front mounted engines

[blitzkrieg]

hi

i wanted to know if there's a specific restriction on mounting the engine at the front of the car.
if not, what are the likely problems i would face

[blitzkrieg]

hi

i wanted to know if there's a specific restriction on mounting the engine at the front of the car.
if not, what are the likely problems i would face

[Banacek]

Off the top of my head, the two immediate ones that come to mind are your CG and the difficulty of running a shaft to the back wheels (assuming you still want RWD).

Putting an engine in front of the driver will make your center of gravity fairly far forward. You should be aiming for 50/50 front/back weight distribution. Even if you could get 50/50 like this, the heaviest components in the car (the engine and the drivers torso) will now be on the outermost parts of the car, messing with your moment.

Then assuming you have RWD, you have to run a shaft to the rear wheels, which will either raise your driver (higher CG) if you run it under the driver, or complicate things if your run it around the side (See University of Guelph's 4WD system for a good example of a shaft running around the side though, rear engine though).

If you have FWD, that creates certain characteristics in the way your car pulls through corners which may not be deiserable.

Others can comment more comprehensively.

[CMURacing - Prometheus]

mmmmmmm...torque steer.

come ride with me in my personal vehicle sometime if you've never seen torque steer in action. or find anyone who owns a saab.

[Lyn Labahn UW-Madison]

How about this question, what do you hope to gain by running a front engined car?

[Big D]

I think he wants to gain the 50's Grand Prix car look http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif . Nothing wrong with that, if this copetition was for looks.... although in some areas looks help you, this is probably too much of a trade off.

[jonnycowboy]

can't beleive nobody has brought up side-mounted engines yet.. driver = 20" wide, engine 20" wide.. total of 40" which is about the same as the track of a car now! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and reduced polar moment, perfect weight distribution and a minimum wheelbase (60"). driver on left (weight:70kilos), engine on right (weight:60kilos) so you have the driver offset slightly to the right, and the shifter is just beside you on the right.
also your output sprocket is almost aligned with the center of the rear driveshaft.
If i were the head of our team this is what we would be developping but unfortunately i'm not. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Ashley Denmead]

http://fsae.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=763607348&f=8356059423&m=97410675911


hmmmmm good idea jonnycowboy

[Denny Trimble]

Or, how about:

http://www.dpcars.net/dp1/dp1294.jpg

From http://dpcars.randomresearch.com/dp1/

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

I like the DP project a lot, but I'm a little distrubed by this pic:
http://dpcars.randomresearch.com/dp1/dp1368.jpg

Is he going to triangulate it with panels? Am I missing something?

[Denny Trimble]

My thoughts exactly!

Also, he's doing torsen/quaife diffs all around, with central braking on the diff at each end. Sounds like asking for trouble to me.

[jack]

...sounds like you can't steer and brake at the same time. i also have been noticing a severe lack of triangulation on this thing. well, at least he is getting something made, which is more than we can say right now http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[GTmule]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeWaggoner at UW:
I like the DP project a lot, but I'm a little distrubed by this pic:
http://dpcars.randomresearch.com/dp1/dp1368.jpg

Is he going to triangulate it with panels? Am I missing something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Supposedly, yeha, he's putting in aluminum panels, to be (I think) carbon in the future. We'll see, he's got about 4 grand in the body molds and plug (if not more) and about 2 grand in the frame, whcih is a little ass-backwards, but whatever.

[Denny Trimble]

Yeah, but if he's planning on producing them, that's a good price for a mold.

I'd hate to have to buy a complete body after a little "rubbin's racin".

[Wack Attack]

What about chain slop during braking? It seems to me that the chain will probably hit the frame rail when it lashes back during braking.

[NovaCat2005]

I just searched and I was surprised that the Ariel Atom (http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/) hasn't been mentioned on this forum. It's a nice little rocket ship putting out 300BHP on a 456kg(1000lb) car, and it's supposedly street legal. You can almost convince yourself that it's practical because it's a two seater and it's got a boot(whatever that is), but it hasn't any bodywork really. Topgear just test drove one on their last episode.343MB video... right click save dealy. (http://www.wrxfanatics.com/video/Top%20Gear%20-%202004.12.26.avi)

I think you need the Xvid codec to watch it.

The link is Dead. I'll try to find a shorter clip of the movie.

[Chris Clarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We'll see, he's got about 4 grand in the body molds and plug (if not more) and about 2 grand in the frame, whcih is a little ass-backwards, but whatever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I saw on a DSR racer forum that he said the body plug cost him "about the cost of a brand new, fully loaded honda civic" and that the molds were getting up there in price also.

I cant imagine what it is costing him to get this built, as he is pretty much outsourcing all of the manufacturing. Some of it seems a little excessive also, like laser cutting and cnc bending the gussets for the a-arms. Of course, I only say this because I am insanely jealous.

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NovaCat2005:
I just searched and I was surprised that the http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/ hasn't been mentioned on this forum. It's a nice little rocket ship putting out 300BHP on a 456kg(1000lb) car, and it's supposedly street legal. You can almost convince yourself that it's practical because it's a two seater and it's got a boot(whatever that is), but it hasn't any bodywork really. Topgear just test drove one on their last episode.http://www.wrxfanatics.com/video/Top%20Gear%20-%202004.12.26.avi <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks nice, but unless the frame is paneled well I'm suspicious of their torsional stiffness, also. It looks a little like the car was designed by an art major.

[syoung]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeWaggoner at UW:
It looks nice, but unless the frame is paneled well I'm suspicious of their torsional stiffness, also. It looks a little like the car was designed by an art major. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Panelled well? You can see straight through the car in profile, all the way down to the driver's feet - there's no bodywork! The exoskeleton-type frame is made up of some nice thick tubing though, so it's reasonably stiff. Probably not as stiff as some of the better-designed FSAE cars, but then it's not a single-seater.

My mate, a talented kart racer, actually owns one of these in the most basic spec (1.8l Rover K-series engine, about 130 bhp) and it's the most incredible fun even as a passenger. It's street legal (depending how you drive it, of course!) but could never be described as remotely practical.

[dp]

regarding the dp1, since someone asked...

- the backbone will have stressed alum panels riveted to it all around, forming a complete closed box structure. there will also be some paneling in the cockpit. should be stiff enough for the prototype.

- subsequent versions will have a carbon tub

- to date, i could have bought a brand new 911 turbo for what i have in the project (but this is way more fun and will be faster, too http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). and no i'm not wealthy or even well off, i'm just committed (or should be committed, depending on who you ask). 95% of the cost is in the labor on the molds and some custom parts like the center diff modified to carry chain loads. contrary to rumor CNC sheetmetal is very cost-effective. the laser cut / CNC bent gussets are costing me $6 each, complete. they would have cost $14 each if made by hand.

hope this clarifies some things...

dp

[jack]

dp,

welcome to the forum. anyway, are you planning on installing anti-roll bars? from the looks of it, you have parallel a-arms, and I haven't seen evidence of ARB's on the pictures on your site anywhere. Also, is the car legal for C/D sports racing? My understanding is the rules for these classes required the body-work to be symmetrical side-to-side. Just curious. Good luck with the project.

[dp]

a-arms are equal but NOT parallel. there's about a degree of camber gain over 1.5" of travel. a/r bars won't be on initially but there are provisions to add them if need be, either traditional or cross-corner (think about that one http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

awd precludes it from scca racing so the rest is irrelevant. more laid-back clubs like nasa will let it run, but it's mostly a trackday toy that you could drive to/from track (legality notwithstanding) rather than a racer.

dp

[GTmule]

Dennis,

I know you like comments on your work (which I remain impressed by) so I though tI'd mention this. The only thing, form a safety point of view I see on the frame that bothers me is that the forward bracing on the front roll hoop is attached to the frame rail under it (the horizontal tube) such that the frame rail is in pure pending, which isn't a terrily efficient use of the material. You might consider adding a vertical, or a pair of smaller diaganol tubes to brace that joint a bit, as I'd be wary of just the tube in bending, and the aluminum panels.

[Denny Trimble]

DP,
Your project is an inspiration, thanks for sharing your design process on your site!

I'm curious, if you're "not wealthy or well-off", how are you financing this project, along with that awesome garage full of other toys?

[dp]

yeah, i've been considering bracing that point but i think the addition of a panel will stabilize the tube sufficiently. keep in mind it's a very light car and the front hoop is very unlikely to see any significant fore-aft load in a crash (that will mostly be taken by the rear hoop). i don't want to spend too much time on the tube frame engineering since it's only a proof of concept and most likely won't see that much use beyond the initial tests.

as for funding, let's just say that my credit card balance is much higher than most people's mortgage. i'm comfortable with that but i don't know anyone else who would be... yes, the elise was purchased with a credit card though i had to sell the mini to make room on it. you'll also notice that in the PAST section the last five vehicles were sold within the last 12 months or so. simple matter of priorities. bottom line is, as i like to say: those who want to, find a way. the rest find an excuse http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Chris Clarke]

Dennis,

I would also like to re-iterate how much of an inspiration your project and level of dedication are, especially with regards to all the documentation.

Seeing projects like yours, (and being involved in FSAE), have made me realize that I want to do something similar (minus building a body) once I have graduated, and have given me a better idea of how much work it actually takes.

Chris

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

dp,
very intersting project, awsome bodywork! I'm also concerned with the frame design, did you do any computer analysis on it?

[dp]

well, since everyone is so concerned about the frame, here's an exercise for anyone with some time to kill - come up with a better design that fits the same packaging constraints (i.e. driver location, engine location, suspension pickup points, center and end diffs, chains (and chain guards). then post details http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif a simple sketch will do but you can get as elaborate as you want. wheelbase is 80" and chain runs are 40" each. chains are 9" apart on centerline due to size of center diff. for reference, the current frame is just under 100 lbs complete (solidworks got it right within 2 lbs).

any takers? i already know what my solution is going to be but i'm not ready to share that yet http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[dp]

oh, also keep in mind that chain tension loads are about 4,000 lbs.

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

ha, im sure if we had time theres a good number of ppl that would gladly design a sweet frame, i mean look at our car, we are packagin a lot in there too. oh ya, why the hell do u want to run chain drive???????? shaft drive sounds like it would be 100 times better..i would strip down a Subie and use those parts or sumtin.

[dp]

talk is cheap http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i've even made it easy - since i'm not going to use the tube frame in production i've uploaded the full frame design to my ftp site. it's a solidworks 2005 assembly with all the parts.

host: ftp.randomresearch.com
user: guest@randomresearch.com
pw: guest

the file is frame.zip. you can modify, analyze, whatever. heck, even build one if you want. just post the results.

as for subie parts, those diffs are cast iron and weigh 50 lbs each. if you don't believe me i'll gladly sell you one cheap - i've got two. look on the first couple pages of my design log to see why i'm doing chain drive.

everybody's a designer, right? let's see it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Denny Trimble]

You may or may not want to add this much complexity, but having a reduction stage between the center diff and the front/rear diffs will reduce chain loads by the reduction ratio (N).

You probably don't want to consider this option at this stage in your project unless chain loads turn out to be a real problem http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the central brakes on the torsens, you might be able to brake deeper into corners than most cars because of the torque biasing effect, but you will be limited by your roll stiffness distribution (and chassis stiffness). As soon as one wheel sees zero normal load (or close to it), that axle becomes "open" and provides zero braking force, changing your brake bias significantly.

FSAE cars commonly run center brakes on torsen diffs, and if the roll stiffness distribution is too far to the rear, they will lift (or almost lift) inside rear wheels, which will then "backpedal" on corner entry. Also, axle chatter when locking up the rear brake is common, and not good.

The torque biasing effect causes an understeer moment on the car in corner entry, but if you're not designing specifically for autocross events, it's probably not a bad thing. It is a stabilizing effect.

[Denny Trimble]

Most of us use the Educational or Student versions of SolidWorks, which are based on version 2004 for this academic year. So, we get the "future version" error.

If it's not too much trouble, how about a parasolid or IGES file?

[dp]

i'm running a quaife, not torsen - quaife never freewheels completely, there's always some torque on it. at least that's what i've seen. but i have contingency plans if it doesn't work out. someone's got to try things, right? i'm not into putting energy into coming up with why things won't work. dp1 would still be a scribble on a napkin otherwise. i'd rather evaluate the risks and just try it.

chain loads are not a problem - i've accounted for them in the structure. i was just pointing them out as a design parameter for anyone who wants to try and do better. when it comes to transmitting a given amount of power via chain you're just trading off tension vs velocity. you generally want the lowest chain velocity you can get away with (less inertia, less wear, safer, etc) so you want to run the highest practical load. oh and then there are packaging constraints too...

seriously, i'd recommend this exercise to any armchair designer out there because it is outside the tried-and-true - it'll be educational.

[dp]

maybe someone can convert the files, i've got too much going on at the moment. in fact, gotta run...

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I just searched and I was surprised that the Ariel Atom hasn't been mentioned on this forum. It's a nice little rocket ship putting out 300BHP on a 456kg(1000lb) car, and it's supposedly street legal. You can almost convince yourself that it's practical because it's a two seater and it's got a boot(whatever that is), but it hasn't any bodywork really. Topgear just test drove one on their last episode.343MB video... right click save dealy.

2006 Villanova University FSAE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW, i just watched that video, its huge, full hour, someone should cut it down to the last part cuz most of it is on pathetic kias and what not. Sweet car thou, make sure to check it out.

[dp]

ok, i've output the assembly as both IGES and binary parasolid - the file name is frame_ps.zip and it has both. ftp info is the same. have fun http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[TG]

I know ASU just got Solidworks 2005 in a few days ago. I'm installing it on our computers tomorrow http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Right now I have to deal with developing our car, because we are going to be making the tubes at the end of this month, so I won't have time to redo your frame dp. Best of luck with the car.

[dp]

the weldments functionality in '05 is great for tube frames - be sure to try it, you'll like it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

dp,
i pasted ftp.randomresearch.com in my address bar and it says windows cannot access the files. Im sure its just my lack of computer knowledge so could you please expain how to access the files.
thanks

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

ftp://guest@randomresearch.com:guest@ftp.randomresearch. com/

http://www.visn.co.uk/images/ftp-ie.gif

[John Bucknell]

Thanks Dennis,

I used to have a little free time, now I'm gonna have to complete my hover/suckercar design and build it just because you did. If I finish it, we'll have to race. Nutter...

[dp]

yep, you're just gonna have to! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.dpcars.net/dp1bld/dp1004x.jpg

http://www.dpcars.net/dp1bld/dp1003x.jpg

http://www.dpcars.net/dp1bld/dp1006x.jpg

[nathan s]

dp, do you have a website with that car on it? It seems like I have seen it somewhere before. Anyway, it looks awesome.

[dp]

the site is www.dpcars.net (http://www.dpcars.net)

whole development history from first sketches is on there... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[dp]

speaking of development history, here's a pictorial page of the entire design evolution (warning, it's a bit lengthy)

www.dpcars.net/dp1/evolve.htm (http://www.dpcars.net/dp1/evolve.htm)

[Storbeck]

dp1/9: $75K

Engine: Custom 2600cc V8 based on two Suzuki Hayabusa motors on common crank, 360hp.

Weight: 850lb. Power/weight 931 hp/ton (2.4 lb/hp)

Cool, Western Washington's v-8 might get a big brother.

[James Waltman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Storbeck: Cool, Western Washington's v-8 might get a big brother. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's already getting a big brother but not with ˜Busa heads. I think it was actually conceived before Viking 30's but the gestation period around here is never predictable.

Dennis,
We've had your site bookmarked for quite a while now. Everyone here is a fan. If you ever end up in our area we would like to show you around the shop.

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

James, can you set up a gallery of Leonhardt's V8? I know you have pictures...

[Storbeck]

I've always wondered about this picture.

http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/v30/image045.jpg

Is there a story behind this?

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

That's a carbon fiber V-12 the old department director, Dr. Seal, was/is working on. It's totally unrelated to fsae. It had 6 NA cylinders (one bank) and 6 turbo cylinders, with the turbo runnning off the NA side. At low load, the turbo side would be shut off for fuel etc, but run purely through the thermal expansion energy from the turbo. The idea was to have a V12 with the power of a V12 at full load, but the economy of a 1.5L inline 6 at low load. It's still a work in progress.

[Matt N]

Ummm ... 2.4 lbs per hp?

Whose doing the development on the awd system? That just sounds like a waste of rear rubber. How long is the wheelbase? What kind of driver is going to be willing to drive an 80" car up over 200 mph? That kind of power would be fun but not useful in my opinion.

A sub 1000 lb car with 360 hp and awd would be something, though.

Matt

[Denny Trimble]

I just ran the numbers, 360HP + 850lb car + 170lb driver + standard FSAE geometry = 105mph traction limited speed, and somewhere in the low 3's (maybe high 2's) 0-60.

Change to 65% rear weight only drops the traction limited speed to 99.


Weak... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Storbeck]

Dennis, I'm sorry if this is on your website but I can't find it. I'm interested in more details on your all wheel drive system. How is the torque biased front and rear. That's some sort of limited slip center diff, right?

Also you mention in there about a "next generation" drive system, but don't seem to go into details.

Sweet website, and car, by the way,

[John Bucknell]

Dennis,

Just an observation, but we see all kinds of turbo 'Busas out at Bonneville - and the weak link seams to be the gearbox (like brand new popping after a single pass). You have a lot more inertia in there....

I spent all weekend drawing my project car - watch out!

Oh yeah, and Mike - that's officially the Bucknell/Leonhardt V8 (I get top billing because of where I fall in the alphabet http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - even though he has more time in it than I do now, has it really been six years?)

[dp]

there isn't much on my site about the new AWD system because i'm not ready to discuss it in detail yet. it's only unigue in its application to cars (that i know of) - someone has used the principle on 2wd bikes with good results. under straight-line acceleration it acts as a locked diff so all 4 wheels are driving equally and will only slip together as a set. if i understand 'traction limited speed' correctly, is the implication that i'll be spinning all 4 at anything below 105? hmmm... i know that AWD gas-powered RC cars do 0-60 in about 1.5 sec (they're AWD for the same reason dp1 is - silly power/weight ratio).

dp1 is gearing limited to 160 mph. point is not to have some huge top speed that requires two miles to get to but intead to reach a modest top speed very quickly. it's a trackday toy and on trackdays you generally only pass on the straights. it can be frustrating being stuck behind a viper or something similar that won't let you get by on the straight bits but holds you up in the corners (i've had to take a ws6 firebird under braking in my mini to get by, as an example). dp1 is the engineering solution to the problem http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[dp]

James,

thanks for the invite - if i make it up that way i'll definitely get in touch. drop me a line if you're going to be in portland...

[Denny Trimble]

My numbers are for RWD cars, but there's not much normal force on the front wheels anyway at that point, so I don't expect the number to fall below 80MPH without aero.

[dp]

in a rwd application front wheels create quite a bit of drag - they (and the front rotors) are gyroscopes that you're trying to accelerate by dragging them along the road, losing a bunch of energy in the process and making the rear wheels' job harder. with AWD, as long as neither axle is spinning, you're accelerating the front wheels directly from the drivetrain and making the rear wheels' job easier, AND whatever power is left after accelerating the wheels is used for accelerating the car. it doesn't matter what the weight split is between front/rear (again only as long as you've got a 'locked' center diff) since in the end 100% of the car's tire patch load is producing forward thrust. in fact in this situation the less weight transfer you have the better, similar to cornering forces. by contrast, with rwd it's only rear axle load MINUS the parasitic drag of the front so you want the maximum weight transfer which of course is contradictory to all other aspects of performance (cornering/braking).

[Garlic]

Sure the front wheels being driven won't have any drag, but they won't produce much thrust either. In fact the faster you accelerate the less normal force and therefore less ability the front's have to contribute to acceleration. Unless you have maybe 70% front weight split. The faster you go the less AWD helps in straight-line accel-- see drag racers lifting the front tires. They don't have much front tire drag. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[dp]

you're missing the point i think - it doesn't matter how the normal force is split front/rear, in 'locked' awd ALL the normal force available from the car's weight gets to produce forward thrust. this is the same as doing a wheelie without actually doing one. so yes, drag racers achieve the same effect by just transfering the entire weight to the back and making fronts irrelevant but the CG height and weight distribution needed to achieve that makes them horrible at everything else, like going around corners and stopping. my awd setup is a way to do that while still being able to perform overall. under 1g acceleration my car has 40% of its weight on the front so the front tires are doing 40% of the work. under 1.5g acceleration it's 33%. either way i don't call that insignificant http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Jarrod]

We investigated a side engined AWD for fsae a little while back, it sparked an 8 or 9 page discussion on this forum, but we i don't think we ever told anyone how we were doing it. The engine was longitudinal with shafts running front and rear, and ATV diffs. The biggest issue we had was that our wing was going to have to be almost 2m in the air to allow the driver to get out. (plus the ultralight cars started appearing, and 85kg of engine and driveline started to sound less appealing). Maybe someone can host a picture for me? I will be very interested to see how the dp1 performs i think it has the potential to be very quick indeed, and would be great fun to drive, even if it is near impossible to slide. The short gearing and high power to weight ratio means that AWD is definitely a viable option, we looked at it as mechanical traction control. Rather than cut power to limit wheelspin, just find a way to get more power to the ground!

[Denny Trimble]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarrod:
Maybe someone can host a picture for me? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here it is:

http://students.washington.edu/dennyt/fsae/monash_4wd_04.JPG

[Courtney Waters]

Dennis, your new "mystery" AWD configuration sounds like it could be something I had been musing over for an AWD car before. It'll be interesting to see what you come up with http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Keep up the good work on the dp1 build! I've been following it regularly (one of my most frequently visited sites, along with the Kimini project). Everybody will have their own opinions of course, but there's a big difference between being the armchair engineer and actually building something like you are. It's also a hell of a lot more work to design a whole car by yourself than a team of 5 or 10 or more where each person can specialize and optimize one part of the car.

I may take you up on the "chassis challenge" as soon as I finish another vehicle design/build for work. Have you considered selling bodies to people who felt like designing their own vehicle/drivetrain under it? Also, you mention using it as sort of a dual-purpose street/track car - have you verified it's legality or do you care? Headlight height, minimum ground clearance, and all that BS?

[dp]

yep, we'll see how it turns out http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i don't think that selling just the bodies would work. for one it's a very specific layout with pretty tight tolerances so you'd be better off just buying the chassis along with it and then the suspension, etc... you get the picture. besides, i'd have to sell the bodies for something like $9K to make it worthwhile and i doubt that anyone would want to pay that for just a body with nothing to attach it to.

as for legality - no, it does not meet any regulations that you could possibly think of, other than having 4 wheels and turn signals. in oregon there's a way to drive it on the street to and from the track anyway, same may apply to other states but i don't see it as too much of an issue. it would be a pretty damned stressful street drive! you'd be looking up at the bumpers of all the SUVs and nobody can see you.

there will be some 'derivative' designs that WILL be street legal but that's a little ways off.

[Matt N]

Dp, I beg to differ. If the aero is worked out, which it seems to be, I think people would buy your bodies for that much coin. Kit car people buy way nastier, heavier, and less aerodynamic parts all the time.

Matt

[Courtney Waters]

Doesn't seem like it would be that bad to design under the current body shell, but I know what you mean. $9k isn't cheap, but considering the alternative - time and money to develop a new shell, it wouldn't be bad for someone serious about building such a car. Your design is far nicer than many club racing bodies I've seen.

Oregon has a provision for driving racecars to the track? Cool! It probably would be a pretty stressful street drive, but then again I'm used to staring at SUV bumpers while in my daily driver http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.mirafiori.com/~courtney/misc/fsae/04car/04_scaled1.jpg

[dp]

within reason, essentially yes. it's not a carte blanche though. while the particular section of the law doesn't explicitly require it, i'd want to have lights, turn signals, etc. it worked for the elise 190 and the westie.

if you drive a fsae car on the street you've got ballz http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (actually, a fiat would require a certain amount of courage as well).

[drivetrainUW-Platt]

ha, although only one person has ever diven our '04 FSAE car, it was on the streets of town. October of 04 the car was in the homecomming parade, yes, diving for the first time under its own power, and yes with only front brakes. Well, all the police are downtown for the parade blockin streets and what not, so after we made it thru the route, the driver booked it back to our campus doing like 40mph on city streets, at one point almost to campus a car pulled out right in front of him, and he not have light, a horn or sufficient brakes used the only means of gettin attention, the exhaust...guess it wasnt that close of a call, and still sweet to see the car flying down the road!!!