LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently September 23, 2019, 2:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 9, 2019, 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 4, 2019, 7:18 am
Posts: 2
Pros/Cons of the 442E frame (with 1.25" tubes) vs the Car 9


I am planning to build a Ford V8 powered Locost 7 with these major componets:
* early 90 something Ford V8 with a Tremec T5, running with a Demon 750cc street carb
* early/mid 90 something Ford Explorer axle - disk brakes and limited slip
Intended purpose is spirited street car, not track car.



I like the simplicity of the 442E and I like that the Car 9 frame can evolve as/if my purpose with the car does.

_________________
Me? I'm just and Engineer with too many tools wanting to fulfill a boyhood dream of building a car.

Project Brutum Fulman coming January 2020


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 9, 2019, 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 29, 2006, 9:10 pm
Posts: 2997
Location: Oregon, usually
Welcome aboard, sounds like a plan, and I've approved your post so everybody can chime in with their answers/opinions. All I can offer re your question is, if you use a 442E chassis, I know where you can get body parts.

(Thadub)

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and owner/operator of http://www.kineticvehicles.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 10, 2019, 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 23, 2010, 2:40 am
Posts: 1110
Brutum Fulmen wrote:
I like the simplicity of the 442E and I like that the Car 9 frame can evolve as/if my purpose with the car does.
Brutum, welcome to the Forum.

I took a hard look at both chassis types. Either can do the job in round or square tubing. I chose the Car9 approach for two primary reasons:

It's clean sheet re-engineering of the Seven chassis concept, with significantly improved structural strength to accommodate V8 power.
Suspension mounting points can be fine tuned if changes needed in the future.

I’m sure Marcus (Horizonjob) can provide more specifics, but those were the major factors that drove my decision.

I also like the aesthetics that are evolving out of my build, but that is a more subjective matter.

Keep us posted on your decision process and progress. Where are you located?

_________________
Cheers, Tom

My Car9 build: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14613
"It's the construction of the car-the sheer lunacy and joy of making diverse parts come together and work as one-that counts."

Ultima Spyder, Northstar 4.0, Porsche G50/52


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 11, 2019, 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3010
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
In my mind, it mostly comes down to whether you want a car that has a more traditional '7 replica' look and feel or a more modern '7 inspired' look and feel. Do you want it to be a pair of pants that you put on, or a tub that you sit in?

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 11, 2019, 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 23, 2010, 2:40 am
Posts: 1110
Driven5 wrote:
In my mind, it mostly comes down to whether you want a car that has a more traditional '7 replica' look and feel or a more modern '7 inspired' look and feel. Do you want it to be a pair of pants that you put on, or a tub that you sit in?
Interesting analogy, Justin. :lol: Both chassis types can yield a riff on the classic roadster. The primary visual difference is one has cutaway cockpit sides, the other does not.

The higher and continuous upper rail precludes this cutaway in the Car9 design. This results in a significantly more rigid chassis structure and improved occupant protection. Yes, the Car9 cockpit “feel” is a bit more “Formula Ford” like, reflecting Marcus’s experience.

There may also be some ease of ingress/egress difference as well, but that is more likely due to Car9’s forward roll hoop braces which also add to chassis rigidity. The braces are an option that could be added at a later time.

The swing-up doors in my Ultima Spyder provide a kind of cutaway cockpit for entry. I don’t think they make it particularly easy to get in/out. Let’s face it, all these cars are low to the ground and require some slithering to settle into the cockpit. It’s not like scrambling into a WWII Jeep.

Also with these cars so low, I don’t feel the aesthetics of a cutaway/no-cutaway cockpit makes much difference in achieving a classic roadster look. It’s all kind of happening at knee height.

In my Car9 build, I'm changing a couple of exterior design elements, but those are "builders choice." (Long scuttle, no hood, front side panel crease, free-standing rear fenders, etc.) I could have gone with a more traditional exterior on the Car9 chassis, but I gotta be me. 8)


Attachments:
P7224946-1.jpg
P7224946-1.jpg [ 69.41 KiB | Viewed 309 times ]

_________________
Cheers, Tom

My Car9 build: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14613
"It's the construction of the car-the sheer lunacy and joy of making diverse parts come together and work as one-that counts."

Ultima Spyder, Northstar 4.0, Porsche G50/52
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 11, 2019, 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 17, 2008, 9:11 am
Posts: 5138
Location: West Chicago,IL
It may not be the choice you want, but the one that can get you on the road. Some states have easy routes to get a homebuilt on the road if it looks like a car from post 1947 (I think that is the year) and at least 25 years old. i.e. a Lotus Seven. If you don't look like one that, then the requirements are much tougher. It comes down to, can you get confirmation from your sate that a car9 looks close enough to a Seven to qualify.

_________________
Chuck.

“Any suspension will work if you don’t let it.” - Colin Chapman

Visit my ongoing MGB Rustoration log: over HERE


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 12, 2019, 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: September 4, 2019, 7:18 am
Posts: 2
seattletom wrote:

The higher and continuous upper rail precludes this cutaway in the Car9 design. This results in a significantly more rigid chassis structure and improved occupant protection. Yes, the Car9 cockpit “feel” is a bit more “Formula Ford” like, reflecting Marcus’s experience.

There may also be some ease of ingress/egress difference as well, but that is more likely due to Car9’s forward roll hoop braces which also add to chassis rigidity.

Also with these cars so low, I don’t feel the aesthetics of a cutaway/no-cutaway cockpit makes much difference in achieving a classic roadster look. It’s all kind of happening at knee height.

In my Car9 build, I'm changing a couple of exterior design elements, but those are "builders choice." (Long scuttle, no hood, front side panel crease, free-standing rear fenders, etc.) I could have gone with a more traditional exterior on the Car9 chassis, but I gotta be me. 8)


Tom I’ve read through your build with interest - actually, your build lead me to the Car9! I’m not terribly worried about how much it looks like a 7 and like the look you have so far.

rx7locost wrote:
It may not be the choice you want, but the one that can get you on the road. Some states have easy routes to get a homebuilt on the road if it looks like a car from post 1947 (I think that is the year) and at least 25 years old. i.e. a Lotus Seven. If you don't look like one that, then the requirements are much tougher. It comes down to, can you get confirmation from your sate that a car9 looks close enough to a Seven to qualify.


I didn’t even think about this as an issue. I will check with Louisiana DMV/ State Police.

_________________
Me? I'm just and Engineer with too many tools wanting to fulfill a boyhood dream of building a car.

Project Brutum Fulman coming January 2020


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 12, 2019, 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 23, 2010, 2:40 am
Posts: 1110
Brutum Fulmen wrote:
rx7locost wrote:
It may not be the choice you want, but the one that can get you on the road. Some states have easy routes to get a homebuilt on the road if it looks like a car from post 1947 (I think that is the year) and at least 25 years old. i.e. a Lotus Seven. If you don't look like one that, then the requirements are much tougher. It comes down to, can you get confirmation from your sate that a car9 looks close enough to a Seven to qualify.


I didn’t even think about this as an issue. I will check with Louisiana DMV/ State Police.
Brutum, you can probably find the info you need online. Search under "vehicle registration" on your state's DMV web site. Hopefully Louisiana has adopted SEMA's proposed legislation or something similar. SEMA's draft provides some useful categories and latitude for builders.

If you check with the State Police, you may get their, uh, interpretation of the law.

_________________
Cheers, Tom

My Car9 build: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14613
"It's the construction of the car-the sheer lunacy and joy of making diverse parts come together and work as one-that counts."

Ultima Spyder, Northstar 4.0, Porsche G50/52


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 13, 2019, 10:16 am 
Offline
The voice of reason
User avatar

Joined: January 10, 2008, 4:47 pm
Posts: 7628
Location: Massachusetts
Welcome Brutum, I'm sorry to be a bit slow here. Thanks for your interest.

There are a few things to talk about here but I think the first is to mention using independent rear suspension. This can be a big deal for a street car in terms of ride comfort. I know we had at least one person who converted their Locost because they lived in an area with rough pavement. It made a huge difference for them. An axle for an Explorer is a big weight to move compared to the weight of our cars and so it does wag the dog a good bit over bumps. If you got a 7.5" axle from an 80's Mustang that would be better, but still too heavy. I understand these are simple choices up front though. Oh, you do want disks though.

The sides are higher on a Car9, I'm not really a visual artist type so I hope it works out. It gives you a continuous upper frame rail from the front to the rear facing hoop around the trunk. The roll bar and it's bracing is worked into the frame so it is very well supported, it is not so clear what holds up the rear braces on a Locost style car.

So good luck and come back with lots more questions so we can start asking for pictures!

_________________
Marcus Barrow - Car9 an open design community supported sports car for home builders!
SketchUp collection for LocostUSA: "Dream it, Build it, Drive it!"
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 442E vs Car9 frame
PostPosted: September 13, 2019, 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 17, 2008, 9:11 am
Posts: 5138
Location: West Chicago,IL
seattletom wrote:
you can probably find the info you need online. Search under "vehicle registration" on your state's DMV web site. Hopefully Louisiana has adopted SEMA's proposed legislation or something similar. SEMA's draft provides some useful categories and latitude for builders.

If you check with the State Police, you may get their, uh, interpretation of the law.


Sema laws and registration by state can be found at SEMASAN.com. They are a good starting resource. I prefer to wade thru the actual state statutes to get the actual law wording. I am a stickler ab out that. Somebody else's interpretation of those words can be slightly slanted against your favor. I had an issue with registering my car. they originally wanted me to go thru the bonded title route. I had read the statues and politely asked what exactly I was bonding. I had legal receipts showing the VIn numbers from my donor. Nothing else of mine was there for someone else to claim rights to. They did finally agree to go forward with registration having to get a bond title. That saved me several months, a couple of hundred dollars and I got an original, clear title. Knowing the law as it is written is a good thing.

_________________
Chuck.

“Any suspension will work if you don’t let it.” - Colin Chapman

Visit my ongoing MGB Rustoration log: over HERE


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY