gjs
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 06:55 PM |
|
|
caterham or lotus chassis plans
Dont suppose anyone has any plans for either of the above,or anyone built a chassis based on a caterham,with their own plans
|
|
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
The obvious answer is..... The Book or McSorley plans.
Lots on here using/used both.
As the McSorley link doesn't seem to work I can email you hem if you want.
|
|
|
Gav
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
http://www.mcsorley.net/locost/
seems to still work
|
|
|
gjs
|
 posted on 28/2/06 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
I have seen the Mcsorley,but dont want to do it like that.The caterham is longer in the bonnet and the door sides seem shorter,or is it my eyesight
|
|
|
Gav
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
They are about as good as your gonna get for home build plans i think.
Caterham get the solicitors out for anyone using the letter 7, imagine what they'd do if some one was selling their plans! 
[Edited on 28/2/06 by Gav]
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
It's not your eyesight. The locost is way bigger in the cabin proportionally. In fact, sat back in a thin seat and harnessed in, I can't
even reach a book locost dash!
On my car I continued the tapered engine bay tubes back another 3". Moved the footwell ends scuttle and dash back three inches. This has the
effect of widening the cabin exactly 1" aswell as shortening it 3". And of course my bonnet/engine bay is 3" longer. Hope that
makes sense.
The net result is the same proportions as a Caterham, but bigger overall (a caterham is tiny compared to a book chassis). I also sloped my
'door' tubes down caterham style and my roll bar is canted forwards caterham style too.
Liam
[Edited on 28/2/06 by Liam]
|
|
|
NigeEss
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 09:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gav
http://www.mcsorley.net/locost/
seems to still work
Strange, when I click the link from our links page it takes me to some real estate place.......
Here's another thing, why did the picture not appear ???
[Edited on 28/2/06 by NigeEss]
[Edited on 28/2/06 by NigeEss]
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 10:00 PM |
|
|
this might help
http://www.georgecushing.net/Lotus7.html
Jon
|
|
|
gjs
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 10:25 PM |
|
|
Hey Jon didnt u have some caterham plans a while ago??
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
If you just want a rough idea without dimensions. Go to Google images and type in Lotus seven.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
If you just want a rough idea without dimensions. Go to Google images and type in Lotus seven.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 28/2/06 at 11:39 PM |
|
|
Came across this a while ago to...
Original lotus seven
Liam
|
|
|
jdgar
|
 posted on 1/3/06 at 12:36 AM |
|
|
Hello all!
I think that George Cushing has about the best you will find. I looked for quite some time.
First post on this list.
Joe Garrison
Just getting my modified book (more 7ish) organized--Finally!
Crescent, Oklahoma USA
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 08:24 AM |
|
|
Hello and welcome to the madhouse!
Retro RWD is the way forward...........automotive fabrication, car restoration, sheetmetal work, engine conversion
retro car restoration and tuning
|
|
|
JonBowden
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 08:53 AM |
|
|
quote:
Hey Jon didnt u have some caterham plans a while ago
I don't think so. I've got pictures of just about any aspect of a Caterham or Lotus, but those at george cushing's site and the one
posted by Liam are the only one with dimensions.
I figure it shouldn't be too hard to take the diagrams for the book chassis and to then stretch / squeeze them to produce a book style chassis
with Lotus / Caterham dimensions.
Jon
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 07:56 PM |
|
|
The drawings shown on Georges Cushings site seem to show the diagonal that supports the rear roll bar/shock mounting point as a curved tube. This
must be one of the more highly stressed tubes (in compression as well!) in the chassis so surely somthing is missing?
Built as shown I'm sure it would fail very quickly.
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
I agree the straight tube should definately be in there too, as in the Book. In fact it's there in a modern Caterham too - the original lotus
chassis is very underbuilt compared to a modern caterham, but was designed for the low power engines and low grip tyres of the day.
Google image search 'caterham' or 'caterham chassis' etc etc and you'll be able to slowly deduce a modern caterham
chassis from the various photos...
Liam
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 08:32 PM |
|
|
Here's a good starter...
liam
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 1/3/06 at 08:55 PM |
|
|
There is a book on the Lotus Seven in my local library that identifies all the weak areas of the Lotus chassis --- lets put it this way if I were you
wouldn't copy it but adapt a book chassis to look more like the a Lotus Seven S3 chassis. The car in the cutaway drawing I think is a Lotus
Seven S3 or a late S2.
Seven chassis saga goes like this ;
Seven S1 had a Hillman suspenion parts and a steering box, late production models had Triumph front suspension and rack & pinnion steering.
S2 as per Seven S1 except many chassis diagonal members were deleted --- these chassis broke at lot.The engine basy diagonal was reintroduced.
Most S2 chassis have now been modded to S3 standard.
S3 re-introduced the diagonal brace inthe engine bay.
S4 --- bit of side show with completely different chassis.
Early Caterham S3 --- exactly the same as late Lotus S3.
The Caterham chassis as shown in picture posted by Liam is now very different from the Lotus S3 original. It has been sugested some features were
perhaps influenced by the Dax and Westfield chassis designs -- but I am sure Caterham would say they are original.
[Edited on 1/3/06 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
Ruders
|
| posted on 2/3/06 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
Good afternoon.
And who from manufacturers has taken for a basis of chassis McSorley or use similar?
It is interesting to know about: bookChassis, McSorley7+4 and McSorley7+442.
I cannot be defined with a choice of the circuit of the chassis. On mine +442 looks too bulky. Whether so it actually?
|
|
|
MrSandMan
|
 posted on 2/3/06 at 07:25 PM |
|
|
Formula 27
I have the full build plans with my Formula 27.
Not sure just how they would take to me sharing but I would happily discuss by U2U.
To be honest, I wouldn't consider building from them as a tubular chassis will be so much lighter.
The inboard front suspension looks OK though but top arms could have been oval or round rather than square section.
|
|
|
