I posted this idea on the midi forum but perhaps the right place is here. What are the views on the importance of a common design?

"Is there a need for an "official" midi locost? The mid engine forum has plenty of examples of very individual and ingenious solutions but are they in the spirit of Lowcost?

Ha!! I can almost hear you say whats the need for an "official" midi we are doing very nicely thank you.

Well not all constructors who may want a midi have the level of experience and engineering 6th sense required. That limits the number of people who might like to be part of this forum.

My thoughts on the Locost theme is that its popular because it gives specific guidance but at the same time allows the experienced constructor to go his own way with different engines and suspension but linked to a common chassis.

Also Locost is a rallying point for like minded people to discuss common specific issues. Fair enough we are doing this right now but the midi section is much more diverse and the lack of commonality means the best solution aint obvious. For example look at the discussion of lower wishbones failing. Most middis just dont have that level of detail in common to discuss and find the best solutions for.

Without specific guidelines its easy to get diverted into non productive or energy sapping ideas. I take my hat off to the chaps that are producing their own bodywork - I tried it once and gave up just cos its so dammed long a process. Another example could be the various builds which have adopted the rear suspension subframes only to see the hardware for the commonly accepted independant setup become available.

Also an "official" locost midi is easy for clubs to recognise and arrange classification - in autocrossing, sprinting. hillclimbing, concours - whatever. Second thoughts can I take the idea of concours back the thought makes my mind boggle.

My suggestion would be based round the original of scanty ally bodywork (easy to construct), simple tube chassis (easy to modify and build without specialised equipment), car engined (for reliability), few specialist parts (for low cost).

Does the idea strike a bell or am I on my own?"

Something with the simplicity of the sylva R1OT may prove popular.
That would be a good design to be 'inspired' by...

Here's some pictures of my design.

First the styling.
Rescued attachment snapshot2.jpeg

And now the chassis

The blue lines show the engine bay main tubes which are 4x2 14 gauge (100mm x 50mm x 2mm)
Rescued attachment pic2-4x2.JPG

The suspensi9on. red wishbones and pushrods (front), blue uprights and dark green springs.

The aim is to have a totally clean front with the wishbone bushings, anti roll bars and bell cranks mounted inside the bodywork.

Oh and the torsional stiffness is more than double the book lowcost.

The rear suspension mounts will need to be reinforced as the pics show the upper wishbone mounts on the middle of 1x1 16 gauge tubes which isn't good enough without extra reinforcement.
Rescued attachment pic2sus.JPG

What do you have in mind for the engine/Gearbox set up?

A propper gearbox in the back with an engine just behind the driver or the frontwheel car engine gearbox combination?

I'd suggest standard front wheel drive though a flat four Subaru driveline might fit with some thought and a different rear suspension.

Getting the rear wishbones around the engine block and gearbox would be the tricky bit. A simple measurement suggests that it would be tight but possible but that depends a lot on what goes around the driveline; no point in clearing the engine or gearbox only to fowl another part.

For the upper wisbones it may be better to use a framework behind the engine and gearbox to mount on as on the Lotus Elise.

A possible alternative suspension would be an upper and lower link and a trailing arm mounted to the seat back side 4x2 tubes. This would be similar to the Lotus Esprit and Europa and to the BMW Z-axle used on the 3 series. Geometry wise this layout gives toe out on bump which is bad news. The Ford Focus uses a very similar arrangement but with a fexible traing arm and a passive rear stear link arrangement to give toe out when required.

I definately think there is a "need" for a more modern locost set up to use common FWD drivetrains in the rear.


Pros -
It would greatly increase the number of suitable donors (given more common/cheaper FWD cars).

The classic 7 styling doesn't apeal to many younger enthusiasts and isn't very aerodynamic, so a more modern look and aero would be a nice advantage.

Semi standard bodywork would greatly reduce the level of effort to build such a car.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grintch
The classic 7 styling doesn't apeal to many younger enthusiasts and isn't very aerodynamic, so a more modern look and aero would be a nice advantage.

Semi standard bodywork would greatly reduce the level of effort to build such a car.

---

Are there fwd setups that have the engine behind the transaxle? I am using an mgb trunk adapted to the rear of my car only just for athsetics, but it would be a close fit but it would likely hold a transaxle and engine if the engine was aft of the transaxle by just a bit- This would still make it possible to keep the entire front end the same as the usual seven type car.
I think as soon as you move the cockpit farther forward than where it is it very quickly loses the seven look.
Dale

Well there's the Citroën Traction Avant but other than that I can't think of any.

The Hudson Free/Kindred Spirit used it because it fitted the nosecone.

http://www.spiritowners.co.uk/newsitems/part32.htm has some pictures.

Edit: Plus of course Porsche 911 and VW beetle if you move the engine up front

[Edited on 30/8/05 by iank]