Would it honestly hurt to loosen the dimension requirements just a little?

[dclin]

I realize that it's important to stick to goals, but I really think that the wookie compatibility (WC) requirement and the compactness of the chassis (which I'll simplify with just one of the measurements - wheelbase of 95") makes for WC/HoF conflicts. Obviously, looks are a completely subjective thing, but there is a lot of friendly discussion about any given design meeting the design template. On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to deny our wookie friends the ability to enjoy what will undoubtedly be a fun package for the selfish reason of wanting something to look a certain way.

I'm no engineer, so it's not my place to question Jim's design, but I'm curious why every other world class sports car does not shares the same specs? Does the wheel base really have to, for example, absolutely be 95"? Would increasing the wheelbase 3% to around 97-98" really be a detriment to handling? Or is it a production issue? Blowing up the entire Rodney design by 3% would increase the overall height by almost inch and a half which, in the context of headroom of a car, is huge. The same would apply to any of the other designs as well, and really let the artists keep the proportions that want, but make it easier to achieve WC status.

My other fav is Shawn's design and, while it seems to be even less WC, a little loosening of the strict requirements (given that Shawn appears unwilling or not have the time to tweak his design) would allow it to get that much closer. If so, maybe Shawn would then make the effort to tweak it.

[Xusia]

I hear you, and for the record, I don't have an opinion on the proper wheelbase, though I will admit nearly all of the best handling cars I've driven had wheel bases of LESS than 96". That leads me to believe 95" is probably pushing it, and there is some real world reason to keep it within a certain limit. Wheelbase isn't the real issue here, though.

The real issue is ensuring an appealing body design. On that issue I have 2 points:
1. Dave has made several statements about this, and is OBVIOUSLY committed to a design that is awesome.
2. Increasing space doesn't have to result in an increase in wheelbase. Using the example above of "Blowing up the entire Rodney design by 3%" could be done while keeping the 95" wheelbase. Where the wheels sit within the overall design would necessarily need to change in that scenario, but that doesn't inherently ruin the design (shape, proportions, etc.).

So let's have some faith and not get worked up about details that don't exist yet... :)

[Draco-REX]

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?3962-Design-Model-O-s-Feedback-and-Suggestions&p=50918&viewfull=1#post50918

[bromikl]

The 95" wheelbase was chosen as a specific ratio of track-width-to-wheelbase. The track width is fixed (not changing) by the donor's transaxle. I don't know what the ratio is or why it exists exactly - other than it has something to do with handling. But I can guarantee you, the wheelbase will be 95" as stated from the first day.

Cabin width will be relatively narrow, as it will be entirely inboard the wheels, unlike production cars and the GTM. This keeps costs, weight and complexity to a minimum. Early on we discussed storage in the doors, and that is still a possibility.

If I were Dave, I'd make more than one body - not three variations of the same body. That seems to be the plan, anyway. Even if only one of them is wookie-compatible, that would satisfy nearly everyone. Any non-wookies can choose the body style with the highest HoF quotient(in their opinion.) Wookies can choose either a no-roof version of any body style - or the one style that fits them.

Another way to make a low car wookie-compatible is to bring the pedals forward. This would result in Italian sports car style seating. I haven't seen much discussion about this possibility. It could be an additional cost option for wookies. But I have no idea how difficult it would be to engineer two different seating positions into the same - or similar - frames.

[JRL]

Wheelbase has less to do with cornering capability than track width. in simple terms wheelbase affects longitudinal weight transfer and is directly tied to the CG. Short wheelbase cars are more likely to be twitchy at higher speed unless the cg is properly located. Track width in a street car is typically determined by the width need to accommodate a specific drivetrain. The assumption that 95" wheelbase = "Best Handling" is simply wrong. Think Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Viper the list is endless.

All this wookie talk is puzzling. I have owned several short wheelbase cars some in the 92" range that would accommodate drivers from 5' to 6'- 5" without problems. Properly designed and packaged a 95" wheelbase should work for most.

[JRL]

The starting point ratio for TW to WB is typically 1.6 to 1

[PhyrraM]

All this wookie talk is puzzling. I have owned several short wheelbase cars some in the 92" range that would accommodate drivers from 5' to 6'- 5" without problems. Properly designed and packaged a 95" wheelbase should work for most.

The notion is that a car tall enough for a Wookie(tm) will look odd* with a 95" wheelbase.

*odd apparently means non-supercarish.

[JRL]

The notion is that a car tall enough for a Wookie(tm) will look odd* with a 95" wheelbase.

*odd apparently means non-supercarish.

I don't know - a Porsche 911 has a short WB and I have seen some very large folks drive them without trouble. The key is packaging / design.

[PhyrraM]

I don't know - a Porsche 911 has a short WB and I have seen some very large folks drive them without trouble. The key is packaging / design.

I agree. I was attempting to summarize the themes expressed by many in these forums.

[kach22i]

I don't know - a Porsche 911 has a short WB and I have seen some very large folks drive them without trouble. The key is packaging / design.
Yep.


http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?3962-Design-Model-O-s-Feedback-and-Suggestions&p=50918&viewfull=1#post50918

Yep.

When I made up a clay car 5 or 6 years ago, it had the same wheelbase as the 818. The wheel size and rear overhang were different, but the height was the same.

[RM1SepEx]

Dave clearly stated in earlier posts that dimensions could change... He stated that it was very easy due to the software's capabilities...

Just hold tight, spring is coming, progress is being made offline and we will see something relatively soon. Trust that F5 will get this right

wookies must assume that they may need to be a bit more creative in seat angle how knees are folded and removing padding and or seat rails to fit in such a small car

[Dave Smith]

Jim, Jesper and I had a long conversation about the 818 project and the discourse on the forum is helpful in some ways, but really we won't be able to make everyone happy. I like to think of this car as a "platform"... maybe in more ways than all our other cars combined. With this platform we can make changes and look at different apllications, body shapes and purposes. That is cool. Still we have to focus the launch on a single model first and get in the game. The computer revolution makes alot more possible.

[N8Salem]

Definitely need a longer wheelbase.

[leetfade]

The only value I see in bumping this old thread is to see Dave's response there. As much as they'd like to make everyone happy, they can't. They need to release a version to get out there and then look at opportunities for refinement / alteration.

I would think that things like wheelbase are locked in now for at least the first iteration.

[N8Salem]

well then it's going to handle like a rally car instead of the g machine it should be.

I think Dave should see this for some inspiration, if we leave it on top.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ToyotaEagleMkIII.html

[StatGSR]

Definitely need a longer wheelbase.

Seriously? looks like your a little late to the party bud...

[NonProfit]

Definitely need a longer wheelbase.

Buy a kit, then grab your cutting torch and have at it.

[projectrally]

Mid-engine layout can do a lot for making wookies comfortable. Since there's no transmission running through the car and no need to push the front mounted engine as far rearward as possible for weight balance, you can get a much deeper, wider foot box than a FR layout would allow in the same size car. Given FFR's history with simple interiors (and the 818's low price point) I think it's safe to assume that there won't be an over-abundance of dash and console occupying the passenger compartment. And last I checked, it's going to have miles of headroom.

[N8Salem]

Buy a kit, then grab your cutting torch and have at it.

I think I'll wait until Dave does it first, he mentioned there would be changes in the future, just getting it going is the first priority, so I'll wait until everyone else buys the kit and funds the kit I want ;)