RV Python - Vince replies!
Discussion
Hi DEN or should i call you "DIRTY DEN " as you seem the have a large amount of DIRT around you and all your e-mails !!!!!
I take it that you are the same man that put gerry from hawk cars in the nemesis the first time it was tested and i had no idear that he made cars and also was trying to sell testoroser bodys ???
and then to give the nemesis a good rightup all bar one part where jerry slaged off the chassis for shaking at the door post ,which was due to the front wheels being varsty out of balance!!!!! which jerry new about, which was later totaly taken back by peter coxhead a few months later once we had the car on the road !!
Filby has never as fare as i know used the compertition to test some ones car !! the damage was done ,if you ask any one how has driven the nemesis or the Bugrat they will tell you what they think of my chassis !!! and i have never had one bad comment to this day !!!!!the moulds are from the guys at harlow and are totaly proven !!yes the chassis is new and only bench tested ,never clamed i was not !!But could never build a cobra that weighed more than the V12 jag powered Nemesis ,as a car with no roof not much in the way of doors and trim ,Can not weigh more than a car with all the toys that come in a GT car ???
and as the chassis stop production in 93 they used dolamite parts and MGB bits ,so if had to altered!!
I take it that you are the same man that put gerry from hawk cars in the nemesis the first time it was tested and i had no idear that he made cars and also was trying to sell testoroser bodys ???
and then to give the nemesis a good rightup all bar one part where jerry slaged off the chassis for shaking at the door post ,which was due to the front wheels being varsty out of balance!!!!! which jerry new about, which was later totaly taken back by peter coxhead a few months later once we had the car on the road !!
Filby has never as fare as i know used the compertition to test some ones car !! the damage was done ,if you ask any one how has driven the nemesis or the Bugrat they will tell you what they think of my chassis !!! and i have never had one bad comment to this day !!!!!the moulds are from the guys at harlow and are totaly proven !!yes the chassis is new and only bench tested ,never clamed i was not !!But could never build a cobra that weighed more than the V12 jag powered Nemesis ,as a car with no roof not much in the way of doors and trim ,Can not weigh more than a car with all the toys that come in a GT car ???
and as the chassis stop production in 93 they used dolamite parts and MGB bits ,so if had to altered!!
it's best to start with a cleen sheet !!
as my background is AIR CRAFT and not tractors i went on the path of light weight .
as they say the proof is in the pudding ! we will have to see if you are right or like most people think you are talking DIRT !!!
IF YOU WANT TO COME AND SEE ME HEAR IN Sri Lanka (by the way is 29c hear at moment) YOU ARE VERY WELCOME !!!
I can show you all the name plates on the moulds and jigs for Unique Autocraft!!
If there are spelling mistakes please do not make to much of this as i am Dyslexic !! and much better at making cars than writting e-mails , that cannot be said for DEN as dont think he is Dyslexic ? not by the number he is writting!!!!!!!!!
wont be replying to any more of this as I know the truth And have no resion to keep all this up have so many cars and chassis to make !!!
Vince Wright, Orizio Motors Limited, Block 21 Ratmalana indutrial city Ratmalana Colombo Sri Lanka (R V Dynamics UK)
as my background is AIR CRAFT and not tractors i went on the path of light weight .
as they say the proof is in the pudding ! we will have to see if you are right or like most people think you are talking DIRT !!!
IF YOU WANT TO COME AND SEE ME HEAR IN Sri Lanka (by the way is 29c hear at moment) YOU ARE VERY WELCOME !!!
I can show you all the name plates on the moulds and jigs for Unique Autocraft!!
If there are spelling mistakes please do not make to much of this as i am Dyslexic !! and much better at making cars than writting e-mails , that cannot be said for DEN as dont think he is Dyslexic ? not by the number he is writting!!!!!!!!!
wont be replying to any more of this as I know the truth And have no resion to keep all this up have so many cars and chassis to make !!!
Vince Wright, Orizio Motors Limited, Block 21 Ratmalana indutrial city Ratmalana Colombo Sri Lanka (R V Dynamics UK)
Well I was just about to post this after writing it when I just noticed Vince has replied in person.
Doesn't affect what I was going to say though so here it is:
Den and Ferg,
Regarding the inboard suspension/rocker arm aspect, as Ferg says, there will be loadings acting upwards at the rocker arm pivot. But which way is the spring pushed when the wheel is pushed up? DOWN.
What this means is that instead of ALL the suspension loadings acting upwards in one corner and subjecting the chassis as a whole to a large torsional stress, a large part of that loading is instead acting downwards towards the centre of a crossmember which is being subjected to a <B>bending</B> stress.
Admittedly some of this bending load will be transferred by the crossmember to become torsional loads at the longitudinal chassis rails (leverage) but it'll be trying to twist them in <B>opposite</B> directions, ie. both in at the top.
Compare that to outboard suspension where the leverage effect is trying to twist both chassis rails in the <B>same</B> direction.
If you then join the two longitudinal rails by an upper crossmember that'll bear this opposing twisting in compression (the state materials are strongest in) you have a structure that will then redirect these opposing torsional loads against each other, effectively cancelling each other out.
Does that make sense? It's what's known in engineering as 'force flow'.
And Den, sorry mate, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that you have not expressed views either way on the Python as you have repeatedly posted dire warnings saying the chassis will flex, there will be problems, it'll all end in tears etc.
Sound like views to me Den. Fully agree with your stance on Filby and his misleading promotion etc, but think it's unfair to start criticising a car when you don't really have anything to base a sound judgement on. It's about on par with Filby praising a car when he doesn't really have anything to base a sound judgement on.
That's why I felt compelled to start posting the counterpoint regarding the Python and contact Vince, who as you can see, has now added his own comments.
Doesn't affect what I was going to say though so here it is:
Den and Ferg,
Regarding the inboard suspension/rocker arm aspect, as Ferg says, there will be loadings acting upwards at the rocker arm pivot. But which way is the spring pushed when the wheel is pushed up? DOWN.
What this means is that instead of ALL the suspension loadings acting upwards in one corner and subjecting the chassis as a whole to a large torsional stress, a large part of that loading is instead acting downwards towards the centre of a crossmember which is being subjected to a <B>bending</B> stress.
Admittedly some of this bending load will be transferred by the crossmember to become torsional loads at the longitudinal chassis rails (leverage) but it'll be trying to twist them in <B>opposite</B> directions, ie. both in at the top.
Compare that to outboard suspension where the leverage effect is trying to twist both chassis rails in the <B>same</B> direction.
If you then join the two longitudinal rails by an upper crossmember that'll bear this opposing twisting in compression (the state materials are strongest in) you have a structure that will then redirect these opposing torsional loads against each other, effectively cancelling each other out.
Does that make sense? It's what's known in engineering as 'force flow'.
And Den, sorry mate, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that you have not expressed views either way on the Python as you have repeatedly posted dire warnings saying the chassis will flex, there will be problems, it'll all end in tears etc.
Sound like views to me Den. Fully agree with your stance on Filby and his misleading promotion etc, but think it's unfair to start criticising a car when you don't really have anything to base a sound judgement on. It's about on par with Filby praising a car when he doesn't really have anything to base a sound judgement on.
That's why I felt compelled to start posting the counterpoint regarding the Python and contact Vince, who as you can see, has now added his own comments.
Graham,
With the 'upper crossmember' effectively cancelling out the forces, do you mean forces from each wheel? In which case isn't that only true if both front wheels are acted upon in an upwards direction at the same time? I'd have thought that the forces are concentrated at the bottom of the spring (chassis? crossmember?) and the top pivot.
I'm not trying to be clever BTW, I'm just interested !! I wouldn't know if the Python chassis was any good or not if I looked at it for a week!
Edited to say: I've just read it again Graham, and I think it's starting to sink in.
>> Edited by Ferg on Saturday 6th December 17:45
With the 'upper crossmember' effectively cancelling out the forces, do you mean forces from each wheel? In which case isn't that only true if both front wheels are acted upon in an upwards direction at the same time? I'd have thought that the forces are concentrated at the bottom of the spring (chassis? crossmember?) and the top pivot.
I'm not trying to be clever BTW, I'm just interested !! I wouldn't know if the Python chassis was any good or not if I looked at it for a week!
Edited to say: I've just read it again Graham, and I think it's starting to sink in.
>> Edited by Ferg on Saturday 6th December 17:45
Welcome Vince
.
I before you come to the conclusion that I’m mocking you, I’m sincerely not.
You’ve addressed a number of important issues.
You appear bitter concerning something that Gerry Hawkridge wrote under the editorship of Peter Coxhead sometime between 1995 and 1999. That’s a long time ago and even if your complaint was justified you didn’t inform me, gave me no opportunity to correct the problem, but instead appear to have run into the arms of that lovely (and exceedingly trustworthy
) Mr Filby.
Your prerogative, but not the wisest of remedies IMHO. You go further in suggesting that Gerry was motivated by malice purportedly inspired by his being your competitor. At every level I’ve problems with your stance in that Gerry hasn’t an ounce of malicious intent in his generously proportioned frame AND I honestly don’t believe that anything he’s ever made can be argued to have been in competition with your Nemesis AND had there been any problem with his opinion it would have been corrected by Peter Coxhead who was, is and always shall be beyond reproach IMHO. I sincerely believe that your complaint is based on paranoia rather than fact.
Anyway, you’re presumably now dealing with Fib’s because you feel assured, not without good reason
, that he won’t criticise your product. He’s saying that your Python is the ‘best buy’ 
for someone with around £10,000 to spend and is saying in ‘RV Dynamics’ adverts of your new Python
Curiously, you say
So it seems that you’re saying that the advertising claims are not claims made by you. This leads to a question regarding exactly what ‘RV Dynamics’ is, and whose it is?
. It appears that your business is
Are we to take it that RV Dynamics is pure Fib’s and that his claims concerning your product are not indorsed by your company “Orizio Motors Limited”?
The plot thickens
Den
. I before you come to the conclusion that I’m mocking you, I’m sincerely not
. You’ve addressed a number of important issues. You appear bitter concerning something that Gerry Hawkridge wrote under the editorship of Peter Coxhead sometime between 1995 and 1999. That’s a long time ago and even if your complaint was justified you didn’t inform me, gave me no opportunity to correct the problem, but instead appear to have run into the arms of that lovely (and exceedingly trustworthy
) Mr Filby. Your prerogative, but not the wisest of remedies IMHO. You go further in suggesting that Gerry was motivated by malice purportedly inspired by his being your competitor. At every level I’ve problems with your stance in that Gerry hasn’t an ounce of malicious intent in his generously proportioned frame AND I honestly don’t believe that anything he’s ever made can be argued to have been in competition with your Nemesis AND had there been any problem with his opinion it would have been corrected by Peter Coxhead who was, is and always shall be beyond reproach IMHO. I sincerely believe that your complaint is based on paranoia rather than fact.
Anyway, you’re presumably now dealing with Fib’s because you feel assured, not without good reason
, that he won’t criticise your product. He’s saying that your Python is the ‘best buy’ for someone with around £10,000 to spend and is saying in ‘RV Dynamics’ adverts of your new Python PythonAd said:
The only difference is that modern technology has been applied to the construction of the body and chassis – both are now lighter and stronger. Performance is higher, handling is better. . . .
Curiously, you say
vince rvd said:
yes the chassis is new and only bench tested ,never clamed it was not!!
So it seems that you’re saying that the advertising claims are not claims made by you. This leads to a question regarding exactly what ‘RV Dynamics’ is, and whose it is?
. It appears that your business is vince rvd said:
Vince Wright, Orizio Motors Limited, Block 21 Ratmalana indutrial city Ratmalana Colombo Sri Lanka (R V Dynamics UK)
Are we to take it that RV Dynamics is pure Fib’s and that his claims concerning your product are not indorsed by your company “Orizio Motors Limited”?
The plot thickens
Den
grahambell said:
Regarding the inboard suspension/rocker arm. . .
What this means is. . . a large torsional stress. . . loading is instead acting downwards towards the centre of a crossmember which is being subjected to a <B>bending</B> stress.
Admittedly some of this bending load will be transferred by the crossmember to become torsional loads at the longitudinal chassis rails (leverage) but it'll be trying to twist them in <B>opposite</B> directions, ie. both in at the top.
If you then join the two longitudinal rails by an upper crossmember that'll bear this opposing twisting in compression (the state materials are strongest in) you have a structure that will then redirect these opposing torsional loads against each other, effectively cancelling each other out.
Does that make sense?
Nope
, because the only crossmember that exists is the thin strip to which I referred. Also Ferg is right. Twist or ‘torsion’ is exerted when the upward force on one wheel is greater than that on the other wheel. The difference in these forces IS that which has to be resisted by the chassis torsional stiffness. What you are saying in your ‘cancellation’ of forces argument is that if the forces are equal there will be no twist of the chassis which is the same as saying that the chassis won’t twist PROVIDED you don’t try to twist it.
The argument works but somewhat misses the point, me thinks. grahambell said:
And Den, sorry mate, but I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that you have not expressed views either way on the Python. . . .
Point taken, so please let me re-phrase as follows.
I’ve been very careful not to criticise that which does not exist within the pages of Kit Car magazine. In everything I’ve said in Kit Car magazine I’ve been very careful to say only that which is clear, obvious (to those informed) and true. The essence of the reports in Kit Car is that no Python has been built or road tested, so (a)
be careful and (b) question the integrity
of the magazine that leads you to believe to the contrary. Den
>> Edited by kitcarman on Saturday 6th December 18:33
vince rvd said:
IF YOU WANT TO COME AND SEE ME HEAR IN Sri Lanka (by the way is 29c hear at moment) YOU ARE VERY WELCOME !!!
I can show you all the name plates on the moulds and jigs for Unique Autocraft!!
If there are spelling mistakes please do not make to much of this as i am Dyslexic !! and much better at making cars than writting e-mails , that cannot be said for DEN as dont think he is Dyslexic ? not by the number he is writting!!!!!!!!!
wont be replying to any more of this as I know the truth And have no resion to keep all this up have so many cars and chassis to make !!!
Vince Wright, Orizio Motors Limited, Block 21 Ratmalana indutrial city Ratmalana Colombo Sri Lanka (R V Dynamics UK)
There you are Den, how about a holiday
29c this time of year, can't be bad....Lol!
Good to have your comments on board Vince, don't worry about the spelling mistakes, the reason Den doesn't make any, is his postings usually contain more emoticons than grammar
The power of the internet....wonderful.....
>> Edited by Wacky Racer on Saturday 6th December 18:42
Congratulations to vince for his reply , It takes a lot of faith in yourself & your product to move to another country . Let vince demonstrate his product , I believe this has far more to do with PF's somewhat dubious business tactics . From my experiance these people usually use people who are honest to sure up their bad practices !!
Wow! a lot can happen when you spend the day pulling a car apart.
Look at that, someone actually admitting that there is some good in Fib's (or is that, was some good!)
Den
Why didn't you publish this (as it is here), as a news article showing report issed by ASA?
Vince
It's nice to hear from you. I can see what you are saying and wish you luck with the car. I see from your post that other than expressing a past grievance with Den, IMO you have strengthened Den's points on the methods of advertising that Which Kit are using.
Why don't Vince and Den either meet (as invited Den) or correspond privately via email with a view to Den producing an article in Kit Car showing 'The Truth about the Python Project'?
You both may have your differences, but surely this sort of idea will serve everyones advantage.
1. We all get the truth.
2. Which Kit?'s false advertising will be fully exposed.
3. Vince will get some informative editorial content in the press.
4. Your differences may be cleared.
5. Vince you said yourself that you are from the aircraft industry, would it be of interest for you to get some of Den's knowledge of chassis design to compare with your ideas?
I hope Vince does read this post and does keep in touch (be it only occasionally) so that we may get more answers.
Wacky_Racer said:
Regarding Fibs, anybody that can produce a tasty bit of kit like Amy Filby can't be all bad.
Look at that, someone actually admitting that there is some good in Fib's (or is that, was some good!)
Den
Why didn't you publish this (as it is here), as a news article showing report issed by ASA?
ASA said:
Date: 8th January 2003Media: Magazine Sector: Publishing
Complaint:
Kit Car Magazine objected to a magazine advertisement, for Which Kit car magazine, that stated "... The BEST place to buy or sell a kit car is with Britain's biggest selling kitcar magazine ...". The complainants challenged the claim "Britain's biggest selling kitcar magazine".
Codes Section: 2.6, 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
Complaint upheld
The advertisers said they might be willing to amend the claim but they refused to respond to the Authority in writing and send substantiation for the claim. The Authority was concerned by the advertisers' refusal to respond and apparent disregard for the Codes. The Authority noted the advertisers had not substantiated that they were Britain's biggest-selling kitcar magazine. It reminded the advertisers of their responsibility to hold substantiation to support advertised claims and to send it to the Authority on request. The Authority told the advertisers not to use the claim again unless they held, and could send to the Authority on request, documentary evidence to substantiate it. The Authority asked the Committee of Advertising Practice to inform its members of the problem with the advertisers.
Vince
It's nice to hear from you. I can see what you are saying and wish you luck with the car. I see from your post that other than expressing a past grievance with Den, IMO you have strengthened Den's points on the methods of advertising that Which Kit are using.
Why don't Vince and Den either meet (as invited Den) or correspond privately via email with a view to Den producing an article in Kit Car showing 'The Truth about the Python Project'?
You both may have your differences, but surely this sort of idea will serve everyones advantage.
1. We all get the truth.
2. Which Kit?'s false advertising will be fully exposed.
3. Vince will get some informative editorial content in the press.
4. Your differences may be cleared.
5. Vince you said yourself that you are from the aircraft industry, would it be of interest for you to get some of Den's knowledge of chassis design to compare with your ideas?
I hope Vince does read this post and does keep in touch (be it only occasionally) so that we may get more answers.
Well it seems you are totaly set on just twisting evry thing that is said !!!!
R V Dynamics is at the present time myself as a SOLE TRADER !!
but as it is not posible for me to be in TWO places at once YES filby is handling my inquires !
as it is an F'ing long way to send paper work from hear !!
and i would rather have some one in the UK that has taken an intrest in my products than some one who has never bothered to test any thing i have made of his own accord !!
and it was your very own Ian Ayr that put me onto the python in the first place ,and who tested the Bugrat only after Which kit ! supouse you thought you should then ??
and you are the man that put the braintree show on at the same time as the Kemption show (an established Show) and said "You Did Not Know It Was The Same Day"
Just to get at filby, and totaly wasted my time and efort of going to Kemption!!! as only half the people where there!!!
and you did the same the next year and said again "YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE SAME DAY " where i was standing in the office when sally sent a FAX TO YOU telling you the date of the next year show !!!
so if i dont trust one word you say then i think i have good reasion ?? dont you as i know you are a not to be trusted !!!!!!!!!!
as for the chassis it has all been done on the AUTOCAD 2004 soft ware and by my self and cheaked by our staff (Who holds a degree in mechanical engenering) so dont worry yourself that my cars will do the same as yours on the road !!!! you know what i am talking about dont you den !!!
so that all said if people what to talk to me direct they can ring me at the factory and i can fill then in some more on "our KITCAR MAN" as have more where that came from !! the number is 0094777287656 but please remember i am 6 hours AHEAD of GMT hear,
and if any one is intrested try looking at www.dyslexia.com and see if you think i mite have what it takes to make a good car ,you can see some of the names of other Dyslexic engeiners !! one of which was HENRY FORD !!
R V Dynamics is at the present time myself as a SOLE TRADER !!
but as it is not posible for me to be in TWO places at once YES filby is handling my inquires !
as it is an F'ing long way to send paper work from hear !!
and i would rather have some one in the UK that has taken an intrest in my products than some one who has never bothered to test any thing i have made of his own accord !!
and it was your very own Ian Ayr that put me onto the python in the first place ,and who tested the Bugrat only after Which kit ! supouse you thought you should then ??
and you are the man that put the braintree show on at the same time as the Kemption show (an established Show) and said "You Did Not Know It Was The Same Day"
Just to get at filby, and totaly wasted my time and efort of going to Kemption!!! as only half the people where there!!!
and you did the same the next year and said again "YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE SAME DAY " where i was standing in the office when sally sent a FAX TO YOU telling you the date of the next year show !!!
so if i dont trust one word you say then i think i have good reasion ?? dont you as i know you are a not to be trusted !!!!!!!!!!
as for the chassis it has all been done on the AUTOCAD 2004 soft ware and by my self and cheaked by our staff (Who holds a degree in mechanical engenering) so dont worry yourself that my cars will do the same as yours on the road !!!! you know what i am talking about dont you den !!!
so that all said if people what to talk to me direct they can ring me at the factory and i can fill then in some more on "our KITCAR MAN" as have more where that came from !! the number is 0094777287656 but please remember i am 6 hours AHEAD of GMT hear,
and if any one is intrested try looking at www.dyslexia.com and see if you think i mite have what it takes to make a good car ,you can see some of the names of other Dyslexic engeiners !! one of which was HENRY FORD !!
vince rvd said:
you are the man that put the braintree show on at the same time as the Kemption show (an established Show) and said "You Did Not Know It Was The Same Day"
Just to get at filby, and totaly wasted my time and efort of going to Kemption!!! as only half the people where there!!!
and you did the same the next year and said again "YOU DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE SAME DAY
That's what I meant about one of your famous memory lapses Den!
(only joking)
Vince said:Those reasons being:-
So, if I don’t trust one word you say, then I think I have good reason ??”
(a) I am apparently “totally set on just twisting every thing that is said !!”
(b) My staff “tested the Bugrat only after Which kit.”
(c) “you are the man that put the Braintree show on at the same time as the Kempton show”.
All made worse by the fact that you’re taken in by the lies that Fib’s published about me. (
Concerning which he made a public retraction and apology). And what’s really odd
is that (like certain other of my critics) you’ve never spoken to me
. Yet you invite people to speak about me. There’s something not right here, Vince
. Den
Yes its me again !
just thought i would give the Chassis down stairs a good going over for roll and stiffness, puting the shocks to max and ataching a 1.5 meter box section to the chassis at the seat mounts ,then adding a 70kg load at the end (sure some one can work out the moments on that ) I could not produce even 1degree of roll !!!!
and even with the shock set as soft as they could go not 1 degree !! so something must be right!! and no flex that i could messure ?
but of course on a chassis that IN THE WORDS OF the GOD LIKE DEN "DOSE NOT" exsist then it mite be a little hard to messure????
and if any of you out there can work out what the 0-60 time would be for a car weighing 950 kg with 218 BHP and 230 ft/lb i would like to know as have my own idear and would like to see if i am close ?
better be off and make some more nonexsistent cars then???
oh and as for addvertising metods could tell plenty on that one too !! if you only ever read KIT CAR then untill den started "WAR" on Which Kit you would of thought i did not make cars or even ever did, that how good den is at giving the true picture !!!
just thought i would give the Chassis down stairs a good going over for roll and stiffness, puting the shocks to max and ataching a 1.5 meter box section to the chassis at the seat mounts ,then adding a 70kg load at the end (sure some one can work out the moments on that ) I could not produce even 1degree of roll !!!!
and even with the shock set as soft as they could go not 1 degree !! so something must be right!! and no flex that i could messure ?
but of course on a chassis that IN THE WORDS OF the GOD LIKE DEN "DOSE NOT" exsist then it mite be a little hard to messure????
and if any of you out there can work out what the 0-60 time would be for a car weighing 950 kg with 218 BHP and 230 ft/lb i would like to know as have my own idear and would like to see if i am close ?
better be off and make some more nonexsistent cars then???
oh and as for addvertising metods could tell plenty on that one too !! if you only ever read KIT CAR then untill den started "WAR" on Which Kit you would of thought i did not make cars or even ever did, that how good den is at giving the true picture !!!
Vince,
The first rule of holes is if you find you’re in oneSTOP DIGGING
For your information, damper settings have no effect on ‘roll’ in the sense in which you describe.
‘Roll’ has no connection whatever with the structural ‘stiffness’ of the chassis structure.
Going back to one of my earlier ‘distortions’. You admitted that your new design has only been ‘bench tested’. You’ve just told us of the kind of ‘bench testing’ techniques employed (70kg is about the weight of a person, isn’t it?
) and you’ve revealed, in general terms, your analytical approach to the past problems your business has faced (with me for example). You’ve also illustrated that you don’t understand the distinction between the torsional stress in a chassis and the roll induced by suspension. You’ve admitted that you’re not a qualified engineer. In short, you’ve not exactly instilled me with confidence in your chassis design abilities.
We all know that Fib’s isn’t qualified either so on what basis do either (or both) of you assert:-
I’m particularly interested in the basis of the claim that “handling is better”.
Also, I’m curious to know in what sense “modern technology has been applied to the construction of the chassis”.It looks decidedly backward in its design to me. You spoke about being an aircraft engineer, yet I don’t see a single aspect of your design that would be employed in the aerospace industry.
Den.
The first rule of holes is if you find you’re in one
STOP DIGGING For your information, damper settings have no effect on ‘roll’ in the sense in which you describe.
‘Roll’ has no connection whatever with the structural ‘stiffness’ of the chassis structure.
Going back to one of my earlier ‘distortions’
. You admitted that your new design has only been ‘bench tested’. You’ve just told us of the kind of ‘bench testing’ techniques employed (70kg is about the weight of a person, isn’t it?) and you’ve revealed, in general terms, your analytical approach to the past problems your business has faced (with me for example). You’ve also illustrated that you don’t understand the distinction between the torsional stress in a chassis and the roll induced by suspension. You’ve admitted that you’re not a qualified engineer. In short, you’ve not exactly instilled me with confidence in your chassis design abilities. We all know that Fib’s isn’t qualified either
so on what basis do either (or both) of you assert:- PythonAd said:
The only difference is that modern technology has been applied to the construction of the body and chassis – both are now lighter and stronger. Performance is higher, handling is better. . . .
I’m particularly interested
in the basis of the claim that “handling is better”. Also, I’m curious to know in what sense “modern technology has been applied to the construction of the chassis”.
It looks decidedly backward in its design to me. You spoke about being an aircraft engineer, yet I don’t see a single aspect of your design that would be employed in the aerospace industry. Den.
Hi Den,
Glad you finally admit that you've been unfair on the Python in this forum.
As for your reply to my explanation of why the Python chassis won't suffer as badly from flex as the Sumo one due to its inboard suspension:
Well Den, it's not a thin strip, it's a box section, and it's tying the longitudinal rails together at the point the suspension loads will be acting. This is completely different (and far stronger) than your old Sumo set up.
I assume you're actually referring to the lower box section running between the rails at the front of the chassis. This is broadly similar to the one you had on the Sumo, and yes, on its own would do little for torsional strength. But as I've already pointed out, it's not on its own. There's both an upper cross member and a lower one, and that makes a big difference.
Also, from the photos Vince sent of a car in build, it looks like there are additional bolted crossmembers which wouldn't be apparent from a bare chassis photo. See Den, that's the problem with making judgements when you've only got part of the picture.
Then there's:
Sorry Den but it's you that's missed the point.
We've already established that the chassis will still be subject to upward shock loadings acting at the rocker arm pivot points. But as explained, with rocker arms these upward loadings will be far less than the upward loadings hitting the same bump would produce with outboard suspension, which in turn means the torsional loadings on the chassis will be far less. Agreed Den?
My explanation of force flow should show how designing structures to feed loadings from one part of the structure through to others can help to redirect or dissipate the energy involved and so produce a structure that's better able to cope with forces acting on it.
I'll just point out here that I used to be a mechanical engineering draughtsman working on submarines, so I think I can claim to know something about this stuff.
And Vince - as he's told us - has a background in aircraft design, so he should know a lot about it too.
But of course the real proof of the Python will be in the driving.
Glad you finally admit that you've been unfair on the Python in this forum.
As for your reply to my explanation of why the Python chassis won't suffer as badly from flex as the Sumo one due to its inboard suspension:
kitcarman said:
Nope
Well Den, it's not a thin strip, it's a box section, and it's tying the longitudinal rails together at the point the suspension loads will be acting. This is completely different (and far stronger) than your old Sumo set up.
I assume you're actually referring to the lower box section running between the rails at the front of the chassis. This is broadly similar to the one you had on the Sumo, and yes, on its own would do little for torsional strength. But as I've already pointed out, it's not on its own. There's both an upper cross member and a lower one, and that makes a big difference.
Also, from the photos Vince sent of a car in build, it looks like there are additional bolted crossmembers which wouldn't be apparent from a bare chassis photo. See Den, that's the problem with making judgements when you've only got part of the picture.
Then there's:
kitcarman said:
Also Ferg is right. Twist or ‘torsion’ is exerted when the upward force on one wheel is greater than that on the other wheel. The difference in these forces IS that which has to be resisted by the chassis torsional stiffness. What you are saying in your ‘cancellation’ of forces argument is that if the forces are equal there will be no twist of the chassis which is the same as saying that the chassis won’t twist PROVIDED you don’t try to twist it.
Sorry Den but it's you that's missed the point.
We've already established that the chassis will still be subject to upward shock loadings acting at the rocker arm pivot points. But as explained, with rocker arms these upward loadings will be far less than the upward loadings hitting the same bump would produce with outboard suspension, which in turn means the torsional loadings on the chassis will be far less. Agreed Den?
My explanation of force flow should show how designing structures to feed loadings from one part of the structure through to others can help to redirect or dissipate the energy involved and so produce a structure that's better able to cope with forces acting on it.
I'll just point out here that I used to be a mechanical engineering draughtsman working on submarines, so I think I can claim to know something about this stuff.
And Vince - as he's told us - has a background in aircraft design, so he should know a lot about it too.
But of course the real proof of the Python will be in the driving.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff