Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FF] Phiaro (was Carver ugly nose)

Expand Messages
  • bernieharper2001
    ... Hi Alex, I think the Phiaro is superior in aesthetics and aerodynamics. While there is no evidence it has ever been in a wind tunnel, you do get the strong
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 1, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In feet_forward@yahoogroups.com, Alex/Dominic Lowe <loslobros@...> wrote:
      > Phiaro's restyling of the front of the Carver is all very well, but I can't see it being that much more aerodynamic. Perhaps a better practical solution would be something like the front end on the 'proddy' Voyagers? Alex
      >
      Hi Alex,

      I think the Phiaro is superior in aesthetics and aerodynamics. While there is no evidence it has ever been in a wind tunnel, you do get the strong impression that this styling is much easier to tweak for wind noise, lift, wiper shrouding and flow around the front wheel where it meets the lengthened section of the front bulkhead. While full enclosure is the obviously simplest aero solution, the Phiaro approach could have given a similar benefit while satisfying a brief that included displaying the FFE as a styling feature. If you look at the two head-on pictures below, I think it is easier to see the potential for improvement with the Phiaro styling. It would be difficult to claim that the Phiaro we see would have significantly lower drag (with usable mirrors), but wind noise must be better IMO.

      Bernie

      http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/Phiaro_Hires_Images/Phiaro_P62b_Eternity_03.jpg

      http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/carver_in_rotterdam_04.jpg
    • tribbikes
      My quasar has the hammock seat and I don t think it makes paddling around harder (or easier). My shoulders go back against the bodywork and I am reasonably
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 1, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        My quasar has the hammock seat and I don't think it makes paddling around harder (or easier). My shoulders go back against the bodywork and I am reasonably braced. The roof is far more of a pain as there are only two non clonking positions, either lying back in the seat or crouching right forward. There is a clonk if you sit upright and also if you move to left or right.
        It is impossible to paddle forwards from the seat. You need the engine to drive you. However you can just about push it while standing alongside if you brace you shoulder against the roof line. So I always try to park it facing uphill so I can drive out. Which means an eight point turn when I arrive in my driveway. I roll back into parking space using gravity and stopping on the front brake. There is another peculiarity. If you grab the front brake when rolling backwards there is a fierce tendency for the steering to lurch either left or right. Which you have to fight. Getting a good grip with the boot sole on the ground is essential as if your foot slips you are in trouble. I am now very aware of different surfaces. A few grains of pea gravel on top of hard tar or concrete - disaster. So in short paddling a quasar is the most challenging phase of riding. You need strong arms and legs so it rules out the physically weak and even myself when I'm feeling a bit weak.
        >
      • Peter
        ... snip ... That would be because when you go backwards you have negative trail. ... Any thoughts on what would make it paddleable? Peter
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 1, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In feet_forward@yahoogroups.com, "tribbikes" <tribbikes@...> wrote:
          snip

          >There is another peculiarity. If you grab the front brake when rolling >backwards there is a fierce tendency for the steering to lurch either >left or right. Which you have to fight.

          That would be because when you go backwards you have negative trail.

          > Getting a good grip with the boot sole on the ground is essential as >if your foot slips you are in trouble. I am now very aware of >different surfaces. A few grains of pea gravel on top of hard tar or >concrete - disaster. So in short paddling a quasar is the most >challenging phase of riding. You need strong arms and legs so it rules >out the physically weak and even myself when I'm feeling a bit weak.

          Any thoughts on what would make it paddleable?

          Peter
        • Monty
          The answer form one of their top guys is they liked the look of it. From the side the bubble of a cockpit with the wheel sticking out is what they wanted.
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            The answer form one of their top guys is they liked the look of it. From the
            side the bubble of a cockpit with the wheel sticking out is what they
            wanted.

            Personally I like the Phiaro front end but hate the back end.

            Monty

            -----Original Message-----
            From: feet_forward@yahoogroups.com [mailto:feet_forward@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of bernieharper2001
            Sent: 01 November 2009 11:05
            To: feet_forward@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [FF] Phiaro (was Carver ugly nose)

            In feet_forward@yahoogroups.com, Alex/Dominic Lowe <loslobros@...> wrote:
            > Phiaro's restyling of the front of the Carver is all very well, but I
            > can't see it being that much more aerodynamic. Perhaps a better
            > practical solution would be something like the front end on the
            > 'proddy' Voyagers? Alex
            >
            Hi Alex,

            I think the Phiaro is superior in aesthetics and aerodynamics. While there
            is no evidence it has ever been in a wind tunnel, you do get the strong
            impression that this styling is much easier to tweak for wind noise, lift,
            wiper shrouding and flow around the front wheel where it meets the
            lengthened section of the front bulkhead. While full enclosure is the
            obviously simplest aero solution, the Phiaro approach could have given a
            similar benefit while satisfying a brief that included displaying the FFE as
            a styling feature. If you look at the two head-on pictures below, I think it
            is easier to see the potential for improvement with the Phiaro styling. It
            would be difficult to claim that the Phiaro we see would have significantly
            lower drag (with usable mirrors), but wind noise must be better IMO.

            Bernie

            http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/Phiaro_Hires_Images/Phiaro_P62
            b_Eternity_03.jpg

            http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/carver_in_rotterdam_04.jpg



            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Ernest Buckler
            Top reply: IMO, Carver should ve done what all the biggies do; make two models, one w/closed nose & one open, and done a consumer survey. Not to mention
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Top reply:
              IMO, Carver should've done what all the "biggies" do; make two models,
              one w/closed nose & one open, and done a consumer survey. Not to
              mention spray tests and aero-drag tests. I'm sure it would've gone
              appreciably faster w/better mpg, had it a streamlined nose cowling. Tho
              I must add that said cowling has to be removeable, sayeth Ernest of the
              non-removeable Magna nose who is v. fed up with working upside down or
              over me 'ead torquing bolts and running brake lines and handlebar
              wiring. Nor is there any way to remove the ft whl for service w/present
              Honking Hvy Dty Hossack; much easier to raise the whole machine, pull
              the ball-joint bolts, remove brake lines (argh...), and drop the whole
              assembly. Note that I may change my tune after having to bleed the
              brakes again, but this ft tire should last a while in any case.
              Ernest

              Monty wrote:
              >
              >
              > The answer form one of their top guys is they liked the look of it.
              > From the
              > side the bubble of a cockpit with the wheel sticking out is what they
              > wanted.
              >
              > Personally I like the Phiaro front end but hate the back end.
              >
              > Monty
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: feet_forward@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:feet_forward%40yahoogroups.com>
              > [mailto:feet_forward@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:feet_forward%40yahoogroups.com>] On
              > Behalf Of bernieharper2001
              > Sent: 01 November 2009 11:05
              > To: feet_forward@yahoogroups.com <mailto:feet_forward%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: Re: [FF] Phiaro (was Carver ugly nose)
              >
              > In feet_forward@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:feet_forward%40yahoogroups.com>, Alex/Dominic Lowe
              > <loslobros@...> wrote:
              > > Phiaro's restyling of the front of the Carver is all very well, but I
              > > can't see it being that much more aerodynamic. Perhaps a better
              > > practical solution would be something like the front end on the
              > > 'proddy' Voyagers? Alex
              > >
              > Hi Alex,
              >
              > I think the Phiaro is superior in aesthetics and aerodynamics. While there
              > is no evidence it has ever been in a wind tunnel, you do get the strong
              > impression that this styling is much easier to tweak for wind noise, lift,
              > wiper shrouding and flow around the front wheel where it meets the
              > lengthened section of the front bulkhead. While full enclosure is the
              > obviously simplest aero solution, the Phiaro approach could have given a
              > similar benefit while satisfying a brief that included displaying the
              > FFE as
              > a styling feature. If you look at the two head-on pictures below, I
              > think it
              > is easier to see the potential for improvement with the Phiaro styling. It
              > would be difficult to claim that the Phiaro we see would have
              > significantly
              > lower drag (with usable mirrors), but wind noise must be better IMO.
              >
              > Bernie
              >
              > http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/Phiaro_Hires_Images/Phiaro_P62
              > <http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/Phiaro_Hires_Images/Phiaro_P62>
              > b_Eternity_03.jpg
              >
              > http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/carver_in_rotterdam_04.jpg
              > <http://www.randolph-automotive.com/ttw/images/carver_in_rotterdam_04.jpg>
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ed Form
              IMO, Carver should ve done what all the biggies do; make two models, one w/closed nose & one open, and done a consumer survey. Not to mention spray tests and
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                IMO, Carver should've done what all the "biggies" do; make two models,
                one w/closed nose & one open, and done a consumer survey. Not to
                mention spray tests and aero-drag tests. I'm sure it would've gone
                appreciably faster w/better mpg, had it a streamlined nose cowling. Tho
                I must add that said cowling has to be removeable, sayeth Ernest of the
                non-removeable Magna nose who is v. fed up with working upside down or
                over me 'ead torquing bolts and running brake lines and handlebar
                wiring. Nor is there any way to remove the ft whl for service w/present
                Honking Hvy Dty Hossack; much easier to raise the whole machine, pull
                the ball-joint bolts, remove brake lines (argh...), and drop the whole
                assembly. Note that I may change my tune after having to bleed the
                brakes again, but this ft tire should last a while in any case.
                Ernest

                Can't you slice through the body and hinge the front part; or is the frame
                bonded in?

                Ed Form
              • Ernest Buckler
                Hi, Ed; Almost missed this, as the subject line didn t reflect MY change which you responded to. Anyway, yes to your question; the steel tubing chassis roll
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Ed;
                  Almost missed this, as the subject line didn't reflect MY change which
                  you responded to. Anyway, yes to your question; the steel tubing chassis
                  roll cage and bodywork support is all welded together. Nonetheless I
                  have considered cutting the four forward tubes right at the front cabin
                  bulkhead, and making it a plug-in re-connection. Just have not come up
                  with the ideal retention method: Quick-release pins of perhaps 5/16"
                  diameter thru/across the inserted tubes would work, but then these
                  retaining pins would be sticking out above the body surface. Flathead
                  allen-head capscrews come to mind, and may well be the answer, but they
                  will require a nut welded on the inside, and I'm not sure I'll have
                  access for welding. Maybe I can rivet a nutplate on the inner tube wall
                  - but nut plates like flat surfaces. You see the dilemna. Meanwhile
                  I'm more interested in getting it out for one more test session this
                  year, but am chasing gremlins in the carburetors or ignition system.
                  Finally got it running again after changing the plug wires, but it runs
                  just as poorly as before; acts like plugged low-speed jets, or perhaps
                  torn CV boots, in that it starts hard and will only run cleanly from
                  4000 rpm up. I'm cutting a hole in the left side of the hull now for
                  accessing the carbs for removal. This will also let me access the
                  ignition pickups on the alternator, and the shift shaft if I decided to
                  revert to foot shifting (present arrangement is by hand lever on the
                  floor on the right side in front of the seat).
                  Ernest


                  Ed Form wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > IMO, Carver should've done what all the "biggies" do; make two models,
                  > one w/closed nose & one open, and done a consumer survey. Not to
                  > mention spray tests and aero-drag tests. I'm sure it would've gone
                  > appreciably faster w/better mpg, had it a streamlined nose cowling. Tho
                  > I must add that said cowling has to be removeable, sayeth Ernest of the
                  > non-removeable Magna nose who is v. fed up with working upside down or
                  > over me 'ead torquing bolts and running brake lines and handlebar
                  > wiring. Nor is there any way to remove the ft whl for service w/present
                  > Honking Hvy Dty Hossack; much easier to raise the whole machine, pull
                  > the ball-joint bolts, remove brake lines (argh...), and drop the whole
                  > assembly. Note that I may change my tune after having to bleed the
                  > brakes again, but this ft tire should last a while in any case.
                  > Ernest
                  >
                  > Can't you slice through the body and hinge the front part; or is the frame
                  > bonded in?
                  >
                  > Ed Form
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Alex/Dominic Lowe
                  So, I guessed right, for once - it was a matter of what the makers thought looked good!   I can t see that there s a great deal to choose between the original
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    So, I guessed right, for once - it was a matter of what the makers thought looked good!
                     
                    I can't see that there's a great deal to choose between the original Carver design and the Phiaro restyling, to tell the truth.
                     
                    A 2-front-wheel design might have been even more challenging to streamline, although a Google Image for the Land Glider leaning concept car suggests one solution. This is all getting a bit OT, though.
                     
                    Alex

                    --- On Mon, 2/11/09, Monty <Monty.FF@...> wrote:


                    From: Monty <Monty.FF@...>
                    Subject: RE: [FF] Phiaro (was Carver ugly nose)
                    To: feet_forward@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, 2 November, 2009, 6:02 PM


                     



                    The answer form one of their top guys is they liked the look of it. From the
                    side the bubble of a cockpit with the wheel sticking out is what they
                    wanted.

                    Personally I like the Phiaro front end but hate the back end.

                    Monty

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: feet_forward@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:feet_forward@ yahoogroups. com] On
                    Behalf Of bernieharper2001
                    Sent: 01 November 2009 11:05
                    To: feet_forward@ yahoogroups. com
                    Subject: Re: [FF] Phiaro (was Carver ugly nose)

                    In feet_forward@ yahoogroups. com, Alex/Dominic Lowe <loslobros@. ..> wrote:
                    > Phiaro's restyling of the front of the Carver is all very well, but I
                    > can't see it being that much more aerodynamic. Perhaps a better
                    > practical solution would be something like the front end on the
                    > 'proddy' Voyagers? Alex
                    >
                    Hi Alex,

                    I think the Phiaro is superior in aesthetics and aerodynamics. While there
                    is no evidence it has ever been in a wind tunnel, you do get the strong
                    impression that this styling is much easier to tweak for wind noise, lift,
                    wiper shrouding and flow around the front wheel where it meets the
                    lengthened section of the front bulkhead. While full enclosure is the
                    obviously simplest aero solution, the Phiaro approach could have given a
                    similar benefit while satisfying a brief that included displaying the FFE as
                    a styling feature. If you look at the two head-on pictures below, I think it
                    is easier to see the potential for improvement with the Phiaro styling. It
                    would be difficult to claim that the Phiaro we see would have significantly
                    lower drag (with usable mirrors), but wind noise must be better IMO.

                    Bernie

                    http://www.randolph -automotive. com/ttw/images/ Phiaro_Hires_ Images/Phiaro_ P62
                    b_Eternity_03. jpg

                    http://www.randolph -automotive. com/ttw/images/ carver_in_ rotterdam_ 04.jpg

                    ------------ --------- --------- ------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links



















                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ed Form
                    ... I had in mind slicing body horizontally from the nose centreline back to the scuttle and then upwards to break out just in front of the window and then
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Almost missed this, as the subject line didn't reflect
                      > MY change which you responded to. Anyway, yes to your
                      > question; the steel tubing chassis roll cage and bodywork
                      > support is all welded together. Nonetheless I have
                      > considered cutting the four forward tubes right at the
                      > front cabin bulkhead, and making it a plug-in
                      > re-connection. Just have not come up with the ideal
                      > retention method: Quick-release pins of perhaps 5/16"
                      > diameter thru/across the inserted tubes would work,
                      > but then these retaining pins would be sticking out
                      > above the body surface. Flathead allen-head capscrews
                      > come to mind, and may well be the answer, but they
                      > will require a nut welded on the inside, and I'm not
                      > sure I'll have access for welding. Maybe I can rivet
                      > a nutplate on the inner tube wall - but nut plates
                      > like flat surfaces. You see the dilemna.

                      I had in mind slicing body horizontally from the nose centreline back to the
                      scuttle and then upwards to break out just in front of the window and then
                      hinging and latching that piece of bodywork to make a hood. At least you'd
                      be able to work in through the top.

                      Ed Form
                    • Ernest Buckler
                      Ah. I see the problem. You think Magna panels are, um, panels. Nope. It s semi-monocoque, with 1 foam between 1 tubing, fiberglass skin on both inner and
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ah. I see the problem. You think Magna panels are, um, panels. Nope.
                        It's semi-monocoque, with 1" foam between 1" tubing, fiberglass skin on
                        both inner and outer walls. Very integral. When I de-skinned the
                        outrigger arms it was a chisel-and-blade-and wirebrush process, ending
                        w/sandblasting, v. tedious. Should add that the plan is to verify that
                        this odd shape works well in windy hiway conditions, modify until it
                        does, and then make molds from which true single-wall panels CAN be
                        pulled, which will then be properly attached to a tubular kit chassis
                        into which nearly any modern large motorcycle chassis can be bolted.
                        Ernest

                        Ed Form wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > > Almost missed this, as the subject line didn't reflect
                        > > MY change which you responded to. Anyway, yes to your
                        > > question; the steel tubing chassis roll cage and bodywork
                        > > support is all welded together. Nonetheless I have
                        > > considered cutting the four forward tubes right at the
                        > > front cabin bulkhead, and making it a plug-in
                        > > re-connection. Just have not come up with the ideal
                        > > retention method: Quick-release pins of perhaps 5/16"
                        > > diameter thru/across the inserted tubes would work,
                        > > but then these retaining pins would be sticking out
                        > > above the body surface. Flathead allen-head capscrews
                        > > come to mind, and may well be the answer, but they
                        > > will require a nut welded on the inside, and I'm not
                        > > sure I'll have access for welding. Maybe I can rivet
                        > > a nutplate on the inner tube wall - but nut plates
                        > > like flat surfaces. You see the dilemna.
                        >
                        > I had in mind slicing body horizontally from the nose centreline back
                        > to the
                        > scuttle and then upwards to break out just in front of the window and then
                        > hinging and latching that piece of bodywork to make a hood. At least you'd
                        > be able to work in through the top.
                        >
                        > Ed Form
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.