Hello,
Being new to kit cars i decided to go to Stafford and was wondering why two cars on show looked so much alike.
one in question the MK Indy i have heard of as they advertise in magazines the other the Type lr i hadn't.
So many parts looked th same dos anyon know if they are th same car?

Type lr is a mac#1 thingy?

didn't mac#1 used to build/sell MK's then set up on their own using similar designs?

Type lr? is that from MAC 1?

A few kits have taken styling cues from MK, some might have used their panels as a mould (who knows).

The MAC 1s are very similar to the MK. But if you are looking for a MK lookalike you might as well buy an MK as they are the original and as Martin designed it he knows how and why it works, not just that it does like the others.
(i think i heard MK say that at a show once)

O dear i take it then that the type lr is a copy of the MK Indy rather than a new design?

and it's amazing how many have built them with back to front and upside down wishbones

Sorry bloke, but i had to laugh when i read your post. Surely all sevenesque cars are a loose copy of something which dates from the fifties. To say MK's are in some way original is stretching the imagination a bit, to be more accurate the MK is a Caterham lookalike, with running gear more in common with a Westfield.
Nothing against MK's BTW, they are a fine car, as are many of the other Seven clones out there.
Al.



i]Originally postedi]Originally posted by greggors84
Type lr? is that from MAC 1?

A few kits have taken styling cues from MK,

The MAC 1s are very similar to the MK. But if you are looking for a MK lookalike you might as well buy an MK as they are the original

Silly question:
When asked what was used for the floor i was told alumiunium chequer plate does this seem right?

I take it then that the use of chequer plate for the floor is not the right solution?

I have briefly read Ron Champion's book but found no sign of using it so had to ask.

Makes me wonder what else is not right!

Chequer plate?

Thats really poor. Its massively heavy.

I've heard nothing but negative response about Mac, very unhelpful etc.. Everyone has only good things to say about MK, even though they aren't particularly accomodating with customer emails and visits, but thats a reflection of how busy they are.

I know they are all based on Luts 7's etc, but such blatant copying is just so not on. I heard a story that they took an MK to a guy to make jigs from so he could copy the chassis totally. Any fool can do that, it takes a little more intelligence to design something yourself even if you take the concept from other people.

oh my word what have i started.

Actually the curves are the worst part of the MK. Anyone studying engineering knows that you don't feed loads into curved members.

MK do it for production reasons not for structural reasons.

Colin Chapman was a genius and a real engineer. How many curved members were in the original 7?

but having some idea.

i'd say the curved bits on an indy make little difference strength/stiffness wise and improve how it looks, but i'm waiting to be told otherwise.

also, there's a few things i'd do differently if i was me, but that's unimportant

I didn't realise the footwell curve on the MK Indy was under load?

Having said that - I guess all members are under "some" load. However, I doubt this area is critical load bearer...

On modern cars - isn't the crumple zone made from a series of curves, giving sequential/predictive crumpling?

wadders

if you have seen the mac 1, you will know what i mean, and there has been discussions on this forum about copies of MKs. I know all sevens are replicas of the lotus 7 (except maybe the caterham), but if you are going to buy a certain 7 for the way it looks, and people do, (if i had enough money to afford a westie, i would go for something else, as i dont like the look of them), they might as well buy the original (in this case the MK).

Some people say that the spd was a mk copy (so ive heard) and look what happened there!



[Edited on 14/3/04 by greggors84]

Don't get me wrong i totally appluad Martin for the MK and its success. The curved tubes make it faster for them to make etc.. All tubes in a space frame are loaded thats how they work, and for "ultimate" structural integrity you shouldn't curve them. Thats not saying its not a solution that is acceptable enough.

The MK was the most different of the 7's from the book, and it came first. So the likes of Mac flatter it by copying it, and thats praise for Martin.

If you are an engineer with any skill or experience though there are plenty of things to do to make your 7 stand out from the crowd.

This looks to have been a bit heated!!!!!!

Bending tubes is best avoided as is the use of chequer plate unless of course it's a staircase being made!

it'd be interesting to see analysis of the MK indy, the gts whatsitcalled, the book chassis and the orignal seven.

i'm not sh!t stiring or trying to start arguments about which is better.

but it'd be nice to see which came out on top

Indeed it would be nice to know which product came out on top after testing, but i noticed that the front man of GTS is an F1 engineer and we all know how techy those people are.
One wouldn't hesitate to suggest that this has already taken place as far as the GTS Locost is concerned.

I realise that we don't criticise MK in this forum (tantamount to sacrilege ), but it the curvature in the wishbones that have always bothered me.

I can see that they’re made that way because it’s easier and no, I don’t know what loads they really take in the horizontal plane, but it’s clearly not as structurally efficient.

If we’re being really pedantic, and I can be really pedantic, it requires more material to make an arc than to run to straight pieces that join at the apex. More material=more weight.

Cheers,

Neil.

If any one wants to lend me one of each of the competitors, and an airfield for the day, i will gladly tell you which one (i think) is better!!



p.s. had better chuck in a caterham r500 and some busa engined thing, just so i know how they compare!!

[Edited on 14/3/04 by greggors84]

the chequer plate floor mentioned above was in one of mac1's cars, which as said above is a copy of the mk indy.

i always prefer stright tubes and triangles to curves, though the mk indy is a very good kit, design, originality (in the 7-esque sector) and price. i had an arguement with someone a while back about this!

Ned.

No chance....toblerone's in the desert were built by little green blokes.

The Egyptians built them as monuments to their great leaders using Nubian slave labourers in their millions. I have seen actual film footage of this on T.V. so it must be true. The Aztecs were in league with aliens though, that's where they got all their strange ideas from.

[Edited on 20/3/04 by Peteff]

I live next door to an alien so know for a fact they are real.......strange shiny glow from the top of his head and who knows what language he speaks......who else would polish a wheelie bin!

polish a wheelie-bin?

roflmao

"polish a wheelie bin"

is this some sort of east european custom I dont know about?

sparkypups,

no, that would be "polish in a wheelie bin"

Lazy git doesn't work so i presume polishing a wheelie bin is the highlight of his week........unless it's some wierd signalling thing i can't figure out as we get strange lights and odd noises of an evening!

Maybe it's not a wheelie bin. It could be his transport back to the mothership, a bit like the tardis in Dr Who. You could be abducted if you're not careful and have to endure all kinds of strange experiments. I hear they are very fond of anal probes at the moment.

Might be the latest offering from Robin Hood.

He has put kiddies windmills in his garden....reckons they are there to scare moles!....likely story..

I now own one of MAC1's original MK Indy's they built. Whats wrong with the chequer board floor? Look at the background to this forum. I've used other Westies before and I can tell you, the chequer floor is a god send in the wet weather. You don't slip nearly half as much with wet feet on them than bare alley. Was it my imagination or did someone say something about they add weight to the car?

I'm not saying my car or the MAC1 is perfect I'm no engineer, buy surely all of you can see everything can be improved. Each person has their own ideas and some ideas work better than others.

There are things I would like changing and think that these changes would be better, maybe just for me, maybe for everyone else, some are a mater of opinion some a fact.

Who can put their hand up and honestly say thet the MK or a MAC1 is perfect? If so bring them both to me and in a few minutes I will show you faults on both.

The lads at MAC1 have to be praised, they have actually got off their backsides and done something about a car and built it to how they like it. And talking business they have gone about it in the best way. If they weren't doing a good job they wouldn't still be in business would they?

And I'm sure someone said something about the service was very poor from MAC1. Do a search on all articles including MAC1 and read them, you will be shocked. Yes I know I'm all for MAC1, but that is because I have one of their cars and I'm extremely impressed with it. Its taken me a year to find a kit that I wanted and this is it. Unfortunately I don't have much experience with an "original" MK so I can't get into a big arguement with anyone (unfortunately).

When it comes down to it, I've got a big smile on my face when I'm driving it, some rain or shine, no roof, no windscreen, putting the smile on your face and the adrenelin rush is what its all about isn't it?

See you all Monday at Stoneleigh, come try out my chequer plates, especially if its raining!

http://www.chipie.net/mavis