LocostBuilders - powered by XMB

Started...

Aloupol - 5/11/04 at 10:07 AM

Got the Catia training last week so my project realy starts now.
The guy on the screenshot: It's me!!!

Rescued attachment Started.gif

scoobyis2cool - 5/11/04 at 10:18 AM

Looking good!

Out of interest, from the driver's-eye-view it looks as if he is positioned off centre, why have you done this? From what I can see it looks like a single seater, so woldn't you be better off in the middle?

Cheers

Pete

stevebubs - 5/11/04 at 01:20 PM

Looking at it, it looks more like a 2 seater, but only has the floor and 1 upper chassis rail modelled.

Be interested to see the final version...

Aloupol - 5/11/04 at 10:26 PM

quote:
Originally posted by stevebubs
Be interested to see the final version...

Me too

Yes it's the early early early start but it's a two seater.
I'd like to make a full body with doors and roof but it will be hard for me to design a pretty outline. Maybe I can find someone to make a clay model, will see.
If not I will make something more simple as in my pics archive. (7 style a bit like the R1ot).
Question: is it important to keep the pedal box in the center line of the seat? Some cars have slanted driver position, as the Alpine A110 but I didn't sit in such a car, I don't know if it's a problem.

Spyderman - 7/11/04 at 03:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Aloupol

Question: is it important to keep the pedal box in the center line of the seat? Some cars have slanted driver position, as the Alpine A110 but I didn't sit in such a car, I don't know if it's a problem.

There are a few cars that have the pedal assembly off-centre to the drivers seat. Although strange at first it is something that you quickly become acustomed to and don't even notice if not too much out.

Altering the angle of the driving seat in order to align them would cause more discomfort in the long run as you would need one arm longer than the other in order to hold the steering wheel evenly.

The seat should always be aligned with the steering wheel if at all posible.

Terry

Aloupol - 14/11/04 at 09:53 PM

Thanks a lot. I will use the reverse approach: place the pedal box where it fits well, and then the seat in its center line. So the driver's seat will be ofset inboardwise and there will be less room for the passenger seat.
Girlfriend 60 kg maximum...

Aloupol - 14/11/04 at 10:31 PM

Here a pic of the front suspension.
Coilover is missing, if anyone has got dimensions of a common unit it will please to me...
Rescued attachment SuspAvt.JPG

Rorty - 15/11/04 at 04:58 AM

Aloupol, what bottom balljoint are you using there? Is it Ford compatible, or will you have to ream the socket to suit?

Aloupol - 15/11/04 at 08:11 PM

It's from a Manta, as the upright.
The problem will be for the upper one, the only compatible unit (cone diameter) is from a Nissan 4x4 and is 40€ worth.
If I want to use a Transit sway bar joint as in the book I have to rework the upright and I don't know how to.
Maybe by making a special grindstone or mill tool?

Rorty - 15/11/04 at 09:07 PM

IINM, Ford and GM use the same 1:8 (= 1.500”/ft = 7.1250°) taper universally, so in theory, that Manta bottom balljoint would fit the Cortina upright as long as the taper length was similar.
Do you have a part # for that Manta balljoint?
Anyone else have experience of GM balljoints?

Rorty - 15/11/04 at 09:28 PM

OK. The part # for the '75-'88 Manta bottom balljoint (same as '77-'81 Ascona) is 352815.
Aloupol, if you ask your Opel dealer for part # 323130 or 322127, I think they might suit the top of your Manta upright.

Aloupol - 15/11/04 at 10:34 PM

Thanks a lot, I will try this.
The diameters are different in top and bottom on my upright, and I think on the Cortina unit they are the same.
I found all the taper diameters in the Sidem documentation on www.sidem.be

Rorty - 15/11/04 at 11:43 PM

I just had a look at the Sidem catalogue and I can't understand the taper dimension. For that Manta bottom balljoint for instance, it states the taper as being 16,20. What the hell does that mean?

Aloupol - 16/11/04 at 12:03 AM

It's the diameter of the narrow side of the cone.
They don't tell about the lenght nor the cone angle (which is probably standard, something about 6,5°).
Oups, this thread should go to the "chassis" topic...

Rorty - 16/11/04 at 12:22 AM

I guessed the first number referred to the small diameter of the taper and the second number referred to the taper length, but without knowing the taper angle, it all means nothing.
Common taper angles used in the automotive industry by some manufacturers:
7.121:1...Dodge (weird)
8:1...Ford and GM
10:1...VW
12:1...VW
I don't know if a "standard" taper has been settled on. It would be much easier for us types and would also explain the figures in that catalogue. I've not heard of a 6.5 automotive taper though.

TheGecko - 16/11/04 at 01:10 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Rorty
I just had a look at the Sidem catalogue and I can't understand the taper dimension. For that Manta bottom balljoint for instance, it states the taper as being 16,20. What the hell does that mean?

Rorty,

The problem is solved when one looks at the .be part of the Sidem web address

The crazy bastards are in Belgium so they insist on using European notation for numbers. 16,20 is what the rest of the world would write as 16.20 i.e. the small end of the taper is 16.2mm. I've been assuming in my perusing of the Sidem catalogue that they're all 'standard' taper too.

Hope this helps,

Dominic
(who is posting this from work because his cable modem was fried by a thunderstorm last week and his stupid ISP won't get the replacement to him until tomorrow

)

Rorty - 16/11/04 at 02:24 AM

quote:
Originally posted by TheGecko
The crazy bastards are in Belgium so they insist on using European notation for numbers. 16,20 is what the rest of the world would write as 16.20 i.e. the small end of the taper is 16.2mm.

Of course it is! I was trying to read far too much into their nomenclature.
Why they print that dimension I just don't know. It can't really help anyone. And there was me thinking it was a really useful catalogue!

Aloupol - 16/11/04 at 07:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by TheGecko

The crazy bastards are in Belgium so they insist on using European notation...

I'm also a Belgian Crazy Bastard (BCB) and we use INTERNATIONAL norms (ISO, International Standards Organization).

For an example we allways express the lenghts in meters, milimeters etc. and not in 1/13 of the king's cock lenght.

I use the Sidem catalogue because i's the only one I found on free download, in addition it gives (a few) dimensions.

Anyone does know another on the web?

Rorty - 16/11/04 at 08:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Aloupol
I'm also a Belgian Crazy Bastard (BCB)

Well taken!

The ISO point symbol is the comma (,) but in practice, it seems to be largely replaced by the period (.)
In most of the engineering software I've seen, the comma is the default point symbol, but admittedly, when possible, I will always replace it with the period. It just looks right.

Cita - 16/11/04 at 09:16 PM

Well said Aloupol
Just blame it on the fact that the Aussie's have to walk upside down all the time.

Cita, another BCB

[Edited on 16/11/04 by Cita]

Aloupol - 16/11/04 at 10:06 PM

TheGecko - 17/11/04 at 12:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by AloupolI'm also a Belgian Crazy Bastard (BCB) and we use INTERNATIONAL norms (ISO, International Standards Organization).

For an example we allways express the lenghts in meters, milimeters etc. and not in 1/13 of the king's cock lenght.

Aloupol,

I did have a smiley

in my original message, as the 'crazy bastard' comment was meant light-heartedly - bastard is almost a term of endearmeant here. In Australia we've been metric since the 1970's however, like most (all?) of the English speaking world, we use "." as a decimal seperator, not "," . I've got used to mentally switching when I see the European usage but it still catches me out sometimes.

quote:
I use the Sidem catalogue because i's the only one I found on free download, in addition it gives (a few) dimensions.

Anyone does know another on the web?

I love the fact that the Sidem catalogue is freely available and wish there was another like it that included Australian vehicles. On the Locost_North_America Yahoo group, someone long ago posted some scanned pages from a Moog ball-joint catalogue (or catalog in their English

) that included all of the dimensions for ball-joints eg taper length and angle as well as the small end size. Those pages seem to have disappeared and I don't think they're on my current PC either. If anyone has them or something similar, I'd love a copy.

Best wishes to our crazy Belgian friends,

Dominic
Brisbane, Australia

Rorty - 17/11/04 at 01:48 AM

I have some catalogues in a box either at home, at the factory, or back in the UK, and I would really like to get my hands on them. However, that's another story.
Here are a few links to manufacturer's sites. The information is sketchy at best though:
Quinto Hazell
TRW

Unfortunately, Moog aren't as helpful as they used to be. For some elusive reason, the manufacturers keep the balljoint dimensions very close to their chests and are bunhelpful.
Over the years, I've contacted various sales departments requesting info and have been either ignored or shunned.
Joao on this forum has an industry insider connection. I wonder if he can be persuaded to divulge the data for us?