three wheeler

DanJR1 · 21 Jul 2003, 13:31 (Ref:667141)

Im tryin 2 design a three wheeler single seater similar in construction to a sidecar racer but im havin a problem deciding if to have 1 wheel at the front and 2 at rear or 2 at the front and 1 at the rear. I'm edging towards having 1 at the front and 2 at the rear as the design will be using a hayabusa turbo so traction will be needed and i won't have the problem of designing comlicated front suspension.:confused:

JGM · 21 Jul 2003, 18:04 (Ref:667466)

A 'two wheels at the front' vehicle would be much better for a high performance vehicle - much more stable, much better steering. There are precedents such the Morgan three wheelers. Before the motorcycle sidecar racing regulations were changed to ensure that the three wheels were asymetric in layout, one smart constructor simply took a high performance Mini car and stripped it right down to more or less an engine, front wheels and suspension, a small platform and a single rear wheel behind. He was very successful, before it was banned. Rear traction wouldn't be a problem with a big wide tyre.

avsfan733 · 22 Jul 2003, 01:33 (Ref:667834)

I agree with JGM, and it would also allow you to run a really wide single rear tire without having to worry about a differential and drive axles. Go two wheels afront. just use a simple system, you could probably even copy/salvage parts from many small cars on the road today

Speck · 22 Jul 2003, 21:18 (Ref:668814)

These ppl make 3 wheeled cars BTW:

Grinnall Cars

Warwick · 23 Jul 2003, 06:59 (Ref:669069)

Two at the front is the best system, less likely to tip over at a higher cornering speed than the other way around.

Turbo Hayabusa hhmmmmm, the boys over the road have one stuffed in a Quadracer only pumping out 400hp+

imull · 23 Jul 2003, 17:40 (Ref:669627)

2 at the front.

If your worried about designing complicated suspension geometry, why not pirate the Locost geometry for example. Simply made and must be fairly good...

Hybrid · 28 Jul 2003, 00:15 (Ref:672844)

With a turbo hayabusa engine I reckon your going to need 4 tyres and a parashute.

Hybrid · 28 Jul 2003, 00:44 (Ref:672858)

I think I should have said Parachute

DanJR1 · 5 Aug 2003, 00:06 (Ref:680059)

cud a sidecar rear tyre take the hayabusa turbo power?

DanJR1 · 6 Aug 2003, 21:10 (Ref:681600)

could a three wheeler be faster than a 4 wheeler.( the 3 wheeler wud ave a large rear wing attached to the rear wing arm and some kind of ground effects and front ring nearer the front.:confused:

Hamness · 6 Aug 2003, 21:36 (Ref:681620)

The stripped out Mini referred to earlier in this thread was in fact built by a chap called Owen Greenwood but he utilised every loophole in the sidecar regulations of the time which even, indeed, allowed 2 wheels at the back. If the distance laterally between 2 wheels was less than a certain limit, then they could be counted as one ! I saw it race once and it was great but obiously it got banned fairly quickly along with other great ideas that fitted the rules at the time like the Tyrrell 6 wheeler, Brabham fan-car, Chaparaal etc. How come we dont see any more in the modern era ? Life kinda seems bland without them.

Bob Pearson · 8 Aug 2003, 15:01 (Ref:682946)

Crickey, this brings back memories, I used to race against Owen Greenwood's Mini, You're dead right, it was all conquering, so the term "race against" should be read as "start at the same time as."

Hamness · 8 Aug 2003, 22:21 (Ref:683319)

I always remember a picture of the Owen Greenwood "Mini" (what the hell did he call it) on the front of MCN. It just looked so ludicrous with the pair of them sat side by side up front, with Owen on the steering wheel! Great memories and, full marks to him and all the other designers out there who can study a set of what look like "cast-iron regs" and then produce something so "off the wall" that it took the scene by storm at the time and, here we are, talking about it 40 years on! I doubt that the current breed of special designs will be talked of in such terms 40 years hence.

Bob Pearson · 11 Aug 2003, 14:45 (Ref:685113)

I am pretty sure he just called it a Mini. The one you are trying to think of was probably Skitsu. That was another tweak of the rules at about the same time. The crew sat in tandem, but I can't remember whether it had two wheels at the front or two at the back.
I seem to recall that the Mini had two bolted together at the back, which, as they were bolted together were only classed as one wheel.
I guess we always look back through rose tinted glasses, but somehow I can't help but agree with your last sentance.

DanJR1 · 22 Aug 2003, 15:39 (Ref:695726)

say if i used an 18 inch by 8 inch wheel at the rear, that shud b able to harness the Hayabusa power.:confused:

**ghinzani** · 22 Aug 2003, 16:22 (Ref:695754)

Any pictures of this mini beast at all?

**ghinzani** · 22 Aug 2003, 16:26 (Ref:695759)

SFA on google....

DanJR1 · 25 Nov 2003, 10:02 (Ref:793762)

Specification of 3 wheeler

*2 wheels at front, 1 at rear (8*17 inch rear wheel size)
*Spaceframe chassis
*engine in middle under rider
*1000cc engine (tuned to near 200bhp)
*a rear wing attached to the swing arm (like a lotus 88)
*big front diffusers under wishbones at front with a front wing
*covered aerodynamics.
*weight around 250KG

How fast do you think it will be compared to a superbike and a radical?

zefarelly · 25 Nov 2003, 10:20 (Ref:793788)

your power to weight ratio will be not far off an F1 car . . . .so I'd say quick enough

it depends how strong your sphincter is I guess!

handling might be interesting though!

DanJR1 · 30 Jan 2004, 13:23 (Ref:856364)

is a three wheeler still a bike?:confused:

imull · 30 Jan 2004, 14:13 (Ref:856436)

Are you planning to race this under MSA technical regs? If so the wing must be mounted to the body as it is classed as amoveable aero device if on a wishbone/swing arm which is illeagal.

very very quick until you get it wrong then very very sore

Kid Prozac · 1 Feb 2004, 12:13 (Ref:858779)

Quote:

Originally posted by DanJR1
Specification of 3 wheeler

*2 wheels at front, 1 at rear (8*17 inch rear wheel size)
*engine in middle under rider

How fast do you think it will be compared to a superbike and a radical?

Couple of things with the one wheel at the rear that I can foresee. If you are planning to have a lot of power from thenegine, and you will to compete with a radical, you are going to be traction limited, ie you will spin up that rear wheel very easily. Secondly, with a single rear wheel, in a roll situation, you have no form of keeping the rear wheel at a suitable angle, without running zero roll stiffness. This will mean that coming out of corners you wiill not be able to apply power unitl the vehicle is at 0 degrees roll. It will also destroy the rear tyre very quickly. The solution would torun some kind of floating swing arm, that can move in roll as well as bump. Would be a very sweet solution if you could get it to work.

Regarding the engine, if you have your rider/driver above it, your CG height will be in the order of 700mm. This will absolutely kill your cornering potential. Bikes get around this by the rider leaning into the corner, thus lowering the CG. If you keep this format you'll struggle to keep up with a Radical for sure. If you wnat a one rider vehciel, stick the engine next to the driver, thuis reducing the wheelbase, and combining it with a low CG and low polar moment of inertia.

Good luck with it, there is potential for a truely different machine!

DanJR1 · 1 Feb 2004, 20:55 (Ref:859434)

just had a thought. a quad-bike type machine with the rider mounted really low like a sidecar

imull · 1 Feb 2004, 21:13 (Ref:859463)

they call it F1

DanJR1 · 2 Feb 2004, 10:20 (Ref:859880)

not if your riding it like a bike. ultra low!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tyrrell P34 Six Wheeler Blueprints???	Nyeri	Formula One	5	1 Jun 2002 12:08
Open Wheeler racing in Oz	mjolnir	Racers Forum	5	25 Sep 2001 07:37
6-wheeler	Martin de Reus	Motorsport History	5	30 Mar 2001 11:04