Dont suppose anyone has any plans for either of the above,or anyone built a chassis based on a caterham,with their own plans
The obvious answer is..... The Book or McSorley plans.
Lots on here using/used both.
As the McSorley link doesn't seem to work I can email you hem if you want.
http://www.mcsorley.net/locost/
seems to still work
I have seen the Mcsorley,but dont want to do it like that.The caterham is longer in the bonnet and the door sides seem shorter,or is it my eyesight
They are about as good as your gonna get for home build plans i think.
Caterham get the solicitors out for anyone using the letter 7, imagine what they'd do if some one was selling their plans! 
[Edited on 28/2/06 by Gav]
It's not your eyesight. The locost is way bigger in the cabin proportionally. In fact, sat back in a thin seat and harnessed in, I can't
even reach a book locost dash!
On my car I continued the tapered engine bay tubes back another 3". Moved the footwell ends scuttle and dash back three inches. This has the
effect of widening the cabin exactly 1" aswell as shortening it 3". And of course my bonnet/engine bay is 3" longer. Hope that makes
sense.
The net result is the same proportions as a Caterham, but bigger overall (a caterham is tiny compared to a book chassis). I also sloped my
'door' tubes down caterham style and my roll bar is canted forwards caterham style too.
Liam
[Edited on 28/2/06 by Liam]
quote:
Originally posted by Gav
http://www.mcsorley.net/locost/
seems to still work
this might help
http://www.georgecushing.net/Lotus7.html
Hey Jon didnt u have some caterham plans a while ago??
If you just want a rough idea without dimensions. Go to Google images and type in Lotus seven.
If you just want a rough idea without dimensions. Go to Google images and type in Lotus seven.
Came across this a while ago to...
Original lotus seven
Liam
Hello all!
I think that George Cushing has about the best you will find. I looked for quite some time.
First post on this list.
Joe Garrison
Just getting my modified book (more 7ish) organized--Finally!
Crescent, Oklahoma USA
Hello and welcome to the madhouse!
quote:
Hey Jon didnt u have some caterham plans a while ago
The drawings shown on Georges Cushings site seem to show the diagonal that supports the rear roll bar/shock mounting point as a curved tube. This
must be one of the more highly stressed tubes (in compression as well!) in the chassis so surely somthing is missing?
Built as shown I'm sure it would fail very quickly.
I agree the straight tube should definately be in there too, as in the Book. In fact it's there in a modern Caterham too - the original lotus
chassis is very underbuilt compared to a modern caterham, but was designed for the low power engines and low grip tyres of the day.
Google image search 'caterham' or 'caterham chassis' etc etc and you'll be able to slowly deduce a modern caterham chassis
from the various photos...
Liam
Here's a good starter...
liam
There is a book on the Lotus Seven in my local library that identifies all the weak areas of the Lotus chassis --- lets put it this way if I were you
wouldn't copy it but adapt a book chassis to look more like the a Lotus Seven S3 chassis. The car in the cutaway drawing I think is a Lotus
Seven S3 or a late S2.
Seven chassis saga goes like this ;
Seven S1 had a Hillman suspenion parts and a steering box, late production models had Triumph front suspension and rack & pinnion steering.
S2 as per Seven S1 except many chassis diagonal members were deleted --- these chassis broke at lot.The engine basy diagonal was reintroduced.
Most S2 chassis have now been modded to S3 standard.
S3 re-introduced the diagonal brace inthe engine bay.
S4 --- bit of side show with completely different chassis.
Early Caterham S3 --- exactly the same as late Lotus S3.
The Caterham chassis as shown in picture posted by Liam is now very different from the Lotus S3 original. It has been sugested some features were
perhaps influenced by the Dax and Westfield chassis designs -- but I am sure Caterham would say they are original.
[Edited on 1/3/06 by britishtrident]
Good afternoon.
And who from manufacturers has taken for a basis of chassis McSorley or use similar?
It is interesting to know about: bookChassis, McSorley7+4 and McSorley7+442.
I cannot be defined with a choice of the circuit of the chassis. On mine +442 looks too bulky. Whether so it actually?
I have the full build plans with my Formula 27.
Not sure just how they would take to me sharing but I would happily discuss by U2U.
To be honest, I wouldn't consider building from them as a tubular chassis will be so much lighter.
The inboard front suspension looks OK though but top arms could have been oval or round rather than square section.