Someone doesn't like the roadster .....
 

My word,

He's got the fish, sausage, haggis, meat pie and parmo as well as the chip sitting on his shoulder!

TT

Each to their own I suppose :)

I guess you do not need to look any further than Kent for the author of that :rolleyes:

Funny how most of the followers are avid GTS builders ;) :D

I think most of what has been said there is fair comment in terms of design and production of mass parts from an engineering point of view. If I where making a chassis on a mass production run I would not have used 3mm here 5mm there 19x19 25x25 different bushes and so on. How ever the idea of the both the Champion and Gibbs books is that it was never intended to be a mass production 'kit car' it is ment to be a guide to building 1 car personaly from scratch. The fact that people are selling pre made chassis, running gear and fibreglass body work is there choice to do so for a very limited market.
'Kit car builder' seams to be an established manufacturer and I have a few ideas of who this might be, but 'he' seams to have had his nose put out of place by having to spend more time and money rejiging to follow a market trend. The 'locost' had a very good 15yr + run and was adapted to suit mx5, sierra, nissan etc running gear, the roadster will no dought go the same way in delopment with the mx5, bmw and numerous others yet to be seen.
Every market has to change over time as parts either become harder to find or legislation changes to suit new laws, this means change to every business involved in producing parts related to the market.
I think that post smells a little of sour grapes perhaps?
Every thing in this post is just my take on how I see it , no offence is intended to any body who may be involved in any of the above.

Oh Dear,

Somebody isn't very happy, think i'll have a parmo with his chips - should keep me fed for a month.

The car is an updated design of the Ron Champion, if parts where compatible then it wouldn't be "updated". As far as i have been told the suspension setup and geometry was designed on Lotus's own suspension software, and certainly builders are getting very good value for money for parts that they choose to buy, or build themselves.

We could go on forever.....AndyH

The one valid point, is the donor one.

As with the locost "escort" the sierra is now costing a lot to find for most.

Somone needs to look at the development of BMW or MX5 components to secure the longevity of the roadster gene pool.

TT

I wouldn't pay any attention to what Sir George says folks, he suckered the kit car press for awhile but ponder this....why jack a highly paid job within F1 circles to go make cheap 'n cheerful Locosts?...nuf said methinks:p

Thought it was him Mark......;)

Yep,and harped on about how the Roadster should have been the same size as the mc sorley......because GTS have got moulds to suit that called the w7de or whatever name it's called:rolleyes:


Locost GT40 anyone?........i wonder who's body work got ripped off for that then...pmsl

I think a lot of these are valid criticisms. Was there any benefit in changing the size of suspension bushes and brackets? Also, he's got a point about the chassis width. Standards are good! Also, he's right about "it's available at MK Engineering". There are no dimensions for the mushroom adapter in the book, an important part of the suspension, just a pointer to MK Engineering. Thanks to Ronnie and this forum for putting it right!

Length of wishbones -- pfft, Locost was based around the track width of Escort Mk2, Haynes Roadster uses unmodified Sierra rear axle and steering geometry. It's natural the length of wishbones will not match.

Albertas