I think this one has been done before, but i couldn't find it on a search.

I had a discussion with a fellow builder about this and thought I'd get everyone else's opinion (I am happy to be wrong)

I am totally happy that a homebuilt chassis can never be classed as a kit, my question relates to using one or more parts purchased from a manufacturer.

What constitues a kit? buying major components from a manufacturer or all components? My main point was whats the difference between an mk (indy) starter kit and buying the equivalent bits from Stuart Taylor for a locost.

How many parts do you need to purchase before a locost becomes a kit? Do they need to come from one source?

If you agree with more than one of the above, please go with the one you feel strongest for!

thanks all,

Ned.

it's hard to describe really, i got an mk starter kit and have picked bits up/ bodged stuff, i wouldn't consider it a kit, or a true locost, but it's something alright.

i think to count as a kit, it all has to come from one place, for sh1tloads of cash (see: dax and suchlike)

I'm not bothered to be honest. I bought all my bits from MK, but I've got a sports car for my troubles.
I'm not bothered if people call it a kit car or not.

It matters to us in Ontario, Canada. If classed as a kit we're exempt from emissions testing , but we can't get insurance . To qualify as a kit the body components need to come from a manufacturer - though no proof required AFAIK, and I think the nosecone counts.

If we don't register as a kit, we need to register as a re-built - subject to emissions of the year of the engine (last time I checked). Then we can't get insurance because of the "race" modifications .

does it matter?ive done it both ways,if you cant/dont trust your welding then you buy a chassis,i would never make my own suspension arms.
getting to rolling chassis stage is the easy part,the body,wiring and finnishing off is the hard bit.
weather you buy most/some/none of the parts when the car is finnished you are a hero and the sense of acheivment immense,i suspect even some cateringvan owners feel a sence of acheivment

to me its simple, if you buy the chassis its a kit car, if you make it its a scratch build. The chassis represents the major part of actually building anything, the rest is lego/mechano in my books!

Yes, I agree. Most kit producers offer a "starter kit" which is usually the chasis with minor parts thrown in...but who cares what it is as long as it gets finished....

Fletch,

I agree with conrod on this, safety is paramount! But just food for thought:-

Landrover dont make their chassis, or their engines,are they kitcars, umm, no, they are Landrovers.

In the 1970's-80's Panthers (made near me in Byfleet Surrey) bought in chassis that were made by Jago Automotive, but made their own coach-built bodies,were they kitcars, umm no, they were panthers (Lima, Deville and J72).

Lotus Elise? chassis built in Scandanavia, kit-car, umm nope.

1950's and 1960's Jaguars, chassis made by Jaguar, umm, no, (Abbey Panels) are they kit-cars? umm no, they are Jaguars.

Surely, a kit car constitutes, a car bought in componant form, from one supplier, not neccessarily the manufacturer of all compnants, but merely a supplier that has bought in these componants, knowing that they all fit together, to make the complete package.

Which in turn is all that the major car manufacturers do today.

Fozzie

i am with joel if you weld your own chassis its a locost
if you buy a chassis from mk its a mk kit car or stuart taylor or leugo etc etc
and after welding my own chassis next time i will buy one
it will save a lot of time and the car will be worth more when you come to sell it because it will be a mk not a locost
i am not knocking locost's but you never know how good somone's welding is
cheers dave

hmm, bit of a head scratcher.. I could have sworn I already replied to this thread.. is it just me or did anyone else see it? did it go walkies?

Too true James

Mine is a CS seven, hand built, but with modified chassis, like yours, all for the better! and not a kit-car or locost

fozzie

It all depends on the individuals perspective and knowledge. Before becoming interested in the whole Locost/Kit car scene, if I saw a Caterham, that is exactly what it was. A Caterham, a replica of a Lotus Seven. Anything else that looked similar was a kit car. If it had a Q plate, it was definitely a kit car. If it had an age related plate, it was from a small manufacturer but not necessarily a kit car. (or so I thought, until a couple of years ago)

Kit Car is a suitable name for most people to pigeon-hole cars that they do not recognise. Besides which, most of us tend to frequent kit car shows and buy aptly named kit car magazines.... says it all really.

Ultimately though, who cares what other others think. Kits or not, these cars can thrash just about any car on the road. (Upto about 90mph or so)

Hellfire, I still stick with my explanation of how I understand kit-cars to be, having grown up in an area around small manufacturers of yesteryear.
(Brooklands had many small manufacturers near by until the 1970.80's).

I agree with you, that it does not really matter what people think, as it is far more hastle to try and explain the difference.
What people see of my particular car is made by me, not the people who made my chassis (although it had to be modified), so to say to someone that mine is a ***** kitcar, would be totally misleading, to that person, to the chassis maker, and detracts from the blood sweat and tears that i put into my car. IMO.


fozzie

Yep. But if my Gran saw it she'd say...."ooh, look at that kit car.. thats a nice one"

You know mate? you are right!
LOL

(and Iwould be saying, well actually madam, it aint a kit-car) Hehehehe

ATB
fozzie