DeanD3W

Hi Bruce, Thank you for asking. Yes dean@d3w-engineering.com will work fine. Dean

Thank you in advance for the update you're working on. Dean

Yes, Dave is right. Smaller master cylinder piston will give higher pressure. I edited my mistake in my post above. Oops.

My half-built WCM Ultralite has a Wilwood .625" diameter clutch master cylinder. Maybe not so useful to know what my car has, since my car is not yet functional so I don't yet know how stiff the pedal will be, but I hope good for a data point at least. Does your car use a stock clutch, or something stiffer? Maybe your car needs different master cylinder to work well with a stiffer clutch? To gain the same line pressure, a master cylinder with a smaller (edited to correct my earlier mistake - thinking before typing would have been a good thing ) diameter piston will reduce pedal force and it will also move more fluid for a given amount of pedal travel. Shortening the upper leg of the pedal to change the leverage ratio would also reduce pedal force, but it will also reduce the amount of fluid moved for a given amount of pedal travel. I hope someone who has sorted their system, and who happens to have a pressure plate with stiffness similar to yours, replies with specific specs that work for them. Dean

I think that's a Diva Roadster. Their web site isn't up anymore, but I found this http://www.mrkitcar.com/mrkitcar/Car.aspx?CarID=41 Dean

You now have the best looking Stalker rear end on Earth, as far as I know anyway. Has anyone else made a similar modification? Dean

Hi Bruce - You already sent me version 3.2. I should have been more clear with my thank you here. Dean

Thank you to Bruce. I had an old copy and the new information is appreciated. Dean

With the wording about replicas being "intended to resemble" I think any of the 7 type cars could be considered a replica. Post litigation Westfields differ from Caterhams sufficiently to avoid further litigation. I think this puts Westfields, Stalkers and Ultralites and all the others in the same category. I think all will remain as kits though if this bill keeps the wording about licensing agreements with the original manufacturer or their successors. Maybe the bill enables Caterham to sell turnkey cars. Doesn't Birkin claim rights to the series 3 design? Maybe they could sell turnkey cars also, once someone starts selling 4 cylinder e-rod type of engine packages. Maybe you're right about the Cobra replica crowd. I think Carroll Shelby lost every lawsuit he brought against the replica manufacturers, so maybe it could be said that the original manufacturers rights were not enforceable. Would Ford sign a licensing agreement with a turnkey GT40 manufacturer? I wish the bill didn't include a requirement that the cars be replicas. If that requirement were dropped then Ariel Atom, Factory Five 818 and GTM, the Zenos, and others could all be sold as turnkey cars here. Does anybody know why the replica requirement was included? Dean

I found what may be the wording of the bill that passed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2675/text As long as an engine from a brand new car, with all of its emissions equipment, or more likely an emissions compliant engine package like what is currently only offered as GM LS V8 e-rod packages, then the bill may have some positive effect. The zinger I see in the bill is "is manufactured under a license for the product configuration, trade dress, trademark or patent for the motor vehicle that is intended to be replicated from the original manufacturer, its successors or assignees, or current owner of such rights, unless there is a preponderance of evidence that such rights have been abandoned for at least three years." Does anyone know of a replica from a small manufacturer that has a license agreement with the original manufacturer its successors or assignees??? I don't think there are any. Does Factory Five need to obtain a license agreement with Shelby American in order to produce turnkey cars? Does any sevenesque car manufacturer that would like to produce turnkey cars need the same from Caterham and possibly also Birkin? I hope that provision was dropped in the bill's final wording, otherwise I see virtually no benefit. I couldn't find any confirmed final wording. I wish the articles written the past few days included more detail and a link to the final wording. Dean

I'm still thinking just a bit of extra seat foam of the right type and a crushable plate(s) under the seating location, under the floorpan, is best. As Kitcat pointed out, building much compliance into the seat mounting would lead to harness tension being released mid-wreck which doesn't seem good. Dean

A very good point. To do this right, there would be just enough "normal" foam to provide comfort, then layer(s) of other foam that would be stiff enough that it compresses only for a large enough impact to cause injury. The amount of compression sounds like possibly a delicate compromise. In an accident that violent too much compression of the foam would loosen the harness belts too much. Not enough compression of the foam wouldn't be effective in absorbing enough energy to prevent injury. Belt tensioners and other thoughts violate "KISS". I wonder if a crushable sheet metal structure, maybe including some stiff foam or honeycomb material in a pair of "plates" on the bottom of the car would be a better approach than only making changes to the seat itself. Crush zones on all other sides (and even the top, when it comes to Outlaw Sprint Car wings) are normal. Why not add maybe 1.5" to the bottom of the car, adding vertical drop protection, and also adding oil pan clearance for the typical 7-type car? Maybe two 18" X 18" X about 1.5" crush structures under the floorpan with side skirts/bellypan added to integrate them into the design of the car? A higher CG is unfortunate, but I'd be willing to give up some performance in order to address this apparent hole in safety practices. The performance hit would be very small and the addition to safety could be a very big deal. Any solution will have associated design compromises. Dean

Around 3:35 in this video is interesting... No mention or appearance of any padding of the sort that we're talking about. Not pleasant to think of much of a vertical impact with what is seen here. I agree that nothing will will be perfect or foolproof. An inch or better yet two for thickness of the Confor foam sounds like a very good idea to me. Dean

Hi Shane, I posted a thank you and wished you a speedy recovery on the thread in the locost racing portion of the locostusa site. Thank you again for providing all the help and information for others on both sites. Unless seat mounting brackets are designed properly to deform vertically in a big impact, I wonder whether our cars might be better off without separate seats. It may be a better approach to reinforce the seat back and seat bottom areas with sheet metal attached on the front and back of the seat back structure and top and bottom of the seat bottom/floor structure, possibly with foam or end-grain balsa type material between the layers (to add stiffness and strength to the structure), then use all the vertical and horizontal space possible for a well designed one-piece foam pad and upholstery. This approach will also avoid "big bird syndrome" (heads too high for windshields or roll bars) and misaligned lap belt holes that might occur when adding Confor foam or other materials within a separate seat. An angled seat bottom panel panel attached to the floor may be helpful too, so stopping forward motion in a frontal impact wouldn't be all from the harness straps. A small contribution from compressing foam may help spread loads with the harness in a frontal impact. Either way the pad should be angled up under the person's legs to provide more surface area for absorbing vertical impacts, I believe. Maybe others have experience with this approach in formula cars that will tell me that this isn't the best approach?? If I take this approach with the partially built Ultralite S2K that will be in my garage in a few weeks I may also add welded headrest loops into the seatback structure, so the one-piece upholstered pad could extend up to provide a built-in headrest area. Each loop would be welded on just inboard of the shoulder harness mounts for each side. Part of the attachment of the one-piece seat pad could be to slide the top of the headrest portion over the top of the welded on loops. I did some searching on "optimal seat back angle for racing" and didn't find much useful information. I think foot room constraints in most 7s will make the built in angle of the seat back bulkhead the "good enough" angle to use. Since I appreciate the the help that both sites provide I'll post this on locostusa as well. Dean

Thank you Blindcars for the kind words. I'll do my best to finish the good work you started. Two years ago I moved from the Portland Oregon area to Austin TX. Now I've realized that the real reason I landed here must be that it is right in the middle, between Blindcars location and Loren/WCM's home in San Angelo. I do have plans for the car that I'm looking forward to getting started on. I have a business to run and 5 kids, ages 7-16 that I find myself solely responsible for, at least through the rest of 2015 (long story, including a recently ended 18 year marriage). I've also been waiting 20 years to get into a car like this. My last build like this was the 1995 FSAE car at Oregon State U. I'm in the middle of getting my house on the market and moving, so it will be a few months before I post some progress reports. As soon as there's anything worthwhile to report I'll start a thread in the Member Rides section. If it turns out that I'm slow around an autocross course, then I have 5 new drivers growing up in my household who will likely have better reflexes. I'll focus on making the car the best compromise I can manage between being streetable and also competitive in D-Modified autocross. Track days would be interesting too. I see the compromise considerations as a design challenge. Dean

All good points Randy... I hope you will join the email list at yahoo. The "No added aero devices" desire will likely be the most difficult thing to sort out. There are some who don't want to make their cars ugly and less street worthy with added aero devices, but once a kit car or homebuilt builds in excellent aero then what do you do... One thing to do that is proposed is to then have a vote, with a majority rules outcome that may disallow a particular car... Glen mentions this is his post on the Yahoo site. Dean

I'm not too hot on Yahoo groups myself, but it is really just an email based system. I rarely log in to the DMOD-EMOD group site, since the emails provide most of the info. Your list is a good one, but so far there is a strong desire to mandate two (adult size) person seating that is fully side-by-side, so the BAC Mono would have to go to A Mod instead. Also a strong desire to have no aero devices, so for instance, an Ariel Atom that comes with wings would need to remove them for the event. Now if someone decides to produce a super downforce kit car that could be an issue... You should hear Glen Minehart's "Democracy in Modified" thoughts... They're on the site in the list of messages if you would like to join. Dean

A new Yahoo group has been formed to discuss the development of an alternative class to SCCA D Mod or E Mod... If you're interested in a class that doesn't allow any aero additions and requires two side-by-side adult size seats, and which may even allow bike engine cars then please join the group. The discussion so far is that all cars must have current registration and insurance (be truly streetable). Nothing is decided yet, including the name of the class. A class that is for street cars that don't fit well into any SCCA class is the thought... Including Ariel Atoms, various kit cars, Midlana, any one-off car, and of course any 7 that isn't already optimized for D or E Mod. Please go to this site to join the discussion. Here are the details on SLModified: Group home page: https://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLModified Dean

Michael - It sounds like you may not have found http://www.locostusa.com/forums/ yet... You will find a lot of good information there. To echo 11Budlite, an aluminum frame would take a lot of very good engineering, to avoid problems with aluminum's finite fatigue life in any application. I think you will decide that a Jaguar rear suspension is not the best choice also, if you want camber curve and roll center height design flexibility. An aluminum frame is possible and the Jag rear suspension might work OK, but I think a steel frame and maybe a Ford 8.8 dfferential out of a Thunderbird, Explorer, or better yet a Lincoln MK VII might be a better choice. Brunton's M-spec uses a CTS differential, I believe... Maybe that's better for an all-Cadillac drivetrain. Since you're a big guy and considering a CTS-V drivetrain, it seems like a Brunton Stalker might be worth considering, unless you really like the idea of building and making your own suspension design choices. At 6' 8" I suppose you would need to sit in one first. Maybe a taller roll bar or cage for a "Big and Tall" version would be in order..? You should also take a look at this alternative frame design http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=13810 and look for SeattleTom's build of this design (also on the locostusa forum at http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14613 ). Dean

I'm sure you considered this, but I wonder if it may be easier, or at least possibly better overall, to modify the frame and sheet metal as needed to clear the transmission. If you decide to consider tunnel mods and you don't have the Aisin 5 speed on-hand then I can take pictures and send dimensions if that would be helpful. Dean

Daniel, The car looks great. Which Ecotec do you intend to use? Do you already have it on hand? I have a 3000 mile 2.4L (LE5) Solstice engine, transmission, drive shaft, differential and axles. It seems that you need only the engine and transmission? I do have a use for the Solstice drivetrain, but if I stick with my current plan it's the 4th in line for projects, with the other three likely to consume at least the next 5 years... Maybe I should sell the parts now rather than work around them for all that time..? Dean

Dashing through the streets...

Oh - and I also think someone should build a trike with a 1F2R layout and call it the VickyVerka.

Before we make conclusions about which design compromise is better than the other, I'd be curious to hear what others think of the Trivette and Vigillante, from a stability and performance point of view (appearance and marketing aside). http://www.vigillante.com/vigillante1.htm http://www.thetrivette.com I think 2F1R is more popular and has some advantages, but I also think 1F2R has some advantages. 1F2R will be stable in straight line braking. We're used to vehicles that would like to swap ends under braking since more braking (the resolved overall force) comes from the front, with the CG aft of that resolved point. With a 1F2R design the CG might still be aft of the resolved overall braking force, but not by near as much. With some focus upon braking while in a straight line, the 1F2R layout might be OK. The Deltawing comes to mind too... It's essentially a 1F2R layout. I believe it was made four wheels only to meet sanctioning body requirements. http://www.deltawingracing.com/ Dean

I've visited the dealer in Seattle (and originator of the design from which the Morgan 3-wheeler is based)... I thought the base price was more like $47,000 or $48,000. Considering that this is for a complete turn-key toy that is very nicely built, the price seems not too terribly high..? Dean