The VTX 818

[VTX]

This is a design I started back during the contest and just didn't have time to finish it until recently. I kept working on it, if nothing else just for fun. Now that it's done I thought I'd throw it up for others to see.

Just a little info about it:

This was modeled in Solidworks. It was important to me that it fit the template, so modeling the template and building the design around that was key. I wanted a design that both looked cool and was realistic.

Height is 47.27" from the ground to the peak of the roof. The tires are 25.5" in diameter and the wheels are 18".

Anyway, hope you like it.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/88/818frontviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/8728/818frontquarterviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3478/818sideviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4612/818rearquarterviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/439/818backviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/922/818fronthighquarterview.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

Since I know some people will want to see an overlay here it is ( I hope kach and Olpro don't mind that I borrowed their modified template). The only thing that looks like it will have to change to work with my design is the position of the radiator (IIRC Dave said that was doable):

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/2829/vtx818overlay.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

[riptide motorsport]

Very cool, I like it....Steven

[kach22i]

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3478/818sideviewsm.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i-818sideviewsm.jpg
I think that I know what you are trying to do with the front, but it just looks too unbalanced with the rear mass and cartoon-like for my taste.

By the way, very nice.

The rear wheel flares remind me of my own clay model, kind of hard to pick up in photos but easy to see in real life.

Link:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Industrial%20Design/

All old and dusty now.
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Industrial%20Design/kach-wheel-1.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Industrial%20Design/kach-wheel-2.jpg

[VTX]

Here's another view. I think it looks the best in black, but white shows the lines the best. I can render some other colors if people want.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3250/818rearhighquarterviews.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-07

[kach22i]

Here's another view.
Flattering angle, looking good.

[Idaho_MT]

I think it looks totally awesome! The first car for this contest that really hits the mark, IMO. I totally dig the front end just as VTX did it and I see why it was designed that way. I guess it's all up to personal preference. I actually disagree with Kach22i for the same reasons that he gave...your photoshop'd rendition is too rounded and cartoony in my opinion...larger rocker panel and rounded front end is too 80's. I can see why you say unbalanced but I like it the way it is...very unique and not unbalanced, IMO...keep it like the original please...it's modern, mean, and aggressive...I hope FF makes this car!

[Flamshackle]

I really Like it! Very unique styling and front end. Strong 'head down tail up' stance makes it look fast just sitting there! Great work.

[kach22i]

I took another stab at it, this time I lowered the rear in lieu of raising the front.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i-alterante-818sideviewsm.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/818sideviewsm.jpg

I do like the design "as is", and it is my curiosity of the "what if" which drives these alternates.

There is a disjointed imbalance with such a wedged design in my opinion, and this is completely subjective. The closest examples of similar expression might be the street cars of McLaren, the F1 and the newer MP4-12C which both are beautiful and balanced in my opinion. It might be unfair to compare such supercars to the 818 template, but there may be something to be learned from such an exercise.

I will leave it to someone else to do a side by side. The side body angles of the VTX original are much closer to the Mclaren's than the alternate studies I made in haste. This is a might be an indicator which says it all cool, leave it be.

[Psay]

My initial reaction is not to like it, however, when I look at the different elements in isolation it looks great. The only elements I don't like are the flared rear arches and the rear view, it looks a bit top heavy.

If the rear arches were less pronounced and integrated more into the actual bodywork it would give the illusion of been lower. But that's just my opinion. As others have stated above they like it just the way it is.

I think you have done a great job and with feedback from the forum you may have a car to rival Rodneys!

[kach22i]

............ it looks a bit top heavy.
In one way because of this element, and the low nose in combination it reminds me sort of the older Honda Prelude.

http://hypebeast.com/forums/automotive/118306/
7303

Other cars I already mentioned:
http://www.whatonemillionbuys.com/mclaren-f1-for-sale-in-basel-switzerland
7305
http://technotomotive.com/2011-mclaren-mp412c-pebble-beach/mclaren-mp4-12c-at-pebble-beach-2011-side-view/
7304

[Xusia]

I really like it. It reminds me a lot of Rodney's design (that's a good thing, IMO!), but I that this is less swoopy overall. And I especially like the front view of the front end. I also like the fact it's clearly a targa.

I agree with psay about the rear. The humps behind the headrests look rather large and out of place to me. Also, the view from the rear view mirror looks pretty much non-existent. While not a deal breaker, a better view would be appreciated.

[Idaho_MT]

Everyone has some great ideas...no matter what this project is exciting. I think Kachi22i really hit the nail on the head when you said "given the template". I can see how you compare the balance to the "supercar" look but I see this car totally different. The template is the key...and this template has a very short wheel base...and relative to the short wheel base the cockpit is tall. It really makes it impossible to give it a look which most people associate with a "supercar look". If you extend the front end it will have way too much overhang...raise it up, and keep it short, and it will be either too rounded or too flat in front...lower the back and it becomes too rounded also. This is exactly what I don't like about Rodney's car. With that said, I do like Rodney's design and it is comendable but it just doesn't quite do it for me...very rounded and bubbly to me...kind of like a Mazda Miata, Mitsubishi Eclipse, or a Hyndai Tiburon. I've noticed with a bunch of car designs guys have gone for a "supercar" look and then when you put it in perspective by fitting it to the template the curves and shapes all change and they look terrible. Rodney's was one of the very few that did well but the VTX really hits the mark for me. My opinion is that we need to totally re-think the look in light of the template. When you look at it through that lens you can appreciate a whole new look for a car. I don't mean for that to sound like a compromise because it's not...we have a template to stay within...some of the best looks in the world for this template are out there, just nobody has thought of them yet...except one. Go VTX!

[VTX]

One of the challenges with this car is the short wheel base, combined with a minimum height requirement around 48" to be realistic. In my 2D sketches I found it hard to lower the back without making the car look "cute". I wanted the car to look mean and aggressive, so I decided to raise a back a little. Of course this is just my opinion, but I like it the way it is. Thanks for the feedback.

Here is another view in black:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4585/818rearquaterblack.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-08

[Xusia]

I agree with you about the template and the look of the car. A true supercar look is probably out just base on the template. While I like the supercar look, I also like the look of the smaller, hyper-capable cars like the Exige, Atom, etc. (i.e. the "pissed off go carts") I don't supercar style, just supercar "go!" And of course, in a package that looks hot, all on it's own... :)

[kach22i]

I agree with what everyone is saying about the constraints of the template.

In the two examples below the first one #3 is at least 3 inches lower than the 48" required.

The second one #4 is about 48 tall and starts to look massive, and also looking more like all the other designs.

The one thing I can really appreciate about VTX's original proposal is that it looks distinctive.
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i-alterante3-818sideviewsm.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i-alterante4-818sideviewsm.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/818sideviewsm.jpg

[VTX]

Kach, that's a good study. The way the roof slopes back in #3 looks good, but like you said then the car is 3" too short.

By the way, I've never modeled a car design in 3D before, just played around with sketching ideas, and one thing that I learned with this project is how easy it is to "cheat" designs in 2D. It's very easy to draw a car from the front, back, side, etc. and make it look good from all views and make it look like it can actually look like that from all views. However, once it's in 3D I realized how in order to make a car look one way from one view it just can't look another way from another view. It's a real challenge to then alter your original design done in 2D to make it look right in 3D.

Anyway, here is another view in black that I just finished:

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1941/818frontquaterblack.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-08

[kach22i]

By the way, I've never modeled a car design in 3D before, just played around with sketching ideas, and one thing that I learned with this project is how easy it is to "cheat" designs in 2D.
I think that you would like working in clay for the same reasons. It's made an honest man of me.:cool:

That last view captures what your design does best, it is a trait which Rodney O's design also embraces. There is an animated energy combined with the "stance" which is playful and exuberant.

[VTX]

By the way, I was curious what a Lotus Exige (One of my favorite cars BTW) looks like overlaid onto my design. The Exige has nearly an identical wheel base as the 818 template. Interestingly, the rear end is nearly the same slope and size. The back end sticks out just a tad more on mine, but again I was going by the transaxle on the template. The front on my design is clearly lower than the Exige. The idea I was going with is a skin that looks like it is just wrapped over the front tires, which I think accounts for that.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1908/lotusexigeoverlay.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-08

[Idaho_MT]

Shows I was wrong about raising the hood...and there are now two awesome looking cars that fit the template! Although I wouldn't want a copy of the lotus. The VXT is unique and I like that. Love the low profile over the wheels.

[kach22i]

Love the low profile over the wheels.
Very few street cars have a stiffer suspension with limited (vertical) wheel travel than a Lotus.

I will leave it to the engineers to argue if the VXT design is buildable as currently illustrated.

[Rockraven]

I really like it. Looks like a featherweight, and the front visibility would be fantastic. Great job.

[olpro]

Very few street cars have a stiffer suspension with limited (vertical) wheel travel than a Lotus.

I will leave it to the engineers to argue if the VXT design is buildable as currently illustrated.

Kach, I think your initial instincts were correct. The front of this design (in side view) is simply too low. There is no space for any kind of reasonable wheel jounce, no room for the H-lamps (the wheels do take a lot of space when you steer them around a corner and jounce them) and the appearance is very weak.
The overlay with the Lotus is very informative. The Lotus is a fat inch or so lower along the rear quarter, a couple of inches higher at the front wheels and has more mass overall in the front overhang. You had better believe its headlamps are as close to the front tire as the Lotus engineers could make them.
The Lotus also has a bit of wedge to its sill line (better) and its rear side profile isn't dragging the ground (again much better).

In full scale on a real car, an inch higher or lower for a major element is a HUGE deal and makes a tremendous difference in its stance and proportion. The overlay shows what I would consider major differences from one vehicle to the other and, although I consider the Lotus a terribly busy & ugly design, it is at least well balanced. Accordingly the VTX proposal could benefit from this comparison and what it teaches us.

[crobin4]

One of the challenges with this car is the short wheel base, combined with a minimum height requirement around 48" to be realistic. In my 2D sketches I found it hard to lower the back without making the car look "cute". I wanted the car to look mean and aggressive, so I decided to raise a back a little. Of course this is just my opinion, but I like it the way it is. Thanks for the feedback.

Here is another view in black:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4585/818rearquaterblack.jpg
By vtx818 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vtx818) at 2012-01-08

I want! :DI want really bad!:cool: Now, I don't really like anything else I've seen.:rolleyes:

[treadstone]

I must say that this is one of my favourite designs; that said, I would raise the point where the windshield meets the front hood (or bonnet) by a couple of inches to balance out the car's profile. I think the model could also benefit by having the side windows at a greater angle (more slanted), which would require the sills to be further apart, or the roof to be narrower.

Thanks for doing this VTX, I really like what you've done, and you even stuck to the templates!

[dbjr63]

i like it a lot. i would buy it with that body style.

[Draco-REX]

Not bad, but not my favorite. The rear fascia is too narrow for my taste. I like the flares, and the idea of a really low nose. However, it makes the greenhouse look huge. Unfortunately, the total package reminds me of a VW Beetle-based kit. Rodney's still has my vote.

[sidewinder]

i`m with olpro on this1. what i´m missing the most (apart from the overal missing balance) is a consistent style throughout the car. if you look at the several in- and outlets f.e.: the front ones + the side in and outlets + the rear outlets: they have nearly nothing in common. some look geometric and technical, others look organic and curved. the same is true for the bodyshape - the surfaces in the front are nearly 2D - like made out of paper whereas the rear volume is convex and soft.. the rearlights say nissan gtr, the diffusor could be taken directly from an elise. furthermore they are just put together (lights, outlet and diffusor) like ingredients on a hamburger - there is nothing that connects them except for gravity.
once you do all the changes that are needed (both feasibility and stylingwise) you will end up with an exact copy of a elise mk2.
im sorry to say that in such a hard way - pls dont feel offended- i appreciate the effort but there are other entries that meet the requirements and are working both design- and originalitywise.

[kach22i]

i`m with olpro on this1. what i´m missing the most (apart from the overal missing balance) is a consistent style throughout the car. if you look at the several in- and outlets f.e.: the front ones + the side in and outlets + the rear outlets: they have nearly nothing in common. some look geometric and technical, others look organic and curved. the same is true for the bodyshape - the surfaces in the front are nearly 2D - like made out of paper whereas the rear volume is convex and soft.. the rearlights say nissan gtr, the diffusor could be taken directly from an elise. furthermore they are just put together (lights, outlet and diffusor) like ingredients on a hamburger - there is nothing that connects them except for gravity.
once you do all the changes that are needed (both feasibility and stylingwise) you will end up with an exact copy of a elise mk2.
im sorry to say that in such a hard way - pls dont feel offended- i appreciate the effort but there are other entries that meet the requirements and are working both design- and originalitywise.
Blunt, maybe outspoken.

And he has made a few good points to consider.

[Xusia]

Subjective points, perhaps...

If you follow a formula [for what something is "supposed" to look like], and you start with common inputs (like wheel base, height, etc.) then you are going to end up with a common output (i.e. everything looking like an Elise).

Throw away the formula. And the preconceived notions that accompany it. That's the only way to achieve something truly original.

[sidewinder]

Subjective points, perhaps...

If you follow a formula [for what something is "supposed" to look like], and you start with common inputs (like wheel base, height, etc.) then you are going to end up with a common output (i.e. everything looking like an Elise).

Throw away the formula. And the preconceived notions that accompany it. That's the only way to achieve something truly original.

come on xusia. this thread is about design. this includes both the technical and the styling meaning of the term. believe it or not - but there are rules for styling as well as there are rules for construction. think of it that way: you wouldn`t mount the engine over the driver or a door opening towards the floor - just to be "original" and to "throw away the construction formula". the huge variety of cars based on a layout similar to the 818 prove you wrong on your concern that good design will lead to the same result. even the variety of the entries in this contest already does that. have you ever looked at mad dogs album? i agree with you that styling might be more subjective than construction criteria. you like sth. or not. but if you think twice you`ll realize thats true for many technical solutions, too. the wankel/rotary engine is is a hot idea but some ppl just dont like it. same for boxer engines, chassis materials, engine layouts, andandand. you as a motorcyle driver should be familiar with technical stereotypes, philosophies and preferences on american, japanese and european bikes.

[Oppenheimer]

By 'throwing away the formula' for 'what something is supposed to look like', I don't think he meant you should include throwing out common sense.

Yes, he first talked about common inputs, then he talked about throw away the formula, but its obvious he didn't mean throw away the common inputs. He still expects the car to match the template per engine, driver location, wheelbase, etc.

He simply meant to throw away the preconceived notion of what it should look like (Elise).

[sidewinder]

By 'throwing away the formula' for 'what something is supposed to look like', I don't think he meant you should include throwing out common sense.

Yes, he first talked about common inputs, then he talked about throw away the formula, but its obvious he didn't mean throw away the common inputs. He still expects the car to match the template per engine, driver location, wheelbase, etc.

He simply meant to throw away the preconceived notion of what it should look like (Elise).

no. he`s referring to a previous discussion in the project submission thread about whether there are rules for carstyling or not. he thinks that there aren`t (or at least shouldn`t be) and that the only difference between a nissan gtr and a juke consists in the number of doors. i disagree with that. to me if the lotus designers shaped the side intakes on the elise like on a f 348 that would correspond with an engineer that arranges a v8 over the drivers head - means: just to ignore the rules!

[Xusia]

come on xusia. this thread is about design. this includes both the technical and the styling meaning of the term. believe it or not - but there are rules for styling as well as there are rules for construction. think of it that way: you wouldn`t mount the engine over the driver or a door opening towards the floor - just to be "original" and to "throw away the construction formula". the huge variety of cars based on a layout similar to the 818 prove you wrong on your concern that good design will lead to the same result. even the variety of the entries in this contest already does that. have you ever looked at mad dogs album? i agree with you that styling might be more subjective than construction criteria. you like sth. or not. but if you think twice you`ll realize thats true for many technical solutions, too. the wankel/rotary engine is is a hot idea but some ppl just dont like it. same for boxer engines, chassis materials, engine layouts, andandand. you as a motorcyle driver should be familiar with technical stereotypes, philosophies and preferences on american, japanese and european bikes.

I was speaking purely of styling, and not the technical design which is fixed to a certain degree by the template.

[Xusia]

no. he`s referring to a previous discussion in the project submission thread about whether there are rules for carstyling or not. he thinks that there aren`t (or at least shouldn`t be) and that the only difference between a nissan gtr and a juke consists in the number of doors. i disagree with that. to me if the lotus designers shaped the side intakes on the elise like on a f 348 that would correspond with an engineer that arranges a v8 over the drivers head - means: just to ignore the rules!

Opp is correct in his interpretation of my intent. Yes I was referring to another thread, but also to this one because they are similar and my point applies to both.

I'm guessing your comment about the GT-R vs. the Juke was based on the incorrect assumption I was talking about technical design, which I was not.

My comments - and my ONLY point - is that you have what I would term a rule book (aka formula) for what constitutes appropriate/good/appealing (whatever you want to call it) styling, which you use to criticize the style of designs, and which *I* do not believe is applicable here because this car isn't for "the masses." It doesn't have to appeal to the average person, because that's not who it's being designed for. As a whole, I think this group is looking for something truly unique; something OUTSIDE the norm. You aren't going to get that by following the "safe" route using formulas or rule books for automotive styling.

Hopefully that clarifies my previous comments. :)

[bromikl]

We REALLY need some new info from FFR. Now we're bickering about how to 'correctly' design a concept that will never be. :(

[keys2heaven]

Yes, I'd like to know what direction FFR is heading in with regards to the roadster. Rodney's?

Let's discuss tangibles instead of concepts.

[BrandonDrums]

Dang it dude! Where we're you during the design competition?? This thing is sweet. You can almost turn this into a sort of exotic Shooting Brake design with that rear end. If the side vents cool enough and if you can route the Intercooler exit duct above those sweet high-exit exhausts you can have a bit storage area on top of the engine.

Too bad this won't make it to market but who knows, David keeps saying that it's just 30 days to production with their new CAD method. Perhaps if they can template the panel to chassis fitment, new designs can be rolled out as a custom order or something. On top of that, if they are paintless panels, maybe they can pop on and off like the "swatch watch" thing David brought up.

Pretty sure that's not what he meant but hey, here's to dreaming.

Very nice work here!

[VTX]

Dang it dude! Where we're you during the design competition?? This thing is sweet. You can almost turn this into a sort of exotic Shooting Brake design with that rear end. If the side vents cool enough and if you can route the Intercooler exit duct above those sweet high-exit exhausts you can have a bit storage area on top of the engine.

Too bad this won't make it to market but who knows, David keeps saying that it's just 30 days to production with their new CAD method. Perhaps if they can template the panel to chassis fitment, new designs can be rolled out as a custom order or something. On top of that, if they are paintless panels, maybe they can pop on and off like the "swatch watch" thing David brought up.

Pretty sure that's not what he meant but hey, here's to dreaming.

Very nice work here!

Thanks LOL. A full time job with a 3 year old and a 1 year old pretty much slowed my progress on this to a snails pace. I actually started it back when the competition started, but I just never got it finished until now. Not to mention that Solidworks is not the ideal software for doing car body design IMHO, but it's what I know (use it every day at work) and it's what I had access to.

It's probably difficult to see, but there are also intake vents right behind the side windows and there are some exhaust vents on the top of the rear hood, just in front of the spoiler. Not to mention the large exhaust vents to the sides of the license plate area. My understanding is you want the exhaust vents larger than the intake to avoid positive pressure and lift under the hood, which is why I designed it this way. I'm just a laymen when it comes to aero though, although I did have my brother's input, who is a fighter pilot in the AF and knows a bit about more about it than I do.

[skullandbones]

VTX,
I would like to ask, did you find the template difficult to work "within"? The reason I ask is that I think some of the designs suffer from the short wheelbase (JMO). I appreciate all your hardwork, especially, with the kids. We had family visiting and I tried keeping up with an 18 month old during the holidays. Forget it! They have limitless energy and curiosity.

I really liked the front and rear perspectives of your rendering. Thanks, WEK.

[VTX]

VTX,
I would like to ask, did you find the template difficult to work "within"? The reason I ask is that I think some of the designs suffer from the short wheelbase (JMO). I appreciate all your hardwork, especially, with the kids. We had family visiting and I tried keeping up with an 18 month old during the holidays. Forget it! They have limitless energy and curiosity.

I really liked the front and rear perspectives of your rendering. Thanks, WEK.

Yes, it was difficult. Particularly the height/wheel base ratio was a challenge. I would have liked the back end to be just a little lower, but my design studies showed that the car would have looked like a "bubble top" IMHO (ie VW Bug) and I wanted to avoid anything that resembled "cute". I think the fact that the slope and height of the rear of my car so closely matches the Exige shows that I am in the right neighborhood for a more aggressive look.

I agree, that I think some of the other car designs also suffer from the short wheelbase, but there are a few that handled it really well and look very nice.

Thank you for the compliments!

[D2W]

We REALLY need some new info from FFR. Now we're bickering about how to 'correctly' design a concept that will never be. :(

So sad yet so true:(

Cool design VTX:)

[sidewinder]

I was speaking purely of styling

ok. so tell me what you know about styling?

[Xusia]

Sidewinder, I am being nice in my comments and sticking to my [unemotional] point, but that comment is uncalled for because it's a personal attack and implies I can't have an opinion about styling if I lack formal training in the area of styling. That's pure garbage and you know it. Furthermore, I've made no comments about the styling itself. My comments have been directed at your analysis, not the styling of the models. If you are going to try and bash me, you will need to do a better job than that, and stick to the topic of my comments.

Since you asked, however, I know the only thing I need to about styling: What I like and what I don't.

[sidewinder]

Sidewinder, I am being nice in my comments and sticking to my [unemotional] point, but that comment is uncalled for because it's a personal attack and implies I can't have an opinion about styling if I lack formal training in the area of styling. That's pure garbage and you know it. Furthermore, I've made no comments about the styling itself. My comments have been directed at your analysis, not the styling of the models. If you are going to try and bash me, you will need to do a better job than that, and stick to the topic of my comments.

Since you asked, however, I know the only thing I need to about styling: What I like and what I don't.

ok. if you percieve this (simple) question as a personal attack, then i apologize for it. actually its not intended that way. actually its a real question - i think its an interesting subject&discussion. try to look at it from the other side: your statements could easily be percieved as an attack/insult/stereotype against a whole group of professionals. you are creating definitions like "design for the masses" and "design not for the masses" ,talk about how to approach results and how to judge on them - thats why i`d like to understand how you come to know all of that.
would you talk the same when the topic was about aeroplane pilots? would you dare to say how they should do their job even if you knew nothing about it? that does not mean you are not allowed to have a personal opinion about flying - but you should accept that pilots do need some professional training, attitude and approach.

btw. as for being nice in your comments - try to re-read them....

[sidewinder]

This is a design I started back during the contest and just didn't have time to finish it until recently. I kept working on it, if nothing else just for fun. Now that it's done I thought I'd throw it up for others to see.

Just a little info about it:

This was modeled in Solidworks. It was important to me that it fit the template, so modeling the template and building the design around that was key. I wanted a design that both looked cool and was realistic.

Height is 47.27" from the ground to the peak of the roof. The tires are 25.5" in diameter and the wheels are 18".

Anyway, hope you like it.




i think i alread said it but again - dont feel offended by the hard words. i just meant to be clear and to provide reasons for my perception.
the quality of the modeling clearly shows your passion for this topic and - again - i see and appreciate that.
therfor i`d like to know how you came to this result? can you post some ideation sketches/renderings? are there variations of this concept? what did you try out before heading for and during elabration of this solution? thx

[VTX]

i think i alread said it but again - dont feel offended by the hard words. i just meant to be clear and to provide reasons for my perception.
the quality of the modeling clearly shows your passion for this topic and - again - i see and appreciate that.
therfor i`d like to know how you came to this result? can you post some ideation sketches/renderings? are there variations of this concept? what did you try out before heading for and during elabration of this solution? thx

I'm not offended. I knew when I posted it that I was opening myself up to criticism, so that's fine. Personally, I think the design is really nice. Of course I'm biased, but the fact that I like it is all that really matters to me.

I have a lot of sketches, but honestly I don't really want to take the time to dig them all up, scan them and post them.

[Oppenheimer]

This is not the first time on this forum someone in the design industry has gotten all in a tizzy feeling someone is berating their community. Yes, we get its a profession, we get doing it well requires knowledge and experience. We get there are rules about design. But get this, all your design, all your architecture, its purpose is to appeal to us, the consumer. When you design, are you trying to impress those who will pay for your work, or just others in your field?

A dirty little secret is we, the 99% not in the design industry, we like what we like. We don't always have good reasons why, and sometimes our reasons directly conflict with what is considered in your industry to be the rules. Sorry about that, but we can't help it. And we are the ones that will pay (or not) for your work. So even though you may not like it, you have to learn to deal with it. This forum is made up mostly of people not in the design industry, but there are several of you that are, and its great that you are here. We can learn a lot from you. We will try better to understand and respect you. But understand that we are still going to like or not like something, and not be shy about saying it, even when it doesn't align with the rules of design.

So go ahead and tell us about when something is 'good' or 'bad' per design rules, and why, but please don't sound like you need to school us on it. That won't go over well.

[Xusia]

ok. if you percieve this (simple) question as a personal attack, then i apologize for it. actually its not intended that way. actually its a real question - i think its an interesting subject&discussion. try to look at it from the other side: your statements could easily be percieved as an attack/insult/stereotype against a whole group of professionals.

I'm really don't think my criticism of your analysis technique would offend a whole group of professionals, but just in case, I'll apologize to anyone who may have been offended. You included.


you are creating definitions like "design for the masses" and "design not for the masses"

I didn't create any definitions, nor was I trying to. "Designed for the masses" is a phrase, whose meaning is defined by the individual words contained in the phrase. Although I didn't ever use that exact phrase, I did use "for the masses" and just the word "masses" in several posts. However there was never any hidden meaning, and to me that phrase seems self explanatory. In case not, let me clarify: If something is "for the masses", it is for the majority. In this case, my implication was the majority of car buyers. This could also be construed as meaning the "average" car buyer. In my case, either would be a correct and accurate interpretation.


talk about how to approach results and how to judge on them - thats why i`d like to understand how you come to know all of that.

Judging the results of styling seems fairly straightforward: Look at the target group (part of my point what that the target group for this car is NOT the "average" car buyer; i.e. not "the masses") and gauge how they like the styling. That can be done in a myriad different ways.

I don't know what you are asking by "how I came to know all of that" because I didn't imply or impart any particular knowledge. Again, what I did say was that "...you have what I would term a rule book (aka formula) for what constitutes appropriate/good/appealing (whatever you want to call it) styling, which you use to criticize the style of designs, and which *I* do not believe is applicable here because this car isn't for the masses.' It doesn't have to appeal to the average person, because that's not who it's being designed for. As a whole, I think this group is looking for something truly unique; something OUTSIDE the norm. You aren't going to get that by following the 'safe' route using formulas or rule books for automotive styling."

All of that is opinion and not fact. So how I came to know it is I thought and felt it.


would you talk the same when the topic was about aeroplane pilots? would you dare to say how they should do their job even if you knew nothing about it? that does not mean you are not allowed to have a personal opinion about flying - but you should accept that pilots do need some professional training, attitude and approach.

Their job is flying a plane and has nothing to do with styling, so the two are not even comparable. Now, if they were flying in way that I didn't like as a passenger, then yes, I could see myself being critical and/or saying something. I'm open minded enough that if they have a good reason, I'm all ears - and I'd honestly like to understand. And if there is a good reason, they should no problem being transparent and explaining it. But I'm not going to just trust that simply because they are a pilot they know what they are doing - or that they are good at it. I'm old enough to know better.

I do accept that pilots need training. The type of training a fighter pilot receives is different from that of a passenger jet pilot. The proper way to fly each of those types of planes is different as well. What constitutes "crazy" flying in a passenger plane might be perfectly reasonable in a fighter jet. So, to extrapolate this example to our discussion (that is, to say it another way), I think you are criticizing the fighter jet pilot for how he flies a fighter jet, but you are using the rules for how a passenger plane should be flown.


btw. as for being nice in your comments - try to re-read them....

I did. Before every post actually. They are too the point, unemotional, and they do not attack you as a person. Yes, I criticized your evaluation technique, but I never attacked your or questioned your credentials, your right to have an opinion, or anything else.

[sidewinder]

This is not the first time on this forum someone in the design industry has gotten all in a tizzy feeling someone is berating their community. Yes, we get its a profession, we get doing it well requires knowledge and experience. We get there are rules about design. But get this, all your design, all your architecture, its purpose is to appeal to us, the consumer. When you design, are you trying to impress those who will pay for your work, or just others in your field?

A dirty little secret is we, the 99% not in the design industry, we like what we like. We don't always have good reasons why, and sometimes our reasons directly conflict with what is considered in your industry to be the rules. Sorry about that, but we can't help it. And we are the ones that will pay (or not) for your work. So even though you may not like it, you have to learn to deal with it. This forum is made up mostly of people not in the design industry, but there are several of you that are, and its great that you are here. We can learn a lot from you. We will try better to understand and respect you. But understand that we are still going to like or not like something, and not be shy about saying it, even when it doesn't align with the rules of design.

So go ahead and tell us about when something is 'good' or 'bad' per design rules, and why, but please don't sound like you need to school us on it. That won't go over well.

thank you. yes, i maybe happen to be outspoken - during professional teamwork these discussions are not percieved as an argument. actually it is necessary to be clear in order to help the project moving forward. i can tell you that its exactly the projects that are built exclusively out of "greatgreatgreat" sayers that happen to look like fiat multiplas in the end. or they end up with everybody saying "interesting" and/or "truly unique" BUT not buying it.
thank you for reminding me that not everybody knows that around here. i will try to be precise AND kind. ;)

[VTX]

Sidewinder,

I gather that you are in the field of car design? I saw that you did some nice alternatives to Rodney's design. I'd be curious to see what a professional car designer would do to modify my design if you don't mind.

By the way, can we start a new thread to argue about the "design for the masses" argument, or whatever it is? Not taking sides, I think both you and Xusia have made some valid points, but I'd like to keep this thread about my design. Thank you.

[skullandbones]

I don't want to quote anyone but there was a discussion about "rules" and "style". I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I interpreted that the poster was saying "think outside the box" with regard to styling. I don't think there was any intent to say "not follow the rules" really.

I have been in process improvement so one rule is that if there is a constraint you have to work around the constraint and settle for the results. However, it is better to do away with the constraint and result in a better project or product. I asked VTX about wheelbase and he was honest about the difficulty it created for the process. Still focusing on this thread: I think changing the rule, in this case, and lenghten the wheelbase 2 to 4 in would alleviate a real problem with many of the designs. I apologize in advance if I missed the conversation about this but I wasn't here in Feb to June and have not seen anything about that discussion (haven't had much luck searching on this forum). I think FFR would be wise to look at that alternative.

I can not see how this would increase kit cost unless the margin is that thin. In which case, it will go up pretty soon after production which p***es of customers. I think the weight would not be affected greatly, the functionality would not be altered, and the multipanel construction process would only affect a few of the panels (each a little). But I can see a great positive effect of relieving the wheelbase to height ratio which VTM eluded to.

My main concern asking for such a change is the feeling I have gotten when looking at several of the designs. I get a "gokartish" sort of taste in my mouth which is pretty bitter! I think that has something to do with style but also something the designer cannot control because of the constraint. Remove the constaint and the problems start to go away. That's my opinion. So in summary, I want the feel of the 918 but much cheaper. WEK.

[VTX]

It would certainly be interesting to see how 2-4in would change the designs. However, IIRC Dave said something along the lines of FFR being very rigid in following that specific wheel base, width, etc.

[skullandbones]

I had a feeling that might be the case where the design is supposed to fit into a certain racing niche but if this is truely a "world car", racing is only a portion of that concept. It would seem to me that the larger share of the market (cars sold) would be street/comp, high mpg, etc. With all the stuff going on with regard to design changes, it's worth mentioning, IMO. Thanks, WEK.

[Xusia]

Sidewinder,

I gather that you are in the field of car design? I saw that you did some nice alternatives to Rodney's design. I'd be curious to see what a professional car designer would do to modify my design if you don't mind.

By the way, can we start a new thread to argue about the "design for the masses" argument, or whatever it is? Not taking sides, I think both you and Xusia have made some valid points, but I'd like to keep this thread about my design. Thank you.

VTX,

I'm terribly sorry. Please accept my apologies. I won't respond in regards to that subject any more. And now back to your regular programming...

[VTX]

VTX,

I'm terribly sorry. Please accept my apologies. I won't respond in regards to that subject any more. And now back to your regular programming...

No problem, I appreciate it!

[crash]

It wouldn't be the first time that a wheelbase issue has popped up in an FFR car. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE what FFR has built, but I simply don't understand the love affair with short wheel bases. It makes for a nightmare of packaging things, and doesn't help the handling one bit except for the ultra tight stuff. First thing I did when I received my FFR body was to say that it needed a couple inches here, and a couple inches there to "work". 200 hours or so later, and I am still itching...on a daily basis!

[kach22i]

.............. but I simply don't understand the love affair with short wheel bases.
I think that it has to do with handling and turns.

Make the wheelbase too short as in the first several years of Porsche 911 production or the Lancia Stratos, and it tends to swap ends and spin like a top.

Make the wheelbase too long and it tends to drive like a pick up truck, lagging around corners dragging it's rear end around like a fat lady.

Luxury cars like longer wheelbases for a smooth ride, Jeeps and such like short wheelbases for obstacle clearance.

When they race the Caddy CTS, the rule makers allowed them to take a couple inches out of the middle so they could keep up with and beat BMW's and Porsche's. When a race car is brought to street car market often a couple of inches are added to the wheelbase.

Example - to stay competitive Ferrari shorten the wheelbase:
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z11439/Ferrari-250-LM.aspx

A few years prior, in 1963, the first 250 LM had made its official debut at the Paris Motorshow. Ferrari had attempted to homologate the vehicle for racing but was unsuccessful. Ferrari's struggle to homologate the 250 GT began in 1954 when their 250 LWB, meaning long wheel base, had dominated the competition. This continued through 1959 with the introduction of the 250 SWB, meaning short wheel base. In 1962 Ferrari introduced the 250 GTO and the legacy continued. ............................

This one-off creation with chassis number 6025 was created by Pininfarina as a road car. The wheelbase was lengthened to 2600 mm allowing more interior space for its occupants. This was untraditional for a Ferrari automobile since even their road-worth cars were still intended to be raced. By expanding its wheelbase, Pininfarina was well on the way to producing a luxury automobile. Extra space was cut into the roof allowing more head room for the passengers as they entered and exited the vehicle.

I am no expert on this topic, and offer examples only as an attempt to explain the physics involved. There are of course exceptions to the rules and using only examples can mislead if misunderstood. I ask you to imagine driving both long and short wheelbase cars (in anger), better yet; if you can actually do so (without endangering yourself and others on the road) get yourself some experience with both.

[skullandbones]

I wonder if FFR has thought about a variable length "jig" for the 818 chassis? They do it in the motorcycle industry to stretch the frames. I don't see it as a big issue. That way they could produce long or short wheelbase models without creating different production lines. Also, the multiple panel body process would lend itself to a more adaptable production line (Very LEAN process).

Re: the wheelbase, I was interested in seeing VTX's version stretched for style and the wheelbase to height ratio (difficult to accomplish-paraphase). I don't think there would be any loss of nimbleness or handling with that small of a change. At least, it would be going in the right direction as far as reducing the tendency to swap ends like a jeep. Is there any chance of seeing a stretched version? WEK.

[Xusia]

I think FFR is on the right track with the short wheel base. I did a quick comparison to 3 cars I've personally driven that I think handled exceptionally well, and they have wheelbases of 90.7, 91.0 and 97.1 inches. Given that, I'm not sure I'd want them to increase the wheelbase very much. I'd rather compromise on looks. Personally, I don't care if other people don't like the look of it. They'll only be seeing it from the back anyhow! ;)

EDIT: I think the car can be made to look good with the 95" wheelbase. The Elise/Exige is a good example. I think it's a hot looking little car. I'm not suggesting FFR make the car look like an Elise/Exige, just stating you *can* make a car look good on a 95" wheelbase.

[skullandbones]

I think you are right. Any wheelbase around 95 to 97 would work well. The best one I ever drove was a roadster with a Corvette chassis (stock). I moved the big block back 10 inches and down 6 inches to fit in the body and it rode like it was on rails. Neutral steering thru tight even negative curves at 60 to 80. But this is a different animal. I wouldn't argue the performance characteristics but I still think a little stretch relieves the wheelbase to height ratio issue that some models have suffered. I want the supercar look and the performance for me first. But it doesn't hurt for others to like it too. It appears that there are a lot of subjective views for the styling (understatement!). It will be interesting to see what develops. WEK.

[Oppenheimer]

EDIT: I think the car can be made to look good with the 95" wheelbase. The Elise/Exige is a good example. I think it's a hot looking little car. I'm not suggesting FFR make the car look like an Elise/Exige, just stating you *can* make a car look good on a 95" wheelbase.

...and the P Cayman. An especially interesting compare, as its also a mid-boxer.

Of course, not everyone is going to think these examples look 'good' (wait, do we need a professional designer to tell us if its good?), but I think the point is made. These similar WB designs are great performing cars, and their looks are appealing to many (of target audience), and not unlikable enough to others to impede sales.

[Xusia]

I think you are right. Any wheelbase around 95 to 97 would work well. The best one I ever drove was a roadster with a Corvette chassis (stock). I moved the big block back 10 inches and down 6 inches to fit in the body and it rode like it was on rails. Neutral steering thru tight even negative curves at 60 to 80. But this is a different animal. I wouldn't argue the performance characteristics but I still think a little stretch relieves the wheelbase to height ratio issue that some models have suffered. I want the supercar look and the performance for me first. But it doesn't hurt for others to like it too. It appears that there are a lot of subjective views for the styling (understatement!). It will be interesting to see what develops. WEK.

Given my understanding of the goals for this design, as well as some of the challenges the various design professionals have expressed, I think a supercar look is most likely out. And if you think about it, FFR already has that with the GTM.

[sidewinder]

Sidewinder,

I'd be curious to see what a professional car designer would do to modify my design if you don't mind.



hi vtx, this is what i did during lunchbreak yesterday. its intended to just roughly highlight some basic opportunities to group & tidy some elements.
a main chamfer now connects the front wing to the rest of the car and ends up in the taillights. the car is supposed to be a bit more balanced and to look lower.
as for the lights. i think nowadays its just a matter of internet research to find a convenient supplier of led taillights. shouldn`t be impossible. (btw. lifecycle of led`s is 100 times higher and weight is much lower)
i wish i had more time to go deeper into this challenging volume. let me know what you think.

7372

[mekeys]

I for One like the revisions that sidewinder did of the VTX.I liked it before,but now I like it even better.

Mel

[Psay]

hi vtx, this is what i did during lunchbreak yesterday. its intended to just roughly highlight some basic opportunities to group & tidy some elements.
a main chamfer now connects the front wing to the rest of the car and ends up in the taillights. the car is supposed to be a bit more balanced and to look lower.
as for the lights. i think nowadays its just a matter of internet research to find a convenient supplier of led taillights. shouldn`t be impossible. (btw. lifecycle of led`s is 100 times higher and weight is much lower)
i wish i had more time to go deeper into this challenging volume. let me know what you think.

7372

That looks much better. I particulary like the way you have blended in the flared arches.

It looked great before, but now its just that bit better.

[olpro]

I am operating out of my vacation home, without the proper computer and art supplies, so this attempt will be a little marginal. Nonetheless here are some ideas to consider. I have not tried to redo the design concept itself, just its execution.
This would represent a first draft of changes, intended to enhance and correct some issues of the original - which comes off as a bit cartoony, kind of like a Hot Wheels version.

By the way, a good test of a side view is to reverse it, showing the RIGHT side instead of the left. For some hard to explain reason, the right-hand side usually looks like it has more wedge and is more extreme in proportion.

A second round of mods might look at restoring some of the quirkyness of the original because the first round, although slicker, can tend to make it more conventional. In particular, the length of the cabin glass has tended to get a little short and less “cab-forward”.
7375

[Xusia]

I like the exhaust location on sidewinder's version, and I like how the arch connects the front wheel arch to the tail lights. I do prefer the actual tail lights from the original though.

Sidewinder, it looks like the entire rear is a large piece of glass; kinda like a hatchback. Is that what you intended or just an artifact of the rendering? It's an idea I hadn't considered before that could have a positive impact on aerodynamics.

[VTX]

hi vtx, this is what i did during lunchbreak yesterday. its intended to just roughly highlight some basic opportunities to group & tidy some elements.
a main chamfer now connects the front wing to the rest of the car and ends up in the taillights. the car is supposed to be a bit more balanced and to look lower.
as for the lights. i think nowadays its just a matter of internet research to find a convenient supplier of led taillights. shouldn`t be impossible. (btw. lifecycle of led`s is 100 times higher and weight is much lower)
i wish i had more time to go deeper into this challenging volume. let me know what you think.

7372

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

A couple of thoughts and opinions:

1. I like what you did with the chamfer that connects to the rear of the car. That's a nice touch.

2. It looks to me like the wheels are a bit larger than the 18's that I put on it. It looks like they are maybe 20". I would guess that the majority of people are going to like that look better. Personally, I am not a fan. Not to mention that from a performance perspective that 20" wheels are not ideal. Also, I am not a fan of chrome at all. Especially on sports cars and especially on wheels. Again, just my personal opinion, and I would guess I am in the minority on that and most people would like your look better. Of course wheels can be easily changed.

3. The tail lights look nice. Reminds me of Audi or even the 918. However, I would guess that custom LED tail lights are not going to fit the budget, based on the experience I have with LED lighting systems in my career. I could be wrong, I have never designed an LED tail light system, but I have done some other LED lighting and custom tooling projects (unrelated to car design). FFR would probably know best. Part of my reasoning for the circular tail lights is I thought there would be a better chance of finding a ready made part. It definitely looks cool the way you've rendered them though.

Overall, I think it looks nice and you clearly have excellent design skills. Thanks again for taking the time.

[kach22i]

I tried to correct for height, I did like the reasoning and solutions olpro came up with.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i-olpro-redocopy.jpg

I also tried to reverse some of the changes sidewinder made to VTX's design to see what happens.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile/kach22i_vtx_0103.jpg

[sidewinder]

I like the exhaust location on sidewinder's version, and I like how the arch connects the front wheel arch to the tail lights. I do prefer the actual tail lights from the original though.

Sidewinder, it looks like the entire rear is a large piece of glass; kinda like a hatchback. Is that what you intended or just an artifact of the rendering? It's an idea I hadn't considered before that could have a positive impact on aerodynamics.

yes, its intended to be glass/transparent. a bit like on the maserati birdcage so that you could see the golden ;) cage and the beautiful engine (maybe a veyron/carrera gt like cover directly on the engine could be designed?)
if i have some time next week i will try to provide some sketches.

[mekeys]

"George..I tried to correct for height"
I measured your drawing with my dial calipers, the W.B. of 5.8" divided by 95" means 1" equals .0610 then the height of your measurement to 48" comes out to be 52" I am viewing my screen at 150%..So the top of the body on your drawing is also too high..I do think that the line over the rear fender should be added with a very slight curve to it..And I still think the the overall height could be even lower than the Template.To about 45"

Mel :)

[kach22i]

........... 48" comes out to be 52"
I guess that is part of the problem going from 24" tall tires to 26" and then applying a ratio and proportion method. The result will be 4" taller as noted.

Also note that 48" is template height, my studies have lead me to believe that 51-52 inches is more realistic with stock seats and rails. All designs may have to 3 inches taller than currently modeled and illustrated. I firmly believe that a "good" design will survive such a modification.