jnormandale
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 10:47 PM |
|
|
George Cushing Chassis
The George Cushing chassis drawings on his website http://www.georgecushing.net/Lotus7.html, which are Lotus Seven chassis drawings. How does these
differ from that of the modern Caterham chassis in size and proportions.
|
|
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 07:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jnormandale
The George Cushing chassis drawings on his website http://www.georgecushing.net/Lotus7.html, which are Lotus Seven chassis drawings. How does these
differ from that of the modern Caterham chassis in size and proportions.
Quite a lot -- After decades of not changing anything from the final Lotus s3 version Caterham realised they had to stiffen the chassis substantially
major changes to the engine bay and a backbone structure was added. As a result latest Caterham chassis is as complex as the Lotus Seven chassis was
minimalist..
As other have told you copying either the Caterham chassis and suspension or the earlier Lotus really isn't a good idea, follow the book
chassis and modify it to look more like the Lotus externally.
[Edited on 22/11/07 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
Tralfaz
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 05:21 PM |
|
|
In size and proportion, the modern Caterham (Classsic,Dedion, not the larger CSR) is virtually identical to the S3, though as BT says,
structurally it is almost entirely reworked.
|
|
|
jnormandale
|
| posted on 22/11/07 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
Surely a Locost made to look like a Caterham will look to bulky and out of proportion?
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 23/11/07 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
A book Locost chassis is only 3" wider in total than an Lotus 7 sized Caterham (not all Caterhams especialy the more modern ones are exactly
Lotus 7 sized) so no, not realy.
However it's very far from a staightforward exercise because the footwells in a Caterham/Lotus are completely different in construction, the top
chassis rails are at a different angle, the front of the bottom rails are angled up and the method of attaching the wishbones is very different to
name just a few differences. One of the biggest problems is the footwells, a book Locost isn't exactly generous as it is and if you try and keep
the basic locost design but 'Caterised' you end up with even less space for your feet.
I'm not saying any of this can't be overcome but you need to draw up the chassis and see if it would work for you AND if at the end of the
day it's actually worth the hassle........ personally I think you'll probably come to the conclusion it isn't which, tbh, is I
suspect the main reason why there aren't hoards of people building fake Caterhams. The big thing is that at the end of the day you wont end up
with a Caterham no matter what you do, it'll probably take you twice as long to build as a Locost and it will certainly end up being more
expensive than it needs to be.
Have you looked at the Aires/Stuart Taylor Locost btw? they have very Lotus shaped bodywork and really well built ones can look very authentically
Lotusish.
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 23/11/07 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
In fact have a look here:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/p.dunn2/comparison.html
and tell me which one looks better 
I realise you actually really want a CSR or an R400 not a traditional looking Caterham or Lotus but it does demonstrate how good a Locost can look
[
[Edited on 23/11/07 by D Beddows]
|
|
|
