Is there anything inherently wrong with this? I dont want opinions on this vs de dion! Also would standard locost bodywork go round the back? And would there be room for a sizeable fuel tank? Any one here actually done it? Jon

Might help if you specified which one! There are three McSorley drawings AFAIK, the corrected book design, a +4" design, and a +4" design which tapers to a standard sized front (the "442".

Jon,
Is there a McSorley IRS? I haven't been on the site recently and too lazy to look now!

Cheers,
James

I can't see one, just the corrected book, +4 and +442.

No IRS. I've heard that otherwise the plans are pretty spot on.

Plenty of room for fuel in any seven design that I've seen. My problem with it is the safety compromise when you've got a fuel cell scant inches (cms for you euros ), away from where a rear impact will nail you.

I'm considering the Donkevoort fuel tank design for that reason (dual tanks right behind your bum)

From what i have just looked at they are very similar to the design on the george crushing website. But i did find some Mc Sorley designs for IRS. Will have to find em.....

jon, the standart locost bodywork won't fit the +4 (4 inches wider) or the 442 (4 inches wider, 4 inches longer and 2 inches taller) for obvious reasons but i know that GTS do bodywork for the +4 as well as someone else, i think maybe MK?

i know that rorty's dedion design plans are designed to fit straight into the book chassis. i'm guessing that means the corrected book dimensions (i.e mcsorley plans) right???

quote:

---

Originally posted by daffy
i know that rorty's dedion design plans are designed to fit straight into the book chassis. i'm guessing that means the corrected book dimensions (i.e mcsorley plans) right???

---

great. thanks for that james.