What's new
By:
Filters

Future of KOH 4400 chassis/car development?

posford said:
You know how smart that dumb idea is? :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
I can't find a top view of the engine/transaxle, but it looks like everything is pretty centered, which means the engine is where your feet need to go.

I think the layout for a tight single seater is to have the engine next to you. That puts the front diff offset, and the CV shaft on one side is too short.

You could straddle the engine I suppose.

Maybe the whole thing is smaller than I think and you sit behind the engine or have your feet above the engine.
 
Jeffh555 said:
I can't find a top view of the engine/transaxle, but it looks like everything is pretty centered, which means the engine is where your feet need to go.

I think the layout for a tight single seater is to have the engine next to you. That puts the front diff offset, and the CV shaft on one side is too short.

You could straddle the engine I suppose.

Maybe the whole thing is smaller than I think and you sit behind the engine or have your feet above the engine.
Click to expand...

I'd make it a 2 seater (sit left of the engine) but put parts where the pass seat would go.
 
or just accept the weight/package penalty of the rear diff but dont use it if you really want rear/mid engine

jackshaft to a scs and peel out
 
mobil1syn said:
or just accept the weight/package penalty of the rear diff but dont use it if you really want rear/mid engine

jackshaft to a scs and peel out
Click to expand...
nahhhh that's stupid.

At least cut the trans in half and weld a plate or something
 
Engine mounted at an angle so the transaxle diff ends up somewhat centered and your legs are next to the motor.

The inboard CVs see a little more angle, but still less than the outboard CVs (no steering).
 
Jeffh555 said:
Engine mounted at an angle so the transaxle diff ends up somewhat centered and your legs are next to the motor.

The inboard CVs see a little more angle, but still less than the outboard CVs (no steering).
Click to expand...
I'm not following



Only drawback to all of this is how strong is the OG front output that is now used as a rear output???
 
Blue box is the transaxle diff. Ignore the fact that the first top view chassis I found on Google is a 6100 truck, just scale everything down.

1707419892473.png
 
Jeffh555 said:
Run it backwards, use the rear diff as the front diff, 2 gear portals to make it go forward.

I don't know where the driver or his two codrivers sit.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the legth is.. maybe you just sit a little further back the conventionally. The disability would still be awsome with nothing in the way except shocks.
 
Bebop said:
Gotchu. I think the CVs will be over angled by a lot.

What's wrong with a front engine layout?
Click to expand...
Front engine as in the engine in front of the front axle? or front mid engine with the engine in front of the driver? I'll assume front mid engine.

Until someone lays this out, we don't know, but my gut feeling is that if the entire engine is in front of your feet, you're too far back and have shit visibility and too long of a wheelbase.

If your feet are next to the engine, I think the chassis is too wide.
 
Jeffh555 said:
Front engine as in the engine in front of the front axle? or front mid engine with the engine in front of the driver? I'll assume front mid engine.

Until someone lays this out, we don't know, but my gut feeling is that if the entire engine is in front of your feet, you're too far back and have shit visibility and too long of a wheelbase.

If your feet are next to the engine, I think the chassis is too wide.
Click to expand...

I think it could still be pretty narrow and only slightly cocked to where maybe your knee is at the front of the motor. Maybe the drivers position is clocked a few degrees also. If thay diff lives in the back of a pro R it should hold up plenty well in the front of this portal abortion.

At this point do you keep/ build off of the proR feont suspension? Basically a front/mid engine pro R with trailing arms and solid rear?

What I like most about this is it might be able to be built all new for close to 100k
 
Jeffh555 said:
Until someone lays this out, we don't know, but my gut feeling is that if the entire engine is in front of your feet, you're too far back and have shit visibility and too long of a wheelbase.
Click to expand...

its a race car, not a cone dodger. visibility goes out the window when you HNR and helmet up.

wheel base i your friend if you want to go fast.
 
Jeffh555 said:
Front engine as in the engine in front of the front axle? or front mid engine with the engine in front of the driver? I'll assume front mid engine.

Until someone lays this out, we don't know, but my gut feeling is that if the entire engine is in front of your feet, you're too far back and have shit visibility and too long of a wheelbase.

If your feet are next to the engine, I think the chassis is too wide.
Click to expand...
front mid engine. feet next to the engine.

I think it would be fine but I understand the concerns.
 
2big bronco said:
I think it could still be pretty narrow and only slightly cocked to where maybe your knee is at the front of the motor. Maybe the drivers position is clocked a few degrees also. If thay diff lives in the back of a pro R it should hold up plenty well in the front of this portal abortion.

At this point do you keep/ build off of the proR feont suspension? Basically a front/mid engine pro R with trailing arms and solid rear?

What I like most about this is it might be able to be built all new for close to 100k
Click to expand...
I was gonna say no, but might as well use ProR brakes, shocks, maybe wheel bearings.

Use a Pro R hood and headlights so you can say it's a golf cart and break the internet when you're running up near the front.

Make it so the entire engine/transaxle slides out the side of the chassis, and have a spare.
 
To be clear, I don't think this is the future of KOH cars.

I think the near future is a big displacement NA pushrod V8, 40-42" tires, IFS with portals and solid rear. Basically just iron out what the Funhavers, Currie, Shererer etc. is running.

I think the next step is what Jason suggested on the WWW podcast. Replace the front drive with an electric motor. Still have 500hp of American muscle mechanically attached to the rear end, but be able to decouple the front and rear to blast whoops.
 
Jeffh555 said:
To be clear, I don't think this is the future of KOH cars.

I think the near future is a big displacement NA pushrod V8, 40-42" tires, IFS with portals and solid rear. Basically just iron out what the Funhavers, Currie, Shererer etc. is running.

I think the next step is what Jason suggested on the WWW podcast. Replace the front drive with an electric motor. Still have 500hp of American muscle mechanically attached to the rear end, but be able to decouple the front and rear to blast whoops.
Click to expand...

That's called putting the transfer case in 2wd. Why complicate it with electricity, computers, battery's ect.
 
And to add...... These 4400 guys need to take a close look at the SxS's running 4400 and ask themselves how come these "turds" showed up in our class and instantly started placing top 10 or better. I'll clue you in, it ain't because they have more hp and bigger tires.

It's not going to take very long to put a UTV on top of the box at KOH. We already had a scare this year. :laughing: Keep building bigger and heavier 4400s and it won't take long at all.
 
The (solvable) struggle with electric motors at the pumpkin or hubs is being able to provide axle-snapping torque, as well as 100+ mph top speeds. So it needs its own shiftable range box like the engine powered half of the equation. Doable, just not experimented with enough yet for our specific application.

Personally, I'm very very intrigued with what Audi did for the Dakar this year. Series hybrid, have the engine running at a static efficient RPM for the whole race, small battery/supercapacitor pack that drives the electric motor(s), and send it. The engine might only make 200 HP, but the electric motors can put down 2-3x that, because any time you're not full throttle it's recharging

Audi E-tron Dakar.jpg
 
AgitatedPancake said:
The (solvable) struggle with electric motors at the pumpkin or hubs is being able to provide axle-snapping torque, as well as 100+ mph top speeds. So it needs its own shiftable range box like the engine powered half of the equation. Doable, just not experimented with enough yet for our specific application.

Personally, I'm very very intrigued with what Audi did for the Dakar this year. Series hybrid, have the engine running at a static efficient RPM for the whole race, small battery/supercapacitor pack that drives the electric motor(s), and send it. The engine might only make 200 HP, but the electric motors can put down 2-3x that, because any time you're not full throttle it's recharging

Audi E-tron Dakar.jpg
Click to expand...
How did we go from a small fuel efficient car to a big pig full of complexity ? :confused:
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
And to add...... These 4400 guys need to take a close look at the SxS's running 4400 and ask themselves how come these "turds" showed up in our class and instantly started placing top 10 or better. I'll clue you in, it ain't because they have more hp and bigger tires.

It's not going to take very long to put a UTV on top of the box at KOH. We already had a scare this year. :laughing: Keep building bigger and heavier 4400s and it won't take long at all.
Click to expand...
I think the part that's missing from that statement is that "these turds" are professional drivers with factory backed race programs, they didn't come out of the woodwork.

I think that if Scherer and Gomez and John Webb and many others weren't also running actual companies or weren't working day jobs, and were full time racers, the UTVs would have significantly less of a chance.

The race UTV also benefits from millions of dollars of development spent on the production UTV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh