Drive - Tuned! - Exige 710bhp

[Exige77]

Maybe you missed the bit about trial and error and a "little Experience"

Frank has been building monster vehicles since the 80's.

This is not his firts trial and error.

He reports his successes and his failures.

Did you see the size of his wing on his previous Exige ? No wheelies on that.

Ex77

[Exige77]

So after so many years of bodging stuff would you still say Porsche and Lotus are still numties ?

You don't think they might have learnt something along the way ?

Which part of that don't you understand ?

Are you going to quote some more stuff ?

Do you think Frank is a Numpty ?

I take it you don't think his experience (specifically with Lotus) counts for anything ?

Ex77

[Exige77]

Do you not read what people post ?

No man in his shed is not going to get it perfect on day one.

You use your "experience" (Lotus experience would be good) and go in a particular direction.

If it works well. great.

If it works OKish then you make it better.

If it's rubbish you re-think it and start again.

I don't understand what your problem is.

Ex77

Edited by Exige77 on Sunday 7th October 20:35

[jfk01]

When I see posts such as aerodynamics need CFD I have to smile...there wasn't a computer on the planet when some of the worlds best aircraft were developed..
Great aerodynamicists are born that way,they can visualise airflow and ....NO repeat NO computer software can beat a gifted designer.
....
Computers and aero are about as reliable as computers and weather forcasts !! period.
Trial and error is the most effective method of optimising any aspect of airflow.
OK . I might sound cocky with all that ,but 35 years of flying teaches one a few things..
Former factory pilot and still current UK record holder I'll have you know ;)

Edited by jfk01 on Sunday 7th October 23:55

[jfk01]

My above post might seem a tad bolshy ,so, below is my analogy
Great musicians are born that way...they didn't learn it from a book .
Hope that makes more sense ??

[the ronin]

TheLastPost said:

Exige77 said:

No man in his shed is going to get it perfect on day one.

I absolutely agree. But Frank is telling us, with some certainty, that this will be the best and finest handling Lotus ever built. I had kind of assumed that perhaps the thinking behind it went a bit beyond one man in his shed.

Don't get me wrong: I think the engine is a fabulous piece of work. His thinking on suspension and aerodynamics, though.... meh.

Exige77 said:

I don't understand what your problem is.

That's because I don't have one.

I was merely interested to learn if Frank had attempted any prior analysis of the aero mods (as they appear fairly extreme). The answer, wrapped up in the usual bravado, bullst and ego, appears to be 'no'.

That's cool... I have my answer.

First off I said 211 not of all Lotus and I do know there is no S2 Exige out there that could even come close to my last car which was stable at 180+mph with a rear Gurney flap [you do know there was no wind tunnel testing done on that when in was used on the GT40].

My bud Rob Savin formerly of Lotus, the guy that put the 211 project into production thought the car was nuts when he came over to see what I've done and is lookin forward to a drive at speed but I'm sure you would know better than him eh ?

My thoughts on billet up rights to reduce unsprung weight and keep a proper chassis ride height with the taller 345 slicks, rear toe links mounted on the lower wishbone for better bumpsteer control with Nitron three way dampers, proper spring rates or wheel offsets for proper bearing loads isn't thinking the suspension bits through ?
Serious dude you don't have a freakin clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to this car.

I guess the next timeI speak with Simon I'll have him check with you first before making any adjustments......

Edited by the ronin on Monday 8th October 01:16

[the ronin]

TheLastPost said:

I'm intrigued... please expand. How does a billet upright help with bump steer when you have a separate, bolt-on steering arm?

Why have you chosen to redesign the upright rather than changing the steering arm or rack length?

Serious questions: I'm always ready to learn from a master.

Typo error corrected and it's rear bumpsteer that is the problem with the Lotus suspension correct toe link placement on the lower wishbone corrects for rear bump steer.. rear uprights are redesigned to raise the hub centers to allow for the taller rear slicks and allow for proper ride height and more negitive camber if needed along with reducing unsprung weight on each corner....

As I can see you don't even own a Lotus or you would know the issue with a lowered front end and bump steer. It's the rack placement [height] and un even rod travel angle when the car is lowered by using the spring seats not the rod length that is the problem. The new uprights keep the tie rods at the proper angle to prevent bump steer..

Dude you are a joke and a bore.. But you seem to play the fool exceptionally well when your ego is in need of a stroke. Guys like you are always the biggest pussys when face to face.
Go st on someone elses thread for your ego stroke because here you are just a..
A true vvvvvv

Edited by the ronin on Monday 8th October 04:59

[Scuffers]

TheLastPost said:

the ronin said:

As I can see you don't even own a Lotus or you would know the issue with a lowered front end and bump steer. It's the rack placement (height) and un even rod travel angle when the car is lowered by using the spring seats not the rod length that is the problem. The new uprights keep the tie rods at the proper angle to prevent bump steer.

Yes, I'm aware of all that thanks; but the issue can be corrected by means of different steering arms (as has been done by Mike Pilbeam).

I was just curious as to why you felt billet uprights were necessary to cure it, but your edit of your post above answers that for me, thanks: you confused bump steer and unsprung weight.

err... not sure you understand the issues either?

Uprights have sod all to do with bump steer, that's about roll centres.

and as for bump steer, changing the steering arms does nothing to change the relationship between the length of the track rod and the top wishbone, only way to change that is to re-design the rack (as Eliseparts did some years back), the use of shimmable steering arms is just a way to adjust where you are in the bump-steer curve (also worth pointing out that you need bumpsteer to make the car handle as it should, yes, het it wrong and it's a bad thing, but that does not mean you don't need it)

[the ronin]

For ucks sake we all know about bump steer and so on, I couldn't give a crap.

If The Last Post needs to stroke his ego by showing everyone he knows more about building a proper Lotus then let's see it in another thread and we can all read about it..
Hell so far I haven't seen anything, just a little attention we looking for another thread to crap on...

[AyBee]

the ronin said:

For ucks sake we all know about bump steer and so on, I couldn't give a crap.

If The Last Post needs to stroke his ego by showing everyone he knows more about building a proper Lotus then let's see it in another thread and we can all read about it..
Hell so far I haven't seen anything, just a little attention we looking for another thread to crap on...

And by we all, which we are you referring to? I don't know about it and therefore found the above explanation interesting, maybe if you posted similarly interesting information about your build then other people wouldn't have to, instead it makes it look like you don't actually know yourself (I'm not saying you don't know here before you bite my head off) and then you resort to personal insults.

Your car is impressive and I'm sure there's a lot more that goes on in the background than you show on the thread so surely a bit more information where requested isn't too much to ask?

[the ronin]

AyBee said:

And by we all, which we are you referring to? I don't know about it and therefore found the above explanation interesting, maybe if you posted similarly interesting information about your build then other people wouldn't have to, instead it makes it look like you don't actually know yourself (I'm not saying you don't know here before you bite my head off) and then you resort to personal insults.

Your car is impressive and I'm sure there's a lot more that goes on in the background than you show on the thread so surely a bit more information where requested isn't too much to ask?

What information on the build would you like ?

If what I've bulit doesn't work as I want it to I'll just redue it until it does and post it here and elsewhere since I'm not sellin anything or am I claiming to know anything. This is my car and rebuild I'm not posting here for approval or help but just to show guys what can be done in a shed.

If someone builds a better/more powerfull/faster 211 bring it over and let's see what ya got. So far I've seen nothing.

Edited by the ronin on Monday 8th October 16:03

[Captain Muppet]

the ronin said:

My bud Rob Savin formerly of Lotus, the guy that put the 211 project into production thought the car was nuts when he came over to see what I've done and is lookin forward to a drive at speed but I'm sure you would know better than him eh ?

When you see Rob say "hi" to him from me would you?

Ask him how his V8 Amazon is coming along, and the V12 E-type rebuild. If he hasn't told you about them already expect to lose an hour or two talking about the stuff he has in his barn. Amazing chap.

[the ronin]

Captain Muppet said:

the ronin said:

My bud Rob Savin formerly of Lotus, the guy that put the 211 project into production thought the car was nuts when he came over to see what I've done and is lookin forward to a drive at speed but I'm sure you would know better than him eh ?

When you see Rob say "hi" to him from me would you?

Ask him how his V8 Amazon is coming along, and the V12 E-type rebuild. If he hasn't told you about them already expect to lose an hour or two talking about the stuff he has in his barn. Amazing chap.

I know all about it. He was out a few weeks ago with the Jag designers, funny thing he got a little car sick after I took him for a little canyon cruise in the R8 go figure.. I would kill for a barn to work out of.

Ok so an internet expert chimes in assuming that the aero won't work on this car because it takes an ass to start the word assume without knowing the AOA of the wing or angle the body has to the wind. All of these are adjustable as will be the center section of the wing if needed..

Now if you know the working AOA of this wing by looking at it let me know and I'll tell ya if you got it right since it is the same as my old Exige setup...

Edited by the ronin on Monday 8th October 18:37

[the ronin]

TheLastPost said:

the ronin said:

Now if you know the working AOA of this wing by looking at it let me know and I'll tell ya if you got it right since it is the same as my old Exige setup...

I'd say the angle of attack is..... academic.

....because at that angle (it looks around about 15 degrees, though of course it's difficult to judge in that photograph) and running that close to the rear deck, in the lee of a rollover bar, the engine cover, and one of the biggest heads known to civilised man, it'll probably be running stalled in turbulent air by the time you get to any sort of decent speed.

I'd be interested to see the wool tufts on the underside surface of the wing centre section proving me wrong, when you get it finished, though.

You'll still get some downforce, of course (you'd get some downforce if you bolted a barn door to the back at a 45 degree angle), but - especially since you're not bound by the maximum heights dictated by most race regs for competiton cars - I'd say you'd be better off running a smaller, less draggy wing set higher, in cleaner air.

Ass uming is what you seem to do best...
Close to the rear deck you say ? It is the rear deck Stevie Wonder.
I see no rollover bar, engine cover disturbing air flow in any of my photos that will create turbulent air flow. Where do you see the wing mounted it is the rear spoiler ?

Again you act as if you know what the hell you are talkin about...and yet it's your head gettin in the way..

Edited by the ronin on Monday 8th October 23:48

[bobo]

great build thread.. very interesting. good luck.

[the ronin]

Thanks, it's taking shape even if the internet expert doesn't think so....
Rear wing data for the online experts that spit into the wind to see how fast it's blowin.

179% more down force than the stock Exige wing.
837N of down force vs. 300N stock (100mph @ 12 deg AoA).
Data estimated using APUS-CFD software.

Right now it is at a fixed 11* AOA

[Scuffers]

out of interest, why the name change from Sam_68?

and just to add something to the background of this, what are your credentials for your aero comments?

[tyrewrecker]

TheLastPost said:

The gap under the centre section hasn't been bodged full of filler yet, is that what you're telling us?

Are you intent on ruining this thread?

[tyrewrecker]

TheLastPost said:

Dig deep enough in my former posts and you'll discover.

How does one delete profile? I cannot see that option.

[Exige77]

TheLastPost said:

One asks the moderators. One was actually thinking of asking them if they could reinstate my deleted profile (if only because it would give me back my free advertising rights) but one thought it would be a bit of a cheek!

Edited by TheLastPost on Tuesday 9th October 10:29

Why don't you start your own thread and leave this one ?

Ex77