Stainless Or Ally ?

[Guest Andybarbet]

When the lightweight kit becomes available, whats the pro's and con's of going for the stainless steel versus the Ally version ?

 

I'm not too bothered about the additional weight of stainless but quite like the look of ally too !!

 

Does the ally need to be laquered to stop it corroding ?

 

Which is stronger etc.......Heeeeeeeeeeeelp...........?????

[IanS]

Ally goes dull faster than you can polish it. Laquering does not last. Anodising on the other hand works well, its just very hard to find anyone with an adequate sized tank.

 

Stronger... without knowing a bit more like how thick each is well guess away.

 

My view is if going for a lightweight then weight is the only criterion.

 

Ian

[Guest AWhite]

From what people have said, lightweight cars eg bike engined etc are great for the track and go like stink but are bloody aweful to drive on the road, hit one bump and you'll be on the other side of the road. Since you don't get many roads that are as smooth as the track (not round near me anyway) and country roads are notoriously crap, which is where you have most the fun, I would go for stainless as it will ride better because it will be a bit heavier, be stronger and more durable.

 

It depends what you want the car for, mainly track and a bit of road (ally) or mainly road and a bit of track (stainless).

 

Just my opinion.

 

Andy

[Guest Andybarbet]

It will be mainly road use or abuse depending how you look at it !!!

 

Only tempted by the 'Lightweight' as the price is reachable for me at the mo and i like the idea of wishbones all round too - the weight isn't really an issue to me im afraid, maybe it will see a track occasionally when it's built but want something that wont rot and is reliable more than tuned to the hilt.

 

Stainless is sounding like the best option though.

[Guest Ant]

All wishbones won't be much different to 2 and a couple of semi-trailing arms. The front wishbones are identical to the 2B plus project 04 (or whatever it's called ). Using bones at the back will save weight, but improvements in handling will be related to the springs, shocks and bushes that are used rather than the different designs. Getting the camber right should be easier, but this can be done with the semi-trailers too by using the infamous shims to level things up.

 

It seems to me that it's all about weight. If you want a light car then get the lightweight. If not then get a 2B.

 

The chassis is a monocoque rather than a spaceframe on the lightweight too.

 

Ant

[Jon Bradbury]

Hmm...

 

It sure is about weight. A lightweight car will perfom superbly with a not-so-powerful engine - that is the whole Colin Chapman / Lotus ethos. You get the performance with increased economy and you can pay lower insurance premiums too. And the handling should be better as there is less inertia to deal with.

 

Anyone that thinks a lightweight car is going to bounce all over the road should drive an Elise.

 

Personally, I'd go for the ally chassis but consider a different (lighter) engine.

[Guest AWhite]

A Lotus Elise will have a sophisticated setup on the suspension, steering, weight distribution etc.

 

I'd like to see Robin Hood spend as much time and money on getting their cars setup like the Elise.

 

Have you ever driven a lightweight kit car ie bike engined. There fecking scary at speed. Go all over the place even just cruising down the motorway. Those ruts made by trucks feel like trenches.

 

Just my opinion again.

 

Andy

[Guest rizla]

being slightly mad about racing,i personaly at this time would not touch the ally chassis with a barge pole

 

the idea is great,but the reality is it is un proven in strength and longevity

i would certainly get one in say 2 years time after any bugs have been ironed out

rhsc do not have the same test facilitys as a major car maker

but i do think they do a great job of making chassis that are built to last,just not convinced they have enougth exsperience with ally chassis yet

 

imo

 

andy

[Longboarder]

When I talked to Richard at Stafford he made it clear that the lightweight was still under development and testing and not yet ready for release in ally form. He won't let anyone touch it, with a barge pole or otherwise until he is happy the development has been done to a level that offers safety, function, value and a little touch of quirky nuttiness.

 

Nigel

[Jon Bradbury]

Nope, never driven one of those.

 

The Elise testing was shown in the Discovery documentary video. I bought a copy to while away the months whilst waiting for my S1 to be delivered.

 

I can't see Robin Hood doing that amount of R&D on one of their kits, but even so I think the Bolteon's a good idea - even if I 'm not sure about this tub design of chassis. However, it seems to work for the exmo (although I bet that's a real heavy thing) so why not? You can't really lose for that kind of wedge. Just as long as all the bolt holes really are precision drilled at the factory and they give good suspension geometry.

 

You could really come up with a lightweight car with one of those.

[Guest Ianz]

Jon

even if I 'm not sure about this tub design of chassis. However, it seems to work for the exmo (although I bet that's a real heavy thing

 

The Exmo,S7,the series 3&3a were all monocoque cars,and I think you will

find they are all considerably lighter than your 2b!!!!

 

I posted a thread a few weeks ago about the weight of a 3a,and a reply

came back that at SVA a 3a was weighed at approx 690kg......I believe

the average weight of a 2b is 950-1000 kg

 

INMHO

Cheers Ian

[Richard Grove]

Ian,

 

At SVA time the examiner gave me a print out from his computer with various weights & calculations on it. According to that my 2B weighs 378 kg at axle 1 and 414 kg at axle 2. I have never been sure if adding the 2 axle weights together would give the actual total weight (792 kg).

 

This weight was with screen fitted and a good box of tools in the boot.

 

Richard

[Guest daveg]

Richard

 

Yes, add the weights - tools

 

Dave

[Guest Ant]

I believe the average weight of a 2b is 950-1000 kg

 

At SVA my 2B had a kerb weight (with fuel, but no passengers or luggage etc) of 756Kg - thats with screen and spare wheel etc. It's probably about 760 - 765kg since I added the boot lining. I didn't specifically set out to save weight in my build, but equally I didn't set about to add it either

 

I think there are plenty of monocoques out there which are heavier than my 2B, and there are plenty of 2B's out there which are lighter than mine too. It all depends on how much effort and money is put into weight saving during the build. That said none of RH's previous designs have been based on weight. They're mostly about getting a car which looks the part and wins hands down on smiles per pound. Setting out from scratch on a lightweight design has one bit decision at the outset - spaceframe or monocoque. I don't think this decision necessarily makes a car low in weight. It's the design of that car which dictates how light and how strong it is.

 

Ant

[Guest Ianz]

Oh well I stand corrected.......

I shall go and stand in the corner for 5 minutes!!!!!!!!