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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

On Mar 25, 8:04*pm, wrote:


.. 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


Take a look at http://www.cheapsportscar.net/

Dan

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.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 25, 5:04*pm, 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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

http://www.lazzemetalshaping.com/ind...=cat/cat31.htm

On Mar 25, 6:09*pm, jon_banquer wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:04*pm, 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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

http://www.lazzemetalshaping.com/ind...esults/Categor....

http://www.lazzemetalshaping.com/ind...e=cat/cat2.htm

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.



Correction: Where I said "Chapman," read "Champion." Colin Chapman was
the founder of Lotus Cars. Ron Champion is the Locost guy. I had Lotus
on the brain.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:23:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
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.



Correction: Where I said "Chapman," read "Champion." Colin Chapman was
the founder of Lotus Cars. Ron Champion is the Locost guy. I had Lotus
on the brain.
The genuine Lotus 7. Colin Chapman's ultimate "add lightness"
exrecise. Good friend of mine has all the jigs and has built or
rebuilt more 7s in North America than Chapman. Lots of "originals" are
original serial number tags on a Wolf built chassis.

If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:23:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
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.



Correction: Where I said "Chapman," read "Champion." Colin Chapman was
the founder of Lotus Cars. Ron Champion is the Locost guy. I had Lotus
on the brain.
The genuine Lotus 7. Colin Chapman's ultimate "add lightness"
exrecise. Good friend of mine has all the jigs and has built or
rebuilt more 7s in North America than Chapman. Lots of "originals" are
original serial number tags on a Wolf built chassis.

If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Interesting. It's no problem to register one in NJ, and my insurance
guy told me it would not be expensive to insure. His dad had insured
my AC Aceca, and that's a *real* money hole. I wonder why it's
difficult there?

BTW, my college roommate has one of the 55 Lotus 7 Mk. IVs that was
imported into the US, gray-market, through Windsor, ONT. in 1971. It's
the pea-green one that Lotus displayed at the Chicago Auto Show that
year.

The Mk. IV was never fully accepted by the Lotus crowd. The Caterham 7
made now is a continuation of the Mk. III.

--
Ed Huntress

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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

You'd better include ear plugs + muffs there, Eric.


metal tools. I already have the machine shop to make the other
components. Man, I really want to make a Sports Car.

I wanted a Lotus Europa for the longest time as a teen. Then I saw one
in person and that dream dissolved. It was in ratty shape, smoked,
and had a splintering body. I switched to a Countach. I'd still take
one if anyone has a spare.

What do you see in the Lotus 6 which would make you want to own one?
I rode in a holey MGTD in LoCal for a year and wouldn't ever want to
own one. It took my buddy Tommy several thousand dollars a year just
to keep it running, not including maintenance items or gas. The 6
seems to fit into that slot in my eyes.

--
If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world.
--Robert Schaeberle

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

In NJ, three-wheelers are licensed as motorcycles. The only problem is
that you have to wear a Bell-approved helmet or you could get a
ticket. It's unlikely that you would, though.

--
Ed Huntress


How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

In NJ, three-wheelers are licensed as motorcycles. The only problem is
that you have to wear a Bell-approved helmet or you could get a
ticket. It's unlikely that you would, though.

Whaaat?
In NJ, troopers ticket you fer not washing yer car!
Or mebbe dats just NY license plates.... LOL..

MC helmets: the beginning of the Public Castration.
--
EA



--
Ed Huntress


How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:10:58 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

In NJ, three-wheelers are licensed as motorcycles. The only problem is
that you have to wear a Bell-approved helmet or you could get a
ticket. It's unlikely that you would, though.

Whaaat?
In NJ, troopers ticket you fer not washing yer car!
Or mebbe dats just NY license plates.... LOL..

Actually, our laws on "alternative" cars are pretty lax. You can drive
almost anything if it has brakes and headights. No fenders are
required; engines can be uncovered; and on and on.


MC helmets: the beginning of the Public Castration.

Pfffht. When I see a motorcyclist without a helmet, I hope he hits
something hard, to save us the trouble of keeping another vegetable
alive.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:26:22 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:10:58 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

MC helmets: the beginning of the Public Castration.

Pfffht. When I see a motorcyclist without a helmet, I hope he hits
something hard, to save us the trouble of keeping another vegetable
alive.

Are you saying that if you were riding, you wouldn't expect dew rags
and tattoos to have some cushioning value? And what about your IMAGE
for gods sake? Do you really want people to ponder that your skull
might not have as much concrete as EA's?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:10:58 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

In NJ, three-wheelers are licensed as motorcycles. The only problem is
that you have to wear a Bell-approved helmet or you could get a
ticket. It's unlikely that you would, though.

Whaaat?
In NJ, troopers ticket you fer not washing yer car!
Or mebbe dats just NY license plates.... LOL..

Actually, our laws on "alternative" cars are pretty lax. You can drive
almost anything if it has brakes and headights. No fenders are
required; engines can be uncovered; and on and on.


MC helmets: the beginning of the Public Castration.

Pfffht. When I see a motorcyclist without a helmet, I hope he hits
something hard, to save us the trouble of keeping another vegetable
alive.

I stopped riding bikes cuz the helmets would mess up my hair. I hated that.

Also -- bike riding on a hot summer day is not much more comfortable than
riding on a cold winter day -- holy ****, do those helmets get *hot* -- ESP
in traffic....
And you need to be covered up from the sun on long rides, cuz you can really
get a helluva burn.
I don't miss bike riding at all, actually... lol

And, the point remains: safety-wise or not, the *requirement* for helmets
is the castration. Some states, afaik, still don't have helmet laws.

Oh, another tidbit: Quadriplegia, some time ago, amongst 18-25 year olds,
in CA, was almost epidemic -- not from crushed skills, but from broken necks
in mc crashes, thought to be exacerbated by the extra mass supported by the
neck. Go figger, eh?
AND their xyz-amendment rights were violated!!!! lol
--
EA



--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

Nope. Cannot even build a 3 wheeler with 2 at the front and one at
the back - the only one licenseable is the CanAm Spyder, or one build
before something like 1960.

How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

No 4 wheel motorcycles in Ontario. Think it is Canada wide.

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/
Fantastic little machine - it would have to be registered as a Quad
- which is restricted to where it can be driven.

I think these rules need to be changed.

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

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:27:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

You'd better include ear plugs + muffs there, Eric.


metal tools. I already have the machine shop to make the other
components. Man, I really want to make a Sports Car.

I wanted a Lotus Europa for the longest time as a teen. Then I saw one
in person and that dream dissolved. It was in ratty shape, smoked,
and had a splintering body. I switched to a Countach. I'd still take
one if anyone has a spare.

What do you see in the Lotus 6 which would make you want to own one?
I rode in a holey MGTD in LoCal for a year and wouldn't ever want to
own one. It took my buddy Tommy several thousand dollars a year just
to keep it running, not including maintenance items or gas. The 6
seems to fit into that slot in my eyes.
It's not the exact car that I want, but the esthetics of the car, the
body design, really please me. There is a Ferrari from the early
fifties that I like even more but I can't remember the model. But it's
not the exact car I want either. I have an idea, a couple actually, of
what I want for a custom made sports car. To get that car I would need
to build it myself. But there is no reason to start completely from
scratch, I can use cosmetic and mechanical design elements from other
cars. The English and Italian design esthetics greatly appeal to me.
Eric

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.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:38:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:27:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
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 am now re-reading the book for perhaps the 7th time. 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. And I can
understand the book, the principals described in it are described so
well. 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

You'd better include ear plugs + muffs there, Eric.


metal tools. I already have the machine shop to make the other
components. Man, I really want to make a Sports Car.

I wanted a Lotus Europa for the longest time as a teen. Then I saw one
in person and that dream dissolved. It was in ratty shape, smoked,
and had a splintering body. I switched to a Countach. I'd still take
one if anyone has a spare.

What do you see in the Lotus 6 which would make you want to own one?
I rode in a holey MGTD in LoCal for a year and wouldn't ever want to
own one. It took my buddy Tommy several thousand dollars a year just
to keep it running, not including maintenance items or gas. The 6
seems to fit into that slot in my eyes.
It's not the exact car that I want, but the esthetics of the car, the
body design, really please me. There is a Ferrari from the early
fifties that I like even more but I can't remember the model.

Possibly an original 166 MM Barchetta. If you can find a photo of a
1948 Cisitalia, you'll see where that whole school of body design came
from. Its culmination was the 427 Cobra roadster. The AC Ace, which
was the basis of the Cobras, was an admitted copy of the Barchetta --
without the 1.5 liter V12. Pistons like thimbles but it went like
hell.

--
Ed Huntress

But it's
not the exact car I want either. I have an idea, a couple actually, of
what I want for a custom made sports car. To get that car I would need
to build it myself. But there is no reason to start completely from
scratch, I can use cosmetic and mechanical design elements from other
cars. The English and Italian design esthetics greatly appeal to me.
Eric

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.


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.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:15:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

Nope. Cannot even build a 3 wheeler with 2 at the front and one at
the back - the only one licenseable is the CanAm Spyder, or one build
before something like 1960.

How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

No 4 wheel motorcycles in Ontario. Think it is Canada wide.

Interesting. A friend in Ontario told me he's seeing lots of those
training wheels which are massively popular in the US. Could be a
nasty surprise for owners if cops decide to crack down. One I saw up
close had enough bodywork that you couldn't see that the original rear
wheel was still there unless you were looking hard.

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/
Fantastic little machine - it would have to be registered as a Quad
- which is restricted to where it can be driven.

I think these rules need to be changed.

One thing it tells me is that vehicles like the Aptera trying to duck
crash test certification by pretending to be motorcycles, will be non
starters in many jurisdictions. Insurance costs might be prohibitive
anyway.

Side note: I saw a Spyder wheel into a 711 lot the other day by
cutting across an adjoining parking lot. He was doing about 50 when he
left the roadway. Sloped and humped asphalt, I thought he might go
airborne. Definitely reckless and I'm no prude about such things. I
immediately thought Kenny Powers!

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.

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.

On Mar 27, 11:50*am, Ed Huntress wrote:







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.


Ed Huntress


I had an interest in the Locost a while back. i do not remember which
web site , but someone has analysed the original Locost frame and
published the design of a modified frame that is much stiffer than the
original frame.


Dan

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:53 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.

I'll tell you frankly, I have to re-read the description of how it
works, because it hasn't sunk in very well yet. As for the monoshock,
Stnaiforth describes it thus: "This is a front suspension design that
approximates to a beam axle in bump and rebound and a mega-stiff
anti-roll bar in roll within a robust and finely adjustable single
mechanism."

You'll have to see it for yourself. By the time you get to that part
of the book you've learned that current practice is to have virtually
no roll compliance at all. The Belleville washers provide roll
resistance. The single shock (damper) and spring provide the bump and
rebound resistance. The two functions of bump/rebound control and roll
resistance are completely separated.

It's very strange. Apparently it came along in the early '90s in small
formula classes and moved up.

Regarding bump/rebound, it appears that in F1, 3/4 of it is compliance
of the tires; 1/4 is suspension. This is a very different world than
the one I'm used to.

You should find the book interesting.

--
Ed Huntess

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:28:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:50*am, Ed Huntress wrote:







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.


Ed Huntress


I had an interest in the Locost a while back. i do not remember which
web site , but someone has analysed the original Locost frame and
published the design of a modified frame that is much stiffer than the
original frame.


Dan

Yeah, I think there are at least a couple of them. I haven't checked
into them carefully.

It had some obvious room for improvement but the torsional stiffness
issue is a chronic one with space-frame chassis that are narrow or
that have thin sides. That's most of them. There's just no room to get
a torsion-resisting structure in there, and if it's an open car, you
have no bracing across the top to compensate. A top, with triangulated
tubes, solves everything. A roll bar tricked with diagonals to the
chassis is a big help but a lot of racing class rules don't allow
structure that's obviously intended to stiffen the car and improve
performance.

One of the two original space-frame roadsters, the Mercedes-Benz 300
SLR race car from 1952, (the other was the Lotus 6 we've been
discussing) solved it as well as any car since. It consisted of a pair
of bridge-like tube-frame "boxes" in each sill. The result was a wide
and high sill that was hard to step over. When they applied the design
to their road-going coupe, the M-B 300 SL Gullwing, they had to open
the doors upward to make it practical to get in and out. You had to
hoist yourself by the door handle. g That was the entire reason for
the gull-wing configuration.

Another solution is a tubular box down the middle of the car, known as
a central torsion box. The British TVR used that approach and it had
pretty good stiffness. (Lotus did it in sheet metal in the original
Lotus Elan, 1961). It makes the car a little wider but today's car
shapes handle it with no trouble.

As I said, it's been a chronic problem from the beginning. It's led to
a lot of hybrid designs, starting with stressing the body skin on the
sides of the passnger compartment, as in the Lotus 7 and the Locost,
which helps a little bit; to the monocoque central bay on the racing
Jaguar D-Type (1954), made of magnesium alloy sheet (Elektron). Today,
with carbon fiber and tub-like monocoques, the problem is largely
solved. But not completely. It's still the weak link in an open car.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric

Well then, it sounds like you're ready for the English wheels and
other stuff.

I've talked to a lot of people who have talked about it. g If you
get down to doing it, please let us know. I'm sure others here will be
interested.

--
Ed Huntress

On 27/03/13 20:44, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:53 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.
I'll tell you frankly, I have to re-read the description of how it
works, because it hasn't sunk in very well yet. As for the monoshock,
Stnaiforth describes it thus: "This is a front suspension design that
approximates to a beam axle in bump and rebound and a mega-stiff
anti-roll bar in roll within a robust and finely adjustable single
mechanism."

You'll have to see it for yourself. By the time you get to that part
of the book you've learned that current practice is to have virtually
no roll compliance at all. The Belleville washers provide roll
resistance. The single shock (damper) and spring provide the bump and
rebound resistance. The two functions of bump/rebound control and roll
resistance are completely separated.

It's very strange. Apparently it came along in the early '90s in small
formula classes and moved up.

Regarding bump/rebound, it appears that in F1, 3/4 of it is compliance
of the tires; 1/4 is suspension. This is a very different world than
the one I'm used to.

You should find the book interesting.

I'll have to look up how much the book is and see if I like the price, I
don't mind buying an expensive book if I think the information contained
is worth while a good example would be the books by Oppi Untracht,
absolute goldmines of information, not cheap but worth every penny of
the price IMHO. A mate of mine did some work on the McLaren MP4-12C and
it had some new, well maybe for a roadish car, ideas such as the Z bar
IIRC which was like a anti roll bar (sway bar US) but connected so to
control squat. I'd not heard of it before but no longer circulate with
people in the racing world.

On 27/03/13 22:06, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric
Well then, it sounds like you're ready for the English wheels and
other stuff.

I've talked to a lot of people who have talked about it. g If you
get down to doing it, please let us know. I'm sure others here will be
interested.

I've got a wheeling machine (English wheel US) that I built years ago
and have used it and it works but haven't really found the time to put
it to good effect yet. I was fortunate enough to attend Manchester HS in
Ct during junior high and did an evening course in metal smithing then
went on to attend the HS when old enough and again did metal smithing
under the late Jonathan Hewey and covered pewter (Brittania metal),
copper, and brass forming and raising. Something I really enjoy and have
subsequently done metal spinning, mostly self taught. It does give a
good appreciation of manual forming which I think helps when I have gone
on to do simple press tools and more complicated forming.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:14:37 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 20:44, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:53 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.
I'll tell you frankly, I have to re-read the description of how it
works, because it hasn't sunk in very well yet. As for the monoshock,
Stnaiforth describes it thus: "This is a front suspension design that
approximates to a beam axle in bump and rebound and a mega-stiff
anti-roll bar in roll within a robust and finely adjustable single
mechanism."

You'll have to see it for yourself. By the time you get to that part
of the book you've learned that current practice is to have virtually
no roll compliance at all. The Belleville washers provide roll
resistance. The single shock (damper) and spring provide the bump and
rebound resistance. The two functions of bump/rebound control and roll
resistance are completely separated.

It's very strange. Apparently it came along in the early '90s in small
formula classes and moved up.

Regarding bump/rebound, it appears that in F1, 3/4 of it is compliance
of the tires; 1/4 is suspension. This is a very different world than
the one I'm used to.

You should find the book interesting.

I'll have to look up how much the book is and see if I like the price, I
don't mind buying an expensive book if I think the information contained
is worth while a good example would be the books by Oppi Untracht,
absolute goldmines of information, not cheap but worth every penny of
the price IMHO. A mate of mine did some work on the McLaren MP4-12C and
it had some new, well maybe for a roadish car, ideas such as the Z bar
IIRC which was like a anti roll bar (sway bar US) but connected so to
control squat. I'd not heard of it before but no longer circulate with
people in the racing world.

Oppi Untracht's book on Amazon look great, but gulp! $94?? Wow. I'll
look for it in a library.

Regarding the Z-bar and McLaren's new idea....don't upset your friend,
but Formula V cars were using them in the US in 1971. g I was an
SCCA driver and tech inspector at the time, and I remember the first
time I saw one. I made the driver take a couple of laps before I'd
approve it. I expected him to spin out on the first turn, but it
worked pretty well.

They enjoyed a year or two of great enthusiasm, and then they died
out. I haven't seen a FV for 30 years, so I don't know if they ever
came back. But it was some California FV driver who came up with the
first ones I saw, and I think they were a new idea then.

A lot of racing ideas seem to come around in circles. Like direct
injection. M-B had it in their F1 car in 1954; won two world
championships with it; and then dropped it.

Then there was Chapparal's two-speed automatic transmission, with
which they blew away competition all over the world...and you know the
rest.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:26:01 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 22:06, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric
Well then, it sounds like you're ready for the English wheels and
other stuff.

I've talked to a lot of people who have talked about it. g If you
get down to doing it, please let us know. I'm sure others here will be
interested.

I've got a wheeling machine (English wheel US) that I built years ago
and have used it and it works but haven't really found the time to put
it to good effect yet. I was fortunate enough to attend Manchester HS in
Ct during junior high and did an evening course in metal smithing then
went on to attend the HS when old enough and again did metal smithing
under the late Jonathan Hewey and covered pewter (Brittania metal),
copper, and brass forming and raising. Something I really enjoy and have
subsequently done metal spinning, mostly self taught. It does give a
good appreciation of manual forming which I think helps when I have gone
on to do simple press tools and more complicated forming.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:26:01 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 22:06, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:30 -0700, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric
Well then, it sounds like you're ready for the English wheels and
other stuff.

I've talked to a lot of people who have talked about it. g If you
get down to doing it, please let us know. I'm sure others here will be
interested.

I've got a wheeling machine (English wheel US) that I built years ago
and have used it and it works but haven't really found the time to put
it to good effect yet. I was fortunate enough to attend Manchester HS in
Ct during junior high and did an evening course in metal smithing then
went on to attend the HS when old enough and again did metal smithing
under the late Jonathan Hewey and covered pewter (Brittania metal),
copper, and brass forming and raising. Something I really enjoy and have
subsequently done metal spinning, mostly self taught. It does give a
good appreciation of manual forming which I think helps when I have gone
on to do simple press tools and more complicated forming.

If you have any of that work you'd like to show us, I'm sure it will
be appreciated. A lot of people have expressed interest from time to
time.

There was another guy here a while ago who apparently does some
raising and forming work, but he disappeared just after I came back
here. I had wanted to ask to see his work, too. It is fascinating.

--
Ed Huntress

On 27/03/13 22:35, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:14:37 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 20:44, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:53 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.
I'll tell you frankly, I have to re-read the description of how it
works, because it hasn't sunk in very well yet. As for the monoshock,
Stnaiforth describes it thus: "This is a front suspension design that
approximates to a beam axle in bump and rebound and a mega-stiff
anti-roll bar in roll within a robust and finely adjustable single
mechanism."

You'll have to see it for yourself. By the time you get to that part
of the book you've learned that current practice is to have virtually
no roll compliance at all. The Belleville washers provide roll
resistance. The single shock (damper) and spring provide the bump and
rebound resistance. The two functions of bump/rebound control and roll
resistance are completely separated.

It's very strange. Apparently it came along in the early '90s in small
formula classes and moved up.

Regarding bump/rebound, it appears that in F1, 3/4 of it is compliance
of the tires; 1/4 is suspension. This is a very different world than
the one I'm used to.

You should find the book interesting.

I'll have to look up how much the book is and see if I like the price, I
don't mind buying an expensive book if I think the information contained
is worth while a good example would be the books by Oppi Untracht,
absolute goldmines of information, not cheap but worth every penny of
the price IMHO. A mate of mine did some work on the McLaren MP4-12C and
it had some new, well maybe for a roadish car, ideas such as the Z bar
IIRC which was like a anti roll bar (sway bar US) but connected so to
control squat. I'd not heard of it before but no longer circulate with
people in the racing world.
Oppi Untracht's book on Amazon look great, but gulp! $94?? Wow. I'll

My local provincial book shop in Bath UK had a copy of "Metal Techniques
for Craftsmen" in stock about 15 - 20 years ago so I had a chance to
peruse it before buying and I thought it worth every penny so walked out
with it after paying. The price on the cover is £30 with the UK net book
price agreement in those days, I thought a bit more but it was a while
ago. Not been to Foyles in many years but that was great as it had such
a large selection you could find almost anything. IIRC I was told there
was a bigger bookshop in NYC but can't stand the place, NYC that is.
BTW the bookshop doesn't have any copies these days as likely too
expensive to have sitting on a shelf just in case someone wants such a
niche subject book.

Z bar I have no doubt it wasn't a new idea to McLaren just someone
decided it suited the nature of the design and used it to good effect
with modern refinements.

Chapparal and 2spd auto, not heard of that but have heard of the later
GT40s with the 7 litre? engine and 2 spd ex Ford Fairline? 2 spd auto
boxes, any connection? One of the earlier GT40 works drivers used to
live nearby and told me a few stories of problems and experiences with
the earlier cars.


look for it in a library.

Regarding the Z-bar and McLaren's new idea....don't upset your friend,
but Formula V cars were using them in the US in 1971. g I was an
SCCA driver and tech inspector at the time, and I remember the first
time I saw one. I made the driver take a couple of laps before I'd
approve it. I expected him to spin out on the first turn, but it
worked pretty well.

They enjoyed a year or two of great enthusiasm, and then they died
out. I haven't seen a FV for 30 years, so I don't know if they ever
came back. But it was some California FV driver who came up with the
first ones I saw, and I think they were a new idea then.

A lot of racing ideas seem to come around in circles. Like direct
injection. M-B had it in their F1 car in 1954; won two world
championships with it; and then dropped it.

Then there was Chapparal's two-speed automatic transmission, with
which they blew away competition all over the world...and you know the
rest.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:02:02 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 22:35, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:14:37 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 20:44, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:15:53 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

On 27/03/13 16:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

Looks like I'll have to add that to my Christmas list for next year,
must be the final instalment unless a ghost writer is used . I've not
run across the use of belleville washers in race car suspension but
don't doubt it. I considered using them as a replacement for the 1/4
elliptics on my mk1 AH Sprite but never made anything as bearing loads
looked too high but then Issigonis or Moulton used very stiff rubber
springs near the body pivot and that worked well so may have to look
again. For a single damper each end do they have some funky pivot to
allow damping of the moving wheel against the unmoving one and the body.
If I'm curious enough I guess I'll have to bring Christmas forward.
I'll tell you frankly, I have to re-read the description of how it
works, because it hasn't sunk in very well yet. As for the monoshock,
Stnaiforth describes it thus: "This is a front suspension design that
approximates to a beam axle in bump and rebound and a mega-stiff
anti-roll bar in roll within a robust and finely adjustable single
mechanism."

You'll have to see it for yourself. By the time you get to that part
of the book you've learned that current practice is to have virtually
no roll compliance at all. The Belleville washers provide roll
resistance. The single shock (damper) and spring provide the bump and
rebound resistance. The two functions of bump/rebound control and roll
resistance are completely separated.

It's very strange. Apparently it came along in the early '90s in small
formula classes and moved up.

Regarding bump/rebound, it appears that in F1, 3/4 of it is compliance
of the tires; 1/4 is suspension. This is a very different world than
the one I'm used to.

You should find the book interesting.

I'll have to look up how much the book is and see if I like the price, I
don't mind buying an expensive book if I think the information contained
is worth while a good example would be the books by Oppi Untracht,
absolute goldmines of information, not cheap but worth every penny of
the price IMHO. A mate of mine did some work on the McLaren MP4-12C and
it had some new, well maybe for a roadish car, ideas such as the Z bar
IIRC which was like a anti roll bar (sway bar US) but connected so to
control squat. I'd not heard of it before but no longer circulate with
people in the racing world.
Oppi Untracht's book on Amazon look great, but gulp! $94?? Wow. I'll

My local provincial book shop in Bath UK had a copy of "Metal Techniques
for Craftsmen" in stock about 15 - 20 years ago so I had a chance to
peruse it before buying and I thought it worth every penny so walked out
with it after paying. The price on the cover is £30 with the UK net book
price agreement in those days, I thought a bit more but it was a while
ago. Not been to Foyles in many years but that was great as it had such
a large selection you could find almost anything. IIRC I was told there
was a bigger bookshop in NYC but can't stand the place, NYC that is.
BTW the bookshop doesn't have any copies these days as likely too
expensive to have sitting on a shelf just in case someone wants such a
niche subject book.

Z bar I have no doubt it wasn't a new idea to McLaren just someone
decided it suited the nature of the design and used it to good effect
with modern refinements.

I just looked and I see they're still used in vintage FV racing.


Chapparal and 2spd auto, not heard of that but have heard of the later
GT40s with the 7 litre? engine and 2 spd ex Ford Fairline? 2 spd auto
boxes, any connection?

Jeez. I didn't know that Ford used an automatic. Or maybe I forgot. My
head is awfully cluttered with trivia and junk and some of it
certainly is getting pushed out. g

The Chaparral 2C was the original winged race car, which
revolutionized racing of all kinds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaparral_Cars

There were one or two earlier attempts with fixed wings, but they
never caught on. The Chaparral wing was adjustable with the driver's
left foot. The transmission was a Chevy Powerglide with a special
torque converter, built by Chevy's nonexistant (!) racing dept. The
torque converter provided the equivalent of three speeds, so, with the
two-speed clutchless shifting, it gave the car roughly 6 speeds and
left one foot free to work the wing. It had more power than it could
deliver to the track, anyway, so the loss in the transmission was not
a handicap.

Chapparal's adjustable wing was solid and safe, but some of the
copy-cats weren't, and so the FIA outlawed adjustable wings.

The Chapparal actually was shaking up road racing in Europe before
Ford did. But the FIA disallowed one of their cars at Le Mans a few
years later and they got ****ed off and quit. The same thing happened
to Ford a year or two later, when the FIA imposed the 5-liter limit.

I'll have to look up some history on the Fords and see what that
transmission was all about. I thought they used conventional boxes,
made by Kar Kraft.

--
Ed Huntress

One of the earlier GT40 works drivers used to
live nearby and told me a few stories of problems and experiences with
the earlier cars.


look for it in a library.

Regarding the Z-bar and McLaren's new idea....don't upset your friend,
but Formula V cars were using them in the US in 1971. g I was an
SCCA driver and tech inspector at the time, and I remember the first
time I saw one. I made the driver take a couple of laps before I'd
approve it. I expected him to spin out on the first turn, but it
worked pretty well.

They enjoyed a year or two of great enthusiasm, and then they died
out. I haven't seen a FV for 30 years, so I don't know if they ever
came back. But it was some California FV driver who came up with the
first ones I saw, and I think they were a new idea then.

A lot of racing ideas seem to come around in circles. Like direct
injection. M-B had it in their F1 car in 1954; won two world
championships with it; and then dropped it.

Then there was Chapparal's two-speed automatic transmission, with
which they blew away competition all over the world...and you know the
rest.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:50:19 -0400, 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.

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.
MOST locosts end up being clumsy overweight pigs that don't handle
any better than any of the cars used as parts doners.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:18:55 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:15:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:57:47 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:12:54 -0400, wrote:


If it wasn't so hard to insure and register a non-original 7 in
Ontario, I'd have one!!!!

Can you do a Morgan there and license it as a motorcycle? Maybe use
the donor engine's registration?

Nope. Cannot even build a 3 wheeler with 2 at the front and one at
the back - the only one licenseable is the CanAm Spyder, or one build
before something like 1960.

How do they handle the Harleys with training wheels (4 wheels total)
in Ontario? I've read that they're illegal in some states but it's a
gray area with cops using them.

No 4 wheel motorcycles in Ontario. Think it is Canada wide.

Interesting. A friend in Ontario told me he's seeing lots of those
training wheels which are massively popular in the US. Could be a
nasty surprise for owners if cops decide to crack down. One I saw up
close had enough bodywork that you couldn't see that the original rear
wheel was still there unless you were looking hard.

You actually can have as many wheels on the vehicle as you want, as
long as no more than 3 can contact the road at any time..

Hannigan was into sidecars and originally from Ontario. Check out what
he's up to.
http://thekneeslider.com/honda-gold-...n-motorsports/
Fantastic little machine - it would have to be registered as a Quad
- which is restricted to where it can be driven.

I think these rules need to be changed.

One thing it tells me is that vehicles like the Aptera trying to duck
crash test certification by pretending to be motorcycles, will be non
starters in many jurisdictions. Insurance costs might be prohibitive
anyway.

Side note: I saw a Spyder wheel into a 711 lot the other day by
cutting across an adjoining parking lot. He was doing about 50 when he
left the roadway. Sloped and humped asphalt, I thought he might go
airborne. Definitely reckless and I'm no prude about such things. I
immediately thought Kenny Powers!
Also, a motorcycle in Canada must have HANDLEBARS, not a steering
wheel, and the driver must sit ASTRIDE the seat - no bench or bucket.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:23:06 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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.
Or a horizontal single spring and shock with bellcranks.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:06:17 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

SNIP
Have fun.
I've spent hours on a shot bag shaping copper, brass, silver, and
aluminum. Even one mild steel job. I made a hammer form out of hard
maple to shape .100" thick 5052 aluminum sheet to wrap over and weld
to the ribs in an aluminum boat that had almost all of the ribs
cracked along the centerline of the boat. That job turned out great.
Eric

Well then, it sounds like you're ready for the English wheels and
other stuff.

I've talked to a lot of people who have talked about it. g If you
get down to doing it, please let us know. I'm sure others here will be
interested.
If bI ever get to build my own car, or even car body, you can be sure
I'll be bragging about it here. Right now I'm working mostly 7 day
weeks making stuff for other people. But I haven't given up hope.
Eric