LocostUSA.com

Thanks for the links mr. peabody.d!

I'm on the fence about which way to do my floor...well on a couple fences actually. First of all what are people opinions on welding the floor vs. riveting? I apologize if there is already an in depth topic on this, I have not done a search. My main question is the one below I just thought I'd ask this one while I was at it.

Secondly, I'm trying to decide if my floor is going to be just a basic floor or incorporate the bottom of the side "pods"? The more complicated floor would ensure a smooth underside but I'm not sure if it would be more difficult to attach the side ducts too, not to mention sort of locking in the shape of the duct? Opinions?

wycked, interesting build!
I've been contemplating a trike build as a very economic vehicle to build and drive. I'm thinking a 2 passenger front engined chain drive V-twin. Utilizing the motor out of a suzuki TL-1000R(very cheap performance) in front of a solid? front axle. side by side seating directly behind that with the chain running between them. bike swing arm in the rear. reading the 3-wheeler chassis paper it seems my thinking may be correct on the solid front axle. I place the motor in front of the axle to keep the weight up front and shorten the wheelbase. my only thought on this setup is a rather long chain drive. I've used long chain drives in mini-sprints running much more power than this would have but not quite as long as I expect this to be. minisprint had about 4-5 feet between sprockets where this would probably be more than 6 ft

my inspiration came from something called velomobiles that are becoming increasingly popular in europe. full bodied recumbent bicycle three wheelers. here is one that particularly sparked my imagination! (hmmm bigger, two passengers, motorcycle engine.....)

Interesting, I'd just be worried about the length of chain keeping tension especially driving a swing arm in the back. You could always incorporate a jack-shaft and split the chain into two so that the swing arm travel doesn't affect the tension over the entire length? Otherwise you'll need some sort of serious tensioner. Also would your suspension travel in the front interfere with the chain drive having a solid axle?

length of chain is the big question. I really need some dimensions to get a good idea on how long it would be. on the minisprints chain tension was never a problem and we would have 6-7" of travel. didn't use a tensioner at all. some people did use a tensioner that had nylon roller guides that held spring tension on the upper and lower part of the chain. when you had slack bottom or top (acceleration or deceleration) the spring would take up the slack on the side that wasn't tight.

as far as the axle is concerned, a solid axle does not need to be straight. I can put a dip in it so that it clears the chain.

If I remember correctly, the tl1000, and all the hyper twins get really bad mileage. Something to check on before committing.

_________________
It's my leg, Jack. The string's gone out of my leg.

not to get too far off track on wycked's thread, but that would be a consideration.... thanks for the thought.

Good point! It's just my tendency to play devils advocate.

I have also been considering building a reverse trike bike engined build, slightly different layout but same goals. I have opted for a double a-arm rear suspension for the rear to reduce suspension sag during accel/braking. I have also designed in a jack shaft to reduce the needed chain lengths.

Nice little sketch up.....Looks good!

I would love to see someone try and tackle a VW CX3 trike reproduction.

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.

Nice, I like it. It's like a cross between an At-om and the VW. Have any pictures without the bodywork? I'm curious about your layout.

Just noticed the chain in the drivers compartment.
Are you planing a chain guard?
Any thought about reverse?

_________________
I'll keep an eye out for you!

To err is human...
I am more human than most.

Me too. I'd do it, but there just isn't enough time in the day.

_________________
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

Hey guys, Ive got the main chassis built and the lower front control arms are done as well. My next issue to solve is the anti-dive, Ive tried to reaserch and here is what Ive got so far, the mustang II tubular a-arm conversion calls for 2deg, Im using the stang's spindles but my own double a-arms. The Shrike info says 75%??? of what? should I stick with the 2deg as a start point?
Thanks for your help in advance.
PooK

Anti-dive is a percentage of the ratio between the cg and the ground and where a line intersects a line drawn between the cg and the ground. For example, if the cg is 12" from the ground, and the intersection point is 6" from the ground, then the car would have 50% anti-dive.

This line is drawn in the side view, from the tire contact patch and extending through the intersection of the convergence point of the upper and lower control arm pivot points, unless the arm pivots do not converge.

At 100% anti-dive, the suspension si essentially binding and can't move or absorb road irregularities. 75% seems like an awful lot. It may be desireable due to front springs that may be too soft, a short wheelbase, and a higher cg.

If you have a wrench on a tight horizontal right hand thread fastener, placing the wrench handle 90 degrees to the direction of pull will be more effective than placing the handle at 45 degrees. The nut is the applied brakes. The pull is the weight transfer.

_________________
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

My understanding is that "binding" is too strong a term. With 100% anti-dive, under braking the (anti-dive) force resisting suspension movement is exactly equal to the force due to rotation about the CoG trying to compress the front suspension. Absent any other force there will be zero suspension movement... but if a bump is encountered, that additional force will compress the suspension. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

With the bottom A-arm axis parallel to the ground, 1 to 3 degrees slope (dropping front-to-rear) on the upper arm axis does seem to be typical, from memory. That's not much, dimensionally, maybe a quarter to half inch drop with a typical upper arm. What that gives you, percentage-wise, depends on wheelbase, vertical distance between the axii, distance axii to ground, CoG height, etc.

Generally the more front-heavy the car (and/or higher the CoG), the more anti-dive you need. Good idea to have more anti-dive if travel is limited.

For reference: McLaren F1 road car... Gordon Murray's design targets were 43/57 F/R weight distribution, 40-50% anti-dive, 3.5" bump travel, 3.1" rebound, anti-squat question mark. No jokes, please, about me having a WWGD? (What Would Gordon Do?) bumper sticker on my car.

_________________
http://www.SportsCarDesigner.com .... You want to design your own car... so go ahead. Sports Car Designer is the answer.