forgotten kits
Discussion
The Locost chassis is an abortion. A well designed spaceframe will give nearly double that stiffness for a similar weight. But even then, you seem to have proved your own case against yourself...
Taking a median figure for the ladder frame, that would mean a badly designed spaceframe is 53% stiffer for about the same weight?!
I agree absolutely about the triangulation, though - wander round any kit car show and you will see a good selection of spaceframes clearly designed by people who don't know the meaning of the word!
I would only add that you need to be very careful of FEA. I've used it, then tested the actual chassis, and the results often do not correlate very well at all.
Not really a job. Used to do suspension design and set-up semi-professionally (or semi-amatuerish, if you prefer!), but am, and always have been, an Architect in the day job. Still, they teach us basic structural analysis just to make sure we know what holds our buildings up!
Done all sorts of bits and pieces in my time; stuff like redesigning the chassis for a very early Megapin (you would not believe how bad the early, spaceframe chassis was compared to the stunningly professional later cars. The original chassis is rusting in peace against the back of my parent's garage - I'll take a photo, if you want a real example of how not to design a spaceframe!), Moggie Minors and Reliant Kittens for competition use (hence my lack of faith in ladder chassis!), playing around with old Mallocks, that sort of thing.
Didn't the old GTM Rossa re-emerge as the Northlight for a while? Don't know if it's died again now, but I remember it being around when I wrote an article on MG-based kit cars for MG Enthusiast magazine a couple of years ago.
I don't think the Encore project was sold on - the guy who developed it (John Hoestler, I think his name was, but my memory isn't as good as it used to be!) just mothballed it, I think. I guess it wouldn't be impossible to 'roll your own', though; Spyder would doubtless make you a chassis if you asked nicely, and the Elite bodyshell is still available, at a price, from specialists. Costs would probably exceed the value of a good original car, but the performance would be much better and you wouldn't have to worry about rebuilding the Climax and bonding the diff. back into place every few thousand miles!
>> Edited by Martin_s on Thursday 28th April 21:19
cymtriks said:
A simple X braced ladder frame...approx 180lbs and approx 1500 to 2000 ftlbs per degree
Locost chassis but with 18 gauge boxed in tunnel, triangulated front and double Y braced engine bay...
174lbs and 2683 ftlbs per degree
Taking a median figure for the ladder frame, that would mean a badly designed spaceframe is 53% stiffer for about the same weight?!
I agree absolutely about the triangulation, though - wander round any kit car show and you will see a good selection of spaceframes clearly designed by people who don't know the meaning of the word!
I would only add that you need to be very careful of FEA. I've used it, then tested the actual chassis, and the results often do not correlate very well at all.
cymtriks said:
What projects were you working on with those balsa models of yours? It sounds like an interesting job you had!
Not really a job. Used to do suspension design and set-up semi-professionally (or semi-amatuerish, if you prefer!), but am, and always have been, an Architect in the day job. Still, they teach us basic structural analysis just to make sure we know what holds our buildings up!
Done all sorts of bits and pieces in my time; stuff like redesigning the chassis for a very early Megapin (you would not believe how bad the early, spaceframe chassis was compared to the stunningly professional later cars. The original chassis is rusting in peace against the back of my parent's garage - I'll take a photo, if you want a real example of how not to design a spaceframe!), Moggie Minors and Reliant Kittens for competition use (hence my lack of faith in ladder chassis!), playing around with old Mallocks, that sort of thing.
Didn't the old GTM Rossa re-emerge as the Northlight for a while? Don't know if it's died again now, but I remember it being around when I wrote an article on MG-based kit cars for MG Enthusiast magazine a couple of years ago.
cymtriks said:
Did anyone buy up the Encore project? Sounds like a great idea for a kit.
I don't think the Encore project was sold on - the guy who developed it (John Hoestler, I think his name was, but my memory isn't as good as it used to be!) just mothballed it, I think. I guess it wouldn't be impossible to 'roll your own', though; Spyder would doubtless make you a chassis if you asked nicely, and the Elite bodyshell is still available, at a price, from specialists. Costs would probably exceed the value of a good original car, but the performance would be much better and you wouldn't have to worry about rebuilding the Climax and bonding the diff. back into place every few thousand miles!
>> Edited by Martin_s on Thursday 28th April 21:19
Martin_s said:
The Locost chassis is an abortion. A well designed spaceframe will give nearly double that stiffness for a similar weight. But even then, you seem to have proved your own case against yourself... ...Taking a median figure for the ladder frame, that would mean a badly designed spaceframe is 53% stiffer for about the same weight?!
No. I've perfectly illustrated my point. Most kit car chassis are much closer to the "book" Locost end the design possibilities. The improved Locost chassis isn't in the book. It's my own suggestion for improving the Locost and takes the book chassis from 1180 to 2683 ftlbs per degree for less weight. Further gains are of course possible but these mods were intended to retain the original design as far as possible so that standard Locost parts would still fit.
Martin_s said:
I agree absolutely about the triangulation, though - wander round any kit car show and you will see a good selection of spaceframes clearly designed by people who don't know the meaning of the word!
Ref. My point!
Most of these companies would be better off with a properly X braced ladder frame because they lack the ability to make a decent spaceframe. Some of them really do make me wonder too. In fact it was a visit to Stoneliegh that put the idea into my head to do this analysis in the first place, I wondered if I was missing something, but no, they were bad.
Martin_s said:
I would only add that you need to be very careful of FEA. I've used it, then tested the actual chassis, and the results often do not correlate very well at all.
Don't I know it. I've been involved in designing, stressing and testing components in the aerospace industry for fifteen years, about half of that time doing FEA. Typically a real structure will be less stiff than an FEA model. FEA assumes perfect tubes and perfect joints, the real world isn't like that.
My chassis models tie in reasonably well with other analysis that I've come across and with tested data. Some better than others.
Martin_s said:
Done all sorts of bits and pieces in my time; stuff like redesigning the chassis for a very early Megapin (you would not believe how bad the early, spaceframe chassis was compared to the stunningly professional later cars. The original chassis is rusting in peace against the back of my parent's garage - I'll take a photo, if you want a real example of how not to design a spaceframe!)
It seems that you have done for Megapin what I intended to do for the Locost. I would be interested to see those pictures.
Without your help wouldn't they have been better off with a thin walled tube ladder frame?
cymtriks said:
Most kit car chassis are much closer to the "book" Locost end the design possibilities.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd say that the Locost is toward the lower end of the scale in terms of design quality, and your modification is a very mild one. That even such a basic chassis can significantly outperform a ladder frame is telling...
cymtriks said:
Most of these companies would be better off with a properly X braced ladder frame because they lack the ability to make a decent spaceframe.
No...most of these companies would be better off getting the hell out of the business! There are some excellent kit cars out there, but there are still a great many which are just dangerous jokes.
cymtriks said:
I would only add that you need to be very careful of FEA. I've used it, then tested the actual chassis, and the results often do not correlate very well at all.
Don't I know it. I've been involved in designing, stressing and testing components in the aerospace industry for fifteen years, about half of that time doing FEA. Typically a real structure will be less stiff than an FEA model. FEA assumes perfect tubes and perfect joints, the real world isn't like that.
My chassis models tie in reasonably well with other analysis that I've come across and with tested data. Some better than others.
Agreed absolutely. But remember that if you are working in the aerospace industry, you are working with some of the best materials, workmanship and quality control it is possible to obtain.
My experience, like yours, is that the real structure tends to be less stiff than the computer model. But throw in a few inccurate jigs, some heat stress distortion, ERW tube that was probably intended for fabricating the legs on school desks, and a self-taught chickenshit welder with a 100 amp gasless MIG welder and the only thing that you can be confident of is that there will be no resemblance of any sort with the mathematical model!
cymtriks said:
It seems that you have done for Megapin what I intended to do for the Locost. I would be interested to see those pictures.
Without your help wouldn't they have been better off with a thin walled tube ladder frame?
I should stress that I was not working for Ian Scott (Megapin designer/builder). The car was, I believe, the first Megapin built and had been sold on to someone else. We stripped it down because it was clear from it's handling that something was badly wrong and were so horrified by the chassis that the only option was to design a replacement.
Ian Scott's later cars are works of art (Allan Staniforth was sufficiently impressed that he bought himself one!), which just goes to show how well some people can climb the learning curve.
The chassis was in structural terms, little more than a ladder frame; there were top and bottom rails of 1" square tube, but what triangulation was there was trivial and ineffectively placed. Once the alloy panelling was stripped off, you could make the thing flex visibly with your bare hands!
I'll try to remember to get some pics of the Megapin 1 chassis next time I visit the old folks (probably about a fortnight), and mail them to you via your profile. You won't know whether to laugh or cry, believe me!
I'd argue that anyone with so little grasp of structures as to manufacture a spaceframe that bad would likely come up with something equally bad as a ladder frame. It is simply not fair to compare a well designed ladder frame made of large diameter thin-wall tube with a hideously bad spaceframe.
The only fair comparison is like-for-like: a top notch spaceframe will be leagues ahead of a similarly top notch ladder frame. To be honest, I don't know which would come out worst of a really bad spaceframe versus a really bad ladder frame, but they'd both be pretty terrible, so I'd rather concentrate on avoiding them altogether!
>> Edited by Martin_s on Thursday 28th April 23:16
These interludes of yours do amuse me cymtriks. 
This is the problem I have with your argument. I've read and, I hope, understood your point a few times and agree. However I don't agree with the conclusion - that these companies would be better of with a decent ladder chassis. To my mind if they're building a bad spaceframe, they'd be better off getting someone who know's what they're talking about to fix the spaceframe design for them.
cymtriks said:
Most of these companies would be better off with a properly X braced ladder frame because they lack the ability to make a decent spaceframe.
This is the problem I have with your argument. I've read and, I hope, understood your point a few times and agree. However I don't agree with the conclusion - that these companies would be better of with a decent ladder chassis. To my mind if they're building a bad spaceframe, they'd be better off getting someone who know's what they're talking about to fix the spaceframe design for them.
Hi
been reading posts,didn't moss make a model that looked a bit like an early alfa? is this the monaco?
was one of the daytona replicas based on a rover sd1? I seem to remember reading that the rover was somehow inspired by it or am i loosing the plot?
with regard to replicas the triple c challenger has to be in there somewhere if only because of the car its replicating, Quite well as it happens if my memory serves me correct, i suppose its downfall may have been that for the cost of doing an authentic job you were getting close to the cost of an original, albeit not a mint one,
been reading posts,didn't moss make a model that looked a bit like an early alfa? is this the monaco?
was one of the daytona replicas based on a rover sd1? I seem to remember reading that the rover was somehow inspired by it or am i loosing the plot?
with regard to replicas the triple c challenger has to be in there somewhere if only because of the car its replicating, Quite well as it happens if my memory serves me correct, i suppose its downfall may have been that for the cost of doing an authentic job you were getting close to the cost of an original, albeit not a mint one,
LexSport said:
These interludes of yours do amuse me cymtriks.
cymtriks said:
Most of these companies would be better off with a properly X braced ladder frame because they lack the ability to make a decent spaceframe.
This is the problem I have with your argument. I've read and, I hope, understood your point a few times and agree. However I don't agree with the conclusion - that these companies would be better of with a decent ladder chassis. To my mind if they're building a bad spaceframe, they'd be better off getting someone who know's what they're talking about to fix the spaceframe design for them.
You are absolutely right. But most of them don't get someone in do they?
And there are plently of successful kit car businesses around that do very well with the old ladder frame. Most Cobra replicas and the NG range for example.
Anyhow, back on thread....
I don't know if all of these are defunct, I just haven't seen them advertised for a while...
BRA J-type & P-type
Onyx (I heard on this forum that these were being resurected)
Jago Samuri & Jeep
Ginetta G27
Carlton Carerra
GP spyder (website gone and I heard that the owner wanted to retire due to ill health)
smash said:
What about the Montana by Carlton? It was a Pantera GTS replica that I don't know whether made production - saw a rough at Stoneleigh back in late 80s I think.
With values of decent Panteras as high as they are plus their rarity, I'm surprised no one's consdiered cloning it as a classic alternative to all the Lambos.....
>> Edited by smash on Wednesday 27th April 12:25
They have, in America, the Fiero-based Predator DL-10
http://pages.prodigy.net/dbagwell1/
[quote=cymtriks]I think the GP spyder might well have died too.[quote]
GP was sold on and is now out of production, there is another company making the same visit www.718-rsk.co.uk
GP was sold on and is now out of production, there is another company making the same visit www.718-rsk.co.uk
Ferg said:
Unipower GT
I very nearly bought a Unipower when they were being made in the mid 60s, unfortunatly it was just outside my budget at the time.
In 1971 I bought one of first Lotus Twincam Europa's.
It was announced on the first day of the Motor Show (a Wednesday) and bought mine on the Saturday. The kit (to get around purchas tax, pre VAT) was delivered on the following Wednesday and drove down the the local pub Sunday lunch time. I owned the car for over 14 years using it most days even went to work in it. Who says they are unreliable?
Since the have had a GT40, looking to build another to the exact spec to the original, chassis and all
NormanD said:
[quote=cymtriks]I think the GP spyder might well have died too.[quote]
GP was sold on and is now out of production, there is another company making the same visit www.718-rsk.co.uk
GP was sold to me in 1999 and I've stopped production in 2003 due to ill health AND because it needs a serious rethinking to comply with SVA regulations without violating the delicate balance and elegance of the car. Read this as: "The VW chassis is a dead end street..."
The car will return but mid-engined aircooled spaceframe only when I feel up to it.
Meanwhile, the company mentionned above has in fact 'stolen' the project. It is clear that this is a knock-off of our car and we will consider legal action agains this.
Friendliest regards,
Bart Aertgeerts
Last year I 'recycled' nearly twenty years worth of kit car mags 
dating back to when I'd just left school in 1983 and dreamt of building a kit car. I really did need the space.
Fittingly I took them to the tip in my Westfield.
Does anyone remember the Deltayne Pegasus? A great looking drop-head, with muscle car Daytona-esque overtones.
dating back to when I'd just left school in 1983 and dreamt of building a kit car. I really did need the space. Fittingly I took them to the tip in my Westfield.
Does anyone remember the Deltayne Pegasus? A great looking drop-head, with muscle car Daytona-esque overtones.
madrabbit said:
Does anyone remember the Deltayne Pegasus? A great looking drop-head, with muscle car Daytona-esque overtones.
Yes, I remember it. Richard Oakes styling, Jag V12. The man behind it (name of Parradine) had production ambitions but it never happened.
He had another go a few years back with a Ford quad cam V8 powered car shown at the NEC Motor Show, but that never happened either. Only one car made, which is currently in the trimmers in Coventry where I got the material for doing my Quantum.
A great looking car 
I remember rumours going round at the time that the Pegasus never reached full production because one of the 'big boys' didn't like the idea of something so good looking being available in kit form as it would hinder their own progress for their own 2 seater project. Don't know how true that is but can't think of a better reason why a car so darn nice (and would still hold it's own today) didn't go places.
Ted if you have some pictures of you car I would love to get hold of some for Madabout-Kitcars.com
Cheers, John
I remember rumours going round at the time that the Pegasus never reached full production because one of the 'big boys' didn't like the idea of something so good looking being available in kit form as it would hinder their own progress for their own 2 seater project. Don't know how true that is but can't think of a better reason why a car so darn nice (and would still hold it's own today) didn't go places.
Ted if you have some pictures of you car I would love to get hold of some for Madabout-Kitcars.com
Cheers, John
John
I am changing the V12 engine / Getrag gearbox etc, etc, etc.
and have also put bonnet louvres in so the bonnet is still in primer, but i will send photos as soon as its finished ( if i don't sell it first ) I think this car is as good looking as a Cobra, and modern design
your comments are 100%, I did have photos on my computer but lost them, If anyone else has one of these
i would like to hear from them, but as far as i know
i may have one of the last running ones.
Thanks Ted
I am changing the V12 engine / Getrag gearbox etc, etc, etc.
and have also put bonnet louvres in so the bonnet is still in primer, but i will send photos as soon as its finished ( if i don't sell it first ) I think this car is as good looking as a Cobra, and modern design
your comments are 100%, I did have photos on my computer but lost them, If anyone else has one of these
i would like to hear from them, but as far as i know
i may have one of the last running ones.
Thanks Ted
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff