Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Advanced

Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?

Posted by jopower 
Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 17, 2009 08:50PM
Hi Live Steamers,
Please assist me in a steam engine application. I've been offered a used, mid-90's Subaru Justy engine. It's a 3-cyl inline, w/FWD constant velocity transmission attached. I understand 3-cyl inlines are good for steam conversions due to the fact that 1 piston will always be in a power stroke on a 120-degree crankshaft, this being a single-acting configuration.

Obviously, the engine must be modified to make the cam run at the same speed as the crank so it will be in 2 stroke mode. Positive rotational direction control will be achieved by allowing the starter to run in both directions as required (as well as by the CVT transmission, if I keep it).

My next question is: should I use the OEM intake for the steam inlet or shoot the steam into the spark plug hole and convert the intake valves into 2nd exhaust valves, via cam lobe mods, for higher cylinder clearing efficiency? This would mean a new steam inlet control system. I envision using the distributor shaft to manage the valving for it.

Last one: rust and how to control it.

This engine will be available to other experimenters if I pass on the deal. The location is northern Colorado near Greeley. I will pass on inquiries to the owner. Thank you for your assistance! cool smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2009 08:52PM by jopower.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 21, 2009 01:24PM
I’ve been thinking about the Subaru Justy conversion.

A few issues come to mind.

First. The engine is designed to generate horsepower at relatively high rpm and low torque, as do all current automobiles. Back around 1900 this wasn’t necessarily so, a lot of IC engines then were spinning well under 1,000 rpm and their characteristics weren’t that far from contemporary steam engines, relatively speaking. The bearings are designed to be hydrodynamically supported by the lube oil, with the oil suspension being more potent at higher rpm and the load being lower at the reduced torque we get when ponies are generated at higher speeds. See the ‘Langmuir Theory of lubrication’. Those of us who drive cars with sticks are pretty aware (if we don’t have frequent engine rebuilds) that one of the faster ways to trash an engine is to lug the engine up hills, better to downshift to keep the revs up and the load down. The high load and low rpm you get when lugging lead to metal-on-metal contact between the crank and bearings that IC auto engines aren’t designed for and rapid engine wear is inevitable. A steam conversion of the same engine isn’t suddenly and magically immune just because there is now steam flowing through, it has the same crank, bearings and so on. You’ll need to be running at similar rpm and torque to have a shot at similar life expectancy. This means a very short steam cutoff with a fast turning engine connected to a transmission to keep the torque in check. So keep the CVT where it is along with the starter.

Second. The alloy in the current pistons might not be real suitable for exposure to superheated steam. Have to check on that. Sight unseen, I’d guess the three cylinder engine employs some kind of balance shaft. The 120 degree I-3 configuration has no primary shaking force, but it does have a nasty rocking couple, and a balance shaft would be a good way to tame this. Changing the piston mass when swapping out pistons would introduce a primary shake on top of the rocking couple unless the balance shaft were modified or replaced.

Third. The sparkplug hole looks like kind of a small opening to ‘shoot’ steam into the cylinder. You might have to consider a new cylinder head to do the job right, especially if you want to optimize the clearance volume for steam.

Fourth. There are two types of piston rings, those that blow-by and those that blow-by a lot. Blow-by in IC engines might be a little less objectionable as the prime constituent is air and other non-condensable gasses. Even then they recommend relatively frequent oil changes due to the build up of contaminants in the oil. In steam use, of course, the primary contaminant is highly condensable water vapor. Generally speaking, water ain’t that great a lubricant (especially in bearings designed for pressurized motor oil) and many motor oils form a really useless mayonnaise-like gumbo when exposed to steam in the thrashing crankcase environment. You may need some way to scavenge the water from the crankcase such as a centrifuge (see the Barrett design on Karl’s web page) or a small steam line in the case to heat the oil suitably to evaporate it out; this might work better if you have a source of vacuum such as from a sub-atmospheric condenser to promote more rapid and efficacious evaporation. (Who says the steam hobby ain’t culturally enlightening? Where else are you gonna run into words like ‘efficacious’ now-a-days?)

Fifth. Materials generally expand when you heat them, some fancy watch making alloys like constan, quartz and such being atypical. In its normal use, the cylinder and especially the cylinder head on your engine are water cooled. Even though the combustion gas temperatures are hotter than steam temperature, the metals stay relatively cool by comparison. If you cool the steam engine with the same cooling jackets, you may take too much heat away and ruin efficiency by promoting ‘initial condensation’. On the other hand, a really hot cylinder head in an inline engine may expand and force the engine to bow a bit while this trait would be much less pronounced in a water cooled version of the same engine. This could stress the block and possibly cause the crank to bind and wipe.

Sixth. There is no such thing in this universe as instantaneous motion. Any change in velocity is done by acceleration, a progressive increase in speed from moment to moment. Steam at the pressures and temperatures we are contemplating is quite a bit more massive than air, and thus has more inertia. Since your donor engine pretty much demands high rpm and short cutoff to promote decent life expectancy, your admission valve open period will be relatively brief. As rpm goes up, the time frame keeps diminishing. Port blocking phenomenon might well be expected, wherein the amount of time it takes the steam mass to get up to high enough speed to enter the cylinder is longer than the period the valve is open, resulting in reduced flow and less power. The GM SE-101 steam car report indicates the designers actually tried to exploit this by having a larger open period than desired and depending on port blocking to make the ‘effective’ cutoff shorter than the ‘design’ cutoff. The idea was to keep the cam profile and valve accelerations about equal to those on IC engines (thus attaining similar life spans) yet still get the very short admission mass. Pretty tricky stuff, however, and they had to do tests to quantify the difference between actual and design at various settings. Something that may well have to be taken into account for an engine conversion, however.

I’m sure there are a lot of other factors to consider, I can think of more myself. This might be a good start, though. I realize the above sounds negative, but it wasn’t meant to be. I’ve considered IC conversions before and have come up with answers to these and other issues. The trick is that you have to think of it as a steam engine with a specific set of attributes and not as a modified IC engine. Then you need to engineer for the specific attributes.

Regards,

Ken

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2009 03:13PM by frustrated.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 21, 2009 09:57PM
This does seem to have challenges. I love what harry/cylcone is doing with direct injection (spark plug hole route). I'm sure there is a notch of condensation (lube aid(water based)), but it seems the losses are overcome by relatively elaborate heat exchangers including post work collection. I'm pretty new so fwiw.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2009 10:01PM by kdc2.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 22, 2009 12:17AM
Peter Barrett used stock aluminum pistons(!), in stock aircooled VW cylinders, in his last (counterflow, poppet valve) P93A engines. These were steam-converted aircooled-VW engines. However, he machined the cooling fins off of the cylinders, and fitted the piston crowns with thin titanium disks, with air gaps underneath.

As an aside, the Barrett papers give machine shop details for definning VW cylinders on the lathe, which I found very interesting. Looks doable; certainly tidier, and possibly less labor-intensive, than hammering off the fins and cleaning it up with an angle grinder (a job I've already done on a test cylinder).

IMO, it is possible to design/build a proper steam engine with less work/money/etc than an IC-to-steam conversion engine. I have been reviewing the Barrett drawings & files, which seem to confirm this. As Ken notes, steam-converted IC engines have "issues".

I seem to recall some important information on the Subaru Justy CVT, posted elsewhere on this Phorum. I suspect that it was designed by Captain Justy Tylor [Google it].

Peter
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 23, 2009 03:37AM
Thanks for all the tips, guys. eye popping smiley Geez... where to start... I'm still thinking about most of your input but here's a few thoughts:

Found this site for info: [www.dustysjustys.com] So, the head is a 9 valver (heard that often?) which makes it a reversed flow candidate (oh no... what am I getting into now?). The B x S is 78 x 83mm = 1189 cc (73 cid), 9:1 compression, 66 HP/5200 rpm, 70 ft lb torque/3600 rpm. It is carbed. 5-spd also possible (maybe I didn't look close enough).

True = purpose-built almost always trumps adaptation. I note that converting the engine to 2-stroke eliminates the rocking couple as each cyl is powered each revolution. See the FAST and smooth Kawasaki 3-cyl, air-cooled 2-strokes of the 1960-70's. winking smiley

I did find steam spec oils that appear to tolerate water infusion and low RPM's of steamers. I figured someone had solved the water separation issue and would work from there. I know about the oil "wedge" that builds up in journals above certain RPM (this being clearance specific). I had wondered how valve stems (and several other items) stayed properly lubed in this case, though. Most OHC I/C engines rely on oil splash from the cam lobe channels to lube stems and guides (OHV and finger rocker OHC use oil flowing off the rocker arms). Well we now see why all those locomotives had cylinders with no incorporated crankcases for 180 years! Also, it does appear important that the engine be used regularly. 1+ month layups might get you some nasty scaling intenally. eye rolling smiley

Spark plug holes can be enlarged in some heads to allow more volume per time open. Not sure of this one yet. At 400 cc's, the pots are small, so maybe I could get away with a few things. Ceramic coating of the flow passages, head and pistons would be a help. Someone (not here) suggested I remove the 2nd ring (said was typical of old steam autos) but by your hints it appears that wouldn't be a good idea.

Big Locos have had cyls sticking out in the wind for a long time with no/little ill effect to power generation in any weather. I figured hot water jackets would boost my efficency, allow possible double-expansion later. General operating temps would be lower, obviously, than the gas engine but the water jacket should still be functional for several reasons: keeping the heating system separate for one and as an unfreezable insulation around the cyls for another (I'm assuming the jacket temp will be a little lower than I/C when up to op temp but not enough to over cool the steam... there's a 1/4" of iron/aluminum in the way). In this case the radiator would be separated from the block plumbing and used for returning vapor condensation. Perhaps the other idea would be to use the water jacket for return vapor initial condensation and better insulation of the cylinders, though a radiator would still be required for the final cooling stage. The heater would have to be worked in there some place (this is Colorado).

Too bad I can't work in a simple double-expansion system on the block... like center cyl is 1st stage and outer cyls as 2nd stage for more economical output. But the outer cyls aren't phased 180 degrees and I fear there would be some pressure buildup in part of the 1st stage exhaust cycle. There was one c.1900 3 cyl I/C design that used a 2-stroke center cyl of double the volume of the outer cyls. These were the 4-stroke 1st stage and exhausted alternately into the big 2nd stage cyl. every 360 degrees. Some reports were that it gave high economy and was VERY quiet. It's an elegant design and I've always liked compounding. But I need to research this Sooby engine alot more for specific details before I go thinking of changing the crank phasing. smoking smiley



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2009 04:31AM by jopower.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 23, 2009 04:07AM
Found some interst here too:
[www.steamcar.net]

I'll leave your link on their site.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 23, 2009 11:08AM
On vacation and don't have time to reply fully.

A quick note, converting from 4 to 2 stroke has NO effect on the rocking couple. That is an artifact of the engine and crank geometry and the reciprocating masses. It would rock just as bad if you had no cylinder heads and spun the thing with an electric motor at the same speed. Let me elaborate, engine shake and rocking couple are inertia forces, they are NOT related to the engine power pulses. Converting from 4 to 2 or 6 or 22 stroke is irrelevant to the unbalance though it obviously changes the distribution of the turning force per revolution. I do this for a living, so figure I'm on pretty solid ground here.

Valve stems are loaded axially, so the need to float them on oil films are minimal since the stress isn't against the bushing. Not so with a crank and connecting rod. An apples and oranges comparison.

If you go with a 180-0-180 crank phasing for a compound engine, you'll eliminate the rocking couple but introduce a large primary shake. Any balance shaft needs to be removed or possibly re-engineered to address the shake. A possible way to alleviate that would be if the center piston was twice as heavy as each of the outboard pistons. This may create a bending force on the crank, however, depending on how rigid the crank and lower end are. Many engines use internally balanced cranks to compensate for this kind of bending force, this goes back to the Hudson gasoline automobiles of around 1910.

Before using big steam locos as a basis of comparison, examine the pounds per horsepower-hour steam consumption on one of those things versus even a Stanley let alone a White.

Regards,

Ken
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 23, 2009 05:29PM
Hi Jo,

Greg's the guy to talk to.

To purloin a phrase, "Ask the man who owns one". smiling smiley

It appears from the Barrett material that the cylinders were "lagged" with some foil? Practically not insulated at all. Heat loss from cylinders to the great outdoors is one issue; heat loss from cylinders to warming up the block is another.

As steam expands in cylinder, during power stroke, after cutoff, its temperature drops, cooling the cylinder to a temperature below inlet steam (but above exhaust steam temp). For example, a Stanley at 700F inlet steam and 200-300-something exhaust steam temp, has a cylinder wall temperature of 500F. And that's with maximum 3:1 expansion ratio. The "internal cooling effect" would be more pronounced with a shorter cutoff/higher expansion ratio.

Don't forget to inject oil into the steam at some point, to lube the cylinders. Barrett injected oil thru valve guide. Splash lube from crankcase won't do it, as cylinders are positive pressure full-time (barring high exhaust vacuum). No vacuum intake stroke like an IC engine. Peter Barrett found this out the hard way. I have read that generally the oil scraper ring is removed from pistons in IC-to-steam conversions.

Greg may be a bit on the modest side about the advanced features in his Barrett steamer. Including an onboard oil centrifuge which, by all accounts, gives absolutely perfect oil/water separation. No carbon in monotube steam generator, no water in the crankcase. Plans for the Barrett centrifuge are available ... uh, somewhere.

Like Ken, I'm trying purpose-built myself, though mine is more of a "classic style" steam car engine, roughly similar to the Stanley, but designed with no custom castings, forgings, or welding, and simplified/minimized machining. A _good_ IC-conversion or purpose-built steam engine, for a car, are both big challenges. Little naggy things you'd never suspect turn into big lingering headaches. For example, after many years (off and on), I finally worked out the combination valve chest drain and residual-pressure-relief valve for my engine. Valves that last with high-pressure superheated steam are "fun".

Yesterday I finally designed a custom valve for the job, "lifting-ball" type, with very low actuating force/travel and 440C ball on 304 seat. Something like a whistle valve. It is also mounted on chassis, connected to bottom of valve chest (engine on axle) with a long thin steel flex tube. That detail took forever to figure out too. Locating this valve inside of, or on, the tightly-packed engine, and fitting a control cable or linkage with all the other stuff in the way, drove me bonkers.

Well, it looks worked out now, at last. Parking brake lever opens it, AND it is now linked to hand throttle lever on steering column. Pull lever downward a bit past "throttle closed" position (against a spring), and the relief valve opens, blowing out any condensate in the valve chest and relieving residual steam pressure in steam line, chest, and cylinders (to condenser) so the car doesn't "wander" several feet on its own after "stopping". Then ease off on throttle lever, and it springs back to "throttle closed" position, with relief/drain valve closed. Should make parking and close-quarters maneuvering lots safer and easier.

Similar operation to the Cruban "relief throttle" for Stanleys, but this setup is an easier build and doesn't backflow cylinder oil through the superheater, where it would form baked-on carbon.

This tiny custom valve looks so easy to build, and so much cheaper (under $10 for materials, minimal machining, mostly drill-press work) and easier-operating than any of the numerous pricey hi-temp off the shelf (OTS) valves I looked at, that I came up with a new personal "rule of thumb": "Never buy what you can easily build better".

Kind of a digression there, but it's one example of the numerous tiny "oddballities" in steam car engine design that look to be of negligible importance at first ["eh, just screw-in a plug cock"], yet turn out to be major time-/brain-eaters. I don't even want to estimate how many hours and different ways of doing the above I went through over the years, before finding a decently "buildable and workable"-looking solution.

=================

Speaking of modesty problems, after reviewing the above, I wonder if I should start a separate thread on my project. This would keep my design reports/updates in one place for easy reference, reduce my OT digressions in other threads, and would be more easily avoided by folks whose goal is maximum thermodynamic efficiency rather than a cheap, low-tech, less-R&D-needed, good-running, and fun performance green car that runs on inexpensive, renewable, carbon-neutral, domestic solid biofuels. Like wood chips, currently available and equivalent to running a conventional car on 50 cent a gallon gasoline. I've got an electric-light, clean, fast-turnup/down burner concept for that btw, uses natural draft for fireup & "banked fire" standby, and ram-air for higher-speed running. No powered air blower! The grate area, airflow, firing rate, firebox pressure, flue area, etc numbers actually look promising. Regular-sized/shaped-car too, not a "road locomotive" with shovel-wielding Hooters Girls on a platform in front of the rather distracted driver.

"Impossible" ideas are my specialty. smiling smiley

Okay, that's quite enough digression for now!

Peter
[www.geocities.com]
(my website, badly overdue for an update)
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 07, 2010 07:55PM
Peter;
Quote
Peter Brow

If you were going to do a IC car conversion to steam, which model of car would you choose.

Personally, I like the 911 Turbo Porche, but im the last person in the world, you would find breaking off cooling fins with a hammer...

Heres a link-

[4cyclesteamengine.com]

Its to one of my modified engines(just starting this project, need to update some of the most recent pictures). I have made some interesting progress lately, the updated pictures would be there already, as things have gone much farther since the last update, but my digital camera took a crap, this should be resolved soon.

I have my eye on one of the "ultra compact cars" like a GEO Metro, but still would like to see an all out 959...

best

Jeremy
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 08, 2010 05:51AM
Hi Jeremy,

I seriously researched the "drop-in steam powerplant for unmodified modern gas car" approach in the 1990s, and personally I just couldn't figure out a way to squeeze-in the power and features which I want, with any reasonable expectation of success. I think that a running steam car can be built that way, but there were too many limitations, compromises, and radical experiments/R&D work/time for my personal taste.

So, I have researched the hot rod/customized-car literature, and have designed a modified vehicle with custom outer body panels. My plan is to build the car around a conservatively-designed steam motor with the maximum chance of running well ... and looking good.

Lots of home-shop amateurs build street-legal roadworthy custom cars with similar vehicle modification techniques -- modified to fit the larger powerplants (and other equipment) of their choice -- thousands on display at annual hot rod and custom car shows all over the country, and those are just the tip of the iceberg. My steam car design is looking cheaper, easier, more practical, and better in many other ways (long list), than what most of the guys at the hot rod/custom shows routinely build and drive. If they can do it, I can.

Peter
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 11, 2010 02:23PM
Peter. Where you live this might be a great car for your project.

Homebuilt Arial Atom

I am looking at building a steam power version of that.

What I think is great is that the open desigine allows easy access to the engine etc. Great for an expermential power plant.

Andy
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 11, 2010 05:16PM
Hi Andy,

Thanks; interesting idea! The Atom would be a great platform for a lot of steam car powerplants which have been proposed or built. Get a good steam motor in that, and you will have a kickass light and hot-looking steam car!

Alas, not enough room or the right layout for the "motor" which I am now finishing the shop drawings for. "Building the car around the powerplant" is not the whole picture, btw. I have been modifying both the "carframe" and the powerplant design in the process. Following the path of least resistance. Where repackaging or redesigning some part of the powerplant is easier than modifying the carframe, I do that; and vice-versa. There are so many design, fabrication, operational, and other considerations to balance against each other that I am finding it nearly impossible to formulate or follow simple rules. Even "traditional/conservative" and "ultramodern/futuristic" design approaches don't seem to work as general rules for me. Depends on which part of the powerplant I'm looking at. K.I.S.S. is the only rule that seems to be surviving the vehicle design process. Even there, some things ended up more intricate than my initial concepts, and others ended up simpler or even omitted (eg, feedwater heater). Lots of surprises every step of the way, and probably lots more in store, especially when it hits the shop and the road. Hopefully the good kind!


Peter
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 27, 2010 09:30PM
Hi Peter

Here is a bit more on the Arial Atom site and the Top Gear video of their test.

Mp point is the simple tube frame design. It could provide easy access to an expermential engine and steam generator. Also a great car for showcasing the engine.

The frame would have to be designed to fit the engine ans steam generator. It's a starting point.

Andy'
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
March 31, 2010 05:42PM
It often comes down to what you can afford versus what you really want. The attachment is kinda like what I'd like to build, the link is more like what will actually happen...

[www.berrienbuggy.com]

Of course, if I REALLY had money I'd build a second one with a Chevy LS-9 engine backed by a Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual transmission just for fun on Woodward Avenue on weekend evenings....

Regards,

Ken



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2010 05:49PM by frustrated.


Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 01, 2010 04:03PM
Looks good to me. The idea is to have easy access to change things.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 01, 2010 04:55PM
For a REALLY simple test bed with unbeatable access, just mount the powerplant in the bed of a small pickup like a Ranger or S-10 and route the power to the rear wheels. If you use a 4WD donor you can keep the ICE up front and have it dedicated to the front wheels through the clutch. This gives you a way to get home when the experimental engine packs it in. Has the advantage of being real cheap, too...
TH
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 18, 2010 08:24PM
Ken

FYI, there's a hybrid design out there that is a lot like your proposal. The company is Bright Automotive, and they are pushing a front-drive ICE, rear axle electric van. Didn't get DOE funding, and I'm not sure they will survive long, but a pretty good idea.

Tom
ben
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 18, 2010 08:39PM
A few years back,,,didnt Reneault build a car w/an engine in both ends,,Seems to me a friends mother had one in Paris,,in the 1960s I think,,donor car???,,,Ben
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 19, 2010 04:09AM
Bob Ullrich in Oregon has a factory built Citroen that has an engine installed at both ends. By having two engines, it makes it into a 4 wheel drive. They came out in 1958 with a 425 cc 12 bhp engine pulling in the front end and another one of the same type pushing in the backend. If one engine has a mechanical problem, the other one will always get you home. confused smiley
ben
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
April 19, 2010 07:04AM
Pat,,,,Thanks for valadating my memory,,,its been years since I even thought of Claude's mothers car,,,Cheers Ben
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
May 14, 2010 05:18AM
Hi Ken,

I've been busy on design work & shop drawings the past couple months, and haven't read any posts here since then. Receiving the latest SACA Bulletin inspired me to check here.

I hope you build your tail-finned custom one of these days Ken! I love it! Blow some doors [and eyes] off on Woodward Ave. The Berrien Buggy prices beat the SoCal buggy frames I've seen. Thanks for the link. Berrien ... Berrien Springs, Michigan, by any chance? Then again, the pricier SoCal buggies are built to fly 50 feet in the air off Mojave Desert dunes in Glamis, etc ... and impact ... those dunes gotta be seen to be believed ... [edited when not half-asleep] Not exactly a design requirement, so the more affordable Berrien Buggy would be a better choice.

Lots of design/shop drawing progress around here ... build time getting closer ...

Click [www.angelfire.com] and scroll down to/click "2010 System Diagram" or the like [don't have direct link handy, sorry] for latest Brow Steam Car basic setup. No work of art or prize-winning/professional CAD, but more explanatory than text. It's getting there ...

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2010 08:22PM by Peter Brow.
Re: Subaru Justy 3-cyl = Steamer?
June 29, 2010 11:40PM
Hello All,

I have caught the steam bug.

Having designed and built hybrid-electrics for 10 years, I am sad to say that most of the far horizons are blocked by the greedy. The lessons of Hydrogen come to mind.

Both H2 and e- vehicles are more about the fueling infrastructure than the vehicles. Price/mile driven, in adjusted dollars, will, I predict, not drop this generation.

I have a proven high-performance tube frame design for use in a steam vehicle if anyone is interested. The design affords volume for almost any mid-engine powerplant, and has storage for fuel, water, batteries, whatever. It has many F1 characteristics and handles like it's on rails. There are a few kitcar bodies that fit up as well, though the platform is rigid enough to drive without a body.

Peter Brow, please email me at L3Enigma@yahoo; we are in the same great city and I'd like to talk steam in person.

I am new to this, but I believe I may be onto some interesting new tech combinations for a steam-electric hybrid.

For those interested, my company website is www.L3Research.com. You can see one of the hybrid vehicles, a sportscar, in the opening GIF animation. This is the car with the proven chassis, also illustrated in the GIF. We are planning to build a new frame this summer, so, let me know if anyone here would like more info.

Thank you for the interesting reading and camaraderie,

Jim

PS. who wants to launch a west-coast team to take back the steam land speed record? ;-) I am, in complete seriousness, convinced that I have a "new" and less expensive way to take aim at 212mph. And I know two LSR holders who could be convinced to act as pilot.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

All files from this thread

File Name File Size   Posted by Date  
color stm car.jpg 254.1 KB open | download frustrated 04/01/2010 Read message