Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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!!!! |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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/ |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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/ |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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. |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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. |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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. |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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. |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Very Light Car
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cooper Lighting Motion Sensor Outdoor Light, Turning Light On | Home Repair | |||
Cooper Lighting Motion Sensor Outdoor Light, Turning Light On | Home Repair | |||
Cooper Lighting Motion Sensor Outdoor Light, Turning Light On | Home Repair | |||
wireless eetra light light switch + so,e persomal stuff y don'trea;;y want to knoww! | UK diy | |||
selling led lighting such as led christmas light,led decorative light,led house lamp | UK diy |