Comments on: Australian E-Vade sports car Melbourne debut

By: Car Nut

Car Nut — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:26:27 +0000

Saw this at the Melbourne Motor Show – very nice technology in its design, some of it quite cutting-edge. Also saw this several days prior to the show as he drove it through the city. However, my only disappointment was the quality of finish on the body… a typical engineer! A shame he could not buddy up to a good panel beater/painter so the body of the car would do the rest of it justice. Transaxle was also on display and looked superb.

By: Wingers

Wingers — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:24:55 +0000

I can’t wait to see Dave’s car on Top Gear over here in the UK! I reckon Hampster would like a drive. I am a marine engineer, like Dave, and wouldn’t know where to start on a project like this. Fantastic work – I would love a spin in it.

By: Nero

Nero — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:05:47 +0000

perhaps we are.

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:12:45 +0000

OK. More resources than application though.

BTW I thought we were discussing this from similar quals & background experience.

Still, a great effort none the less.
I wonder if we will get to see it in SA. Keep us updated Alborz & Co. We expect a full report from the show on this one!!

By: Nero

Nero — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:22:08 +0000

Given this man’s qualifications and background I am sure he has considered the alternatives. No doubt he has chosen the most appropriate for his resources and application, perhaps we can agree on that?

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:32:25 +0000

Nero, thats what I said, I think? No doubt you realise that is why aircraft use riveted joints. This is also the reason why bonded composites are so good.
Alloy steel is a better chioce than mild steel for the application, cost not considered. You do need to have the facilities & knowledge though – you can’t just weld it up in the normal manner. We do it routinely though, with the right equipment/processes.
BTW all the “better” bikes use alloy over the “cheapies” that use mild steel.
I think we both understand the principles here. Lets not start the “I know more than you” stuff.

By: Nero

Nero — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:55:42 +0000

There is no doubt the numbers and performance of the raw steel is better when we look at 4130 etc, however the cyclic performance of a steel is only as good as its joints and here we strike the Achilles heel of the alloy steels, particularly for small venture manufacture.
In addition the weight saving over a complete chassis would be say 15kg maximum?
Given the correct processes there is no doubt that it is better, but the performance/cost analysis would simply not work out.

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:43:55 +0000

Guys,
Don’t missunderstand my sentiment – I think that this is fantastic, and the guy has done a great job, even if it doesn’t even go any further than the current two cars. I wish him all the best for a longer production.
My comment about alloy VS mild steel is still valid though. I do understand the cost issue, in the past we have had to source such materials directly from the USA at a cost of $6000 for 3″x2″ x 5m lengths.
The issue in a spaceframe is fatigue caused by cyclic loading. Nero, different element af a spaceframe will be in compression while others may be in tension. They however will all pretty much see cyclic loading. The fatigue strength of alloy steel is MUCH higher than mild steel (and aluminiom alloy too).
Carnut, 41XX steel too fragile?? These are “tough” not “hard” steels.
Maybe I’m too used to engineering for flight.
You would also note that I mentioned that I thought that these pictures showed an incomplete car, meaning it was too early to be fully judged.

By: Carnut

Carnut — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:22:49 +0000

Well spoken Nero. The Naysayers are very quick to jump in and start slagging, this much I see.
To those of you who wish to criticize him, think to yourself, “could I have done the same?”
It takes an incredible amount of guts and determination to produce a result such as this.
Yes, it is unproven as yet, but most will admit that it is a mighty effort to get a this kind of project even to a stage like this!
NONAME: re the power to weight ratio and the lack of spoiler, look at the photos again, you are looking at photos of a car that is obviously unfinshed and unpainted.
BRET, perhaps 4150 would be to fragile in the application?
NERO – I agree totally with your comments.

EVERYONE ELSE WITH AN AXE TO GRIND – Perhaps you should reserve comment unless
A: you have designed a car from scratch
or
B: you have seen the car in the flesh IN ITS FINISHED FORM at the motorshow.
I for one can’t wait to see how this project finishes up looking and driving.

Kudos to David and his wife Peta for having the guts to take the bull by the horns and build their dream instead of talking about it!

By: Rohin

Rohin — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:03:17 +0000

I don’t know why people are bagging this car/design, i.e central guages etc.
The guy made his own car! And a good one at that!
Well done, it looks great and I’m sure it will smoke most of the cars owned by people on this forum!

By: Nero

Nero — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:00:17 +0000

Ah, the brave man showing his efforts to the willfully ignorant and talentless. Had some of you any experience or skills in the area you would be far less likely to judge e.g. Bret – 4130 Cro-mo would most likely not end in a stiffer chassis as the steel in tension is no stiffer and a spaceframe is a chassis with members in tension (ideally).
Holden SSV, central instruments are used on many professionally constructed racers from mallocks to dome to judd powered lolas.
Interesting that none have commented on the excellent transmission choice, a transmission made in Australia. Nor the fact tht the turbo positioning seems excellent nor the fact that he seems to have used a nissan VG30 and presumably the DETT model, which he is very unlikely to get past ADR emissions.
Good on him, it’s bloody hard work making such a car and I’m sure he’ll have a great time in it.

By: Lcat

Lcat — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:42:40 +0000

wonder why he didn’t use a GE electric gas turbine, i’m sure the navy wouldn’t miss one!

By: dlr1

dlr1 — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:22:24 +0000

Where’s his mask and cape! Alfred must be having them dry cleaned. And the batmobile could use a good wax. Looks very shabby!

By: Reckless1

Reckless1 — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:14:45 +0000

Yawn, “here comes another one” …

A pest in the kitchen, so the wife sent him out to the garage.

We obviously pay the navy brass too much…….

By: No Name

No Name — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:48:17 +0000

Yeh power to weight is extreme. Looking at the body work I can’t that there’ll be enough downforce without a bloody great spoiler on the back-end and splitter on the front.

Mad Mad Mad. He’s not english either.

By: Frugal One

Frugal One — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:56:02 +0000

950kg // 500kw AMEN!

U do the math…….

Will be dead and sink, just like every other one who tried to make his own and have a go….

Cheers

F-0

By: Holden SSV owner

Holden SSV owner — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:50:08 +0000

…and by the looks of it, those centralised dials (including rev counter) are going to be REALLY helpful for the track. not.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:27:22 +0000

@Bret – CostI’ll bet mild steel was used because of the cost of the good stuff. It’s also nice and simple to work with.

By: Bret

Bret — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:16:03 +0000

I like the concept, rear looks very unfinished in these shots though.
But why “mild steel” space frame? Typical Navy “weight doesn’t matter”. Should be 4150 alloy steel – much stronger and better fatigue limits.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:03:01 +0000

Damn…I believe I see two turbo’s in that set up…boy that thing will fly…i only hope it handles well on those track days….Good thing having it mid mounted too..hopefully that helps with dealing out the amount of torque that thing will belt out….what a beast.