Is there a need for an "official" midi locost? The mid engine forum has plenty of examples of very individual and ingenious solutions but are they in the spirit of Lowcost?

Ha!! I can almost hear you say whats the need for an "official" midi we are doing very nicely thank you.

Well not all constructors who may want a midi have the level of experience and engineering 6th sense required. That limits the number of people who might like to be part of this forum.

My thoughts on the Locost theme is that its popular because it gives specific guidance but at the same time allows the experienced constructor to go his own way with different engines and suspension but linked to a common chassis.

Also Locost is a rallying point for like minded people to discuss common specific issues. Fair enough we are doing this right now but the midi section is much more diverse and the lack of commonality means the best solution aint obvious. For example look at the discussion of lower wishbones failing. Most middis just dont have that level of detail in common to discuss and find the best solutions for.

Without specific guidelines its easy to get diverted into non productive or energy sapping ideas. I take my hat off to the chaps that are producing their own bodywork - I tried it once and gave up just cos its so dammed long a process. Another example could be the various builds which have adopted the rear suspension subframes only to see the hardware for the commonly accepted independant setup become available.

Also an "official" locost midi is easy for clubs to recognise and arrange classification - in autocrossing, sprinting. hillclimbing, concours - whatever. Second thoughts can I take the idea of concours back the thought makes my mind boggle.

My suggestion would be based round the original of scanty ally bodywork (easy to construct), simple tube chassis (easy to modify and build without specialised equipment), car engined (for reliability), few specialist parts (for low cost).

Does the idea strike a bell or am I on my own?

Due to the increasing lack of RWD donor parts, a Locost midi sounds like a good idea. I, for one, would probably look at this as a basis for my next project. Having built a 'book' Locost, the idea of a midi appeals.
If you have any ideas, keep us informed.

Marcus

quote:

---

Originally posted by v8kid
Is there a need for an "official" midi locost? The mid engine forum has plenty of examples of very individual and ingenious solutions but are they in the spirit of Lowcost?..................

---

It wouldn't be hard.

Take a Locost, shorten the hood/bonnet, open up the foot wells, put the gas tank up front. Lengthen the area behind the driver, and drop in a FWD drivetrain. You could use all the same Locost construction techniques, even using the same nose, cowl, and fenders.

I had to laugh though, knowing even before I looked you'd be across the pond. While I think the concept would work out well over there, there's a sad lack of custom car interest over here, which is kind of odd, living in "car crazy" California as I do.

[Edited on 8/29/05 by kb58]

Thanks for the interest chaps. On reflection I've posted a copy on the Chassis forum to see how important the concept of commonality is to the front engined chaps. We shall see.

I have to admit to a vested interest in that the competition classes in Scotland for this type of vehicle are divided between road going kit cars and competition cars (amongst other classes)

By having a recognised kit car (of which locost is one) I can compete in both classes by just changing the tyres!!

Also I think there would be benifits to newcomers ti the scene as I've already said.

Can hardly believe though there is a lack of interest in the states - most of the best practical and theory books I have are american - Ah well another preconcevied idea gone phut!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
Take a Locost, shorten the hood/bonnet, open up the foot wells, put the gas tank up front. Lengthen the area behind the driver, and drop in a FWD drivetrain. You could use all the same Locost construction techniques, even using the same nose, cowl, and fenders.

[Edited on 8/29/05 by kb58]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gazza285

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
Take a Locost, shorten the hood/bonnet, open up the foot wells, put the gas tank up front. Lengthen the area behind the driver, and drop in a FWD drivetrain. You could use all the same Locost construction techniques, even using the same nose, cowl, and fenders.

[Edited on 8/29/05 by kb58]

---

It has been done that way before, and is exactly what I am planning to do when my "traditional" locost is finished.

---

Think about Sierra MacPherson struts. These are now commonly used instead of Cortina stub axles using a mushroom insert. Could not the same thinking be aplied to using the MacPherson struts off a front driving car, giving you the double wishbone set up needed to get standard arches over the rear wheels?

So if I actually stop revising my chassis design and just build the thing and prove that it works, people will queue up for a copy of the plans?

Hmmm... "The DIY Sportscar - A constructors guide" - $29.95 at good book stores everywhere That would do just nicely

Seriously though, should I post some images of the (almost) final design?

Edit: to reply to gazza's post:

The problem with wishbones in a tranverse mid-engine layout is not the top balljoint. It's finding somewhere for the top wishbone to actually go becaus ethe engine and gearbox are very much in the road. I still say just re-use the struts and be damned like me

Dominic

[Edited on 29/8/2005 by TheGecko]

Adapting struts is not the problem...it's finding room for a traditional wishbone that is hard.

All part of the challenge, but it has to be said I was going to try and use the original struts.

Sylva Mojo rear end using Fiesta uprights.


Fairly short bones mind, but how much travel do you really need?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gazza285
All part of the challenge, but it has to be said I was going to try and use the original struts.

---

I just posted three pics of my design on the chassis section thread and then I noticed the same issue here. Take a look.

Wow chaps lots of nice designs out there!

Dominic has a good point proove it works and people will buy the plans - but what do people want?

Even in this short thread there is a huge diversity in ideas, strut, short wishbone, long wishbone, transverse, transaxle etc.

The beauty of the locost is that it can accomodate a wide variety of solutions from bike engines to V8's and from solid axles to fully independant setups.

What we need is an adaptable design, simple and quick to construct without too many compromises.

I tried KB's idea of rearranging the sections of the book design - not as easy as it sounds but I'll persevere.

One of the major constraints is the type of engine transmission. Most front engine packages are wide which restricts the wishbone lengths and transverse layouts are less available.

Interestingly Westfield have gone for transaxle and Lotus for transverse so no clues there.

Would there be general agreement that there should be wishbone suspension all round?

Looking at that Fiesta setup in the Mojo...and the strut setup itself is fairly universal among most manufacturers, some use a spigot for the strut, and some a bolt-on.....

It would not be too difficult to make a dedion with end bracketry to hold the strut. No need for ball joints, as it would be held solid. Add a small adjustable arm where the track rod goes, anchor the inboard end anywhere on dedion tube.

Anchoring this to the chassis then becomes a lot easier, and coilovers become a do-able alternative.

I've seen this somewhere before, but can't put a name to it.

Another project on the list??!!!

Syd.

Looking good guys, I like what Cymtrics has drawn, because it has no structure in the centre of the car. Many midi's have a transmission tunnel type structure, only because the original seven style locost had it. You don't need it in a middy, rather put the strength down the sides where it can be more efficient, and offer side protection.

Ducks and runs for cover......

Cheers

Fred WB

Ah yes forgot about that side protection - should have remembered too as there was a close shave at one of the events this month - half the drivers seat was demolished with the impact. driver okish (colarbone).

What about these ugly cages westfields seem to sprout?

quote:

---

I tried KB's idea of rearranging the sections of the book design - not as easy as it sounds but I'll persevere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred W B
Looking good guys, I like what Cymtrics has drawn, because it has no structure in the centre of the car. Many midi's have a transmission tunnel type structure, only because the original seven style locost had it. You don't need it in a middy, rather put the strength down the sides where it can be more efficient, and offer side protection.

Ducks and runs for cover......

Cheers

Fred WB

---

My intention was to build a low cost middy, and I am still on track to do that. The bodywork phase is, wthout a doubt, the most difficult part of the project.
Regarding the chassis and specifically the packaging of FWD components into the rear compartment: My solution was to build a deDion around the back of the transaxle. I wanted a solution that could be built without any machining. And one that would capitalize on the strength of the original strut mounting points of the upright. So I rotated them 90d to the back. I like the simplicity of the deDion. I think it was the best solution for a person of my limited fabrication and design skills.

good god - blooming obvious idea - you don't have to keep the 'upright' upright!

Never thought of that!

Steve - Great idea, I like that a lot.

To get this to work, the body issue has to be sorted. As stated, it will have to be easy and cheap to make, and look good.

We have to look at things like the Ariel Atom for inspiration.
Image deleted by owner

I think the shortened nose/long boot modified 7 look is terrible. But then maybe the original 7 look only looks good because we are used to it? Every other car that we think looks good has a streamlined look.

Fred WB.

[Edited on 31/8/05 by Fred W B]

quote:

---

But then maybe the original 7 look only looks good because we are used to it?

---

I have to agree with fred. Sometimes structural elements can be quite satisfying to the eye and easily formed panels (out of flat stock such as Al) can be made very attractive. But then again I'm a sucker for the atom, so excuse my bias. Cheers!

Yepp, I'll put in a vote for the atom-style of a mid-locost, the 7 only look good in it's original shape IMHO.

Any pictures of elise and atom rear suspension out there ?

Cheers.

hi all! i'm new to the midi idea and i must say as i read through this that a base idea...a place to start...would be great. I'm almost through building BOOK locost with my high school auto students. i'd love to try a midi...but where oh where to start?

i just took a look at the grabercars website and man that is a lovely car. WELL DONE

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu
i just took a look at the grabercars website and man that is a lovely car. WELL DONE

---

This is my idea for a locost middy.

First, the styling.

The hump and head rest fairings over the engine disguise the height of the engine bay a little. This view is actually based on my measurements of a 1.6 Ford Focus engine. With luck it would just squeeze in.

[Edited on 4/9/05 by cymtriks]
Rescued attachment snapshot2.jpeg

this is the chassis.

The blue lines show the engine bay and seat back main tubes which are 4x2 - 14g (100mm x 50mm - 2mm wall) which get the chassis around the engine in a nice simple manner.

The FE output indicates twice the book locost chassis stiffness for the chassis as shown.

NOT SHOWN is the boot structure or any local brackets or reinforcements for suspension mounts.
Rescued attachment pic2-4x2.JPG

And this is a diagram of the suspension.

The hub carriers/uprights are blue
The wishbones and front pushrods are red
The spring-damper units are dark green

The upper wishbones at the rear are mounted on the middles of 1 x 1 16g tubes which will need to be reinforced.
Rescued attachment pic2sus.JPG

If only I knew how to put more than one picture in a post...

This is the rear suspension mount bracing that I refered to above.

The extra bits reinforce the rear upper wishbone mounts.
Rescued attachment rearsusbracing.JPG

Does anyone else remember the Robin Hood R100?

Shown at Stafford agood few years ago it was a seven with a Metro engine/gearbox behind the seats.

It was quite well proportioned but never got off the ground.

Cheers

Chris

I have the concept drawing for this on another thread ("At last a locost middie..." etc...), but thought it more relevant to post the package sketch here.



package

General consenus is to use one of Honda's fine FWD powertrains, as they're universally available, are powerful, emissions friendly, and have lots of tuning parts.

There's a few things in the layout that could add extra power without too much extra expense, e.g. larger airbox being fed by ram air, free flowing exhaust, and obviously lower weight (improves power to weight, rather than power).

Handling would also be improved again through lower weight, but also through careful attention to package layout, such as a central fuel tank running within the passenger compartment between and behind the seats, keeping the weight central and the tank safe. Other stuff, like exhaust and muffler routing, and battery position, both of which can be quite heavy, are also carefully considered. The idea is to try and eliminate some of the inherent tail-heaviness associated with plonking a FWD unit in the back.

[Edited on 4/9/05 by tadltd]

At what f/r ratio do you consider a car to be "tail heavy"?

The fuel tank looks as if it can hold about 50gal!

A few thoughts of my own:
RH100 - for sale at the moment on the Robin Hood website - the new owners are having a clear out it would seem!

Atom Inspired Midi - yep, that's what I'm doing! The chassis that I've designed is sufficiently flexible and will accomodate many front engined power trains - I'm using the struts for convenience but will probably use Pro-tech adjustables or similar, rather than the donor ones. The bodywork will be kept to a minimum too to avoid the snag of too much fabrication. Here's my model picture (again)[img]http://locostbuilders.co.uk/upload/a253153-matador mod[1].jpg[/img]

And here's the progress as at a week or two ago! I'm using a Rover 416GTI front end (Honda B16 Engine) and it will bolt in from below using the original 2 crossmembers - the back could easily be adapted for and FWD donor of similar size. Matching front and rear PCDs could be interesting, but I saw in Halfords a set of Multi fit alloys that appeared to cover most bases! [img]http://locostbuilders.co.uk/upload/a253155-DSCN3752a[1].jpg[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JC
And here's the progress as at a week or two ago! I'm using a Rover 416GTI front end (Honda B16 Engine) and it will bolt in from below using the original 2 crossmembers

---

Engine

Very nice thread.

I think the Sylva R1ot is also worth a mention as for inspiration. It's now available with car power (as well as bike which was the original design), and the bodywork is made of panels (just as the traditional Locost) so plenty of DIY potential.

http://www.sylva.co.uk/riot.htm

Cheers,

Alex

Monkeyhunter,

you are 100% right!!
Pre 1992 is D16, post 92 D16a8
Whatever, its 130bhp Twin Cam and revs lots!

Yes, I had a honda CRX with one of those in it and they are excelent engines, and can be thrashed relentlesly. I think the ECU in the rover limits the engine to 7K rpm. but the engine will happily rev to 8k like it does in the Honda. If you need an ECU or anything else engine related let me know as im breaking the CRX at the moment.

My project is a Mid engined roadster with the B16a1 in it, turbo charged, and running GSXR throttle bodies, so should be rapid.

JC: Are you still considering selling plans? I've been thinking of building a midi for a while and I like the general 'chunky' chassis you have come up with (not sure about the body but it might grow on me ).

I'm thinking of basing around a zetec (from a 97 on mondeo to get a cable gear change for free) since they seem to be cheap as chips right now.

One concern with using exposed square section tube is how are you planning to get the 2.5mm radius required for SVA?

Iank

The large chassis rails are 50x50, conveniently the edges are correctly radiused. The clearly 'lethal' 25x25 at the front and rear will be covered with panels, exhausts etc!
As for plans, yes I'm still thinking of doing this - as you can see my car has a way to go yet! If you have any dimensions of the Mondeo unit, I'll see if it would fit unmodified. (Width/height of strut tops, depth of engine/suspension package front to rear etc.)

Monkeyhunter

According to my sources (Autocar!) the Rover redline is 7200rpm - you win again!

I don't know what I might need engine wise but if you're breakeng the Civis, by build partner might be interested - let me know what you have and what you want.

thanks for the interest and help everyone!

James

JC, U2U sent about the honda engine & stuff.

Regarding your chassis design have you done any analysis on it, to check how stiff it is?

[Edited on 7/9/05 by MonkeyHunter]

Sorry, no Finite Elephants been near my chassis. I used the old fashioned method - made a scale model and twisted it by hand, moved tubed until it was OK. An experienced engineer pronounced his happiness with it, as did by mate who is helping build mine (then building one for himself) and he's an aircraft engineer - should be OK, but probably not perfection!

You seem to be going pretty quickly with the chassis. Any idea when you will have plans to share/sell?

Glad to hear the chassis members have enough radius (except those razor edged 25mm ones ) I hate some guy with a clipboard to ruin your whole year.

Don't have a donor yet so don't have any accurated measurements (still in the ideas phase), but it looks like the chassis will take pretty much anything transverse with minimal modification.

Zetec measurements were posted on this thread - http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=30892 if that helps.

Good luck with the build.

How long is a piece of string?

Anyone wanting plans in the near future should probably come over to visit, see what I'm doing (over coffee/beer!) and then decide - after all, I don't know what the end result will be like! If you're still interested then I'll sort something out!

For the less adventurous(!), I'll post regular updates on progress!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kb58
...
Take a Locost, shorten the hood/bonnet, open up the foot wells, put the gas tank up front. Lengthen the area behind the driver, and drop in a FWD drivetrain. You could use all the same Locost construction techniques, even using the same nose, cowl, and fenders.

---

Middy (Just a sketch...)

Simple packaging exercise with a 1.89m high driver, same Locost chassis middle section, nose and scuttle.



Locost Middy w/ 7 nose & scutt

There you go. What you have looks really nice, but the rear isn't as easy to replicate as a Locost rear. If a fiberglass rear cover was available, great, but I don't think a typical builder will be able to replicate those curves with single bends in aluminum.

What I had in mind is the same old functional Locost rear end. The only difference would be making it just tall enough to clear the drivetrain of choice.

Don't get me wrong, I think your rendering is far better looking then a Locost, just not easy to accomplish for a typical builder with few tools.

[Edited on 9/9/05 by kb58]

kb

Is it better now?



I think I'll build this!...

Messieurs, at your pencils.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jcduroc
kb

Is it better now?

---

Looks nice from the side view.

One nit, I think the roll bar needs to be higher, or there isn't much point having one.

From memory it's supposed to be at least 3inches higher than the top of the helmet for motorsport, but someone with a blue book in front of them will be able to say for sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iank
Looks nice from the side view.

One nit, I think the roll bar needs to be higher, or there isn't much point having one.

From memory it's supposed to be at least 3inches higher than the top of the helmet for motorsport, but someone with a blue book in front of them will be able to say for sure.

---

I have been toying with doing a lowcost middie for a while...and like the idea of a "official design" for the reasons mentioned above. I am an industrial designer and have worked on various aumotive projects...I also sell plans- currently for a yard kart, off road kart and a quad bike. My plans as well a portfolio of my other work can be seen on my website http://www.diyden.net/
the attached image was for a middie with a stitch and glue plywood body(ala- mirror dingy)

[Edited on 15/9/05 by Donno]
Rescued attachment Middie_2.jpg

another view
Rescued attachment Middie_3.jpg

that looks pretty good. Not sure how feasible the rear curve is mind you.

p.s. drivers sat on the wrong side

[Edited on 15/9/05 by MikeR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JC
And here's the progress as at a week or two ago! I'm using a Rover 416GTI front end (Honda B16 Engine) and it will bolt in from below using the original 2 crossmembers - the back could easily be adapted for and FWD donor of similar size. Matching front and rear PCDs could be interesting, but I saw in Halfords a set of Multi fit alloys that appeared to cover most bases!

---

Things have changed since my last entry - check my website/blog for the gory details. Suffice it to say a Fiesta Zetec now occupies the back of the chassis - 1.25litres, 81kg!!! When I have drawings/plans, I'll let you know - I now plan to use 'Locost' front suspension - so whatever your equivalent will fit!!!
Back to stripping another donor car.......

I really like what your doing. Keeping the back high means the roll-bar doesn't have to go so much migher than the height of the car and keeping the sides high makes for a bit more crash safety. I like the larger tubing with less pieces as well.

For my donor I'm going to use Suzuki Swift/Sprint/Firefly bits. They are dirt cheap, light and can produce a surprising amount of power when turbo'd. I'd be keeping the struts in the rear and the front would be vanilla Locost with maybe some bike coil-overs to keep the costs down.

I checked your blog and it didn't seem to have any picks of the engine in place.
Grant

I've been playing around with the same idea of a modern econimical middy, these are some of my very rough sketches, what do you think.
Rescued attachment img057.jpg

other
Rescued attachment img058.jpg

A nice-looking concept, but not very "Locost". Are you planning to make the bucks, molds, and sell composite panel sets for, oh, $1500? Otherwise the car will remain only a paper exercise.

[Edited on 10/13/05 by kb58]

It actually looks like a cross between a toyota celica and steve's la bala

Actually these are some of the preliminary sketches for a finished rendering I've been working in the last few weeks.

There is a more basic and locost version of this sketch that I will try to post, for you guys to comment on.

It will have less bodywork on the sides and it will be a step-in kit. I'll show it soon

Cheers
Italo

I am considering the Swift/Metro as the
donor for a mid-engine Locost. The Metro
is one of the few vehicles in the USA with
components suitable for creating a very
light light car without resorting to exotic
materials. Where the 1.0 three fits,
the 1.3 and 1.6 four ought to also work.
I'd choose the 1.0 three, possible the 70
hp turbo. The 1.0 motor weighs as little
as 118 pounds in aircraft applications
and can be modified to made decent
power.

Has anyone attempted to use the Suzuki
three?

Has anyone considered using the Honda Civic
double wishbone front suspension in a mid-engine Locost? These are compact and light, very little space is used. It has an upper and lower control arm, a strut rod angles toward the front. There may be variations of this design, the Accords were similar.

FOURISERIE, any chance you can post smaller images?
I can't see all of it at once on my monitor.

Terry


[Edited on 25/10/05 by Spyderman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim Keith
I am considering the Swift/Metro as the
donor for a mid-engine Locost. The Metro
is one of the few vehicles in the USA with
components suitable for creating a very
light light car without resorting to exotic
materials. Where the 1.0 three fits,
the 1.3 and 1.6 four ought to also work.
I'd choose the 1.0 three, possible the 70
hp turbo. The 1.0 motor weighs as little
as 118 pounds in aircraft applications
and can be modified to made decent
power.

Has anyone attempted to use the Suzuki
three?

---

Hey all, this would my first post on this forum. I've been wanting to do a Mid-engine AWD locost. Anyways as for as a mid engine RWD chassis I've come across a few scratch built Lancia stratos chassis online, made from dimentional tubing, usualy a mid mounted V6 with a rear strut design, could it make a possable locost platform?

is that 50x50mm for the chassis. It looks like a ladderframe which will need some thinking about to make as strong as a spaceframe (for example I think the cruciform section in the floor should be an X rather than a + to prevent twist if you see what I mean).

Look at the stuff JC has been doing, quite similar layout. Search on here, or go to his blog http://www.mistrale.blogspot.com/

[Edited on 25/11/05 by iank]

Byronjet,

Did you by any chance copy a Stratos replica chassis?

The centre section needs stiffening up. I would suggest using sheet steel sills, say 2 inch x 8 inch in 16g. Check out my photos section for a scaned in idea called something like middychassis.

The chassis I posted earlier in this thread has been run through FEA to get a feel for stiffness, it's roughly twice the "book" chassis stiffness. You could just copy it!

LC is my wife she does not post..LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by JC
LC is my wife she does not post..LOL

---

Cymtriks,
I have looked at your middy design and I find it quite attractive. My own views of a middy locost reflects what I have read on this forum: keep the rear end portion as compact and short as possible and don't try to shorten the front hood unreasonably. I would like to retain as many features from the original Locost 7 as possible. But my priority now is to find chassis blueprints.

I like Donno's bodywork actually... very basic. It seems like a great design for a modern sandrail/buggy type car. Shold be loads of fun!

I'm taking the minimalist approach with my bodywork too. The only fibreglass bits will be the nosecone and front/rear guards (and maybe the scuttle). The sides, bonnet, back panel and engine lid are all sheet ali. Image of 1:10 model attached to illustrate:

Gecko model with silver sides

On the mend now from the worst year (and a bit) of my/our life and able to return to work on the car. Chassis design is finalised (old partly completed chassis is getting cut up - oh well) and most major parts are in hand. Picked up a nice set of MX-5 seats for a good price a few weeks ago and there aren't too many other major bits to buy (steering wheel, instruments, harnesses are the big ones). Almost final chassis design is attached (final one has the front tapered like a Locost rather than square and the rear is a little bit different in details - I just don't have a render of it handy):


Chassis model 3 - incomplete

Book "The DIY Sportscar - A guide for the home builder" will be in good bookstores sometime in 2008... or maybe 2009.... or maybe....

Happy New Year too everyone.


Dominic

How much forward would the seats have to be (when compard to a normal seven) to accomodate for an engine behind the seats?

Would this do? It doesn't look all that bad really, and most bodypanels could be identical to a regular Locost...

Or this one.. the "middy-version" of a photoshoped 7 I did before..

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheGecko
I'm taking the minimalist approach with my bodywork too. The only fibreglass bits will be the nosecone and front/rear guards (and maybe the scuttle). The sides, bonnet, back panel and engine lid are all sheet ali. Dominic

---

I agree that, a minimum of bodywork is the way to go for the official mid engine Locost, and will try to show something.

It will be more basic than my earlier sketches

quote:

---

Originally posted by akumabito
How much forward would the seats have to be (when compard to a normal seven) to accomodate for an engine behind the seats?

Would this do? It doesn't look all that bad really, and most bodypanels could be identical to a regular Locost...

---

some of my old sketches for a mid-engine locost

here it is

the other

The idea was to use an existing chassis, ideally something similar to the Sylva Mojo's with a few modifications, and create a new body shape to fit.

These were early sketches but are pretty close to the final design...

Let me know what you all think about it

Thanks guys

im really having trouble finding solid plans for a mid engine chassis, im planning on fabricating the body myself something similar to the LMP but a little more Me. anyway if anyone had any info on it id be very interested i was thinking of shortening the nose of a Book chassis and adding length to the back the motor ill be using in the setup is a turbo 4age. so if anyone has any info or can point me in the right direction that would be awesome! my aim screen name is Crassfc3sdrft and my yahoo is blacklabel4666@yahoo.com you can also U2U me on here =D thanks guys!