Ellipse sporting cycle-car
Discussion
It's a good looking car. I'm not too convinced by the back end though. I cant help but think it is too expensive though. £23,500 + VAT is a LOT of money and i think i would be swayed towards a Tri-King for that kind of price (not too sure on the exact costs of a tri-king)
http://www.trikingsportscars.co.uk/index.html
http://www.trikingsportscars.co.uk/index.html
slomax said:
It's a good looking car. I'm not too convinced by the back end though. I cant help but think it is too expensive though. £23,500 + VAT is a LOT of money and i think i would be swayed towards a Tri-King for that kind of price (not too sure on the exact costs of a tri-king)
http://www.trikingsportscars.co.uk/index.html
I like the Triking very much....http://www.trikingsportscars.co.uk/index.html
An excellent car.
However as earlier posts confirmed two major snags.
Its way too expensive
Primarily my concern is that it should be possible to equal the quality and presentation at a significant saving on the cost. £23000 is a good deal more than a turnkey Four wheeler from Westfield and several others.
And four wheelers are inherently more expensive.
The three wheeler has innate cost savings.
25% less chassis and metal and time 25% less weight, one less wheel assembly complete with Disc, Hub axle carrier etc full suspension on one side etc etc.
That is why it is relatively easy to hit 400 Kilos with a three wheeler and difficult with a four wheeler as I know to my cost having built both.
Secondly whilst I am a traditionalist this seems to be a backward looking design. I do believe that there are ALREADY several outstanding fully enclosed three wheel designs with really aerodynamically efficient envelopes. This one is really too reminiscent of the old Morgan style cars which were GREAT in 1925 but are an outdated concept now.
All credit to the builder he has put in the time and effort and I applaud the result. BUT there already a myriad of Kit Cars and It seems to me that backward looking designs like this are not the future.
However as earlier posts confirmed two major snags.
Its way too expensive
Primarily my concern is that it should be possible to equal the quality and presentation at a significant saving on the cost. £23000 is a good deal more than a turnkey Four wheeler from Westfield and several others.
And four wheelers are inherently more expensive.
The three wheeler has innate cost savings.
25% less chassis and metal and time 25% less weight, one less wheel assembly complete with Disc, Hub axle carrier etc full suspension on one side etc etc.
That is why it is relatively easy to hit 400 Kilos with a three wheeler and difficult with a four wheeler as I know to my cost having built both.
Secondly whilst I am a traditionalist this seems to be a backward looking design. I do believe that there are ALREADY several outstanding fully enclosed three wheel designs with really aerodynamically efficient envelopes. This one is really too reminiscent of the old Morgan style cars which were GREAT in 1925 but are an outdated concept now.
All credit to the builder he has put in the time and effort and I applaud the result. BUT there already a myriad of Kit Cars and It seems to me that backward looking designs like this are not the future.
Interesting post Steffan. Im going to disagree with you.
When you say that the weight is easily achievable 25% less because you only need 3/4 of the suspension. You are largely incorrect. If you look broadly across the entire range of 3 wheel kits, you will see that nearly all of them have the rear swing arm of a motorcycle, which is supported from both sides. The length of this item has to be a minimum of the radius of wheel and tyre, so a lot of metal. These have to be either pretty chunky, or triangulated, making the entirity of the rear suspenion a lot heavier than a single unit on a 4 wheel car. Granted, you only need one spring and shock. but as far as the strength of the swing arm itself, its a lot heavier. Some of the cases that i can think of, including the Lomax and Blackjack Avion do indeed have both of the rear trailing arms from the donor (2CV). One is lengthened and strengthened, making it heavier, and one is shortened so it doesnt interupt the wheel travel. The two rear suspension arms are connected via a sway bar (very important that the second arm is there or it would be undrivable) so that both longitudinal shocks and springs are used for the rear suspension. I do agree that the loss of a hub saves a fair bit of sprung mass though.
The reason why it is possible to create a vehicle of such light weight is down to a few reasons. It has a whole wheel less, so that obviously saves quite a bit of weight, but the main thing is the choice of Diff, Engine and Gearbox. On a reverse trike like this you are looking at an engine weight, including all ancilaries of between 50-70Kgs i would have thought. It doesnt need to be very powerful, because the fact it is so low and open makes it feel a lot faster, especially with choppy suspension and skinny tyres. The diff doesnt need to be very beefy at all, as any extreme power will just light up the narrow rear tyre. I haven't picked up a shaft driven bike diff, but i imagine they can't be much more than 20-25kgs max. Skinny tyres also saves more weight than you expect too.
If you then think that the seats will probably by ply, bolted to the floor, wrapped in a bit of foam and vinyl, it all adds up to very little weight. The fact that the engine makes up the very very nose of the vehicle, the gearbox will be between the legs of the driver and passenger, and only the length of the wheel behind that means that these cars can be less than 10ft long. Also, rearwards of where the motorcycle swing arm is attatched to the chassis there is, technically, no reason to have the chassis extend rearwards of the back of the drivers seat. This means the chassis can be tiny, probably only about 8ft in length, meaning that the heaviest part of the entire car is the bodywork, of which there isn't much.
As regards to the styling, we will have to agree to disagree, but, as the market suggests, there is a tendance toward modern three wheelers. I cannot understand why though. The whole point of a three wheeler, in my opinion, is to be bold, whacky, and a little bit excentric and oldschool. The modern reverse trikes are too powerful. Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with being spritely, but you really dont need any more than 80bhp in one. even at 80, we are talking about 200bhp/tonne and that will shift. If you want something really fast, then go for a 4 wheeled kit, 3 wheelers are naturally unstable, lightyears better than 1 front 2 back setup, but not as good as a 4 wheeler. The best modern one, in my opinion is the Blackjack Zero, which avoids many of my problems with the new look, by being front wheel drive and have up to about 90bhp.
When you say that the weight is easily achievable 25% less because you only need 3/4 of the suspension. You are largely incorrect. If you look broadly across the entire range of 3 wheel kits, you will see that nearly all of them have the rear swing arm of a motorcycle, which is supported from both sides. The length of this item has to be a minimum of the radius of wheel and tyre, so a lot of metal. These have to be either pretty chunky, or triangulated, making the entirity of the rear suspenion a lot heavier than a single unit on a 4 wheel car. Granted, you only need one spring and shock. but as far as the strength of the swing arm itself, its a lot heavier. Some of the cases that i can think of, including the Lomax and Blackjack Avion do indeed have both of the rear trailing arms from the donor (2CV). One is lengthened and strengthened, making it heavier, and one is shortened so it doesnt interupt the wheel travel. The two rear suspension arms are connected via a sway bar (very important that the second arm is there or it would be undrivable) so that both longitudinal shocks and springs are used for the rear suspension. I do agree that the loss of a hub saves a fair bit of sprung mass though.
The reason why it is possible to create a vehicle of such light weight is down to a few reasons. It has a whole wheel less, so that obviously saves quite a bit of weight, but the main thing is the choice of Diff, Engine and Gearbox. On a reverse trike like this you are looking at an engine weight, including all ancilaries of between 50-70Kgs i would have thought. It doesnt need to be very powerful, because the fact it is so low and open makes it feel a lot faster, especially with choppy suspension and skinny tyres. The diff doesnt need to be very beefy at all, as any extreme power will just light up the narrow rear tyre. I haven't picked up a shaft driven bike diff, but i imagine they can't be much more than 20-25kgs max. Skinny tyres also saves more weight than you expect too.
If you then think that the seats will probably by ply, bolted to the floor, wrapped in a bit of foam and vinyl, it all adds up to very little weight. The fact that the engine makes up the very very nose of the vehicle, the gearbox will be between the legs of the driver and passenger, and only the length of the wheel behind that means that these cars can be less than 10ft long. Also, rearwards of where the motorcycle swing arm is attatched to the chassis there is, technically, no reason to have the chassis extend rearwards of the back of the drivers seat. This means the chassis can be tiny, probably only about 8ft in length, meaning that the heaviest part of the entire car is the bodywork, of which there isn't much.
As regards to the styling, we will have to agree to disagree, but, as the market suggests, there is a tendance toward modern three wheelers. I cannot understand why though. The whole point of a three wheeler, in my opinion, is to be bold, whacky, and a little bit excentric and oldschool. The modern reverse trikes are too powerful. Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with being spritely, but you really dont need any more than 80bhp in one. even at 80, we are talking about 200bhp/tonne and that will shift. If you want something really fast, then go for a 4 wheeled kit, 3 wheelers are naturally unstable, lightyears better than 1 front 2 back setup, but not as good as a 4 wheeler. The best modern one, in my opinion is the Blackjack Zero, which avoids many of my problems with the new look, by being front wheel drive and have up to about 90bhp.
Interesting.
I have read the comments of Slomax and clearly he knows his three wheelers. However I have built kit cars for many years and very few four wheelers I have built come anywhere near the weight that this car seems to be
According to the manufacturers this weighs LESS THAN 850 pounds.
That's`under 400 kilos.
Seems to me there must be an inherent weight saving in building Three wheelers.
Cant explain this any other way.
Surely there is significant weight saving of a rear swinging arm over a fully independent suspension with all the bits and certainly over a transverse rear axle.
Take the comments about the style on board it is a matter of opinion.
However with energy going the way it is every saving is worthwhile and fully enclosed aerodynamic bodywork DOES reduce drag significantly.
Surely modern cars need to be fuel efficient as never before.
I have read the comments of Slomax and clearly he knows his three wheelers. However I have built kit cars for many years and very few four wheelers I have built come anywhere near the weight that this car seems to be
According to the manufacturers this weighs LESS THAN 850 pounds.
That's`under 400 kilos.
Seems to me there must be an inherent weight saving in building Three wheelers.
Cant explain this any other way.
Surely there is significant weight saving of a rear swinging arm over a fully independent suspension with all the bits and certainly over a transverse rear axle.
Take the comments about the style on board it is a matter of opinion.
However with energy going the way it is every saving is worthwhile and fully enclosed aerodynamic bodywork DOES reduce drag significantly.
Surely modern cars need to be fuel efficient as never before.
Steffan, as I mentioned the engine on most front engined cycle cars are 2 cylinder. These include all Lomax(apart from the very rare GSA engined version), pembleton, triking, jzr, blackjack (apart from the rare VW powered zero), BRA etcetc. All the 2CV powered ones the engines are around 60kgs, and that's a relatively large car engine, the bike engines must be lighter, and the cx500 used in the JZR must be around 50kgs, if not a bit lighter. The diff must be about half of that of a freelander diff used in many 7s nowadays. If you factor in the loss of the wheel (15kgs ish) the loss of around 40-50kgs on the engine and gearbox and another 15-20kgs on the diff and driveshafts, that's 75kgs already. And that's not including the loss of chassis and body material.
If a light 7 is around 450kgs, then a wieght of 350kgs is easily acheived on a trike.
Modern style, mid engine trikes ussually have (effectively) the bike bolted onto the chassis from the yolk back, so all you are adding is the weight of the chassis, 2 plastic seats, a wheel and some suspension and steering componants. As such, a very careful builder can build an MEV tR1ke at around 310kgs. An equally skimpy 4 wheeler Atomic can be built at around 330kgs, but that is a single seater, so the weight of some interior panelling and a seat, harness and deflector, in total of around 10-15kgs can be added to that for an equal comparison.
If a light 7 is around 450kgs, then a wieght of 350kgs is easily acheived on a trike.
Modern style, mid engine trikes ussually have (effectively) the bike bolted onto the chassis from the yolk back, so all you are adding is the weight of the chassis, 2 plastic seats, a wheel and some suspension and steering componants. As such, a very careful builder can build an MEV tR1ke at around 310kgs. An equally skimpy 4 wheeler Atomic can be built at around 330kgs, but that is a single seater, so the weight of some interior panelling and a seat, harness and deflector, in total of around 10-15kgs can be added to that for an equal comparison.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff