iirc a locost is a scratch built sports replica following the basic 'book' format.

I keep hearing people referring to (eg) MK etc as locosts. Is this right? My view is that these are specialist factory built sports replicas and hence are not locosts. What do you think?

(PS - iam of course playing devils advocate here to prompt several oppinions).

they are not locosts, imho, but then again, the manufacturers dont describe them as that anyway! MK used to supply a 'book' chassis i think.

I'm building an MK (Indy) and consider myself to be building a kit car, not a locost. I was initially tempted by the Ron Champion Locost route, but for me the constraints of time and skills steered me into building a kit car.

I do however feel that a lot of kit car builders (me included) build their cars with a similar "low cost" approach.

Either way, provided your getting what you want from the experience then it's a good thing to do.

Nick

Yup joels right, in the early years of MK sportscars which was then MK engineering they supplied what we now call book chassis to people wanting to build but not weld.Or people with limited skills who could not weld bought the chassis and bones but built or fabricated the rest themselves.

I've got to admit there are not many true locost cars on the road ie home built chassis and home grown fibreglass as well,but to be honest the MK's luegos mnr's GTS and MAC1's are all in locost fashion re price and most of us have had to fabricate a fair bit of the build unlike full production kits.

It's all about time for me. I couldn't be bothered with the fibreglassing but "did" build the chassis myself. Just to prove to myself that I could.

not this old arguement again, don't ask fozzie what hers is or we'll be here all day

Come on Fozzie - let us have it.

Iam genuinely full of admiration for those who have at least built there own chassis. They are mostly fantastic cars and a real credit to the builders. I dont however consider mine to be a locost - even trying to follow an economic build route i have failed in the true locost spirit. I call mine a specialist sports replica.


One point i was trying to get to was if the manufacturers consider theres to be locosts or do they distance themselves from that term?? No sinister reason for the q's - just interested.

I dont think you have to build the chassis for it to be a 'Locost'.

But I think the car should conform to the book plans, Cortina Uprights? Live Axle ?etc.

Although I did build my own chassis, and the sense of achievement in that , is fantastic when you can remember a delivery of tubing and telling people that you were going to build a car ,and seeing their faces

Been down the routes of self build and bought chassis on two continents. I would consider anything not Birkin Westfield or Caterham a loco offering. The problem is some of these alternate offerings are costing a whole lot more than the original brands........

Still think loco is the way to go for the fun factor....in the true spirit of brit specials building.

So having built and modified a 'book' chassis to accept an IRS of my own design I shouldn't call it a Locost

I'll have to give this some thought

Mick

mmmmm - a can of worms has doth been set free.

I guess it doesnt matter what you call them (although Daisy would be a bit soft!!). I would say if book has been loosely followed it is a true locost. A claim i cannot put to mine.

As said before iam truly in awe at you guys that have fabricated most of your own bits. I dont have the time / skills to do that although i havent got my wallet out when i thought i could have a go myself (mainly cos swmbo keeps nicking my switch card - chip and pin has a lot to answer for!!). I will however be able to share your sense of pride when i finally get mine on the road so i suppose that is what really counts.

Dont get me wrong with this thread, im not trying to split the camp, quite the opposite. I wouldnt be this far on without this website so the whole ethos is spot on right.

I personally hate the word locost as I don't think there is realy such a thing. The book is completely rediculous with its costing. Im sure the majority of people who have built locosts from the ground up have spent £4k+.

Also the term kitcar makes a lot of people think of some of the crap that was on the market 15/20 years ago, not the highly developed kits that are available today. That is why my MK Indy is not a kitcar but a Race-Car. I think this is a more reliable description. Also I didn't buy a kit of parts to build it all!

Carnut

Nice one carnut.

Can i be so bold as to change the 'sense' of this thread to -

"What do you call your car?"

(and i dont mean pet name - more like the generic term)!!

Mine is a specialist sports replica.

Primarily mine is an MK indy, people dont know what that is so its then a lotus 7 replica. All under the race-car or sportscar catagory, never kitcar!

[Edited on 13/7/05 by carnut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarrenW
Come on Fozzie - let us have it.

---

I think 'self built' is more accurately descriptive than 'kit car'

And on the theme of 'what do you call yours?'

I'd be censored beyond belief if I listed some of the expletives

Mick

Ooeer!
It took me an age to write the above reply, to find that the 'topic' has now changed somewhat! lol
Mine is called a CSseven, being Competition Sport. Model: RTseven, being, Road Track seven.

Fozzie

[Edited on 13/7/05 by Fozzie]

Personally I hate the name "Locost" as it makes the car sound cheap and nasty, despite the fact that it's a proven design that should be the equal of many of the commercial kits on the market.

Why on earth Our Ron didn't call the car a "Champion"!? Good and sporty name, and reflects the designer.

Anyway, mine's a Lathyrus 7, for reasons too complicated (and boring) to explain here.

rgds,
David

[Edited on 13/7/05 by David Jenkins]

mines a banana. guess why?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Jenkins
Personally I hate the name "Locost" as it makes the car sound cheap and nasty, despite the fact that it's a proven design that should be the equal of many of the commercial kits on the market.

Why on earth Our Ron didn't call the car a "Champion"!? Good and sporty name, and reflects the designer.

Anyway, mine's a Lathyrus 7, for reasons too complicated (and boring) to explain here.

rgds,
David

[Edited on 13/7/05 by David Jenkins]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonbeedle
By the way did you get around to measuring your rad?

---

As an aside... although my car is registered as a Lathyrus 7, it is generally known as "The Frog" in my household. This is due to its big bulging eyes.

rgds,
David

My personal opinion ( which really does not matter to anyone -sometimes even me) is that "locost" is a more a building style as opposed to finished product. A chassis based on the book one - and changed where required and whatever building designs can be stolen from the lotus/locost way. Also a unit of monitary value-- 1 locost unit = 250 pounds
My car is locost built and is so far at about 3 to 4 locost units in price.
Dale

I'd describe mine as a Lotus Seven replica supplied in kit form by RAW which was ASSEMBLED by me.

I tend to associate the name Striker more with Sylva as RAW have improved and changed a lot of the under pinings.

Usually I get ideas, do research then buy parts but pay someone else to do the work. So for me this has been a good step forward, finacially at least

However you could say my kit car has been a Locost of sorts as a lot of the major parts have been paid for with my time and expertise in IT and not with actual money transaction.

If I added it all up I may get a shock

Mrs bob calls my car "that bitch in the garage" enough said on that one i think.

At the end of the day it doesnt really matter what you call it,as long as your on the road and happy with it who cares.

I think ive been getting it all wrong. Was at the Locost meeting at Ackworth last night and I would say that more than half of the locosts were MK Indys.
Does this mean an Indy is a locost?????

It's quite a surprise to find that I don't have a Locost after all this time!!!!

Mine's 4 inches wider than Ron's original and therefore not as the book.

Surely the Locost has a homemade chassis?

The locost continues Britains proud heritage of the "Special" car, built by the owner from scratch.

Even if you bought a "book" size chassis from a manufacturer, what you have there young man is a kit car.

Not that any of it matters really

Cheers

Chris

LOL

There weren't many Locosts at Ackworth last week, 3 out of 17 ISTR!
MKs were in abundance, Tigers and a brace of Westfields. Perhaps we should rename the club Locost inspired Owners Club!

Marcus

I wasn't inspired by a Locost but a Caterham......... to which I still aspire. One day.......... one day...............

Ditto Hellfire, but being a dinosaur, mine was pre Caterham.....Lotus 7

Fozzie

Until I built the Locost, I always wanted a Caterham. A couple of my mates had them and I always promised myself one.
Then came THE BOOK.
I have thoroughly enjoyed building and driving my Locost and no longer yearn for a Caterham. I have subsequently driven another Caterham and genuinely prefer the comfort and ride of my own car - not to mention the fact that it's all my own work.

Marcus