Quick Poll for Michael Lye

[BrandonDrums]

The different openings are being considered now. The shut lines - the gaps between different body panels, for example around the hood/door/trunk opening - have a pretty big impact on the perception of the form of a car as well as on its 'personality' or 'essence.' The shut lines serve as a kind of a contour drawing that helps to define surfaces and character. Saab front ends look different partly due to the hood shut lines being moved to the sides (fenders) by the clam shell hood. From an assembly point of view, the different body panels that create the shut lines, also make alignment much more challenging. Does anyone remember the ads that a manufacturer ran showing a steel ball rolling along the hood shut lines of their car to demonstrate how perfectly uniform the gaps were? This uniformity is one way we perceive build quality in vehicles. With fiberglas it's possible to produce bodies with very few shut lines. The Lotus Europa has only 4 panels aside from the main body molding, the two doors, the hood and the rear deck lid. Most metal bodied cars require many more panels and so have more shut lines that provide detail to the surface. From FFR's perspective I suspect making more smaller panels would be easier and cheaper than a large complex mold to produce a one-piece body but it would mean more work during assembly. The smaller panels might look more interesting, but would the drawbacks be worth it? Just for my own curiosity, what would all of you prefer?

As far as access to the mechanicals on this car, there hasn't been a final decision on the openings made yet. But I hear you about your back. If you've ever worked in the engine bay of a GT-6, it's pretty nice to just sit down on the top of a tire while you work.

No problem with the questions. I'm glad there's enough interest to keep the thread going.

I wanted to get a poll of the above question Michael Lye posted over in the Project Q&A thread
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?3045-Project-Question-and-Answer-with-Rhode-Island-School-of-Design-s-Michael-Lye

Let's try to keep the conversation in the current thread I linked above but I can't seem to figure out how to post a poll without creating an entirely new thread on this forum.

So here goes: Which would you prefer for the body of the car?
A) Large panels, possibly a one piece body kit.
B) Several smaller panels; more seams but more design flexibility.

[bromikl]

I'd say it's too early to have an informed opinion. The number of body panels isn't going to be a deal breaker, one way or another. There are benefits to each. I know FFR will make the right decisions.

[Silvertop]

.................So here goes: Which would you prefer for the body of the car?
A) Large panels, possibly a one piece body kit.
B) Several smaller panels; more seams but more design flexibility.

OK, I'll bite. I would prefer choice "B" (several smaller panels) over choice "A", with the caveat that FFR's selection of choice "A" would not be a deal breaker for me, unless the body was truly one-piece (as in no doors & no engine cover).

Ultimately, FFR needs to build it the way they need to in order to satisfy their basic goals in terms of cost and weight.

[BrandonDrums]

Thanks for voting everyone! This certainly isn't a 'deal breaker?' thread, Michael Lye just asked if us FFR forum members had a preference.

[kach22i]

Interesting topic. I know that when I drew my cars, I had body joints at the front and back bumper areas, plus hood and hatch lines.

I think that fewer panels may protect the occupants better in a crash, but seeing that most events are "fender benders", I opted for that aspect.

[Nelff]

There are several other benefits from doing smaller panels;
replaceable fenders or nose pieces for minor altercations.
changeable pieces for track days that may include larger/smaller wheel openings and aero changes that may not be wanted on the street.
F5 could change the look easily and leave a central body tub attached for several 'looks'.
removable panels, quick change fasteners/bolts/screws allow easier maintenance large or small.
break lines could be at leading trailing edges of doors, cowl line at windshield, 'normal places' that cars have break lines...

[jimgood]

I chose smaller body panels simply because it seems like it would be easier/cheaper to replace a damaged small panel than repair/replace an entire damaged body. Also, small impacts to one small panel aren't going to transmit to breakage in mounting points on another panel.

[2KWIK4U]

I agree with Silvertop, not a deal breaker but I would like the design flexibility of smaller panels.

[TopGear]

The Lotus Elise has a front and a rear "clamshell" - each is one large piece of fiberglass. Cost to replace is $12 to $14,000 and it doesn't take much damage to write it off. I ran over an armadillo which tore the bottom of my front clam up with no damage to the underlying crash structure - got the quotes from 2 body shops then took the front clam off and had it fixed for $500.

I've voted for smaller pieces with the front chin and rear bumper being especially important to have separate.

Here's a link to show how the front clam of an Elise works:
http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/experience/maintenance/frontclam/clamremoval.html

[Justen]

Not a deal breaker for me either, but, as everyone else has been saying: Smaller panels = cheaper shipping, cheaper repair costs, less storage area needed for multiple bodies, etc.. so I think its a good idea.

[D2W]

What I want: Large clamshell pieces that will hopefully tilt or can be made to tilt front and rear. Very few panel gaps to line up, finished body in gel coat ready to run. Body will ship mounted to the frame so shipping costs are negligible.

What I think: FFR will make the best panels they can for the cheapest cost to meet the budget. Which will be the priority? I don't know, probably a compromise.

[Ironhydroxide]

smaller panels, leaves the option for a Long wheelbase model without too much reengineering (and allowing idiots like me more engine room for the EG33)