To make a seven wider and longer kind of misses the point a bit so why have some of you chosen to do it?
It can't be because you are all 7ft tall..i can't reach pedals in mine with seat set right back and nor can my nighbour who is 6ft 4" so why on earth make th car longer.....seems a complete waste of effort not to mention adding weight and probably making chassis mor flexible.

A little knowledge is far to dangerous !!!

fit a bigger engine in and to fit the wide sierra rear in without chopping the shafts

You don't have to make the car wider just to fit the Sierra diff/driveshafts just use wider wings.
As for making the engine bay bigger to fit bigger engines there is no need, the Rover V8 fits the book dimensions.

Mark

Plus it's to get big fat people into them

Some people dont like wider wings and some engines dont fit

fancy seats often waste space behinds the seat due to its curve and padding. The 'book' car didnt use real seats - just an upholstered fixed bench. anything else takes more room.

loadsa people mention they need more length.

as for width, the book car is a bit tight - im a normal 12 ish stone person - 16 stoners etc being 1/3 bigger would be a bit of a squeeze.

agreed tho - making a seven much bigger looses the style.

My deviant is 6 ins wider and about a foot and a half longer - and it MASSIVE compared to a cateringvan


atb

tank man

quote:

---

Originally posted by M@Triton
You don't have to make the car wider just to fit the Sierra diff/driveshafts just use wider wings.
As for making the engine bay bigger to fit bigger engines there is no need, the Rover V8 fits the book dimensions.

Mark

---

6'-6", 230 lbs.

Have to say, though, I don't need the length (with a bench) OR the width (the missus does, though )

I'm going 3" wider to fill out my axles and get a little more room. There is NO handling penalty for extra body width; it's the axles that count. Extra weight will be about 20 lbs. Ho-hum

Going a couple of inches longer so that I can fit a sliding seat to accomodate the SHORTIES that drive. Sort of ironic

Pete

Mark,
I'm interested in your statement that the Rover V8 will fit in the standard book chassis. Whilst I agree that it probably could be made to fit, it would be a seriously tight squeeze and would require awkward routing of the steering downlink and custom exhaust manifolds.

In case you are wondering, I am building a Rover V8 engined Locost and I chose to widen the chassis by 4" to make my life a lot easier when fitting it. Yes you do have some hassles getting wider bodywork and other laterally mounted components but all of the major mechanicals will fit fine.

I would also point out that seating space is vastly improved with the +4" chassis even for a fairly slim person like myself.

Cheers,
Craig.

Book chassis, +4 wife!
Rescued attachment Plus4Wife.jpg

do number one, two and three wife fit in too?

atb

steve

i built a westfield seight once, with a rover v8 it was a tight fit, literally touching chassis rails on both sides, steering column a couple of mm from exhaust manifold. and remember thats a sei (wide body) westfield, which a book locost isnt, probably about 4 inches wider.

Mine is +4 width and plus way to friggin much in length (105 inch wheelbase). But mine is not a copy of a seven mor of a marlin sportster. But my big feet 240lb and 6'4" would have made a tight fit for me and not left enough room for my wife on the other side. If I were building a track car then I think being cramped would be worth it but for a road car you want comfort (while still blowing the ricers off the road).
Dale

Yes another point is that the extra width will probably improve handling (as long as you're not racing on a very narrow track I guess) as it will make the car roll less.

It also allows you to use the more common Sierra back end (without shortening the shafts) whilst still keeping the front the same track without having to modify the front wishbone dimensions.

I think that the wider chassis could very well become every bit as common as the standard width chassis and perhaps even more so. I'm not sure about longer or taller chassis though although extra engine bay length would have been handy with my Rover V8 build...

I don't think that changing the "book" chassis devalues the Locost in the slightest. The whole point of Locost building is that YOU build it the way YOU want it! Each to their own and all that...

Cheers,
Craig.

We did a "book" locost chassis kit that had the Rover V8 coupled with some weird american 3 spd gearbox.....std sizes apart from allowance for 'box.

Std body work with wider rear wings to hide Capri axle and big wheels.
Plus the chap in question is quite tall.

Re the "increase flexibility comment", widening the chassis actually increases torsional stiffness. same for making it taller, but lengthening it reduces stiffness. I think cymtriks posted that at some point.

We're planning to go +4 and maybe +2" in the engine bay as well so the v8 isn't so much of a squeeze. Sometimes I like to make it difficult for myself (ok, most of the time) but shoehorning a v8 into the tiniest possible engine bay does not amuse me.

Just a personal thing as i am only 5ft 5" and 9stone nowt and would rattle about like a bean in a bottle!!!.....naff joke at my own expense.

If anything i would make them shorter giving the car a 90" wheelbase.

Regards
Mark

I'm building a "book" dimensioned chassis Locost for my garage-owners "space & tools sponsors" based on an Escort Mk II. So far I consider that, even for its 1m80 future driver the book chassis is more than long enough.

Within a few weeks I'll start building mine to use a Pinto 1.6 and IRS. I'm 1m71, my son-in-law is 1m79 and my daughter is 1m61; I guess that I'll shorten the cockpit bay as there's no need for all that length and wheelbase (which I think comes to 2355 mm).

quote:

---

Originally posted by M@Triton
If anything i would make them shorter giving the car a 90" wheelbase.
Mark

---

The best reason for a wider chassis is to reduce bump steer -- the escort rack is to wide between its inner ball joints..

If starting again I would either follow the MK Indy route or use a Capri axle.and make the chassis 50mm wider

Good point, I forgot about that one...

I found that on my +4" car, the escort rack was within 6mm of being the perfect length (inner balljoints) and that was with the track rods in line with the rack body at normal ride height.

Another good reason to go +4"
Cheers,
Craig.

thats quite convinient, i had to shorten my sierra rack and then get extensions made to lengthen the arms again. bit of ball ache and on mroe thing for the inspector to look at...