Who thinks Locost should be a Brand Name the Same as W*stf**ld, M*rg*n, and Cateringvan.
When you search for Locost on a Auto trader or the Likes, nothing shows( apart from EBAY). It should be a brand name, its been on the market long enough

[Edited on 13/2/04 by Kitlooney1000]

Although I agree in principal, I disagree generally as it is pretty much a generic term. As such, by definition, it cant be a Car Make... or Brand.

Now if you said MK then that would be a different matter...

But surely they are all made my different people and unlikley to ever be the same, therefore it cant really be a car make. Also you would never be able to think oh its a locost, it must be good, as it could be a big pile of shite.

disagree with making it a brand name - why? there would simply be to many differant variants to warrant a uniformed convention which other car manufacturers have.

just my 6p worth there

i have spent yonks making a car thats different and not from a kit.

I dont want it lumped in with others.

I have a suspicion that few cars on here are what I woudl truly call locosts.

In my view its not just the price - its the total DIY concept.

For me, if you are building an MK, Luego, ST or whatever, its not a true 'ron champion locost'.

But then neither is the bastard child of it that im building a 'ronnie' of low priced - but it is a 98% diy jobbie.

hands up who is doing or has done a real scratch build? see poll!!!!!


atb

steve

*Sticks hand up*

I even made my own shocks.

Cheers

Chris

*raises hand* genuine locost build here with much modifying and ground work from scratch.

I consider "Locost" more of a philosophy or generic category...kind of succesor to the old "specials" description.....think back to the mag "kit cars and specials".....

Ok, the majority are based on the seven style, but my feeling it is the "doing it yourself" to a great or lesser extent rather than the overall seven look is the key factor.....

So, if anything, a locost is absolutely a non-make....in my eyes at least....

[Edited on 15/2/04 by Alan B]

I prefer 'special' as a term than locost.

locost sounds kinda cheap and crappy - which isnt something you want to apply to summat you put so much of your life into.

atb

steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by stephen_gusterson
I prefer 'special' as a term than locost.

locost sounds kinda cheap and crappy - which isnt something you want to apply to summat you put so much of your life into.

atb

steve

---

I don't think it would work, too many variables, and at wot point is it no longer a 'locost' but an MK or Luego?

Maybe if you build your own chassis it can rightly be called a locost? (I did!)

Well,

I agree with almost everyone about almost everything (in this context at least).

Calling it a Locost just makes people think that you're building a kit which is exactly what I didn't want to do. It also has to be said that Locost is a bit of a crappy name with crappy conotations.

I agree with Alan that it is more of a philosophy and I would describe a Locost as a scratch built car inspired by RC's book - both in form (i.e. a lightweight, basic sports car) and in the 'do it yourself' ethos.

I don't knock anyone who does it diferently but I want to be able to say that I built it (more or less) from scratch. Buying a part off the shelf just feels like cheating to me (although some times I have nearly sucumbed to the the idea of buying new bits and actually geting on with the build for once).

At the end of the day I don't want it to have a label I want it to be mine, done in my way (or a way pinched from someone on this site).

Just my 2p worth

Cheers

Phil

[Edited on 16/2/04 by philgregson]