DarrenW
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:06 AM |
|
|
What is a locost?
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).
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:09 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:22 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:27 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
VinceGledhill
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:34 AM |
|
|
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.
Regards
Vince Gledhill
Time Served Auto Electrician
Lucas Leeds 1979-1983
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 08:54 AM |
|
|
not this old arguement again, don't ask fozzie what hers is or we'll be here all day 
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 09:09 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 09:14 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 09:17 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 09:41 AM |
|
|
 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
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:01 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
carnut
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:04 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
carnut
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:07 AM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
Come on Fozzie - let us have it.
Doh!.....Ok, as I see it....
Locost = Rons concept of a '7' type car based around the Escort Mk2.
Therefore, my car is of the 'original' locost dimensions and parts as per dear Rons book. So my car is Locost in the original concept.
Not being able to weld then to a safe standard for road and track (although I can now), I costed up and weighed up the pro's and cons of
getting someone to do it, and I went for a MK chassis, as they were proven manufacturers, and I knew from research that presenting a chassis from a
'known' manufacturer, made the SVA man a little more reassured that the design/materials/welding were up to scratch. At the same time, I
asked them to make my race roll cage (boltable/removeable). On my initial contact with MK, I was told that they didn't produce the Locost
chassis (Escort) any longer, but were concentrating now on Indy's, being Sierra based. They couldn't persuade me, so they did me a locost
(Escort) chassis coz i also wanted to race it.
Right thats my car, a 1300 xflow engined, live axle car, as per book, chassis as per book, made by MK. You may also have noticed that the MK section
on the forum, does not include their Locost option, only their Indy and GT models.
My panel work, floors, dash etc were all made by myself, including the rear and bonnet of course, ya can't buy my panel work ready made. AFAIK
Mk didn't offer a 'kit' of panels for the locost (Escort), and I wanted to do my own, in the style I wanted anyway!
The Indy being Sierra based is very slightly different, and please correct me on this, but I think they are wider, and of course axle et al is very
different.
Right, that is my take on that issue, but, I do believe that what ever 'design' we choose to build, they are all locost in
concept.....just a different 'take' of the original idea.
I personally refer to all the cars as locost (original plans), locost indy, locost luego, etc etc, because to whatever degree, people have put their
cars together. Unless of course you buy a 'turnkey'...which is another argument, coz its not locost and its not built/put together by the
'owner'.
Therefore, the phrase 'Locost' used by itself = 'Bible' Escort plans (Rons),
Locost Indy, Luego, et al,all variations of the original theme.
In My Opinion ...of course
Fozzie
Before any of you say....yes, since my build, I have lost the single weber and I have now installed twin 40's....
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 10:59 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 11:00 AM |
|
|
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]
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 11:16 AM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 11:30 AM |
|
|
mines a banana. guess why?!
|
|
|
jonbeedle
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 01:12 PM |
|
|
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]
Dave,
Where did you come up with the name?
I hate the name Locost too. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a name that I can register tha car as. In fact I'm going to
start a new thread on this!! By the way did you get around to measuring your rad?
Cheers
Jon
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion however stupid!"
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jonbeedle
By the way did you get around to measuring your rad?
Oops! I'll try and do it tonight...
DJ
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Dale
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 04:00 PM |
|
|
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
Thanks
Dale
my 14 and11 year old boys 22
and 19 now want to drive but have to be 25 before insurance will allow. Finally on the road
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
bimbleuk
|
| posted on 13/7/05 at 04:54 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
