Mave
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 02:37 PM |
|
|
MK Mini?
I've just found my next project! And I'll stick with MK:
http://www.freewebs.com/mega-r1/mini_index.html
|
|
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 05:10 PM |
|
|
cool
|
|
|
Northy
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:19 PM |
|
|
I want one......
 
Rescued attachment images.jpg
Graham
Website under construction. Help greatfully received as I don't really know what I'm doing! 
"If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?"
Built 2L 8 Valve Vx Powered Avon
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
Yeah I know
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
macspeedy
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 06:54 PM |
|
|
nice one!
|
|
|
marcotuinenburg
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 08:07 PM |
|
|
Wauw very cool. And probably no SVA ???
|
|
|
PAUL FISHER
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 11:14 PM |
|
|
MK MINI
Isaw this being built in Martins workshop,the usual quality build,looked a very strong construction,and yes no SVA.
But I cannot see how bradwood motor sport will get anywhere near there weight of 400kgs,a little optimistic .
I think it will be at least 525kgs and thats only if they use perspex windows and fibreglass panels and doors etc, but I may be proved wrong.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 3/11/04 at 11:46 PM |
|
|
How did that avoid the SVA - surely it has to be classed as a new chassis?
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
cool ....... any idea on cost
|
|
|
SeaBass
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 01:28 PM |
|
|
That thing will be a real handful, so much power to the rear and such a small wheelbase. Anyone agree??
Cheers
|
|
|
Mave
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
Most importantly; Snoopy, will it go into production?
I'm already dreaming about the specs.... I've even decided on the colour! R1 blue, with a carbon fibre roof!
I WANT ONE! (but first I'll go back in the garage to work on my Indy...)
|
|
|
mad-butcher
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 07:37 PM |
|
|
i saw it at martins last time i was over, and wondered how long before someone with no imagination copies it like what everyone does with martins
idea. on the sva side i think it's a case of keep your f#####g mouth shut and no one will know... insurance could be a prob we run a dropped
body kitted corsa with a 1.2 motor and that's a grand a year and i'm 54 but thats an agread value of 12 grand
tony
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
Not exactly his own idea.
http://www.zcars.org.uk/mini/mini_single_rl.htm
There are other people doing it already.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 11:34 PM |
|
|
Yep - been done many times before.
So if we all keep our mouths shut can I avoid SVA and just keep my mechanicals registered as a Sierra please.
That "mini" would not have enough of anything to qualify for an age related plate - I cannot see how it could possibly be legal without an
SVA. There have been enough people complaining about spurious registrations on here before now, but soemthing like this and it is OK????
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
DEAN C.
|
| posted on 4/11/04 at 11:48 PM |
|
|
Dont see a problem myself,it's no different to a beetle based buggy.
The Mini's body is the chassis,and the body is all there!Same steering ,front suspension,slight difference in engine and position thats all,with
a roll cage.
And yes I've seen it,I was there when the owner dropped it off and he discussed the design draft with Martin.
Dean C.
PS. SSHHH !
Once I've finished a project why do I start another?
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 5/11/04 at 12:35 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DEAN C.
Dont see a problem myself,it's no different to a beetle based buggy.
The Mini's body is the chassis,and the body is all there!Same steering ,front suspension,slight difference in engine and position thats all,with
a roll cage.
A beetle based buggy which is SVA exempt uses the complete Beetle chassis - i.e. floorpan. The buggys which use a shortened floorpan require SVA.
If the Mini body is the chassis, "the floor, rear seat and boot floor have been fully removed" means it is not all there (and to me the
floor is a pretty significant part of a chassis).
If it is using Mini front suspension and steering it will need the mini front subframe, in which case 400kg is definitely impossible.
Just my opinion, but I don't think anyone can justify that being on the road without an SVA - whether they have seen it or not.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
kb58
|
| posted on 5/11/04 at 12:53 AM |
|
|
Is it done as shown? Are there any more tubes to be added? Reason I ask is that nothing prevents the rear shock pickup point from moving up and
down. Needs better triangulation forward to the cage...
[Edited on 11/5/04 by kb58]
Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book -
http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kb58
Is it done as shown? Are there any more tubes to be added? Reason I ask is that nothing prevents the rear shock pickup point from moving up and
down. Needs better triangulation forward to the cage...
The very first thought that went through my head. As it stands that frame has virtualy no strength. A decent whack to one of the corners and it
would lozenge badly.
There is no feasable way that this should be SVA exempt. It's a mini in bodyshape only (and perhaps front suspension if it is retained). The
floor pan and sills are the most important bits of a mini in terms of strength and this shell has neither.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 7/11/04 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
But the floor and sills go back in.
Does that mean 'cos my porsche has had new floorpans and sills that i should SVA it?
It's like the woodmans axe, he's had it 30 years and it's had 4 new handles and 6 new heads.
Many many cars have serious modifications without recourse to re-registering - bottom line it's a mini shell who decides when you've got a
new car?
Practical Classics "re-built" a TR6 from two pieces of the bulkhead and a reg document a few years ago!!
I think you're being a bit precious.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 09:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
But the floor and sills go back in.
The original steel ones don't, it clearly states the floor will be paneled with alloy sheet.
I don't mean to be arsey, but if people are continuously trying to worm out of SVA's via various methods, the inevitable tightening down
of the procedures will just make it even more difficult for those of us that want to do it legitimately.
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 04:45 PM |
|
|
I accept the point about rebuilding a car such as a TR, but that would be rebuilt to the original design spec, whilst this "Mini" does not
have a chassis which would fit that desription.
If I put Mini outer body panels on my locost chassis when it is finished it will not be a Mini, and I wouldn't expect it to be SVA exempt.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
ChrisBradley04
|
| posted on 8/11/04 at 11:39 PM |
|
|
Hi guys,
I'll try and answer some of your questions on my car as best I can.
Firstly, with regards to SVA I am simply following the DVLA rules and have consulted with them at the design stages. If you look at their website, I
score the required 8 points to be classed as a radically altered vehicle. My local DVLA chap is fully aware of what I am doing and is happy that this
is not a kitcar (so no SVA). The sills are Mini as is the bulkhead, steering, front suspension/axles, body shell...... The only possible issue is the
floor, which I can weld a front piece of mini floor in if people need to be really pedantic.
Other examples include the Zcars Mini and Chesil Speedster which full under the same rule - let's face it if the Chesil Speedster doesn't
require SVA......
Secondly, the reason I asked Martin to build me this car was that I loved the Z-cars Mini (and still do) and wanted to buy one. However, I really
wanted double unequal length rear wishbones to allow full adjustability. I learned from my recent Fury build just how important it is to be able to
adjust rear toe-in and camber to get the handling spot on. I'm just a bit like that I guess I think the idea of hand built cars like this
is that you can have them exactly as you want them and I couldn't find anyone who made this off-the-shelf.
In summary, I'm having my first go at building a one-off BEC so no promises on curb weight or how good it will look. They are just my hopes (and
wishes!). We'll give it a go and I'll add some pics as the build progresses.
Regards
Chris
P.S. I really can't praise Martin enough on his contribution to this. It's been said here before, but what a top bloke.
[Edited on 8/11/04 by ChrisBradley04]
[Edited on 8/11/04 by ChrisBradley04]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 01:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisBradley04
However, I really wanted double unequal length rear wishbones to allow full adjustability. I learned from my recent Fury build just how important it
is to be able to adjust rear toe-in and camber to get the handling spot on.
Does the MK rear suspension allow you to do that? I considered it when I was going to use IRS on the back of my locost and I considered that toe
adjustment was crucial. However, I couldn't see how the MK acheived that, only castor adjustment.
Not sure where you get 8 points from either:
quote:
The point system is weighted as follows;
The original or new (direct replacement from the manufacturer) unmodified chassis/monocoque bodyshell has a value of 5
Clearly you do not have an unmodified chassis or monocoque. Chopping the entire floorpan, rear seta and rear bulkhead out of a monocoque is a
substantial alteration.
quote:
the suspension (front and back) 2,
Front suspension only.
quote:
axles (both) 2,
Again, front only.
quote:
transmission 2
No.
quote:
steering assembly 2
I'll grant you those if you are keeping the mini subframe.
quote:
engine 1.
No.
Maybe my maths is a little rusty, but I can't make that add up to 8 points.
[Edited on 9/11/04 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
ChrisBradley04
|
| posted on 9/11/04 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
Rear adjustment to toe-in is by shims between hub and upright. A well treid and tested MK solution that's cheap and outlasts rose joints.
Your concern is the chassis (5 points) and the DVLA are happy with it. Ironically, if I left the rear in and made it look like an ice cream van I
would require an SVA .
I guess if we all made enough fuss about it they would define the rules more clearly, remove the discretion of local DVLA officers and perhaps even
ban them from the roads
|
|
|
andyps
|
| posted on 10/11/04 at 01:18 PM |
|
|
Thanks for explaining how it avoids the SVA Chris - still sounds potentially suspect to me, but then that has to be down to the specific person who
makes the decision, hope you have it in writing from him.
Someone I know is converting a Fiat Coupe to Sierra Cosworth running gear and the changes to the chassis (incresing the height of the transmission
tunnel) meant that he was told he would have to go through SVA and get a Q plate.
Andy
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less
|
|
|
