kb58
|
| posted on 28/8/03 at 04:27 PM |
|
|
My take on 3-wheelers.
After I'm done with my mid-engine Mini, I'm considering a 3-wheeler. I've done a lot of research and thinking about them...
The biggest issue IMHO is styling. A 3-wheeler is *really* tough to style, to get to the point where people don't fixate on the "missing
wheel." Almost all attempts I've seen fall down terribly in this respect. The T-Rex comes about as close as I've seen to something
that isn't too embarrassing, but it's too expensive. The Indy-Cycle, http://www.indycycle.net/IndyCycle/indycycle.html
on the other hand is, feel, about as good as it gets. Most 3-wheelers seem confused about whether they're trying to be a car or a bike, but
the IndyCycle does well though. (Sure I'd change a few things, but it's pretty good.) There's another "IndyCycle" out
there, one where you just "plug in" a bike to the back of it.
http://www.indycycleonline.com/
While a good price, it just looks awful. I understand why they did it that way, but I don't think it's possible to *not* integrate the
bike parts into a real frame without looking bad.
A buddy and I are wondering what the market is for a 3-wheeler. I don't think it's possible to get past the "missing wheel"
with the general public, meaning no one's going to sell millions of these (or even thousands...) OTOH, if it's marketed to people who
used to have, or have always wanted, a sportbike, but for whatever reason don't, I think there might be a nitch. People who gave up their bikes
for marriage, or feel sportbikes are just too dangerous (I think the two are related...) are likely to consider a nice sportbike-powered 3-wheeler,
one that doesn't pretend to be a car.
Again, just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrianm
|
| posted on 28/8/03 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
some other examples
Well interesting you should mention that - I had a huge interest in 3-wheelers previously especially the single rear wheelers: here's one
someone did earlier which inspired me to go the locost route in the first place.
http://www.rqriley.com/imagespln/tmc3.jpg
Ok you might consider this trigmagnum stylistically 'challenged' but shouldnt be beyond the possibility of re-design.
[Edited on 28/8/03 by Adrianm]
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 28/8/03 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
My idea is here
Trike
Any comments welcome!
Cheers
Chris
[Edited on 28/8/03 by chrisg]
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 29/8/03 at 03:49 AM |
|
|
Shush, Chris, you shouldn't let the cat out of the bag!  That's a very nice design and you could sell some for sure. 
Unless, that is, someone rips you off like that poor IndyCycle guy, and palms off a Kawasaki that rear-ended a Star Wars LEGOS set. 
The only thing that bothers me about a single-seater is that one of the things I'm looking forward to with the Locost is entertaining
passengers. I think I'd get bored after a while, just riding around by myself. That's my reaction to solo motorcycle riding, jet skis,
and the like.
How about racing? Is there any opportunity to race these things?
Pete
[Edited on 29/8/03 by pbura]
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 29/8/03 at 04:19 AM |
|
|
That silver riley wotsit looks like it came off second best on a level crossing!
I agree with Kurt, any 3Ws I've seen to date, with bodywork, look like the results of horrific road accidents (no offence Chris).
They are unique vehicles, but, uniquely lacking looks wise(IMO). As mentioned above, the ones with a bike rammed up their jaxy really don't cut
it. They rate up there with all those homemade rafts that various rugby clubs deem suitable for down-river-races-for-pissed-blokes.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 29/8/03 at 01:11 PM |
|
|
My opinion:
Personally I'm not fond of three-wheelers, I would never actually own one.
However, like any piece of machinery, I do admire the engineering and workmanship involed and for that reason I welcome their inclusion on this
site.
They are usually built by innovative enthusiasts so much of the input should be of benefit to all of us.
Just one thing though, and I mentioned this before, if the post is of general relevance please post in the relevant section, i.e. engine, running gear
etc.
I'd hate to miss a really good tip because I didn't visit a section that often.
Good luck and happy building to everyone.
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 29/8/03 at 03:02 PM |
|
|
Some other thoughts...
Once we get past the different look of the 3-wheeler, there's many benefits. Because of the "missing wheel," that means you
don't have to buy a tire, wheel, upright, shock, and suspension for that corner. The result is a lighter, simpler, and cheaper vehicle.
That's a very good combination that's tough to beat! Being light is very important too because to ask a sportbike engine to push
something much heavier than the bike it was intended for is asking for trouble, at least based on what I read on the BEC list. It's gotta be
light.
Another plus is, in California at least, it's considered a motorcycle. That means (I think) no emissions tests, plus it gets to drive in the
car pool lane.
One admitted bad point is safety. With all the SUVs around here, a collision would have a fairly certain outcome. If we consider that it's a
lot safer then riding a sportbike though, it takes some of the fear way... some of it.
It's just the Look I'm trying to work past... Asthetically I think they look good as a single-passenger vehicle. Placing two seat
side-by-side makes them kind of goofy, and placing two seats in-line makes it too long. It's a shame really because it would be nice to
share.
I have some ideas... like a roll back canopy like on an airplane. That gives the choice of open-air driving, and once your tired of being
wind-pummelled, can just reach over your shoulder and roll it forward. My brother is building an RV-8A airplane, and it has just the right type of
canopy... We'll see.
[Edited on 29/8/03 by kb58]
|
|
|
MazdaJim
|
| posted on 31/8/03 at 12:22 AM |
|
|
Hi, I'm new.
I'm not sure that a bike powered 3-wheeler would be safer than a sportbike. It would be less agile than a bike, and thus less able to avoid any
SUVs careening towards you. Also the 3-wheeler would be lower than a sportbike, so there's a visibility problem, both in terms of people being
able to see you, and you being able to see around things in front of you (like SUVs.)
There are some dynamics problems I'd like to see discussed concerning 3-wheelers:
If you put the engine in front of the driver like in an old Morgan 3-wheeler, I'll bet the rear end is going to get very light under braking and
squirm around a lot...Not fun. If you put the engine behind the driver, and hang a bunch of the car's components out back to get some
stability...Well then you have a rear-heavy vehicle that wants to swap ends all the time (and this would be exacerbated by the lack of grip in back
due to a single wheel.) So the car's still doing unpleasant things.
I think a small, lightweight, bike powered 3-wheeled car is a neat idea, but it sure seems to me that there's some big obstacles in the way of
getting one to drive "correctly."
-James
[Edited on 31/8/03 by MazdaJim]
[Edited on 31/8/03 by MazdaJim]
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 31/8/03 at 01:37 AM |
|
|
MazdaJim-
I agree with most of what you said, but not with this part:
quote:
Originally posted by MazdaJim
. . . If you put the engine in front of the driver like in an old Morgan 3-wheeler, I'll bet the rear end is going to get very light under
braking and squirm around a lot...Not fun. . . ."
I've read that up to 90% of a 4-wheeled vehicle's braking is performed by the front wheels. If rear end braking is cut in half (because
only one rear wheel is on the ground in a trike), you'd go from 100% to 95% - not that bad.
Compared to other possible trike layouts, two wheels in front is clearly superior for stability and braking to one wheel in front (see Robert Q
Riley's explanation at the bottom of my trike page - http://www.carcentric.com/SpitTrike.htm - for corroboration). Where it is lacking is in
acceleration, especially with front engines and (single) rear wheel drive.
And as for quote:
". . . I'm not sure that a bike powered 3-wheeler would be safer than a sportbike . . . "
, we'd
both be a lot safer around me on/in a trike than around me on a sportbike!
[Edited on 31/8/03 by carcentric]
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 31/8/03 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
If u want safety, get a hummer! Trikes are more about the style factor than sportiness i suspect, after all they can't be as good at handling as
either cars (less wheels) or bikes (cant lean), so you just have to grow a beard and a fat belly and enjoy the ride!
Cant appreciate trikes with 2 front wheels, me myself im gonna get a 2 rear one one day. Harley or goldwing. Big f off armchair!
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 06:07 AM |
|
|
I agree partly. They might not be as fast in acceleration as a sport bike because of higher weight, but I suspect the top-end speed (if you care)
would be higher due to better aerodynamics. I'd also bet they'd be faster than just about any car in a drag race. 700lbs + 180hp, do the
math.
I disagree about them handling worse then a car. Less rubber? Then use a wide rear tire. Handle worse?... what about their low weight, less than any
car and they probably also have a lower CG. It would be very interesting to see both a Super-7 and a 3-wheeler with the same Hayabusa drivetrain on
the same race track. I certainly wouldn't assume the 3-wheeler would lose.
[Edited on 1/9/03 by kb58]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
You are right when they are compared to a normal car, but when compared to a good sports BEC (4 wheels rear engine etc.) my money would be on the 4,
though maybe there wouldn't be much difference.
The main points about handling in order:
cant get any camber on the rear wheel unless it leans thru a corner.
any cornering roll will immediately give neg(?) camber.
less rubber to accelerate out of a corner with.
In its favour though, i guess a trike would be a bit lighter than a comparable 4 wheeler due to the wheel and drivetrain stuff. who knows?
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
I've had this very conversation with a buddy building a 3-Wheeler. His solution was to use a 345-35/17" rear tire!! I said it
won't work in practice because when his vehicle leans the rear tire in effect becomes much narrower. He then said that's why he put the
roll center at ground level... no leaning. I disagree, because as long as his CG is above ground, and it always is, it *will* lean.
If I build one I think I'd just use the largest sportbike rear tire I could find... or, use a "normal" width auto tire. My thinking
is that even a 185-50/16 will have more rubber on the road then any sportbike tire. And regarding lean, since the vehicle is so light, it's
quite possible the rear would only need about 15psi. If so, it would tend to conform to the road surface rather then riding up on it's edge.
I'm still researching all this stuff. Another buddy says the best way is to drive the two front tires... in effect using a FWD layout. Then
the rear tire is there just to keep it all from tipping over backwards.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
The widest rear tire I've seen on a trike
Have you seen this:
http://www.roadstercycle.com/
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
I saw one that big on telly today, fitted on a harley conversion, a V8 with nitrous! Men and Motors has some cool shows!
|
|
|
MrFluffy
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 07:22 PM |
|
|
trike
I built a 2 wheels at the front trike once many years ago (aged 14, must have been a while back), fitted fiddle brakes to the front wheels and a
triumph bike engine behind the drivers seat chain driving the rear wheel, but didnt do a brilliant job of the chassis (think 2d spaceframe!) and got
flex under braking and hard cornering, also for some insane reason I made the entire front end myself, even the uprights! talk about making hard work
of things... If I was going to do it now, Id get hold of a complete front crossmember aka vauxhall magnum/coil sprung viva or the like, and use a
complete rear swingarm from a large sportsbike (like a gsxr1000 arm or the like) complete with linkages et all with chain drive to a older big
sportsbike motor, and then throw a turbo onto it for good measure.
I quite like Lomax's (3 wheeled kitcar based on a 2cv) and used to pop into DRK cars which built beautiful morganesque 3 wheelers based on
renault kit because I lived up the road, and anyone that made things on a wheeling machine drew me like a moth to a light
Theres a lot of manufacturers out there of kits to glean inspiration from, when you dig deep enough.
Anyone who's watched a vintage 3 wheeled racing series will know, you'd better be able to lean over the side in fast corners if you want
to go really quick in a morgan , ala sidecar racing style, fun to watch too 
As for two rear wheel'd trikes, well, if I wanted to get wet when it rained still and stuck in traffic jams, ill take my kawasaki 750 double
adult watsonian sidecar outfit (wolf in sheeps clothing , muhahaha), you can pose a bit on a nice custom one tho
I wont be building a 3 wheeler (too many projects on the go), but interesting to check this section out! Maybe when I finish a few things. Come to
think of it theres a old 2cv with a rotten chassis parked in the neighbours field .......
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 1/9/03 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
You see quite alot of these in cornwall as they are made here, they are really high quality if a tad expensive
 
Rescued attachment BlackJack.jpeg
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 2/9/03 at 05:08 AM |
|
|
I reckon that's about the smartest of that ilk I've seen. Mark, do you know who makes them?
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 2/9/03 at 06:45 AM |
|
|
Rorty,
Richard Oakes makes them in Helston, he also did the Nova VW based 'Supercar' and several others in the '70s and'80s
Mark
|
|
|
MrFluffy
|
| posted on 2/9/03 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
Really interesting that yellow 3 wheeler (possibly because Im a nova owner!) Its called a blackjack avon.
From :-
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1813/
The Blackjack Avion is a new two seater special, based on the Citroën powertrain and front suspension, fitted to a structural polyester body moulding
and subframes. Front suspension has vertically mounted dampers and Blackjack anti-roll bar. Rear suspension has a special swinging arm with spring and
damper unit. The wheels are 16" polished stainless steel wires, with aluminium hubs. The Avion has a moulded air deflector / windscreen - a full
screen and weather equipment is under development.
Quite interesting, having a structural polyester moulded shell...
|
|
|
Viper
|
| posted on 3/9/03 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
The Blackjack Avion company is for sale
£40k..
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 4/9/03 at 04:03 AM |
|
|
I wouldn't mind their body moulds for my BMW (bike, Hippy, not a straight 6)) powered Hammerhead.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 4/9/03 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
Good to hear he was okay. I understand that the CG/tipping issue isn't a concern. That is, assuming it was built "reasonably," it
can't tip any easier than a 4W-car. My point is that it's very possible that had he been driving a "normal" car and did the
same thing, it too may have tipped.
|
|
|
perry
|
| posted on 14/4/04 at 07:49 PM |
|
|
I have done quite a bit of research on 3 wheelers over the years and think i may build one as my next project.
If built correctly they will not tip easily. In the 2 wheels up front configuration (which I prefer), this means something has to be in front of the
front wheels, either half of your body or the engine. i have been leaning towards basically a bike attached to a 2 seat side by side chassis similar
in concept to a locost car. This requires the front wheels at about your knees for proper balance. a major issue is to get the balance right
requires very little load on the rear wheel, meaning traction for acceleration is severely limited with the bigger sportbike engines. Depending on
your point of view, this is a problem or a favorable trait.. here's something similar to what I want:
http://unitas.lunarpages.com/~norton2/shrike.htm
I am tempted to run a bike engine up front for balance considerations.
Perry
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 14/4/04 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
Trikes are great cars, the only one Ive ever driven is the T-Rex, and wow, that thing handles. The only handling trait I dont like is the turning
acceleration, I did a from stop36 deg turn, with the throttle wide open, and I could see the front drivers suspension decompress, At no point during
my drive did I ever feel like it would flip, but I did get slighly uneasy. The trike actually lost traction in the rear and spun before I could get
past 35mph.
The flipping thing is the only potential problem i see, with a car on 4 wheels it's pretty stable, and with a bike you can lean into a turn, but
with a trike you are kinda stuck in the seat, and cant really shift weight.
I did see a 3 wheeler that the rear wheel will tilt when you turn (I mean tilt like this: / ) which looked promising. Not sure where i saw it,
butit was on the web.
|
|
|
