442E nose solutions?

[JackMcCornack]

Lots of questions of late about noses 4" wider than 'book' and I have a couple of solutions in mind.

First option: I could make a 442E nose pattern; take a couple of TTL noses and cut them each offset 2" from the middle, bond them back together, do the requisite body finishing work and make a 442E nose mold from it. If I were to do that much work, I'd probably make them an inch taller too, as well as 4" wider.

Second option: take a couple of TTL noses and cut them each offset 2" from the middle,and use them for patterns for two new half-nose molds, a la the Superscuttle (if you're not familiar with that concept, the Superscuttle is a scuttle in two halves, and depending on where you trim the halves before joining them, you can make a scuttle as wide as 48" or as narrow as 42". Photos are at http://kineticvehicles.com/superscuttle.html ).

The merits of the first option are 1) it would bolt right on a 442E, and 2) no, I can't think of any other benefit, but that would be a big one.
Demerits of the first option are 1) it would cost more than a TTL by about 30 bucks (about $220 instead of $189), and 2) it would cost more to ship--dimensional weight for a 28 x 24 x 21 box is roughly 22% greater than a 24 x 24 x 20 box.

Merits of the second option are 1) it would be less expensive than either nose to ship, because the halves could be nested together (as I do currently with the steamroller fenders), 2) it would be easy to adapt to other chassis from 'book' width to 4" wider, and 3) it wouldn't be terribly involving to tool for it, so the price would only be about $10 more than a TTL nose.

Your comments will guide if (and if so, then in which way) I pursue this.

Normally I'd do my market survey in the <Supppliers> forum, but since there's no 442E nose available from other sources, I see this as a builder issue more than a supplier issue.

I'm adding a poll to this. I welcome all suggestions from all comers, and if somebody else is offering or intends to offer a 442E nose, this is a good thread to mention that, but unless you want to trick me for some reason, please don't respond to the poll if you're not building a 442E.

[ngpmike]

Jack,

In truth, I would buy whichever option became available, but I voted for the "Supernose" partly because I like the name, but primarily because I like the Flexibility of design as well as the ease of shipping. It always seemed to me to be counter the whole "Locost" philosophy to have to pay through the "Supernose" (sorry!) to ship our light weight parts just because they're a little bulky. Whichever way you decide to go, I'm sure it will be good!

[RoyzMG]

Jack-
I've got to go along with Mike. The ease and price of shipping plus the flexibility of modification makes the "supernose" more desireable. I think this offsets the need to glass the two halves together.

Keep us posted.
Roy

[JackMcCornack]

Interesting comments, thanks.

I went ahead and executed a [Fatherless Rat] vote 'cause you can't look at the results unless you vote. Anyone who is curious should do the same, I won't take it personally--as long as you don't mess up the genuine 442E builders' votes, I'm happy.

I feel UPS is taking advantage of those of us who need to ship light and large things. At the beginning of the year, they raised their rates per pound, plus raised their dimensional weights so the same size box now equals more pounds. Grr. I'm confident the savings in freight price with a two piece part will more than pay for a quart of fiberglass resin at your local big box building business.

So what do y'all think about making this nose an inch taller than the TTL?

[98 gt]

i dont see a need to make it taller, its the same height as the 442... no need to make it even bigger unless someone is using an unusually tall engine.

[BrianG701]

Jack, I'm in the process of making plugs for a 442-E nose mold right now, and I was thinking about offering them for sale on the forums after I get the mold done (and the one that is already spoken for is done of course). I was thinking about offering a variety of lay-ups and materials to suit the wants of the builder and I too was thinking of the cut it in half to ship, but only for fiberglass ones not carbon or carbon/kevlar if that is what they want. Perhaps I may just give you a ring tomorrow

Brian

[seattletom]

Jack,

I voted for "either" but my preference is for the two piece "supernose" version.

If an option for untrimed sides plus more extensive material coverage on the sides (cheeks?) were available, then one could fit the nose to different front frame configurations, tilt the nose to accomodate more height. raise/lower the nose relative to the top frame rail as desired and/or shift the nose fore/aft if required. This should take very little extra fiberglass material, minimum mold changes, no additional shipping space and would add significantly to the custom fitting options for the nose.

Of course, you could always mark the standard trim lines so the builder would have reference lines for determining his best fit.

[JackMcCornack]

Cool, BrianG701, put up some pics or something. I'd like to have an answer besides "I dunno anybody who makes a 442E nose, I wish I did." I'm not shy about recommending other sources, particularly when it saves me work.

I note there are two votes from 442E builders who <Know of another source for a 442E nose> and if they'd post the info here it would help their colleagues.

[krepus]

When I first read the poll, I was thinking more along the lines of a slightly taller catfish nose...

[goin2slow]

When I first read the poll, I was thinking more along the lines of a slightly taller catfish nose...

that's exactly what I was thinking of having to do

[krepus]

What engine are you planning to use? I'm using the lotus 907 two liter motor, that lays over to the side kind, of forcing the 442 frame, but not necessitating the ttl's height...

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I see this is your first post...

[reddeth]

Jack: Personally, I have no problem welding a frame together for building a car from scratch, but fiberglass still scares me

I voted for making a 442e nose, yes it will cost more to ship but for me it's worth the extra cost; fiberglass is the one thing I want to avoid (for a few reasons).

[BrianG701]

Here are some pics of my nose plug thus far, I am now about to start sculpting the very front of the nose. I plan on having a functional mold before Easter and I will start taking orders when the mold is complete. For price its simply dependent on what you want as far as material, resin, layup method (wet, dry, vacuum bagged, vac. infusion, etc.) and of course shipping.

[goin2slow]

What engine are you planning to use? I'm using the lotus 907 two liter motor, that lays over to the side kind, of forcing the 442 frame, but not necessitating the ttl's height...

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I see this is your first post...

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I'm using a GM 60 deg. V6 but I wanted the wider chassis. This made me think of getting the catfish nose and increasing the height

[JackMcCornack]

My rule of thumb for putting a new Locost part into production is it needs to be likely that I'll break even on the part within three years. Kinetic has sold 66 noses in the last three years--roughly 22 a year--the biggest seller is the TTL nose (47, and including the one I put on my own car, that's 16 a year), plus a dozen Haynes Roadster (6 a year; we've only offered them for two years) and 7 Catfish. So that info is enough for an educated guess, I guess, and I'd not have thought the 442E would have more than the minimum level of interest, but gosh, according to the poll, we have 13 folks who are building 442Es and need noses. I had no idea there were that many 442E builds in the works.

And BTW, by counting KV's nose sales, and guessing that 2/3 of US Locost builders end up buying a nose from Kinetic, my horseback estimate is that 30 or 35 Locost projects a year get to the bodywork stage.