TheGecko
|
| posted on 21/8/03 at 04:51 AM |
|
|
A slight change of direction
As I've mentioned in passing in a few recent messages to this board, I've pretty much abandoned plans of building my original full body
design (shown in my current avatar).
I've come up with a lightly modified version of the 'Locost' (generic clubman) shape which I hope to be able to build much more
quickly than the other design. In fact, as it currently stands, the only parts of the car that really have to be custom fibreglass are the nose cone
and the rear arches. Everything else is aluminium panels or standard parts (like the cycle guards).
I've been working on a 1:10 styling model which isn't finished but, since I displayed an image of it on another list in response to a
related question, I thought I'd put it up here for comment as well.
So, comments (good and bad  ) invited. One important note: the model as it currently stands is about 15% too long in the cockpit opening portion.
I will eventually cut, shorten, and rejoin the model but for now this will have to do.
Dominic
|
|
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
 posted on 21/8/03 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
Doesn't look like there is much round at the back for the engine. The nose is quite long, do you plan on mouting all the cooling up front and
giving your self some space for luggage?
Other than that I like your thinking.
Just my tuppence worth,
Ian
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 21/8/03 at 10:17 AM |
|
|
Ian,
Thanks for your comments. In terms of space for an engine, the transverse Corolla 20-valve engine/gearbox I'm using is very compact. Installed
size, from axle line to in front of engine components (exhaust in this case) is 500mm/20". The angle of the photo makes it look like less but
there's 600mm from axle line to back edge of the cockpit sides although it should be more like 650 or 675.
The reason that measurement's a bit out and the answer to your second concern is as stated in my original message - the cockpit area is about
15% too long in the model. Most of that is at the front (the dash should be closer to the driver) and the rest at the back (the engine bay shoul be a
little, but only a little, larger).
That said, yes I am going to have a front radiator and battery and spare wheel if I can wedge it in amongst the suspension There won't be
any real luggage room in the front - this thing is very similar dimensions to a Locost with the seating positions moved forward about 500mm. A quick
glance at 'The Book' will show that 500mm forward of the Locost footwell position (Tube C) is only 300mm short of FU1 and all of the front
suspension area. Once I put a battery and some radiator venting in there there'll be no luggage room left There may be some (a little)
space behind the engine since the whole powerplant sits in front of the axle line and my bodywork stops 400mm/15" behind that.
I'll post an updated photo once I've made some updates to the model.
Dominic
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
| posted on 21/8/03 at 11:21 AM |
|
|
That helps me get a better picture of what your are aiming to acheive.
You make it sound a bit too simple though!
Have you seen the Sylva Mojo? A very similar idea....
http://www.sylva.co.uk/index.shtml
Cheers,
Ian
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 21/8/03 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
You make it sound a bit too simple though!
It doesn't need to be any harder than a Locost and could be simpler since the engine/transmission/diff/axles are all one compact assembly.
String the hubs together witha deDion tube and use pretty much the same suspension layout as a Locost too.
quote:
Have you seen the Sylva Mojo? A very similar idea....
The Mojo is good and the styling, although much improved in the second version, doesn't appeal too much. The chassis would probably be too weak
for Australian registration requirements as well.
Certainly an inspiration but not something I'm trying to duplicate.
Thanks again,
Dominic
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 21/8/03 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
Dominic,
I really like the direction you have taken. I think that it looks very similar to the Carcraft Cyclone (UK kit). Not a bad shape at all. You will
certainly be driving it before I am driving mine!
How much wider and longer than a locost 7 will this car be?
Steve
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 12:38 AM |
|
|
quote:
I think that it looks very similar to the Carcraft Cyclone (UK kit).
Steve, the Cyclone is probably my primary styling inspiration at
this point although it has fibreglass for all of its body panels which I certainly won't.
quote:
You will certainly be driving it before I am driving mine!
Faster completion is the main reason for the re-think 
quote:
How much wider and longer than a locost 7 will this car be?
It's about the same length or a little longer than a standard Locost
(WB is 2350mm/94" with scope to be slightly shorter), about 100mm/4" wider (driven by the fact that the Corolla donor has a track of
1440mm/57.6" ) and obviously somewhat higher behind the seats - the top of the engine cover area is roughly 800mm/32" from ground level.
Overall, it should be similar in size and proportions to many of the +4 type Locosts being built.
Thanks for your comments and interest - how is progress on yours?
Dominic
P.S. I've sliced and diced the model somewhat (oh, the ease of working at 1:10 in balsa and MDF) and taken the erroneous extra length out
(100mm/4" at full scale). Once the filler has dried and I've given it a quick clean up, I'll post a fresh image tonight. If I get
a chance, I'll have the beginnings of the rollbar done too which will give a better idea of the overall height.
[Edited on 22/8/2003 by TheGecko]
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 01:08 AM |
|
|
Dominic,
I can really associate with this thread...been there done that etc. as we have discussed in the past.
I think what you suggest is more in the 7 spirit and was indeed my intention...trouble was coming up wth a shape that didn't make the rear too
big.
However it does seem you have done that and kept it all in good proportion...nice job mate.
Keep it up and Steve will be right...on the road before you know it..
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 02:40 AM |
|
|
Dominic, that's more like it! That's exactly the sort of build I was advocating in another thread (I know Alan and others have thought
along the same lines). I think it's the future of Locosts; using modern, FWD powertrains.
Have you given any thoughts to front uprights etc yet?
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 03:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
I think it's the future of Locosts; using modern, FWD powertrains.
Rorty, I couldn't agree more. The increasing difficulty
of finding engines and drivetrains suitable for front-engine, RWD clubmans makes this sort of car the obvious future path. I may be a little biased
though
quote:
Have you given any thoughts to front uprights etc yet?
Front uprights will be Gemini or Chevette for our trans-atlantic friends. I
have bought a set, including rack, column and new balljoints (bottom ones are some sort of bolt-on Ford one to replace the press in original), which
will be here next week. These are 4x100 PCD, same as FWD Corolla (and many other small FWD's), they're relatively light (I've been
quoted ~12kg including caliper), and are still pretty commonly available. I've also looked into modifying a FWD upright by turning off most of
the outer CV housing leaving a short live stub axle. This is a similar approach to what's on the front of the Mk1 MR2. A simple adapter to put
a top balljoint on the strut mount and done. The ~1996 Corolla uprights I have seem fairly heavy - I haven't investigated earlier ones yet to
see how much lighter they are, although they look it.
Thanks for the support,
Dominic
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 01:46 PM |
|
|
As promised (threatened? ) here is an updated image as well as the chopped model when I took out the erroneous 100mm from the middle.
Dominic
|
|
|
ijohnston99
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
Looks more in proportion now
What you waiting for!!! Get building 
Ian
(Who still hasn't got his finger out)
|
|
|
sgraber
|
| posted on 22/8/03 at 03:43 PM |
|
|
I think that is going to be a VERY NICE looking car! I need to see a rear 3/4 view to get a better feel for the rear bulk, but if you can keep the
rear looking like that in proportion to the front, then it'll be fine. It is suprising how short the rear is.
Now like Ian said - Get building! We want instant gratification~!
Steve Graber
http://www.grabercars.com/
"Quickness through lightness"
|
|
|
cymtriks
|
| posted on 24/8/03 at 08:10 AM |
|
|
chassis for middy
I have been meaning to post this for a while but haven't had time. This is my design for a mid engined seven chassis. Stiffness about double the
book chassis. The red beams are 2x4 14g section wich makes the engine bay wide and stiff with easy access. Most space frame chassis have rather floppy
engine bays. The two arches at the scuttle are my attempt to make the dash ect structural. The blue bits are a wishbone arrangement and the vertical
grey part is supposed to represent a spring. Hope you find this interesting.
 
Rescued attachment middychassis.JPG
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 26/8/03 at 01:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
I need to see a rear 3/4 view to get a better feel for the rear bulk, but if you can keep the rear looking like that in proportion to the
front, then it'll be fine. It is suprising how short the rear is.
Here's a shot of the tail. The model is slightly changed from the one in the above shots - it's had a coat of primer and the upper tail
panel is a little steeper. I want to have a go at some more height minimisation techniques (lines, vents, grilles etc) on hat upper panel but
it's not too bad right now. The horizontal seam line is 500mm off the ground and the top edge is only 850mm making the upper panel
350mm/14" high. It's 1250mm across the seam and 1050mm across the top so the panel's wider than it looks. Once I've finished
the left wheel arch (not visible in this shot) I'll put a proper gloss colour coat on which should help too.
Dominic
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 27/8/03 at 01:58 AM |
|
|
Dominic,
I think your proportions are very good. My only suggestion would be to round the rear deck edges to repeat the theme at the front end of the car.
Pardon my artwork
Maybe one other suggestion would be to get some trick taillights, like triangles or vertical rectangles, Altezzas perhaps. Too early for trim
details, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Thanks for posting! I'm enjoying watching your progress.
Pete
 
Rescued attachment Gecko2_03.jpg
|
|
|
TheGecko
|
| posted on 27/8/03 at 05:04 AM |
|
|
quote:
I think your proportions are very good.
Thanks Pete - I try to eat well, exercise a little.... Ohhh, you meant the car! Well, thanks
for that too.
quote:
My only suggestion would be to round the rear deck edges to repeat the theme at the front end of the car. Pardon my artwork
The
problem with rounding off the rear in too many directions is that it's meant to be built by the same sort of wrapped aluminium methods as the
book Locost tail panel. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just harder
quote:
Maybe one other suggestion would be to get some trick taillights, like triangles or vertical rectangles, Altezzas perhaps. Too early for trim
details, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I've looked at a variety of lights and I keep coming back to the simple,
Ferrari-esque, circular ones. They're cheap and in keeping with the relatively simple look of the tail end. Time will tell. There's
certainly plenty of scope for other lights.
quote:
Thanks for posting! I'm enjoying watching your progress.
Thanks in return for your comments. I've made plenty of progress in the past because of comments and suggestions from others.
Dominic
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 27/8/03 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
Dominic,
Is there any way you could alter the rake of the rear deck?
Make it slope down at the front to bring it inline with front bodywork!
This would make it look like it is part of the same structure. It could then be radiused midway to horizontal or even downward sloping at rear.
Just a thought!
I much prefer the newer more simplyfied look!
Terry
Spyderman
|
|
|
pbura
|
| posted on 27/8/03 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
The problem with rounding off the rear in too many directions is that it's meant to be built by the same sort of wrapped aluminium
methods as the book Locost tail panel. That doesn't mean it's impossible, just harder
Very true. I was thinking that you'd have to make a GRP lid to accomplish this, but that you may have been planning one anyway, for vents.
When I made the remark about the lights, I was thinking about a builder who used wraparound lights from a Toyota truck or SUV, and thought something
like that would look good on your car. Fuggeddit.
Pete
[Edited on 27/8/03 by pbura]
|
|
|
