Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 03:47:27 -1000 From: gaffer@ibmpcug.co.uk (Andrew Beattie) Message-Id: Organization: /usr/lib/news/organiszation Subject: Re: Buggy Design S.G.HORROBIN wrote: >I think there is some advantage to be gained by turning the standard 3 wheel >buggy through 180 degrees: having one wheel at the back, with two at the front >(woo woo nutter alert). At this early stage in buggy development, I wouldn't consider anyone who tries out a new idea, however "unconventional" to be a nutter. If all we do is to slavishly follow Peter Lynn, we'll get no-where. That said, let's have a look at your proposal: >Despite a necessary increase in wheelbase which ought really to reduce the >maneouverability, I think that the reduction in tyre surface should mean that >it is easier to step the rear end out - causing a net reduction in turning >circle. > >Offsetting this is the fact that the rider's weight is less evenly distributed >so the rear wheel would tend to dig in on soft surfaces (sand). However, by >moving the cg forward (by moving the track rod out beyond the front axle) it >ought to be possible to both reduce the wheelbase and disperse the weight more >evenly between the front and rear wheels. > >This should give all the advantages of four wheeled buggys with the weight >gains of three wheeled ones. It's not clear whether you propose - 2 steering wheels at the front with one fixed wheel at the rear or - 2 fixed wheels at the front and one steering wheel at the rear. It is important to retain good manoeverability. You need to be able to do a down-wind turn whilst loosing as little ground as possible. Rear-steer would likely be good in this respect. Buggiers spend a lot of time sliding. I know how to correct a tail-slide with front-wheel steer, but I suspect that if I steer into the slide on rear-steer, the thing will just spin. Digging in on soft sand is bad news - you get both much less crontrol and much less speed :-( Moving further forward is a win. This lets you take more side-ways force >From the kite before the tail slides. For this reason, Peter Lynn now makes 5-wheel buggies (4 rear, 1 steering at front).. On the other hand, as I understand it, the 4-wheel Nop buggy was marginaly slower on the desert because of the increased rolling resistance. Andrew -- o /\ Kite Jumping |_\/ is for (_\ M O R O N S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 01:05:52 -1000 From: wq932656@xdm016.mitch.cranfield.ac.uk (S.G.HORROBIN) Message-Id: <3dbmig$qba@xdm084.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk> Organization: Cranfield University, UK Subject: Buggy Design My winter projects this year are a five metre sputnik-4 and a buggy (I am something of a "Stunt Kites ..." fan). The Sputnik is somewhat stright forward (despite its scale), but I have a few problems with the buggy designs given by Velthuisen (sp), and set my mind to the issue. I think there is some advantage to be gained by turning the standard 3 wheel buggy through 180 degrees: having one wheel at the back, with two at the front (woo woo nutter alert). Despite a necessary increase in wheelbase which ought really to reduce the maneouverability, I think that the reduction in tyre surface should mean that it is easier to step the rear end out - causing a net reduction in turning circle. Offsetting this is the fact that the rider's weight is less evenly distributed so the rear wheel would tend to dig in on soft surfaces (sand). However, by moving the cg forward (by moving the track rod out beyond the front axle) it ought to be possible to both reduce the wheelbase and disperse the weight more evenly between the front and rear wheels. This should give all the advantages of four wheeled buggys with the weight gains of three wheeled ones. I do have some reservations though. My question is, has anyone done it? What are your thoughts? Yours a classic Morgan fan, Simon Horrobin = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 00:48:00 -1000 From: wq932656@xdm016.mitch.cranfield.ac.uk (S.G.HORROBIN) Message-Id: <3de9t1$8ne@xdm084.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk> Organization: Cranfield University, UK Subject: Re: Buggy Design In article , gaffer@ibmpcug.co.uk (Andrew Beattie) writes: |> Buggiers spend a lot of time sliding. I know how to correct a tail-slide |> with front-wheel steer, but I suspect that if I steer into the slide on |> rear-steer, the thing will just spin. Yep - I thought about this, and I think what would happen is you would just lose all control. If you lose your rear end and it is your only means of steering then your probably stuffed |> Digging in on soft sand is bad news - you get both much less crontrol and |> much less speed :-( Not sure what to do about this. Moving forward, s/b as you say a plus, but it will make the steering linkage more vulnerable. Not to mention your legs. Alternatively, it would be possible to increase the width of the tyre. This would increase the load dispersion, but increase rolling resistance. |> Moving further forward is a win. This lets you take more side-ways force |> from the kite before the tail slides. For this reason, Peter Lynn now makes |> 5-wheel buggies (4 rear, 1 steering at front).. On the other hand, as I |> understand it, the 4-wheel Nop buggy was marginaly slower on the desert |> because of the increased rolling resistance. That's what I figured, which is why I wanted to drop a wheel, but keep two steerable front wheels. I think I have convinced myself that it is worth a prototype. Now where is that welding kit? Simon Horrobin = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 18:11:25 -1000 From: mark@murder.demon.co.uk (Mark de Roussier) Message-Id: <788526685snx@murder.demon.co.uk> Organization: damage Subject: Re: Buggy Design In article <3dbmig$qba@xdm084.ccc.cranfield.ac.uk> wq932656@xdm016.mitch.cranfield.ac.uk (S.G.HORROBIN) writes: > My winter projects this year are a five metre sputnik-4 and a buggy (I am > something of a "Stunt Kites ..." fan). The Sputnik is somewhat stright > forward (despite its scale), but I have a few problems with the buggy > designs given by Velthuisen (sp), and set my mind to the issue. > > I think there is some advantage to be gained by turning the standard 3 wheel > buggy through 180 degrees: having one wheel at the back, with two at the front > (woo woo nutter alert). > Take a look, if you can, at a photo on page 84 of Maxwell Edens 'Kiteworks'. It has Andrew Jones ( co-inventor of the Flexi ) sitting in a contraption such as you describe. The photo isn't dated, but at a guess its late 70's/ early 80's. Steering is via a lever moving in a vertical plane on the left of the pilot. The stack is attached *to the buggy*, via a capstan/windlass arrangement - ie the two lines are joined, and their relative lengths adjusted by means of the pilot cranking the capstan back and forth with hir right hand. -- Mark de Roussier ************************************ A nice man is a man of nasty ideas. Jonathon Swift. ************************************ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 11:35:05 -1000 From: coreykite@aol.com (Coreykite) Message-Id: <3dslm9$afh@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Buggy Design Lucky subscribers to Buggy Newz will be blessed with a photo of a three-wheel buggy with 2 front and 1 back wheel built by Cory Roessler as a project for a college course. The rest of you will just have to beg, borrow, or steal someone else's copy. Or subscribe! aoxomoxoa coreykite@aol.com = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =