LamboClone - The Premier Site for Lamborghini Replica Builders
For Sale / Wanted => Services => Topic started by: plans4sale on March 19, 2013, 04:07:24 AM
-
For sale here is chassis plans to build Aventador chassis from steel tubes and sheets (unlike carbon-fiber moncoque as in the genuine car). The expected weight of the whole chassis is around 320 kg / 706 lbs, which I calculated with wall thickness of 2.54 mm / 0.1" for most tubes in mind. When using Metric standard tubes with wall thickness of exactly 2 mm, the weight is approximatelly 50 kg less. The chassis is designed in a way that it's still very strong even if tubes with lesser wall thickness of about 1.5-2 mm are used instead, though I recommend higher value for maximum protection in case of accident.
Due to the different tube standards in those continents, there are two chassis designs and two types of plans - for using Imperial size tubes (inches) or Metric size tubes (millimeters). For short I call them US chassis and EU chassis. There are some subtle differences between both chassis. For example, where the US chassis is using tube 1.5 x 1.5" and wall thickness of 0.1" (38.1 x 38.1 x 2.54 mm) the EU chassis is using tube 40 x 40 x 2 mm.
The plans are still in the making (about 30% ready so far), so there are two different prices depending on when the set is purchased. Pre-ordered plans will include bonus set of my Aventador body plug plans http://lamboclone.com/index.php?topic=761.0 (http://lamboclone.com/index.php?topic=761.0) as well as 3d solid NURBS models of the door hinges good for CNC-milling or lazer cut/waterjet.
>>> Pre-order price as of May 2013 is 370 USD or 280 EUR (26% off). Once I'm ready to deliver, the plans will sell for 500 USD or 470 EUR. <<<
Recently I changed the way I draw the tube plans in order to include more information (like angle dimensions and where each tube is located on the chassis) and make them even easier to read than before. I had to scrap all plans so far and replace them with new ones. Now the plans are one tube per page, with the aspect ratio being resized to A4 paper format optimized for printing. There is also little change in the tube naming to suit two purposes - 1/ predicting the tube location by its name (I divided the chassis in several portions with unique letter for each) and 2/ to avoid unnecessarily large numbers like "Part 1287" or so. Chassis sections are named with a letter according to their location:
A - floor level (first level of the chassis is A like the first letter in the alphabet)
B - both Bumbers
C - engine Cradle
D - Door frames
E - Engine bay
F - Front end
R - Roof
S - both Sides of the cockpit
T - central Tunnel
W - fireWall
M - Metal plates and sheet Metal
Examples of the new plans:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2765/tubea6.png (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2765/tubea6.png)
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2498/tubea12.png (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2498/tubea12.png)
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6171/tubea14.png (http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6171/tubea14.png)
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6722/97745864.png (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6722/97745864.png)
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/2012/98902163.png (http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/2012/98902163.png)
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7292/79479890.png (http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7292/79479890.png)
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7258/e14l.png (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7258/e14l.png)
Some old renderings of my chassis (I will make new renderings next week to show the improvements over the old design):
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3238/chassis31december201214.jpg (http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3238/chassis31december201214.jpg)
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/3238/chassis31december201214.jpg (http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/3238/chassis31december201214.jpg)
When designing the sheet metal, welds around corresponding tubes are taken into consideration, so I leaved free space at these areas:
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8164/sample4f.png (http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8164/sample4f.png)
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2351/sample9.png (http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2351/sample9.png)
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3238/sample6.png (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3238/sample6.png)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5586/sample7.png (http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/5586/sample7.png)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5638/sample5c.png (http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5638/sample5c.png)
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7052/sample8e.png (http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7052/sample8e.png)
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3575/sample1m.png (http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3575/sample1m.png)
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2439/sample2d.png (http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2439/sample2d.png)
As the roof tubes are arranged in a complex way, I added tiny guide holes in the metal plates that hold the roll-bars. This way, builders will be able to easily fit the tubes at their proper position:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7933/rollcageweldingfixture6.png (http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7933/rollcageweldingfixture6.png)
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1689/rollcageweldingfixture5.png (http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1689/rollcageweldingfixture5.png)
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8140/rollcageweldingfixture4.png (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8140/rollcageweldingfixture4.png)
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9127/rollcageweldingfixture3.png (http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9127/rollcageweldingfixture3.png)
Also included are plans for cutting folding wooden fixtures to help you keep the roll-bars in place while welding them together (I will redesign them soon to make them even easier to cut):
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7301/rollcageweldingfixture1.png (http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7301/rollcageweldingfixture1.png)
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4046/rollcageweldingfixture2.png (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4046/rollcageweldingfixture2.png)
PS: There are improvements in my Aventador body plug plans as well (*free with my pre-ordered chassis plans, otherwise sold separately). Originally I used a relatively accurate game 3D Mesh model to extract the intersections. However, I make hand drawn curve approximation to replace the straight mesh lines with smooth NURBS curves. I also created 3d solid NURBS models for the Aventador glasses with constant radius to make sure the roof pillars and door panels of the plug will be built properly. Now the cross-sections are modified to follow the correct shape of the glasses. Body kits made out of plugs primarily built without proper glass shape (like all 3d Mesh models from the web) will cause problems and will require modifications to fit the glasses. The 3d solid NURBS models can be used by glass companies to make custom glasses for the body plug and kit. They are NOT 100% accurate replacements of the OEM glasses. However, they will fit my body plug plans.
-
Wow those are some excellent blue prints. Very fine work sir.
-
Will the plans include the suspension?
-
Thank you for the kind words, Alan!
autopro, yes, the package will include plans for the suspension as well. It will use custom designed wheel hubs and A-arms, and utilize the following parts:
+ 1997-2008 Corvette C5/C6/ZR1 hub/bearings by SKF (http://www.c5racer.com/catalog/c5-c6-z06-zr1-gs-corvette/suspension-corvette/c5-suspension-upgrades/c5c6-corvette-wheel-hub-bearing-assembly-heavy-duty-and-racing-front.html (http://www.c5racer.com/catalog/c5-c6-z06-zr1-gs-corvette/suspension-corvette/c5-suspension-upgrades/c5c6-corvette-wheel-hub-bearing-assembly-heavy-duty-and-racing-front.html))
+ Corvette C5 stock or Wilwood brakes
+ Mustang ball joints (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-bj-0327/overview/make/ford/model/mustang (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-bj-0327/overview/make/ford/model/mustang))
+ QA1 coil-overs 11" Front (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-Adjustable-11-Inch-Coil-Over-Shock-Kit,1207.html (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-Adjustable-11-Inch-Coil-Over-Shock-Kit,1207.html))
+ QA1 coil-overs 15.3" Rear (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-Adjustable-153-Inch-Coil-Over-Shock-Kit,39184.html (http://www.speedwaymotors.com/QA1-Adjustable-153-Inch-Coil-Over-Shock-Kit,39184.html))
However, I still don't have the dimensions for the Mustang ball joint, so I can't fully complete the suspension design unless I make a 3D CAD model of the ball joint. The Corvette hub/bearings and QA1 coil-overs I already measured and made exact copies in 3D.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1064/corvettec52.png (http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1064/corvettec52.png)
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5951/corvettec5.png[/url)
-
Here is a quick sample view of the custom wheel hub. Still in the making. As I design the steel plates with intergrated pins and holes, it will be virtually impossible to assemble the wheel hub the wrong way. ::thumbup I added some nice room for the welds around corners, but I will further reduce the size of pins from 5 mm to 2.5 mm, in order leave even more room for welds and completely hide the pins underneath. :)
-
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightriders%20album%202/SBROADSERROOFVersionchassisTXT.jpg)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightriders%20album%202/IKR670STYLEPARTS012.jpg) SPLASH MOLD
Roof support for both Versions
so this is a separate section
-
Yes, these tubes with exactly the same bend radius but shorter in length could be used for the Roadster version. However, for Roadster it's recommended to use thicker support tube for the A2 pillar (the vertical one between the small triangle window and door window). Plus, slightly different reinforcement tubes above the firewall. My plans will include both, the Coupe and Roadster roll-cages.
-
Hello everyone,
Last week a short circuit happened and my working desktop PC stopped working. Both of my OS, Windows XP and Windows 7, have been seriously damaged and since then I still don't have any access to the data inside my hard drive. Luckily, I have an older version of my Aventador chassis 3d model plus some of the early chassis plans on my laptop, so there will be some small delay in delivering the latter. From this project I lost only the final 3d chassis model (it had few adjustments around the engine bay that I remember and will apply to my backup model) and 16 plans that I can redo in the following days. However, I don't have any backup of my Aventador body plug plans and 3d body model (and everything I did since 2004), so I will have to redo the work from scratch. This means about two weeks of delay will follow for the body plug plans. My hard drive was sent to a PC service and after a week I will know if there are chances for my data to be extracted from there or not.
I would like to apologize to all of my customers for the inconvenience with that delay and to reassure you that this is NOT scam, and I will deliver 100% what I promised. Thank you for your understanding and keep reading this topic for more updates.
I also uploaded couple of videos and some photos to show you the issues with my PC. Hopefully this will be resolved. Until then I will be working on my laptop.
Kind regards,
Bobi
(videos)
Windows 7 not loading on my damaged primary hard drive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24mRsP3SEeA#ws)
Windows XP not loading on my damaged secondary hard drive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pa7ujBZtFM#ws)
(photos)
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/3128/img1244cn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img96/3128/img1244cn.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img407/2671/img1245fx.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img407/2671/img1245fx.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img109/5214/img1247zy.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img109/5214/img1247zy.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4633/img1248py.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4633/img1248py.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img407/2839/img1250z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img407/2839/img1250z.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img109/7660/img1252j.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img109/7660/img1252j.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img687/6164/img1253wb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img687/6164/img1253wb.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img801/8392/img1254m.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img801/8392/img1254m.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img829/5378/img1255i.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img829/5378/img1255i.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img802/4051/img1256bo.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img802/4051/img1256bo.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img18/1768/img1258cm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img18/1768/img1258cm.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img132/5861/img1260mk.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img132/5861/img1260mk.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img35/6296/img1261e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img35/6296/img1261e.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img855/7761/img1262t.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img855/7761/img1262t.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img842/4774/img1263sm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img842/4774/img1263sm.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img17/8540/img1264yo.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img17/8540/img1264yo.jpg)
-
Some good news, folks. The last night I was able to recover the information from one of my hard drive partitions and transfer the data to my new hard drive. Now I have all of my data prior early 2011 recovered. Unfortunatelly, everything I did from 2011 so far is still not recovered and I don't know if it will be ever possible to extract my works from there. Looking for news from the PC service where I leaved my hard drive. On the positive side, on my laptop I found copy of the Aventador 3d game model which I improved the last year, so now I'm ready to make the body plug sections again. In one day I will finish with the changes on the chassis (to make it same like the version I lost after the failure of my hard drive) and continue to supply my customers with chassis plans. Thank you again for your understanding and patience.
-
Some good news for the European, Australian and all other builders who can't find Imperial size tubes. ::thumbup
Due to the different tube standards in some continents, now there are two chassis designs and two types of plans - for using Imperial size tubes (inches) or Metric size tubes (millimeters). For short I call them US chassis and EU chassis. There are some subtle differences between both chassis. For example, where the US chassis is using tube 1.5 x 1.5" and wall thickness of 0.1" (38.1 x 38.1 x 2.54 mm) the EU chassis is using tube 40 x 40 x 2 mm.
-
Here is how you get 3 advantages when placing the floor sheet metal below the top side of the floor tubes (and NOT at bottom):
1. You keep the welds around sheets far from dirt and water. An additional replaceable protective composite panel is bolted at the bottom.
2. Increase stiffness. A chassis floor structure with sheets between tubes welded close to the upper side is stronger than a floor with whole sheet on top.
3. Lower the weight (since you remove the portions of sheets where the floor tubes go through).
You place the sound-deading material inside the 5 mm tall holes above the metal sheets.
This is CAD calculation of the volume of a whole sheet on top of the floor compared to the volume of 14 separate sheets laying 5 mm below the top of floor tubes (when using sheet with thickness of 2 mm):
(whole sheet) Volume = 1722.14437 cubic centimeters
(separate sheets) Volume = 1394.77973 cubic centimeters for 14 sheets
With reparate sheets between floor tubes, you save 327,36464 cubic centimeters of metal. To give you an idea for the amount of saved weight, a 40x40 mm tube with length of 1100 mm has volume of 326.84594 cubic centimeters. If you measure the weight of this tube, you can easily see how many kg you save.
(http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/9745/savedweight.png)
-
Steel weighs 500 lbs, per cubic foot. 327 CC is equal to about .01 Cubic feet so you save about 5 pounds by cutting the plate and putting it inside the tubes. If the plate is properly welded to the tubes I don't see any strength advantage to putting it inside the tubes rather than on the bottom. If you put the plate on the bottom of the tubes it makes the bottom of the car smoother for less air drag.
-
Steel weighs 500 lbs, per cubic foot. 327 CC is equal to about .01 Cubic feet so you save about 5 pounds by cutting the plate and putting it inside the tubes. If the plate is properly welded to the tubes I don't see any strength advantage to putting it inside the tubes rather than on the bottom. If you put the plate on the bottom of the tubes it makes the bottom of the car smoother for less air drag.
Thank you for taking part of this topic with useful information. I estimated (approximatelly, since it's still in CAD phase) about 25-30 kg of saving when using separate sheets for the whole chassis. While this is not too much on paper, it's still better to have the car a bit more lightweight to boost performance and handling.
With regards to the strenght factor, by using separate sheets between the tubes you UNLOAD a massive force from the tube welds since the sheets will act as a natural reinforcement to keep the tubes in place (this is true even if the welds were very weak). ;)
An additional replaceable protective composite panel is bolted at the bottom.
This is for both, better protection and earodynamics.
-
New update:
1. Recently I designed completelly new roof tubes (improved strength and visibility), as well as new metal plates (easier to weld, cheaper to laser cut, and reduced weight) that connect the roof tubes to the chassis. They are coloured in yellow in the pictures below:
http://imageshack.us/a/img208/8537/2yq.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img208/8537/2yq.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img12/6271/bh9.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img12/6271/bh9.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img838/8482/6tvk.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img838/8482/6tvk.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img16/1763/f3p.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img16/1763/f3p.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/8079/gn5o.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img42/8079/gn5o.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img839/6784/jqd5.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img839/6784/jqd5.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/5653/16m4.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img546/5653/16m4.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img543/4374/rzg0.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img543/4374/rzg0.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img823/2221/72jg.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img823/2221/72jg.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img407/9084/84d.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img407/9084/84d.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img823/405/7m38.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img823/405/7m38.png)
2. Also new are the tube end patterns that will help you cut precisely the round tubes at both sides, no matter how complex their shape is. These patterns are designed to be CNC-laser cut (or printed on paper and then overlayed on sheet metal and cut manually) from 2-2.54 mm thick sheet metal. This is especially helpful in the case of building multiple chassis. But you can use other materials instead (such like cardboard), in order to lower the cost.
http://imageshack.us/a/img35/6497/lur2.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img35/6497/lur2.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img703/3752/pc9z.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img703/3752/pc9z.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/4838/fbt2.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img69/4838/fbt2.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img855/1613/0ghl.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img855/1613/0ghl.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img545/1237/7ppw.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img545/1237/7ppw.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img839/7505/3e4y.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img839/7505/3e4y.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img521/9070/kax.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img521/9070/kax.png)
Shown in these short videos is what makes the patterns so useful:
Tube end pattern 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgYE0sNTwuY#)
Tube end pattern 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWtGCS7yGWM#)
3. I was asked by someone why I'm using a fairly straight tube behind the upper end of the front windshield, rather than using an arc tube like the rest ones seen on my shassis. The answer is, this is due to the untypical shape of the Aventador's roof which is concave at the middle, hence an arc tube is not suitable for this application.
http://imageshack.us/a/img153/6563/88g.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img153/6563/88g.png)
4. And here is a sample drawing for the new tube forming the main roof rail:
http://imageshack.us/a/img221/6804/ncy.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img221/6804/ncy.png)
-
UPDATE:
As I'm progressing with the drawings and getting close to finishing them out, the current pre-order price of 370 USD or 280 EUR will be kept by the end of this working week, Friday, 2nd August. From Monday, 5th August, the plans could be pre-ordered for 450 USD or 340 EUR. After I make them all, the plans will sell for 500 USD or 380 EUR.
-
UPDATE 2:
I created 3d NURBS glasses with even curvature, in order to validate the bending radius and to ensure that the power window will not collide with the door skin when moved down. I figured out that the A-pillar of the 3d model from the video game "Forza motorsport 4" is too off of the proper shape, so there will be some new improvements in my 3d model to follow the proper shape of side glasses, and this will also force me to do changes in the roll-cage of my chassis design. I will update you soon with the final version of the roll-cage. Below is a quick video showing the problem area. Builders, beware when using 3d models made of other people to create plugs. Always check for possible errors around the glass and door area.
Aventador custom glasses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JPxPNaT1Y#ws)
UPDATE 3:
Here is the new roof pillar tube which I made recently. It follows the changes on the A-pillar of the body and improves the visibility by up to 27 mm around the middle of the A-pillar. This lead to some changes on the chassis underneath, such like different location and/or shape of 4 tubes and 6 mounting plates.
Aventador roof pillar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNN4YThsm-o#ws)
-
UPDATE 4:
All round roof tubes are completelly redesigned now, plus another 12 square and rectangular chassis tubes and 6 metal plates that connect to the roof tubes. The drawings for the roof tubes are completed and currently I make the paper patterns that will be used as guides for cutting the ends of all round tubes. AutoCAD 2d DWG files will be provided to print them out on paper. I also redesigned most of the large wooden patterns that will guide you to place the roof tubes at their exact position in the 3d space. They have been just tested in real life and work perfectly accurate, as seen in the attached photo and in the following build thread http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/17361-aventador-chassis-14.html. (http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/17361-aventador-chassis-14.html.) There will be a nice set ot drawings sent to existing customers in the following days.
http://imageshack.us/a/img835/6246/58j9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img835/6246/58j9.jpg)
http://imageshack.us/a/img689/9717/8t46.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img689/9717/8t46.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img821/9524/pomq.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img821/9524/pomq.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img801/5063/p3pg.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img801/5063/p3pg.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img138/282/1akb.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img138/282/1akb.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img841/9807/rs4s.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img841/9807/rs4s.png)
-
UPDATE 5:
I improved the way the main roof pillars mount to the chassis, in order to allow 14 mm more free room for the door's window sealing next to the triangle window. The OEM Aventador sealing is too thin and considering that most builders will have to use donor car sealing which is usually thicker, having more free room in this area is crucial. Now 4 of the mounting plates that connect the roof to the main chassis are different, as well as 4 of the chassis tubes. Roof tubes are unchanged and remain in the same position.
I finished with designing all the roof wooden patterns and made the DWG drawings for them. Currently updating the plans for the modified chassis tubes and will send them in next days to existing customers.
Also, one of my customers is selling his partially finished Aventador chassis at MM. The remaining drawings that are due to finishing I will send to the eventual new owner. You can read the original post here: http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/mall/18012-aventador-chassis.html#post195109 (http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/mall/18012-aventador-chassis.html#post195109)
http://youtu.be/MIrFXqJ29rs (http://youtu.be/MIrFXqJ29rs)
-
well it,s tomorrow !!
-
What glass will fit this body you are drawing? Is it going to be OEM Lambo glass or from some other car?
-
Dave, check your e-mail later tonight. I will send you some bonus drawings as well. ::thumbup
Eric, thank you for the question. This reminded me that I forgot to mention something important about the glasses. Let me do it now. I tried my best to make the 3d glasses as close as possible, but there is no possible way to make the size and curvature of the glasses 100% same as the OEM Aventador glasses with using referene photos only. Ideal would be to have 3d laser scan data as reference, but I have no access to the real car or glasses. Having that said, for the real built replica there must be custom glasses made. I'm not sure if some OEM glass from other car models will be suitable. Together with my body plug plans I will supply the following glass drawings:
- 3d NURBS surface models (IGES) and Mesh models (STL) of all glasses.
- PNG image drawings of the glasses with basic dimensions and bend radius of the door glass.
- AutoCAD DWG drawings to print and cut slightly flexible 5-8 mm thick wooden cross-sections, then assemble together to make patterns for each glass. These are suitable for bringing it to a glass shop to make you custom glasses. No need to fill them out with foam etc, because glass shops need only the border shape plus 10-20 reference points across the surface.
It's recommended that all the glasses are available upon finishing the plug, in order to use them as reference for accurate sanding of all the edges of window sills next to the glasses. This will allow for perfect fit to be achieved when the composite body kit is made.
I made some quick samples just to show how the wooden pattern for the front windshield would look like. The actual drawings will include extra details like channels and ribs for accurate assembly (like those shown here http://imageshack.us/a/img155/261/dsc00509dd.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img155/261/dsc00509dd.jpg)). The first image shows the bottom plane that is mandatory in order to ensure symmetry of the vertical planes, i.e. to avoid making it like parallelogram.
http://imageshack.us/a/img703/3318/z7mh.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img703/3318/z7mh.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img203/9183/yk5u.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img203/9183/yk5u.png)
http://imageshack.us/a/img22/1072/m6ov.png (http://imageshack.us/a/img22/1072/m6ov.png)
-
A major update with newly created chassis plans plus assembly drawings with dimensions is coming for all of my customers this Monday. Some of them will replace the old versions you already have, as I made some improvements in the chassis design recently. :)
-
::bounce wow top :)
-
no have updates?
-
I almost finished with synchronization between the EU and US versions of my chassis design (the EU one had many improvements, now both are identical), so I will keep making tube- and assembly drawings from tomorrow. ::thumbup I also figured out the correct pivot angle of the door hinges and their proper size so that the doors will not hit the front fenders even if opened up to 95 degrees. Normally, they should be opened by just 70-75 degrees. The required installation drawings and CAD files for laser cut /or CNC-milling/ of the fully adjustable door hinge and mounting points will be included within my chassis plans package.
EDIT: I improved the angle and clearance so that the door could be opened up to 107 degrees before it reaches the front fender.
Video:
http://youtu.be/YDiCZ0l3dAc (http://youtu.be/YDiCZ0l3dAc)
-
Good news, folks. I did some improvements at the rear end of the chassis and designed all mounting plates for the bolt-on removable engine cradle. This week-end is coming a major update with more than 50% of the drawings completed and ready to be printed and used in your builds. ::salute
-
top :)
-
great news , do you have picture of your door hinge idea
-
Thank you!
The door hinge design and exact measurements is accessible to all customers who order(ed) my chassis plans. But I will have roof tube plans for you tomorrow. ;)
-
Due to some sudden circumstances, I will need couple extra days to write some texts in English for web publications plus letters to a local prosecutor's office (regarding my recent job at "Sin cars" GmbH, Ruse, Bulgaria), before I'm able to finish and send the update files I promised the other day. I would like to apologize for the delay, and reassure all the people who sent me deposits that I will make up for the delay with some useful additionas to the chassis plans.
-
Update:
I almost finished the door hinge's new design, plus started with the adjustable mounting points for the sideskirts.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1459683650935244&l=8649246787941816071 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1459683650935244&l=8649246787941816071)
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1459684990935110.1073741840.100006808682631&type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1459684990935110.1073741840.100006808682631&type=3)
-
nice :)
-
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightrider002/SB2qTXTSUSPENSIONQUESTIONS.jpg) (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/italianknightrider/media/italianknightrider002/SB2qTXTSUSPENSIONQUESTIONS.jpg.html)
COULD YOU POST THE MEASUREMENT ,across the rear lower frame from outside to outside ,in inches ", please ,and the same across the lower front where the suspension fit ,if this suspension pictured in each corner will fit it would finish this chassis and make it a contender for the new longer wheelbase kits
http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=9.9107 (http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=9.9107) naerc rear bushings
P S Hope to here from you soon with the Information ,i posted this on both forums
-
Hi Dave, here are the measurements you were asking for, though they seem a bit awkward when converted into inches.
-
this will help us run the numbers and compare it to the Chassis Works & NAERC plans to see if the suspension can be adapted to work on your chassis.
CW REAR OUTSIDE TO OUTSIDE BOTTOM 24"
CW FRONT OUTSIDE TO OUTSIDE BOTTOM 24 1/4"
Body width across ,front and rear the difference from Murcie & Ventador
which is wider C4 or C5 Front Suspension ,someone who know please post the difference
Front box will be 26 1/4" and the Rear frame rails outside to outside will be 26" using C5 Suspension up front & NAERC rear
Ventador is 4" wider up front and 1" rear so this is what your frame need ...here are the no.
-
Check this link, there is a lot of good information about C5.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c5-tech/984927-weights-measurements-ratios-strengths-etc.html (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c5-tech/984927-weights-measurements-ratios-strengths-etc.html)
C5 Suspension
Brake Rotor Dimensions-front
3 cm, 2 mm --- rotor thickness --- Source
7 cm --- center hole diameter --- Source
7 cm --- lug to lug spacing --- Source
11 cm --- lug diameter...don't know how to say from two lugs across rotor to single lug. Imagine an acute triangle if dots were connected --- Source
3 cm, 8 mm --- inside face of hub to rotor surface --- Source
19 cm --- inner hub diameter --- Source
21 cm, 7 mm --- out hub diameter --- Source
32 cm, 5 mm --- rotor diameter --- Source
Brake Rotor Dimensions-rear -- dimensions that are same as front are not repeated
2 cm, 6 mm --- rotor thickness --- Source
4 cm, 2 mm --- inside face of hub to rotor surface --- Source
20 cm, 2 mm --- out hub diameter --- Source
30 cm, 5 mm --- rotor diameter --- Source
Caliper Pistons
1-9/16" dia x 2 pistons per caliper = 3.835 sq inches --- Front Pistons --- Source
1-3/4" dia x 1 piston per caliper = 2.405 sq inches --- Rear Piston --- Source
Swaybars
23mm, front; 19.1mm, rear --- FE1/Base --- Source
25.4mm, front; 21.7mm, rear --- FE3/Z51 97-99 --- Source
28.6mm, front; 23.6mm, rear --- FE3/Z51 00-04 --- Source
30.0mm, front; 23.6mm, rear --- FE4/Z06 --- Source
31.75mm, front; 25.4mm, rear --- Hotchkis --- Source
38.4mm, front; 27.5mm, rear --- GM T1 --- Source
Spring Rates
439.66 lb/in, front; 576.70 lb/in, rear (manual trans); 588.12 lb/in, rear (auto trans) --- FE-1/Base --- Source
440 lb/in, front; 577 lb/in, rear --- FE-1/Base --- Source
457 lb/in, front; 577 lb/in, rear --- MSRC --- Source
525 lb/in, front --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
660 lb/in, front --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
327 lb/in, rear --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
633 lb/in, rear --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
634 lb/in, rear --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
525.31 lb/in, front; 633.80 lb/in, rear (manual trans); 645.22 lb/in, rear (auto trans) --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
525 lb/in, front; 634 lb/in, rear --- FE-3/Z51 --- Source
620 lb/in, rear --- FE-4/Z06 --- Source
650 lb/in, front; 680 lb/in, rear --- FE-4/Z06 --- Source
525 lb/in, front; 714 lb/in, rear --- FE-4/Z06 --- Source
650 lb/in, front; 800 lb/in, rear --- T1 --- Source
1,000 lb/in, front; 680 lb/in, rear --- Danny Popp's setup --- Source
77 N/mm --- FE1 & F45 front suspension spring rate --- SAE SP-1282
1.15 Hz --- FE1 & F45 front suspension ride frequency --- SAE SP-1282
103 N/mm --- FE1 & F45 rear suspension spring rate --- SAE SP-1282
1.36 Hz --- FE1 & F45 rear suspension ride frequency --- SAE SP-1282
1.18 --- FE1 & F45 Ride frequency ratio --- SAE SP-1282
93 N/mm --- FE3 front suspension spring rate --- SAE SP-1282
1.20 Hz --- FE3 front suspension ride frequency --- SAE SP-1282
113 N/mm --- FE3 rear suspension spring rate --- SAE SP-1282
1.45 Hz --- FE3 rear suspension ride frequency --- SAE SP-1282
1.21 --- FE3 Ride frequency ratio --- SAE SP-1282
Misc Suspension
36mm --- FE-1/Base shock absorber piston --- SAE SP-1282
45mm --- FE-3/Z51 shock absorber piston --- SAE SP-1282
aluminum --- front upper control arm bushing bar pin material --- SAE SP-1282
aluminum --- rear uppper control arm bushing inner metals --- SAE SP-1282
glass reinforced resin --- early stabilizer end links --- SAE SP-1282
AA6061-T6 (forged) --- front upper control arm material --- SAE SP-1282
A356-T6 (hybrid cast preform-forging) --- front lower control arm material --- SAE SP-1282
A356-T6 (hybrid cast preform-forging) --- rear upper control arm material --- SAE SP-1282
A356-T6 (hybrid cast preform-forging) --- rear lower control arm material --- SAE SP-1282
A356-T6 (hybrid cast preform-forging) --- knuckles (all are from the same casting) --- SAE SP-1282
Control Arm Notes
Front lower, and upper/lower control arms are an L-shape variation. The forward leg of the control arm is set near to wheel center. The forward leg of the lower control arms is fitted with a "handling" bushing; the rear leg is fitted with a "ride" bushing. The "ride" bushing absorbs the brunt of road deflections while the "handling" bushing absorbs the brunt of the cornering forces. The "handling" bushing is 3-6 times stiffer than the "ride" bushing.
C5 Alignment
6.5° --- front caster angle --- SAE SP-1282
0.2° --- rear caster angle --- SAE SP-1282
36mm --- front caster trail --- SAE SP-1282
63mm --- front spindle length --- SAE SP-1282
50.7mm --- rear spindle length --- SAE SP-1282
8.8° --- front kingpin angle --- SAE SP-1282
9.2° --- rear kingpin angle (inclination) --- SAE SP-1282
10mm --- front scrub radius --- SAE SP-1282
1.0mm --- rear scrub radius --- SAE SP-1282
1.34:1 --- front shock lever arm ratio --- SAE SP-1282
1.43:1 --- rear shock lever arm ratio --- SAE SP-1282
5.2 --- rear side-view swing arm angle --- SAE SP-1282
C4 Alignment
5.9° --- front caster angle --- SAE SP-1282
1.2° --- rear caster angle --- SAE SP-1282
45mm --- front caster trail --- SAE SP-1282
93mm --- front spindle length --- SAE SP-1282
123.0mm --- rear spindle length --- SAE SP-1282
16° --- front kingpin angle --- SAE SP-1282
-7.1° --- rear kingpin angle (inclination) --- SAE SP-1282
162.3mm --- rear scrub radius --- SAE SP-1282
7.8 --- rear side-view swing arm angle --- SAE SP-1282
this will help us run the numbers and compare it to the Chassis Works & NAERC plans to see if the suspension can be adapted to work on your chassis.
CW REAR OUTSIDE TO OUTSIDE BOTTOM 24"
CW FRONT OUTSIDE TO OUTSIDE BOTTOM 24 1/4"
Body width across ,front and rear the difference from Murcie & Ventador
which is wider C4 or C5 Front Suspension ,someone who know please post the difference
-
The c4 are different lengths, 87 and down are shorter than 88 and up
-
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightrider002/SBC5CorvetteCustomUpperTOPMountingPLATE.jpg) (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/italianknightrider/media/italianknightrider002/SBC5CorvetteCustomUpperTOPMountingPLATE.jpg.html)
WORKING OUT A DEAL TO GET THESE 3/8" UPPER MOUNTING BRACKET / PLATES CUT OUT FOR THE C5 FRONT SUSPENSION UPPER CONTROL ARM
-
IKR, the Chassisworks plans and the NAERC plans were for a Diablo. An Aventador has over 4" wider track in the front and over 1" wider track in the back. An Aventador also has wider wheels than a Diablo in the front and narrower than a Diablo in the rear. You cannot just copy the chassis and suspension dimensions, you must account for the track and hubface differences in order for the wheels to sit correctly in Aventador body wheelwells. If you are not using stock wheel offsets, also account for it now so that you will not need spacers later.
-
IKR, the Chassisworks plans and the NAERC plans were for a Diablo. An Aventador has over 4" wider track in the front and over 1" wider track in the back. An Aventador also has wider wheels than a Diablo in the front and narrower than a Diablo in the rear. You cannot just copy the chassis and suspension dimensions, you must account for the track and hubface differences in order for the wheels to sit correctly in Aventador body wheelwells. If you are not using stock wheel offsets, also account for it now so that you will not need spacers later.
our Front box will be 26 1/4" and the Rear frame rails outside to outside will be 26" using C5 Suspension up front
-
Update: Sending next wave of chassis plans tomorrow. ::beers
-
O K ,this is the C5 Bracket set for the front suspension ,we now have the ability to use C4 or C5
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightrider002/SBC5UPPERCONTROLARMMOUNTS.jpg) (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/italianknightrider/media/italianknightrider002/SBC5UPPERCONTROLARMMOUNTS.jpg.html)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightrider002/SBC4FRONTSUSPENSIONMOUNTINGBRACKETS.jpg) (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/italianknightrider/media/italianknightrider002/SBC4FRONTSUSPENSIONMOUNTINGBRACKETS.jpg.html)
we are still waiting on the roof plans we ordered !!
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/italianknightrider/italianknightrider002/SBROOFchassis.jpg) (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/italianknightrider/media/italianknightrider002/SBROOFchassis.jpg.html)
IF YOU get one of these frames drivable then you can sell more of them , people are waiting to see someone make the suspension fit and work !!
-
Dave, there were some improvements I made on the roof, mostly on the Roadster version. Stay tuned for the new drawings. ::salute
New update, with the following key features:
1. The engine cradle is different now, 300 mm narrower at the back end compared to previous version. I will have to redo most of the engine cradle drawings. As a result of that modification, rear lower A-arms are inequal length - their back side is 150 mm longer than the front side. This will provide a better suspension travel in the case of high-speed cornering, while maintaining the same strength of the A-arm during acceleration. Weight is reduced by about 1.4 kg as well.
2. I already finished with testing and figuring out the best performing suspension geometry for the front wheels. I started with the 3d modeling of it, using real parts as reference 3d models (Corvette C5 hub-bearing, QA1 coil-over, QA1 X-series 5/8 rod end, Master-sport lower ball joint, custom made wheel hubs). Eventually, I may also design an alternative lover A-arms, front and rear, that use some different lower ball joint that's largely available in the US. At this point I don't own such part to take exact measurements of it, so I can't turn it into a 3d reference model.
3. As I use more aggressive camber angle for the steering pivot, I decided to use two-link upper A-arm instead of regular single upper A-arm. This will allow to manipulate both, the camber angle and the castor angle, while taking a turn. During a high-speed cornering, the outer wheel's camber angle will be double that of a usual sports car (http://i.imgur.com/wmI2AP2.png (http://i.imgur.com/wmI2AP2.png)), in order to keep maximum area of contact patch of the tyre on the road surface, as well as to reduce heat and friction in the wheel bearing. Although it may sound strange, in some cases the inner wheel's castor angle will become negative, thus reducing the body roll and the aforementioned aggressive camber angle when it's not necessary (inner tyre will take less than 10-20% of forces as the majority of weight is being shifted to the outer tyre, so there is no reason for the former to be inclined). All of these advantages are not possible with regular double A-arm design.
In the following days I will send updated drawings with the included changes I made recently, plus new drawings for the rear bumper, suspension A-arms and wheel hubs.
http://i.imgur.com/QBaZ9YI.png
(http://i.imgur.com/QBaZ9YI.png)http://i.imgur.com/Fl93Jk2.png
http://i.imgur.com/va6nz3R.png (http://i.imgur.com/va6nz3R.png)
http://i.imgur.com/OxXykFm.png (http://i.imgur.com/OxXykFm.png)
http://i.imgur.com/OYl2MT2.png (http://i.imgur.com/OYl2MT2.png)
http://i.imgur.com/e288Xhd.png (http://i.imgur.com/e288Xhd.png)
http://i.imgur.com/ycXP15G.png (http://i.imgur.com/ycXP15G.png)
http://i.imgur.com/m9PuOUD.png (http://i.imgur.com/m9PuOUD.png)
-
That's very interesting information, I would hope no one would attempt a high speed corner, but assuming everything holds together it looks pretty good.
I like the frame, Is it specific to an Aventador body that is in fabrication? Or is it designed to be used as a standard?
-
The chassis is primarily designed to be used with a few Aventador body kits that are currently being developed by other builders. As far as I know, at least two of these are based on the Aventador 3d game model from the video game "Forza Motorsport 4". I, too, used this 3d model (though heavily improved by me for better accuracy) as reference for getting the main proportions of my chassis. However, since these plug/body projects are done by other people, I can't speak about their accuracy or whether they will fit perfectly to my chassis (the roof pillar, for example, can be a bit off, the rest should be able to fit with ease). My chassis is totally custom design, purposely not following the usual Diablo and Murcielago chassis designs as I find them having too many weaknesses (especially in the case of side impact or overlap frontal crash, i.e. when the car is being hit only at either side of the front bumper).
-
So you purposely did not follow a proven design, which was made with a lot of r&d money?.
Just curious.
-
So you purposely did not follow a proven design, which was made with a lot of r&d money?.
Just curious.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the Diablo and the Murcielago chassis are both not safe enough in the case of overlap frontal crash. Not to mention that old EuroNCAP crash test were done at lower speed and the cars were hit along the whole front end, whereas the 1/4 overlap crash test was introduced just in the recent years (and this is why many of the 5-star and 4-star cars eventually received surprisingly poor ratings on the additional re-run of their crash tests). I can't find the exact article where I watched dozens of videos with these failed crash tests of previously known as "safe" cars, but even this one will pretty much show the origin of the problem: http://jalopnik.com/watch-this-absolutely-brutal-crash-test-of-a-mazda-cx-9-1560931424 (http://jalopnik.com/watch-this-absolutely-brutal-crash-test-of-a-mazda-cx-9-1560931424)
As for the suspension. For some unknown reason, despite the thousands of engineers and huge amount of money and time invested in R&D by so many (sports) car companies over the years, their suspensions still fail to provide proper camber angle during high-speed cornering (unless they manually increase the camber angle for the track-only cars). I evaluate the car suspension performance since over a decade, and based on my observations, even the camber angle used in modern OEM sports cars is simply wrong. The most tricky thing is to keep best possible contact between the tyres and the road. As the tyre's lower cross-section shape will get heavily twisted during high-speed cornering, a huge amount of friction and weight forces is being transferred to the outer side of the tyre (for example, this is the front left tyre when the car does a turn on the right side), whereas the inner side of the tyre is being unloaded and sometimes it even loses contact with the road. This is just a quick example of the problem:
http://i.imgur.com/wmI2AP2.png (http://i.imgur.com/wmI2AP2.png)
That problem is further increased by the fact that the wheel will not strictly follow what the engineers predicted in their CAD simulations, because under the shifted weight forces in this conditions the location of upper and lower ball joint pivot points changes a bit. This is especially true for suspensions based on polyurethane bushings instead of metal ball bearing mountings, where the change could reach as mush as 10-15 mm than the original position. Even with metal ball bearing mountings (rod ends etc), there is still a certain amount of change of the wheel's camber angle compared to what was supposed to be in the CAD design. The hub-bearing will slightly bend under the massive forces taken during high-speed cornering. This is why I designed my suspension to compensate for these loses in camber angle, so that it will be safer and offer better performance in the cases where the car is being driven faster in the bends. :)
-
Ouch! So what exact changes can be made to push the car away from the object rather than pulling it in? I see the additional triangulation added on the bottom to match the top
-
Guess we should stay away from large immovable small radius solid metal trees when driving on the sidewalk.
Other than that, these are controlled/forced events, I found it interesting that the seatbelt did little to prevent leftward motion.... So if it's structure concerning you it's one thing, the restraint system is another.
I also noticed the driver did "little to nothing" response wise, to the obvious object in the vehicles path...
What sort of dummies do they have driving in these tests?
Swerve and avoid people..... Swerve and avoid......
::K
-
Ah I'm glad it wasn't just me thinking that, it didn't even seem like the seat belt was holding him back lol
-
P4S, what is a two link upper a-arm? Does that mean it has two of what are called "pick-up points" instead of three? Also, do you mean that the back lower a-arm is 150MM longer than the front as you say, or is it 150MM wider as measured from a transverse centerline between the two lower rear ball joints?
-
The upper front A-arm is in fact replaced by two separate linkages with 2x2 pivots instead of using a traditional single one with 3 pivots.
http://i.imgur.com/sSUK4AB.png (http://i.imgur.com/sSUK4AB.png)
As for the lower rear A-arm, it's a regular design, though it's inequal type, in a very similar fashion like the Ford GT40's separate linkages (except that on my design it's a single A-arm). The front linkage of it will take the huge torque during acceleration, whereas the back linkage will be mounted 150 mm closer to the center of the car than the front one, in order to allow less sideways shifting of the rear wheel while it goes up or down. As a side effect, this will also reduce the friction between the rear Corvette C5 hub-bearing and and the axle.
-
O.K. ...I looked at your front a-arm image and I guess I am missing something here. Can your car not turn left or right?
-
As the wheel turns left or right, its upper two pivots go forward or backwards, thus adjusting the camber and caster angle depending on the turn degree and direction. The light gray lines next to the upper linkages show the maximum path of these while the wheel is turned left and right, respectively. I spent whole day and night in testing that suspension setup and made multiple improvements during the process. While turned by 35 degrees (usually only during parking), the wheel can go up by 50 mm or down by 35 mm without a collision between the rim's inner lip with either of the upper control arms. Obviously, in real life you can never have situation where you, both, have the wheels turned to the limit and pushing the front suspension so hard that it either goes 50 mm up or 35 mm down simultaneously. Such massive forces usually are present only during high-speed cornering when the wheels are rarely turned sideways by more than 10-15 degrees. But I did that 35-degree test to simply reassure that my suspension setup will be working fine even at these extreme conditions.
-
Update:
1. My chassis is now officially called "Govedo chassis". The word "govedo" means "bull" in Bulgarian language, so this pretty much sums it up.
2. I'm almost ready with the front suspension design and this will allow me to continue with the creation of tube chassis drawings. I had to temporarily pause the creation of drawings, as on theory there was a risk of potential collision between the front wheel and the chassis. My recent 3d suspension simulations proved to work just fine with the current chassis design. Because my chassis allows for about 82 mm wider feet space next to the front wheel than NAERC chassis (418 mm versus 336 mm, respectivelly), it was mandatory to ensure that there will be enough free space between the front wheel and the chassis while the former is being turned up to 37 degrees, in order to match the turning radius of the genuine Aventador.
http://i.imgur.com/9iVSazn.png (http://i.imgur.com/9iVSazn.png)
http://i.imgur.com/2RfiL0e.png (http://i.imgur.com/2RfiL0e.png)
http://i.imgur.com/tfDKgoc.png (http://i.imgur.com/tfDKgoc.png)
http://i.imgur.com/SpHAuiF.png (http://i.imgur.com/SpHAuiF.png)
http://i.imgur.com/dHKwBDl.png (http://i.imgur.com/dHKwBDl.png)
http://i.imgur.com/hpETz7Z.png (http://i.imgur.com/hpETz7Z.png)
3. I also did some calculations of material volume used in a slightly modified 3d NAERC chassis (free download here: ), and it turns out that it has very similar numbers almost matching my own Govedo chassis, despite the more massive look and higher strength of the latter. However, both, the NAERC chassis and Govedo chassis are lacking some sheet metal, so the final numbers will vary a bit. I post some sample comparison below.
NAERC chassis floor, both sides (6.35 mm / 0.25" thick sheet only): Volume = 10,669.0036 (+/- 1e-05) cubic centimeters
Govedo chassis floor, both sides (4 mm thick sheet over reinforcement tubes): Volume = 9,279.2628 (+/- 0.00053) cubic centimeters
NAERC chassis with firewall and floor sheets, no roll-cage: Volume = 41,889.2824 (+/- 0.0018) cubic centimeters
Govedo chassis with firewall and floor sheets, full roll-cage: Volume = 41,772.2091 (+/- 0.016) cubic centimeters
4. Here is the 10-clause policy for using my Govedo chassis plans (the buyer of these is referred as to "builder", and a single full set of my custom chassis drawings is referred as to "chassis plans" for short):
1) Upon buying the Govedo chassis plans, the builder agrees to all the conditions below;
2) The chassis plans set contains a full number of drawings allowing to build an entire custom designed chassis and suspension called "Govedo chassis";
3) The Govedo chassis should fit to any properly built Lamborghini Aventador body kit, as well as to the Finnluxury Tritium kit (aka FLT). You can also develop a custom body kit for the chassis. Worth mentioning is that the FLT kit uses additional custom designed adjustable mounting points to accuratelly fit the body panels in their exact position. These mounting points are not supplied with the chassis plans since they are aimed for use specifically with that particular kit.
4) The chassis plans is a single license and can be used to build one chassis only, be it for personal use or commercial purposes. A single license can not be used to build two chassis or any greater number;
5) A builder who previously purchased the chassis plans can additionally build a second chassis (or any greater number of chassis) by purchasing a new set of chassis plans/license worth 75% of the price (i.e. 75% of 500 USD or 380 EUR = 375 USD or 285 EUR); Builders who would like to mass-produce my Govedo chassis at numbers greater than 5 (five), should order at least 5 licenses at a time worth 50% of the price (i.e. 5x 75% of 500 USD or 380 EUR = 5x 250 USD or 190 EUR = 1250 USD or 950 EUR);
6) Since there is a risk of an illegal piracy of my chassis plans, which is a non-controllable process and heavily based on consensual obligation and trust, it's assumed that the builder is conscientious, understands the clauses in this policy, and shall respect the vast amount of CAD work done by me and the time spent during that process. The builder is personally responsible to not share, re-sell, give as a gift, scan, upload, modify, reproduce in 3d and share, or any other type of unfavourable action that violates the trust granted via the purchase of the Govedo chassis plans. If you do not understand the clauses or will not respect my work, please, do not order the Govedo chassis plans;
7) The builder can freely modify his/her chassis built after my chassis plans, if he/she considers the need to do so. However, this does not allow him/her to use the modified design based on my chassis plans for commercial or non-commercial purposes for another chassis, i.e. a partially modified chassis design of my chassis plans used to build a second chassis (or any greater number) will violate clauses #5 and #6;
8 ) The Govedo chassis is primarily designed for personal usage by the builder in the form of chassis drawings, build diagrams and text instructions, thus the final build quality, symmetry and safety of the home built chassis heavily depends on the work done by the builder, as well as the custom and/or donor car parts used in the built. I put my whole expertise and effort into designing this chassis, and I can say for sure that it features above the average safety/strength level usually seen in the component- and kit car field. However, any mechanical issues, cracks in the welds or tubes, rust, improper cuts and assembly, improper size and/or type of tubes, potential injures or any other accidents caused while driving a car based on the Govedo chassis are by no means related to me. The full responsibility on how my chassis plans set is being used to materialize the actual chassis lies on the builder. If you are unsure whether you have the skills, knowledge and equipment to handle the work necessary to build the chassis and suspension, please, do not start this build at all, or try to find a reputable builder to properly do the job for you. If you are going to often drive the car with speeds above average (like on highway or track racing), it's highly recommended to use additional safety features, such like: racing roll-cage, stronger brakes, suspension parts, 4-point racing seat belts, etc.;
9) You can contact me personally for any additional information and help during your build of the Govedo chassis. It's my duty and pleasure to try to respond as fast as I can whenever I'm at home.
10) If you enjoy your build and eventual ride with the car based on the Govedo chassis, please, share your thoughts and feelings.
-
UPDATE:
After all adjustments I made recently on the 3d chassis design, I'm now working again on creation the tube drawings. The final version of my Govedo chassis plans is expected to be ready after about one month from now on. There are people who are waiting since long time ago to start their chassis builds and I would like to say thank you for your kindness and patience. It's so close now! I will do my best to fit inside this time frame and start printing the plans sets and then send them via post in an envelope. Normally, one set of printed chassis plans will cost 500 USD or 380 EUR. However, until then I pre-sell the plans for a discount price of 450 USD or 340 EUR. Shipping is included in the price.
There are still people asking me if the chassis plans cost 75 USD as the topic's name suggest, but this no longer applies in this case, as that lowered price was only an initial offer I made based on a much simpler chassis design that was supposed to take me a lot less time. The chassis now has more than double number of tubes than the amount originally planned and it comes with door hinge design, as well. I can't change the topic name to have the appropriate amount. I rely on the belief that there must be a total transparency in doing business, thus I purposely leaved intact my original posts in this thread as a back-up for free reading, even though the chassis was significantly changed/improved over the time and pricing has slowly increasing as I was progressing. It should be mentioned that those who pre-ordered at the initial lowered price for the simpler chassis will receive the exact same full packages and customer support like the newer customers, as a regard for the support I needed initially upon starting this project.
Below is a quick comparison between the Govedo chassis and the NAERC chassis. I measured the difference they both have around the firewall. On my chassis, the firewall has about 100 mm more room in front of the engine at the engine's upper level (meaning my firewall is moved closer towards the seats), and the lower half of my firewall is located another 40 mm more forward (for a total of 140 mm more room than NAERC's firewall). I marked the back side of both firewalls with yellow lines.
http://i.imgur.com/wN7ZKyG.png (http://i.imgur.com/wN7ZKyG.png)
http://i.imgur.com/JRnaXtw.png (http://i.imgur.com/JRnaXtw.png)
http://i.imgur.com/OcEXrpX.png (http://i.imgur.com/OcEXrpX.png)
Each Govedo chassis and suspension set/license will be shipped in an envelope with paper plans and CD, which consist the following:
- AutoCAD files with 2d drawing of each individual sheet metal piece and metal plate saved separately and ready for laser cutting.
- Printed A4 paper plans for each individual tube and sheet metal piece, complete with dimensions and part number for easier locating in the chassis. Along with the full measurements, unrolled tube end templates will be available for the few tubes that require complex end notching. This way, you could use these templates and hand plasma cutter or even angle grinder, just in case you don't have a tube notcher.
- Lots of JPG or PNG picture drawings of all tubes assembled together, complete with measurements and guide instructions. Basically, these are full views and close-up views of the chassis (or portion of the chassis) from various angles where the individual numbers of each tube is placed to allow proper understanding of the whole assembly.
- 10 views of the chassis placed in a semi-transparent body of the Aventador.
- Drawings of bent round tubes for the roof roll-cage. Keep in mind that these are designed around the 3d model of Aventator which I use as a reference for the chassis design. If you have a kit with too inaccurate proportions/size, then it's possible to require slightly differently shaped tubes on the roof.
- Suspension drawings with custom designed A-arms and front/rear wheel hubs (aka knuckles). The suspension is designed to utilize Corvette C5 hub-bearings, QA1 rod ends, and QA1 coil-overs. Please, let me know in advance what is the wheel offset and width of your rims, so that I can apply changes to the A-arms and chassis according to your measurements.
- Door hinge design, includes AutoCAD drawings and a 3d solid model.
- Various videos of the 3d chassis.
-
UPDATE:
In next days I will start delivery of the tube plans. I try to make US and EU plans simultaneously, and more detailed, so it's a bit slow. By the way, these are totally new plans, with better anti-aliasing and thicker line types to allow easier to read printing, as well as some new additional information added, such like: wall thickness (I now use .083" for the US version, and 2 mm for the EU version), mentioning the location of each tube on the chassis, accompanied with a tiny diagram on the upper right corner for quick reference. I post an example here.
http://i.imgur.com/Iixpsog.png (http://i.imgur.com/Iixpsog.png)
-
I received the first group of plans late last night and started building my chassis this morning. Thanks Bobi! Looking forward to the rest of the plans as you finish them.
The plans themselves are very well done, not only do they have all the basics information you need like material thickness, outside dimensions, lengths, qty, etc but it also shows you where in the chassis these parts go. This feature really helps understand how that part fits into the overall assembly without having to look at an assembly print... nice addition...
So far the tubes are fitting together perfectly with no issues!
-
I'm glad that you like the plans I sent you so far! :) I just added a few more that I made today, and next ones are coming tomorrow. ::beers
-
From tomorrow I will be sending updates to anyone waiting for the EU tube plans, as well.
-
Do you have anyone who has made a chasis yet with the plans you are selling? If so I would like to see their progress and their feedback.
-
Hi, there may be more people building chassis privately, but so far I'm aware of two open build threads. You can see them here http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/17361-aventador-chassis.html (http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/17361-aventador-chassis.html) and here http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/18902-venta-r-build.html (http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/build-diaries/18902-venta-r-build.html) respectively. The first chassis is EU version with tube sizes in millimetres, and the second one is US version with tube sizes in inches. Over the next few days I will be sending a good amount of new plans to my customers, and I will be glad to see some more builds started soon.
-
UPDATE:
- The chassis now features dozen newly added reinforcements in key areas, mainly to help the passive frontal crash protection, especially important in the case of an overlap crash when the car's front is being hit only at one side. Those with previously started chassis builds will not need to modify any tubes already welded, because the main chassis design remains the same. The new reinforcement tubes and laser cut plates are additions, hence they will be welded to the existing structure subsequently.
- Reposition of the front lower control arm mounting plates, for easier access to the bolts.
- New way for attaching the engine cradle to the chassis, now fully eliminating any loose movement of the mounting bolts.
- New set of plans will be sent today to customers, with much more to come in next days.
-
UPDATE:
There is a new time-limited offer for my Govedo chassis plans, which is a lower pre-order price for students only, set at 400 US Dollars or 300 Euros. Pre-order price for non-students remains the same at 450 US Dollars or 340 Euros. *Final price (after expiration of the pre-order period) will be 500 US Dollars or 380 Euros.
Bottom of the engine cradle was fully redesigned, to help improve the performance of the rear suspension and add stiffness to the engine bay structure.
Customers of the EU version of the chassis plans will receive a major update with over 30 new plans tomorrow. US customers already got this update previously, but now is time to make up on the EU side.
-
May I ask if the Pink Limbo on your Facebook is something you've built? Can I ask if you have the plans for that particular Kit, or can you tell me where to source the Kit? Or if you know the particular model of Aventador?
-
Hi Rob, this car project is called Finnluxury Tritium aka FLT. I did the design of it and the CNC-milled plugs are currently under development by a member of this forum known as Tantukka. He could provide you with more information about the kit, schedule, pricing, etc. The body kit is designed to fit my Govedo chassis from this particular topic, though that will require dedicated mounting points to be added to it in order to attach the body panels. You can also check its FB page https://www.facebook.com/finnluxury (https://www.facebook.com/finnluxury) and this topic on MM: http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/general-kitcar-chat/18904-flt-supercar.html (http://www.madmechanics.com/forum/general-kitcar-chat/18904-flt-supercar.html)
-
UPDATE:
- I'm close to complete this project, having most of the chassis plans nearly finished, and remaining ones require minor fixes and details to be added. Areas to be finished are for the rear suspension, rear bumper frame, sheet metal, some metal plates, door frame and door hinge. Once I'm ready with these, printing of the final chassis plans and composing a tutorial DVD will start in January 2014. Still looking for the best option for good quality and price ratio.
- The current lower pre-order price (450 US Dollars or 340 Euros) has expiration date on 31th December 2014. Starting the regular price (500 US Dollars or 380 Euros) from 1st January 2015.
- Front area next to the suspension A-arms is reinforced with 4 extra tubes to provide better small overlap frontal impact resistance. This addition vastly improves the safety when the car is being hit at either side.
- A new way to create the A2-pillar* framing, in order to allow better visibility and customized shape depending on your body kit. *(the pillar that's located between the front quarter window and the door window of Lamborghini Aventador or Finnluxury Tritium (http://lamboclone.com/index.php?topic=2390.0))
- I re-designed the engine cradle mounting points and increased the total number from 6 to 8. Now they consist of 45-degree cone-shaped metal inserts. Originally, I was using laser cut metal plates as mounting points, but the newer design have the following advantages:
1) It allows self-centering of the mounting points to the correct position as the engine cradle is being raised towards the chassis.
2) It provides increased larger contact area, hence less pressure taken by the mounting points (and lower chance to damage the paint in between).
3) It unloads at least 90-95% of the stress usually transferred to the mounting bolts.
4) There is no more chance for sideways bending compared to metal plate version, because the mounting points are now solid cones and integrated in the tubes.
5) It has a better rust protection, thanks to the raised cones and closed cap design.
6) If looks more discreet.
-
UPDATE:
1. After some improvements on key areas I'm revisiting certain old tube plans that were slightly affected of the new changes. In the following days I will send update with a whole new set of plans to chassis builders.
2. The lower engine cradle mountings were completely redesigned to increase the strength, and use shorter screws now.
3. There are a few changes with the naming of the chassis plans, where the part's main letter helps to better understand the position of the respective tube, sheet or machined part. The new names are as follows (I also include the progress on them I made, marked in the [] brackets):
A - Floor level [fully completed]
B - Bumpers [half completed]
C - Engine cradle [fully completed]
D - Door frames and hinges [not yet started]
E - Engine bay [fully completed]
F - Front end [fully completed]
R - Roof roll-cage [half completed]
S - Sides of the cockpit [fully completed]
T - Central Tunnel [fully completed]
W - Firewall [fully completed]
M* - Metal sheets and plates [half completed]
MP - Machined parts (mostly made with a turner machine) [half completed]
ST - Suspension tubes [half completed]
*The "M" sheets or plates will consist one or two additional letters, depending on the position relative to the section of the chassis. For example, a metal plate used for suspension A-arm will be named like MST, whereas a metal sheet used in the firewall will be named MW.
-
UPDATE:
- The front bumper have been redesigned to increase the structural strength. There are five new tubes and lots of metal plates added to secure the frontal impact members. This also makes the front bumper stronger for when skid beam rollers are installed underneath.
- Six tubes in the feet and dashboard area were slightly redesigned to simplify the tube cutting, and two extra tubes were added to the engine cradle.
- The ST (suspension tubes) plans are renamed just SP (suspension), for easier understanding while reading the abbreviations.
- Metal plates for the A2 roof pillars (before the door glasses) were improved with fixed mounting holes, hence the positioning and welding of these should be easier.
- Due to the recent big changes in the currency exchange rate between the falling Euro and stronger US Dollar, the cost of Govedo chassis plans is updated as follows: a) Pre-order is 400 US Dollars or 380 Euros; door hinge 3d CAD file is included for free. b) Regular price is 500 US Dollars or 470 Euros; door hinge 3d CAD file is optional for extra 100 USD or 80 EUR.
-
UPDATE:
- The MP (machined parts) drawings for the EU version of the chassis are now fully completed, the US ones are next to do;
- All front suspension mounting points and lower A-arm were modified to match the recent changes in the frontal chassis reinforcement;
- Ready with the list of approximate lengths of all tube types used in the chassis (except for the moving parts like suspension arms and door frames; these are still not finalized). It's worth mentioning that you should consider a bit more material, because tube profiles are usually supplied in common lengths of 6 metres in Europe or 20 feet in USA, hence several pieces cut from such a long profile will leave some waste material. For example, if you need two pieces of 2900 mm each, that will leave almost 200 mm unused (6000-5800=200). After I complete all tube plans, I will probably create a more detailed list where each piece is set roughly 10-15 mm extra long and nested in the most appropriate way, so that you can use quick straight cuts to divide any large tube profile into the desired number of smaller pieces, then use the latter to cut the final shape of the respective chassis tubes with the necessary cut angle and shape. Recommended tube wall thicknesses for the square and rectangular tubes are 2 mm for the EU chassis and 0.83" for the US chassis; round tubes have different wall thicknesses depending on the usage and placement. Lengths for the EU and US chassis tubes by tube type are as follows:
square tube 20x20 mm / 0.75x0.75" - 37.2 metres / 122 feet total;
square tube 40x40 / 1.5x1.5" - 30.1 metres / 99 feet total;
rectangular tube 40x20 mm / 1.5x0.75" - 50.9 metres / 167 feet total (1.5x0.75" could be replaced with 1.5x1", depending on which one is available);
rectangular tube 80x40 mm / 3x1.5" - 4.5 metres / 14.8 feet total;
round tube 41.3x6.8 mm / 1.625"- 5.6 metres / 18.4 feet total (most appropriate US tube wall thickness not yet considered);
round tube 33.7x2.65 mm - 5.2 metres / 17 feet total (most appropriate US tube wall thickness not yet considered).
(http://i.imgur.com/o7qAXSk.png)
-
UPDATE:
- There is a change in the front suspension's coil-over. Previously, my Govedo chassis was supposed to use 14" QA1 coil-overs (part #DS502, Poly bushing). However, after taking exact measurements from various actual coil-overs, and considering that poly bushing mountings are nearly impossible to replace by builders with no special equipment, I figured out that the 10" QA1 coil-over with bearing mountings (part #DS301, Bearing bushing) is a lot better solution for this application. It also has a very limited travel from compressed to extended height, which is also important since the front wheels must not go too deep into the wheel wells. Here, you can check the specifications of the DS301 QA1 coil-overs:
http://www.qa1.net/suspension/street-performance-racing-shocks-struts-and-pro-coil-systems/custom-mount-shocks/proma-star/proma-star-single-adjustable (http://www.qa1.net/suspension/street-performance-racing-shocks-struts-and-pro-coil-systems/custom-mount-shocks/proma-star/proma-star-single-adjustable)
Having that said, I recommend use of the QA1 DS301 coil-overs. Of course, other brand for coil-overs could be used, if modifications to the chassis and suspension mounting points are made.
- For European customers (and everyone who use Metric system), there is the option to use QA1 rod ends with Metric size thread instead of Imperial size thread which is used in the US chassis plans. I do additional plans for the machined parts that will use rod ends in either thread measurement systems. In a future update, I will post links to the exact model of EU thread size QA1 rod ends. The US model is QA1 XMR10-12: http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/hal-xmr-10-12/overview/ (http://www.summitracing.com/int/parts/hal-xmr-10-12/overview/)
- I made improvements in the four metal plates that will hold the roof roll-cage tubes. Also, the B-pillar will now be attached 10 mm further towards the front end, in order to allow better visibility through the rear quarter window.
- The current progress of the EU and both US chassis plans is as follows:
A - Floor level [fully completed]
B - Bumper [fully completed]
C - Engine cradle [fully completed]
D - Door frames and hinges [not yet started]
E - Engine bay [fully completed]
F - Front end [fully completed]
R - Roof roll-cage [half completed, near finishing]
S - Sides of the cockpit [fully completed]
T - Central Tunnel [fully completed]
W - Firewall [fully completed]
M* - Metal sheets and plates [half completed]
MP - Machined parts [half completed]
SP - Suspension tubes [front completed, rear not yet ready]
-
P4S,
I have had this discussion on various other threads before but short stroke shocks like that WILL NOT WORK. It is not a problem with the shock, it is with their springs. The longest spring that will fit is 7", and it coil binds at 4", so you have at best 3" of spring compression available. It will take a 250lb spring (+ or - 50lb depending on motion ratio and swaybar rating) so when you put 750lbs of car over that corner you use up that 3" and you are coilbound before the suspension ever has a chance to travel. A suspension bottoming out is the most dangerous and scary experience in a performance car that I have ever had. You do not need the extra travel of a longer shock, but you need it in order to get at least a 10" spring on it.
-
P4S,
I have had this discussion on various other threads before but short stroke shocks like that WILL NOT WORK. It is not a problem with the shock, it is with their springs. The longest spring that will fit is 7", and it coil binds at 4", so you have at best 3" of spring compression available. It will take a 250lb spring (+ or - 50lb depending on motion ratio and swaybar rating) so when you put 750lbs of car over that corner you use up that 3" and you are coilbound before the suspension ever has a chance to travel. A suspension bottoming out is the most dangerous and scary experience in a performance car that I have ever had. You do not need the extra travel of a longer shock, but you need it in order to get at least a 10" spring on it.
Thank you for your opinion, 76mx. Small compression for the coil-overs is a typical limitation for sports cars. Even the original Diablo or Murcielago had very limited space there. For example, the front wheels of K-1 Attack could go up no more than 40 mm.
On my Govedo chassis, when the tyre is in normal position (i.e. not turned sideways), the free room for it to go up is no more than 65 mm. However, this is not the real usable number, because in a real-life usage there are other factors that determine how much the tyre could be raised from neutral position. For the FLT kit, the projected front tyre motion from neutral to up position is 45 millimetres, which is about 1.771648 inches. This is slightly less than the actual free space in this area, because the FLT kit will have dedicated composite mounting panels over the chassis, plus mudguard panels protecting the chassis from water and those tiny rocks thrown by the tyres. If there is no mudguard and no mounting panels installed (as if the Govedo chassis is used for Aventador replica), the front tyre can go up about 50 mm or 1.968498 inches. When I talk about tyre up movement, I take into consideration a fully functioning left tyre turned to the left side with an angle of 36 degrees. In real life this will never happen, of course, because most likely the front suspension will take load under hard braking in nearly straight direction or in a high-speed cornering when the front tyres will not be turned sideways more than 15 degrees. Note that I mention tyre motion to up direction, not coil-over compression, because the former will be slightly longer than the latter. This means that the spring compression distance will be even shorter than the numbers relative to the tyre's rising. Also, the springs used for the front suspension will be lost likely 450 lbs each. Anything below 400 lbs is not recommended. The suspension motion will be limited in both, going up or down, by an adjustable limiter in the sway bar itself. There will be zero chance to hit the tyre into the chassis. Thanks!
-
I will stick with my opinion, best of luck with that design.
-
I doubt any car will ever be built using these plans since it's been many years of excuses and changes without a set of finished plans
-
Thank you very much for your valuable opinions! :)
-
MX, how can you determine the shorter shock will not work without first seeing the actual suspension blueprint? The stroke length will depend on how far the shock is from the inboard pivot point of the lower control arm.
The picture attached shows a murci with a very small travel ability. +/- 1" max on the front AT the tire? So what's the stroke length of the shock? Idk but I doubt it's over 2.5" like the shock Plansforsale is suggesting for his suspension.
-
I just took measurements from my front suspension design to make sure I talk with exact numbers. Here is what I have for you:
- In a neutral position, the car will usually have a ground clearance of 100 mm (actually, it's 110 mm from bottom of chassis, but I consider 10 mm for underneath protective panels) and the coil-over is expected to be compressed about 30 mm. The latter is always a variable number since it depends on the spring ratio and owner's preferences for the right height.
- Using the 10" QA1 coil-overs with 7" springs, and assuming that the compression of the coil-over in a neutral position is 1.181" / 30 mm from the extended height (extended 11.125" / 282.585 mm minus 30 mm is about 9.944" / 252.575 mm neutral) due to the car's own weight, my suspension setup will allow the front wheel to go up by 1.531"" / 38.89 mm before it reaches the coil-over's maximum compressed height of 8.625" / 219.075 mm. This is just the perfect coil-over size for my Govedo chassis, as the front wheels must go up by no more than 40-45 mm. Of course, in extreme conditions such like heavy braking after very fast speed, the tyres will also get compressed a bit, so the actual movement of the tyre's road patch will be at least 45 mm if the rim is moving with 38.89 mm.
- I suppose that the front end will weight approximately 1060 lbs, or 530 lbs on each front wheel, hence the 1.181" / 30 mm compression that I suggest as a realistic number for a neutral ride height. In order for the wheel to go up by 1.531" / 38.89 mm, which makes the coil-over to be fully compressed after an additional stroke of 1.319" / 33.5 mm, a 450 lbs spring must be loaded with over 688 lbs on each front side (1376 lbs for both springs) on top of the aforementioned 1.181" / 30 mm.
- However, that number of 688 lbs is a theoretical spring weight compression in ideal conditions where the mass is directly forced vertically on top of the spring. Since the coil-over is tilted in a certain degree and the front lower A-arm is longer than the distance between the inboard pivot point of the latter and the lower coil-over mounting point, the actual mass force that is required to fully compress the coil-over is slightly lower than 688 lbs. So, maybe 600 lbs. Also, we must not forget that the QA1 coil-overs come equipped with a poly bushing buffer to soften the impact before the full compression of the shock absorber. This will further require more force to be used for the coil-over to be compressed, so in the end of the day the mass force may be about 650-680 lbs on each front wheel.
-
SchulzeA,
Those are good questions and observations, let me see if I can address all of them. You are absolutely right about the stroke length, that is what I was talking about when I mentioned motion ratio. That wants to be as close to the ball joint as possible for other design considerations. The stroke length of that shock is 2 1/2 inches. As you say, that is shock stroke length, not tire travel.
Both your response and the first response of P4S concentrate on the shocks, forget about them, they are not the issue, they could be 1 or 100 inch stroke, but there is a problem if a 7 inch spring is the longest that will fit.
I also mention swaybar rating in my answer, something that P4S never mentions. I assume his calculations are without a swaybar, and THAT WILL NOT WORK either. This subject could fill another thread, but let me give this brief example more to show a concept than to be absolutely accurate. A 100lb spring and a 300lb bar gives a total rating of 400lb on that corner. A 300lb spring and a 100lb bar gives a 400lb rating on that corner. The debate over which is correct has been going on since the wheel was invented, but you must consider them together. When P4S says 400lbs on the front, that is as much as you would want to go for both combined, I do not care what the geometry looks like.
Realistically, to get this rate you need about a 250 lb spring and a 150lb bar. A 7 inch spring coil binds at 4 inches, 4 1/4 to be exact. That leaves 2 3/4 inches of spring stroke, forget the shock. Place the 530lbs guess of P4S over it and it compresses 2 1/8 inches. That leaves 5/8 of an inch for suspension travel. Put a passenger in the car and you do not have even that. If he misses that guess by even 100lbs you do not have that. If the ride height is not absolutely perfect (which it is not going to be in the real world, only on paper) you do not have that. Change the air pressure in a tire and you do not have it. For that matter, what sized tire is this based on, will everyone use the exact same tire? When the spring settles, which it is going to do, you do not have it. All of these will leave it coil bound before the suspension ever has a chance to travel. It may look good on paper, but it is not reality. Go to a 225lb spring and now any slim remote hope is gone.
There is a second way I know this. I have a junk chassis sitting here that was the R&D test bed for the development of that very shock. We got almost the entire chassis done and the prototypes sent to production before either of us realized there was a problem.
P4S,I am not trying to argue, just save the agony of another junk chassis being built, but if your numbers say it will work, go for it. At the risk of extending what has now become a debate, I have a few observations. Why change it to the shorter shock in the first place? This is the same question I asked when my problems arose. The shorter shock and smaller spring is less unsprung weight but the bigger spring that is now needed negates this, and it is much harder to make the geometry work with the short one. I do not find an upside to this change. Also on the downside, I understand you have two years of development using the Hardpoint for the longer shock, which is the first starting point of chassis design. You are going to lose every bit of your suspension analysis data. Again just my opinion but any chassis design that is changing Hardpoints after two years of development has more problems that the shock length.
-
stop, just stop it.
-
SchulzeA,
Those are good questions and observations, let me see if I can address all of them. You are absolutely right about the stroke length, that is what I was talking about when I mentioned motion ratio. That wants to be as close to the ball joint as possible for other design considerations. The stroke length of that shock is 2 1/2 inches. As you say, that is shock stroke length, not tire travel.
Both your response and the first response of P4S concentrate on the shocks, forget about them, they are not the issue, they could be 1 or 100 inch stroke, but there is a problem if a 7 inch spring is the longest that will fit.
I also mention swaybar rating in my answer, something that P4S never mentions. I assume his calculations are without a swaybar, and THAT WILL NOT WORK either. This subject could fill another thread, but let me give this brief example more to show a concept than to be absolutely accurate. A 100lb spring and a 300lb bar gives a total rating of 400lb on that corner. A 300lb spring and a 100lb bar gives a 400lb rating on that corner. The debate over which is correct has been going on since the wheel was invented, but you must consider them together. When P4S says 400lbs on the front, that is as much as you would want to go for both combined, I do not care what the geometry looks like.
Realistically, to get this rate you need about a 250 lb spring and a 150lb bar. A 7 inch spring coil binds at 4 inches, 4 1/4 to be exact. That leaves 2 3/4 inches of spring stroke, forget the shock. Place the 530lbs guess of P4S over it and it compresses 2 1/8 inches. That leaves 5/8 of an inch for suspension travel. Put a passenger in the car and you do not have even that. If he misses that guess by even 100lbs you do not have that. If the ride height is not absolutely perfect (which it is not going to be in the real world, only on paper) you do not have that. Change the air pressure in a tire and you do not have it. For that matter, what sized tire is this based on, will everyone use the exact same tire? When the spring settles, which it is going to do, you do not have it. All of these will leave it coil bound before the suspension ever has a chance to travel. It may look good on paper, but it is not reality. Go to a 225lb spring and now any slim remote hope is gone.
There is a second way I know this. I have a junk chassis sitting here that was the R&D test bed for the development of that very shock. We got almost the entire chassis done and the prototypes sent to production before either of us realized there was a problem.
P4S,I am not trying to argue, just save the agony of another junk chassis being built, but if your numbers say it will work, go for it. At the risk of extending what has now become a debate, I have a few observations. Why change it to the shorter shock in the first place? This is the same question I asked when my problems arose. The shorter shock and smaller spring is less unsprung weight but the bigger spring that is now needed negates this, and it is much harder to make the geometry work with the short one. I do not find an upside to this change. Also on the downside, I understand you have two years of development using the Hardpoint for the longer shock, which is the first starting point of chassis design. You are going to lose every bit of your suspension analysis data. Again just my opinion but any chassis design that is changing Hardpoints after two years of development has more problems that the shock length.
Thank you for your very long post, 76mx! I appreciate the time you spent writing all of this. I will be short: I already have an experience with taking part in designing two sports car suspensions that were tested and used successfully in real cars. Now I design a more advanced, complicated and uncommon suspension layout, and I'm pretty sure it will work properly. Why? Because I do it. Thanks!
-
Dang, you guys write a book. Ok, so how do you determine all 7" springs bind at 4.25" without first knowing the wire size and pitch? Picture below shows that not all springs are created equal. I built a spring winder and would like to know what formula you use to find compressed length. Knowing what to expect is much better than finding that I've made a mistake like your custom chassis you built. Doing it right the first time certainly is the best way when possible!
Secondly, what is the application for this DS301 shock/spring setup if it will not function correctly?
Not being rude here, just askin...
-
SchulzeA,
Another good question. Afco told me they were all 4-1/4. I remember thinking at the time that it did not sound right but guessed that whether it was a lot of small wire and a lot of coils or a little big wire and a few coils, they came out the same. At the time I accepted that and was glad to have that waste of time ending, but now as I look back, I am not sure that I accept it as quickly. I do not know the answer to your second question, I told them that the only application I could think of was for the straight axle on the front of a T-Bucket Roadster. If you like I can put you in touch with the engineers for input on your spring winder, but remember Life Rule #39,"One test is worth a thousand engineers".
-
1. The front wheel must not go more than 40 mm upwards from its neutral position while standing still.
2. The 10" QA1 DS301 coil-over will allow about 33.5 mm stroke from neutral position, which translates to 38.89 mm travel of the wheel upwards.
3. The 7" spring used is proper size and its wire diameter has such a clearance along the coils that it will not bind even if the gas shock is fully compressed.
4. The shift from the previously used 14" coil-over to the new 10" replacement will allow the upper coil-over mounting point to be lowered and attached on a more reinforced area of the chassis.
5. The upper front arms were designed to give enough clearance for a 14" coil-over, so if somebody wants to use any other longer coil-over between 11" and 14" (for example, when an air lift system is installed), he/she is free to do so by simply raising the upper mounting point of the coil-over accordingly.
This is why I consider the DS301 as the perfect coil-over for my front suspension design.
-
UPDATE:
- Fine tuning the rear suspension, sending (SP) plans tomorrow. Front suspension to follow next after figuring out the lower ball joint.
- Roof plans (R) almost ready as well.
-
UPDATE:
- The front and rear lower A-arms were fully re-designed. Now they use a larger and 30% more durable heavy duty lower ball joint with 4 mounting bolts. Up until now my suspension design was based on a smaller ball joint with 3 mounting bolts;
- Front upper toe link rods were slightly extended while preserving the mounting holes on both ends where the QA1 rod ends are installed.
- Main roof tube along the roof line (from A1-pillar through the roof up to the C-pillar) have been slightly modified to add 3 mm wider visibility at each side of the windshield. As a result, this also reduced the head room by 6 mm;
- The A2-pillar is now made from three laser cut metal plates instead of the previously used constant-radius bent tube. The metal plate will allow for tighter fit to the body, hence a better visibility is achieved through the front quarter window;
- Rear bumper support frame is fully designed, complete with removable mounting points in case that the builder needs to take apart the removable engine cradle sitting next to it;
- Most of the sheet metal enclosing the cabin area is already designed.
-
I also mention swaybar rating in my answer, something that P4S never mentions. I assume his calculations are without a swaybar, and THAT WILL NOT WORK either.
Based on my suspension geometry that features unusual upper-to-lower arm length ratio and more aggressive angle of the upper, body roll actually can be used to a distinct advantage. Given the quite high amount of spring rate (I recommended at least 450 lbs, but it's better to use around 550 lbs) and limited coil-over stroke, my suspension can perform quite well even without a sway bar. The lack of the latter could allow a softer ride on uneven surfaces, which is very important for a stiff suspension.
If we assume that the default camber angle of the front wheel is set to exact 0 degrees (though -0,5 degrees is recommended) while the car is moving forward (no turn at all), then the worst camber angle possible for the front wheel* is 0.874 degrees happening at 3.75 degrees of body roll (with -0.5 degrees default camber, that will translate to 0.374 degrees). The virtual point of body roll for this calculation is the middle point on the bottom side of the chassis. However, body roll during moving in forward direction is rarely the case. More important is what is happening with the car while in high-speed cornering. With the front left wheel turning at 15 degrees to the right side, the worst possible camber angle is -1.461 degrees at 3.24 degrees of body roll (or -1.961 degrees if the default camber was -0.5 degrees). This means that the wheel is still in a negative camber angle to prevent excessive tyre deflection and wear in contact with the road patch, as well as reducing the understeer. This is achieved thanks to the use of two toe links instead of a single upper A-arm. The toe links will dynamically alter both, the camber angle and caster angle, resulting in a suspension geometry with superior high-speed cornering performance, compared to a regular double A-arm layout.
*front wheel on the side of the car that's pushed towards the ground to create body roll.
This subject could fill another thread, but let me give this brief example more to show a concept than to be absolutely accurate. A 100lb spring and a 300lb bar gives a total rating of 400lb on that corner. A 300lb spring and a 100lb bar gives a 400lb rating on that corner. The debate over which is correct has been going on since the wheel was invented, but you must consider them together. When P4S says 400lbs on the front, that is as much as you would want to go for both combined, I do not care what the geometry looks like.
I do not agree with what you refer as to "absolutely accurate" in the above examples. There is no way that a 100 lbs spring and 300 lbs sway bar will give a total rating of 400 lbs on a corner, since the combined spring rate for both wheels would be 200 lbs, which can never be more than that number even if you have a 1,000,000 lbs sway bar. A 1,000,000 lbs sway bar will not help a 100 lbs spring to achieve 1,000,100 lbs on that corner. Also, 100 lbs spring and 300 lbs sway bar does not equal to 300 lbs spring and 100 lbs sway bar. This is not a simple mathematics where 2+2=4. They both can't be compared, as you did above. This is most prominent while hard braking from a fast speed in a straight direction. The 3 times softer springs will undoubtedly perform a lot worse then, not to mention that the sway bar will not contribute with hardening the suspension in this situation. What's more, a too stiff sway bar may hamper the stopping process on an uneven road.
Realistically, to get this rate you need about a 250 lb spring and a 150lb bar. A 7 inch spring coil binds at 4 inches, 4 1/4 to be exact. That leaves 2 3/4 inches of spring stroke, forget the shock. Place the 530lbs guess of P4S over it and it compresses 2 1/8 inches. That leaves 5/8 of an inch for suspension travel. Put a passenger in the car and you do not have even that. If he misses that guess by even 100lbs you do not have that. If the ride height is not absolutely perfect (which it is not going to be in the real world, only on paper) you do not have that. Change the air pressure in a tire and you do not have it. For that matter, what sized tire is this based on, will everyone use the exact same tire? When the spring settles, which it is going to do, you do not have it. All of these will leave it coil bound before the suspension ever has a chance to travel. It may look good on paper, but it is not reality. Go to a 225lb spring and now any slim remote hope is gone.
Why change it to the shorter shock in the first place? This is the same question I asked when my problems arose. The shorter shock and smaller spring is less unsprung weight but the bigger spring that is now needed negates this, and it is much harder to make the geometry work with the short one. I do not find an upside to this change.
Considering the limited stroke the front wheels require, a coil-over with too soft spring and too long stroke would simply cause unwanted damages to the chassis, if not accident. This is the main reason for me to choose a shorter coil-over with higher spring rate. Also, the shorter coil-over makes it possible to install it in a more robust area of the chassis.
Also on the downside, I understand you have two years of development using the Hardpoint for the longer shock, which is the first starting point of chassis design. You are going to lose every bit of your suspension analysis data. Again just my opinion but any chassis design that is changing Hardpoints after two years of development has more problems that the shock length.
In my opinion, devoting more time on optimizing a chassis and suspension design could further make it superior to the initial state. Changing means that something is not as before anymore. It could be good, or, it could be bad. In my case, it proved to be better.
-
UPDATE:
- All the roof tubes and six roof mounting plates are now re-designed for improved visibility through the front windshield and rear quarter windows. Upper tube that connects both A-pillars have been raised with 15 mm to clear as much space as possible for the interior roof pillar covers. This modification also makes the welded joints stronger.
- Along with the heavy duty European "Meyle" lower ball joint, there is an optional alternative "Mevotech" ball joint for the US builders which is slightly smaller but a lot more affordable. This makes it possible to opt for a US-spec chassis plans with either EU suspension plans or US suspension plans:
a) EU chassis with EU suspension ("Meyle" lower ball joints - can be found for 26-30 Euros per unit, available in Europe);
b) US chassis with EU suspension ("Meyle" lower ball joints - can be found for 26-30 Euros per unit, available in Europe);
c) US chassis with US suspension ("Mevotech" lower ball joints - can be found for 14 US Dollars per unit, available in USA).
Both ball joints are bolt-on type for easier installation and maintenance without the need of special tools and/or use of excessive force with hammer.
- Pre-order discount price has expired as the design is at final stage now. A single license and chassis plans for my Govedo chassis costs 500 US Dollars or 440 Euros* (price in Euros may vary after some time depending on the uncertain currency exchange rate).
P.S.: I would like to thank Glenn (LP700-4 from MM) for his great help with taking exact measurements from the "Mevotech" ball joint. This is what makes our community special. ::beers
-
Which bodies does this chassis fit? I know it doesnt fit Inspires or mine, and most likely not aventcars and definitely not eddies or robs. ?
-
Which bodies does this chassis fit? I know it doesnt fit Inspires or mine, and most likely not aventcars and definitely not eddies or robs. ?
My chassis is designed to fit body kits that are fairly accurate to the genuine Aventador's dimensions, shape and proportion. If the body kit is way too inaccurate, it may not fit my chassis, or may require some modifications to be able to fit. I can not tell if the body kits you mentioned will or will not fit my chassis. I know for sure that the first body kit you mentioned could fit my chassis after modifications that require the body to be cut and extended in length and width (pictured below), as well as reworking the door sills:
http://i.imgur.com/P0rZqD5.png (http://i.imgur.com/P0rZqD5.png)
-
O.K., if you want to bring all of this up again over two months later for no apparent reason, I will bite. You say "The lack of the latter (a swaybar)could allow a softer ride". Needing to use a stiffer spring to compensate for no swaybar gives a softer ride? That is absurd. You also say "Too soft spring...would simply cause unwanted damages to the chassis. This is the main reason for me to choose...higher spring rate". This is what you base a spring rate on? That is also absurd.
-
So wait a second - these chassis plans do not fit a single body out there? What use is there for these plans if no body fits them ?
This seems like a massive waste of time
-
O.K., if you want to bring all of this up again over two months later for no apparent reason, I will bite. You say "The lack of the latter (a swaybar)could allow a softer ride". Needing to use a stiffer spring to compensate for no swaybar gives a softer ride? That is absurd. You also say "Too soft spring...would simply cause unwanted damages to the chassis. This is the main reason for me to choose...higher spring rate". This is what you base a spring rate on? That is also absurd.
Obviously, for anyone with at least moderate technical understanding, it's not hard to figure out the positives of having stiffer springs in a suspension with limited stroke, such like the case with this kind of sports cars where the front wheels are quite close to the A-pillar base. Not to mention all the other positives a stiffer suspension gains. Anyway, let me explain my point of view again, if my previous post about my decision for the spring rate was not clear enough for you. First off, I have never said what you claim in the underlined text above. I have never said that I will not use a sway bar. I said that even if there is no sway bar on my unusual suspension geometry, the latter will provide some good advantages over a normal type suspension with softer springs. My exact words were: "Based on my suspension geometry that features unusual upper-to-lower arm length ratio and more aggressive angle of the upper, body roll actually can be used to a distinct advantage*. Given the quite high amount of spring rate (I recommended at least 450 lbs, but it's better to use around 550 lbs) and limited coil-over stroke, my suspension can perform quite well even without a sway bar. The lack of the latter could allow a softer ride on uneven surfaces, which is very important for a stiff suspension".
*This is what a distinct advantage looks like (variable camber and caster angle):
http://i.imgur.com/lhVBf6V.png (http://i.imgur.com/lhVBf6V.png)
http://i.imgur.com/eN4sZQv.png (http://i.imgur.com/eN4sZQv.png)
http://i.imgur.com/HsvW3QR.png (http://i.imgur.com/HsvW3QR.png)
A higher spring rate and shorter stroke in a hard stopping fast moving sports car will provide:
1. Superior braking performance and mass distribution (springs with lower spring ratio and longer stroke will always perform worse in such case, even if coupled with a gazillion lbs sway bar, because the latter can not compensate for the lack of spring rate, and in most situations will lead to a "kick" in the suddenly tilting front end);
2. Superior high-speed cornering with less body roll and better preserved road contact patch;
3. Lesser negative mass transfer and body tilt towards the front end;
4. Vastly reduced chance for the front wheels to reach the maximum pressure distance they are designed to run.
So wait a second - these chassis plans do not fit a single body out there? What use is there for these plans if no body fits them ?
This seems like a massive waste of time
Who claims that those body kits you mentioned can not fit my chassis that was primarily designed to fit any properly built replica Aventador body and uses correct key areas dimensions and scale? Can you provide us with more information of why all body kits ("single body out there") are being considered too inaccurate by you? Is that you? Who already tested all these body kits on top of my chassis to find out they lack the proper scale and proportions to match the genuine Aventador?
-
I was just going by nsrdanielsons post where he says your chassis will not fit
NSRdanielson or Inspires kit, and most likely not aventcars and definitely not eddies or robs. ?
You replied saying you might need to cut the body kit up and stretch /modify it to fit on your chassis . I don't think even an experienced builder will take a body kit they just bought then cut it up to stretch it
-
I was just going by nsrdanielsons post where he says your chassis will not fit
NSRdanielson or Inspires kit, and most likely not aventcars and definitely not eddies or robs. ?
You replied saying you might need to cut the body kit up and stretch /modify it to fit on your chassis . I don't think even an experienced builder will take a body kit they just bought then cut it up to stretch it
This is why the forum quote button was invented two decades ago, in order to avoid accidental misunderstanding or intentionally misleading posts leading to premature suggestions.
As for cutting a body kit to get into more accurate shape, this is exactly what was done by many builders from years. It happens even now with the Aventador body kits. One of the examples is at the Fiero.nl forum, the second one is at MM. Experienced builders know their stuff and can do it properly.
-
Let my feeble mind, which is obviously below "Moderate technical understanding", try to comprehend this one last time, the "Positives for having stiffer springs in a suspension with limited stroke". We will totally disregard the swaybar which has nothing to do with squat and dive, only cornering. We will totally disregard anti-squat and anti-dive built into the suspension through the positioning of the inner pivots of the upper a-arm in relation to the ground plane, which has nothing to do with cornering. We will concentrate only on a stiffer spring to do all of this. Why stop at a 500# spring? Wouldn't a 1,000# spring be even better? Even better yet, wouldn't a suspension solidly mounted with no spring travel at all be the ultimate performance package?
-
Let my feeble mind, which is obviously below "Moderate technical understanding", try to comprehend this one last time, the "Positives for having stiffer springs in a suspension with limited stroke". We will totally disregard the swaybar which has nothing to do with squat and dive, only cornering. We will totally disregard anti-squat and anti-dive built into the suspension through the positioning of the inner pivots of the upper a-arm in relation to the ground plane, which has nothing to do with cornering. We will concentrate only on a stiffer spring to do all of this. Why stop at a 500# spring? Wouldn't a 1,000# spring be even better? Even better yet, wouldn't a suspension solidly mounted with no spring travel at all be the ultimate performance package?
This is totally your suggestion. Try it on your car.
-
It is not a suggestion, it is a question.
-
It is not a suggestion, it is a question.
It's your question after your suggestion. The answer is awaiting you in your mirror.
-
The mirror said that stiffer springs are not the answer to all suspension solutions and that you were wrong. It said some other things that I will not mention. Now that we have a definitive answer from a source that we both agree on, let us stop this for hopefully another two months.
-
The mirror said that stiffer springs are not the answer to all suspension solutions and that you were wrong. It said some other things that I will not mention. Now that we have a definitive answer from a source that we both agree on, let us stop this for hopefully another two months.
Now this is funny! Thanks for the laugh Charley.
-
The mirror said that stiffer springs are not the answer to all suspension solutions and that you were wrong. It said some other things that I will not mention. Now that we have a definitive answer from a source that we both agree on, let us stop this for hopefully another two months.
Your mirror forgot to remind you about you ignoring the fact that I mentioned multiple times that my suspension has different approach with the A-arm geometry, and also the requirement to have very limited spring stroke in the front wheels in order to avoid collision with the A-pillars. It's something common for all exotics with such cab-forward design, especially in the cases with the A-pillars being on top of the front wheels (Diablo, Murcielago and Aventador). Good luck braking hard and high-speed cornering with your recommended soft springs with longer stroke. I will tell you a secret: There is a reason for the faster super cars to not body roll in corners and to not dive like crazy while braking hard.
-
UPDATE:
- Some metal plates of the front and rear lower A-arms were redesigned for higher strength and to be able to couple with one of two different lower ball joints depending on the builder's preference and/or region location. If you opt for one of the ball joints type, you can not use the other type, and vice versa. Also, it's now possible to attach mounting points for the sway bars' toe links on either side of the front and rear lower A-arms.
- As the suspension layout is now completed, I have an exact estimate for the total number of QA1 XMR 10-12 rod ends required. Each wheel will use 7 rod ends, so 28 numbers total. Optionally, two of these rod ends could be replaced with the cheaper alternative QA1 XMR 8-10 and used to connect the toe links of the rack&pinion assembly. However, I recommend to stick with all QA1 XMR 10-12 as they are 34.6% larger/stronger and will keep working flawlessly for longer period of time.
- Originally, the 4 front upper toe links (replacement of the upper A-arms) required 4 rod ends with left hand threads. The suspension will only use regular right hand thread now. The switch to these was decided in order to eliminate any chance of self-loosening caused by improper tightened rod end nut. The downside is that the initial setting of each toe link's length is now made slower. However, this is most likely only necessary once in the build and requires just a few extra minutes, so it's considered insignificant.
- There is a little modification in the front section around the middle of the dashboard area. Previously, I used a single tube in the center that is now replaced by two tubes sitting 160 mm apart, in order to increase the strength and to allow easier installation of the two metal sheets underneath. As a side effect, this change also widens the front upper opening through the central tunnel (160 mm wide single opening, instead of the previous two 70 mm wide openings), which could be usable should any electrical board, A/C vent pipes of other components be installed there.
- The current progress of the EU and both US chassis plans is as follows (this list looks almost as same as the one in my post on 30 May 2015, however, there are plenty of improvements and additions to some of the chassis sections):
A - Floor level [fully completed]
B - Front and rear* bumpers [front fully completed, rear half finished]
C - Engine cradle [fully completed]
D - Door frames and hinges [not yet started, will be my last task]
E - Engine bay [fully completed]
F - Front end [fully completed]
R - Roof roll-cage [redesigned, near finishing]
S - Sides of the cockpit [fully completed]
T - Central Tunnel [fully completed]
W - Firewall [fully completed]
M* - Metal sheets and plates [half completed]
MP - Machined parts [half completed]
SP - Suspension tubes [redesigned, near finishing]
*Originally, my Govedo chassis plans were not meant to include separate rear bumper frame (section B), however, I designed it recently as to make the package more complete and usable for the builders. To distinguish the front and rear bumper tubes in the chassis plans, the front ones are named from B-1 to B-14, and the rear ones are named from B-15 to B-29.
PS: My progress with the chassis plans was slowed down in last weeks due to me working mostly on the suspension design. However, after I'm done with it in the coming days, I will proceed with the remaining chassis plans and send a good amount of them to the respective builders. I thank you for your patience and assure you that I do my best to provide a chassis design that far exceeds my initial intent.
-
UPDATE:
- I do two versions of those tube plans that require bending, because different radius for the bend dies is used in different regions. This is why all tube plans for bent tubes will have alternatives with bend radius of 117 mm and 200 mm, respectively. If you use some different radius bend die, certain tubes may require very minor adjustments.
- It is now clear how many machined parts (made with turner machine) will be used in the suspension arms, uprights and engine cradle mountings. They are 78 numbers total. Keep in mind that the newly designed bolt-on removable rear bumper section (described in my previous update above) will require a few more machined parts, so the total number of the latter will be most likely 84 or 86. A complete list with plans will be available soon. For those of you who can't get these machined parts custom made at an affordable price locally, I can offer a competitive price since I have contacts with skilled turner in my area (Bulgaria, EU) who can do this job, then I can send the package over to your location via DHL or other shipping company. The same applies to the custom made metal plates, as well. I recommend to make the machined parts from alloy structural steel grade "40X" (ГОСТ / GOST), also known with its alternative names "41 Cr 4" (DIN) and "5140" (AISI / ASTM / ASME). A comparison table for steel grades could be found here: http://www.b2bmetal.eu/en/pages/index/index/id/134/ (http://www.b2bmetal.eu/en/pages/index/index/id/134/)
- I changed the way I name the cutting patterns. Previously, they were named CP-1, CP-2, CP-3 etc, but I found it more natural if they share the same name as the tube or sheet metal they belong to, but having a "x" marking sitting in front. If there will be two or more cutting patterns used on a single tube or sheet metal, an additional "(a)", "(b)", "(c)" etc words will be placed at the end. For example, the roof tube R-1 requires two cutting patterns on either side, so they will will be named "xR-1(a)" and "xR-1(b)" respectively. This will eliminate the chance for misunderstanding where some tube may have completely different number than its corresponding cutting pattern.
- The roof cage now features an additional X-bracing for increased strength. The chassis was quite strong even without that X-brace for those looking for the larger possible head room, however, there is no such thing as "too strong", so I recommend to sacrifice some head room for the sake of extra protection (unless your name is Arnold Schwarzenegger).
-
Welcome to "Lamboclone.com". The place to gather a group of interested gearheads to swap ideas, helpful hints, safety concerns, guidance, tips and encouragement in order that we might be able to construct "a one-off custom recreation of a vehicle that resembles a model built by Lamborghini." Most of us don't want or even desire to spend $400K USD to build a replica of anything. Just a simple replica, using our minds, bodies, ingenuity, patience, and God given skills, and a couple thousand parts. Most of our pockets are not that deep even in this world of happiness that we so love. Maybe Mad Mechanics would be a better target for your wares. my $0.02 USD.
-
Welcome to "Lamboclone.com". The place to gather a group of interested gearheads to swap ideas, helpful hints, safety concerns, guidance, tips and encouragement in order that we might be able to construct "a one-off custom recreation of a vehicle that resembles a model built by Lamborghini." Most of us don't want or even desire to spend $400K USD to build a replica of anything. Just a simple replica, using our minds, bodies, ingenuity, patience, and God given skills, and a couple thousand parts. Most of our pockets are not that deep even in this world of happiness that we so love. Maybe Mad Mechanics would be a better target for your wares. my $0.02 USD.
Trying to figure out the reason you mention $400K USD for a replica of something in a thread about original custom chassis plans worth $399.5K less.
Thanks
-
UPDATE:
- All suspension tube plans (SP) and tube end cutting patterns (xSP) for the A-arms are completed. Every tube end cutting pattern has a tiny dent along the flat side to mark the location of the top side while the tube is laid horizontally on a table, as shown in this instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B3LwXOR5mQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B3LwXOR5mQ) ;
- Recently, I did lots of optimizations on the metal plates used in the A-arms and suspension mounting points. The files for laser cutting of these are already completed and available in both, DWG and DXF file formats. The metal plates for the wheel hubs (uprights) and upper coil-over mounting are still work in progress, and should be ready soon;
- Initial batch for most of the steel machined parts (MP) is fabricated and validated. Weight is approximately 8.8-8.9 kg (19-19.6 lbs). There are about 70 more small inserts that are in the making now. The machined parts usually come as printed plans used by you to fabricate them locally with turner machine and milling machine. However, as I mentioned in my previous update, I can provide these for a good price + international shipping via DHL. Hi-res photos (2592x1944 pixels) here:
http://i.imgur.com/GoHDDBO.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/GoHDDBO.jpg) (all together)
http://i.imgur.com/LAexEjL.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/LAexEjL.jpg) (close-up)
http://i.imgur.com/wF0FfWa.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/wF0FfWa.jpg) (upper engine cradle mounting points coupled together)
http://i.imgur.com/ky0WvWk.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/ky0WvWk.jpg) (lower coil over mounting)
http://i.imgur.com/0B7Fay4.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/0B7Fay4.jpg) (front toe link)
http://i.imgur.com/WddxJ6R.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/WddxJ6R.jpg) (rear toe link)
-
This is how the Govedo chassis looks like when armed with suspension and wheels. ::beers Some tubes, sheet metal and adjustable mounting points are not yet installed at this moment due to continuing development, but the chassis will be finished soon:
(YouTube video)
https://youtu.be/ZKy_EVm2OF0 (https://youtu.be/ZKy_EVm2OF0)
(http://i.imgur.com/Ai2IApD.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/SEJw2sO.jpg)
-
UPDATE:
My set of chassis plans with a license to build one chassis is up for sale at 500 US Dollars or 440 Euros until Friday, 9th October 2015, then the plans will be discontinued from sale and I will start taking orders only for the built chassis with suspension arms and wheel hubs, covered with temporary protective coat WD40 to preserve the metal while you add some extra tabs to mount your preferred engine, transmission, radiators, fuel tank(s), pedals, seats etc. Price of the built chassis will be 7500 US Dollars or 6700 Euros + shipping from Finland by "Finnluxury Oy". Initial customers will receive continuous support for their chassis builds. For private information, please use personal messages or Skype: Bulgarian.supercars
-
Last day for selling my chassis plans with a license to build one chassis at 500 US Dollars or 440 Euros.
However, from Friday, 9th October 2015, the actual built chassis will be available for 7500 US Dollars or 6700 Euros + shipping from Finland by "Finnluxury Oy".
-
UPDATE:
The current progress of the EU and both US chassis plans is as follows:
A - Floor level [fully completed]
B - Bumpers [fully completed]
C - Engine cradle [fully completed]
*D - Door frames and hinges [not yet started]
E - Engine bay [fully completed]
F - Front end [fully completed]
R - Roof roll-cage [fully completed]
S - Sides of the cockpit [fully completed]
T - Central Tunnel [fully completed]
W - Firewall [fully completed]
*M - Metal sheets and plates [half completed]
MP - Machined parts [fully completed]
SP - Suspension tubes [fully completed]
-
I thought you weren't going to sell any of your chassis plans after Oct.9th. 2015, has that now changed?
Rob, ::beers
-
I thought you weren't going to sell any of your chassis plans after Oct.9th. 2015, has that now changed?
Rob, ::beers
Hi Rob,
You are correct, I discontinued selling my chassis plans several months ago and now started to take inquires for selling the built chassis instead. The most recent updates in this topic are made for the nice people who already use my chassis plans for their builds. In fact, it would be a good idea if I start a new topic in another forum section dedicated for the remaining updates only, and leave the current topic opened just in case, but not writing inside as I don't want to move others' ads for sale down.
Cheers,
Bobi
-
Ok,.............well if you change your mind about selling a chassis plan let me know. Because Dubruc has not got back to me about the aluminum chassis, so I'll probably be going with someone else's design.
Rob, ::beers
-
Rob, although the chassis plans are no longer available for purchase, there are a few other options for my Govedo chassis aimed for Aventador replica builds for purchase either from Finland or Bulgaria (both in Europe), as well as the option to directly order the chassis from USA at $10,000. Soon, I will start a separate topic dedicated to this matter.
1. "Rolling chassis package". A fully built and coated chassis complete with wheels, brakes and brake lines, suspension parts, rack&pinion, steering column and steering wheel, pedals, and fuel tank pre-installed. Components, such like: engine, transmission, seats, radiators and pipes, A/C, battery and electrical system are not included. Price is $20,000 + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland. Shipping requires a large crate box or cargo container.
2. "Bare chassis package". A fully built bare chassis (just like the above, but no paint, wheels, brakes or any additional OEM or donor parts) is $7500 + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland, or $10,000 from USA. Shipping requires a large crate box or cargo container. A temporary WD-40 protective coat is applied to allow convenient welding of any additional brackets to mount the necessary donor parts of your choice.
3. "Chassis starter package". An economy package consisting all the necessary separate pre-cut with CNC-laser machine: tubes, metal plates and sheets for the chassis, suspension and wheel hubs (uprights), as well as the CNC-bent roof tubes. All metal plates have dedicated mounting holes and pins for perfectly accurate assembly. The metal tubes, plates and sheets must be assembled and welded by the builder himself using the supplied instruction manual. Price is $5,500 + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland. All fit inside a small wooden crate box whose length is 2000 mm (or about 78"), width is 1000 mm (or about 39") and the height is greatly reduced.
*Mild steel is used as a primary material. If a more expensive metal type is requested for the chassis, such like stainless or chromoly tubes, that will affect the price according to the specified material cost.
**No matter the package, a 75% down payment is necessary up front, with the remaining 25% + shipping cost (unless the latter is arranged by the buyer) covered upon shipping of the crate box.
Keep in mind that my Govedo chassis is not super light, it's designed for high-performance (lots of HP and better tyre grip while high-speed cornering) and driver occupant safety. The roof roll-cage is properly built and use stiff CNC-bent round tubes with over 6 mm wall thickness. It's a far cry from the weak tubing that most replica Lambo chassis use. The same goes for the side protection and the whole structure as well. This adds up to the cost and weight, but I believe that a smart person would rather have safety over slightly cheaper and lighter car. The front suspension features variable camber angle and caster angle depending on the turn degree and direction. My chassis does use some premium components whose price is higher than what the usual kit car builder spends on his/her build. For example, the 36 rod ends by QA1 will cost about $920-960 alone, and brakes are 14" and 14.25" by Wilwood. The small diameter stock Corvette C5 brakes will not fit my wheel hubs, because the latter are designed for strength and use 19" front and 20" big rear wheels, hence the lower ball joints and upper rod ends of the wheel hubs are moved as close as possible to the rim's inside profile to provide better performance and less stress on all the components involved. 17-18" or smaller rims will not fit my suspension (but they also don't look right on an Aventador replica). Also, I recommend using stiffer spring in the front end (to prevent collision of the tyre with the upper side of the wheel well due to the limited space inside), and some stores sell them for slightly higher price than their softer counterparts.
If I can help with more information, please, let me know.
Bobi
-
Ok,.............well if you change your mind about selling a chassis plan let me know. Because Dubruc has not back to me about the aluminum chassis, so I'll probably going with someone else's design.
Rob, ::beers
RJ, I know you were disappointed when you missed out on the steel chassis that I just sold to Canada. I see now that you are interested in an aluminum one. Here it is, an aluminum Aventador chassis, $8,000. Don't miss out again!
-
More pics.
-
Not sure what is happening with these pics. First they won't post ,now they post twice.
-
Not sure what is happening with these pics. First they won't post ,now they post twice.
They all appeared as "viewed 27 times" right after the upload. ::beers
-
Those viewings must have happened while the pictures were temporarily thrown haphazard into a parallel universe. Good thing it did not upset the time and space continueum and suck us all in.
-
looks okay.
-
Attached here are a few pictures of my final design of the Govedo chassis and suspension. I still do improvements on some of the metal sheets on the floor, sides and rear firewall, this is why they are not yet present in the pictures. The weight* (approximate calculation in a 3d software based on steel weight 7800 kg per cubic meter) of the EU version of my chassis should be as follows:
- Bare chassis with no suspension and metal sheets: 274 kg (604 lbs);
- Chassis with partial metal sheets (as shown in the pictures), suspension arms and wheel hubs: 381 kg (840 lbs);
- Chassis with full metal sheets, suspension arms and wheel hubs: 395 kg (871 lbs). Optionally, if 1 mm metal sheet in certain areas is replaced with 2 mm one, for extra frontal crash protection, the weight goes up to 430 kg (948 lbs).
For comparison, by using the same formula for calculation, a steel replica Diablo (NAERC) chassis with the roll-cage, suspension, 2/3 of the central tunnel, and 1/2 of the metal sheets missing appears to weight about 327 kg (721 lbs). It's said to be 394 kg (868.43 lbs) with suspension.
PS: Full resolution images (about 450 kB each):
http://i.imgur.com/gMgSc6v.png (http://i.imgur.com/gMgSc6v.png)
http://i.imgur.com/YkOLuG7.png (http://i.imgur.com/YkOLuG7.png)
http://i.imgur.com/TRrWWXJ.png (http://i.imgur.com/TRrWWXJ.png)
http://i.imgur.com/h5hSX3c.png (http://i.imgur.com/h5hSX3c.png)
-
I live in the United States. what is the website to go to so i can purchase a chassis
-
I live in the United States. what is the website to go to so i can purchase a chassis
Hi,
You can contact "Finnluxury" Oy which is the manufacturer of the chassis at Finland. Usually quickest reply is given at https://www.facebook.com/finnluxury (https://www.facebook.com/finnluxury) or info@finnluxury.com . Hopefully this helps. Soon I will update the information if there is an option for purchase the chassis directly from a contractor based in USA, since the tubes are no longer cut by hand using my chassis plans. Recently I made a vast amount of upgrades to the chassis design and now the tubes feature over 1000 pins and holes to guarantee precise assembly of the whole structure. This is only possible with an advanced 7-axis CNC-laser cutting of the tubes and the chassis offered by "Finnluxury" Oy is exactly like that. You can read more information about the upgrades over here: http://lamboclone.com/index.php?topic=2390.msg29935#new (http://lamboclone.com/index.php?topic=2390.msg29935#new)
Cheers!
Bobi
-
1. "Rolling chassis package". A fully built and coated chassis complete with wheels, brakes and brake lines, suspension parts, rack&pinion, steering column and steering wheel, pedals, and fuel tank pre-installed. Components, such like: engine, transmission, seats, radiators and pipes, A/C, battery and electrical system are not included. Price is 18 800 EUR (20 000 USD) + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland. Shipping requires a large crate box or cargo container.
2. "Bare chassis package". A fully built bare chassis (just like the above, but no paint, wheels, brakes or any additional OEM or donor parts) is 7 000 EUR (7 500 USD) + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland, or 10 000 USD from USA. Shipping requires a large crate box or cargo container. A temporary WD-40 protective coat is applied to allow convenient welding of any additional brackets to mount the necessary donor parts of your choice.
3. "Chassis starter package". An economy package consisting all the necessary separate pre-cut with CNC-laser machine: tubes, metal plates and sheets for the chassis, suspension and uprights, as well as the CNC-bent roof tubes. All metal plates have dedicated mounting holes and pins for perfectly accurate assembly. The metal tubes, plates and sheets must be assembled and welded by the builder himself using the supplied instruction manual. Price is 5 500 EUR (5 900 USD) + shipping from Bulgaria or Finland. All fit inside a small wooden crate box whose length is 2000 mm (about 78"), width is 1000 mm (about 39") and the height is greatly reduced (about half meter).
4. "3d CAD chassis package". For those who are looking for a complete solution (like custom car shops wanting to build multiple chassis), the original 3d CAD model of the Govedo chassis in Rhino's native *3dm file format (NURBS solids) is obtainable for 15 000 EUR (16 000 USD). The file consist all the tubes, metal plates and sheets, machined (turned) parts etc required for the chassis, suspension and door hinges. Included are also dimensionally accurate 3d models of 11" and 14" QA-1 coil-overs and Corvette C5 hub-bearings that I modeled after carefully taking measurements from the actual parts. Next to the fully assembled 3d chassis are placed tens of separate chassis sections that are designed to be preliminary assembled and welded on flat MDF jigs, whose 3d models are also included.
5. "Govedo chassis plans". A limited-time offer for ordering the final batch of my Govedo chassis plans. The package consists individual drawings for each tube type printed on A4 paper, build instructions and schematics printed on A4 and A1 paper, and a DVD with AutoCAD DWG/DXF files for CNC-laser cutting of all the necessary metal plates and sheets. Price is 1 200 EUR (1 300 USD) + shipping in an envelope from Bulgaria.
-
Hello, good night, I'm new, by the way.
I need help from my friends. I'm riding a poison! but I can not get the design of the chassis that can be the same as the adventurer. if anyone has the project and can help me I'll be grateful!
-
Fabio what exactly are you looking for? Thanks