LocostUSA.com

Longstone is listing 165/15 and 185/15 as the proper fitment for an 11 (no listing for a Lola unfortunately) -- presumably these are modern wider equivalents to the original fitment, which I imagine would have been tall skinny bias-ply tires originally.

http://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/page/lotusTyres

The 195/50/15 or 205/50/15 tires I was considering seem to be not too outrageously wide and roughly an inch smaller in diameter.

What size are you currently running Jack? Are you having serious interference issues?

Cheers, Ted

I'll check in the daylight. It's been some years since I mounted them...I demounted them to paint the wheels, then remounted them...they were the ones on the Corrode Warrior,so probably whatever size came on 1982 Corolla station wagons. I know the wheels are 13". The smallest low rolling resistance tires available are 14", SkinnyG helped me out there by rescuing a set of 14" period-correct alloys from the foundry.

But I have no interference issues at all. I took the springs off the front shocks, checked the full range of steering with the suspension on the bump stops, and placed the fenders accordingly. However the rear fenders are pretty close, plus they don't really look right when they're lower than the fronts, so since they're crushed anyway I'm thinking of a full tilt do-over

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

There are cheap "skinny" tires available in 15" sizes, try talking with some VW Bug guys. I bought a set of 145R15's for the Eleven from Coker Tire, but after placing the order i found a supplier of the same size (albeit Nankangs) locally and quite a bit cheaper. But, i know that skinny 14's are getting harder to source in the narrow sections, at least at a decent price. We're currently only stocking 175 and 185 14's for MGB's as the 165 Michelins and other brand names are way too expensive.



Ted, Longstone lists a 145 for the front and a 165 for the rear on the Elevens. You can't fit anything wider than the 145 at the front unless you modify the bodywork. But you are correct on the bias ply comment. The S2 Eleven used a "wide" tire, a 5.50 15 on the rear.

Looks like my reading comprehension has failed me yet again

My car is going to be a more or less Haynes-based (with widened footwells) [Fatherless Child], about 6-8" wider than a proper 11. I'll carve open the wheel openings and expand the inner wheelwells to suit the 195/50/15ish (possibly 205 at a stretch) tires I think suit my drivetrain (SVT Zetec, T5, Sierra running gear). I'll need to add an ugly bonnet bulge as well.

I think Jack mentioned the narrow tires based on the old 11 LeMans cutaways I posted earlier. The tight "enveloping" wheelarches, that look fantastic, don't allow for much in the way of modern tires. But, when you turn a heretic like me loose with a sawzall...

I'll be cribbing heavily from your build log when it comes time to fit up the sheet aluminum paneling. Your build thread is my inspiration for going full-bodied with my project, I'm not much of a traditionalist but your build is probably the nicest car I've ever seen assembled online, absolutely stunning work.

Got 11 minutes and 46 seconds to waste? This'll crack you up.

John Rockhold, an editor at Mother Earth News, videoed the why-MAX-didn't-make-it-to-the-MEN-Fair part of my talk and posted it on YouTube. "You're four wheelin' now, man," to quote a spectator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5ADEa_d ... _embedded#!


PS--thanks Ted (stammer, blush) and yeah, the sheet metal wrap worked quite well.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

Very entertaining! Now you get the joy of making it even better. Small aero changes are so much more noticeable with low power. Maybe raise the rear deck enough for a mini-spare, jack, turtle deck and a 406 elt?

I carry tire plugs, needle nose pliers, and a cheap compressor. It saved me many times. Sometimes, I don't even need to remove the wheel to plug and fill.

Craig Vetter sent me an email last week about an mpg competition he had recently with a few friends.
http://www.craigvetter.com/
I see he is talking about his blog on MEN. Small world!

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

I am tempted to pursue that joy, however first I'm going to ask if this body as shown is of sufficient interest that I should make the Lola-like rear fenders again and make molds for them. Curtis has front fender molds, I have a hood mold (I'd make another one to cover Miata and similar sized powerplants), I'm planning to make patterns and molds for a smoother and more attractive front-of-the-pontoon part (to tie/blend the front fenders to the pontoons), I already have fuel cap covers made, and once rear fenders are added to the mix, everything else can be sheet aluminum in simple curves. So, figure $2000 for all the fiberglass bits and laser cut bulkheads for the pontoons...are there any takers? I figure I'll need to sell three sets to break even on the mold and fabrication costs, and that's my outside costs; I won't cover the cost of my own labor until...oh mercy, our minimum wage is $8+ an hour, I'd have to sell an awful lot of these, it's a good thing I enjoy this work.

Are there three people who would want this body for their Locosts? If not, I think I'll start with a clean slate from the shoulders back. As I'm sure Miatav8 knows, a small aero change like raising the rear deck is a major undertaking, to raise the deck I have to make different fenders from scratch, I can't just raise the deck by itself. If I go that route, then when it's done, it's not going to look at all like a Lola.

Here's the last known photo of the car before I smashed up the stern. That's me leaving the shop, headed east.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

I'm not sure if has been discussed before, but if this is to look like a T70, the rear was much higher.

http://www.pozziracing.com/vintage_can_am.htm

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

I think it's actually supposed to be more similar to the Lola MK1, which was a contemporary of the 11 and also a front engined 4 banger.

Cheers, Ted

Hey Jack

In looking at the original Lola in profile, I realize I've been looking at things incorrectly, raising the rear fenders isn't necessary at all, the original had fenders even with the fronts (perhaps a hair higher) but the beltline tapers down from the cowl and is a few inches lower than Max's. Also the pontoons had a more pronounced curve -- which both improve the proportions and give that pleasing "coke bottle" shape.

A low cowl would require a more pronounced "hump" to tuck a modern powerplant below, but that's the choice I would make.

I'm definitely interested in building a Lalo-like car and will either buy the panels from you or seek your advice if you choose not to market them.

Cheers, Ted

Maybe, Jack. I wonder if you could share some dimensions of the front end. My car is completed an running well. There is a strong argument to just leave it as it is, but then, that has not been my style.

My engine mounts pretty high in the car. Your TTL Scuttle and Nose cone just fit, although the nose was raised about an inch. This allows the hood to clear the engine. I still needed a bulge in the nose to clear the radiator. My concern is that the low sweeping profile of the Lola hood would be lost with a huge bulge to clear everything. How does the height of the Lola hood compare with the TTL scuttle? How much more space do you expect with the hood (bonnet) for the Miata-esque engines?

My frame is basically 'by the Book', but the wheel track is a couple of inches wider. How wide is the hood assembly, and is there any "adjustment" by trimming (or not) the hood?

Third, will there be any information on how to hold this assemblage of parts onto the frame? At least a couple of photos showing what you ended up using?

I realize that these questions pertain to my car, but I suspect that the answer will be of general interest to those who have a completed car, or one pretty far along, to get some idea of the amount of work involved in the modification.

Thanks for the interesting thread

Some random answers, in no particular order...

Yep, it's the Mk1. The T70 is cool, and aerodynamically superior, but the engine is in the wrong end.

ted, thanks for the excellent pix.

> ...raising the rear fenders isn't necessary at all...

I agree. They're up higher than they were on the Lola already. Street suspension travel and bigger tires dictate higher fenders, but the biggest motivator is...
> ...the original had fenders even with the fronts (perhaps a hair higher)...
...and it looks awful if the fronts are much higher than the rears. The front fenders have to be considerably higher at the wheels than they were on the Lola because of street suspension travel, bigger tires, and street-appropriate steering lock--I achieved that by angling the fenders forward and reshaping them so they went back to level where they met the cowl, which for street purposes (and autocross as well) needed to be higher so it didn't look too goofy with the driver seated more upright than in a Mk1 (or any other Lola road racer) which is also how it has to be to fit a standard sized driver in a "book" (or McSorley, or Gibbs) chassis, plus to keep the top of the engine lower than the scuttle, which is essential to avoid the Big Daddy Roth Rat Fink look (a fine look for some cars, but not for this one).

> ...but the beltline tapers down from the cowl and is a few inches lower than Max's.

Right. I can change that with the doors. The current shape was to minimize drag and maximize mileage. And btw, if I had it to do over again I wouldn't bother with doors, regardless of shape.

> Also the pontoons had a more pronounced curve -- which both improve the proportions and give that pleasing "coke bottle" shape.

True. Again, it was a drag issue. The flatter sides improved airflow around the rear fenders (I presumed; admittedly I haven't tested it but that's the current theory) and let me put the exhaust system inside the left pontoon instead of hanging out in the breeze.

More later. It's time to do some shipping. I'll check back in this eve.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

More inspiration, Elva MK1







Built for Elva by Ashley Laminates:



Which split and spawned Falcon Shells who sold the body as the Falcon MK2:



Also, FWIW, the Lola rear fenders:





Look a little "chubbier", is this what you're thinking of for the Mkii fenders?

Cheers, Ted

Let's see where was I...

Oh yeah. More about the lack of Lola looking pontoons and such:

One significant benefit of the shallow curve of the Lalo's pontoon sides (36" radius if i recall correctly; the Lola Mk1 is probably closer to 9" radius) is the ample luggage compartment in the right side pontoon. Also, I have a bulkhead in the front portion of the pontoon, to seal the front portion from the cockpit, and the space forward of that bulkhead is (no, it's not a coincidence) just the size of a JAZ 10 gallon flat track fuel cell (or what they call a fuel cell in the JAZ catalog--anybody else would call it a rotational molded fuel tank). Which means I could replace the behind-the-axle tank with a side tank and have a real trunk back there, or use both tanks and have a car I could drive from Oregon to New York, with one fuel stop in Nebraska.

Re the Kamm rear end, there are a number of reasons. First, the Lola stern is too steeply tapered, I believe chopping it off square where I did reduces both drag and lift. Second, it gives me a convenient flat surface that's just the size and height (again, not a coincidence) to fit a license plate and tail lights. Third, it allows fine tuning both drag and lift with a simple spoiler (I'm thinking a 3/32" 6061-T6 plate with a top lip bent back about 30 degrees, with six 2-3/16" and four 1/4" holes so it could be held to the stern by the license plate bolts and taillight gaskets); fourth, it is wonderfully simple and cheap to make, and fifth, the section between the fenders is the only part that needs to be modified to fit any width chassis you like; it's a sheet of aluminum with six taillight holes, a fuel filler hole, and two sharp bends--the upper and lower surfaces just wrap gently over the fender mounts and the whole panel can be cut to any desired width.

I think I'll make the license-plate-height Kamm tail kind of a trademark of my current and upcoming front/mid body designs--it's distinctive, it's relatively easy to do, it's a good compromise between short-enough-to-be-practical and long-enough-to-be-streamlined, and it's legal (and a fully tapered tail with a clear window for viewing the license plate is not).

As far as how to modify the nose to clear a Miata engine (or similar modern powerplant) I personally feel the Elva hood solution is the worst of both worlds. I'll try to create a crude sketch of what I'm thinking as a solution, but it needs to solve a number of problems--or more accurately, meet a number of conditions: It should be Locost-level cheap and simple, it should fit a wide variety of chassis (cheaply and simply), it should accept a wide variety of powerplants (cheaply and simply) and not just by being big enough to fit anything, it should fit snugly enough to emphasize the small size of small powerplants (as my current nose does for the Kubota)...in other words, to be worth making a body as a generic Locost accessory/option, it not only needs to be cheap and simple, it needs to be cheap and simple to modify.

And it goes without saying [but I'm throwing in an edit and saying it anyway] it needs to be effective: it must provide significant drag reduction without a significant lift penalty, it must be light enough that the afore-mentioned drag reduction outweighs (in a manner of speaking) the weight gain, and it must increase rather than decrease comfort and practicality as a street vehicle. There are a few more things I'm shooting for, but they're kind of trivial in comparison to the above.

_________________
Locost builder and adventurer, and founder (but no longer owner) of Kinetic Vehicles

Hey Jack

I've been spitballing the amenities as well, I was going to make the entire bottom of the passenger pontoon a TIGed ali external saddle tank to gain some trunk space, and offset some driver weight.

I hear what you're saying about a Kamm tail being far easier to construct out of sheet aluminum, and eliminating the head fairing.

Just spitballing, do you think fenders similar to these:



with returns or rivet flanges along the red lines would be feasible?

Cheers, Ted