environ
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
Front Wheel Drive?
Is is possible to make the locost with a front wheel drive engine say a golf/polo?? Has anyone done this and is it possible or can they only be rear
whell driven.
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 08:55 PM |
|
|
The only problem is the Locost would look silly with a FWD engine upfront. The chassis is also not wide enough. You could put a FWD setup out back,
making it mid-engined, but that ain't exactly easy either.
You pays your money.........
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 08:57 PM |
|
|
the choice is yours M8.........not seen one but there is no reason whatsoever why it can't be done, just be an odd shape at the front.......
Why not mount the FWD engine in the rear, just lock the track rod ends to the chassis with rose joints or bushed tubes, it is much more fun hanging
the rear out than fighting terminal understeer.........everyone as a point of view, but having built several autograss cars mounting FWD engines in
the rear my veiw would be it is actually quite easy.........no trans tunnel, no prop, no bellhousing worries, no clutch probs.....
what is it Nike say....."just do it"
happy building 
|
|
|
interestedparty
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
Jon
Is there any particular engine/gearbox combo that you would reccommend for this? I'm thinking about the gear linkage, on a lot of fwd units it comes
out the back of the box
John
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list-- I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed-- who never would be missed!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
I have heard that using a fwd setup in the rear of a car gives problems with steering geometry. Apparently, the wheel will scribe strange angles as it
moves up and down, with the normally steered hubs tied in a fixed position.
You can probably tell i know jack about it, its just I have heard this more than once on TOL.
However, I recon it could be a good idea. I originally considered using a mini front subframe complete, in the back, and it might work. However, you
then have the gear change and hand brake to work out.
If you take a look at a locost chassis, you will soon see that the front tapers quite narrowly at the front. I cant see how you would fit any kind of
fwd set up in there. Look at a real life chassis and its instantly a no go.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 09:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
I have heard that using a fwd setup in the rear of a car gives problems with steering geometry. Apparently, the wheel will scribe strange angles as it
moves up and down, with the normally steered hubs tied in a fixed position.
I've heard this too. I suppose it's the equivalent of bump steer  with fixed rods. You probably won't have a problem if you mount the tie rods in
the same frame as the lower wishbone (i.e. the wishbone and tie rod scribe the same arc under suspension travel).
Well beyond me though. I'll stick to spannering......
And on the theme of the Mini, well, why not find a rusty mk1 MR2? all problems sorted for you then.
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
here goes, the 1300 cc autograss class was dominated by rear engined "A series" engined cars till the bike came along, mounted both with or without
there subframes, top n btm wishbones are fabricated, bit like the ones on the front of a locost, mounted paralell to stop any movement you remarked on
above, the steering arm is mounted to the chassis with as long a rod as possible, ideal they meet in the middle, usually made adjustable so you can
adjust rear toe (how many cars can do that) been able to adjust rear toe can have a dramatic effect on the handling of the car, induce, reduce
oversteer, straight line stability, traction,
the 2000cc class is still dominated by the 16v Vauxhaul mounted in the rear much the same as above, if i could draw on a pc i would show you the gear
linkage used but i can't, will try n get a sketch scanned n post it, but if you saw my linkage at newark it is along the same lines but simpler, it
is best done using rose joints to cut the slack, but you end up with a very short gear lever aka what you used to see in F1 cars, probably in a locost
i would mount it on the chassis rail by my right knee...
As for a paticular engine, for tunability 16v vauxhaul everytime, plus the fact its a tried n tested route, if you do go Mini, you MUST fit a center
oil pick up pipe, or the bottom end will go on the 1st corner, you have been warned.......there think that covers most of it
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
ah, just thought, next time you get the chance have a look at the rear of a "Formula 1st Race car" you will find FWD engine rear mounted in
there....cant remember if there CVH or 1600 Vauxhaul....
oh and one last point, the susspension travel used on grass is "As much as you can get" i guess i have 3/4" max, so any "bump steer" movements if
present are minute.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 10:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
ah, just thought, next time you get the chance have a look at the rear of a "Formula 1st Race car" you will find FWD engine rear mounted in
there....cant remember if there CVH or 1600 Vauxhaul....
oh and one last point, the susspension travel used on grass is "As much as you can get" i guess i have 3/4" max, so any "bump steer" movements if
present are minute.
I have actually driven a formula first car around silverstone!
Its one of those half day racing experience days.
We were told that the engines were out of 1600 fiestas, so its gotta be the CVH then - or at least the cars at the john watson school at silverstone
have them.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 19/6/02 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
Hi all,
My thoughts for this poser!
How about a normal front engine/rear drive engine/box combo, turn 180 degrees and drive the front diff of a Sierra 4x4. Suggest checking input
rotation of diff or you may have a rear drive car that goes very well - backwards!!!!
Alternatively, put typical FWD engine/box combo in the "boot" and up front have mobile burger bar, bbq or an 80 gallon fuel tank
Just my thoughts
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 20/6/02 at 03:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
How about a normal front engine/rear drive engine/box combo, turn 180 degrees and drive the front diff of a Sierra 4x4.
Eh? Dont quite get what you mean. Sierra 4x4 front diff is pretty much like any other diff. Smaller than most rear diffs, mind you.
Liam
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 20/6/02 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Is is possible to make the locost with a front wheel drive engine say a golf/polo?? Has anyone done this and is it possible or can they only be
rear whell driven.
The wide availibility of FWD cars was my main motivation.
http://www.desicodesign.com/meerkat/
OK, so I used an MR2, but as someone mentioned a lot of the problems (gear change, handbrake etc.) are already sorted.
quote:
How about a normal front engine/rear drive engine/box combo, turn 180 degrees and drive the front diff of a Sierra 4x4. Suggest checking input
rotation of diff or you may have a rear drive car that goes very well - backwards!!!!
Don't you mean turning it 90 degrees and having front and rear driveshafts? If you do, I've seen it done before, and the main problem (if it is a
problem) is you get two lots of final drive reduction and consequently a very low final drive ratio.
If you didn't mean that, then sorry.
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 20/6/02 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have heard that using a fwd setup in the rear of a car gives problems with steering geometry. Apparently, the wheel will scribe strange angles as it
moves up and down, with the normally steered hubs tied in a fixed position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard this too. I suppose it's the equivalent of bump steer with fixed rods. You probably won't have a problem if you mount the tie rods in
the same frame as the lower wishbone (i.e. the wishbone and tie rod scribe the same arc under suspension travel).
It IS bump steer, but just as you do at the front it has be designed out of it. It is no different from any rear suspension design really in terms of
design goals.
If the FWD unit had little bump steer when installed originally then it will be OK to duplicate the rack inner pivot point as an anti-steer link
mounting point. However, it is my understanding that many FWD units did NOT have little bumpsteer for whatever reason and that must be allowed for in
the design.
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 21/6/02 at 08:41 AM |
|
|
Liam / Alan B
It was actually a bit of a wind up.
My opinion is that this type of car should be front engine / rear wheel drive (but that's MY opinion), so thought I'd put in a stoopid idea - ie
front wheel drive using normal front engine/RWD engine. Given the Sierra engine/box combo is getting on for 5 (ish) feet long, you'd have trouble
turning it 90 deg. That's why I suggested turning it 180 deg, to drive the front diff of a 4X4 Sierra.
Like I said, that's my opinion. As for my suggestion, you were supposed to laugh. Didn't work apparently. Oh Well
ATB guys
Simon
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 22/6/02 at 04:20 PM |
|
|
Ooooh, right. It all makes sense now. I thought you were still talking about making it RWD. But a FWD locost - truly AWESOME .
Unfortunately it seems that even though most of us are british, you still occasionally need these things (   ) for people to be able to see
sarcasm in text. Or maybe it's just me...
Liam
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 23/6/02 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
Liam,
If I had figured out how to use those faces you (and others) put on your posting, I would have done. Sorry, I'm a bit stoopid in that respect -
don't even know what they're called (1st forum I've belonged to - and a bit ignorant of such things. Also, bit of a traditionalist too. So you get
things like:-)
As for the rear wheel drive bit - if the diff input shaft rotation was wrong for the g/box output, you would indeed have a rear wheel drive car. It
would also be rear wheel steering, and have brake lights at the front. Reversing lights would be pretty good though. You would also, I suspect, get
the most monumental neckache
Hope that's all clear now, and apologies for any confusion:-)
All the best
Simon
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 24/6/02 at 07:50 AM |
|
|
quote:
If I had figured out how to use those faces you (and others) put on your posting, I would have done. Sorry, I'm a bit stoopid in that respect
- don't even know what they're called.
'emoticons' is the trendy name - 'smileys' to most people!
|
|
|
jbmcsorley
|
| posted on 25/6/02 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
In fact, you're already using the emoticons in the form of ;-) ...
pull of the nose (the dash) and the forum will automatically convert the emoticon to a graphic. For instance, ":)" will be converted to a standard
smile (if I hadn't disabled the feature to demonstrate my point)
;)
-jim m.
|
|
|
