goodguydrew
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
Shorter Chassis?
Has anyone tried to shorten the cockpit to bring the chassis closer to the Caterham look. It looks a little long to me. I have tacked most of my
chassis together and it looks like there is room to spare. Any thoughts or pictures?
|
|
|
|
|
Surrey Dave
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 03:07 PM |
|
|
Yes you're right the cockpit is a bit long , makes it harder to hide behind the screen.
if you shorten the chassis you would probably have to extend the drivers footwell like Caterham do.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
other problem ISTR is that you arent too far off the quoted ideal length, ie 1.6 times the track width. With the chassis i have designed for my new
BEC it would ideally be about 12 inches shorter than book spec, but i worry that will make it twitchy at speed. I have loads of spare room up front
though due to the tiny size of a bike engine.
|
|
|
scotty g
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
GTS do a chassis that is a few inches shorter in the seat area, its meant for their Challenger kit but is basically the same as a locost chassis.
I always liked the look of the Avon chassis, it seems well proportioned to me.
|
|
|
SkinnyG
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
I moved the scuttle and footwell back 2.5" - the proportions are a bit better; less long in the cockpit, less stubby in the nose.
G
The Lethal Locost
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 17/9/06 at 04:20 PM |
|
|
I saw a caterham yesterday and was surprised at how small it was. It seemed very narrow. I guess that narrow and short keeps the ideal geometry.
|
|
|
