818 Sample Model 4 [Archive] - Page 2

FFR-ADV

12-26-2011, 07:20 PM

Gentle people,

I have full confidence that Dave will not allow a bad design into production. He is completely comitted to the 818 success.

I fail to see how colaboration between designers and engineers is a bad thing. The engines, transmissions, suspensions in all of the cars we know and love were developed by multi-skilled teams. The smallest of those teams dwarf Factory Five in scope and scale in every way. The brilliance of Factory Five is found in seeking synergies with products and designs which can be recombined and repurposed to create the wonderful products FFR makes while still keeping the price within the reach most of us rather than only the uber-rich. The true trick is pulling the best from every contributor. As an example, the amazing driveable high performance engines are a result of the synergies between Machinists, Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Metalurgists, Computer Scientists, Mechanics, Racing Teams, all standing on the shoulders of the work that was done before. This list is not exhaustive, and is not in any order of importance. Some of the most important post graduate education I received was in the machine shops and factory floor. I personally know and have had the priveledge to work with the engineer who shortened the pitstop time by creating the tall fuel can. He and his team went on to develop a portable cooling system which helped several teams to win critical races. Interestingly he was an architect in the first half of his career. It is his vision that helped him to hold and communicate the design.

I can see Dave's guiding vision in developing the 818. It is interesting that such large enterprises as Toyota and Subaru have joined forces using a Subaru boxer at its basis. The president of Toyota treated the 86 as if it was his personal project, yet did not allow TRD to exclude the Subaru project. I expect that Dave will guard his baby from all both inside and outside. I only offer my humble opinions to aid him to success. I hope the final selection is so hard that several of the designs will eventually be made. The schedule is tight, resources limited, but I hope that we together as a community (dare I say as part of the 818 design team) will help see this project thru to a success which we can personally enjoy.

I personally like the Vantage design by Vman. I have not made harsh comments about other designs which are not my preferance at the moment. I hope that those designs will be perfected by those who are seeing beyond where they are right now, to what they can be. I hope that several hot design result from this colaboration (synergy) between FFR and US who FFR has kindly and wisely included.

I sincerely wish you ALL Happy Holidays!!! :D

FFR-ADV

12-27-2011, 11:35 AM

This brought to mind that old line of "Committee's are safe but seldom brilliant"
I beleive this was said comparing the differences in approach between Ford and GM but I may be wrong on that point.

Olpro & Movieman,

The architect/engineer I refered to above was working with Team McLaren in the US. I notice you have posted pictures of their designs in your album. Nice cars, but not designed by a single person. They have large teams, to take on large tasks.

Any contender F1 team is large and has a large budget. They decompose a very large task into smaller tasks which are doable by smaller teams. These smaller teams further decompose those tasks, involving many specialists, some of which are listed above. They generally have a chief designer/engineer where the technical buck stops. Dave has given that resposability to Jim. Dave holds him resposible to FFR and makes sure that the vision is not lost. This process is so effective that the F1 rules have to be adjusted each year to slow the teams down.

What the team at FFR does with its limited budget is amazing. They carefully choose where the greatest return will be made. The choice to use the Subaru WRX as a doner is a stroke of brilliance. Even Toyota, who has their own F1 team and TRD to draw from used this in their new sports car. They have DOT limitations, which thankfully FFR is not limited by to the extent they are. This allows FFR to develop a car that the host corporations could not produce at a price which is in the range of most of us non-uber-rich. I would not mind a Ford GT in my garage, but alas, it is beyond my reach. One of the engineers working for me, worked on the updated interior for the GT (decomposed tasks). The 818 has potential to even surpass this high bench mark.

I have confidence that FFR will produce a car which is unique. it will share elements with other great designs is not only inevitable, but also smart. Many of those details servefunctional as well as esthetic purposes. Yet it will be recognizably unique. Using external "free" resources is a great budget stretcher, and allows FFR to achieve even greater things. I personally have much to learn about tweaking the WRX platform for maximum performance from the Subaru racing community. None of us have all of the answers, or even all of the questions for that matter.

A reviewer of a world class sportbike wrote: "It will make you feel like superman (which you are not), and will put you into the afterlife if you think you are, to a sound track of Darwin laughing." This is my personal vision for the 818 while looking Nuclear HOT and EXOTIC!

We can acheive together what non of us could acheive on our own. This is a team not a committee. The FFR 818 Design Team is close to an F1 team in spirit. Job and family responsabilities limit my current participation. I cheer on those who are making great strides for all of us and feel honored that Dave has allowed us to participate.

With my respect to the 818 Design Team.

FFR-ADV

olpro

12-27-2011, 06:45 PM

The above verbiage is a good description of how to create the perfect ‘Camel Design Bureau’. I couldn’t have written it better.
Of course the mere usage of the word ‘synergy’ is still problematic. In the professional design environment and numerous automotive studios that I have worked in for over forty years, the mere use of that word would result in lots of knowing smiles and plenty of eye rolling.
By the way, I like Vman’s design too. Unfortunately, to merge it with car#4 is also problematic because #4 is already too much a camel.
Great design programs require a strong ideation stage and an equally professional development phase.
None of the young inexperienced (but nonetheless college trained) designers I have worked with, mentored, taught, etc. had the development abilities (surfacing expertise, knowledge of modeling, 3D visualization, etc.) required to succeed in this stage – at least until they had years of experience in the more technical aspects of design development. It is a lot like being the conductor of a major orchestra, who brings both broad vision and absolute technical mastery.
Jim is a good (perhaps great) engineer - I am in no position to even judge him in that arena - but not a pro designer in the automotive-body-designer meaning. His ability to bring that surfacing and development expertise/experience to the table is dramatically disproven by the technical lacking of model#4.
Don’t take this as a nasty attack, I am no engineer and would surely embarrass myself if I were to attempt to take on that noble task. However I am a designer, with the college degree, professional credentials, etc. and I know what it takes.

Vman7

12-27-2011, 07:15 PM

LOL at "camel design bureau", now that's funny!

When I did the post with the comment with something to the effect of putting the Vantage front and rear on the front of Jim's design. I was just throwing that out there. But after looking at Jim's Design for at awhile way back, I said to myself just better staying with the overall design of the Vantage.

I agree with olpro, too many elements from different ideas going on in Jim's design.

About the only things that I like on Jim's design is the door area and the rear deck humps.

FFR-ADV

12-27-2011, 08:32 PM

Hi Vman,
If anyone could have made it work it would be you. Would still like to see your design go into production and not stop at very nice artwork. I do not think that you are capable of making a design that looks like a camel. Best wishes going forward. My confidance in you two as a team is based on your demonstrated work and that of Jim on the GTM.

Olpro,
I hope you can contribute a car design which I would like own.
Good luck with your retirement. LOL

crash

12-28-2011, 05:37 PM

You don't always want a low Cd. Dan, I think you are obviously forgetting why you may actually want a higher Cd on this type of vehicle.

I've raced cars for a LONG time and I don't know of ONE instance where I have WANTED to increase Cd. Yes it is sometimes a byproduct of an aerodynamic feature, but in all my working I have ALWAYS tried to reduce Cd while increasing down force to it's maximum...at least for a car that is primarily designed to go around corners quicker than the other guy. Always a balancing act for amount of down force, and changes constantly with track conditions and configurations.

The real trick is lower Cd while increasing down force. It can be done, but not cheaply, and as others have said, for a street car, and a kit designed to be sold for under $10k, you get into deminishing returns VERY quickly when it comes to aero dynamic efficiencies.

To put it another way, most of us will rarely, if ever, break the 120 MPH barrier, and so it is really futile to spend a bunch of time, effort, and $$ making something really aerodynamically superior to other things that also don't go much over 100 MPH.

As with the GTM, design it for good looks, ease of producability, and go out and sell a boat load of them at reasonable prices.

Oh, and BTW, it is my opinion that FFR PURPOSELY designed the rear diffuser angle to NOT create maximum down force at upper speed numbers so that the front end did not become "light". With the layout of the GTM it is EASY to get all the rear down force that you want. The trick is balancing that with what you can get on the front so that the car doesn't handle like a turd at 100+ MPH. Ask me how I know this...:)

And the GTM was much more aerodynamically efficient, IMHO, when it wasn't a GTM, but a VBM. Looked like crap from the rear, but I bet it worked better on a race track. Totally different solution for a different question/problem. Both of them, the VBM and the GTM, work for their intended markets.

Now, back to the 818...I like the catfish design. :)

FFR-ADV

12-28-2011, 06:32 PM

All,

We may be getting a little tense waiting for new information. But in its absence fear is brewing. There is fear of what we may get in full scale so lets confront our inner fears:

7040

Now that we have confronted our fear of animals whether camel or porcine, we know this isn't what we are going to get.

So relax, enjoy the New Year celibration knowing that we are in good hands!

Oink!!! :rolleyes:

Oppenheimer

12-29-2011, 10:46 AM

I've raced cars for a LONG time and I don't know of ONE instance where I have WANTED to increase Cd. Yes it is sometimes a byproduct of an aerodynamic feature...

I think you may have missed a long, painful aero debate that occurred. bbjones was just trying to say a low cd at the expense of all else is not ideal for a car that many will be using for track time. Just like you said, its an [unavoidable] byproduct of aero features such as downforce. That is what bbjones was trying to say. You just said it better/in more detail.

To put it another way, most of us will rarely, if ever, break the 120 MPH barrier, and so it is really futile to spend a bunch of time, effort, and $$ making something really aerodynamically superior to other things that also don't go much over 100 MPH.

You nailed it. That is the gist of the debate that occurred (well, the rational side of it anyway). I think most of us are hoping that the subject stays closed for a while.

Ramarryo

12-29-2011, 12:59 PM

Open Request:
Could our top fav designers (Vmann, Olmos, Whetstone, and Xabier/or anyone else really) take a crack at cleaning up the design?

As a proud member of this community I feel it's time to give my 0.02 $. I really liked Niburu's idea, so I took some dust off the "old school" tools (paper and pencil) and tried to put something down.
Well, maybe I went a little too far from the starting point. I took Jim's layout (main dimensions, position and size of air inlets and outlets) and mixed it with elements from my first concept and others I took from different designs.
I know, since it is a 2D design, dimensions and surface treatment aren't defined in an optimal way and the lines are far from being polished. I'd really like to have the time to produce a 3D model of it, but I start to post what I've done here, so you guys may pick what you like and, of course, what you don't ;)

Sorry I coldn't spend more time on it. Let me know what you think about it, anyway. Comments & crits are welcome as always!

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-2_1.jpg

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-2_2.jpg

Xusia

12-29-2011, 01:11 PM

Wow. I like it. A lot. Except for the tail, but I'm a huge sucker for the type of tail like the Vantage.

Cleaner flowing lines (meaning straighter), just look better to me.

VTX

12-29-2011, 01:19 PM

As a proud member of this community I feel it's time to give my 0.02 $. I really liked Niburu's idea, so I took some dust off the "old school" tools (paper and pencil) and tried to put something down.
Well, maybe I went a little too far from the starting point. I took Jim's layout (main dimensions, position and size of air inlets and outlets) and mixed it with elements from my first concept and others I took from different designs.
I know, since it is a 2D design, dimensions and surface treatment aren't defined in an optimal way and the lines are far from being polished. I'd really like to have the time to produce a 3D model of it, but I start to post what I've done here, so you guys may pick what you like and, of course, what you don't ;)

Sorry I coldn't spend more time on it. Let me know what you think about it, anyway. Comments & crits are welcome as always!

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-2_1.jpg

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-2_2.jpg

Looks cool. I still love the design you submitted. One of the best looking ones IMHO.

crash

12-29-2011, 01:31 PM

I like it.

I am toying with the front intake the way you have it there on my GTM, but haven't got it to flow correctly in my minds eye yet, and I think you are having the same issue.

I would love to see some more detail front drawings to try and work on this specific issue. :)

kach22i

12-30-2011, 11:53 AM

I took Jim's layout (main dimensions, position and size of air inlets and outlets) and mixed it with elements from my first concept and others I took from different designs.
Remember, they shortened the height of the windshield on the scale model, claimed it was made too tall, but raises doubts - at least with me.

Nice design, I'd like to see a side view with template underlay. I think it looks so good because it is about 6 inches too short for use with a stock WRX seat (one of the stated goals).

Also the wheel height appears to be artistically enhanced, an improvement but perhaps split the difference as the "O" design has.

Ramarryo

01-02-2012, 12:53 PM

Nice design, I'd like to see a side view with template underlay.

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-Profile.jpg

....and here it is. ;)

Kach, I think you're right about the size of wheels... Usually in three points perspective hand-drawings rims are "larger-than-life". Here above I pasted images of stock 2011 WRX wheels as a correct reference.

As said before I wish I had more time to model a 3D version... Think it would have some potential...

Anyway, thanks everyone for the comments, I'll try to update the design as soon as I can. Maybe could open a dedicated thread....

Cheers... and Happy New Year!! :D

Mario

kach22i

01-02-2012, 10:38 PM

As said before I wish I had more time to model a 3D version... Think it would have some potential...
I agree Mario, it has a nice balance of curves with sculpted angular lines. This makes it nicely modern without the being retro or futuristic.

It's really funny how large a template following car appears to be compared to a cheated design.

In real life this will look like a small car if kept in the 48"-51" height range.

sidewinder

01-03-2012, 12:44 PM

Sorry I couldn't spend more time on it. Let me know what you think about it, anyway. Comments & crits are welcome as always!

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k485/Ramarryo/FFR818-2_2.jpg

7202

jimgood

01-03-2012, 02:10 PM

7202
Oh, c'mon!! Are you kidding me?

Xusia

01-03-2012, 02:34 PM

I starting to think all cars look alike at this point!

jimgood

01-03-2012, 03:03 PM

They do when you squint your eyes.

sidewinder

01-03-2012, 03:35 PM

Oh, c'mon!! Are you kidding me?

okok its not the same - its a bodykit (10min photoshop - could get even closer with more time)

7203

sidewinder

01-03-2012, 03:54 PM

7040

Oink!!! :rolleyes:

outstanding X))

Ramarryo

01-04-2012, 04:00 AM

okok its not the same - its a bodykit (10min photoshop - could get even closer with more time)

7203

LOL 10min Photoshop and I can transform my house in Buckingham Palace.... Well, maybe 20min :D

Not bad anyway, Sidewinder.... ;)

sidewinder

01-04-2012, 09:10 AM

LOL 10min Photoshop and I can transform my house in Buckingham Palace.... Well, maybe 20min :D

Not bad anyway, Sidewinder.... ;)

thx. actually i would be surprised if you didn`t like it ;)
seriously: rereading this thread made it clear to me that i need to appreciate your effort to work on model 4.
it looks as if this is what were going to get so it makes sense to make the most out of it as long as there is still time.
maybe ffr could provide a new template and/or better pix(esp with realistic angles) of this model and start a quick sketch session?
i`d like to give it a little "photo"shot, too.

jimgood

01-04-2012, 09:21 AM

okok its not the same - its a bodykit (10min photoshop - could get even closer with more time)

7203
OK. My apologies. Since you didn't describe your intent in words, I ASSumed that you were comparing the drawing to a production car that already exists as if to say "it's too much like this".

kach22i

01-04-2012, 10:54 AM

okok its not the same - its a bodykit (10min photoshop - could get even closer with more time)

7203
I was thinking it looked more like the black model (Nouphone Bansasi), but sort of see the point.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?2659-818-Project-Updates-From-Dave/page13
7222

sidewinder

01-05-2012, 12:14 PM

I was thinking it looked more like the black model (Nouphone Bansasi), but sort of see the point.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?2659-818-Project-Updates-From-Dave/page13
7222

yes. to me the current model 4 design of the rear is somewhere between the f355 and f360 (at least the design idea, not its execution).
therfor i attatched some images that show how ferrari evolved its own rear theme. this highlights (a few of the many) possibilities of updating the design without changing the ingredients.
if i had better input from model 4 (template/pix) i could easily come up with proposals. and i`m sure there are others who would, too.

7250

bromikl

01-06-2012, 09:30 AM

7250

I don't know what that fifth car is, but I want one. :)

kach22i

01-06-2012, 10:20 AM

Same question as above - what is this sweet thing?
7267

Xusia

01-06-2012, 12:52 PM

I don't know what that fifth car is, but I want one. :)

It's the new Ferrari 458 Italia.

sidewinder

01-07-2012, 10:26 AM

Same question as above - what is this sweet thing?
7267

thats a novitec 430 bodykit - called tulesto from 2008 or 09..thought i add it here because it fits quite well (and i liked it, too)

kach22i

01-09-2012, 09:22 AM

thats a novitec 430 bodykit - called tulesto from 2008 or 09..thought i add it here because it fits quite well (and i liked it, too)

More photos in link:
http://www.carzi.com/2009/04/22/novitec-tulesto-pictures-details/

If you are interested in buying one, you better be quick as only 11 will ever be made each probably costing a fortune. So get your AMEX BLACK CARD ready for a swipe.

All I could find were the renderings from 2009, sadly no real car.

Perhaps the body changes were to close to the yet to be released Italia, so Ferrari may have asked them to stop work.

sidewinder

01-13-2012, 01:25 PM

Hi Dave, are there any new photos of model 4? the ones that were posted were not taken from a realistic angle. what about having a quick sketch session in order to try out some variations? i`m sure several people here would like to participate in the finetuning process.. thx

archull

01-17-2012, 01:14 AM

Dave I have to say after the work that you guys did on the GTM and some of the good designs submitted by some of the guys for the contest and even after the contest was over I am truly sad to see the model you guys did. This car doesn't seem to have the finesse, the style and honestly the taste that you guys normally portray. This model seemed like a late night cram session to present something to your teacher because you spent the previous night at the frat house kind of design.

Below is a design that I truly liked, its modern, its exotic, its something that would put Factory Five into a different and more diversified market. It may not be the easiest car to construct a mold of but there could be much worse designs for that, the overall look though in my opinion is fantastic. I am not saying to you guys you must build the car to look just like this but I believe this is somewhere near the area that you guys should bring the kit to. The model on the first page looks to me much like a Hyundai tiburon with a body kit. I believe this is the worse direction you guys could have gone with. It makes your car look cheap. This car is going to be built for a younger crowd that can't afford a car like a GTM and is a bit young for a car like the MK4. This is a car for lack of better reference for the import market. Its already using an import donor car for the main components.

I truly beg you to look into revising this design greatly. I would really be interested to build one if it would look more like this rendering below.

http://www.factoryfive.com/whatsnew/update/nextcar/images/Skitso.jpg

archull

01-17-2012, 01:07 PM

What about Shawn Whetstone's design? In my opinion that car would fit the bill. Its not too expensive to build, its modern, somewhat exotic, doesn't overshadow the GTM and would open you guys up to a new market. The car looks like it would be fun to build and drive.

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-013.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-009.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-008.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-010.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-011.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-012.jpg

archull

01-17-2012, 01:08 PM

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-004.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-003.jpg

http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m536/SW818/whetstone-002.jpg

Xusia

01-17-2012, 02:41 PM

I'm torn. I like both Rodney's design as well as Shawn's. One of the things I really like about Shawn's design is the clean, straight, simple lines. To me, less is more, and I think his design embodies that. I also like all the practical considerations such as targa stowage.

Oppenheimer

01-17-2012, 02:55 PM

This [model 4] car doesn't seem to have the finesse, the style and honestly the taste that you guys normally portray. This model seemed like a late night cram session to present something to your teacher because you spent the previous night at the frat house kind of design.

Well, thats not far off the reality. They had to get something to SEMA, and they didn't want to distract from the car itself by bringing the models of all 3 contest winners, with attendies focusing on which model they like best instead of the basics of the car. They also didn't want to bring just one of those models, making it seem like they favor one over the others. So they did cram and build something new, and it shows. They didn't have time to refine things at all.

They are planning to build several variations of 818. Its not certain that any of those will be some refined version of model 4 or not. But even if it is, there will be others to choose from. There is even speculation that they will continue to build new body designs for the 818 chassis as time goes on. So they have an endless source of designs to choose from (the 700 entries), including these two you like so much (I like those 2 as well).

keys2heaven

01-17-2012, 03:27 PM

To me, SW1's (Shawn's) concept screams high mileage diesel or electric.

olpro

01-17-2012, 03:50 PM

archull,
As Opp said, they did what they could, under extreme time pressures for the SEMA show. Of course, the one model (Xabier’s) was put together by the RISD team – so it had been brought up to at least a reasonable level, considering the stage of the project. The others from the competition were what they were, having been “printed” from the digital data with no opportunity to make even dimensional corrections let alone aesthetic ones. This, by the way, is the weakness of the theory that digital models will save time and provide usable solutions. The whole concept of push-a-button-and-we-have-tools is a complete pipe dream.
Jim did what he could with his design (which was not from the competition of course) but he doesn’t have the same ability as a designer that he does as an engineer (I am trying to say that more kindly this time). So that’s how they got to where they were at SEMA.
The irony is that the design you are liking, from the Greek entrant, is possibly the (horrible) inspiration for Jim’s attempt. If you look at the sketch, it has that same impossible-to-realize feature line traversing from the fender peak in front, through the door, into the side scoop. The guy obviously doesn’t have a clue about form or he wouldn’t have drawn that thing in the first place. That line is a practical impossibility, like an Escher drawing.
The result (wherever it came from) was the tortured surface development on the model, first full scale then ¼… that has led (partly) to the current dilemma with Model #4.
I will say I like Shawn’s design for the most part, but there is no evidence that there is any serious consideration & development of it, or any of the other possibilities – including Rodney’s or V-Man’s.
In the absence of demonstrated in-house progress on these alternate designs, the only logical conclusion is that there hasn’t been any.

kach22i

01-17-2012, 05:11 PM

In the absence of demonstrated in-house progress on these alternate designs, the only logical conclusion is that there hasn’t been any.
We know what they did up to a point, and based on that curve we can project (with optimism) a line into our current (future time). That is making a bunch of assumptions that progress is a linear thing, which we all know it isn't with any complex project. Still my hopes are up, or at least my best wishes are.

In retrospect, at the end of the model phase with the owner (Mr Smith) still not satisfied (hair not on fire) was the moment a professional designer could have been contracted with. This person would have benefited from the wealth of information; "what we like" and "what we don't like" kind. Sometimes this sort of progress is as important as any "wow factor" or actual clump of clay, right?

Oppenheimer

01-17-2012, 05:46 PM

Dave did what he could with his design (which was not from the competition of course) but he doesn’t have the same ability as a designer that he does as an engineer (I am trying to say that more kindly this time).

How about, Jim (designer of model 4), chief engineer at FFR, in charge of the 818 plus numerous other FFR projects, also an FFR racer, doesn't have the same refined design ability as a full-time professional designer.

Jim works in a world that requires wearing many hats. He just hasn't had as much time with his designer hat on as with many of the other hats hanging in his office. If Jim switched right now to designing full-time, many of you on this forum have more time already wearing the designer hat than Jim would by the time he was ready to retire. He can never have the design experience many of you already have. You are better at it than he is. But he is the guy with the pen on this one, and he is the guy Dave has entrusted with making decisions (though as with anything, the boss always has the final say). I am OK with that.

archull

01-17-2012, 06:07 PM

The irony is that the design you are liking, from the Greek entrant, is possibly the (horrible) inspiration for Jim’s attempt. If you look at the sketch, it has that same impossible-to-realize feature line traversing from the fender peak in front, through the door, into the side scoop. The guy obviously doesn’t have a clue about form or he wouldn’t have drawn that thing in the first place. That line is a practical impossibility, like an Escher drawing.

I somewhat disagree, that design reminded me alot of the K1 Attack car kit that was around awhile back. I think although that sketch was a somewhat difficult to build, as far as a sketch goes its not unthinkable to build. As a former architect and industrial designer I have worked off of many sketches such as this and brought them into reality with minor adjustments for realistic proportions and ease of tooling. I think that the idea is decent enough, just needs some smoothing into an actual shape that still can fit the human figure comfortably and also fit the required dimensional criteria which the contest requires. This car is going to be much smaller than many of the other cars that FFR makes, which also is kind of the beauty in it but at the same time can distort the form of it. For example the short height, longer, wider frame of the GTM allows the car to look large in proportion and allow the passengers relative comfort where as a car that is shorter and narrow still requires the same height as a car say the GTM however its going to look more egg shaped due to the required dimensional criteria.

One way to combat this height issue is by adjusting the seating angle. By tilting back the seats a little you change the seating geometry of the occupant allowing for a shorter roof line as well as requires less leg room (many hatches use this technique to allow headroom for rear passengers).

I think that shawn made a good attempt for this car and really thought things through compared to many of the proposals.

D2W

01-17-2012, 07:24 PM

In retrospect, at the end of the model phase with the owner (Mr Smith) still not satisfied (hair not on fire) was the moment a professional designer could have been contracted with. This person would have benefited from the wealth of information; "what we like" and "what we don't like" kind. Sometimes this sort of progress is as important as any "wow factor" or actual clump of clay, right?

I concur with this thought, A professional designer could have taken these choices to the next level of aethetics and manufacturabilty. Or the original designers could have been brought into the fold as a contract employee to tweak their designs like Rodney O has been doing here, which may still happen supposably there was talk. I think Dave has more faith in Jim as a designer than I do but we will see in the end I suppose.

sidewinder

01-22-2012, 09:48 AM

I truly beg you to look into revising this design greatly. I would really be interested to build one if it would look more like this rendering below.

http://www.factoryfive.com/whatsnew/update/nextcar/images/Skitso.jpg

yes, i totally like the sketch and its style, too. it looks light but at the same time comprises all relevant details.
it also looks as if it could match the template.
i agree with olpro on the feasibility of the current featureline. i guess the designer thought of sth. like the bmw z4 coupe concept..

7562

there`s sth from the 612 scaglietti in it, too. good job!

Fast818

01-22-2012, 07:18 PM

Cars by committee
Tony Davis The Age newspaper
January 20, 2012

Tony Davis looks at the pitfalls of asking customers what they want in their cars.

At the recent Detroit motor show, General Motors announced bold new plans to consult. And exactly who will the company do it with?

According to General Motors' US boss, Mark Reuss, ''We're seeking out our newest customers' opinions, listening to their advice and engaging them in new ways.''

In other words, Reuss is talking about the people. You know, those scumbags who, as the serially disappointed Paul Keating observed, don't know what's good for them. Yes, those frustrating folk of whom Henry Ford supposedly said: ''If I'd asked them what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.''

Reuss's comments were centred on two new GM concept cars ''aimed at inspiring next-generation buyers to take the wheel and suggest ideas for a car they can co-create''.

Why are GM execs becoming all touchy, feely and collaborative? Probably because a focus group told them they should. One of the problems with asking the
people for a hand is that it gives the impression that GM doesn't have a clue what to do. After all, isn't it meant to be the one with the expertise?

In the mid-1950s, Ford asked thousands of people what they wanted. The result of all these meetings with the great unwashed was an all-new car with ''more YOU ideas''. It was - drum roll, drum roll - the Edsel!

And does anyone really want a car co-created with ''next-generation buyers'' - those people who have presumably never owned a car, let alone designed one? John McFarland, who heads ''youth research'' for Chevrolet, thinks so. He gushes about how ''we want to build authentic and meaningful relationships with these customers on their terms. We want to hear what they have to say, engage them in our design process and give them what they want - not what we think they want.'' McFarland is expected to pull the covers off an even faster horse some time soon.

Now, I'm as fond of my fellow man as the next misanthropist. But there's a further problem with using people - next generation or not - in the car design process. It works only if those people are trustworthy. And we all know men and women are far more virtuous in surveys than real life. They constantly put the environment at the top of their supposed priorities and then buy a four-wheel-drive for a solo daily urban commute. They complain cars don't have enough safety features, then specify the alloys and decorative spoiler instead of the extra airbags. They buy Bluetooth-equipped cars and talk on a hand-held, while driving, with the other hand hanging out the window. Yes, people - you and me excepted, of course - continually sadden and disenchant.

Still, away from the touchy-feely-bollocky-markety arena, there is an area where the public might actually help make cars better: by using open-source technology.

Whereas we can't expect an automotive equivalent of Mozilla or Linux, absolutely free and ready to use, thousands of independent thinkers could come up with things not otherwise imagined. With projects, things such as OScar, enthusiastic contributors - rather than lassoed passers-by - are aiming to pool ideas and expertise. They will eventually use open-source, computer-aided design software to produce blueprints for a unique low-cost vehicle (www.theoscarproject.org).

The hydrogen-powered c,mm,n (yes, that's how they spelt it) was developed by Dutch universities using open-source principles back in 2007. It looked like it was sketched by SsangYong designers on the morning after their end-of-year piss-up. But the technology was promising. Until a completely democratic car is produced by such methods, Chevrolet, we are assured, will ''engage customers using the social media tools that young consumers use to talk with one another''.

How did GM come across this knowledge that youngsters are using social media to talk with one another? Probably on the wireless.

Just one reporters thinking....:--))

Movieman

01-22-2012, 07:34 PM

RE: Cars by committee above
I think one issue is that most people have never understood the benefits and drawbacks of Comittee design vs individual design.
In terms of function and safety comittee's are usually the better way to go but in terms of pure design(looks) one persons perspective is usually the more inspirational.
One brings many minds tohgether and with those many perspectives function and safety issues are less likely to be missed.
But like a great artist, the exterior design most often works when the subject of one persons vision.
I know, many will disagree with me but thats my opinion.
Also, I am not a designer and sit back in wonder at the talents of the people here who have shown their vision to us all.

Raceral

01-22-2012, 07:57 PM

I don't get it what so ever.... nothing about this project makes sense to me. I don't meant to be a butt head.. but its just another car that I would not turn my head at if I saw it going down the road..I hope it doesn't spoil the rest of the company.Sorry for being so blunt.
Dave you know we love ya, thats why we speak whats on our minds.

riptide motorsport

01-22-2012, 08:09 PM

Al.............time will prove you to be incorrect.

Xusia

01-23-2012, 02:20 AM

I work in technology, and when the iPad first came out, you can't BELIEVE the calls I fielded:
"What is it??"
"Is there a use case?"
"Why would anyone buy that over a laptop?"
etc., etc., etc.

The point is, at the time, MANY people didn't think it made any sense (for the record, I thought it was brilliant - and I'm NOT an Apple fan boy). They didn't "get it." Obviously, that's not the case today - it's a utter success by any definition, and those early opinions seem laughable.

I think there could be some parallels here. Everyone might not "get it" right now, but IF Dave and FFR are able to meet the project goals, I predict the 818 will be a runaway success and in a couple years we'll look back and laugh.

jimgood

01-23-2012, 06:40 AM

Niburu

01-23-2012, 09:46 AM

Thank God for Factory Five.

Amen
I don't think anyone here will dispute that.

The push for automated self-driving cars is what scares the hell out me.

kach22i

01-23-2012, 10:56 AM

Henry Ford supposedly said: ''If I'd asked them what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.''
That would be awesome if he actually said that. Sounds like something he would have said.

RE: Cars by committee above
If the group is a bunch of designers, or at least designer want-a-be's then the results can be great. Just forget your average pin heads.

I read recently that the average cleaning woman working a X-car company most likely has better design sense than most automobile executives at X-car company. I'm inclined to agree.

jimgood

01-23-2012, 11:16 AM

The push for automated self-driving cars is what scares the hell out me.

It seems like the progression in automotive technology has constantly chipped away at driver involvement; automatic transmissions, front wheel drive, anti-lock brakes, traction control, dynamic stability control, flappy-paddle-gearboxes, pre-collision braking systems, lane departure warning systems. These represent billions of dollars in research and development in an effort to take human error out of the driving equation. In the face of this, it amazes me that the Miata has been so successful (automatic Miatas notwithstanding).

jimgood

01-23-2012, 11:24 AM

That would be awesome if he actually said that. Sounds like something he would have said.

RE: Cars by committee above
If the group is a bunch of designers, or at least designer want-a-be's then the results can be great. Just forget your average pin heads.

I read recently that the average cleaning woman working a X-car company most likely has better design sense than most automobile executives at X-car company. I'm inclined to agree.
Careful, George. You kind of just called all of the non-designer members of 818 forum pin heads. :D

Xusia

01-23-2012, 11:56 AM

The process that FFR is using is not so much about having a committee design the car. It's about getting original shapes in front of the designers at FFR that they might not have envisioned on their own.

What GM is planning is not about designing the shape of their cars but understanding the features that might be desirable to future buyers. The sucky thing about that is relatively few of the people they target will be driving enthusiasts. They'll be technology enthusiasts with a sprinkling of environmental conscience to color their values. They'll place more importance on cars being polymorphic, serving Lattes, having auto pilot, speaking in a soothing voice and massaging their ego and their neck.

Car driving enthusiasts are a dying breed. Yesterday my wife and I were discussing monumental structures like the pyramids in Egypt and the temples in South America. We were trying to understand why it is that the knowledge to build those structures was not carried forward through the generations. There are certain types of knowledge that get carried forward; mathematics, astrology. But something as seemingly important as the engineering required to move 20-ton stones or carve a perfectly symmetrical face on them were abandoned? And not documented? Alien influences aside, I think it has to do with the fact that value systems change over time. The generations that followed those builders lost the desire to expend the effort to move 20-ton stones because they no longer valued the monument as much as they valued some other pursuit.

We're seeing the same kind of evolution in car design. The masses just don't value the act of driving as much as all the other crap in their lives. The GM execs are just coming to grips with that and trying to tap into it because they have to sell cars to the masses. The relatively fewer driving enthusiasts are becoming a smaller and less significant market.

Thank God for Factory Five.

Couldn't disagree more. People do want convenience, sure. So do I. That doesn't make me less of a driving enthusiast. Looking at the motorcycling world for a bit, sport bike rider numbers have increased DRAMATICALLY in the last decade - predominantly younger riders - and these machines are serious torture for anyone not really into the whole "sport" part of sport bike. That tells me that as a percentage the up and coming generation has a larger group of enthusiasts than my generation. Back to the automotive industry, aren't sales of performance and/or good handling oriented cars up? That would be another indicator.

Amen
I don't think anyone here will dispute that.

The push for automated self-driving cars is what scares the hell out me.

I would love to have a self driving car! That doesn't mean I don't ALSO want a car I can enjoy driving myself. But let's face it, not many of us have a daily commute that's SOOOOO exciting we want to drive a performance car everyday (I wish!). For that type of driving, why subject myself to limited onboard storage, the potential for theft or damage, additional miles on my toy, etc? That really doesn't make sense.

I do plan on my 818 being a daily driver, but that's mostly because it will get better MPG than my current vehicle. Still, it won't be driven like it was meant to on my commute, and if a self driving car were an option, I'd pick that almost every day over anything else my daily commute.

But yes. Thank God for FFR!

Niburu

01-23-2012, 12:58 PM

Oppenheimer

01-23-2012, 01:29 PM

So then its a good thing FFR isn't asking the average person on the street to help design the 818, they are asking a group of car enthusiasts. They also aren't making us all part of the 'committee', with a vote, nor blinding taking every suggestion we have and making sure its included. Instead they are using us as a free idea factory, then filtering those ideas as they see fit. Even the contest was just a big design idea factory. They got a bunch of design ideas to choose from, to be inspired by. And a few designs they might want to simply 'adjust' and use (Rodney, Xabier, etc.)

Plus, this effort isn't simply interviewing us in isolation, its collaborative. We all get to hear each others ideas, and weigh in. Improve or discredit whatever is suggested. The effort here is nothing like the effort to build the Edsel, nor the effort GM appears to be persuing (and GM is just doing this to build a concept car, not a production car).

Its a collaboration among an enthusiast group, that simply provides ideas and feedback to the same small group of decision makers that would have been making the decisions if the collaborative group never existed. No one seems to have a problem with FFR taking good ideas from the field and pushing them back into production (tips and tricks builders have found, body shaping mods people have done, etc). What is wrong with trying to do a little of that up front?

Draco-REX

01-23-2012, 01:41 PM

Also, keep in mind that we aren't helping to design the WHOLE car. We've been asked to help design the pretty packaging that's wrapped around the FFR-designed chassis. The meat and potatoes of this car is from a single vision. The committee involvement is only skin deep.

Xusia

01-23-2012, 01:51 PM

I don't like being driven around by other people as it is, the last thing I want is government funded computerized commuter system telling my car what to do. Peoples driving skills are bad enough as it is.

E X A C T L Y! Besides not having to deal with traffic, an automated driving system would remove people's poor driving habits, preoccupations, or lack of skill from the equation.

Niburu

01-23-2012, 02:58 PM

E X A C T L Y! Besides not having to deal with traffic, an automated driving system would remove people's poor driving habits, preoccupations, or lack of skill from the equation.

only on the highways where you could actually implement it, which means around town the drivers will just be worse than ever

Oppenheimer

01-23-2012, 03:18 PM

What amazes me is throwing ever more sophisticated technology at the problem, with never any thought to just trying to make people better drivers. I'm OK with better cars, better highways, but do we have to completely ignore trying for better drivers? Most people don't even know the rules of the road, let alone how to control their car properly.

Throw some of that $ and effort into better driver training, more difficult testing (exam and on-road skill).

Then there is law enforcement. When you ask any regular driver about safety, the first (and probably last) thing they think about is speeding. If you only enforce one law with any effort, then that is all anyone will think is important. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No, I wasn't speeding."

Then there is the 'Universal Accident Avoidance Pedal' TM. Traffic stops short in front of you, brake hard. Big dump truck barreling down on you, from behind, brake hard. Pull out from a side street, only to realize there is car barreling down from the side, brake hard (completely block the road with your giant SUV).

Xusia

01-23-2012, 04:31 PM

only on the highways where you could actually implement it, which means around town the drivers will just be worse than ever

Again, I disagree. There is no reason the current technology can't be applied to urban environment. In fact, that's where I believe the biggest gain is to be had.

...but do we have to completely ignore trying for better drivers? ...<snip>...

Throw some of that $ and effort into better driver training, more difficult testing (exam and on-road skill).

Of course not, but it's been tried. Could we implement a better training program? Sure. It's been done to better effect in Europe. The real problem is American driving culture and arrogance (I'm American, so I'm allowed). To overcome those would be very difficult and costly - even more costly perhaps than the training itself. Implementing technology is easier and cheaper.

Then there is law enforcement. When you ask any regular driver about safety, the first (and probably last) thing they think about is speeding. If you only enforce one law with any effort, then that is all anyone will think is important. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No, I wasn't speeding."

This is another reason I would prefer my commuter car drive itself. It eliminates the risk of getting a ticket.

slopoke

01-23-2012, 04:58 PM

DAVE ... PLEASE!!!! just a little update to get us back on track .... GEEZ!

Niburu

01-23-2012, 05:47 PM

Again, I disagree. There is no reason the current technology can't be applied to urban environment. In fact, that's where I believe the biggest gain is to be had.

While I agree that is where the biggest gains would be had, it also presents the biggest logistical and programming nightmare.
You would need AI cars with sensors all over them to detect various obstacles, especially pedestrians.
Guess I'm just an éX-Driver at heart.

Xusia

01-23-2012, 06:25 PM

The technology is already there, and I don't think you need as many sensors as you are thinking. The basic components are GPS, wireless multi-channel communication system (to communicate with both traffic control devices and other vehicles - even those being driven by humans), a couple distance sensors (such as are used by cruise control systems and rear obstacle alert systems), and a couple cameras.

What's missing is a standard to tie bring it all together, and of course, the actual implementation in both vehicles and traffic control devices. We aren't as far off as you may think... :)

bbatts

01-23-2012, 07:52 PM

DAVE ... PLEASE!!!! just a little update to get us back on track .... GEEZ!

Dave? Dave's not here man.

sonicrex

01-23-2012, 09:22 PM

Dave? Dave's not here man.

Haha. :cool:

Cooluser23

01-23-2012, 09:47 PM

design by committee worked for Local Motors, so don't write it off just yet.

thestigwins

01-23-2012, 11:16 PM

I am sorry, but the local motors car/truck is ugly in my opinion. It is a complete beast and does what its meant to do. However, it looks like it fell down the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Draco-REX

01-24-2012, 08:13 AM

Lots of Subaru guys here. Ugly = good. :)

Nelff

01-24-2012, 11:26 AM

I was talking to my wife about the way that people used to have to drive;
two lane dark highway, passing opposite direction to cars with dim headlights
drum brakes that pulled and didn't slow anything down until the tires started sliding
seat belts? optional...
metal dash (my dad's '57 still has an ankle dent from me flying over the bench seat)
safety glass? crush zones? naw...
So the next time you see a Prius in the left lane doing 5 under, just think to yourself, we used to have natural selection.

Nelff

01-24-2012, 11:40 AM

btw, since we are designing...

I'd like to take some multi-rotor electric, gps, accelerometer driven flyby-wire, composite clothed parts and make a sky cycle.

that'll keep me away from the idiots on the street...

Xusia

01-24-2012, 01:14 PM

Dude! How close is this technology?!? THAT would be FANTASTIC!!! I already love motorcycles, so a sky cycle seems like the next perfect vehicle! Seriously, where did you read about it? How close are they to a working prototype? Or do they already have one?!? More info please!!

Xusia

01-24-2012, 01:15 PM

Yes, I'm a smart @$$, so no I wasn't serious... :rolleyes:

Niburu

01-24-2012, 03:45 PM

kach22i

01-24-2012, 03:47 PM

Careful, George. You kind of just called all of the non-designer members of 818 forum pin heads. :D
Funny, but that's not what I meant.

I meant the sort of average person who is more concerned with if McRestaurant supersizes their fries, than the new Porsche.

There is a lot which big manufactures can learn by listening to housewives when regarding Minivans, and by the same token there is a lot FFR can learn by listening to all of us (non-average) automotive enthusiast in the forum.

Oppenheimer

01-24-2012, 04:11 PM

There is a lot which big manufactures can learn by listening to housewives when regarding Minivans...

Careful, George, you just called all minivan driving women housewives :-O

We really need an update from Dave soon.

Xusia

01-24-2012, 04:30 PM

I love this forum! :D

Nelff

01-24-2012, 07:34 PM

Okay my skycycle goes something like this...

and I'm not the first to come up with the idea...

http://www.notcot.org/post/44140/

7596

UAV styling that could be used...

http://novus2.com/uav360/2011/07/page/3/

7594

and there is an American firm that has all of the awesome electronics and the configuration that I like...

http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicop...pecifications/

7593

Nelff

01-24-2012, 07:36 PM

and yes I'm a smart a$$ too...

I'd still like one tho...

rhino1

01-25-2012, 01:56 AM

Still love the car UNTIL you get fwd of the windscreen.
Allow me to demonstrate without saying it looks like an MR...

http://www.factoryfive.com/818/images/1c.jpg

http://www.distrocars.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2005-Hyundai-Tiburon-Front-Side-590x442.jpg

The front hood lines and headlights still need some attention.

+1,I knew there was something it reminded me of

Niburu

01-25-2012, 09:17 AM

the big problem with all the wingless skycycles is if the motors goes out you're gonna drop like a rock
better pack a parachute at all times

Oppenheimer

01-25-2012, 11:32 AM

Sky Cycle:

7601

jimgood

01-26-2012, 06:21 AM

Couldn't disagree more. People do want convenience, sure. So do I. That doesn't make me less of a driving enthusiast. Looking at the motorcycling world for a bit, sport bike rider numbers have increased DRAMATICALLY in the last decade - predominantly younger riders - and these machines are serious torture for anyone not really into the whole "sport" part of sport bike. That tells me that as a percentage the up and coming generation has a larger group of enthusiasts than my generation. Back to the automotive industry, aren't sales of performance and/or good handling oriented cars up? That would be another indicator.
But my point is that GM is going to get little feedback from their focus groups about having lightweight, well balanced, powerful (i.e. good PTW ratio), RWD cars for under or around $20k. As a driving enthusiast, that's what I want. And they could do that. But it would have to be executed properly, unlike the Saturn/Sky, which were not well executed.

Niburu

01-26-2012, 09:35 AM

jimgood

01-26-2012, 12:43 PM

other than the under $20K price point, which would be hard price target to hit for any manufacturer, the new Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S is damn close to what your asking for
I think the Subaru/Toyota offerings are gorgeous. I'll wait until full comparison tests are out before I drink the koolaid. If those cars trounce the Miata on the fun-o-meter, they'll be a hit.

The $20k price point is doable. If you can deliver a s***box like the Yaris for $14k, at a profit, you'll never convince me that a rear drive coupe with an off the shelf motor has to cost $11k more. It's not like the WRX motor is balanced and assembled and ported and polished by a guy with an engineering degree. The only reason they can't do it is because it would sell like hotcakes and throw off their CAFE numbers.

Dave Smith

01-26-2012, 01:00 PM

The silver car design is dead (this version at least)... I owe alot of guys updates on where we are with the project. I'm working on it right now.

MuddyRoverRob

01-26-2012, 01:20 PM

Thanks for the update Dave.

Xusia

01-26-2012, 01:46 PM

But my point is that GM is going to get little feedback from their focus groups about having lightweight, well balanced, powerful (i.e. good PTW ratio), RWD cars for under or around $20k. As a driving enthusiast, that's what I want. And they could do that. But it would have to be executed properly, unlike the Saturn/Sky, which were not well executed.

I would add that in my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. FFR's target audience is NOT the same as GM's, nor are the desired outputs from any "focus groups" (or whatever term is used). People - driving enthusiasts included - have multiple needs and wants of a vehicle. But one vehicle can't do it all, so any feedback provided is going to be based on the outlined use case. For instance, even though I am a driving enthusiast, low weight is not something I consider important in a family vehicle. I would put safety and convenience features at the top of my feedback list.

Draco-REX

01-26-2012, 01:59 PM

I think the Subaru/Toyota offerings are gorgeous. I'll wait until full comparison tests are out before I drink the koolaid. If those cars trounce the Miata on the fun-o-meter, they'll be a hit.

The $20k price point is doable. If you can deliver a s***box like the Yaris for $14k, at a profit, you'll never convince me that a rear drive coupe with an off the shelf motor has to cost $11k more. It's not like the WRX motor is balanced and assembled and ported and polished by a guy with an engineering degree. The only reason they can't do it is because it would sell like hotcakes and throw off their CAFE numbers.
The BRZ uses a unique motor, the FA20. Its a 2.0 liter direct-injected boxer that is supposedly more compact than the EJ series. I've also heard that it has normal injectors in addition to the direct injection, but I haven't been able to confirm that. The transmission is also a one-off for the BRZ.

Unfortunately (to pull this back OT), because the motor and trans are unique, it's not likely that the motor will bolt up to a WRX trans. So it won't make it into an 818. :(

PhyrraM

01-26-2012, 02:09 PM

The BRZ motor is technically unique. However it has very strong ties to Subaru's new corporate motor - the FB series. It is smaller than an EJ, but so are all the FB motors. While exact details are still scarce, the MOST unique part of the motor is Toyota's DI tech that uses both a direct in-cylinder injector and a port injector.

Subaru has previewed the new line of turbo motors and they look almost identicle to the FA in the BRZ with the exception of the manifolds and injection system. They seem to use a single in-cylinder DI tech....possibly homegrown Subaru.

I forsee (guess) that the BRZ will not be unique in motor design/hardware, but will end up being the only Subaru motor to use Toyota's version of Direct Injection.

The transmission details have not been released, but knowing how companies save and spend cash, it's likely to be a standard Asian transmission on the inside with just the case casting and linkage special to the BRZ. Many have speculated it might even be the same excellent unit used in the Miata. I'm sure the service manuals will tell all once they are released.

Draco-REX

01-26-2012, 03:32 PM

True, but the FA20 is still not an off-the-shelf unit as was mentioned in an earlier post. The point was that the BRZ isn't a parts-bin car which is why it's north of 20K.

jimgood

01-26-2012, 03:37 PM

I would add that in my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. FFR's target audience is NOT the same as GM's, nor are the desired outputs from any "focus groups" (or whatever term is used). People - driving enthusiasts included - have multiple needs and wants of a vehicle. But one vehicle can't do it all, so any feedback provided is going to be based on the outlined use case. For instance, even though I am a driving enthusiast, low weight is not something I consider important in a family vehicle. I would put safety and convenience features at the top of my feedback list.
You're making my point. FFR did not illicit feedback from this forum to decide what components to put into the 818. They did it to get ideas for the shape of the body. GM does not illicit feedback from "the great unwashed" to get ideas for the shape of the body but for ideas on what features are important to MOST buyers. And all I did was expand on that by saying that it is unfortunate that the features that are important to driving enthusiasts are not likely to factor heavily (or even equally) into the resulting cars GM will produce.

On the topic of the $20k enthusiast's car, if a car like the Mazda3 can be delivered for $20k, then so can a lighter weight RWD car with many of the same components.

GUNS

01-26-2012, 04:13 PM

The silver car design is dead (this version at least)... I owe alot of guys updates on where we are with the project. I'm working on it right now.

Thanks Dave, anxiously awaiting.....

Flamshackle

01-26-2012, 04:23 PM

The silver car design is dead (this version at least)... I owe alot of guys updates on where we are with the project. I'm working on it right now.

Glad to hear and cant wait to have a bone thrown to the pack ;)

Fast818

01-26-2012, 07:01 PM

Aerodynamics and rear wing down force ...??

Engineer debunks theory of flight

David Millward and Nick Collins London
January 27, 2012

AN ENGINEER has debunked one of the most common myths in science - why aircraft fly.

Aeroplanes fly because their wings cause the air pressure underneath to be greater than that above, lifting them into the air. For years engineers have been frustrated by a theory that wrongly explained the change in pressure.

The myth is common in textbooks, and even Einstein was rumoured to have subscribed to it.

Advertisement: Story continues below A Cambridge scientist was so fed up with it that he created a minute-long video to lay it to rest. The video, published on YouTube by Professor Holger Babinsky, seeks to explain in simple terms why the theory goes against the laws of physics.

According to the myth, the pressure change happens because the air on the curved upper surface of the wing has further to travel than that below the flat underneath surface, meaning it must travel faster to arrive at the other side of the wing at the same time.

The true explanation is nothing to do with the distance the air has to travel. The curvature of the wing causes the change in air pressure because it pulls some of the air upwards, which reduces pressure, and forces the rest beneath it, creating higher pressure.

Professor Babinsky explains that, although lift is caused by a pressure change between the top and bottom surfaces, it's due to the change in the shape of the air flow, rather than its speed. ''This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift,'' he says. ''In this case, the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it's rigged, acting like an aerofoil.''

Professor Babinsky filmed smoke passing across a wing. If traditional wisdom had been correct the smoke above and below should have reached the back at the same time. Actually, the plume above the wing reached the back much sooner.

comments so far

This article is rubbish. This theory had been discarded long before I studied Aeronautical Engineering in the 60s, 45 years ago.

Commenterbirdman
LocationDate and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 7:49AM

Yep, it's *not* due to differential camber (path lengths).

Now, who wants to take on:

1. It's hotter in summer than in winter because the earth is closer to the sun (wrong, it's the Cosine Law, with the sun's radiation spread over a *larger area* in winter due to the earth's changing inclination to the sun),

2. Clouds stay up because "water vapour" is lighter than air (wrong, water particles in clouds have condensed from the gaseous state, and release latent heat as they do - this warms them, and the resulting updrafts suspend them until they become large enough to overcome the updrafts and fall as rain).

As an outsider, how does this account for inverted flight as most wing undersides are flat?

CommenterDenisPC9
LocationNew England Region
Date and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 8:22AM

•
Most undersides are not flat. Lift is achieved on inverted wing by ensuring leading edge is higher in airstream than trailing edge [+ve angle of attack].

CommenterMycroft
LocationDate and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 8:53AM
•
All horizontal surfaces have some form of lift or its opposite - Drag. Even an antenna on the aircraft. It may be both efficient and inefficient.

For example aircraft attitude (nose up/down) can be altered so almost every aircraft can fly flat at high speed and comfort (and fuel burn) or can fly up to maybe 60%+ nose-up. Its very slow and uncomfortable but achieves the correct lift co-efficient for the wing shape relative to the air it flys within. A high nose-up requires flap, low speed and caution regarding stall. When stall is achieved (inefficient) the pilot releases control and the aircraft should correct its stall with small nose-down to become efficient.This whole process isnt about the aircraft nose - Its the position of the wing to the direction of travel in the air. (ie at high nose-up the wing is banked and changes the surface below and over the wing). The wing needs to balance drag and lift so lift exceeds drag.

In an inverted state flight response changes and its likely inefficient but most modern jet aircraft are flown by computer. Watch a harrier fly backwards - Now that defies logic. MASSIVE trust offsets the drag. Its more rocket than plane.