818 Update and Subi-Fest Tomorrow

[Dave Smith]

Hey guys,

Obviously apologies for my long absence. Business at Factory Five has been booming and progress on the 818 has been steady. I decided a while ago to pull our horns in and get serious work done on the 818 without undue public posts. The 818 has generated a tremendous amount of attention and my number one job has been to make sure that it is designed, engineered, and built on time and meets the lofty design goals that we set forth. I hope you understand.

UPDATE:

Tomorrow, our neighbors AJW Performance will be hosting the New England Subaru Club and we will be supporting the event with car show parking and tours. Factory Five Director of R&D Jim Schenckwill be here to answer questions on the 818 and the driving go-kart sans body will be on display (unseen up to now).

To date, we have been driving and testing the chassis, suspension, brakes, and vehicle dynamics. The first production version composite body shape is in the manufacturing process and we are building production tools 100$ from CAD files.

http://www.factoryfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/818body.jpg

The completed vehicle will be unveiled at the 2012 SEMA Show this November. Production will begin shortly thereafter in 2013. I hope to production at this time next year.

I may publish full dimensionally accurate CAD file photos of the final body shape that will serve as the first 818 version. It will be a roadster and it will have a convertible soft top at launch. The attached image is one of the final body designs substrate. More information to come and if you have a chance, please stop by tomorrow from 10 am to 1 pm and support our partners at AJW.

http://www.factoryfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/subaru.jpg

[NonProfit]

Thanks for the update Dave! This is great news.

[Gary in NJ]

Thanks for the update Dave. I love the shape of the red CAD model.

[Xusia]

AWESOME news!

[D2W]

Thanks for the pop-in, this is exactly the kind of tidbits I love. Now since I'm way to far away to drop by tomorrow how about giving us out-of towners a sneak peak at the chassis and some driving impressions?

[Twinspool]

Goddang but you guys are doing it up right. What a time to be a gearhead!

Looking forward to the go-cart reports and more.

[Doc_FFR]

I will very interested to see what the real CAD files look like (like all of you are I'm sure).
Hoping for HoF!

[RM1SepEx]

Great news, not sure that I can be there tomorrow though!

the body shape looks sweet and I'll be stepping up for the convertible top too! The top is very important for trip capability.

I like that my donor is in transit... now to pull her apart and get to cleaning everything up and doing some serious powder coating.

Any ideas on colors Dave? I'll need some idea for the powder coating contrast though the semi gloss black always looks nice and the wrinkle looks great on engine covers etc...

[FinishlineWRX]

Thanks for the update. Cant wait to see it at SEMA this year... And start my own build next year.

[Doc_FFR]

the body shape looks sweet

That picture is not of the real body shape. That's design number four, and in my observation, the least popular of the design finalists. The real body shape is pending, as Dave said in his post.

[ScottKoschwitz]

Thanks for the update! Like many others, my visits to the site have curtailed over the last few months, while we wait for information.

I wish I could attend tomorrow. (Even my wife has been asking when we're going to Factory Five again, after attending last year's open house.) I hope you post pictures and, ideally, video of the kart.

Speaking of open house, has this year's been scheduled? Do you plan to have any specific 818 announcements or unveilings then?

[kach22i]

Cool man.

The rear wheel arch opening looked larger than the front when marking this up, almost like larger wheels on the rear. Might be a perspective thing, odd but I'll get over it. This made the rear tire look larger too, maybe somebody else will figure it out.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/kach-051112-hand-mark-up.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/kach-2-ffr-818-jims.jpg

EDIT
Earlier studies I did - long after the contest:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/kach-jim-return-blurr.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/2-revised-818-11x17.jpg
Today 05/12/12:
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/Overlay-ffr-818-computer-side.jpg
http://www.factoryfive.com/kits/project-818/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/ffr-818-computer-side.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/GRID-818-11x17.jpg

[0100]

Thanks for the update!

I like the red CAD model.

[slopoke]

looking forward to go-kart videos .... lots and lots of them ... and THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!!!!!

[Flamshackle]

thanks Dave for the update :~)

CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE GO KART VIDS!

[imom]

I had almost lost hope of any updates soon. I've been silently watching almost daily since Dec. last year. I also made plans to buy a BRZ or some other car as I didn't see any progress posted. I know FFR has been working hard, but lack of information is like being locked in a room without a clock and no environmental input (I've never been in lock up if you're wondering)... you kinda lose track of what's real. I'm glad to see the new updates... even better that it will not only be a roadster, but a convertible so it can be a daily driver ( I hope I'm not reading too much into what Dave have posted). I would really love to see this car in a coupe version... Dang... back to the drawing board on what new car to buy and how to plan this with what FFR is doing. Thanks for the update.

[wjfawb0]

Looks good. Thanks for the update.

[riptide motorsport]

Its nice but I still see too much MR2, not really HOF..................I'll wait for Xabiers and I'll paint it silver and bllod red just like the design pictures submitted......Steven

[StatGSR]

Some one take a rough measurment from the front of the crank pulley to the firewall! I wana know if the ez h6 has a chance of going in as is!

[slopoke]

If there's at least an inch, you're golden .... I need a napkin

[Stickshift84]

I want to thank Dave and Jim for allowing me to see the go-cart today. Of course I was amongst many, and of that many it seemed most of them were from the Subaru car show and did not know anything of the 818. Just so everyone is aware the go-cart was viewable but only from a distance. They are still working on it and sorting it out. I spoke to Jim for quite some time and I am extremely excited with everything. If anyone wants to know anything about what I saw I will be glad to tell you but most of it should be information you can already find on the forum.

And sorry, no pictures to show.

[shinn497]

do you think anyone will have pics?

Were you able to take a look at the exhuast? I am curious how well aftermarket exhuast pieces will fit (uppipe/downpipe/turboback). Furthermore, was the roll bar single hoop or double hoop?

[Stickshift84]

Not sure if anyone will have pics but I would think someone took some.

The roll bar is a single hoop but revised from the original design and much better in my opinion. Apparently it was designed in its current version to work with the first body. I did ask about it. It angles in on both sides with a smaller straight section at the top if you can picture what I mean. The rear roll supports seem to also have been revised and appear lower.

I talked to Jim on the exhaust. The final exhaust will be determined and fit to the body when ready. Currently the go cart has a custom extension on the turbo which feeds the top section of the factory downpipe with cats. A tip is welded on the end with no muffler currently. Jims words were that it is suprisingly quiet with it set that way but it will not be the final exhaust set-up. As the motor is moved to the back I would not expect anything from the midpipe back to be used from the donor. The uppipe is the factory piece. The engine/transmission in the go-cart is 100% factory WRX donor (2006 sedan) save for the exhaust at this point from what I can tell.

Everyone please remember that the go-cart is still a work in progress and I would wait to see the final details when it is released. Everything looks great at this point though.

Hope that I am not saying anything that I shouldn't. Just so excited...

[flytosail]

Thanks.

[miznitic]

If that's what it looks like, then I'm definitely not interested. If I wanted an MR2, I would buy an MR2.

[shinn497]

Not sure if anyone will have pics but I would think someone took some.

The roll bar is a single hoop but revised from the original design and much better in my opinion. Apparently it was designed in its current version to work with the first body. I did ask about it. It angles in on both sides with a smaller straight section at the top if you can picture what I mean. The rear roll supports seem to also have been revised and appear lower.

I talked to Jim on the exhaust. The final exhaust will be determined and fit to the body when ready. Currently the go cart has a custom extension on the turbo which feeds the top section of the factory downpipe with cats. A tip is welded on the end with no muffler currently. Jims words were that it is suprisingly quiet with it set that way but it will not be the final exhaust set-up. As the motor is moved to the back I would not expect anything from the midpipe back to be used from the donor. The uppipe is the factory piece. The engine/transmission in the go-cart is 100% factory WRX donor (2006 sedan) save for the exhaust at this point from what I can tell.

Everyone please remember that the go-cart is still a work in progress and I would wait to see the final details when it is released. Everything looks great at this point though.

Hope that I am not saying anything that I shouldn't. Just so excited...

so the up pip and down pipe are stock that is good. Also it seems that the downpipe goes right to the muffler. This should make the exhaust much better flowing. Expected but good news. We'll have to see about the roll bar. I hope it looks good. Angled does sound more aggresive. Since you talked with jim, can you provide any more tidbits? Did he mention performance.

@miznitic

dave has been kind of cryptic as to what the final body has been on. He keeps posting jim's design (and modified versions of it) but has been on record as saying that that design isn't the final model. I would reserve your judgments until the car has been released. Your criticism has been very common and that design has been universally panned. I am pretty sure that Dave is attentive to the general opinion of it.

My personal prediction is that the final body will look nothing like that, especially in the front end. Then again, I also doubt it will look anything like and of the design winners. I think there has been an issue in that in all of the production materials (e-mails, website, SEMA, etc. etc.) Jim's, universally panned, design has been displayed. I think the reason this has been done is because it is an in-house job and contains most of the functional elements of the car. I'm sure there are several elements of that design that are absolutely crucial to the 818's engineering, and this includes its weight, handling, DIY-ness, and price. Anyway, I say to hold one's judgement until the final body is revealed in the flesh. The aesthetics dffer greatly from paper, to CAD model, to internet picture, to video, to real life. And only the last one is really important.

[shim2]

I personally think it looks way too much like the MK3 MR2. The concept design that won 3rd place looks a lot better and I honestly think they should go with that. That being said I'm still very excited about it and I'm sure whatever the final design is it will be great and will pout every bodies doubts to rest.

[FFR-ADV]

Thanks for the update Dave!

Any chance of providing a Solidworks eDrawing of the design (Frame and Body)?
We understand this is still a work in progress.

http://www.edrawingsviewer.com/ed/solidworks-viewer.htm

Congratulations on the progress to Jim and team! Happy go-carting. Looking forward to the videos.

I would be surprised if a full face helmet could hide the test driver's grin.

Cheers!

[Kalstar]

It was a small crowd for sure. One thing that struck me was the wiring. There was A LOT of wiring. That has been a huge draw back from builders of the GTM, hopefully factory five will offer an aftermarket plug and play harness as an upgrade option as the wiring looks as scary has that of my GTM.

[fritts]

Don't shoot me if I'm wrong but here is the one picture I found for the 818 but it appears to be at the FF shop instead of the show.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237490163018199&set=a.237488856351663.38469.106624332771450&type=3&theater

[wallace18]

Thanks for the photo. In referance to lot's of wiring. This is a fuel injected OBD2 drivetrain. They have tons of wires.

[skullandbones]

One of my biggest "fears" was the wiring of my project. So it is not going to change with the 818. I had a basic carb body harness and an aftermarket EFI harness. (also stock transmission harness). They are basically stand alone and only have a few connections that are common. If I were to do it again, I beleive I would go the same route. However, if I did use the stock Subie harness there may be a good reason to stay with the stock one (use of the stock column as an example). It would be good if a few pics could show the various wiring routes and bundles of wire to allow for some objective evaluation as to which way to go. It's obviously cheaper to go with the stock harness but the complexities of all the periferal devices in the vehicle can really complicate matters. Thank you in advance. WEK.

[Kalstar]

Don't shoot me if I'm wrong but here is the one picture I found for the 818 but it appears to be at the FF shop instead of the show.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237490163018199&set=a.237488856351663.38469.106624332771450&type=3&theater

Thats the car, That is the FF5 R&D department. We were kept back about 25feet.

I hope I am not speaking out of key, but Jim said the upper loop of the roll bar will be exposed, the lower braces covered by the double hump body work. He was very tight lipped on the final bady shape, and truthfully its like a woman, the suspense is much better than getting it too easy. The candy is almost always better than the wrapper

[fateo66]

Here is one more picture that I was able to dig up; it's nearly the same as the last pic but a tad better quality.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/craigheon/SUPERMEET%207/DSCF0731.jpg

[Nuul]

Thanks fate, that's a much better pic.

[Horhay]

From a friend:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/MrHorhay/362cc58c.jpg

[BipDBo]

Well, it doesn't sound as if the red car Dave posted is going to be it, but rather just another teaser. The word "substrate" and the question of why more time would be spent on Jim's design, however, make me think that the roadster may go to production as some evolution of this. With that being said, while this is not my favorite design, not HoF, it's not bad. It's a vast improvement over Jim's original car, which was really, in my opinion, a much improved version of Xabier's design.

Aerodynamically, it's checks all of the boxes. It's got a low front end, with what looks to be a properly sized radiator intake and upward discharge. It has a high rear end, which may add a slight bit of down force while possibly giving enough room for some sort of trunk. It even has some nicely curved fenders.

The first thing I don't like about it is the Camry headlights. I really hope that they don't use any existing OEM headlights, because you can always tell where they came from, and it just makes a kit car look well, like a kit car. Taillights can probably be taken from a production car. For the headlights, though, I'd much rather they go with covered rounds like on the GTM or this Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale:
9728

The second thing I still hate is the double humps on the back of the car. For the most part, Jim's hodgepodge design looks to have been morphed into something that flows fairly well. Those humps, however, do not look like they belong at all. They look like a bad aftermarket add-on. If they're going to have the roll bar exposed, why bother with the double humps at all? Why not just have a flat rear end leaving exposed the entire roll bar including the angled support piece? If they do go with the double humps, they need to blend them in a bit better. Smaller would be better, I think. This 2010 concept, again, from Alfa Romeo, is a good example:
9727

The last thing is the intakes on the top of the rear fenders. Why would the engine compartment need 4 intakes? There's no radiator back there, just a need for combustion air, intercooler air and to dissipate a small amount of heat from the engine block. I would think that the side intakes would be enough. The intakes on the top just look tacky to me. If more air flow is needed, just make the side intakes deeper.

[kach22i]

The intakes on the top just look tacky to me.
I agree with everything you have said, the quote above I really agree with.

Have you seen this custom FFR Spyder? Included one image prior to conversion.

[BipDBo]

Have you seen this custom FFR Spyder? Included one image prior to conversion.

Yeah, the Spyder was a great looking car. Personnally, I think it looks much better in the 2nd image the way it went to production without the humps, but at least one person thought otherwise. To each his own.

Those humps are to conceal the angled bars. Concealing those may be more than aesthetic. I'd speculate that they want to conceal them in order to be able to open all of the fiberglass on the rear of the car in one piece on hinges located to the peaks of those humps. That would provide quick engine access on all sides, which would be very nice. If that's the case, I'd say that the humps are more or less a necessity. Keep em, just work on the execution.

[D2W]

BipDBo, I also agree with both posts. The humps don't flow at all but will be a necesity if the rear body work tilts back. The alfa you posted looks much better but I can't see that design working with the roll bar and braces. I've never been a fan of Jim's design, I'm going to be disappointed if its the first release. hopefully it won't slow down sales enough to deter them from producing more versions.

As for the 65 Spyder, the first version with the humps was simply a 65 coupe with the top and rear window removed. A quick design exercise that obviously wasn't good looking. The final design had everything behind the doors redone. A great looking car but they only sold 39 of them over 4-5 years (I not sure of the exact time) before it was discontinued.

[kach22i]

BipDBo,.....The alfa you posted looks much better but I can't see that design working with the roll bar and braces.
The closest submittal to that Alfa I can think of is my own rather retro "Scheme-7" which was influenced by FFR's 65 Spyder.

See the first few images at the top of this page:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Industrial%20Design/?start=100

Roll bars could be worked into this targa design pretty easily in my opinion, but it's all apples to oranges as a comparison.

[D2W]

Yes I like the idea of a Targa bar to cover the rollbar and a flat deck area that stays in place when the rear is tilted or removed. I always thought Xabier's design would work this way.

[imom]

The targa bar seems a bit old school to me. Most modern cars including mine has double loops, one for the passenger and one for the driver. In this particular to this 818 design, it's got two humps on the back, why not make double hump loops as the roll bar protection? If it's a coupe or Targa, I can understand the Targa bar as it follows the shape of the car. A convertible roadster looks pretty bad with Targa bar.

On a different note, I got a feeling FF5 will go into hibernation mode again until closer to sema. Instead of speculation...I'm just going back to silently checking on this website occasionally. Don't like the idea of playing the guessing game of what FF5 is doing with the 818. Just have to wait and see.

[BipDBo]

The closest submittal to that Alfa I can think of is my own rather retro "Scheme-7" which was influenced by FFR's 65 Spyder.

See the first few images at the top of this page:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Industrial%20Design/?start=100

Roll bars could be worked into this targa design pretty easily in my opinion, but it's all apples to oranges as a comparison.

I posted the concept Alfa Romeo not to say that it should be done this way, but to show that camel humps can be done without being so freaking ugly. The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky had decent looking humps. In general, smaller is better, I think. Also, I think that big problem is that they are trying to cover that bar with a hump that is symmetric to the seats I think it would be better to ditch the humps and go with something more like this:
9742

[kach22i]

I posted the concept Alfa Romeo not to say that it should be done this way, but to show that camel humps can be done without being so freaking ugly.
The point about the targa is taken, but you have to admit they work.

I'm glad I posted the 65 Spyder with extra humpage, because I think FFR may have to increase or reshape the humps to match the reconfigured roll bar.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/another-overlay-Cassis-more-than-rolling.jpg

Yes ,the above overlay is terribly inaccurate, but if you know the Chassis and the body substrate...............and put them all together in your head, you just may agree with my conclusion.

Sorry BipDBo, those humps just may be getting bigger on us.

[BipDBo]

Sorry BipDBo, those humps just may be getting bigger on us.
9743

[bnr32jason]

I like the humps, but the rest of the design I dunno.

I was really hoping for something "redonkulous."

Something like a smaller Gumpert Apollo. I mean if I'm going to buy a kit car I don't want it to look like anything else on the road. This design just seems a little too pedestrian. If this ends up being near the final design I guess I'm going back to getting the Superlite Razor.

[Niburu]

there is always the possibilty for a third party designed and built bodies
I might consider paying a couple grand extra for a Xavier or RodneyO body

[shim2]

there is always the possibilty for a third party designed and built bodies
I might consider paying a couple grand extra for a Xavier or RodneyO body

+1 The Xavier design is my favorite.

[kach22i]

+1 The Xavier design is my favorite.
There are some slight clues of X's incorporated into the last image Dave posted.

Sorry that I cropped off the front valance, both take a dip up in the middle.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/markup-Xcar-818.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/818body.jpg

[Xusia]

Kach, seeing the 2 side by side makes me think that even though the first design is a roadster, if it indeed has the humps and the single hoop roll bar, it will look a LOT like a targa. In fact, it seems to me the work required to produce a targa body based on the roadster would be limited to the section above the engine and behind the cockpit. In other words, very little work!

I hope this means a targa would be along shortly after the roadster! :)

[shim2]

Yea I see what you mean. I don't like the side vent. Looks too much like MK3 MR2. Also the fender flare, again too much like the MK3 mr2. Other than that it is very nice and I definitely wouldn't mind having one in my garage. Hopefully they do a targa top in the near future after the roadster.

[Xusia]

What's with all the MR2 hating?!? I've never owned one, but I've always liked the looks of them. I'd prefer the 818 look more exotic than an MR2 (my personal preference), but that doesn't make the MR2 ugly...

[shim2]

What's with all the MR2 hating?!? I've never owned one, but I've always liked the looks of them. I'd prefer the 818 look more exotic than an MR2 (my personal preference), but that doesn't make the MR2 ugly...

I had an mk2. Most MR2 owners strongly dislike the MK3. I never really liked the styling of it. Too girly IMO. I think MK2 MR2 is one of the best styled cars Toyota ever made.

[keys2heaven]

If this is the body.....well, I don't know what to think.

I'll defer my opinion until I see a finished product.

[D2W]

There are some slight clues of X's incorporated into the last image Dave posted.

Sorry that I cropped off the front valance, both take a dip up in the middle.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/markup-Xcar-818.jpg
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/Automobile%202%20-%20Odds%20and%20Ends/818body.jpg

Interesting observations that I hadn't noticed before. There are some definate similiarities but I think the main difference is the balance in proportions between the front and rear. Xabier's has an eveness front to rear while Jim's looks much heavier in the rear, which I don't care for.

[BipDBo]

Interesting observations that I hadn't noticed before. There are some definate similiarities but I think the main difference is the balance in proportions between the front and rear. Xabier's has an eveness front to rear while Jim's looks much heavier in the rear, which I don't care for.

Part of that is aerodynamics and performance. they wanted a low front end, and it looks like they even increased the angle of the radiator to allow for an even lower hood than the design template would allow. Xabier's car has a much higher hood, and to me, looks like a front engine car.

Most of the "heavyness" of the rear end that you speak of is due to the perspective setting on their CAD software. The red car rendering is done with 0 perspective, as if you are looking at it from a mile away through a telescope. Your eye expects to see perspective, and it plays tricks on you, making the rear end look bigger.

[PhyrraM]

Without commenting on FFRs descions on what is currently presented to us, I never got anything but mid-engined out of Xabier's rederings.

[shim2]

Part of that is aerodynamics and performance. they wanted a low front end, and it looks like they even increased the angle of the radiator to allow for an even lower hood than the design template would allow. Xabier's car has a much higher hood, and to me, looks like a front engine car.

Most of the "heavyness" of the rear end that you speak of is due to the perspective setting on their CAD software. The red car rendering is done with 0 perspective, as if you are looking at it from a mile away through a telescope. Your eye expects to see perspective, and it plays tricks on you, making the rear end look bigger.

That's interesting. I never knew that.

[305mouse]

I don't think that Jim's design is what we'll see as a final product. Nobody trolling sites wants to see a bodyless go cart. Just us who have a vested interest in every aspect of the car. They have to show some sort of a body and in my mind they want to keep everything hidden for a big reveal, then it's HOF time. Jim's design was scanned in, they took the little model of Jim's design with them to SEMA. It's just to show for a reference. I saw a BRZ in person for the first time today and I have faith that this will be more HOF than that. It might be misguided faith, but I have it. I think the different rad position will make it easier for the other soon-to-come swatch watch designs.

[Twinspool]

I think MK2 MR2 is one of the best styled cars Toyota ever made.

That's because it was done by Pininfarina.

Italians can make anything look good. It takes Ze Germans to make it competitive.

[Flamshackle]

That's because it was done by Pininfarina.

Italians can make anything look good. It takes Ze Germans to make it competitive.

Haahaha! This is the truth but thanks for the laugh :~)

[Benji]

That's because it was done by Pininfarina.

Italians can make anything look good. It takes Ze Germans to make it competitive.

*COUGH*You mean the British*COUGH* ;)

[flytosail]

That's because it was done by Pininfarina.

Italians can make anything look good. It takes Ze Germans to make it competitive.

Well, they do have the Nürburgring. James May will not be happy.

[kach22i]

Most of the "heavyness" of the rear end that you speak of is due to the perspective setting on their CAD software. The red car rendering is done with 0 perspective, as if you are looking at it from a mile away through a telescope. Your eye expects to see perspective, and it plays tricks on you, making the rear end look bigger.
As I've noted elsewhere, the rear wheel opening is larger, noticeably larger than the front. Is this a distortion of perspective (a computer setting) or an intentional design element for larger wheels in the back?

It is very odd, and if the rear wheel openings are larger (from a bad setting), might not the whole rear end and haunch be larger too?

Things are supposed to get smaller in perspective as the distance increase, however I recently took a photo where this is not true. The Dodge Dart below has wheel openings of equal size, yet the one nearest the camera appears to be smaller. Strange, very strange. My 10X zoom was set at the max setting.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/2012%20PCA%20Parts%20Swap%20SE%20Michigan/?start=20
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x295/kach22i/2012%20PCA%20Parts%20Swap%20SE%20Michigan/dart.jpg

Stock image from Internet - side view:
http://3d-car-shows.com/2012/dodge-dart-at-the-detroit-auto-show/
9777

[NonProfit]

Things are supposed to get smaller in perspective as the distance increase, however I recently took a photo where this is not true. The Dodge Dart below has wheel openings of equal size, yet the one nearest the camera appears to be smaller. Strange, very strange. My 10X zoom was set at the max setting.

I think there is something wonky about the Dart (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2013-dodge-dart-photos-and-info-news-1), here the rear wheel is further away and you get the same effect. 9778

[Twinspool]

*COUGH*You mean the British*COUGH* ;)

Close, Lotus co-developed a chassis, M90 or x-100 or the like but it never went to production.

[kach22i]

I think there is something wonky about the Dart (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2013-dodge-dart-photos-and-info-news-1), here the rear wheel is further away and you get the same effect. 9778
That's not the same effect, that is the normal receding size effect from perspective.

I think there is something about focal length, zoom focal length which can distort things. And it is this distortion we are seeing in the red chassis perspective.

If you compare the side view of the red chassis to the perspective you can see this distortion. In the side view, the rear haunch is not that great, the nose not that low, and the rear wheel well is the same arch size as the front.

[apexanimal]

Hopefully they do a targa top in the near future after the roadster.

dave said in another thread that this was the plan

[BipDBo]

If you compare the side view of the red chassis to the perspective you can see this distortion. In the side view, the rear haunch is not that great, the nose not that low, and the rear wheel well is the same arch size as the front.

This profile shot shows wheel archs fornt and rear the same size,...:
9779
but I think that the later revised versions had slightly larger rear wheel archs in the back, as seen on the faded outlines here:
9780
I measured the wheel arches on this isometric rendering in autocad, and it looks like the top of the rear arch is around 1" higher than on the front, which agrees with the faded front view.
9781


Also, I think that some of the percieved "heavyness" of the rear end has to do with the presence of those humps and the lack of a windshield. I think that a windshield would bring the look of it back ito balance.

Anyway, this is probably much ado about nothing. Dave said that he flushed Jim's design, so my guess is that they will go something entirely different rather than an evolution of this. If they do go with this, however, I think that it will be a lot better looking than we currently think. I think that a finished product of this design would look pretty good in full scale with windshield, wheels, etc. The changes they've made from Jim's original model to this, in my opinion, make it look radically better. If they are going with this evolution of Jim's / Xabier's design, I'm sure that there will be even more improvement between what we see here and the finish product.

[NonProfit]

That's not the same effect, that is the normal receding size effect from perspective.
Not to completely hijack the thread, but if this is caused by optics, can you post a photo of another vehicle demonstrating this effect?

[BipDBo]

Speaking of Targa, which seems to be a popular idea: What if, as I proposed earlier, they ditched the humps, and enclosed the single roll bar like this:
9782
Instead of having removable hard roof panels, however, there was a removable soft top between the windshield and the roll bar. Under the rool bar, there could be either a permanent lexan or removable monofilm window. Would such a car be a Targa or a Roadster?

This is really my ideal design, except I would like to do this on a coupe frame. The space frame would go over the cockpit, connecting the outer corners of the roolbar and the windshield forming a protective cage and adding stiffness, but the top would be removable to let in the sun.

[skullandbones]

Like your idea. I also like the Targa and in this case it would cover some supports that will not look good if left exposed (design dilemma). The Mk roadster does not have this problem. Some people have even removed the roll bars but not in this project. I could live with a rag top as the construction would be very simple to fab. The added HOF would be automatic. Recent polls have supported the Targa choice, as well. Maybe the subsequent releases have something like this in mind. The 9.9k limit has put some serious constraints on these project that we are not privy to but I would love to be a "fly on the wall" to hear some of those conversations. Thanks, WEK.

[kach22i]

1. I measured the wheel arches on this isometric rendering in autocad, and it looks like the top of the rear arch is around 1" higher than on the front, which agrees with the faded front view............

2. Also, I think that some of the percieved "heavyness" of the rear end has to do with the presence of those humps and the lack of a windshield. I think that a windshield would bring the look of it back ito balance.

RE #1: Great observations, just eyeballing it the rear tires look to be about 1/2" taller and 1" wider than the front ones. Makes sense that the rear opening would also be larger, just not quite as large as my cut & paste and hand drawn fill-in renderings of the perspective show.

RE #2: Yes, true but it is very pronounced in the modified drawing I did as well.

Nonprofit, I think one example (the Dart) of reversed perspective due to focal length is enough. It is a freakish thing and pretty rare unless intentional. Maybe the better versed 3D computer rendering guys can toss a few examples our way, not my area of expertise.

[Xusia]

Instead of having removable hard roof panels, however, there was a removable soft top between the windshield and the roll bar. Under the rool bar, there could be either a permanent lexan or removable monofilm window. Would such a car be a Targa or a Roadster?

It would still be a targa - which is a body style, not a roof material choice - as defined by the the side pillars and roll bar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targa_top

The 818 chassis - in my opinion - BEGS to be covered in a targa body style. It would be a good looking way to cover the roll bar (although an exposed roll bar can look good too!), and provide a bit better weatherization than a pure soft top, along with a better rear window (usually). If the rear window was removable, that would sweeten the deal!


This is really my ideal design, except I would like to do this on a coupe frame. The space frame would go over the cockpit, connecting the outer corners of the roolbar and the windshield forming a protective cage and adding stiffness, but the top would be removable to let in the sun.

Technically, this is not a targa; it's a coupe with a very large, removable sunroof! :)

[John Buzoianu]

In my opinion the CAD model could be a little less conservative and a little more exotic especially around the front fascia and the door... the front fascia seems a little too ricer to me, and the door area seems a little bland. If you were to incorporate some more of Xabiers design I think it could drastically improve it. Good job so far.

[wallace18]

On the Factory Five Website I saw a blog on the subie event. I has Dave give some details of dates for body and production. I not sure if anyone else saw this Blog. It was interesting.

[FFR-ADV]

This design could make a really nice Targa Coupe melding in elements from Vmans design, with upper air intakes playing off of the side air intakes when the coupe design starts.

9788

Cheers!

[kach22i]

This design .........
An interesting study.

[CallawayTurner]

So in patiently waiting for the body design(s) to come out, the go-kart has been built for a while. Hopefully some testing has been performed using it without the body to make sure everything there is rock solid, but I'd like to see some action shots of it in the parking lot running or something.

[shim2]

Would be nice for an official update.

[NonProfit]

Would be nice for an official update.

Ca'mon, 'ya just got one six days ago at the start of this thread (but I know what you mean.)

[shim2]

Yea, true. I'm anxious to see the official 818 body.

[Niburu]

actually I'd like them to keep developing the body right up till the end, at least in regards to clearance issues, aerodynamics, and engine bay temps
ok and aesthetics too

[leetfade]

actually I'd like them to keep developing the body right up till the end, at least in regards to clearance issues, aerodynamics, and engine bay temps
ok and aesthetics too

Agreed. Everyone would, naturally, nit pick everything on the car and you'd have two pretty divided sides.

If it's not ready, wait. No point running people off because there is one thing that is a deal breaker for them when it may not even be in the final design.

[skullandbones]

If FFR takes the advice of the posters and the statistics (although non scientific), they will somehow develop a Targa peice to cover the rollbars. It would be so much more productive to create a popular choice like a Targa roadster than a pure roadster. That way Dave could keep to his promise of developing a roadster first. Cover up that cage and be done with it. It sure would shorten the development phase IMO. WEK.

[shim2]

If FFR takes the advice of the posters and the statistics (although non scientific), they will somehow develop a Targa peice to cover the rollbars. It would be so much more productive to create a popular choice like a Targa roadster than a pure roadster. That way Dave could keep to his promise of developing a roadster first. Cover up that cage and be done with it. It sure would shorten the development phase IMO. WEK.

I completely agree with this. It would sell to much broader range I. A lot of people, myself included don't like the idea of a convertible. Targa would be much more crowd pleasing. IMO, it's never too late for them to change their minds about the roadster if they see that more people would rather have a targa opposed to convert. I wouldn't mind waiting a few more months for it instead of the first choice out to be convertible.

[wallace18]

I would also like a Targa. It would be stronger and more weather proof.

[NonProfit]

If there is room to store the top in the car, a targa would be rock. If that's not possible, I'd prefer a convertible.

[Oppenheimer]

I completely agree with this. It would sell to much broader range I. A lot of people, myself included don't like the idea of a convertible. Targa would be much more crowd pleasing. IMO, it's never too late for them to change their minds about the roadster if they see that more people would rather have a targa opposed to convert. I wouldn't mind waiting a few more months for it instead of the first choice out to be convertible.

I agree too, but I think the problem is cost. To meet the original targets of cost, weight, etc, its gotta be a simple Roadster. Imagine if they release a Targa first, but it weighs a littler more, costs a little more than the original goals Dave set, then even if the eventual Roadster that comes after meets those goals, critics will say FFR failed to meet their goal.

Whatever is released, its gotta hit those targets. If they can somehow do that with a Targa, that would be awesome. But if they can't, I am willing to wait for version 2.

[RM1SepEx]

If there is room to store the top in the car, a targa would be rock. If that's not possible, I'd prefer a convertible.

use a simple soft top

4 easy to insert spring loaded rods sewn into sleeves in the top to make the roof top and edges edges solid/tight and vinyl/velcro/snap? windows with Xabier's targa roll bar/hoop... roll it into a 6 inch diameter cylinder, slide it into a 2 foot long bag like a portable chair... easy to stow

[BipDBo]

Speaking of Targa, which seems to be a popular idea: What if, as I proposed earlier, they ditched the humps, and enclosed the single roll bar like this:
9782
Instead of having removable hard roof panels, however, there was a removable soft top between the windshield and the roll bar. Under the rool bar, there could be either a permanent lexan or removable monofilm window. Would such a car be a Targa or a Roadster?

This is really my ideal design, except I would like to do this on a coupe frame. The space frame would go over the cockpit, connecting the outer corners of the roolbar and the windshield forming a protective cage and adding stiffness, but the top would be removable to let in the sun.

As a follow up, here is an example of what I'm talking about; the Hennessey Venom GT Spyder. This is the only example I can think of outside of a Jeep or dune buggy. Note that the space frame roof structure is all there, connecting the A and B pillars. It's probably the exact same structure found in the coupe. They just made the "skin" of the roof removable. The result is that you get the stiffness, light weight and safety of a coupe and the open air pleasure of a convertible.

9839

I think something like this could be done with the 818 very simply and cheaply. The Venom has a removable hard top. The 818 could have a similar removable hard top, but could also have a soft top option that would be easier to remove and store. Since it would be installed over permanent structure, such a soft top would need very minimal structure. It may just be a well tailored piece of canvas that could be unzipped and rolled up for storage. I would think that a soft top like this would be more simple than a folding soft top on a roadster. It would likely be lighter and cheaper as well.

[StatGSR]

^ that would be my preferred style of targa top 818 as well.

[Xusia]

That's a cool idea - for those [possibly overly] concerned about chassis stiffness and safety. I think the chassis will be plenty stiff and safe as is, and would prefer not to have the added structure in my way.

[NonProfit]

That's a cool idea - for those [possibly overly] concerned about chassis stiffness and safety. I think the chassis will be plenty stiff and safe as is, and would prefer not to have the added structure in my way.
I much preferred my Jeep CJ to a friend's with a similar cage. I agree with Xusia; this frame will be plenty stiff without it. (Although it might make a desirable extra-cost option for some.)

RM1SepEx's idea rocks!


use a simple soft top

4 easy to insert spring loaded rods sewn into sleeves in the top to make the roof top and edges edges solid/tight and vinyl/velcro/snap? windows with Xabier's targa roll bar/hoop... roll it into a 6 inch diameter cylinder, slide it into a 2 foot long bag like a portable chair... easy to stow

[shim2]

I agree too, but I think the problem is cost. To meet the original targets of cost, weight, etc, its gotta be a simple Roadster. Imagine if they release a Targa first, but it weighs a littler more, costs a little more than the original goals Dave set, then even if the eventual Roadster that comes after meets those goals, critics will say FFR failed to meet their goal.

Whatever is released, its gotta hit those targets. If they can somehow do that with a Targa, that would be awesome. But if they can't, I am willing to wait for version 2.

I agree. Although it would be nice if/when they make a version 2 available it would somehow be able to mount to v1's chassis for those wanting a different body style but not wanting to completely build another car.

[Xusia]

^ - Heard THAT! :)

[Oppenheimer]

You can do a roll up soft Targa top even without having to have rollbar like substructure connecting A and B pillars (Lotus Elise).

You could then offer both Hard and soft Targa inserts. Some might buy neither, some would buy just soft, carry in case of rain/cold, some might buy both, hard panel for colder season, store hard panel at home for nice season, but carry soft panel just in case. It would be cool if hard panel was stowable on board, but soft panel makes that somewhat moot.

This has all been discussed several times here in other threads. Its a really good idea. I think FFR will make use of it if its at all possible.

[ScottKoschwitz]

I suggested last year that FFR should just incorporate the Elise's top into its design. My sense the the length and width of the top would work just fine on the 818. That would provide you both the soft top and hard top options, and even open up the aftermarket for us (if you wanted a carbon fiber hardtop, for example).

[RM1SepEx]

Since the roll bar is going to be there I'll be checking out my theory vs whatever they offer for a soft top

I have access to a friend's CNC machine shop so...

I'm thinking 1/2 inch diameter, thick wall aluminum tubing. I'd have to play with it but either 3 or 4 bars should work. I can roll them for some arch to the soft top when in place, I could make the side "rails" a different shape and even get a rain rail... I'll have to investigate some extrusions.

on one end a steel pin is inserted with set screws to hold it in place. The other end uses a slip fit steel pin with a screw to "stop the spring", a pin that extends beyond the tubing with a short "handle" so you can slide it to retract the pin. Imagine setting the fixed pin into a hole, retracting the handle and positioing it at the hole, releasing the handle so the pin seats into that hole... Pretty simple

These tubes are sewn in to the top fabric and glued in place. The interface with the existing windshield header and roll bar or targa structure may require a piece of machined and powder coated aluminum, perhaps with a sort of rain gutter... maybe I can just bend up a gutter and add some steel inserts where the bar pins seat?

The side windows are just heavy vinyl (think old miata rear window material) that velcro holds in place. if the edges are sewn with two layers you just put the velcro on the proper edge for the right seal
or those neat snaps like on a miata's tonneau cover... perhaps the edge plastic cli[ps like the other edge of the tonneau

NOTE: I only want a stowable EMERGENCY top... The 818 is a fair weather toy but I don't want to get my leather seats (see leatherseats.com, I love my 1991 BMW 325IC leather seat covers from them!)

I can see a top that stows in a bag behind the passenger seat (worst case) and weighs less than 10 lbs!

[Silvertop]

You can do a roll up soft Targa top even without having to have rollbar like substructure connecting A and B pillars (Lotus Elise).

You could then offer both Hard and soft Targa inserts. Some might buy neither, some would buy just soft, carry in case of rain/cold, some might buy both, hard panel for colder season, store hard panel at home for nice season, but carry soft panel just in case. It would be cool if hard panel was stowable on board, but soft panel makes that somewhat moot.

This has all been discussed several times here in other threads. Its a really good idea. I think FFR will make use of it if its at all possible.

I just posted the comments below on the "Boredom and Photoshop" thread a few minutes ago. The comments seem to fit here as well. Please forgive my redundancy:

Based on a number of tidbits offered by Dave Smith throughout this forum over the last few months, along with a couple of very innocent comments made by my tour guide when I visited Factory Five back in March, I believe the following:

1) While the shape that has been selected for first launch as the Roadster in late 2012 or early 2013 will not be precisely any of those that we have seen, the final shape will probably be BASED on the Xabier design, but without the gaping open "catfish" mouth that some found distasteful.

2) It is likely that a Targa Top will be offered for it, though not at first. This has been suggested by Dave Smith as a strong possibility. Which indicates that the final shape will probably have an integrated hoop (like Xabier's) built into the the body suitable for attaching a Targa Top and would also make engineering the ragtop a relatively easy proposition.

3) It WILL have a soft top available at launch (We actually KNOW that, because Dave Smith has said so) regardless of the final shape of launch #1.

Of course, my saying the above does not make it so. But I will be surprised if the final shape doesn't scream Xabier, and that the Targa Top does not become an eventual reality. Just my humble opinion. That and three bucks will net you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

[StatGSR]

That's a cool idea - for those [possibly overly] concerned about chassis stiffness and safety. I think the chassis will be plenty stiff and safe as is, and would prefer not to have the added structure in my way.

i just would prefer to have some real support for the windshield, i don't really want a deer to end up in my face while driving around town...

[BipDBo]

That's a cool idea - for those [possibly overly] concerned about chassis stiffness and safety. I think the chassis will be plenty stiff and safe as is, and would prefer not to have the added structure in my way.

The existing chassis is probably plenty stiff. It's got plenty of triangles.

I don't think that you can be overly concerned with safety when dealing with an 1800 lb car that holds the engine behind the seats and has very little in front that can crumple. Physics simply isn't on your side. I have harped on the issue quite a bit in the past, but after meditating over the recent pics of the go-cart, I've got some more thoughts on safety and crumple zone design. I'll probably start a new thread about it soon.

[Oppenheimer]

Since the roll bar is going to be there I'll be checking out my theory vs whatever they offer for a soft top

I have access to a friend's CNC machine shop so...

I'm thinking 1/2 inch diameter, thick wall aluminum tubing. I'd have to play with it but either 3 or 4 bars should work. I can roll them for some arch to the soft top when in place, I could make the side "rails" a different shape and even get a rain rail... I'll have to investigate some extrusions.

on one end a steel pin is inserted with set screws to hold it in place. The other end uses a slip fit steel pin with a screw to "stop the spring", a pin that extends beyond the tubing with a short "handle" so you can slide it to retract the pin. Imagine setting the fixed pin into a hole, retracting the handle and positioing it at the hole, releasing the handle so the pin seats into that hole... Pretty simple

These tubes are sewn in to the top fabric and glued in place. The interface with the existing windshield header and roll bar or targa structure may require a piece of machined and powder coated aluminum, perhaps with a sort of rain gutter... maybe I can just bend up a gutter and add some steel inserts where the bar pins seat?

The side windows are just heavy vinyl (think old miata rear window material) that velcro holds in place. if the edges are sewn with two layers you just put the velcro on the proper edge for the right seal
or those neat snaps like on a miata's tonneau cover... perhaps the edge plastic cli[ps like the other edge of the tonneau

NOTE: I only want a stowable EMERGENCY top... The 818 is a fair weather toy but I don't want to get my leather seats (see leatherseats.com, I love my 1991 BMW 325IC leather seat covers from them!)

I can see a top that stows in a bag behind the passenger seat (worst case) and weighs less than 10 lbs!

So, um, how many of these were you planning to make? (I'm thinking you should plan to make a lot)


I just posted the comments below on the "Boredom and Photoshop" thread a few minutes ago. The comments seem to fit here as well. Please forgive my redundancy:

Based on a number of tidbits offered by Dave Smith throughout this forum over the last few months, along with a couple of very innocent comments made by my tour guide when I visited Factory Five back in March, I believe the following:

1) While the shape that has been selected for first launch as the Roadster in late 2012 or early 2013 will not be precisely any of those that we have seen, the final shape will probably be BASED on the Xabier design, but without the gaping open "catfish" mouth that some found distasteful.

2) It is likely that a Targa Top will be offered for it, though not at first. This has been suggested by Dave Smith as a strong possibility. Which indicates that the final shape will probably have an integrated hoop (like Xabier's) built into the the body suitable for attaching a Targa Top and would also make engineering the ragtop a relatively easy proposition.

3) It WILL have a soft top available at launch (We actually KNOW that, because Dave Smith has said so) regardless of the final shape of launch #1.

Of course, my saying the above does not make it so. But I will be surprised if the final shape doesn't scream Xabier, and that the Targa Top does not become an eventual reality. Just my humble opinion. That and three bucks will net you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

I have been thinking the same thing. Stricktly from reading between lines on forum, I have been feeling a slightly tweaked Saab-bee-air would be the roadster, and the that the 'convertible top' Dave mentioned would simply be a soft Targa. I was thinking it would just be a toned down mouth, but still have some Catfish breath to it.

[Snakeworx]

The body looks great! Can't wait to see the finished product.

[Silvertop]

I have been thinking the same thing. Strictly from reading between lines on forum, I have been feeling a slightly tweaked Saab-bee-air would be the roadster, and the that the 'convertible top' Dave mentioned would simply be a soft Targa. I was thinking it would just be a toned down mouth, but still have some Catfish breath to it.

I think you are on exactly the same page as I am...........

[Xusia]

i just would prefer to have some real support for the windshield, i don't really want a deer to end up in my face while driving around town...

<smart a$$>Duluth has deer in TOWN?!? Awesome! I live in deer country myself, but I can't say I see them in town. Perhaps a cattle guard on the front would be more appropriate!</smart a$$>

Kidding aside, I've struck deer, and seen other deer strikes. You'd have to be going pretty fast, and get REALLY "lucky", to hit a deer in such a way that it would go over the hood and strike you through the windshield. Elk are whole other story...


The existing chassis is probably plenty stiff. It's got plenty of triangles.

I don't think that you can be overly concerned with safety when dealing with an 1800 lb car that holds the engine behind the seats and has very little in front that can crumple. Physics simply isn't on your side. I have harped on the issue quite a bit in the past, but after meditating over the recent pics of the go-cart, I've got some more thoughts on safety and crumple zone design. I'll probably start a new thread about it soon.

An engine seems kind of hard and difficult to crumple, so wouldn't front engine cars generally not crumple as well? Without an engine in front, wouldn't there be less to prevent crumpling, so wouldn't that be an advantage in terms of crumple zones?!?

Also, don't crumple zones exist because the materials used are generally weak and prone to crumpling, making the point of crumple zones to ensure the car crumples at the "right" places, as opposed to the wrong places? Whereas if the car is solid and doesn't crumple much or at all, is a crumple zone even needed??

Maybe it's because motorcycles don't have crumple zones, or maybe it's because of the way I ride/drive (that is, actively managing my risk), but I'm really not worried. If Dave can roll his roadster in competition, and be fine, and FFR is claiming the 818 is stiffer, I think I'll be OK...

[Oppenheimer]

Also, don't crumple zones exist because the materials used are generally weak and prone to crumpling, making the point of crumple zones to ensure the car crumples at the "right" places, as opposed to the wrong places? Whereas if the car is solid and doesn't crumple much or at all, is a crumple zone even needed??



<pet_peeve_mode>

Actually crumple zones exist to disspate the tremedous forces involved in a vehicle collision. With a super stiff structure, all those forces have to be absorbed by you, not the car. The way you absorb that energy (hopefully) is with seat belts. They do much more than just hold you in place. Its kinda like a hardhat. People think its the hard part of the hat that offers the protection, but really its the straps. They stretch, just like seatbelts. This is a one time deal, after an impact, you gotta replace the hardhat (and the seatbelts), as now the stretch is gone. Next time, you get hurt (or die). BTW the hard part of the hat just spreads the load out and makes sure sharp stuff doesn't penetrate. It sorta controls where the forces go so the belts can perform their role.

So with a racecar like stiff structure, with no crumple built in, you want lots of belt with lots of potential to stretch, yet make sure you don't slip through them once they do stretch, just like racecar seatbelts.

</pet_peeve_mode>

[kyle stewart]

<smart a$$>Duluth has deer in TOWN?!? Awesome! I live in deer country myself, but I can't say I see them in town. Perhaps a cattle guard on the front would be more appropriate!</smart a$$>

Kidding aside, I've struck deer, and seen other deer strikes. You'd have to be going pretty fast, and get REALLY "lucky", to hit a deer in such a way that it would go over the hood and strike you through the windshield. Elk are whole other story...



An engine seems kind of hard and difficult to crumple, so wouldn't front engine cars generally not crumple as well? Without an engine in front, wouldn't there be less to prevent crumpling, so wouldn't that be an advantage in terms of crumple zones?!?

Also, don't crumple zones exist because the materials used are generally weak and prone to crumpling, making the point of crumple zones to ensure the car crumples at the "right" places, as opposed to the wrong places? Whereas if the car is solid and doesn't crumple much or at all, is a crumple zone even needed??

Maybe it's because motorcycles don't have crumple zones, or maybe it's because of the way I ride/drive (that is, actively managing my risk), but I'm really not worried. If Dave can roll his roadster in competition, and be fine, and FFR is claiming the 818 is stiffer, I think I'll be OK...

You are right about the engine not crumpling. From what I have been told, in a front impact, the design is for the engine and transmission to drop down and back, not straight back into the cabin. Less damage to the occupants. The idea of the crumple zones is to take the impact in stages....kind of like a progressive spring. Less jarring to the driver; I guess designers feel that the front of the car can look like an accordion instead of the driver. Of course, I could have been lied to. I am very gullible :)

[Evan78]

I don't think that you can be overly concerned with safety when dealing with an 1800 lb car that holds the engine behind the seats and has very little in front that can crumple. Physics simply isn't on your side. I have harped on the issue quite a bit in the past, but after meditating over the recent pics of the go-cart, I've got some more thoughts on safety and crumple zone design. I'll probably start a new thread about it soon.Are you arguing that the car is not very safe so nobody should consider safety along the way at all? Does that mean you suggest riding a motorcycle in shorts, bare chested with no helmet?

[Evan78]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone

[StatGSR]

Are you arguing that the car is not very safe so nobody should consider safety along the way at all? Does that mean you suggest riding a motorcycle in shorts, bare chested with no helmet?

almost all tube chassis vehicles are quite unsafe with out the proper personal protection, and since most of the proper protection is either to difficult or inconvenient to wear on the street (read helmets, 5-6 point harness, hans device). yes it will be substantially less "safe" on a day to day basis than almost any relatively modern car equipped with air bags, and designed with crumple zones.

[scartaan]

The donor car has at least 4 air-bags- will they be put to use in the 818?

[shim2]

Isn't it illegal to install an airbag unless you're certified to do so?

[Xusia]

<pet_peeve_mode>

Actually crumple zones exist to disspate the tremedous forces involved in a vehicle collision. With a super stiff structure, all those forces have to be absorbed by you, not the car. The way you absorb that energy (hopefully) is with seat belts. They do much more than just hold you in place. Its kinda like a hardhat. People think its the hard part of the hat that offers the protection, but really its the straps. They stretch, just like seatbelts. This is a one time deal, after an impact, you gotta replace the hardhat (and the seatbelts), as now the stretch is gone. Next time, you get hurt (or die). BTW the hard part of the hat just spreads the load out and makes sure sharp stuff doesn't penetrate. It sorta controls where the forces go so the belts can perform their role.

So with a racecar like stiff structure, with no crumple built in, you want lots of belt with lots of potential to stretch, yet make sure you don't slip through them once they do stretch, just like racecar seatbelts.

</pet_peeve_mode>

Ahhhhhhh. That makes sense. I didn't know that! :)

[riptide motorsport]

If you want a roll bar halo, you better be wearing a helmet because when your head hits those bars its going to REALLY smart!!

[Gary in NJ]

The donor car has at least 4 air-bags- will they be put to use in the 818?

Airbags are designed to work in specific applications. If you take the side airbag from one car, it more-than-likely will not properly function in a different make/model car even in the same location.

I drove cars for decades before airbags were invented. Millions of drivers survived without them. My current weekend car (240Z) has no modern safety devices or electronic nannies. The car was designed in the late 60's when people understood how to drive and knew about personal responsibility.

Drive like everyone is out to kill you and you should be safe without airbags.

[RM1SepEx]

I drove cars for decades before airbags were invented. Millions of drivers survived without them. My current weekend car (240Z) has no modern safety devices or electronic nannies. The car was designed in the late 60's when people understood how to drive and knew about personal responsibility.

Drive like everyone is out to kill you and you should be safe without airbags.

How true... I'm a Tire Rack Street Survival instructor... Explaining this to teens is so important

I tell people that they need to drive OFFENSIVELY, not defensively... your "Drive like everyone is out to kill you" is exactly the correct approach. Drive as if you are on a motorcycle and learn to drive well enough to avoid the accident.

The whole point of crush ones has been missed so far... what injures/kills people is the impulse, the ungodly rate of energy application that breaks bones, the energy has to be dissapated. Crush ones, stretching belts, air bags all INCREASE the TIME that the energy is applied to the body, reducing damage. Think Nascar and safer barriers. Several skydivers have had failed chutes and lived... they landed on new lawns with soft dirt etc... hit asphalt and you turn into a leaking bag holding red jello

new cars focus on using crush zones and air bags because most drivers are idiots, many don't belt up, etc...

stay in place, the car crushes in without entering the driver's cockpit/capsul, wear belts and have a supportive seat in case but your first line of defense is to be on the offensive, watch for every stupid move, anticipate and use the handling capabilities to AVOID the crash

I'd like to revisit all of the comments on body design and try to bring it back to reality

We will see something, based on our inputs BUT dependant on the plastic forming technology, that will wrap that awesome go kart prototype in one BAD A** ride. I'm expecting some Xabier, some inhouse, all awesome.

F5 will be/is driven by some very specific design goals to fit a broad market, control cost/price, generate more product sales, avoid paint, etc... Body shape consideration/compromises are very important to make those goals. EVERYTHING that Dave and the crew has done so far gives my an amazing amount of confidence in them meeting/exceeding those goals.

I think that what the have shown us is the basic shape of what we will see... I'm physched...

We know that it will be a roadster... that doesn't sound like targa to me... doesn't mean it won't fit my needs and I want my kit as soon as I can get the darn thing

[PhyrraM]

The frame on the 818 will be the crush zone. From the looks of the proto-type chassis, there isn't much (yet?).

Also keep in mind that an 1800 pound 818 smacking a wall will have to dissapate alot less energy than if a 4400 pound Mazda CX9 smacks an 818. The former is likely withing the realm of FFRs ability to engineer, the latter is likely not.

As far as using the 4 OEM airbags (steering wheel, passenger dash and outboard front seat bolsters)- The airbag computer uses raw data from "G" sensors and caluclates proper airbag timing and firing. These calculations rely on pre-programmed mass numbers for the WRX. Unless the reduced mass of the 818 can somehow be taken into account, attemting to utilize the system could actually create something counter-productive and more dangerous.

[bbjones121]

That would definitely put you into the car next to you or in a ditch if an airbag deployed on you while just out cruising. I would never put those explosive devices in the 818 unless they were designed for it.

[projectrally]

So off the crumple zone topic and back on the Targa roof discussion...

I'd love it if they eventually made some sort of fixed or targa roof option and solid side-windows that roll down. Since that's not likely to be the case (at least initially), I'd rather have some sort of bikini top like on the Boxter Spyder. Just something that can keep out a light rain and more importantly the sun. It's no fun being in a convertible without air conditioning on a really hot, sunny summer day. Put the top up and there's no air flow, but the top down and you've got air but you're broiling in the sun. The best top for a car without AC is one that lets the air flow out the back. So give me a removable rear window, or at least an additional optional bikini top, and I'll be very happy driver.

Part of me wonders if those indents on the top of the rear fenders that look like additional intakes might not in fact have something to do with securing the roof. The Porsche Spyder has indents on the top of the fenders for that exact purpose. These are probably too far forward to work that way, but I can dream...

[shinn497]

Would it be impossible to install AC?

[projectrally]

I really have no concept of what the HVAC system on the 818 is going to look like so I can't comment with certainty, but I'd imagine you could probably run AC if you cared enough. It'd be a lot of fabricating new hard lines and figuring out how to route them from fore and aft of the passenger cabin. Definitely more effort than I plan to put into a system I won't use often.

[Nuul]

I'm still on the fence about 818-R or coupe. If I go with the coupe I'll probably rig something up. My initial thought was to put rotateable circular A/C vents on the firewall between the seats - like those pictured below but mounted vertically. I ordinarily wouldn't care about such things for a fun car, but if I go with the coupe it may become my DD for non-snow days.

9888

[Oppenheimer]

AC should definitly be doable. It has been figured out on the FFR Roadster, it can be figured out for the 818. Its not a lot of cabin space to cool, so it doesn't have to be a huge system. Vintage air makes AC for street rods, muscle cars, etc, that is non intrusive and is made to jamb into vehicles that were not originally built with AC in mind. People know how to make this work. If they don't build a system specifically for the 818, someone probably will.

Someone else will probably figure out how to DIY cheaper using donor parts from some smaller car, if you have more time than $ (MR2 Spyder comes to mind).

I like the idea of the vents piping the cold air in from the rear bulkhead. That may not turn out to be necessary or possibly even the best way to go about it with the 818, it just shows the possibities, will = way.

[PhyrraM]

HVAC is the main reason I am a fan of repurposing the dashboard, it would sort of make HVAC a "bolt in".

While I'm sure it's not part of the initial roadster model, I really can't see FFR not providing for some type of A/C on the later closed models. I would think that it could really kill the sales in southern states.

[StatGSR]

IMO an Electric powered AC pump may be the easiest way to retrofit AC into the 818, providing the donor blower and controls will be used... still hard to say what might work best at this point in the game.

ex: http://electricbluemotors.com/coolblue.html

[Evan78]

almost all tube chassis vehicles are quite unsafe with out the proper personal protection, and since most of the proper protection is either to difficult or inconvenient to wear on the street (read helmets, 5-6 point harness, hans device). yes it will be substantially less "safe" on a day to day basis than almost any relatively modern car equipped with air bags, and designed with crumple zones.I wasn't asking if the car is less safe than a normal production car, that much is obvious. I was asking BipDBo if safety concerns should be thrown out the window because of it. That seems to be what he is arguing from the message I quoted "I don't think that you can be overly concerned with safety when dealing with an 1800 lb car that holds the engine behind the seats and has very little in front that can crumple." But perhaps he's actually saying just the opposite, as in "we should give as much attention to safety as possible since the car is inherently unsafe compared to other vehicles on the road."

[shim2]

The first production version composite body shape is in the manufacturing process and we are building production tools 100$ from CAD files.


I may publish full dimensionally accurate CAD file photos of the final body shape that will serve as the first 818 version. It will be a roadster and it will have a convertible soft top at launch.


The attached image is one of the final body designs substrate.

Having re-read the original post I gathered a few things I didn't originally notice. The final body is done for the first gen. All suggestions there after that they take into consideration(including targa top) will be in future generations. That the image he attached is just a teaser and isn't the actual body and that what he did attach was one of the final designs that I am assuming was rejected over a different, yet to be seen design.

[07FIREBLADE]

Even if the latest body that has been posted is a teaser it would be great if FFR is ready to make the necessary changes to sell more kits if this doesn't sell that much due to not being HOF and just meeting target goals....

Knowing FFR though everything will work out great hopefully and we will see the finally body very soon or at least a CAD file. So we can start to make the necessary plans to modify the 1st gen..

[crobin4]

there is always the possibilty for a third party designed and built bodies
I might consider paying a couple grand extra for a Xavier or RodneyO body

+1:D

[projectrally]

the image he attached is just a teaser and isn't the actual body and that what he did attach was one of the final designs that I am assuming was rejected over a different, yet to be seen design.

I read this very differently. I took him to mean that this was one (rendering) of the final body design's substrate. In terms of the missing apostrophe, I just assumed it was a typo, and I took Dave's comment to mean that he was showing us an unfinished CAD file of what will eventually become the first gen car. It's certainly not the definitive rendering of the final body because of what it lacks. There is no windshield, no door handles, no wing mirrors, and no body panels save the doors. From what we've all been told, the car is going to have actual body panels similar to most modern production vehicles.

If that is a rendering from the final body, I'm excited to see it in person. I'm not 100% convinced by the grill opening, but I really like the rest of the lines on the car. I'm sure it'll look a lot sexier rendered out with a windshield, wheels, an interior, and headlights. The one thing that does concern me about this design is that it looks like there's no possibility of a Targa being offered later on down the line. My hope is that if a targa or removable hardtop is ever offered, we will be able to retrofit it to this design so early adopters won't have to buy a second kit just to get a solid roof panel. Even if it means replacing a few body panels around the rear of the car, I'd be up for it.

[RM1SepEx]

Well put!