cjwood23
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 11:42 AM |
|
|
'Locost' & 'Haynes' - What's the difference?
Hi guys,
Not sure if this is the right part of the forum for this post.
As above really, whats the differences between the two?
Am I right in saying the locost was based on the Ron Champoin book and the Haynes book came out later?
Whats the pros & cons of each?
Cheers
______________________
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 11:53 AM |
|
|
Spot on, rons book was based on the now impossible to source cheaply Mk1/Mk2 escort. Haynes book I think is based on the (getting harder to find
cheaply) sierra. Though I think it covers other donors now (BMW?)
haynes is bigger and IRS
Rons is smaller and live axle
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 11:54 AM |
|
|
Basicly the Locost design was robbed by Ron Champion from Westfield, and the Haynes was robbed from Chris Gibbs from Ron Champion
I BELIEVE!!
steve
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 11:55 AM |
|
|
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=100491
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Basicly the Locost design was robbed by Ron Champion from Westfield, and the Haynes was robbed from Chris Gibbs from Ron Champion
I BELIEVE!!
steve
Does this post make sense to anybody, I read it a few times and still don't understand it. The Haynes is more like a copy of MK Indy than
anything.
edit to add, my car is a unique design because I knocked a millimetre off all the book measurements 
[Edited on 30/1/12 by Peteff]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
dhutch
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
Does this post make sense to anybody, I read it a few times and still don't understand it. The Haynes is more like a copy of MK Indy than
anything.
I assuming it was intended to read 'Basicly '..the Haynes was robbed by Chris Gibbs from Ron Champion.
Which makes sense as a statment, if as you say, one thats open for debate. Certainly the idea for Chris book was Rons book, and the overall shape
obviously lotus, but the detail of the design comes from a multitude of sources im sure.
Daniel
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Basicly the Locost design was robbed by Ron Champion from Westfield, and the Haynes was robbed from Chris Gibbs from Ron Champion
I BELIEVE!!
steve
Does this post make sense to anybody, I read it a few times and still don't understand it. The Haynes is more like a copy of MK Indy than
anything.
edit to add, my car is a unique design because I knocked a millimetre off all the book measurements
[Edited on 30/1/12 by Peteff]
I think hes trying to say the haynes was robbed by CG from RC.
However its all balls as the RC was a homemade L7 inspired based around parts of old cars that were avialble in the 90s, less so now, and as said when
parts dried up CG decided to update it based on Sierra parts and IRS. I dont think it can be classed as being a copied MK, as i believe Martin Keenan
is credited thoughout the book with helping with the design, and there is only so far you can go with a design that its basicly 90% the same
(principles) as the original L7!
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Basicly the Locost design was robbed by Ron Champion from Westfield, and the Haynes was robbed from Chris Gibbs from Ron Champion
I BELIEVE!!
steve
I know you like to be controversial Steve but that seems a pretty unfair (and inaacurate) way to put it.
Haynes wanted to release a 3rd Edition of the book. With Chairman Ron having fled the country chased by his creditors they contacted Chris Gibbs first
as he was chairman(?) of the Locost club. He took up the mantle of writing the new edition himself.
Martin Keenan was heavily involved in the design, but it's pretty different from the MK Indy (and therefore the Locost). Remember the MK Indy
uses same front suspension pickup points as the Locost. The Haynes car is different in this regard.
The backend suspension design is for Sierra and different from both the Locost and the MK Indy.
The Haynes chassis is 2" wider than the Locost and designed to use a Sierra IRS rear end.
Cheers,
James
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 05:28 PM |
|
|
Strange that no one questioned that RC copied it all from a westfield though !!
But more picked up on that Chris "took over the mantle" with the 3rd edition book
That was certainly not the way events were going 8-10 years ago
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
Dhutch read my post as was intended, well done !
should of read "and the Haynes was robbed by Chris Gibbs from Ron "
Sorry !, a tad tired after 4 nightshifts
Steve
|
|
|
AdrianH
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 06:01 PM |
|
|
For a bit more information read this thread.
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/50/viewthread.php?tid=125290.
Have fun out there.
Adrian
[Edited on 30-1-12 by AdrianH]
Why do I have to make the tools to finish the job? More time then money.
|
|
|
dray13dad
|
| posted on 30/1/12 at 06:46 PM |
|
|
Okay all slight change of subject but still within locost thread.I have a Ron book locost but the front end body work is an inch wider either side of
the chassis rails.
Iwould like to change this next winter,would the hayes body kit fit as i find it better looking.im thinking of buying a complete colour kit rather
than having ally side panels.
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 1/2/12 at 01:55 PM |
|
|
Only one thing to remember in my opinion, all the current "7" type cars are copies of the Lotus 7 introduced in 1957 by Colin Chapman and
Lotus which ended in the dire Series 4 that tried to look like a beach buggy. The licence to manufacture the Series 3 and 4 passed to Caterham cars in
1973 and that is where it still lives, fortunately they scrapped the ideas of prolonging the agony of the series 4 almost immediately. Between 1973
and present many companies have copied the concept with varing sucess. I liked early Westies but the later ones are bloated (like the Caterham CSR I
guess), Tigers are not my personal cup of tea but having looked at the Aries Locost I could be tempted if I ever get around to building that track day
car.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 1/2/12 at 04:00 PM |
|
|
Far from dire the series 4 lotus Seven was the best handling of the Lotus Seven, Catherhams reversion to the series 3 was probably more to to
with production considerations ie Arch Motors already had the jigs from when they fabricated Seven chassis for Lotus and also less complex GPR
mouldings were required.
Unlike the earlier versions Series 4 Seven chassis were produced in-house by Lotus Components.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 1/2/12 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
Having been interested in Sevens since the late 70's and watched them racing since the early 80's I have never seen a really quick Series
4 yet. The series 3 always trouced then 4 back in the 80's and still does today in historic racing. To be honest I have never heard anyone say
the series 4 was the best handling car, it was only developed because it was cheap to make and made Lotus a bit of cash. Just because Lotus made the
chassis in-house does not make it a good car.
|
|
|
