Hey Rick. I like the car wings on the back - I find a lot of trikes don't look that well proportioned, kind of in the same way a bike is well proportioned. The car wings make it look awsome! Ned - that looks to be the minimum amount of vehicle to point a Jag six in the right direction. I notice the pretty chunky looking chain on the back just incase the rear tire actualy does grip and all that torque goes through it! Might need a bigger tank too with all that engine. . .
Automatic that came with the Jag six, with an IRS final-drive unit directly behind it. I'd use the tallest-ratio ring & pinion with a solid spool, and correct the ratio to what I'd want with the chain sprockets. The sprockets would be very similar in size anyway. A manual 'box would be my first choice, though. I know it is possible to construct a foot shifter for a manual gearbox, but it would be tricky and, I suspect, easy to do badly. Another idea would be to use a Vespa-style twist-grip shifter to shift across the gate, and a simple fore-and-aft rocker to shift back and forth. That might take some getting used to but make for a better shift quality overall.
At 16.907 ounces a half litre is indeed bigger than a US pint But much smaller than UK pint(20oz), but then you have to factor in cold(US) to warm(UK) beer.
If you use a chain drive from the rear bevel drive to the power to the rear wheel you could change your final to most anything you like not change able on the fly but light. I know the Zuk engine to be almost bullit proof as my oldest daughter used to drive hers with the alt belt gone for a week or more before she would get stuck somewhere and call for help when the fan belt is gone the water pump does not work also. and 115 days in Phoenix she would drive 50 to 100 miles with out a water pump at a time for almost a week till the battery died.
So whats the problem with getting down to 990lbs? Probably not with that jag motor, but any bike motor should work out fine. You might want to look into doing the electric reverse, especially if you want fuel economy, spinning two transmissions is a bit pointless anyway, unless you really need the extra gears. Just get a six speed bike, and use a starter motor for the reverse.
that's totally what I was thinking. can't believe it took that long in the thread for somebody to mention legend cars--sure they're build info out there.
I currently drive a 1982 Trihawk everyday. (google Trihawk for more info) It has a full top with side curtains (not pictured) and a heater. The small chrome triangle on the rear deck is to mount a suitcase from a mid '80s Goldwing. It's nice because it converts from a touring to a sports car quickly and easily. My aunt bought it new in '82, and it is the #002 prototype car. I acquired it a few years ago, and am currently enjoying it too much to restore it, but some day I will... If I don't hot rod it first! It has a Citroen 1300cc, air-cooled, flat 4 SOHC engine (Approx 60 HP) with a Renault 5 speed transaxle. Front wheel drive, front wheel steering. Fully dressed it weighs 1250 pounds (approx wt.) --with a .9g+ lateral acceleration on 13 inch/175 tires! I've had it up to 115 mph, and on routine hard runs to the coast on a VERY windy road, I regularly have M3's and Subaru WRX STi's pull over to let me by! All while averaging about 37 MPG. If I tone it down, I easily get over 40 MPG. I want to change it to a water cooled Subaru flat 4 and 5 speed (front drive, front steer) and that is my suggestion for you. Parts should be relatively available, and inexpensive (plus you get heat and a/c) Maybe using an entire car for a donor. I saw a VW guy in Sacramento convert one to carbs by modifying the intakes, and using a crank triggered coil firing unit from Motocraft (about $35) There is a company in Australia that makes the locking spool and block off plate to remove the rear-drive shaft properly. http://www.subarugears.com/index_files/Page1716.htm You could use a Duvall or Hallock type windshield with a hand formed body over a tube-type frame for an old school rod look. My Trihawk body comes off with 5 bolts like a bike cowling. Though takes a couple guys to lift it. Since it is registered as a motorcycle, I have to have a motorcycle endorsement to "drive" it. The bonus it that it only costs $75 a year to insure it through Progressive...
Front wheel drive front wheel steering does make a lot of sense - allows you to have a forward centre of gravity to improve lateral stability without upsetting traction, and removes the transmission tunnel, giving more space or a narrower body. All while improving wet/snow traction. If my brain was making the decision I'd go with that layout. I'm attached to RWD handling though (I prefer the way my 60 Plymouth feels to a vintage mini, slowly, gently and controllably oversteering just to keep you on your toes. That has an open diff though and a single RWD is a bit like having a locker). The idea with the car box was to get reverse and a two-speed rear end so to speak. This would give me a straight-through 1:1 for cruising, and then a shorter ratio for in town driving, hopfully adding a bit to fuel economy. The starter motor reverse is a bit of a concern for me because I have to back up a steepish hill when parking (I back up and over a 'hill', so I have to back up hill one way or another). If I design the frame to take the car gearbox I should be able to implement either though. As for power plants, discovered the pan euro engine/box weighs in at about 85kg - a fair whack more than I thought it would. Suzuki engines weigh in between 56kg and 90kg and mount up to Samurai five speed in line transmissions so they are a rea possibility.
Indeed. My Jag trike was pure fantasy, if physically constructable. In the real world one would want far more forward weight bias. For stability 67/33 weight distribution is recommended for reverse trikes, which is why later versions of my T-bucket/longbike idea has gone to passive tilting - not drawn up yet because I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the result. That weight distribution raises the concern of whether you'll have enough traction to reverse up that hill! On the other hand, a RT offers very little scope for counteracting understeer. With RWD you can at least do that with the throttle. Edit: what about electric reverse acting on the front wheels? Weight and complexity might be problems there.
Hi Ned, I think the 67:33 figure is for lateral stability. In terms of over/understeer handling dynamics, the traditional 50:50 rule works, so it becomes a compromise between sliding sideways or tipping over. When I have a better idea of weights and distributions I'll run some numbers, but my initial concept is to go for 50:50, and rely on a very low centre of gravity and a wide front track (56", just like a Model A) for roll stability. I hope my recumbent seating position will assist with low CoG. Yeah, electric motors on the front wheels I think is getting a bit complex. I'd need two motors, or propshafts, or both, and neither are as easy as the starter motor pre-engage type set up.
Another option I had for transmission was to stick a VW/Subaru/Porsche transaxle at the back, with a drive shaft from the bike engine to the box (again with the appropriate gears removed), and then a belt drive from the output shafts to the rear wheel. This may reduce drive shaft losses a little but I'm not sure. Also allows easy change of rear end ratio, and with some transmissions (VW) a bike engine that rotates 'the other way' could be compensated for by flipping the diff. I don't think it's as neat as a shaft drive swing arm though.
Have you looked at any of the reverse trike sites? e.g. this one. There is also a Yahoo group. These guys put a lot of emphasis on falling-over stability, even to the detriment of handling balance. It's a bit of a departure from the handling thinking we're accustomed to.
Last time I looked at this kind of thing, they seemed fixated with the idea of leaning front wheels. I couldn´t understand the reasoning behing this, when you consider that the tyre contact patch wouldn´t be improved, or indeed changed at all, by it.
Try Renault 4/5, Citroën 2CV/GS, or Fiat 500/600 for lighter weight. Or try an Alfetta transaxle, as it's got its final drive at the extreme rear, lest your belt or chain end up being too long. In fact, as you're using the bike clutch you can turn any of the Renault/Citroën/Fiat transaxles backwards (or not, as the case may be) and drive it from the other end of the input shaft. That would require some machining and figuring out a seal etc. but isn't impossible. If rotation is counter to what you want and you can't flip the ring gear, flip the entire 'box upside-down: it's been done before.
Indeed. My own participation in that tended in quite the opposite direction: keeping the wheels upright while everything else tilts. That's where the longbike/T was going: in fact it was growing a fourth wheel when I last put it down. I'd had the idea of a sort of tilt-kart along the way, something small, resembling a wheelless supermotard on top of a kart, with the former free to tilt. It's all in the steering linkage, as it's quite possible to incorporate bicycle-style precession characteristics regardless of the actual front suspension geometry.
The kit car company 'DAX' build a bunch of L7s and Cobras, and have a form of independent suspension that allows fairly flat cornering with soft springs. It kind of allows one side of the vehicle to compensate for the geometry on the other. I have briefly looked at it to see if it was possible to exaggerate the geometry to allow the body to lean into a bend. I've got a feeling that if we sat down and looked at properly it wouldn't offer the advantages of putting the CoG on the 'inside' of the turn. I believe lean angle is only related to lateral G force, and not related to turn angle at all, so mechanically linking the steering doesn't really offer a great advantage. I think the only way leaning could be realisticly accomplished is with a very simple passive form of geometry - even the DAX geometry is getting towards the mechanically complex. For a manually leaned vehicle like the Can-Am you do it just like a bike, but for a car type Morganesque machine I think it gets complicated. My own machine will probably be fairly conventional it that sense. I haven't completely ruled out a beam front end yet to be honest, not sure how roll stability would be though.
just my 2 cents. morgans were cool. scan those sketches. id love to see this, youve already got me thinking too.
I've spent days staring at that Dax ifs, trying to figure out a rule of thumb to get the geometry to work. Obviously Dax know, but they aren't going to tell me! I couldn't crack it. I wanted to figure out how to apply the principle to my Morris Minor's front end. Here's a method of beam-axle location I've been developing for my '31 A project: The idea here is to overcome the real main disadvantage of a beam axle, namely that the ratio of spring base to track is normally considerably less than 1:1. That means greater mechanical advantage in roll than in bump, resulting in a very hard ride if one wants decent roll stiffness, unless one resorts to an anti-roll bar, which has disadvantages and is in some instances not an option for other reasons. Independent suspension always gives an effective spring base to track ratio of 1:1 - barring, again, where an anti-roll bar is used. The above arrangement allows any ratio of spring base to track, up to 1:1 and beyond, and moreover lets one place the roll centre wherever it ought to go. I've since simplified the design, losing the radial articulation of the axle. It can be simplified further if one sacrifices a bit of geometric purity, or the sophistication of anti-dive and/or a roll centre on the ground.
Not near any of my drawings at the moment so here's a quick sketch to show sort of what I'm thinking of. Apologies for the quality, we got some real artists on here! There's a kind of a trunk lid at the back that would hous the rear wheel and hopfully some luggage space too, clothes for a weekend etc. The drawing makes the vehicle look a bit taller than I'd like. I'd like it lower, like the Landspeeder '39 PU - if I get get my seating position low enough.
As for the subaru drivetrain, if you can find a two wheel drive model you'd be money ahead also. My daughter has a '91 Legacy sedan, two wheel drive automatic... someday it will become part of a trike if I have my way!
I´m not sure if it´s relevant or what you are after, but here´s something I saw last night. Interesting little car, but they have an ingenious solution for the problem of getting a bike motor to drive twin rear wheels - a Range Rover transfer case. In the UK too, so it may be worth talking to them if this is your thing. "Range Rover transfer box mounted sideways. Viscous diff, super-strong Morse silent chain, and perfect ratio for the bike 'box when in low range". http://retrorides.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=readersrides&action=display&thread=95897&page=1
Not a perfect match for your project, but lots of neat ideas at http://turbostude.com/Tribaker/, Greg Meyers' trike site. The Google Sketchup art is worth the time.
I have seen several 3 wheelers using Citroen bits. Use the engine box and front suspension, and just one of the independently sprung rear wheels at the back. There is an owners club in the U.K. for these cars, they even have have a race series.
Zerk, that site's awsome - I have never seen ir before. Apart from the 1800lbs weight (ouch!) that's close to what I was thinking of. Quite like the wooden boat analogy too. As for the 2cv - I think Pembletons are about the nicest. I'm a member of the forum, they do about 70mpg apparently. Awsome little cars.
I think your weight limit is also going to limit your economy. Your weight limit is limiting the mechanical possibilities. A 650-800kg car can be built to better 100mpg. Better aerodynamics, and more modern electronically controlled powerplants. The improvement in economy will more than cover the road tax issue. Ed
Hey Ed, I think you may be right on that front. I think in terms of economy a modern car engine trumps a motorbike engine. May still have a shot with one of those Suzuki/Geo engines. In terms of improving aerodynamics I'm still working on how the structure is going to work out, I'll compare it to a larger machine to see which works out better.
You could build a fibreglass '32 roadster channelled with a belly pan, four narrow tires, moon discs, blocked out grill with a smart turbodiesel in the back driving the rear wheels. Those TDI Smarts are available in all the scrapyards, get over 70mpg with that silly upright body. Design the roadster like a salt sea racer and you'll have a slippery shape. Keep the cats and engine management intact and you have no problem with emissions and registration. To improve safety and make the build easier get the fibreglasser to mould the doors in place. Then you can build a spaceframe chassis instead of the '32s normal heavy rails. Because you're light weight and have no V8 engine up front you can use lighter front axles like those on cheap T-buckets or a light weight IFS. Maybe try to use the front end from the Smart. All Smart parts are light weight. Instruments look good, seats are light weight. Transmission is semi automatic and fun. Basically make a 70 mpg Smart much lighter and much more aerodynamic. Also will look great like some refuge from Bonneville and will be fun to drive. Ed
The Jalopy Journal
