I'd really like to see a dimensioned drawing of a Morgan or Sanford... how wide is the cockpit on one of those... 36-40"?
Got your PM- didn't know that it was the drawings that you wanted- go to smcars.net and sign yourself up. It's free and there are LOTS of drawings/blueprints/3 views besides the Morgan!
Well, signed up at the SMCcars.net site but no Morgan. I was able to look at some other sites and small cars and get a feel for the dimensions. Looks like a 50" track, seat area was around 40-41" wide. A little tight! I think I could build one about the same width as a VW Beetle though -- around 46" from inside of door to inside of door. The front tread of the Beetle axle is 54" vs. the Morgan's 50". So could widen the whole thing 4" and still keep proportions.
The open-sided body helps on the Morgan. It allows the occupants' shoulders to stick out. I've got some British anthropometric data, according to which the mean average male is 450mm (18") across the shoulders and 370mm (14½") across the hips, and the mean average female is 400mm (16") across both the shoulders and the hips. 95th-percentile adult men are 404mm (16") across the hips. 95th-percentile adult women are 441mm (17½") across the hips. 95th-percentile elderly women are 455mm (18") across the hips. 95th-percentile adult men are 504mm (20") across the shoulders. 95th-percentile adult women are 428mm (17") across the shoulders. 95th-percentile elderly women are 481mm (19") across the shoulders. So, assuming that they are to sit up straight and not lean to the sides, two 95th-percentile elderly women require a body width of 936mm (37") at hip height and 962mm (38") at shoulder height. Two 95th-percentile adult men require 908mm (36") at hip height and 1008mm (39½") at shoulder height. But a 95th-percentile adult man and a 50th-percentile adult woman require only 859mm (34") at hip height and 909mm (36") at shoulder height. The above assumes similar-percentile hip and shoulder dimensions in the same individual, i.e. extreme cases. In all cases the figures touch at their shoulders and nowhere else, which means that there is always space between hips and between knees for car controls. The data are of British origin, however: Americans might be expected to be a bit bigger. Even so, a 41" seat might be plenty in this sort of car. It'll be appropriately snug but everything should fit.
If you think that's small - here's what I've got for specifications on the 1914 Scripps-Booth Rocket Cyclecar: 10hp, 35ci Spacke v-twin engine 100-inch wheelbase 36-inch track 600-800lb weight tandem seating (think Curtiss Jenny) -Dave
Sorry, you needed to use the search function to find Morgans... here's the direct link: http://www.smcars.net/forums/miscellaneous/17636-morgan-super-sports.html
Thanks -- got it! I also used the search and got another photo or two. Now to figure out what project is next... rebuild my Jeep J-10, build a boat, "Morgan", 65 Rambler American w/2.3L Merkur turbo motor, or finish out the old barn hay loft for a pool table... Too many projects and not enough time or money to finish them all! Anyone else with that problem?? ;> (probably all of you!!)
Went to the Greenwich, Ct. Concourse today, this gem of a Trumbull was there. For an extra $15.00 you could order the door striped.
This is a 1914 Dayton Cyclecar. They were built in Joliet, Illinois. I photographed this one in Palos Heights, IL, many years ago. I am told the Joliet Historical Society has one in a museum also.
How was that powered? I like the contrast of a closed body to the smallness of the car. I wonder what the wheelbase was. It seems to be more of a "miniature car" in the Austin 7/Peugeot Bébé/Le Zebre mould than a cyclecar in character. I was about to say the same about the Burghley-esque 7 model.A.keith posted earlier: but where exactly does one draw the line? There's an unbroken continuum. In fact the abovementioned Peugeot was replaced with the Quadrillette which, despite the small liquid-cooled four and Hotchkiss drive, had very much a cyclecar feel to it: I believe later versions had side-by-side seating, however, and gradually went back to being "proper" cars in miniature.
Here's a page on Trumbull. It appears to have been powered by an 86.4cu.in (1416cc) water-cooled four. The wheelbase was 80". Compare that with 696cc (42.5 cu.in) and 75" for the first Austin 7s. An open version
Ned, That Trumbull roadster was at the show yesterday as well, I just ran out of film. It is powered by a 4 cylinder engine. They are about the same size as a Bebe Peugeot.
If I was using a big lazy V8 in a light cyclecar would I need a gearbox (tranny) or would it be possible to just have a clutch and flywheel?
Let's see if I am savvy enough to post a link. If not check out the youtube link on Unknown Choppers website. They are going to start producing these this summer. Good guys and damn fine fabricators. http://www.unknownchoppers.com
that is an intriguing concept - and, in dispensing with a 'box, also true to 'less is more'. you don't happen to have a 3500 getting in the way there do you?
A Rover/Buick aluminium V8 is reasonably compact and weighs about the same as a 1600cc 4 cylinder cast iron Ford Crossflow - dispense with the gearbox and the whole drivetrain is lighter, simpler, shorter and more reliable. Potentially many advantages. Looking around the net there are various V8 motorcycles using SBCs that just have a clutch and are geared to do 70mph at around 2500 rpm. I'd like to hear Ned Ludd's take on this.
Hey blackjack I must admit I've never much liked those sbc-powered bikes. Perhaps it's the stock-Harley look; perhaps the unimaginative radiator arrangement that links the things to all the modern liquid-cooled bikes I dislike. Moreover my own musings on longitudinal-engined bikes - even the liquid-cooled ones - have always included not only a gearbox but chain-drive too. You certainly do have a point, though. The idea has something rather Edwardian about it, though closer to the end of the scale spectrum opposite from the Edwardian cyclecar. It was very much the argument behind the common response to that curious 1000kg inverse weight break that applied in motor racing in some of those years: litres of air weigh very little, so it is quite easy really to displace twenty-two of them with the engine of a one-tonne car. That holds especially if engine speeds are low and specific outputs modest, so engines could be light for their capacity and run ludicrously spindly negative-overlap crankshafts, etc. The quest was, of course, for flexibility, as the less often one had to shift a tricky non-synchro sliding-mesh gearbox the better. Ironically the smaller engines of the subsequent Vintage era achieved that flexibility a lot better: the common Edwardian approach in practice was to set a constant engine speed with the hand throttle and vary road speed by manipulating that dodgy gearbox. It was in things like 4½-litre Bentleys that the practice of shifting into top at 10mph really became viable. That, I suppose, is another reason we call Vintage cars Vintage and Edwardian cars monstrosities I nevertheless must admit to a fondness for Edwardian monstrosities: the more monstrous the better. You seem to be headed towards a sort of monstrositylet. I should think the trick would be to emphasize the (really rather modest) bulk of the V8 by making the rest as delicate as possible. For instance, many motorcycle alloy wheels have the potential to look something like early wooden artillery wheels if painted appropriately. And chain drive: you need chain drive Bolt something like a Reliant axle to the frame under your knees, and take chains from there.
Yes! And keep the fuel tank in the classic cyclecar position, over the engine, to add height. Keep the SUs, so the engine breathes from the sides. Keep the wheelbase short: use the chain drive to push the seats out over the rear axle.
The Jalopy Journal
