this one here looks very cool:
http://www.agmsportscars.co.uk/wlr%20manufacture%20003a.jpg
do you know if it's a locost based chassis or is it extensively modified for dimensions?
wheel base says 2369mm so I was wondering if I could fit their WLR body on my future bookchassis?
thanks,
Hiro

It looks locost but without the triangulation.

Hardly anything to stop this twisting really when you look at it, not a very good design IMHO

The AGM WLR was originally a re-body for the MK Indy chassis if I remember correctly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by matt_claydon
The AGM WLR was originally a re-body for the MK Indy chassis if I remember correctly.

---

I was quite interested in the WLR AGM once upon a time and looked into it.

Unfortunately, most reports about the chassis were underwhelming.

Have you asked about the price of the bodywork? Very expensive! I don't quite like the front but the rear end is very nice IMHO!
Rescued attachment dsc_0022_small.jpg

I'd be pretty surprised if there were any significant problems with the chassis. Bear in mind they've stuck everything from a Cossie turbo to a Chevvy LS2 in it & it's not twisted itself in knots, I speak to Alan (the owner of AGM) quite regularly & I know he's done LeMans trips & been round Zolder very rapidly with the car without any problems.
I'm fairly sure he's mentioned it being checked out by one of the Universities for stiffness etc. - note it's triangulated in the corners of the engine bay & I believe it's has several other additional braces to the original MK chassis, but I'm not a Locost guru!

I do not profess to be a locost guru by any means but when you look at the picture in the first post its clearly evident that to accomadate a large engine key braces have been moved or completely deleted.

Just looking at the engine bay:

Bottom frame bars have been relocated to the centre of the footwell, if loads are exerted then the force will attempt to collapse the footwells, it would be better to add a couple of small additional braces to form a Y to where they previously would have located.

The top frame suffers in the same respect, the bars have been considerably shorterned , but there is no bracing on the side rail again, better to form a Y from back to front. Also only 1 bar crosses the entire transmission tunnel, the footwells are squares so would again flex.

It would not be hard to address these issues, with a welded floor and transmission tunnel, removeable braces but at a high level view it is wrong as stands at present, the triangulation has been removed, they key to strength with light weight.

All in IMHO of course

[Edited on 29/12/08 by mark chandler]

Looking at the chassis picture, there doesn't seem to be any particular provision for supporting the bodywork. Is that something that is added later?

I'll try and dig out the reports I read about a couple that were tracked. The general consensus was that the chassis was hopeless.

Could well have been sorted by now though.

apparently the pic shows their uprated chassis designed for 500hp,
maybe the tube size is bigger/thicker?
Hiro

http://www.agmsportscars.co.uk/agm_sports_cars_2_013.htm