On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:16:22 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 15:50, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:29:09 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:02:23 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:04:19 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
has the right idea:

http://www.edison2.com/
This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)

http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2

Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
Back in 2006 I was given a book called Racing and Sports Car Chassis
Design.
I have that book. I got it for Christmas in 1963, I think.

I am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time.
g Me, too. I've read it cover-to-cover many times. It is THE classic
on space frames.

Looking
at the link for the Lotus 6 makes me want to make my own car more than
ever. I love the look of polished aluminum car bodies.
Talk to Jon B. He's into it, and can give you lots of links.

The body book from the same era, comparable to _Racing and Sports
Car..._, is _Sports Car Bodywork_. It's British, too, and covers the
making of sports car bodies from aluminum and fiberglass in the late
'50s through the vey early '60s. There's lots of info in there that's
almost lost today, but the methods have made great progress since
then, too. It's mostly of historical interest today.

It's out of print, but there's one Amazon reference:

http://www.amazon.com/Sports-car-bod.../dp/B0007KA60M

The original hardcover edition had fold-out plans for a twin-tube
chassis and body. The original Shelby Cobras were twin-tube, so it's
not out of the question. I think they also had plans for a re-bodied
H.R.G. That was a contemporary of, say, the MG-TD, and looked a lot
like it.

And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well.
Costin and Phipps were very good at explaining things.

I have put some practice chassis designs on paper and have done
the calculations using formulae from the book and other places. That
Lotus 6 is just beeeauuutifull. If I didn't need to work I could make
a car like the Lotus 6. All I would need to buy would be an english
wheel, a stretcher, a shrinker, an air planisher and a few other sheet
metal tools. I already have the machine shop to make the other
components. Man, I really want to make a Sports Car.
Eric
Are you are of Ron Chapman's Locost? That would be up your alley.

Here, knock yerself out:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...eywords=locost

Search around the Web for "Locost." There are clubs, blogs, websites,
racing clubs, and everything. Chapman started a phenomenon.

There is a chassis book, which is buried in my "archives" somewhere,
that discusses building wooden stick models of chassis and using
weights and scales to measure torsional deflection. I have used Rhino
and Cadre Lite finite-element analysis (FEA) for that job, but it's
very clumsy. The full version of Cadre links to Rhino, and is the way
to go if you want to design a space frame and optimize it. The full
version also handles sheer panels, such as the ones used in the
Locost.

But that's a lot of money and a lot of software. Some famous race cars
have been designed with the wooden stick method, and it can be pretty
quick.

BTW, there were very few Lotus 6s built. The high-volume model was the
Lotus 7, which is what Chapman's Locost tries to emulate (with fair
success). I've driven 7s, and even a 6 -- the latter around a parking
lot. g The 6 was a fragile death trap with weird suspension, but it
was a successful race car. The 7 was a lot better. The car is still
being built under license from Lotus by Caterham in the UK, and
they've improved the chassis and suspension further, thanks to FEA.
It's called the Caterham 7.

Anyway, that Lotus 6 in the photo, I can assure you, looks *far*
better than the day it rolled out of the Lotus shop. Somebody put a
lot of money into restoring that one. Most of them look like they've
been stung by angry bees. g

Please look into the Locost. You'll have a ball, if you like this
stuff as much as I do.
Greetings ED,
I have looked at the Locost cars. And I'm intrigued. I'm not surprised
that the Lotus 6 in the picture looks better than factory. It's pretty
common for a "restored" object to look better than new. Thanks for the
pointers to the other books. I do have aircraft sheetmetal books from
the 40s and 50s. How to make commercial and military aircraft
sheetmetal correctly. One book was published by the US military as an
instruction book for men in the military. The techniques described in
these books are just about my speed.
Eric
Good luck on all of it, Eric, whether you just find the study of it
fascinating, as I do, or if you decide to break down and build one.

I won't comment on the sheet metal work except to point out that
almost all of the experts tell you to get some experience with hand
tools first -- a hollowed stump or a shot bag and some mallets and
slappers -- before going to the English wheels and power planishers.
Like learning lathe turning on a manual machine versus starting with
CNC, you'll develop a better feel for the material and for what you're
trying to accomplish, much faster than if you start at the high end.
So they tell me, anyway. I've only puttered around with it myself.

Regarding the chassis: having read Costin and Phipps multiple times
g, you're in a far better position to evaluate frames than 99% of
the other enthusiasts out there. You'll recognize the Cooper
multi-tube approach, with bent tubes, that you can see in some of them
(which even included the Cobra GT), and, most importantly, you'll see
the weakness in the vast majority of those frames: a lack of torsional
stiffness in the passenger bay. The Locost is weak in that area but no
worse than a Lotus 7.

BTW, I just finished my Christmas book, _Competition Car Suspension_
by Allan Staniforth, and it is a shocker. Formula 1 cars now have 1 -
2 inches of TOTAL suspension travel, and just over 1 inch of ground
clearance. And the monoshock suspensions (not related to monoshocks on
motorcycles) will have you scratching your head.

Is that a new version as the one I have says first published in 1988 so
25 years old now and I've likely had my copy for 20+ years. No doubt
many things will be similar and other things move on. I've not read my
copy in recent times but I remember it being a good informative read.


This is a fairly new edition -- 2006. Staniforth died in 2009. The old
coot was still designing and RACING formula cars at age 84. He was an
entertaining writier, too.

I think you'll find a number of new things in there. How about
Belleville washers and a single shock at each end? Sheesh.

--
Ed Huntress


There's little in there that's useful or practical for road cars, but
it shows you that the high-end formula car suspensions are tuned for
maximum weirdness.

Have fun.