it's products.
Regards Mike
roadrunnerracing - 18/8/12 at 08:49 PMquote:
Originally posted by austin man
silence is golden. Keep up the work RRR and continue the development of your car. Apparently the Wright Brothers where told that thing will never fly, Just makes you wonder if the people who made the statements have any relations on LCB.
Only just over a hundred years ago the countries top surgeons all agreed the human body could not breath above 25 miles an hour.
austin man - 18/8/12 at 09:16 PMquote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
silence is golden. Keep up the work RRR and continue the development of your car. Apparently the Wright Brothers where told that thing will never fly, Just makes you wonder if the people who made the statements have any relations on LCB.
Only just over a hundred years ago the countries top surgeons all agreed the human body could not breath above 25 miles an hour.
Just goes to show mate that some people can be too self oppinionated as said keep up the designing and development,
Stott - 18/8/12 at 09:50 PMquote:
Originally posted by roadrunnerracing
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
silence is golden. Keep up the work RRR and continue the development of your car. Apparently the Wright Brothers where told that thing will never fly, Just makes you wonder if the people who made the statements have any relations on LCB.
Only just over a hundred years ago the countries top surgeons all agreed the human body could not breath above 25 miles an hour.
I did 125mph in the asbo <<<<<<< a few weeks ago with just safety glasses on, I breathed.
The mrs however didn't, and had one hand on her hair and one hand on her glasses lol
froggy - 19/8/12 at 10:01 AM
Is this neville jones ??
PeteS2k - 19/8/12 at 10:33 AMquote:
Originally posted by phelpsa
However often somebody who knows better will shout about it, there is no correct way to engineer a car, just different problems to overcome.
The proof of the pudding is in the metal, and if it works, whats the problem? Neither the designer nor the manufacturer has claimed that it is the stiffest, or strongest, or lightest or fastest car in the world.
There are many engineers that could point out 50 things on the RB8 that aren't based on sound engineering principles, doesn't stop it being very good at what it's meant to do though. There are a lot of parts on my own race car that would send neville to an early grave, but it's certainly proven itself this year.
So all that's required is some videos (with sound please) with this hammering round Anglesey or Brands and everyone is happy
This^^^
Must say, I've really enjoyed this thread so far... for all the wrong reasons!
(Degree is Aeronautics, 30 yrs in the aerospace industry, but I should caveat my views by stating I have no training or qualifications in automotive chassis design or experience in finite element analysis toolsets....)
froggy - 19/8/12 at 11:41 AMCheck out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txp19ZNtFn8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sums it up nicely I think ?
zilspeed - 19/8/12 at 01:53 PMThere are two aspects of this thread which I find disheartening.
Firstly, those who would seek to criticise the car without being willing to enter into honest discussion and actually elaborate the point.
Without discussion, no party can move forwards and perhaps even have greater insight through having had the discussion.
Any form of criticism (in the truest sense of its dictionary definition) has to be followed by a willingness to be honest and engage in a real discussion of the facts. If anyone is willing to criticise, that can't be the end of the discussion. Nobody benefits from that.
Secondly, those would oppress any form of discussion whatsoever.
I am a great believer in learning.
I usually do that by observing, questioning and thinking.
It seems that I was perhaps wrong in assuming that others would share a desire to do likewise.
We can all learn from one another and it's equally valid to be the one learning as it is to be the one sharing the learning.
If any of us loses the ability to share our knowledge and also the ability to listen and learn, the forum becomes a little less useful.
If the forum becomes a place where free debate cannot occur, then its purpose is greatly diminished.
It would be a real shame if people were either in the "criticise and run away category" or, equally bad "never ever criticise" category.
Both perspectives are equally useless.
We're all grown up enough to actually talk about stuff.
It doesn't take very long at all to look through the archives and find genuinely helpful discussion regarding cars from all of the high profile manufacturers and various potentially serious failures which have occured.
If this can't continue, the forum just became a slightly less useful place to spend time.
Hector.Brocklebank - 27/8/12 at 04:15 PMquote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
There are two aspects of this thread which I find disheartening.
Firstly, those who would seek to criticise the car without being willing to enter into honest discussion and actually elaborate the point.
Without discussion, no party can move forwards and perhaps even have greater insight through having had the discussion.
Any form of criticism (in the truest sense of its dictionary definition) has to be followed by a willingness to be honest and engage in a real discussion of the facts. If anyone is willing to criticise, that can't be the end of the discussion. Nobody benefits from that.
Secondly, those would oppress any form of discussion whatsoever.
I am a great believer in learning.
I usually do that by observing, questioning and thinking.
It seems that I was perhaps wrong in assuming that others would share a desire to do likewise.
We can all learn from one another and it's equally valid to be the one learning as it is to be the one sharing the learning.
If any of us loses the ability to share our knowledge and also the ability to listen and learn, the forum becomes a little less useful.
If the forum becomes a place where free debate cannot occur, then its purpose is greatly diminished.
It would be a real shame if people were either in the "criticise and run away category" or, equally bad "never ever criticise" category.
Both perspectives are equally useless.
We're all grown up enough to actually talk about stuff.
It doesn't take very long at all to look through the archives and find genuinely helpful discussion regarding cars from all of the high profile manufacturers and various potentially serious failures which have occured.
If this can't continue, the forum just became a slightly less useful place to spend time.
HERE HERE !!!!
