A1
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
I had no problems at all with the kit or the guys at mk, I have the old rear panel, which was a little too wide, but it pulled in nicely...
|
|
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
There will always exist a party which has an allegiance to a manufacturer, and they will have an anti supporters group, just has Man United...
If you care about what you are building then you will look outside this forum and see some of the video shot of the MK winning races and the MNR
doing what it does, the Procomp doing well in the Locost series and the Westfield doing well in lots of stuff and the Caterhams doing well in loads of
stuff, but for a price etc...
Thumbs up to both those statements, even being (unnoticably) alcohol tainted.
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:22 AM |
|
|
Oh for F**ks sake Loggyboy you f**kin pr*ck, nobody wants your f**kin opinion you a***ole, just f**kin leave it alone you f**kin w**ker...
JOKE!!!
That took every bit bit of sobriety I had left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:31 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Hignett
Oh for F**ks sake Loggyboy you f**kin pr*ck, nobody wants your f**kin opinion you a***ole, just f**kin leave it alone you f**kin w**ker...
JOKE!!!
That took every bit bit of sobriety I had left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How very dare you young man, I can not stand this sort of language and I am reporting you to the first sentient being i encounter .......... which
will be the dog in 30 seconds when i go to put him to bed!
Hate to see what you'd write when you're pished as a fart.
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:38 AM |
|
|
This is me absorbing the ineptitude of the forum - (present company excluded of course!!!)
Pic is current as of 28 seconds ago...
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 12:46 AM |
|
|
ahem, it alsoa shot of my new harstyle as of a fewminutes ago...............
|
|
|
ffrgtm
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 01:45 AM |
|
|
I wasn't trying to say everyone is wrong about the tube section thing. I did finally figure out where I got it nailed into my head in the first
place though... looks like it got a little convoluted as it bounced around in my skull before regurgitating it here though.
From formula student Germany judge Pat Clarke
quote:
Firstly, do you use round or square section tubing? A structure made from round section tubing will usually be stiffer in torsion and one of square
section may be stiffer in beam. Square section tubing is easier to fabricate (no ‘fishmouth’ joints) but the tube distorts under load by ‘lozenging’
or ‘panting’.This adds to compliance and may lead to fatigue cracking. Round section tube is preferable, and should a team choose to build a square
section chassis, they would need to justify that to the Design Judges. Just stating ‘Easier to fabricate’ will not be enough, after all you could
easily have nailed together a wooden chassis if that was sufficient justification. Having said that, there are areas in the chassis where the use of
square section tube is preferable.
|
|
|
ffrgtm
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 02:02 AM |
|
|
oh and nice hair style 
|
|
|
Rocket_Rabbit
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 03:30 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi
And the MNR with the pushrod setup that bends the lower arms is marvelous. 
Cheers Matt
You do seem to be quite a large pratt based on a number of your similar posts.
I have no idea how 'superior' your chassis is meant to be, and I will never find out because I would certainly never buy one.
What I do know is that Procomp LA Gold sounds like a cheap fake tan cream for Mr Universe contestants.
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
|
|
|
Rocket_Rabbit
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 03:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ffrgtm
I wasn't trying to say everyone is wrong about the tube section thing. I did finally figure out where I got it nailed into my head in the first
place though... looks like it got a little convoluted as it bounced around in my skull before regurgitating it here though.
From formula student Germany judge Pat Clarke
quote:
Firstly, do you use round or square section tubing? A structure made from round section tubing will usually be stiffer in torsion and one of square
section may be stiffer in beam. Square section tubing is easier to fabricate (no ‘fishmouth’ joints) but the tube distorts under load by ‘lozenging’
or ‘panting’.This adds to compliance and may lead to fatigue cracking. Round section tube is preferable, and should a team choose to build a square
section chassis, they would need to justify that to the Design Judges. Just stating ‘Easier to fabricate’ will not be enough, after all you could
easily have nailed together a wooden chassis if that was sufficient justification. Having said that, there are areas in the chassis where the use of
square section tube is preferable.
Nice.
Has anyone looked at I-Beam or other polygonal (Triangular) extrusions?
However...
To answer Pat Clarke, easier to fabricate is an entirely justifiable answer. The benefits of the increased performance is of a level of significance
that the overhead in terms of man hours lost to the increased complexity of fabrication could be better spent elsewhere on the overall package. This
reasoning is now emphasised by means of the resource agreements being introduced within even the highest levels of Motorsport.
I have some doubts about that guy being a judge. How can anyone so closed possibly be a good engineer?
BTW, i'm not saying MK Indy is better/worse than MNR Vortx - far from it.
MNR and MK have both designed their car's to be optimal with the materials used.
I'd have either one of their chassis without any worry
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 08:14 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rocket_Rabbit
MNR and MK have both designed their car's to be optimal with the materials used.
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
Do you mean using the minimum amount of material, minimum numbers and ease of welds, shortest amount of time to fabricate etc?
Your point seems to be based on ease of fabrication and optimisation in this respect.
|
|
|
ffrgtm
|
| posted on 5/3/11 at 10:03 PM |
|
|
You have to remember that these are formula car chassis that he's talking about so torsional deflection and weight targets are waaay harder to
hit. That may be why he is saying it is harder to justify
|
|
|
Rocket_Rabbit
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 02:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Quinn
quote:
Originally posted by Rocket_Rabbit
MNR and MK have both designed their car's to be optimal with the materials used.
[Edited on 5/3/11 by Rocket_Rabbit]
Do you mean using the minimum amount of material, minimum numbers and ease of welds, shortest amount of time to fabricate etc?
Your point seems to be based on ease of fabrication and optimisation in this respect.
No. By optimal I mean pragmatic WRT Materials, cost, time and performance. By spending time designing well, you can pretty much mitigate a
compromise.
ATEOTD, we are talking about businesses whose common goal is to make money. If they were after total performance, we'd be looking at
titanium/carbon composites/ceramics and plastics for the chassis composition alone.
As great as this sounds, it is a retail knightmare - just how many are you planning to sell and even if you could sell a few, you'd have an
increasing proportion of R&D budget you'd have to assign to each unit.
So, while you start with an ultimate goal, you make compromises along the way. Evetually you end up with a chassis that is 95% of the strength, 125%
of the weight, but only 10% of the cost (materials and fabrication).
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 09:14 AM |
|
|
If you are looking at strength please see below this is the chasis that Chris Maries went airborne in some of the pictures of the roll can be seen on
MK's website, the pictures only catch a small portion of the roll. The car nose to taieled and then went on to do posibbly 6 or more roll'.
Personally I think the chasis stood up well and is a testimony to the designs and strength. Injuries sustained broken wrist, broken rib and punctured
lung. None of thes caused by the chasis collapsing . as you can see the cockpit area and roll cage have suffered minimal damage.
 
Description
[Edited on 6/3/11 by austin man]
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
If you are looking at strength please see below this is the chasis that Chris Maries went airborne in some of the pictures of the roll can be seen on
MK's website, the pictures only catch a small portion of the roll. The car nose to taieled and then went on to do posibbly 6 or more roll'.
Personally I think the chasis stood up well and is a testimony to the designs and strength. Injuries sustained broken wrist, broken rib and punctured
lung. None of thes caused by the chasis collapsing . as you can see the cockpit area and roll cage have suffered minimal damage.
Description
[Edited on 6/3/11 by austin man]
IIRC the car rolled in the air and therfore the cage and cockpit area took little or no impacts. Im not saying that the MK is not strong, im just
saying that accident cant really be used to promote the strengh of any part of the chassis accept those where an impact happened, which looking at the
pictures of the crash, their wernt many!
|
|
|
snoopy
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
analyse this one all walked away ok
|
|
|
jake_truck
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
Well said Snoopy.
This topic has become so ridiculous, with pointless comments from posters who may never have even seen an Indy.
I have built one, been involved in others along with cars from other manufacturers. I am not an engineer, don't claim to have knowledge of some
of the things being discussed.
The Indy driven by Chris Maries had a very high speed crash with, under the circumstances, really quite minimal injury to the driver. And it
certainly must have hit the ground at some point.
As snoopys picture above shows, another very big shunt where those involved walked away.
The record of race wins for the Indy can't be disputed.
These facts are exactly that - FACTS!!
While an enginering student certainly knows more than I do about his subject, he is with all due respect still a student.
I think it's time to stop bashing a very competent car that hundreds of people are very happy and very impressed with. All of the seven type
cars will have some faults. But so do all production cars, regardless of the manufacturer.
This forum has become a bickering ground for traders promoting themselves or idiots who know nowt.
john
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
People who didnt see the accident of the MK chasis in picture shouldnt make comments on what it did and did not do, having been at Oulton park and
watched the full incident you would realis that this chasis went nose to tail a couple of times and then barrel rolled so the rolcage and sructure did
indeed take quite an impact. The whole underside was clearly visible as the car left the ground it was a 6th gear accident at 110mph at least
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
jake_truck
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
^^^^ exactly
john
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 01:07 PM |
|
|
So they're prone to crashing then? 
Seriously though, I am not going to comment on the engineering aspects of any cars on here. But what I think has riled most people is the phrase
'Design Flaws' or rather 'Desgin flaws' .
I am an engineer by trade, I design vehicles. If I look at one of my designs from 5 years back I will instantly see areas where I would have done
things differently. Which is whats being talked about here. Different ways of doing things DOES NOT make something a design flaw. Square tube vs round
tube is a stupid argument to have, especially on the internet.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
DRC INDY 7
|
| posted on 6/3/11 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
People who didnt see the accident of the MK chasis in picture shouldnt make comments on what it did and did not do, having been at Oulton park and
watched the full incident you would realis that this chasis went nose to tail a couple of times and then barrel rolled so the rolcage and sructure did
indeed take quite an impact. The whole underside was clearly visible as the car left the ground it was a 6th gear accident at 110mph at least
Yes it was not a nice sight to see and way worse than the pictures will ever show
It's about time all this mud slinging stoped
|
|
|
.jpg)
