snakebelly
|
| posted on 7/8/12 at 04:56 PM |
|
|
+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Here as well
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
TheGiantTribble
|
| posted on 7/8/12 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
Not 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
|
| posted on 8/8/12 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
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!
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 01:42 PM |
|
|
You 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
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
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!!
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 02:22 PM |
|
|
+1
|
|
|
Mr C
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
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.
Girl walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 05:57 PM |
|
|
Personally 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
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
That'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.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
I 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
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 08:56 PM |
|
|
I 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.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 09:22 PM |
|
|
Funny 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 .
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 10/8/12 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 11/8/12 at 07:20 AM |
|
|
quote:
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!!!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
roadrunnerracing
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 08:03 PM |
|
|
Suspension experts
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
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 08:41 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
roadrunnerracing
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
My 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
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:34 PM |
|
|
I 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
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
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
|
| posted on 14/8/12 at 10:15 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mr C
|
| posted on 15/8/12 at 07:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
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.
Girl walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre, so the barman gave her one
|
|
|
.jpg)
