Jon Ison
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
Locost debate on pistonheads........
Ive stepped out of this one but you may find it an interesting read.......
There is one guy who doesnt seem too be able too grasp most people on here are fully aware of the mistakes in the book and what too do about
them.......
"The Locost is a Westfield with add'd mistakes". I refuse too post any more in the debate or I will start too lose my rag. The guy
as one hell of a broad brush.
Edit too add a Link
[Edited on 20/2/07 by Jon Ison]
|
|
|
|
|
graememk
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
QUOTE
"Personally I'd avoid Locost derived cars like the MK, but there are those that reckon they're ok and they're certainly a
cheaper option".
|
|
|
dern
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
I opted out early on. The guy's a knob end who can't hear anything but his own voice. I wouldn't bother unless you just want to get
annoyed.
R1 (2003 FI) powered Locost in progress
Fireblade/Impreza
|
|
|
mark_mcd
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 06:47 PM |
|
|
skimmed first and last page and got bored. no time for threads like that. he's clearly a bit of an arse.
[Edited on 20/2/07 by mark_mcd]
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 06:52 PM |
|
|
I read the whole lot, Sam 68 just wants to win the argument and is not interested in debate.
I nearly posted but thought better of it.
Show me a Caterham that can touch a BEC Locost, MK, MNR Etc. for the same money, all their fast ones (Caterham) start at £30,000.
There are people on every site that only want to hear their opinion, thankfully they are usually rare but their voices are loud and usually very
annoying.
When talking on forums and in the pub, to say you built it is a bit more special than i bought it.
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:05 PM |
|
|
Yeah, i couldnt resist.  
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
I've said it before on several occasions but that thread - miserable cat......you know the rest, serves no good purpose and actually puts people
off reading our fine forum because it's the first thing first time visitors see.
Please can it be deleted - it's years old and is not relevant to anything. It only alienates people who might consider that we have something
against Caterhams or their owners.
As far as I know most people on here respect the Caterham as one of the finest examples of the breed however not everyone has the budget or
inclination to buy a ready made car and actually take pleasure and satisfaction in building their own similar car (but obviously not as good because
Caterham have spent many ££££'s and years developing theirs)
so if either the original poster (can't remember who it is and wont look as it keeps it at the top)or ChrisW would like to delete the thread it
would make me very happy.
Cheers
Mark
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:15 PM |
|
|
I only replied once (with the wife's name, kirsty 5150) and then got fed up of watching the bloke arguing like a fool.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
russbost
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
Everytime "Locost" is mentioned on Pistonheads they come back to the same "chassis stiffness" argument, there must be at least
5 similar threads on there about it - I seem to remember that there is someone on there who keeps insisting that plain unstiffened ladder chassis are
actually quite good!!!! & he backs it up with facts & figures which is even more worrying - probably gets his facts from the same place
Tone & his mates get theirs about (s)cameras, global warming & the like
I no longer run Furore Products or Furore Cars Ltd, but would still highly recommend them for Acewell dashes, projector headlights, dominator
headlights, indicators, mirrors etc, best prices in the UK! Take a look at http://www.furoreproducts.co.uk/ or find more parts on Ebay, user names
furoreltd & furoreproducts, discounts available for LCB users.
Don't forget Stainless Steel Braided brake hoses, made to your exact requirements in any of around 16 colours.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/furoreproducts/m.html?_dmd=1&_ipg=50&_sop=12&_rdc=1
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
iank
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by russbost
Everytime "Locost" is mentioned on Pistonheads they come back to the same "chassis stiffness" argument, there must be at least
5 similar threads on there about it - I seem to remember that there is someone on there who keeps insisting that plain unstiffened ladder chassis are
actually quite good!!!! & he backs it up with facts & figures which is even more worrying - probably gets his facts from the same place
Tone & his mates get theirs about (s)cameras, global warming & the like
Without wanting to get into a pointless argument.
A properly designed cruciform ladder chassis made from large section thin wall tube is much stiffer than a lot of people care to admit. A lot of
spaceframes (including the plain book design) aren't good examples of stiff spaceframes. All spaceframes are compromised by inconvenient
requirements like having room for people and engines
This paper shows real figures -> http://www.locost7.info/files/chassis/kitcaranalysis_V2.doc
I think it was done by cymtriks.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 07:58 PM |
|
|
It's human nature.
People will do anything to back up their purchase.
Remember when Lada drivers used to tell you that it was the best car they'd ever had?
The real problem is that people who don't have the skill to build their own car and flash the cheque book can't allow themselves to
believe we're having the same amount of fun as they are, for a tenth of the price.
You can argue chassis stiffness forever, but in the end it's the same wind in your hair and same grin on your face.
It's snobbery - pure and simple
cheers
Chris
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
"I had a look at the locost forum, god there's some real hate there between them and the Caterfield boys and girls which as an outsider I
find a bit hard to understand."
It's simple really, there are a few, and not I said a FEW!, Cateringvan owners who are so far up their own jacksies they can see out of their
mouths.
I mean, read the following:
dern said:
...a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham
No it most certainly is NOT!!!
It is visually similar, but there are significant differences in both chassis and suspension design, not to mention potential issues with build
quality and accuracy.
"dern said
.a locost is the same design as a westfield/caterham
No it most certainly is NOT!!!
It is visually similar, but there are significant differences in both chassis and suspension design, not to mention potential issues with build
quality and accuracy.
If I was the MD of Caterham, I'd be preparing to sue the ass of you for making that comment, Dern!"
This Dern bloke uses a figure of speech and get jumped on. This illustrates my biggest beef with Cat owners, they absolutely will not tolerate
anyone even daring to suggest that there is another car in the world similar to theirs. And, they have to insist the competition are inferior,
not just different.
As for the whole bit about Westfield planned to sue Ron Champion, the chassis are bound to be similar, he's trying to re-create the same car fer
cryin' out loud!
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 08:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by iank
............This paper shows real figures -> http://www.locost7.info/files/chassis/kitcaranalysis_V2.doc
I think it was done by cymtriks.
Real "theoretical figures...unless someone has actually followed the mods and can report back. Not saying it's wrong...just not proven yet
as far as I know.....
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 09:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan B
quote:
Originally posted by iank
............This paper shows real figures -> http://www.locost7.info/files/chassis/kitcaranalysis_V2.doc
I think it was done by cymtriks.
Real "theoretical figures...unless someone has actually followed the mods and can report back. Not saying it's wrong...just not proven yet
as far as I know.....
Yes 'real figures' was a poor phrase to choose.
However since they are all modelled using the same software technique, all as should be as good/bad as each other. The specific numbers might not be
that interesting but I think the ratios between them will give a reasonable figure of merit comparison, at least as first order approximation.
However it's all pretty irrelevant (unless you are trying to win races). ChrisG has the right idea.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 10:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
It's human nature.
People will do anything to back up their purchase.
Remember when Lada drivers used to tell you that it was the best car they'd ever had?
The real problem is that people who don't have the skill to build their own car and flash the cheque book can't allow themselves to
believe we're having the same amount of fun as they are, for a tenth of the price.
You can argue chassis stiffness forever, but in the end it's the same wind in your hair and same grin on your face.
It's snobbery - pure and simple
cheers
Chris
Nail on the head there.
Steve.
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 20/2/07 at 11:51 PM |
|
|
"No one said that the Locost is not an acceptable little car, if you can't afford something better."
The smug t**t just digs himself deeper with every statement!
This implies that we're all breadline minimum-wage earners! We probably could 'afford it' if we re-mortgaged but what's
the point? As far as I know, Luego had a stiffness test done on their chassis by Cranfield university, and made certain modifications based on the
results. If our cars are that bendy, why don't more of 'em crash!
|
|
|
locogeoff
|
| posted on 21/2/07 at 01:16 AM |
|
|
Dammit wanted to join in the argument but cannot get a login account!
My point was going to be about the book errors.
Is it not the case the errors are not in the design itself which I feel is very close to the original lotus barring square for round etc, but more in
how to build it, if you cut everything as to book it just wouldn't go together right and if you dont have the common sense to realise that you
really shouldn't be building your own chassis
His last pot 95 I think goes someway to addressing issues but why oh why does he have to use the word delusional thats just going to get peoples backs
up merely by implication.
In a word I think the blokes a cock
[Edited on 21/2/07 by locogeoff]
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 21/2/07 at 01:31 AM |
|
|
I posted my reply. He says he has a Sylva and has owned a Caterham but I doubt very much that he built them himself. He sounds like a cheque book
engineer to me and if he reads this thread I also bet he has a small p***s.  My psychiatrist also said I was delusional so he may be onto something
there. As for the original poster, if he wants something faster and with motorbike acceleration, I suggest he gets a motorbike. (Two trolls
doesn't make a topic)
[Edited on 21/2/07 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.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 21/2/07 at 09:02 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mookaloid
I've said it before on several occasions but that thread - miserable cat......you know the rest, serves no good purpose and actually puts people
off reading our fine forum because it's the first thing first time visitors see.
<snip>
so if either the original poster (can't remember who it is and wont look as it keeps it at the top)or ChrisW would like to delete the thread it
would make me very happy.
I suggest that the best approach would be to remove the "Most viewed threads" and "Longest running threads" boxes on the home
page.
These don't help the new reader as in most cases they're topics containing pointless and long-winded arguments. One also includes
Cashy's Cobra seat advert, which is hardly relevant to a new reader (I have no problem with Cashy's adverts, I hasten to add, just that
they are irrelevant there).
If this particular topic had not been listed on the home page as most viewed and longest running then it would have died a natural death many months
ago.
BTW: ChrisW chose not to delete it last year, as it smacked of censorship. This is a fair view - but it should be allowed to fade away.
David
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 21/2/07 at 09:46 AM |
|
|
We could try and shove it down by replacing it with some pointless drivel - like one of those 3 word story threads? Of course, to the casual observer
we'd go from being rabid cateringvan haters to being useless work-shy degenerates. Probably closer to the truth though
|
|
|
