Anyone familiar with the Miglia 50s??

Anyone familiar with the Miglia 50s??

Author
Discussion

S6OOH

Original Poster:

1,068 posts

256 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Seem to be very new, wondered if anyone had any experience of them and the product?

http://www.migliasportscars.co.uk/

qdos

825 posts

209 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
Looks like the Tribute/Ribble to me

RochdaleGT

1,731 posts

222 months

Wednesday 1st April 2015
quotequote all
sammio, ribble or however they are named in the meanwhile....

on the market a few years only...changed names and ownership already a few times....

a lot of cars are botched togehter....but there are some rather well built examples on the market (built by private persons).

are you after a kit or a complete car?

qdos

825 posts

209 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
RochdaleGT said:
sammio, ribble or however they are named in the meanwhile....
Quite right it was Sammio to begin with I'd forgotten that. Very much a return to the old days of kit cars with no SVA/IVA required and old donor cars with real chassis such as Triumphs and Reliants. Surprisingly popular given the amount of work but a real get your teeth into it project build can produce some period looking cars.

S6OOH

Original Poster:

1,068 posts

256 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Thanks guys, yes I was considering as a build not a built. As stated, its got a lovely look to it and with the right attention to detail, I think has the ability to look like something quite special. I cannot help thinking that an Alfa V6 would make a more appropriate engine though....

headrush

2,062 posts

227 months

Thursday 2nd April 2015
quotequote all
Look for Mister Towed (spelling) on the madabout kit cars Ribble and Sammio builds forum - the silver car is a stunner!

RochdaleGT

1,731 posts

222 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
watch this blog:

http://sammiospyder.blogspot.de/2011/06/chassis-we...

the "typical" built of such a car

botched togehter...horrible welding...questionable chassis´ repairs..shocking

some other "interesting" chassis repairs:

http://garyssammiospyderbuild.blogspot.de/search?u...


headrush

2,062 posts

227 months

Saturday 4th April 2015
quotequote all
Typical? Really? As I said look at the Sammio build forum not just 2 blogs...

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
I think I'd rather pay the extra for the kit and go for a MEV Replicar. Similar looking thing and I suspect the more modern donor would make it much easier to build to a decent standard plus substantially better to drive.

Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
kambites said:
I think I'd rather pay the extra for the kit and go for a MEV Replicar. Similar looking thing and I suspect the more modern donor would make it much easier to build to a decent standard plus substantially better to drive.
I entirely agree.

I have owned and driven all the derivatives of the Triumph Herald cars yrars sgo, including the Spitifire, GT6, all the Herald models etc and fitted every kind of conversion to limit movement in the inherently poor IRS design at the rear many years ago

Including the SAH conversion, Speedex improvements and so on. I doubt the wisdom of building  a sports  car with that layout because of the seriously dangerous tuck under oversteer that can suddenly engulf these cars. With virtually no warning. I have seen the consequences and rolling over completely is  all too easy. The Herald became known for this problem. 

I do understand the attractions of avoiding IVA but personally I would prefer to use modern suspension and feel a lot safer.  The transverse leaf spring arrangement used in the Herald really is a very poor IRS design with sudden tuck under always a risk in cornering. Personally not for me. 

S6OOH

Original Poster:

1,068 posts

256 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
Thanks all. I take your point Re the chassis etc and was not hung up on that type of build, just liked the look when I saw it and had not heard of them before. Personaly, and on an initial view only I dont like the look of the MEV as much but will investigate further thank you

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
The closest I've ever come to flipping a car was a Spitfire; I suppose they weren't so bad on old cross-ply tyres with bugger all grip but on decent modern radials they're terrifying. hehe

Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Sunday 5th April 2015
quotequote all
kambites said:
The closest I've ever come to flipping a car was a Spitfire; I suppose they weren't so bad on old cross-ply tyres with bugger all grip but on decent modern radials they're terrifying. hehe
Exactly. Not a car with chassis capable of provding decent handling at economically affirdable prices. Michelin X's were a nightmare on those cars. I saw three people turn them over fortunately without serious injury. Spun several myself and just got very lucky in that the cars did not hit the curb and just spun around. Hence my efforts to resolve the problems and my realisation 40+ years ago that the weakness was inherent to he cheap transverse spring approach to rear IRS. Inherently crap.

Gemaeden

289 posts

114 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Steffan said:
kambites said:
The closest I've ever come to flipping a car was a Spitfire; I suppose they weren't so bad on old cross-ply tyres with bugger all grip but on decent modern radials they're terrifying. hehe
Exactly. Not a car with chassis capable of provding decent handling at economically affirdable prices. Michelin X's were a nightmare on those cars. I saw three people turn them over fortunately without serious injury. Spun several myself and just got very lucky in that the cars did not hit the curb and just spun around. Hence my efforts to resolve the problems and my realisation 40+ years ago that the weakness was inherent to he cheap transverse spring approach to rear IRS. Inherently crap.
The Spitfire can easily be transformed by fitting the later swing spring and longer driveshafts. Autocar said the improvement made the handling comparable with the then current Lotus Elan.

I used to run a '64 car in historic rallying with a standard fixed spring with the third leaf turned upside down to increase camber and lower the rear end. The front end used MGB springs. Allied with properly tuned Koni dampers, low ratio lsd and a decent engine, the only things that could keep up on tight and twisty roads were well driven and prepared 911s and Mini Coopers.

Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Gemaeden said:
Steffan said:
kambites said:
The closest I've ever come to flipping a car was a Spitfire; I suppose they weren't so bad on old cross-ply tyres with bugger all grip but on decent modern radials they're terrifying. hehe
Exactly. Not a car with chassis capable of provding decent handling at economically affirdable prices. Michelin X's were a nightmare on those cars. I saw three people turn them over fortunately without serious injury. Spun several myself and just got very lucky in that the cars did not hit the curb and just spun around. Hence my efforts to resolve the problems and my realisation 40+ years ago that the weakness was inherent to he cheap transverse spring approach to rear IRS. Inherently crap.
The Spitfire can easily be transformed by fitting the later swing spring and longer driveshafts. Autocar said the improvement made the handling comparable with the then current Lotus Elan.

I used to run a '64 car in historic rallying with a standard fixed spring with the third leaf turned upside down to increase camber and lower the rear end. The front end used MGB springs. Allied with properly tuned Koni dampers, low ratio lsd and a decent engine, the only things that could keep up on tight and twisty roads were well driven and prepared 911s and Mini Coopers.
To my mind using an MX5 as a base such as the Replicar from Stuart Mills at MEV would be a much better bet because:

1) It is as a genuine one donor build, based upon a highly successful sports car of approxiamately the same size.

2) To my mind the car looks exceptionally good and drives exceptionally well OTR and on the track.

3) It offers extremely good value as a well built kit with an exceptionally good fibreglass laminate bodyshell which you really could use as it comes. The finish is that good. Furthermore the MEV kit includes a substantial chassis specifically designed to strengthen the completed kit car with excellent crash protection, side damage protection and a much stiffer resistance to scuttle shake and chassis flexing in spiritedly driving.

4) There have been a number of comments on PH concerning the less than good quality offered by some kit car manufactures. I think that frequent changes of ownership and Limited companies in such circumstances tells its own story. MEV was created by Stuart Mills and continues to be run by Stuart Mills. Many years of successful and innovative kit car designs have followed from that stable. As a Retired Chartered Accountant I would take those facts as a first class recommendation for that business.

I had years of racing Spitfires and all the other Triumph offerings when they were new OTR. Having had many of those cars in all kinds of conditions and on and off the tracks I know that the basic chassis design was inadequate from the start. The front suspension was brilliant, used for years by Colin Chapman and others. The rear suspension was awful in use and essentially unsafe particulately in the wet. The reputation of the Herald as a Roll Over special was always about then in trade. Nicer looking cars for the time. Ruined by transverse leaf design and poor chassis.

For all thse reasons I would personally not seek to avoid IVA but use the best possible product based on a modern sports car design. Much simpler and much more likely to produce a really successful easily built kit car. Building kit cars as I know to my lifelong cost is very time consuming and no longer inexpensive. The number offered for sale unbuilt and not started tells the story IMO. Buy the kit likely to give you the best car must be the best bet.

That would be my recommendation.

headrush

2,062 posts

227 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
That's great and everything but...he's already said he doesn't like the Replicar!

My 3 brothers had 4 Spitfires between them: 2 mk iv 1300s (TMT 915M and HOC 282L) and 2 mk iv 1500s (one S one V reg - can't remember the plates) - guess what? no one ever died, the cars never rolled and they were a bloody good laugh!

Is Stuart standing for PM by any chance in between single handedly reforming the kit car industry, making the best kits ever and saving small kittens from trees? biggrin

Stephan - Why do I never read about how brilliant the handling of the MEV Exocet and Rocket etc. is on track days considering there've been a few round the track now?

qdos

825 posts

209 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
The Sammio, Miglia, Tribute etc are based on cars with full chassis and consequently don't need an IVA an MX5 whilst it has a backbone that holds the front and rear subframes together does not have a 'Chassis' and subsequently does need to be.

Tribute have done some BMW based kits where you hang body panels onto the donor cars wings etc and it's just a reskin so no IVA is required.

This might be something that interests the OP photo below. Personally I'd most certainly go and check out the manufacturer before thinking about buying one. Like I said before they are a get your teeth into them project with a lot of work needed to do a good job on them.



Edited by qdos on Monday 6th April 20:51

Gemaeden

289 posts

114 months

Monday 6th April 2015
quotequote all
Steffan said:
....I had years of racing Spitfires and all the other Triumph offerings when they were new OTR. Having had many of those cars in all kinds of conditions and on and off the tracks I know that the basic chassis design was inadequate from the start. The front suspension was brilliant, used for years by Colin Chapman and others. The rear suspension was awful in use and essentially unsafe particulately in the wet. The reputation of the Herald as a Roll Over special was always about then in trade. Nicer looking cars for the time. Ruined by transverse leaf design and poor chassis...
It's a misconception that Lotus used the Triumph front suspension. They used the Alford and Alder upright and trunnion, as did Triumph, but wishbones, dampers, springs, anti-roll bar were all different.

The standard transverse leaf does cause handling problems when fitted with more modern tyres than the 50's crossplies it was designed for I'll agree. It caught me out on a couple of occasions when my Spitfire had standard suspension and grippy radial tyres. (I've had about fifteen of them) However the simple fixes that I've described improve matters enormously.

The chassis is perfectly adequate on period style rubber for a light body such as the Sammio as it will have a much lower centre of gravity than the Herald or Vitesse saloons and therefore will not induce so much roll.

Like most things though, if people start changing the original design without thinking things through there will be problems. It even happened to the works Triumphs. They got around the problem by using a steel cable across the car, linking the uprights to limit positive camber inducing droop.

Out of curiosity Steffan, why did you race them if you knew the chassis design to be inadequate? Not trying to be funny by the way, just curious.

Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
Gemaeden said:
Steffan said:
....I had years of racing Spitfires and all the other Triumph offerings when they were new OTR. Having had many of those cars in all kinds of conditions and on and off the tracks I know that the basic chassis design was inadequate from the start. The front suspension was brilliant, used for years by Colin Chapman and others. The rear suspension was awful in use and essentially unsafe particulately in the wet. The reputation of the Herald as a Roll Over special was always about then in trade. Nicer looking cars for the time. Ruined by transverse leaf design and poor chassis...
It's a misconception that Lotus used the Triumph front suspension. They used the Alford and Alder upright and trunnion, as did Triumph, but wishbones, dampers, springs, anti-roll bar were all different.

The standard transverse leaf does cause handling problems when fitted with more modern tyres than the 50's crossplies it was designed for I'll agree. It caught me out on a couple of occasions when my Spitfire had standard suspension and grippy radial tyres. (I've had about fifteen of them) However the simple fixes that I've described improve matters enormously.

The chassis is perfectly adequate on period style rubber for a light body such as the Sammio as it will have a much lower centre of gravity than the Herald or Vitesse saloons and therefore will not induce so much roll.

Like most things though, if people start changing the original design without thinking things through there will be problems. It even happened to the works Triumphs. They got around the problem by using a steel cable across the car, linking the uprights to limit positive camber inducing droop.

Out of curiosity Steffan, why did you race them if you knew the chassis design to be inadequate? Not trying to be funny by the way, just curious.
Pure pigheadedness really. I thought I could tame the problems but eventually realised it was a very difficult task at the time. Mini's in the Clive Trickey era too over and were an awful lot more fun!!

Having built a substantial nummber of kit cars over the years and still building five in my 70th year. It must be apparent, i am by nature compulsive obsessive. Hence the pigheadedness. Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant years ago made it possible for me to be as daft as I am but still make a very comfortable living. I remain complisive/obsessive and still own far too many kit cars. Probably aways will! Various other personal faults I will not list here!

Personally I would not use the Triumph chassis just to avoid IVA when perfectly mechanically sound MX5 cars are around which woukd provide a much better basis for a build. Using a one donor car is massively advantageous IME and resolves many of the problems in build because the major components must fit into the finished car. Utilising all the dashboard, Dials and trim and all the instrumentation will get the car finished with the wiring loom absolutely spot on. If the builder wants to upgrade the finished car after build and IVA the range of fittings for MX5's is vast.

Huge savings in this route because so much of the donor car ca be used, indeed probably the cheapest way to build currently. That is the Accountant in me watching the costs! Up to each individual what they do with their coices in life. My own personal mantra has always been and remains, each to their own.

Best of luck to all kit car builders irrespective of the kit they choose. Some seem easier than others.


Steffan

10,362 posts

227 months

Tuesday 7th April 2015
quotequote all
Gemaeden said:
Steffan said:
....I had years of racing Spitfires and all the other Triumph offerings when they were new OTR. Having had many of those cars in all kinds of conditions and on and off the tracks I know that the basic chassis design was inadequate from the start. The front suspension was brilliant, used for years by Colin Chapman and others. The rear suspension was awful in use and essentially unsafe particulately in the wet. The reputation of the Herald as a Roll Over special was always about then in trade. Nicer looking cars for the time. Ruined by transverse leaf design and poor chassis...
It's a misconception that Lotus used the Triumph front suspension. They used the Alford and Alder upright and trunnion, as did Triumph, but wishbones, dampers, springs, anti-roll bar were all different.

The standard transverse leaf does cause handling problems when fitted with more modern tyres than the 50's crossplies it was designed for I'll agree. It caught me out on a couple of occasions when my Spitfire had standard suspension and grippy radial tyres. (I've had about fifteen of them) However the simple fixes that I've described improve matters enormously.

The chassis is perfectly adequate on period style rubber for a light body such as the Sammio as it will have a much lower centre of gravity than the Herald or Vitesse saloons and therefore will not induce so much roll.

Like most things though, if people start changing the original design without thinking things through there will be problems. It even happened to the works Triumphs. They got around the problem by using a steel cable across the car, linking the uprights to limit positive camber inducing droop.

Out of curiosity Steffan, why did you race them if you knew the chassis design to be inadequate? Not trying to be funny by the way, just curious.
Pure pigheadedness really. I thought I could tame the problems but eventually realised it was a very difficult task at the time. Mini's in the Clive Trickey era too over and were an awful lot more fun!!

Having built a substantial number of kit cars over the years and still building five in my 70th year, it must be apparent, i am by nature compulsive obsessive. Hence the pigheadedness. Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant years ago made it possible for me to be as daft as I am but still make a very comfortable living. I remain complisive/obsessive and still own far too many kit cars. Probably aways will! Various other personal faults I will not list here!

Personally I would not use the Triumph chassis just to avoid IVA when perfectly mechanically sound MX5 cars are around which woukd provide a much better basis for a build. Using a one donor car is massively advantageous IME and resolves many of the problems in build because the major components are all matched in the finished car. Utilising all the dashboard, Dials and trim and all the instrumentation will get the car finished with the wiring loom absolutely spot on. If the builder wants to upgrade the finished car after build and IVA the range of fittings for MX5's is vast.

Huge savings in this route because so much of the donor car ca be used, indeed probably the cheapest way to build currently. That is the Accountant in me watching the costs! Up to each individual what they do with their choices in life. My own personal mantra has always been and remains : each to their own.

Best of luck to all kit car builders irrespective of the kit they choose. Some seem easier than others.