carcentric
|
| posted on 29/4/05 at 11:49 PM |
|
|
Locost AWD trike - new idea?
First impressions?
Anticipated technical challenges?
Obviously, this is just a conceptual sketch, not a measured plan.
The donor vehicle would be a Subaru BRAT (aka Brumby), The 1980 model I have has a lever to select FWD or 4WD (in this case 3WD).
State law defines a motorcycle as having a handlebar, so it's in the plan (at least until it passes an inspection to be registered as a
motorcycle).
[Edited on 29/4/05 by carcentric]
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 03:08 AM |
|
|
I think the prop shaft would be the biggest headache, though it would leave the weirdest looking burnies on the road!
I can't begin to think what the handling would be like. I'll need to sleep on that one.
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
niceperson709
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 04:54 AM |
|
|
It looks Ok but I would think that the added coplication of trying to drive the rear wheel would not be worth the agrivation of making it work . use a
FWD gear box or better yet an auto trans ( no tricky remote shift to make ) In another place I read that the advantage of FWD in a 2F 1 R trike is
that if you happen to get one wheel at the front air borne the differential effect will automaticlly lower the drive to the wheel that is still on
the ground and there is less chance of loosing it absolutely . It seems to me that what you are proposing is very much like a Messensmitt Kabin roller
on sterroids and as such a fair bit of length could be saved by having a narror seat for the plot and the passengers legs going either side of the
pilot .
Could be a very fast device and a lot of fun but my only concern would be the efffort required to use handlebars for steering , particularly if there
is not room for them to be very wide unless you can provide some power assistance .
Best wishes
Iain  
Best wishes IAIN
life is not the rehearsal , it's the show so don't sit there thinking about it DO IT NOW
http://iainseven.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
feckn7
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 06:39 AM |
|
|
Why not try something like this...
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~aedennis/Forester/ATV.htm
Mental!
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 07:29 AM |
|
|
My one comment from looking at the diagram is how heavy is the rear diff (I presume taken from the subaru). There could be a lot of unsprung weight at
the rear unless the diff is chassis mounted, with a chain etc. from it to the wheel.
[Edited on 30/4/05 by clbarclay]
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 09:04 AM |
|
|
Why not run the drive shaft straight down the middle of tyhe car. Mountthe diff under/behind the rear seat and have a chain from the diff output to
the rear wheel. No need for the CV joints, and the diff is now a sprung weight.
Driver and pasanger legs would go either side of the transmission tunnel.
[Edited on 30/4/05 by clbarclay]
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 03:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by feckn7
Why not try something like this...
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~aedennis/Forester/ATV.htm
Mental!
That is the danglies, I want one!
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 03:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by feckn7
Why not try something like this...
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~aedennis/Forester/ATV.htm
Mental!
That is the danglies, I want one!
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
Thread originator's responses so far
"Why not run the drive shaft straight down the middle of tyhe car?"
1) So the seats can be lower (beside the shaft rather than on top of it).
2) For the rear wheel to be centered, the diff (if one's used) must be offset - unless chains are used, and I'm trying to avoid that.
"how heavy is the rear diff (I presume taken from the subaru). There could be a lot of unsprung weight at the rear unless the diff is chassis
mounted . . ."
1) I don't know the weight, but yes, it would be from the Subaru.
2) I was thinking the diff would be mounted to the chassis, and a trailing arm setup would locate the rear wheel. Rear axle would need to be
shortened or rear wheel would stick out too far to the right. There wouldn't be much suspension travel at the rear with a short rear axle, but
with such a light vehicle used on pavement, not much travel should be needed.
"I would think that the added coplication of trying to drive the rear wheel would not be worth the agrivation . . ."
1) I realize a FWD (only) design would be much simpler to build, but I'm drawn to the idea of having (perhaps) the only AWD (or 3WD) trike in
the world.
2) I'm retired, so complication is a spice and aggravation is proof I'm still alive.
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
Browser
|
| posted on 30/4/05 at 10:37 PM |
|
|
Kinda off and on like one 'o these but with AWD.
|
|
|
carcentric
|
| posted on 1/5/05 at 05:05 AM |
|
|
Yes - the Kindred Spirit looks like a two seater (tandem)!
Now, if the Renault 5 was available here, I'd be printing out that assembly manual . . . .
M D "Doc" Nugent
http://www.carcentric.com
|
|
|
