Board logo

Ace Sportscars Chassis?
daKlone - 20/8/06 at 11:53 AM

Has anyone used an Ace Sportscar chassis?

They look quite nice (to my untrained eye) and seem a reasonable price.

http://www.acesportscars.com

joneh - 20/8/06 at 12:17 PM

There was an earlier reply to this, some people have bought bits off them via ebay etc and not liked the powder coat or the poor welds.

hth.

Just found this on their site, under the gallery - not sure if its complete as it just say locost chassis:




I'm no expert but there doesn't seem to be any triangulation and the welds don't look too hot.

[Edited on 20/8/06 by joneh]

[Edited on 20/8/06 by joneh]

AdamR - 20/8/06 at 01:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by joneh
Just found this on their site, under the gallery - not sure if its complete as it just say locost chassis:

...

I'm no expert but there doesn't seem to be any triangulation and the welds don't look too hot.


There's also no brackets, transmission tunnel and only half a back end. The chassis in the pic is clearly not finished and what's there has only been tacked. Seems a little unfair to judge it based on that....

ch1ll1 - 20/8/06 at 01:57 PM

I AGREE,
you can not realy call that a chassis (yet)
is no where near finished !

ive seen one finished and didnt think it was to bad !
i liked the look of it ! imho

daKlone - 20/8/06 at 02:28 PM

Here's a better picture:


rusty nuts - 20/8/06 at 03:01 PM

Not the best welding I've seen!

Confused but excited. - 20/8/06 at 03:07 PM

Looks like it was designed for a car with an automatic gearbox with a righthand side handbrake. Their bottom wishbones look remarkably like the ones ARA racing used to sell. I sent the bones that I bought from them back. They were not true and had a crap finish. Not even de-burred before coating.

daKlone - 20/8/06 at 03:56 PM

So not that great then...nobody to speak up for them?

C10CoryM - 20/8/06 at 04:16 PM



"No Sir..... I don't like it"

Shows signs of no engineering thought going into the chassis.
There is almost no triangulation. Even in some spots where there is no real reason to not be. I bet that thing flexes more than a book chassis .
Hard to tell from pics, but I bet in person the welds/fit are poor. Id really like to see how they welded the round door sill tube to the square one in front.

AdamR - 20/8/06 at 04:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Confused but excited.
Their bottom wishbones look remarkably like the ones ARA racing used to sell. I sent the bones that I bought from them back. They were not true and had a crap finish. Not even de-burred before coating.


My understanding is that Ace Sportscars is ARA Racing renamed.

joneh - 20/8/06 at 04:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by AdamR
quote:
Originally posted by joneh
Just found this on their site, under the gallery - not sure if its complete as it just say locost chassis:

...

I'm no expert but there doesn't seem to be any triangulation and the welds don't look too hot.


There's also no brackets, transmission tunnel and only half a back end. The chassis in the pic is clearly not finished and what's there has only been tacked. Seems a little unfair to judge it based on that....


Fair point - its also totaly different from the other chassis which they sell.

Liam - 22/8/06 at 01:04 PM

quote:
Originally posted by C10CoryM


"No Sir..... I don't like it"

Shows signs of no engineering thought going into the chassis.
There is almost no triangulation. Even in some spots where there is no real reason to not be. I bet that thing flexes more than a book chassis .
Hard to tell from pics, but I bet in person the welds/fit are poor. Id really like to see how they welded the round door sill tube to the square one in front.


Well, erm... since it in fact has exactly the same triangulation as a book chassis i rather doubt it does flex more.

Findlay234 - 22/8/06 at 02:20 PM

there seems to be a lot of people saying bad things about it... have any of you ever seen it or are you just judging from the photos shown on here.

C10CoryM - 22/8/06 at 03:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Well, erm... since it in fact has exactly the same triangulation as a book chassis i rather doubt it does flex more.


There are differences.
K1/2 are loaded in beaming by N1/2. Not at the junction. The trans tunnel might do better to contain a broken driveshaft, but I doubt its stiffer. To do a backbone chassis you have to tie into the bulkheads very well. That does not appear to be connected at all to the rear bulkhead. Could just be the pictures, but I don't think so. I have never done any analysis of the book chassis, but I would ASSume the backbone (trans tunnel) is a major factor in torsional stiffness.

On looking closer at the pictures the welds appear to be really badly done.
Is that a hole at the J2/LC joint?

Also LC doesn't have the ends capped off. Maybe that's for a reason but it always bugs me. Nothing structural, just doesn't look finished with open tubes IMO .

Usually if something looks bad in pictures, it is scary in person. Ever try online dating?

Cheers.

MikeRJ - 22/8/06 at 03:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by C10CoryM
I have never done any analysis of the book chassis, but I would ASSume the backbone (trans tunnel) is a major factor in torsional stiffness.


Apparently it contribute negligible torsional strength according to Cymtrik's analysis. However, I would still prefer to see it tied into the rear bulkhead, especaily if a de-dion axle was going to be used as the trans tunnle must be useful to take some of the diff loads.

cymtriks - 22/8/06 at 10:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by C10CoryM
I have never done any analysis of the book chassis, but I would ASSume the backbone (trans tunnel) is a major factor in torsional stiffness.


Apparently it contribute negligible torsional strength according to Cymtrik's analysis. However, I would still prefer to see it tied into the rear bulkhead, especaily if a de-dion axle was going to be used as the trans tunnle must be useful to take some of the diff loads.


The tunnel can be very stiff, it's just that the effect is lost due to the engine bay being rather floppy and the tunnel not being tied in to the footwell region very well.

Note that just adding triangulation around the front suspension region, at the sides and across the front, can add circa 50% to the chassis stiffness. Until this is done even a very stiff tunnel won't have anything to transmit its stiffness to.

C10CoryM - 22/8/06 at 10:37 PM

Honestly I have never looked really closely at the basic design of the locost. I'm being lazy and using the "if it worked for them..." mentality when I build mine . Seeing that the rear arms tie in ahead of the rear bulkhead with no real support to the bulkhead, and how much flex there is up front I can see where stiffness would be lost. Interesting read btw Cymtrik. Deals with the things I don't like about the book chassis.

I am used to cars with a lot more power and a lot more weight so more torsional stiffness is required. I think the last car I played with was just under 10,000ft/lbs per degree. Certainly wasn't 600kg though.

I think I will try and stiffen the design a bit for my locost. My last camaro twisted all over the place and I didn't like that. Neither did the car for that matter .
Cheers.