clockwork
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
new MK which kit car mag
I popped into WH Smith this weekend and picked up the September issue of Which kit car magazine for the new MK article.
Has any-one here actually had a go in the new MK?
I don't normally buy which kit as it is somewhat thin, and I have to be honest I didn't really think much of the article. Did any-one
notice the position of the pushrod on the wishbone, or notice the rocker pivot?
Apart from that it looked rather nice. I particlarly liked the fuss free transmission tunnel.
Personally I'll probably still buy the old MK chassis from what I saw in the article.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 01:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork
Did any-one notice the position of the pushrod on the wishbone, or notice the rocker pivot?
What about them gives you concern? I'm seriously considering buying one and really wouldn't know what to look for. I have had a look at
the MNR front end as well, the thing that stood out for me on that was that the pushrod pivot is welded to the underside of the lower wishbone, in my
mind that meant any force from a bump is trying to tear the pivot off the wishbone as opposed to the wishbone pushing up against it. But, I'm no
mechanical engineer, the weld could be more than up to the stresses involved.
I did have a chat with a guy on the MK stand, he said the only problem they'd had with the new car so far was the diff mounting plates
distorting, these have now been considerably beefed up, Other than that the car they've got built has been getting abused quite a bit and
it's been faultless apparently.
[Edited on 18/9/06 by martyn_16v]
|
|
|
garage19
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
Has any one got any picures of this new MK chassis? Is an Indy replacement?
From what you have said, it has inboard shocks??
|
|
|
clockwork
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
Right, let me clarify something; I am not an engineer ;-), I am just trying to get opinions on the new car.
I was surprised that the pivot was on one of the suspension arms, rather than the metal plate in the middle, a more logical position I would have
thought. Then again I don't doubt that MK know what they are doing, it was a s'prise that was all.
Yes garage 19 it does have inboard shocks, it's here http://www.mksportscars.co.uk/newcar.htm
I don't think it is replacing the indy, just another model.
I won't be testing the new one as it's more expensive, though I don't doubt it'll handle better as it will have quite a bit
less unsprung weight.
|
|
|
martyn_16v
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 03:35 PM |
|
|
doesn't suffer from bumpsteer either apparently...
|
|
|
Fred W B
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 06:02 PM |
|
|
What material is the rearmost lower link made from?. I don't like where the rear lower shock mount is.
Cheers
Fred W B
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
The front end looks ok from that pic, although Iagree with Fred's concern about the rear shock. I'd be happier with it closer to the hub
carrier.
Unless the tube is really thick and tuff, in which case it don't matter.
[Edited on 18/9/06 by DIY Si]
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
Agreed its not a great idea to have the suspension load there but worse on my mind is the lack of triangulation of the lower arms - so that they are
not a wishbone - this will surely move under acceration and braking and stress those single sheer connections to the hub carrier in sort order - never
mind the toe changes.
If you couple that load path with the fact that the springing is only on one of the arms then the load paths look even worse - I really cannot see
that bolt on the hub carrier that accepts loading for the Suspension and acceleration and braking torque lasting very long at all.
Am I missing something in the picture?
Is the standard indy lower connection like this?
Andrew
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
Andrew,
the standard indy rear lower bones are like a Z or a N dependant on how you look at them!
Cheers
Mike
|
|
|
Mad Dave
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
Here's a pic of how it should look. Baz said the in the rush to get things ready for the show they just forgot to weld the gusset on. It will
be remade this week
 
Description
|
|
|
chockymonster
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 08:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by martyn_16v
quote:
Originally posted by clockwork
I have had a look at the MNR front end as well, the thing that stood out for me on that was that the pushrod pivot is welded to the underside of the
lower wishbone, in my mind that meant any force from a bump is trying to tear the pivot off the wishbone as opposed to the wishbone pushing up against
it. But, I'm no mechanical engineer, the weld could be more than up to the stresses involved.
I spoke to Chris @ MNR about this.
They've tested the design to destruction and found that the lower arm will bend before the pivot could tear out of the arm.
PLEASE NOTE - Responses on Forum Threads may contain Sarcasm and may not be suitable for the hard of Thinking.
|
|
|
Andy S
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
Phew  - Darn good photo to completely mask the diagonal .....
And good to know that there is additional bracing under the oval section for the shocker mount.
Andrew
quote:
Originally posted by Guinness
Andrew,
the standard indy rear lower bones are like a Z or a N dependant on how you look at them!
Cheers
Mike
|
|
|
PAUL FISHER
|
| posted on 18/9/06 at 11:50 PM |
|
|
I've now tried the car on the road,on the drag strip at York, and now finally the real test,on track at Donnington at the show ,and can report
it has performed outstandingly,in every way,not wanting to criticise the old MK chassis,having owned one now for over 2 years,and driven it on
countless track days in that time,it has never failed to please,but this new chassis just feels right,its very neutral handling,and sure footedness,
allows even us novice drivers to push ourselves to the limit,without the getting out of shape,this car is just so much easier to drive quickly than my
old MK,even after just 2 or 3 laps I felt totaly at ease with the car,the fuel injected R1 pulled like a train,but I am sure a engine with twice its
power would be quiet at home in this chassis,as for the negative's,well nothings perfect,after I had a days drag racing with it at york,the diff
carrier plate had twisted,this was due to C A D design drawing being misinterpreted,this has now been resolved,the new design,cable paddle shift felt
clumbersome to operate,at speed,especialy in mid corner,this caused a bit of unbalance in the car as I tended to pull the steering wheel at the same
time,as changing gear,its not a option I would go for,or recommend,now for the "cockpit" area,ample room for my 6'3" who ate
all the pie's frame,as with the old MK,but there's a cross bar just above my knee's which made it more difficult to get in and out
of than the old MK,this I don't think would be such a problem for anyone under 6',I have been told this can be relocated,without effecting
the cars torsional regidity,the other problem is the under dash hand brake was difficult to reach,again I am told this was a prototype design,and will
be put in the usual position on the production car,so overall I feel "Mad Dave" has done a great job in the design of this chassis,its the
next step in the evolution of the MKINDY,I feel there is still a place in the market for the original MK INDY,which will continue to sell,along side
the evolution,but this chassis will be more suited to the keen track day,or motorsport competitor.
|
|
|
clockwork
|
| posted on 19/9/06 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
I got more from this thread than the article
Do the front wishbones have the same strengthening applied to the lower bracket?
Unfortunately MK is a bit too far away for me to pop around and have a look.
On an aesthetic note, I have to say it looks particularly good in contrasting colours.
Any-one here got one on order?
I'm looking forward to their website update.
[Edited on 19/9/06 by clockwork]
|
|
|
PAUL FISHER
|
| posted on 19/9/06 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
The front wish bones don't have any additional bracing fitted,these are not required,the design engineer, Dave who has spent many hours
developing this chassis with MK,and is a member on this forum,and I am sure he will watching this thread,and will answer anyones concerns regarding
the design of the chassis.
The lime green powered coat was used on the show chassis,to highlight the new design of suspension system,although its not just the suspension that is
different to the original chassis,the whole chassis has been developed,sharing just the overal dimension's with the original chassis,this was in
order that they could share the same bodywork.If you have the powder coating option for the chassis,at £180 and worth every penny in my opinion,you
can choose to have your chassis and wishbones from range of colours at no extra cost. As for orders of the new chassis,MK have been waiting for the
results of the extensive testing of the car over the last 6 months before the car is put into full production,along side the original car,this is now
complete,and production,of the first six recieved orders for the new kits will be starting next week, Phil and Baz at MK are aware they have a busy
time in front of them,already having number of chassis in there order book,and taking another seven orders for the original MK at the show over the
weekend,the future is looking good for MK SPORTSCARS.
[Edited on 19/05/04 by PAUL FISHER]
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 19/9/06 at 12:04 PM |
|
|
--
I have also a mecanical grading,
But in no situation i like that desing..
Dunno the forces but i like more a setup with less forces to twist..
albeit nothing has to break or shear of, we still have wear in the bushes..
that arm is not in balance, and you never will get it in balance when the reaction force is only applied on one leg.
i would mount 2 shocks albeit you increase mass with that..
but the basic question before change is what was wrong with the older design??
i only can think of boot space???
dunno but if they need to beefup that triangulation it will weight more to!
sow more unsprungweight!!
dunno if i see another upper tube behind the rear hub, maybe thats the reason the caliper is facing backwards...
that tube indeed helps to minimialize the bendings because it forces to turn around the bolt instead to twist. The design would be even better if the
chock was also mounted at the extreme (near the bolt)
also i see the rear caliper facing rearwards.. isn't normally the goal to have as much weight between the axles??
(could be because of the tube)
on the front it all looks right albeit a bend tube is weaker... (a nice lasered triangelated plate would makte it allot stiffer for very little money
and ease..)
also wouldn't the chocks get hot or their oil?? when a rad is fitted in the front, that air would heat the chocks up and make them less stiffer
(thinner oil??)
Tks
p.s. MK was my 2nd choice
p.s. 2 you can see they use their bending machine or atleast are planning to use it!
[Edited on 19/9/06 by tks]
Saw 2nd rear tube
[Edited on 19/9/06 by tks]
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
Mad Dave
|
| posted on 19/9/06 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
This is not the ideal and was influenced by many factors, but we were happy that this setup will work after running several tests through Ansys and
again with a fully built car. If I had started with a completely clean sheet of paper instead of being constrained with the current Indy outline
dimensions I would have had more freedom.
quote:
but the basic question before change is what was wrong with the older design??
The standard Indy rear suspension was tested and the results proved there was definitely room for improvement.
[Edited on 19/9/06 by Mad Dave]
|
|
|
tks
|
| posted on 19/9/06 at 10:14 PM |
|
|
Anyway
given your task i think you did a greate job.
And i'm sure that because of that buble in the design it won't rock less.
have to admit that i saw the bended tube on last moment.
Only concerens are the chocks heating up,
i have seen design where they where mounted horizontal!
and instead of 2 chock just the joinment between both triangular blocks..
or are mounted horizontal facing skuttle
this would takeaway heat problems 2..(if they are there).
I think MK does it right to re-use their fiber molds.
They are a pain to get right and haven't much sense in a seven stylish car.
Also i'm almost 100% sure you where given the taks to use the bender, you can just see it in your drawing or in the real life offcourse.
also a bended tube is stiffer then a welded one! atleast if it isn't to much lenghtened by the corner..
Tks
[Edited on 19/9/06 by tks]
The above comments are always meant to be from the above persons perspective.
|
|
|
