Hello !! I'm Vincent Chamon The organisator of the Vintage Revival Montlhery for 7th & 08th May 2011 on the Montlhery French Track You can see informations about this event on my web site : http://vintage.revival.free.fr see you !!! Vincent C
Good site about Czechoslovak microcars: http://www.avia350.cz/en_intro.html Hoba-Velorex with a fiberglass body: http://www.auta5p.eu/katalog/hoba/hoba.htm http://www.motomagazin.cz/index.php?action=velorex&menu=8&pos=velorexhoba
Jose85, you are my new hero. Thank you. I couldn't read a word of the sites, but sure enjoyed the pictures. The Hoba is pretty cute.
I once had a poke about under one of these - and it was pretty rotten. No idea where you´d start trying to fix it.
OK, now this is my new background! That's an EARLY hotrodder right there. Thanks for posting it Cheese. It looks to be rigid front and buggy sprung rear. But what's that he's fingering strapped to the tank. Looks like a dead crow.
Not only wooden construction: emphatically wood-and-adhesive construction. Similar in principle to, and doubtless inspired by, the DH.98 Mosquito.
so lets say i wanted to build a traditional Morgan sliding pillarfront end ala the 3 wheelers, what modern parts would i use? frame is easy, and the rear drive is no problems (with all the shaft bike drive stuff out there). but to truely have a proper 3 wheeler, one must have that legendary morgan front end. so, what can we cut up and break apart and scavenge from to build one? what would you use for spindles, wheels and hubs? brakes? springs? lets make a parts list!
more Moggy bits: http://www.morgan3w.de/technic/technic.htm The Chassis of the Morgan three-wheeler, made from steel tubes, was very simple but strong and efficient. A main feature was the independent suspension for the front wheels, the rear wheel was attached via a hinge at the back of the gearbox and sprung by quarter-elliptic leaf springs. The size of the chassis of course varied from model to model and over the years. For example in 1923 the wheel base was 6ft and the weight approximately 2¾cwt; the "F" 4-seater from 1936 had a wheelbase of 8ft 3in and a track of 4ft 2in. The "F"-Type used a completely different chassis. It was made of pressed steel but retained the centre tube, which connected the engine and gearbox. This picture shows the Front End. The engine can be easily removed by undoing four bolts. The clutch is directly attached to the engine, from there a driveshaft leads to the gearbox at the rear of the car. The Front Suspension is an early Morgan patent and was used with all Morgan Three-wheelers. It can even be found in the Morgan 4/4, +4 and +8 of today. The principle is simple: A Kingpin, a sliding axle, a main spring and a rebound spring are the main parts. Some of the more sporting three-wheelers also had shock absorbers (Newton-Bennet, later Duplex Hartford) for only the front wheels or for all three wheels. The picture shown here is from the 1923 maintenance manual and shows the Rear End of the 2-speeder. The drive is from a square joint in the clutch through the main frame tube to the bevel wheel on countershaft in the gearbox. A pair of Dog clutches can be worked with a side lever, putting into gear one of two chains. There is no reverse gear on the 2-speeder. In 1931/32 Morgan introduced a new R-type gearbox giving 3 speeds and reverse with only one chain
sure you all have seen this site: http://www.morgan3w.de/index.htm loads of good stuff there. dig the "detroit"
way to refined. anyways, we are attempting traditional british stove pipe engineering here. ze'germans are way to refined.
FB, There was a thread a good while back about a modern built 3 wheeler that captured the look of the Morgan- anybody remember?
I think I'd just give up on the sliding pillar front end and do an IFS with some small discs. Find a stash of jap bikes and go to town.
yeah, and do away with the experience? it is like driving an sbc vs. a flatty...it is the experience...and it appears completely lost on you.
They don't look that difficult to fabricate - let's face it, if Morgan made them in house they probably used hand tools. It's not really much more than a primitive MacPherson strut.
Morgan even made their own nuts and bolts in house until quite recently! A MacPherson strut might indeed be a starting point. The trick will be to replace the ball-joint at the bottom with a slide with the same travel as the strut itself. That will probably cause you to run into wheel clearance problems, as the typical MacPherson strut set-up has non-zero steering axis inclination, which may result in the ball joint sitting very close to or even inside the wheel rim. There might not be room for a slide arrangement. If the hub-carrier part of the strut is separate from the strut tube, as on a Mk 1 Golf and unlike later Golfs, one could modify the attachment between the two to give zero SAI, as is the case on the Morgan system. It might on balance be easier to fabricate something from scratch, taking the above Morgan blueprint as a basis. One could use strut-inserts for dampers, and fwd rear stub-axles - many bolt on - to carry the hubs. One might question the appropriateness of sliding-pillar ifs on the front of a trike, notwithstanding fur biscuit's point about the experience. Reverse trikes understeer, and my first instinct would not be to use a system that gains zero negative camber with roll on one. Yes, Morgan three-wheelers handled extremely well in their day. So did Lancia Lambdas, using very similar ifs. But in their day, bad handling generally meant unexpected oversteer, so any car that didn't do that could be said to handle well, even if we from our vantage point feel that a little provokability of the tail might not be a bad thing. That consideration did take me past an idea involving matched lhd and rhd racks-and-pinions as suspension uprights, but I think it might be one of those ideas of mine ...
Part of the fun, and challenge behind a cycle car (as i see it), is best summed up by Mr. Morgan himself: The New M-Type Chassis from 1929 and what Morgan said about it: <CITE>...we have improved the transmission, braking, springing and accessibility of the rear wheel. We have not attempted to complicate the design, being still of the opinion that our success lies in the fact that we offer the public a simple and sound machine of light weight and good performance, without attempting to make it a "car on three wheels."</CITE> Even a macpherson strut is to complicated. Draw on another less is more proponent, the late Colin Chapman "Simplify and add lightness". The black and white Harley powered thing i posted a page back, is a neat 3 wheeled CAR. If anyone here has ever driven a stock model T at 50mph, they can fully attest to the notion of "experience". What makes a Morgan fun? what makes it special? what makes it hair raising? Does it have IFS and 6" of suspension travel, 5 speeds ahead? disk brakes? comfy seating and 100 hp? no, and nor does it need them. A Morgan has maybe an inch or 2 suspension "movement" and probably twice that much in chassis flex. Brakes...the early ones only had a rear brake. 100 hp? try 20-30...maybe. 5 speeds ahaead, more like 2. Gas pedal, no. You get 2 levers fixed to a flat plate over the steering wheel. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7etbV1jFm8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7etbV1jFm8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> I will add more later.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dDgoli-a44c&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dDgoli-a44c&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
The Jalopy Journal
