I posted this in here because us racer types seem to know more about these kinds of things than people in general forums.

http://www.superlitecars.com/coupe_images.html

What do you guys think of this car?
make sure you examine all the images where the frame is exposed.

I ask because i'm interested in what this manufacture has to offer, but when i see some things about this car, it just makes me cringe a little.

Heres some more pics which are not on that website.
that funky looking control arm is so wider rear tires can be used; a strange design, no? I would love to put that into solid works and run an FEA on it. They have normal A shaped arms, but you have to run a smaller tire.

 

I don't have time go into detail right now, but by the looks of it they need to hire an engineer.

 

http://www.race-car-replicas.com/

Pretty trick stuff

 

What makes you cringe?


-Ted

 

Kit cars and clones are always interesting - you always have to worry about if the designers have the engineering correct. Many of these companies are pretty fly-by-night so you also have to worry about long term part availability and support.

For me the warning lights were set off by the fact that these guys seem to be producing clones of existing semi-kit manufactures - the Arial Atom and what pretty much looks like an Ultima GTR. If they can't come up with an original design, then I have to really questions the engineering efforts behind their cars.

 

Steve Fox, a Formula SAE design judge and long time race car engineer one told me "Square tubing doesn't belong in a race car..." This car is only square tubing! Yes, I know that square is easy to manufacture, but its inferior to round in pretty much every way. I don't know the whole deal with billet control arms, too. they look great and all, but could it be that they are actually heavier than steel tube ones. Just look for bullet arms on any pro race car. Indy? don't they still use steel? That might be mandated, but i don't know. Finally, the roll hoop support doesn't even connect to a node. Maybe I'm over thinking things, but it seems to me that these are basic design issues...

 

Billet is a process, not a metal type (i.e. you can have billet steel, or billet aluminum). However, generally since it starts out as a "chunk", it won't be hollow which "could" be stronger.

 

It all sounds like strength issues to me?
Sure, I'm not going to argue square (rectangular) versus round tubing, but welding box tubing is a lot easier than fish-mouthing or notching round tubing?
Unless you're going to x-ray the welds, cutting and fitting round tube is a royal pain in the ***!

I can't comment on whether everything is strong enough, since there is no details on how heavy everything is?

As for the CNC'd arms, I don't see an issue of strength there. In fact, I'm sure the CNC'd billet arm is probably stronger than a welded tube arm of the same dimensions?
In fact, I dunno why they went this route, since welded tube arms would've been easier and lighter?
I think they just wanted to show off their CNC capability?


-Ted

 

Square tubing isn't necessarily evil, just not as efficient as round. I don't see any structure in the roof, not good for stiffness or strength. There's also not much triangulation. The rear section also seems to be at least partly bolted together, not good. Having bolt in stiffening bits is fine, but not the whole thing.

I don't like how the lower A arms are designed with those wide mounting points cantilevered out from the A. They'd probably be lighter and they'd certainly be cheaper in tubular steel. There's some large areas that aren't milled at all, even way out at the wheel end, hurting unsprung weight. With a 2 piece A arm it's also possible to make the alignment adjustable without having to undo any fasteners. If they wanted to make those aluminum arms as best as possible, they should have machined from both sides, not just pocket them from one side.

 

Well, i guess its not so much a question of stregth but more of a quesiton of efficiency and good engineering. I'm sure everything is plenty strong, those control arms look like they could hold up the world compaird to some of the stuff iv seen. But thats the point, I think the goal of any good race car is to weigh as little as possiable. Notice it doesnt talk about the weight of the car on the site.

 

Click over to the main RCR site and check out the other models. The 917's chassis looks much, much better.

 

yeah, the 917 they have pictured is a tube for tube copy of the original. They also have a 917 build like their gt40 that costs less then half as much and that humans actually fit in.

 

Look like they do some good kits. Here's a build of their GT40 kit:

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/gt40-buil...-mccall-9.html

 

ok, screw the square tube and heavy looking billet arms, he says the car weighs 1400lbs turn key minus (complete minus engine and trans). Whatever engine you put in that car is up to you but it look like these could weigh less then 2000lbs...

 

Rears look like double wishbone with a bellcrank damper system...
So, the arms are only going to see lateral tension or compression loads.
They should not be seeing bending loads, so I think they are overkill, especially with that low chassis weight...

The box tube for the chassis itself looks like Al?


-Ted

 

They'll also be seeing fore/aft loads from braking and acceleration that translates into ground plane bending.

If you want a light, powerful, cheap supercar the Factory Five Racing GTM looks pretty awesome to me. IIRC it's about $25k for the kit, then add in a donor C5 Corvette and a Porsche G50 transaxle and you've got a giant killer.

 

its all aluminum.

Notice the rear box is pretty wide, thats because its designed so that even a front drive engine an trans can be mounted in it. Its a neat concept that allows for many different engine and trans combos.

 

Looks like lot of work

 

Thrown into the discussion FWIW.

I've only had one car with a tube frame chassis but it seems to get the job done.

The following chassis pics are of a car LIKE mine, but not mine.
The pics are large so I'll just link.

Pic 1
Pic 2