PDA

View Full Version : Thanks everyone!



edmorton
03-05-2016, 06:17 PM
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who visited the Pie Valley stand in Hall 2. It was quite a daunting experience, but some friendly faces and positive comments helped a great deal. Quite a few visitors had noticed the resurgence of VW based kitcars and buggies in recent years, so onwards and upwards.

And special thanks to Jim for the coffee!

All the best,

Ed

Buffy
03-05-2016, 06:30 PM
Ed
Very impressed with your stuff and glad was of some help with a nova body.
Keep us updated on that one !
Buffy

Alzax3
03-05-2016, 07:02 PM
Great to see the finished buggy and Mk2 chassis looking so professional! (that wasn't meant to sound like I was surprised!) :facepalm: My drag-racing buddy back in Cornwall was dissapointed to find that the chassis wasn't made of anything exotic, (like Cromoly, or unobtainium) but thought it looked great in the pictures. And he has something against K series engines but I can't help that.....

Mostin
03-05-2016, 07:33 PM
Hello Ed.

After reading about your work. It was good to see your chassis in real life.

It looks the dogs bits & very well made. Love the metal flake buggy :afro:

Cheers.
Mostin.

bushboy
03-05-2016, 09:43 PM
G'day Ed,

Great to meet you again & to see the naked chassis. Liking the key fit brackets & the Lazer cut profiles.

I wish you well with your project.

Bushboy

edmorton
04-05-2016, 06:24 PM
Thanks very much guys. Currently investigating the KV6 engine as a possible alternative power plant. I tried very hard to make a simple single donor solution and all I got at the weekend was "can I use a Ford Duratec, Honda VTEC, VW 2.0 turbo, Toyota, Vauxhall (!) etc etc..."

And of course, several people had to ask if they could use a Beetle engine.

The KV6 fits in to a MGF with a bit of difficultly, and a TF with a bit more, but I'm hopefully going to measure and take pictures of a KV6 installation in a TF based kitcar in a couple of weeks. If all else fails there's always the 1.8 Turbo K series for those that like to make life difficult!

Finally, a plea. Mike and Elaine, I'm afraid I lost your phone number...and the number on the show flyers belongs to my partner Jenny (who hasn't got much time for kitcars). Please could you email me? Thank you!

Ed.

Alzax3
04-05-2016, 06:29 PM
I've sent you Mike's number Ed. I also have a contact who is currently fitting a turbo K series into his TF, (supposed to be impossible but apparently not!) which may well interest you in the future.....

edmorton
04-05-2016, 06:38 PM
Thanks Alex, that was quick!

i think the turbo is difficult in the MG, but the Minx has a bit more clearance around the exhaust (at the suggestion of one of the fabricators who used to work for Holset turbochargers (he turned his wedding rings out of two scrap titanium bearing shells, I don;t think his wife knows). As a happy accident this extra angling of the rear bulkhead makes the central tunnel work a lot better!

Anyway as the proud owner of a 160hp trophy MGF, you've no need for such shenanigans!

Ed

edmorton
24-05-2016, 08:55 PM
Just to show it fits other shells than the GT Buggy, shell courtesy of Mike and Elaine.

I think the MEV based one is now firmly on a back burner!

Buffy
24-05-2016, 09:32 PM
Just to show it fits other shells than the GT Buggy, shell courtesy of Mike and Elaine.

I think the MEV based one is now firmly on a back burner!

Now that looks really good. Glad I had a conversation with you !
Islandman will be pleased too !!!!
Top work

Buffy

bushboy
24-05-2016, 09:54 PM
Edmorton,

That is looking the bees knees. I didn't get a chance to bend your ear at the show. How does it handle? The shell sits on very nicely. Think your onto a winner.

Cheers

Bushboy

edmorton
24-05-2016, 10:23 PM
Thanks very much chaps. Hopefully a Nova build will spur some interest.

The Buggy is STILL at GBS, waiting for it's emissions sorting. They're wanting to switch to an expensive aftermarket ECU which I'm resisting, since the MGF one worked perfectly well beforehand. Otherwise it's through IVA, but I can't tell you how it handles yet. Apparently the big back tyres are upsetting the brake balance - allegedly the large rolling radius makes life hard for the discs and pads. Either that or the pads just need bedding in a bit - there's only 35mm difference in radius between the front and rear wheels, which I can't imagine makes a huge difference.

Hi Bushboy, we got a bit involved in a discussion/presentation about mini caravans (!) with Martyn from Complete Kitcar, so the chassis got a bit forgotten!

Hopefully more to come.

Ed

islandman
25-05-2016, 12:51 AM
Wow, that does looks really really good. It fits nicely with space to spare. I almost wish I hadn't started my other chassis and you had proven this before I did! It's also probably the first time I have seen the Rear Nova wheel arches fully filled out with wheel and tire with the monster wheels you have :afro:

so a few areas to work through on petrol tank etc... But fundamentally it's there.......next stop IVA :ermm:

i think you are on to a winner here, so many old VW Beetle kits would love to swap over to a modern alternative

islandman
25-05-2016, 01:10 AM
On second thoughts, my blue Nova could always do with a new under pinnings to match its looks. Lucky I didn't finish the interior yet ;)

RCNUT
25-05-2016, 07:26 AM
It certainly seems to fit its new body well enough to proceed. I will be watching this with interest as I have a spare shell with a not so good chassis. Fixable but looking at this it might be worth doing a chassis change? Will be keeping an eye on this as my other projects get to completion.
Well done for the hard work which may keep old/new novas on the road.
John

edmorton
25-05-2016, 06:38 PM
David and John, you know it makes sense...!

Any input/suggestions gratefully accepted. The fuel tank and radiator will need some thought - if anyone could spare some images of their rad installations I'd be very interested to see them. The fuel tank will need to be at the front, somewhere. If the twin rad below the headlights system works, that would make locating the tank a lot easier.

Ed

Buffy
25-05-2016, 07:41 PM
Ed
Look at my thread and what I made for rads under the headlights.
Simple but effective.
They are bolted in place through the headlight base area but then I built a false floor to hide the stud heads.

Buffy

Spacenut
25-05-2016, 07:44 PM
Very tidy! Minimal bodywork modifications to fit, and you retain nearly all of the space behind the seat backs (which I lost with my installation, but that's the price you pay for 46:54 weight distribution).

Speaking of space behind the seats, how about a mid-mounted fuel tank? This is what the Fiat X1/9 used, you get maximum kudos from the Health and Safety brigade as there is no issue with front, rear or side intrusion, and from a purely driver's point of view, the weight distribution won't be affected as the tank runs dry (unlike my set up, where the weight bias shifts towards the rear as the tank empties).

Problem solved, methinks!

Then you can stick a single radiator in the nose (with a pair of reversed nostrils perhaps), or stick with twin radiators and use the space for luggage, again similar to the X1/9.

Lauren

PS - like you, I can't believe larger rear wheels/tyres have anything to do with brake bias either. Are you using a balance bar braking system? You could always wind a bit off the rear circuit, just to keep the IVA tester happy. I do wonder how much they really know about vehicle dynamics, especially mid-engined cars... Good luck!

edmorton
26-05-2016, 11:45 AM
Hi Lauren, I was nervously waiting for you to post!

Two thin interconnecteded tanks in front of the bulkhead would work very well - they could even form the bulkhead cover. The front mounted tank was a Great British Sportcars suggestion, to improve brake efficiency by putting weight over the front wheels. I'm struggling with this.

I have standard MGF brakes with a standard MGF mechanical layout (albeit using a tandem 0.75 inch diameter master cylinder rather than the standard servo'd but slightly larger MGF version). I've avoided using a balance bar - apparently IVA inspectors don't like them. The complete car is about 300kg lighter than the donor.

On the IVA rollers, the front brakes locked easily, but rear brakes struggled, apparently because the extra 35mm of rolling radius and large tyre footprint was putting an increased moment on the standard discs and pads. To me, this sounds like a good arrangement in a mid engined car, and presumably I'll get a reasonable amount of weight transfer to the front when braking for real rather than on the IVA rollers.

Ed

Spacenut
29-05-2016, 08:20 AM
Nervous? You shouldn't be - from what I have seen, your chassis totally trumps my paltry efforts, especially as my design dates back over 25 years now :shock:

I think mid-mounted tanks, one either side of the centre tunnel has got to be a better solution if you can fit them in. I appreciate that there would have to be more cutting of the rear bulkhead and less storage behind the seats, but if you can get the tanks low enough in the chassis you could still have a storage shelf over the top, and retain the rear bulkhead curvature around the window tunnel. Given the lack of space under the nose, and the rather uncompromising beam I can see under the bonnet, any nose mounted tank will be right up front, so I can see your dilemma. Leave that space for the radiator and battery if you can fit it up there. Even with a transverse motor, I can't believe the mass distribution will be any worse than 40:60 front/rear, which was good enough for the Countach...

Thinking about the rear brakes, my initial incredulity may have been premature, as you are using an MGF engine and brake system "out of the box", as it were. Because my engine and transmission were from a front wheel drive car, when transferred to the back, the brakes were far more efficient than they needed to be. For the MGF, I suspect Rover detuned the rear brakes from the outset, so increasing the rolling radius as you (and I) have done would further reduce their efficacy. That said, as the MGF engine package was originally derived from the FWD Metro, using two front subframes, I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't replace the rear brakes with the front discs and calipers. That should redress the brake balance while still retaining the standard master cylinder ratios. That way you could still keep the single donor approach, which has definite appeal in today's market.

And yes, you are absolutely right, weight transfer under braking will definitely load up the front wheels compared to the IVA rollers, but it is still possible to lock them up in the dry due to the low centre of gravity (which reduces weight transfer compared with a taller vehicle).

Lauren

edmorton
30-05-2016, 10:20 PM
Thank you Lauren - oddly enough I was looking at some old photos of your chassis recently and thinking exactly the opposite...I hadn't realised that was 25 years ago though! - proof of concept, if any were needed.

Using the front callipers at the rear is a very good idea. The rear callipers have a small diameter piston and smaller pads, but crucially the disc diameter is the same (although it's thinner, because it's not vented). I'd need a separate spot calliper for the handbrake, but thats do-able.

I'm coming round to the twin tank idea. I could use the existing full filler cap then, rather than having to fit one into the boot lid, which would be something of a compromise. IVA doesn't allow filler caps inside the boot.

My current project is to try and produce a "universal" rear bulkhead that is relatively easy to adapt and bond into different bodyshells. It's probably easiest to explain if I cut up sone tupperware boxes and photograph them! Comments and suggestions, as ever, will be welcome!

Alzax3
31-05-2016, 06:13 AM
Is there absolutely no way of incorporating he original plastic MG tank? I know there's a lot more metal in the chassis relative to the MG tin, but it would make life easier.... BTW, discovered the random 80 amp alternator fuse in the engine bay: it had blown blown, hence no joy with replacement alternator....

edmorton
31-05-2016, 02:11 PM
Would you be able to run a tape measure over one
Alex?
I'd planned some little triangular ones that fit behind the seat but still allow the seat to be pushed back to the bulkhead.

Alzax3
31-05-2016, 06:38 PM
I haven't actually got to that stage of dismantling yet, and they are well encased behind bulkhead panels - but the photos I've seen (ie: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MG-MG-TF-Petrol-Fuel-Tank-Genuine-Part-Kit-Car-Special-Project-/231941563840?hash=item3600cb65c0:g:0ksAAOSw37tV9zU o ) looks suitably sveldt......

jim73vw
01-06-2016, 03:00 PM
And special thanks to Jim for the coffee!



Ed

Your welcome Ed - great work on the chassis for sure, and love the look of the Nova body on it.

As you know Sarah is still hankering after a 356 replica - now that could be interesting on your chassis.

Bizarrely we came away from the show having taken the least photos ever - lots of time talking and only one day at the show meant little time for pics!

edmorton
02-06-2016, 06:50 PM
Hi Jim, well, hopefully one of the fabricators is going to build a shorter wheelbase version of the chassis to fit under a fibreglass mini shell. There's a straight 400mm removable section in the perimeter frame, so potentially up to a 400mm (or the magic 15 3/4 inch SWB beach buggy dimension) shorter wheelbase is possible. I think the 356 is about 300mm shorter?, not sure the engine will fit under it's curvy bottom though. A wider "Californian" version might be a bit easier. I quite like to try that..!

Ed