What, Why, How?

[Jim Schenck]

I have been asked (at gunpoint) to provide more info about the donor car and design theory of the new car. The reason we have been quiet on this is because so much is still subject to change, almost all of it in fact at this point. I don't forsee us switching to a Skoda as a donor but otherwise take everything described here as only a likely posibility and not set in stone.

The Donor car being designed around is a Subaru Impreza (wagon and sedan) model years 2002-2007. Some parts from earlier year cars will work but not enough to be true single donor. The main reason the Subaru was chosen was the layout, a longitudinal mid-mounted flat 4 with a transaxle attached gives fantastic balance, low center of gravity and most importantly a very low total vehicle weight. To fit our target build cost the car needs to be true single donor and using a FWD chassis such as a Civic or Focus only provides suspension and brakes for one end of the car. Also the Subaru is known for making big power reliably and the aftermarket is enormous.

In all likelyhood the flat 6 boxer will not be part of our plan because any amount of extra space will be incorportated into the cockpit. 2-4 Inches may not seem like much but in terms of leg room it can be all the difference.

The design goal behind this car is very straightforward, the car must be simple, lightweight, affordable, and easy to build. The emphasis will be on handling and driving fun rather than on the 200mph exotic or the everyday commuter. The majority of the cars we sell are street cars and this will not be an exception, so full lighting, covered wheels, and safety items will all be incorporated but not much beyond that in terms of luxury type stuff. To keep things simple this will be an open top street car first but with a roll bar/structure sufficient for track days. If the demand is high then possibly a hard top or coupe body could follow down the road, or maybe a dedicated track model as well, but for now we are thinking simple, simple, simple. The suspension would not use the struts at any corner and would be double A-arm/multilink with Koni coil-overs on all corners.

In terms of what we will use from the Subaru, the goal is everything possible that doesn't compromise the design goal. We won't utilize the unibody but at this point every other piece is fair game. (ok, probably not the headliner either)

[mn_vette]

Jim, Thanks for the info. Please keep the Roof viable. Even if I have to wait an extra year or so for that version it would be well worth it. Oh and for a side note, I need to have a windshield whipper to have it street legal here in MI.

[Steve91T]

I wonder if the early designs could be modified down the road to accept a roof.

[riptide motorsport]

Thanks Jim sounds great!

[FFRWRX]

Jim, Thanks for the info. Please keep the Roof viable. Even if I have to wait an extra year or so for that version it would be well worth it. Oh and for a side note, I need to have a windshield whipper to have it street legal here in MI.

Agree. I always thought that the main reason the Spyder didn't sell well (and was cancelled) is because the roof that was supposed to be offered never happened. Make it an optional extra, but please make it.

[Doc_FFR]

In all likelyhood the flat 6 boxer will not be part of our plan because any amount of extra space will be incorportated into the cockpit. 2-4 Inches may not seem like much but in terms of leg room it can be all the difference.

I was hoping to use the flat six, but I'd much, much rather have the extra legroom. Good work Jim. :cool:

[AVIONX]

Jim,
Thanks buddy. Sorry for the pressure but at least now I can get my donor lined up. This will be my third FFR build (as long as it's not butt ugly) Gotta have at least a removable hardtop but preferably a very simple targa (what about incorporating an existing, readily available targa???) like a vette targa. No targa with the kit or donor but if you want one just buy it from Ebay? Again. Thanks for the info. Only question left unanswered is.....

STI????
Matt.

[AVIONX]

I was hoping to use the flat six, but I'd much, much rather have the extra legroom. Good work Jim. :cool:

I agree. If you want a heavier roadster with more cylinders....buy the MKIV. It's awesome!

[BrandonDrums]

Jim,
Thanks buddy. Sorry for the pressure but at least now I can get my donor lined up. This will be my third FFR build (as long as it's not butt ugly) Gotta have at least a removable hardtop but preferably a very simple targa (what about incorporating an existing, readily available targa???) like a vette targa. No targa with the kit or donor but if you want one just buy it from Ebay? Again. Thanks for the info. Only question left unanswered is.....

STI????
Matt.

I second this. I've tried and fought for the better part of 3 years to get my Mk3 driving buddy to make a weekend driving trip to no avail due to the tragically inconvenient soft-top and hard-top options for his FFR roadster.

It would be a very difficult decision to take my WRX apart only to cut out a good 60% out of the year that I could drive and enjoy the car when my WRX is fun in all weather and plenty fast to grin me and scare me.

I don't care how it's executed but it's gotta be an option and preferably something that can be added and removed on the fly. Otherwise you've limited your weekend fun to a 50 mile radius from your home, and that gives me little reason to spend 10k and toil in the garage for a year when the result is a car I dread driving to all the beautiful places I imagine myself going in such an exotic ride.

Top options aside, thanks for the info on the donor! (I hope I didn't hijack the thread)

[KOUROS]

That helped a lot Jim. Tnx

[PhyrraM]

Thanks Jim.

Especially glad to hear your conscience of the differences between the sedan and wagons and are working to make both proper donors. That was my only real concern.

That also means that I likely already have every part I'm gonna need "on the shelf". :cool:

[bauhaus]

Thanks for the details Jim.

I agree with the several postings above that insist upon maybe some sort of targa top or hardtop being available from the get go. I would really prefer a coupe, but a targa/hardtop would suffice. If that is not an option, then this concept become less useful and not a viable alternative to a real road going car (which by the way was stated as one of the requirements anyhow).

[Oppenheimer]

Really appreciate all the hard work you guys have done to get this point.

+1 on the roof. I'm willing to wait for the hardtop option if I have to, but Im not buying a kit until its available.

[Dave Smith]

Thanks Jim,

Guys, I just want to recognize Jim for his efforts to share his design vision. As the creator of the GTM, from line drawing to full-scale model, to production (thru three body revisions), Jim has proven that he can design great cars and lead projects that will be lasting, beautiful, and most importantly, deliver ffr class performance. this project is no different except that I am asking Jim(not quite at gunpoint) to open up his design brain to the community and share a bit.

Thanks Jim.

Dave Smith

[Jim Schenck]

On the STI, no to the transmission but all the other parts would be fine. It would not be tough to find someone with a WRX to trade transmissions with, particularly if you throw in the rear diff which isn't needed. With the better brakes, hp, etc.. it would still be viable if its a deal.

To those who want a top I understand but if we are to meet all of our other goals, price, simplicity, and weight, it cannot be part of the initial project. I do not see this car comparable to a boxster or s2000, which while great cars compromise perfomance for daily driveability. What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane. For us to try and squeeze a top and functional side windows into a car this price they would be more of a frustrating compromise than an actual benefit. A soft top similiar to the new roadster top is still very possible as an option, but it would likely come after the car is launched.

[MikeK]

To those who want a top I understand but if we are to meet all of our other goals, price, simplicity, and weight, it cannot be part of the initial project. I do not see this car comparable to a boxster or s2000, which while great cars compromise perfomance for daily driveability. What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane. For us to try and squeeze a top and functional side windows into a car this price they would be more of a frustrating compromise than an actual benefit. A soft top similiar to the new roadster top is still very possible as an option, but it would likely come after the car is launched.

Oh well, I guess this leaves me out.

[Oppenheimer]

I tjhink everyone asking for a roof understands that it would be an option, at extra cost, extra weight, and extra build complexity.

I am really exited about this car, but for reasons others have posted in this thread, I really wouldn't be able to enjoy it without a roof. I'd have already built a Roadster if there were a viable top/window option. The GTM is beyond my reach and desire.

I understand that the initial release of the 818 might be a Roadster only, so many other things to engineer first. So I'm willing to wait for the roof & windows. But until they're available, I will remain a very enthusiastic bystander.

[Steve91T]

As much as I'd like a roof, if they say it can't be done right now, then fine. Still, sign me up. This thing is going to be awesome.

Steve

[Dale]

Thanks for the update Jim! I really like the open thinking on the project and look forward to the progress. I'm good with an open top design, it's not like this is a daily driver.

Keep up the updates!

[thebeerbaron]

What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane.

Music to my ears. Thanks for sharing Jim and most of all, thanks for sticking to your guns. If you accommodated everyone's wishes, this would be the FFR Minivan. :)

[PhyrraM]

Thanks again Jim. Just read your little bio on the main FFR site. I'm satified that there is nothing to worry about.


For folks that might be thinking about buying an STI as a donor:
I'll point out that '05+ STIs use a slightly different front knuckle/hub. The area that mounts to the strut is slightly wider and the bolt holes have a slightly different pattern - in addition to using STI specific CV axles and a larger wheel bolt circle. I would stick with a normal WRX model unless your willing to deal with some (small) hurdles. Or wait until the actual 'parts used from the donor' klist is published. I'm guessing we are 6+ months from that point though.

[keys2heaven]

While I understand the need to use the KISS methodology at this point, many of us were under the impression from the initial release that a removable top was part of the design goals. However, this isn't a deal-breaker for me, just limits some driving time.

My only input on this matter is to design the car so as to easily accept a top post-release. The weather can change in a heartbeat here in the Midwest and I'd sure wouldn't want to be caught driving with my pants down.

[Steve91T]

It was the people on this forum that thought there would be a removable top, not FFR.

I think people will get over the fact that you may get wet if you take it out when there is a 30% chance of rain. How many people have motorcycles? I do! And yes, I've gotten wet. Let's say you have this car and you do get caught in the rain...so what. You worried about getting your aluminum interior wet?

This isn't going to be a daily driver.

Steve

[keys2heaven]

It was the people on this forum that thought there would be a removable top, not FFR.

I think people will get over the fact that you may get wet if you take it out when there is a 30% chance of rain. How many people have motorcycles? I do! And yes, I've gotten wet. Let's say you have this car and you do get caught in the rain...so what. You worried about getting your aluminum interior wet?

This isn't going to be a daily driver.

Steve

Not so. I could have swore that something in the initial release mentioned removable top.

edit: found some posts back from Feb 18th that indicated removable top was in the release. Even had link to release on FFR's site. If they've since removed that, that's fine, but I know it was there initially. Many of us didn't dream it.

[subyrod]

Hopefully a top is an option later. Without, its a no go. The price point this car is at really has the more regular Joes interested. But, many of these guys like me need a car with a top to get more bang out of the buck. Stoked to watch the development and performance of this machine.

[AVIONX]

To those who want a top I understand but if we are to meet all of our other goals, price, simplicity, and weight, it cannot be part of the initial project. I do not see this car comparable to a boxster or s2000, which while great cars compromise perfomance for daily driveability. What we are making is an elemental sports car in the spirit of a lotus 7 or Atom but with just enough more chassis and body to be comfortable driving around on the street with full size SUVs and Semis in the next lane. For us to try and squeeze a top and functional side windows into a car this price they would be more of a frustrating compromise than an actual benefit. A soft top similiar to the new roadster top is still very possible as an option, but it would likely come after the car is launched.

Jim,
Thanks for clearing up the STI Issue.

With regards to a top. I can see all of the "removable hardtop" info has been pulled from the website. You guys are the experts, but please make sure you consider the roof thing thoroughly. No one wants a softop as the only option. A softop is just a bandaid if we're forced to settle for a big honking leave it at home hardtop. You already have over 60 individual feedbacks from current and future FFR customers. It's unanimous. Zero people who cared enough to at least take a 15 second poll want a true roadster. If you are going to create a 200-300HP roadster why not save yourself a ton of R&D money and just rebody/lighten the MKIV? Every person who responded to the poll wants a Targa or will settle for a solid roof. Give it a solid roof, or a targa and I'll send you my deposit check today. No roof? I'm light years ahead with a MKIV. Not to mention you could just hand all these designers the actual 3d model of the complete frame and start shipping kits this week. With the MKIV roadster body V2.0 to be shipped to them within 6 months. This is where I'd normally ask if I was the only one who thinks this way but I already know I'm in the vast majority of your customers.

[maaseyracer]

Oh well, I guess this leaves me out.
Me as well, I would buy in the first round if it had a hard top/roof.

[BrandonDrums]

I don't think we're asking for a daily driver here. We're asking for a car that will be fun and useable enough to actually enjoy. For me that means taking it to the beach, taking it to the mountains, taking it to the track for a weekend trip etc. I think a good many of us will pay a great deal more to have the kit include a workable top, at least as an option from the start.

The initial announcement DEFINITELY included plans for at least a removable hard-top. I guess those plans have changed..

If I don't have a top for this car it makes no sense for me to spend any money or time on it. I want a car I can drive and enjoy and that means not getting pelted in the face by rain, sunburned on drives in the summer that last over 2 hours or freezing to death in the 4 or 5 months of the year that it's just too darn cold to drive with the top down.

I was among the most enthusiastic individuals when this car was announced. Now I am indifferent.

Anyone with an STI still looking to build this kit, contact me to trade out your transmission. I'm putting a 6 speed in my wrx instead of making this kit it looks like and I have a solid 5 speed that I'm willing to part with...

[PERRNjeff]

The design goal behind this car is very straightforward, the car must be simple, lightweight, affordable, and easy to build. The emphasis will be on handling and driving fun rather than on the 200mph exotic or the everyday commuter. The majority of the cars we sell are street cars and this will not be an exception, so full lighting, covered wheels, and safety items will all be incorporated but not much beyond that in terms of luxury type stuff. To keep things simple this will be an open top street car first but with a roll bar/structure sufficient for track days. If the demand is high then possibly a hard top or coupe body could follow down the road, or maybe a dedicated track model as well, but for now we are thinking simple, simple, simple. The suspension would not use the struts at any corner and would be double A-arm/multilink with Koni coil-overs on all corners.
Keeping it simple is great idea! 200MPH is a great idea! Great handling and Fun is a great idea! A hard top or removable hardtop is also a great idea and if it doesn't make it into the car at first, having it as an eventual addon is a good idea. If you want to sell a bunch of these no roof will detract from some customers but not me!

I think this new car and FF are in a unique position compared to the other FF cars in that you can sell theses to a whole new customer base you are working on. That customer is me and all the other age 30-35 STI/WRX owners. There is a large crowd of guys that tune, tinker, install things and a car like this is right up our alley.



In terms of what we will use from the Subaru, the goal is everything possible that doesn't compromise the design goal. We won't utilize the unibody but at this point every other piece is fair game. (ok, probably not the headliner either)

So what you are saying is AWD is in the mix?? I have seen lots of info about this being a RWD mid engine setup. And for some customers that is going to be awesome and handle great and all that stuff. But, you are going to miss out on a whole new crowd of potential customers if you ditch the AWD. There are tons of guys out there that are doing WRX swaps and STI swaps in their Imprezas, and i think you could capture a huge amount of those guys as the cost is similar but with a much more unique outcome.

Another thing to consider is putting the power down. These engines easily put down 300WHP 380TQ and then add bigger turbo and some pistons and you are talking 450WHP no problem. 300WHP on two wheels is ok, but still not going to cut it unless you allow for really really wide tires. Using the OEM STI or WRX wheels and tires (doner car) 225~ size is not going to cut it. I have been in a 300WHP Atom and the stock tires were not good enough(way scary). And even 275tires still are not good enough for that much power in first and second gear. But throw in AWD, and problem solved! Also you already have Front engine chassis, just toss a Subaru motor in there and the drivetrain and your set!

Keep in mind, you have the attention of the whole Subaru world and guys like me who love the powertrain, but want it in a light weight car. Its not that i wouldn't buy this if it was only 2WD, but if its 4WD, my credit card is on fire! I mean who wouldn't want an ATOM, with a body, and traction! Keeping this AWD config also means that if a person choose a newer cars powertrain, they could benefit from TCS and some of the other things that come on them.

Regarding the donor car. If you look at a wrecking yard, and ask them for a WRX or STI swap, you are going the drivetrain parts to make it AWD or 2wd for the same price. Might as well use all parts! Plus this significantly simplifies the shift linkage.


On the STI, no to the transmission but all the other parts would be fine. It would not be tough to find someone with a WRX to trade transmissions with, particularly if you throw in the rear diff which isn't needed. With the better brakes, hp, etc.. it would still be viable if its a deal.


I think again you have a new crowd and making sure both 6spd and 5spds physically fit is important.



In all likelyhood the flat 6 boxer will not be part of our plan because any amount of extra space will be incorportated into the cockpit. 2-4 Inches may not seem like much but in terms of leg room it can be all the difference.
IF you make enough room for these, you will get a few crazies putting this in the cars making crazy HP(which will help market the car). Also the newer 6 cylinder engines are only .8" longer than the 4 bangers.

That is just my input. I think what i am saying represents a ton of customers. If you can get AWD, ABS and be able to fit at least 255 wide tires all the way around... you have a huge winner on your hands! Can't wait to see how this turns out!

Jeff @ PERRIN Performance

[keys2heaven]

I don't think we're asking for a daily driver here. We're asking for a car that will be fun and useable enough to actually enjoy. For me that means taking it to the beach, taking it to the mountains, taking it to the track for a weekend trip etc. I think a good many of us will pay a great deal more to have the kit include a workable top, at least as an option from the start.

The initial announcement DEFINITELY included plans for at least a removable hard-top. I guess those plans have changed..

If I don't have a top for this car it makes no sense for me to spend any money or time on it. I want a car I can drive and enjoy and that means not getting pelted in the face by rain, sunburned on drives in the summer that last over 2 hours or freezing to death in the 4 or 5 months of the year that it's just too darn cold to drive with the top down.

I was among the most enthusiastic individuals when this car was announced. Now I am indifferent.

Anyone with an STI still looking to build this kit, contact me to trade out your transmission. I'm putting a 6 speed in my wrx instead of making this kit it looks like and I have a solid 5 speed that I'm willing to part with...

Thanks for backing me up on the top issue. I didn't want to get into a pee'ing contest with anyone as I know the initial release included removable top as part of the design criteria. Yes, looks like references to it (save on GRM where they indicate a removable top can be drawn as part of the design) have been scrubbed. FFR could have realized that it just isn't in the cards at this time and most likely will be an post-release development item. And they have every right to do this.

As I said earlier, it is NOT a deal-breaker for me, but I would WANT something like this in the future so I can make for meaningful use out of the vehicle. I ride a bike too, and rain isn't fun. And it's not so much me that I'm worried about, but I'm thinking of my wife who I know won't be a happy camper if we were caught driving in the rain with no top.

[Sultan]

Me as well, I would buy in the first round if it had a hard top/roof.

Sadly I am out.

[Someday I Suppose]

I guess I am in the group that never heard Factory Five say a top was in the deisgn goal, here is the link to Dave's post introducing the whole concept and clearly states it as a two seat roadster.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?338-Open-Design-Discussion-and-What-s-NEXT!

As for tops, for those new to the Factory Five experience, one of the great things about these cars is the vendor support that is out there. I have little doubt that within 6 months of the first kits being sold there will be 2 or 3 top offerings from different vendors. On the roadster we have soft tops available, hard tops available, and even bikini tops available, it will be a lot of fun to see what the guys offering those products think up for the 818.

_Scott

[keys2heaven]

I guess I am in the group that never heard Factory Five say a top was in the deisgn goal, here is the link to Dave's post introducing the whole concept and clearly states it as a two seat roadster.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?338-Open-Design-Discussion-and-What-s-NEXT!

As for tops, for those new to the Factory Five experience, one of the great things about these cars is the vendor support that is out there. I have little doubt that within 6 months of the first kits being sold there will be 2 or 3 top offerings from different vendors. On the roadster we have soft tops available, hard tops available, and even bikini tops available, it will be a lot of fun to see what the guys offering those products think up for the 818.

_Scott

Dave didn't say anything about it here. We were referencing the inital release posted on FF's site.

[Dave Smith]

Let me help you guys with a little clarity as to where we stand.. The chassis is already a rock star. The concept and running gear, the market, price and configuration of the car is really a winner. The ENTIRE car comes down to a good looking body design. Jim designed the GTM 100% so I think he has an excellent ability, and frankly ALL of our cars look really good. This will NOT be a watered down crowd-sourced minivan. I dont want to constrain the design competition with rules that exclude a top, removable or soft top. At this stage we want all ideas on the table. If you guys want to cut to the chase and have strict specifics of the car, thats just not going to happen as so much is in design stage. Frankly to make a decision about buying (or selling deposits) about the design is way premature. The things that are set in cement are what we posted in terms of chassis and the bulk running gear (I dont think we are going to wake up and decide to change gears and go with Honda parts).

With respect to the top, the Viper was launched without a top. We've sold 7,000 roadsters with a less than stellar soft top. I would say that barring some INSANELY cool design that merits a coupe or a fixed removeable hard-top, the likely design will be a roadster in order to acheive the very serious price target and not compromise other things... I can absolutely see a removeable hard-top or soft-top down the road and would never rule it out.. Just too much that is open at this stage. Still the debate and strong opinions really help to drive those variables in a way that a closed in-house project could not accomplish.

Let's see where the design competiton goes. Lets see how close we can come to bringing an exciting concept to reality without watering it down and making it lame. Im going to post the original line drawings of the GTM, the earliest shape and the final car to show you guys how closely we stuck to the original concept of that car. What we posted about this car, 1800 lbs target, $9,900 price target, sub-$15,000 complete cost, WRX running gear, RH/LH drive world platform vehicle... If we nail these goals and have a SUPER SEXY body shape, the revenues will provide for plenty of directions whether it's targa/conv/fixed-removable top designs, alternate body designs on a shared platform, or something else, I have a feeling the car will be a raging success and be an exciting new direction (like the hot rod has been) for the company and inclusive community.

That's all I have to say about that (in Forrest Gump accent).

Dave Smith

[Steve91T]

Awesome. I like it. I think people just knowing that you guys are open to a top, even down the road, will please a lot of people.

Steve

[FFRWRX]

With respect to the top, the Viper was launched without a top....I would say that barring some INSANELY cool design that merits a coupe or a fixed removeable hard-top, the likely design will be a roadster in order to acheive the very serious price target and not compromise other things...


I could be wrong, but I think even the first generation Viper had a soft roof panel and plastic side windows; not much and not very weather-proof, but there was something.

The other thing that kind of bothers me is that you seem to be turning it around and saying that WE are all asking for a removeable top and you may not be able to do that. I think the reason that we are asking for it is because the original release said there would be one. If things are changing that's fine, but the removeable top was was mentioned by FFR first, not people on this forum.

Rick

[keys2heaven]

The other thing that kind of bothers me is that you seem to be turning it around and saying that WE are all asking for a removeable top and you may not be able to do that. I think the reason that we are asking for it is because the original release said there would be one. If things are changing that's fine, but the removeable top was was mentioned by FFR first, not people on this forum.

Rick

Rick,

I don't believe Dave ever mentioned removable top in any of his posts. Yes, I am positive the initial release listed removable top amongst the design goals and has since been removed. I too was frustrated by an earlier comment because it was making it appear that this request came initially from the forum members when, in fact, is was that design goal initially listed that got many of us excited.

That's neither here nor there now. It was a design goal and not set in stone. If FFR knows to maintain the pricepoint means no top for now, then so be it. Perferably, it would be nice to design this integral to the body, but with some of the designs presented so far I'm sure someonbody would be able to design an aftermarket top that will compliment whatever is produced.

[Steve91T]

I had said that it came from the people on this forum. I didn't realize FFR had said there would be a top. My mistake. Like Keys said, it doesn't matter. This thing is a long ways away and things are going to change. That's part of R&D.

[Oppenheimer]

I think one of the keys to success for FFR with this project is going to be generating a lot of buzz about the cars bang-for-buck performance ratio. Once the thing is out there, and builders start recording 0-60 & 1/4 mile times, lap times, etc, and people realize how much car they can get for the $$$ (and build time), they will have a runaway success.

You can tell they are aiming high, what with the 'world platform' RH/LH drive thing, and that they are serious about keepling build costs down (no paint body). Key to hitting the mark will be the quality and performance of the early builds.

Still, Roadster only will definitely limit the market. So I'm pretty certain that if a top & real windows can be added, at reasonable cost, FFR will be adding them (as options). Just not in the first go-round. They need to focus now on getting all the other stuff right, that will make sure the car gets out of the gate on the right track. They need to nail it.

The last thing I'd wish to see is they nail everything else, but in trying to rush to give us a top in the first release it doesn't work well. That could undo a lot of the good impressions people outside our community will have of the car. they are letting us be part of the community, lets make sure we hold up our end of the bargain. Lets let them build the first release, then we can hound them about the top. Then they'll have time to focus on doing the top right. For me its enough they know a top is so important to us, so they don't design somehting in now that makes it harder to do the top right later on.

All you guys that are losing interest over the missing top, get another toy to tide you over, a bike, another car, an upgrade for your current ride, then sell that to buy the kit once they give us a real top.

[LS MAN]

Hey guys, this project is in it's infancy. To meet the design & cost parameters, this is going to be a minimalistic build. I'm sure it will evolve as the process moves along. If enough demand & $s are waved around, I'd say FFR or the vendors here will come up with a solution for a closed cockpit. I like their vision, basically a Arial Atom, with a full body, without the AA price. The fact that they have included everyone's input is a huge effort on their part, as I can imagine it's time consuming, & distracting from their vision. I think the end product will be better because of it tho.

[mn_vette]

Has andy body considered Air Conditioning / Defrost. If the car is an open roadster I guess these aren't going to be needed. But if ther eis a top with roll up windows then would there be any room for the cost and/or space needed for these components. The GTM has an add on package for A/C for a few grand, but you need a place to put it in the 818. Just thinking out loud.....

[Dave Smith]

The design goals are fairly lofty. Frankly, I dont see anyone out there (company) with the combined skills, volume, community, business partners (like solidworks), business model, media contacts, suppliers, etc that could pull this off. I have said to people here that I think everything we've done in 15 years has lead us up to this moment and we are ready for this challenge. In the very truest sense I feel like we have a chance to finally and fully expunge the "kit car" demons and deliver on a promise that the original Lotus super 7 made... a car in a box that you build yourself, that isnt a peice of crap that delivers better performance than you can buy at an appliance car dealer... This is a TREMENDOUS challenge and the debate of a hard top, roadster, targa or fixed/removable top is only one facet of a hugely daughnting task. Please help understand that I alone here at FFR have FORCED this organization to bring this development project (which has been ongoing for a year already) into the public forum with the confidence that doing so will make the car better. To lash the guys down to a strict specific will not be allowed... If it ends up at 1801 lbs. it will be a victory in that regard, despite not hitting the 1800 target... This is chess not checkers.

Dave Smith

[mn_vette]

The design goals are fairly lofty. Frankly, I dont see anyone out there (company) with the combined skills, volume, community, business partners (like solidworks), business model, media contacts, suppliers, etc that could pull this off. I have said to people here that I think everything we've done in 15 years has lead us up to this moment and we are ready for this challenge. In the very truest sense I feel like we have a chance to finally and fully expunge the "kit car" demons and deliver on a promise that the original Lotus super 7 made... a car in a box that you build yourself, that isnt a peice of crap that delivers better performance than you can buy at an appliance car dealer... This is a TREMENDOUS challenge and the debate of a hard top, roadster, targa or fixed/removable top is only one facet of a hugely daughnting task. Please help understand that I alone here at FFR have FORCED this organization to bring this development project (which has been ongoing for a year already) into the public forum with the confidence that doing so will make the car better. To lash the guys down to a strict specific will not be allowed... If it ends up at 1801 lbs. it will be a victory in that regard, despite not hitting the 1800 target... This is chess not checkers.

Dave Smith

Dave,

I'm a Systems Engineer in the automotive industry and I can appreciate what it takes to get a full new design off the ground. Especially when you are dropping in new technology like the gelcoat panels. I think you guys are doing a great thing trying to get a new body design from the public. I think there are two groups of people out that want two different things. One group wants a new age roadster and the other wants a baby GTM. The new age roadster seems to be the proper direction to keep with the cost and weight targets you have set forward. I have no doubt that you guys will be able to make that goal. Its going to be a fun car.

[D2W]

Dave I think your design goals are great. Stick to them and build a minimalistic rocket with great performance and great looks. With that said, design from the beginning for a hardtop/targa option. Obviously the public wants it, if you wait to try and add one later it could very well end up as an ugly add-on. To meet your goals a daily driver with roll-up windows and a perfect top are not possible. Everybody needs to understand this. But a simple good looking top with sturdy add on windows turns this car from a 3 month toy into a 9 month toy. Most of us don't live in Cali.

[Flashburn]

Firstly, I would like to thank F5R for sharing their project development. I'm sure it's not an easy task and in my opinion you are doing a great job in generating interest, making your fans happy and ultimately will be pleased with the design competition, name selection and all the dialogue you've had with fans.

I think you might find that going with a no-top design is going to immediately disinterest over half of the people on the forum, maybe 60 or 70% will lose interest.

It may be the right way to go, you might find a brilliant no-top design, use it to hit the extremely ambitious design goals and still manage to sell as many as you can produce. If it's a choice between a poorly done, poorly weatherproofed, more laborious, more expensive removable top design and a great no-top design with none of these problems.

Let's be honest though, it may end up being a World Platform; spawning other designs which may be popular worldwide, but a road going Ariel Atom-like design isn't going to be a "World Car". In my opinion this is in part due to the Atom's price, size, lack of roof, body panels and windshield.

Don't be surprised if most of your sales go to places like arizona and new mexico. I live in MA and I've daily driven a motorcycle from thaw until freeze for a few of years. One of the recent years it down poured most of the summer. Snow is on the ground until April and it can get bitterly cold by October.

In my opinion, No-top in a place like this cuts the use of the car by 60-70%. It also cuts the effective range. No more weekend trips to the cape, can't go if it's raining on Friday, can't get stranded if it rains on Sunday. No trips to the White or the Green mountains. No Kangamangas highway. Probably few drives to work to show off your baby.

That really awesome $15k price target, starts to look much less appealing to me considering the reduced use you get out of the car around here and the category changes from transportation to recreational toy.



In the end it's a trade-off and it's yours to make. You will have to make it based on your final design, cost, production capacity and market analysis.
I really do believe that going with no-top may be the correct choice, just not one that personally interests me. I'm more interested in fast and fun transportation, even as a second car, than recreational toy.

I think I'll pop back in June and see what you chose.

[Doc_FFR]

So, is a windshield not in the cards? I noticed the first week's design winner doesn't have one.

[Niburu]

So, is a windshield not in the cards? I noticed the first week's design winner doesn't have one.
I sure hope so, otherwise I know in alot of states the car will be just plain illegal to drive - Virginia for example.

[PhyrraM]

.......we have a chance to finally and fully expunge the "kit car" demons and deliver on a promise that the original Lotus super 7 made......... Please help understand that I alone here at FFR have FORCED this organization to bring this...... into the public forum with the confidence that doing so will make the car better.
Dave Smith

I say great! The level of fit and finish, and attention to detail, is the reason I have planned to build my own car - up to 818 announcement. I truely feel that a determined home builder can do as good, or better, of a job as most 'kit car' manufactures. If your goal is to break that stereotype, Bravo!

As far as your efforts to bring the public into the fold? I think there are alot of good ideas out here, but you will have to pick and choose. Use us like a sounding board and think tank. The open-or-closed discussion is a good indicator of what happens when you let us feel we have any real decsion making power. People start to feel like they are not heard, when the reality is they were never gauranteed an audience.

In any case, Big thanks to FFR for tackling something like the 818 project in the first place.

[BrandonDrums]

About the top/no top discussion. I started a poll to see what people thought about it here: http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?970-Does-no-top-and-or-no-H6-support-break-the-deal-for-you

Please vote!

I just wanted to add, putting a WRX engine in a mid engined car will sell regardless of it's form. However, the difference between the best selling FFR kit and something that will get discontinued like the old FFR Spyder lies in it's roof.

A lotus 7 type car may get performance numbers but it isn't going to get sales numbers like a subaru powered Elise will. Sales will increase tremendously the more convenient the roof is to add and remove. It's a big big deal, I know first hand how annoying and frustrating it is to have a killer car (my bud has an MKIII) and watch Spring pass by with rain reports for a month straight and not get a moment to enjoy the car because you don't have a roof.

Build a roof and the orders will come. Build a targa and watch 02-07 wrx's skyrocket in value because they are all being taken apart to go in this kit.

[Someday I Suppose]

I can't help but wonder if Jim's eye twitch got worse over the last couple of days :-)

[Gollum]

I hard top isn't a deal breaker for me, but it's certainly a blow. My personal advice would be to just make sure to R&D the design open enough to have a hard top down the road (which I know you guys are capable of).

But in all honesty, I think you guys on the forum are taking this really harder than it needs to be. Dave has said himself that "if the design is there" then a top IS in the cards, but it has to be on point with the goals. But I think ALL OF YOU would be hard pressed to find a car under 1800 pounds, that handles great, that is attainable for most, with a top on it. Unless we're talking about minuscule little tin cans from england (like the ginetta g4), that market is just almost impossible to get into in this price range. Everything about automotive engineering is an art of compromises. From cylinder heads to suspension geometry, there's no "perfect" design.

The beauty of not having a top option like an Atom is that it firmly places the vehicle goals where it should be. People now don't complain about not having AC, or even heat! People now know that it's basically a motorcycle with GRIP, and I know several people that would love that.

The biggest problem I can foresee, is from the marketing aspect. If it has a top it CAN be compared to an Elise, Viper, ZO6, etc. Without a possible top in the works then it has to be compared to cars like the Attack, Atom, etc which I have FULL FAITH that FFR can compete with, and even slaughter.

Even if FFR were to design and sell a topless model, and then reserve a hard top design for a "new" car design down the road a few years around the same chassis that weighs in at just another 150 pounds or so, they would have TWO winners, not just one.

[Oppenheimer]

1. My personal advice would be to just make sure to R&D the design open enough to have a hard top down the road (which I know you guys are capable of).

2. But I think ALL OF YOU would be hard pressed to find a car under 1800 pounds, that handles great, that is attainable for most, with a top on it.

3. Even if FFR were to design and sell a topless model, and then reserve a hard top design for a "new" car design down the road a few years around the same chassis that weighs in at just another 150 pounds or so, they would have TWO winners, not just one.

1. YES! Agreed.

2. Right. Which is why we aren't asking for that. We're asking for a hardtop _option_, that only people that wanted it would order, that would add extra cost, add extra weight, add extra build complexity, but only for those that are using the top. Everyone else would get the same light, simple, cheap build that they would have gotten if no top was ever considered. Many of us aren't even asking for it now, we just want to make sure the capability to add a top later isn't designed out the final result, and that FFR build a top option ASAP after the initial release.

3. Exactly. Generate a lot of buzz, awesome new car. Then shortly after, more buzz when they offer the top (or 2nd body style, a Coupe or whatever).

[BrandonDrums]

Haha, this is funny to me for some reason. No offense but saying having no top is good because people can't complain about not having A/C or Heat is like a Realtor telling someone to buy a house without windows because they can't complain about any lack of privacy or to buy a house without a yard because they don't have to worry about yard work. It's a tough argument, a many good folks won't buy that house.

A lotus 7 is available, any of us can find a way to build one, there are several kits available for that car not to mention several other ultra-light track kit cars that are somewhat affordable if we choose to buy one.

What's not available is an affordable answer to the lotus Elise. Mid-engined, stylish and liveable. I could easily justify spending an extra 10 grand on a used Elise and skip the 6-12 months building this thing to have that. I could spend roughly the same money building an actual Lotus 7 replica.

Us complainers want a sweet looking car we can drive to work and show off in. We want a car we can take our wives/girlfriends to the beach and get looks from. That same car can also tear up a track.




I hard top isn't a deal breaker for me, but it's certainly a blow. My personal advice would be to just make sure to R&D the design open enough to have a hard top down the road (which I know you guys are capable of).

But in all honesty, I think you guys on the forum are taking this really harder than it needs to be. Dave has said himself that "if the design is there" then a top IS in the cards, but it has to be on point with the goals. But I think ALL OF YOU would be hard pressed to find a car under 1800 pounds, that handles great, that is attainable for most, with a top on it. Unless we're talking about minuscule little tin cans from england (like the ginetta g4), that market is just almost impossible to get into in this price range. Everything about automotive engineering is an art of compromises. From cylinder heads to suspension geometry, there's no "perfect" design.

The beauty of not having a top option like an Atom is that it firmly places the vehicle goals where it should be. People now don't complain about not having AC, or even heat! People now know that it's basically a motorcycle with GRIP, and I know several people that would love that.

The biggest problem I can foresee, is from the marketing aspect. If it has a top it CAN be compared to an Elise, Viper, ZO6, etc. Without a possible top in the works then it has to be compared to cars like the Attack, Atom, etc which I have FULL FAITH that FFR can compete with, and even slaughter.

Even if FFR were to design and sell a topless model, and then reserve a hard top design for a "new" car design down the road a few years around the same chassis that weighs in at just another 150 pounds or so, they would have TWO winners, not just one.

[PhyrraM]

Why is everybody stuck on this still?

It's been stated that it not a priority.

It's also been stated that EVERY OTHER FFR project has excellent aftermarket support.

It's been stated that most are looking for a closed OPTION and are willing to PAY EXTRA for it.

Why do folks feel the need for FFR to do this, when it's completely obvious that SOMEBODY will?

If your paying extra, for an option, getting from another vendor seems like it should be a non-issue.

Let FFR focus on what they have stated many, many times they wish to focus on - Vehicle dynamics. Get THAT wrong and nobody is going to care about a top.

The poll speaks for itself. At this point all the talk is not changing any minds.

[thebeerbaron]

Us complainers want a sweet looking car we can drive to work and show off in. We want a car we can take our wives/girlfriends to the beach and get looks from. That same car can also tear up a track.

That would be called the GTM.

You want a GTM for 818 prices + options. Fine, I get that. I don't think it's realistic, but that's my problem. Listen to what Dave is saying (paraphrased): if the design allows it, it might happen at some later date.

So draw a design that includes a hardtop option and win the competition. Then wait until FFR has satisfied initial demand for the roadster and has the experience/time/energy to tackle the top. You'll be rewarded with a better car.

Until then, note that the poll, for all intents and purposes (due to a very small sample size), is dead even. And have some sympathy for poor Jim's eye twitch. Put down the pitchforks and enjoy the ride.

To give you an idea of what Jim is going through and why a top option is not in the initial plans, watch the Lotus Elise design video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7072924456318931568#) linked from my blog post (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/entry.php?71-Sources-of-inspiration).

I'm sorry if I sound patronizing, I don't mean to be. I just think that there are some unrealistic expectations here, and Jim and Dave are being strung up for them (even if that's not really intentional). My sympathies to everyone who didn't get what they wanted.

[Oppenheimer]

Why is everybody stuck on this still?

It's been stated that it not a priority.

It's also been stated that EVERY OTHER FFR project has excellent aftermarket support.

It's been stated that most are looking for a closed OPTION and are willing to PAY EXTRA for it.

Why do folks feel the need for FFR to do this, when it's completely obvious that SOMEBODY will?

If your paying extra, for an option, getting from another vendor seems like it should be a non-issue.

Let FFR focus on what they have stated many, many times they wish to focus on - Vehicle dynamics. Get THAT wrong and nobody is going to care about a top.

The poll speaks for itself. At this point all the talk is not changing any minds.

Something like a good fitting hardtop is going to work a whole lot better if its part of the vehicles design, not an aftermarket add-on. How will it mount to the body? How will it mount to the windshield? What about windows?

If there are mounts build into the body, with frame hardpoints supporting them. If the windshield frame is built to accept a seal and latches. If the doors are built to accept windows. All these accomodations can be added to the car while compromising very little for the builders that won't take advantage of them.

Not to mention the new technology FFR is doing with the no-paint body. A third-party top maker would either have to duplicate that, or resort to trying to match the color with paint.

But I agree that FFR needs to focus on getting the car right, the handling, all the new stuff they are using here. It has to be right. THEN they can work on a top. But the top has to be on their radar now, so they don't design things such that adding a top later becomes more difficult for them.

[keys2heaven]

Why is everybody stuck on this still?

It's been stated that it not a priority.

It's also been stated that EVERY OTHER FFR project has excellent aftermarket support.

It's been stated that most are looking for a closed OPTION and are willing to PAY EXTRA for it.

Why do folks feel the need for FFR to do this, when it's completely obvious that SOMEBODY will?

If your paying extra, for an option, getting from another vendor seems like it should be a non-issue.

Let FFR focus on what they have stated many, many times they wish to focus on - Vehicle dynamics. Get THAT wrong and nobody is going to care about a top.

The poll speaks for itself. At this point all the talk is not changing any minds.

I can only speak for myself and I hope this issue dies soon. As Dave has said, nobody should feel limited in their design options.

To top or not to top, that is the question and up to the designer.

I guess for me, personally, I just think that now (the design phase) would be the best time to work on a removable top as it could be designed to easily integrate into the rest of the body. With the amount of effort being spent trying not to make this look like a kit car (of which I have no doubt it won't), perhaps I'm a little nervous that an aftermarket top attachment will make the car look "kittish".

I'm fine, repeat, 100% fine, with a top option down the road as long as it is designed to compliment whatever the final design is.

[Flashburn]

Why is everybody stuck on this still?
Because it matters, and because it's not finalized yet.


That would be called the GTM.
You want a GTM for 818 prices + options.
The 7L V8 GTM SUPERCAR's defining quality is not that 'it has a roof'.


We don't want GTM for 818 prices.

We want 818 with a top for 818 prices.

The car has one of two ways to go and the roof issue dictates it:

1. Sports car in the sense of very fast and fun transportation
2. Recreational toy

[Jeff Kleiner]

I can't help but wonder if Jim's eye twitch got worse over the last couple of days :-)

I'm sure talk of A/C didn't help it! ;)

Jeff

[David Hodgkins]

There ya go, my first post edit...

Guys, lets not let this get out of hand. Surely there are ways to show your frustration in an intelligent way, without resorting to incidiary language.

Onward...

:)

[PhyrraM]

Because it matters...... you're just spamming. ......it won't make the real world change

Of course it matters! Not spamming, just illistrating that neither side of the arguement is going to get much further, so it's time to chill. Again, my only point is that it's time to chill because FF5 has stated goals, direction, and even a timeline.

Dave has already told everyone willing to read THE way to get a hardtop - DESIGN ONE and submit it. Why talk all the talk when we have been told what to do, in no uncertain terms.


The car has one of two ways to go and the roof issue dictates it:

1. Sports car in the sense of very fast and fun transportation
2. Recreational toy

Agreed. Yes, it does.

[Dave Smith]

I just HAVE to reply to this! All afternoon I swear Jim was walking around the building whistling a song that goes something like "I told you so" over and over... His eye twitch getting a bit better but still causing him to see in "strobe '" effect. Its all your fault if the car has a 70's disco theme now.

Seriously, it is way too early in the process to get worked up about this. Imagine there is a design that is sooo rock-star cool as a coupe that it pushes the price up, or introduces a new way of looking at this paradigm... that is not a problem. Everyone is talking about this car as if it is easy to pull-off. This is without a doubt the most difficult challenge our company has ever faced. Nothing, not ****** lawsuits, starting a race series, even designing the mighty GTM... nothing is as daunting as this. In my sincere and honest evaluation of our skills as a company, this is a great example of where our reach is slightly exceeding our grasp! BUT we CAN do it. Not alone. There is simply no way to deliver the panel quality we'll need without having gone to school in fiberglass for 15 years, there is no way to manufacture the chassis without the 100% support of Solidworks CAD from design to tooling to welding. The performance aspects could not be achieved without our racing in the challenge series, the crucial "look" of the car will be a jaw dropper due precisely to our experience with the GTM and the contributions of the community and some VERY experienced talented people, the cost target will ONLY be possible by leveraging our relationships with GREAT FFR suppliers we've built relationships with over the years.

To deliver the car we are trying to make, with the looks and performance and engineered-in simplicity and build-ability, and to do so for sub 10 grand with a completed cost target of sub 15 grand is INSANE. Success in this endeavor will prove to the world that Factory Five is in a category all by itself. We KNOW these things inside the walls and many folks in the community know we are capable of pulling this off.

Jim will lead the effort and making ALL final design decisions period. In the end, Jim will be the master of this design and for all these reasons and many many more. The debate of this top is noted and yet I hope it does not constrain the design competition in any way.

Success is also going to be HUGELY dependent upon having fun. Let's keep the dialog positive and fun and remember that none of us have to do this. We are all here for fun and to share our ideas and talents and passions. I have a secret mission in all this... but thats for another post and another day.

[Vman7]

rofl.......'70s disco theme, now where did I put those bell bottom pants...lol

[Vman7]

Dave, since I decided to work on a design, I plan on trying to design it as a spyder (roadster) first, but at the same time design Targa/Coupe option that can be interchanged by just taking out the center engine cover section and replacing it with the Targa/Coupe section. Hopefully what I see in my Head will come out once I draw it up. This way there wouldn't be a big design change, since the top would be already part of the design, but can be added in the future depending on how sales go etc.
David

[keys2heaven]

Hey, if we're doing 70's, then I want the interior lined in corduroy. :)

[thebeerbaron]

I have a secret mission in all this... but thats for another post and another day.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldp582CP351qddj4so1_500.jpg

Not so secret now, Dave...

[BrandonDrums]

Well I have no pitchforks, let that be clear. I'm just having fun trying to stir up some real discussions amongst the community about what attracts them to this idea. I don't want a GTM though, why does having a top suddenly mean I want a GM-based V8 supercar? I'm a Subaru guy!

I've always dreamed of putting a boxer turbo engine in a leightweight MR platform. But as a Subaru guy, I'm attracted to my WRX WAGON because it's rather versatile. I can use it in ANY weather; rain, snow sunshine etc. I can seat 4 peeps and I can outrun a ton of other cars. Many of us Subaru guys who know the joys of getting to drive our cars regardless of the weather forecast will be extremely hesitant to invest the time and energy into a car that seldom sees conditions ideal enough to fully enjoy.

Subaru guys are car-nuts but we also are used to quite a bit more practicality than you Miata guys. That might be the source of a lot of this discussion for me.

Good night, I'll be watching from the sidelines now.


That would be called the GTM.

You want a GTM for 818 prices + options. Fine, I get that. I don't think it's realistic, but that's my problem. Listen to what Dave is saying (paraphrased): if the design allows it, it might happen at some later date.

So draw a design that includes a hardtop option and win the competition. Then wait until FFR has satisfied initial demand for the roadster and has the experience/time/energy to tackle the top. You'll be rewarded with a better car.

Until then, note that the poll, for all intents and purposes (due to a very small sample size), is dead even. And have some sympathy for poor Jim's eye twitch. Put down the pitchforks and enjoy the ride.

To give you an idea of what Jim is going through and why a top option is not in the initial plans, watch the Lotus Elise design video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7072924456318931568#) linked from my blog post (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/entry.php?71-Sources-of-inspiration).

I'm sorry if I sound patronizing, I don't mean to be. I just think that there are some unrealistic expectations here, and Jim and Dave are being strung up for them (even if that's not really intentional). My sympathies to everyone who didn't get what they wanted.

[Gollum]

I guess all those people with bikes should go throw out their recreational toys. :-D

Ahh, all in good fun guys. I have full faith in FFR. They have YET to deliver a BAD product. They've always been quality quality quality. When there might be a hint of a weak point they move to fix the problem ASAP. They're not like a huge manufacture that only makes changes if they can prove it worth their wallet. FFR is dedicated to what they do, not just making a living. I don't think I can say the same about many manufactures.

[KOUROS]

The more I read here, the more its taking my limited time to get with my design in. The reason I read here is to "read in between the lines" in replies from Jim and Dave. This has caused me to go back to step one a couple of times already. I was fine with the blank sheet with 4 wheels on it right of the get-go. They gave us the basics and in my opinion was enough. That small amount of information they provided will bring home better design because of the diversity in designers.

[D2W]

Dave I belive you can also tell Jim "I told you so". It's pretty obvious from this thread alone how passionate people are about this car. One that nobody has even seen yet. Could Jim make this car all on his own? Of course. Will the input from your customer base make it a true world car, the best selling car FFR has ever made? That all depends on what you do with the information, its like any other powerful tool, if you don't pay attention or use it correctly you smash a thumb:)

[mn_vette]

I guess all those people with bikes should go throw out their recreational toys. :-D



Actually, that's exactly what I did. I couldn't ride the bike enough and it was a pain to have to watch the weather reports all day at work to see if I was going to get caught in the rain. Not to mention very hot on hot days and VERY cold on cold day. Sure I could just ride it on weekends, but that's when I go places with my family and its difficult to get a wife and two kids on a motorcycle. I ended up just selling it.

[Someday I Suppose]

Dave, at least we know Jim is a Warlock with Tiger's Blood, so were not worried at all :-)

Also, for the guys comparing this project to a Lotus 7, (and I know Dave mentioned the 7) but wow I think that's harsh in the other direction. I go back to Dave's interview on the 33 Coyote project on Horsepower, he talked about how they only did the 33 after Jim convinced him they could make it handle. My understanding of the cars FFR has now the 33 is probably the best autocross car in the bunch, until it meets the 818. I don't know if the 818 is going to compete with a ZO6 down the straight at Road Atlanta, but mid engine, and great power to weight balance, I see this car as something that is going to tear it up at an Auto X and be one heck of a fun track car.

I just wish there was a big enough parking lot at Factory Five for them to set-up a mini Auto X circuit at the open house so we could see the bare frame in action. :-)

-Scott

[Dave Smith]

Scott,

I'm glad you mentioned that Horsepower TV show because usually I despise those so-called "candid shop interviews" that are really just infomercials... in that case the conversation about the design of the Hot Rod was captured in such a sincere and honest way... The video guy told us to start talking about the design and so we did and it was really just the truth. It illustrates a great example though, and that is there is a real honest push and pull between people here (and customers) who respect each other and who share a vision of what is important and who have genuine LOVE for cars. Jim's vision is exceptional and the car will indeed be a giant slayer. We DEFINITELY need a bigger parking lot!

[jvd]

So far I think this discussion has been healthy. The FF guys (Dave and Jim) might read this and think "hoo boy..." but if you see the forest through the trees these are just passionate people making a plea. It's all good.

Likewise to the guys worried that this isn't going to be what they want. Well, you can't make everyone happy. I think we all need to see how this goes. The Porsche Boxster Spyder comes to mind with its bikini top as a potential solution for this car.

Any consideration made for a top of any kind should be done at the onset of design and not as an after thought (if possible). I think that's why Dave and Co. left the design contest open so people can design away unencumbered.

Let's see how it turns out and meanwhile expect lots of feedback that will be all over the board. That feedback is nothing to worry about at this stage and is healthy.

Keep up the great work Factory Five. This project has HUGE potential.

-jamie

[Oppenheimer]

So far I think this discussion has been healthy. The FF guys (Dave and Jim) might read this and think "hoo boy..." but if you see the forest through the trees these are just passionate people making a plea. It's all good.

Likewise to the guys worried that this isn't going to be what they want. Well, you can't make everyone happy. I think we all need to see how this goes. The Porsche Boxster Spyder comes to mind with its bikini top as a potential solution for this car.

Any consideration made for a top of any kind should be done at the onset of design and not as an after thought (if possible). I think that's why Dave and Co. left the design contest open so people can design away unencumbered.

Let's see how it turns out and meanwhile expect lots of feedback that will be all over the board. That feedback is nothing to worry about at this stage and is healthy.

Keep up the great work Factory Five. This project has HUGE potential.

-jamie

Agree 100%.

Lets refrain from going darkside with our comments. We are being given an opportunity to be insiders on this project. Lets make sure they hear our voices, but lets make sure we don't abuse the privledge. These discussions are useful to FFR, and to us, so long as we all get our say, then let FFR make the decissions.

Lets not abuse the priviledge of having a voice, lets not condemn others for expressing their voice.

[GTLee77]

Subaru guys are car-nuts but we also are used to quite a bit more practicality...

I think the practicality issue is the main source to the push-back about the 818 not having a roof.

There are two main types of people on this 818 forum...
1. The Subaru fanatic that's looking to be an FFR fanatic. This guy is probably already driving their donor everyday, all-year round.
2. The FFR fanatic that's looking to be a Subaru fan if the 818 stays WRX-based. This person is interested FFR's new design primarily and will become a fan of what every drivetrain FFR desides to use. They'll end up buying a donor car, not a "Subaru".

Both types are passionate about their cars but the Subaru guys also care about practicality. I've owned 5 Subarus, 3 Imprezas and 2 Legacys, and the reason that I got them is because no other manufacturer could offer me a similar combination of price, performance, and practicality.

To the die-hard Subaru guys, a 818 without a top losses its practicality and is seen as a down-grade to their WRX, regardless of the 818's price and performance.

Regards,

Lee

[MDRex]

I think the guys comparing this to a Subaru are just way too out there. There simply is no comparison. I've had 6 Subarus and love their practicality and performance, but I'm not looking for that from this car. I'm not looking for a car I can drive everyday, but I still want a top because no top really limits the number of days and places I could take the car. WIth no top you just can't go very far for very long around here, the threat of rain is just too often. I just want to be able to get home dry when I do get suprised by the rain.

[GTLee77]

In no way am I comparing this to a Subaru. They're are completely different animals. I myself wouldn't care if the 818 had a top or not because I wouldn't be driving the 818 everyday. I'd be driving my DD and get a WRX donor. Heck, I'll wait around and see if someone could sell me a donor pallet.

The issue arises when a Subaru guy driving his donor has to chose to give up his practicality for the performance of the 818. As the forum has shown, many guys aren't willing to do that. That's all I'm saying.

[MDRex]

I know exactly what you are saying, and wasn't implying you were one of the guys I'm talking about. I've been thinking about it and my plan is actually to keep my current WRX to use as I have been. That car is an auto and basically a daily commuter, city beater, foul weather car, that also happens to be quite fun to drive. I plan to sell my Mustang, which is a 5-speed, supercharged monster that I only drive in the summer on nice days, although could drive much more if I wanted. I want this FFR to replace the Mustang.

[Hondaslayer]

I live in the Pacific Northwest, we have some of the best driving roads I have ever encountered, however we also get a ton of rain. Having this car as a roadster only means I cannot and will not be buying one, period. To those saying "just wait for the aftermaket", no. Everything not originally designed into the car will be a compromise, the car needs to be designed with a top from the get go. The best over all solution (and likely the cheapest) would be to design it as a targa or a "t" top with a flat rear window. Side windows could come from the donor or another small car (miata?) depending on what windshield this car uses (presumably from the donor)

[Dirk]

I’m really unable to accurately describe how disappointed I am about on hearing that there will be no top for this new design.

I was truly excited about a kit I could afford to build, decent on gas, killer looks (I hope :)), handling to beat the band and something I could drive for three seasons / park at work or on a trip, something my wife would not hate ( no top = bad hair, skin cancer, steal me sign and a no vote from the wife and me :( skin cancer and makes track days harder to find in my area.)

So please reconsider or at the very least make it an pay for option.

Thanks,
Dirk

[PhyrraM]

I 'hear' alot of FFR customers who already have a roadster, or '33 coupe, looking to build thier next FFR project (a testament to FFR's way of doing business). The arguement seems to be "My first FFR is a summertime car and I don't need another summertime car." That's fair.

However, there is going to be a whole new group of fans that this will be thier first 'toy' car. I believe it's mainly that group who won't mind a pure roadster.

Either way, as stated a few times by Dave, it's all about the design at this point. The gauntlet is thrown. To spin an old quote.."Draw it....and they will build it."

[BrandonDrums]

Ack, I'm going to have to comment.

"Draw it and they will build it" seems perhaps revisable. I think it can be a "pure" roadster with a removable hard-top designed as a part of the car from the beginning. Make it an optional extra for a few grand so it's not unprofitable for the FFR team and call it a done deal.

Instead of waiting for a design cool enough to justify a top, just tell the contestants the draw a roadster with a removable top that goes along with the design.

This saying should be "Draw a car with a removable top and they will build it". It's silly to let how cool a design looks to determine weather or not they include a top which according to the poll on the topic is a good 60% of all the potential buyers on this forum say is a deal breaker.

If that poll is a good sample of the actual prospect market for this kit, FFR will see OVER a 100% INCREASE in sales over the market for a car without any top options. Any business owner should take a serious look at that data if you ask me...

I hope I didn't upset anyone, just participating in a fun topic guys. Thanks to FFR again for opening this forum for us fans to interact with your fantastic company!

[Oppenheimer]

I 'hear' alot of FFR customers who already have a roadster, or '33 coupe, looking to build thier next FFR project (a testament to FFR's way of doing business). The arguement seems to be "My first FFR is a summertime car and I don't need another summertime car." That's fair.

However, there is going to be a whole new group of fans that this will be thier first 'toy' car. I believe it's mainly that group who won't mind a pure roadster.

Either way, as stated a few times by Dave, it's all about the design at this point. The gauntlet is thrown. To spin an old quote.."Draw it....and they will build it."

To me, it appears the other way around. Those that are OK with the Roadster being a Roadster only are OK with the 818 being a Roadster only (yeah, I know there are soft and hard tops avail, but they aren't in any way practical). Its those that this would be their first FFR that are perplexed about a car with no roof of any kind.

In my case, I've been lurking on the various FFR forums for years, dreaming of a build, but waiting for a roof (and a GTM would be a dreamcar, but its more than I really want, and more than I can afford). I've waited this long, I can wait a little longer (hoping FFR offers a top soon after initial launch).

[Dave Smith]

OK guys. I am concerned about all this talk for one reason, people are deciding the design will not have a top when there is no design!

I have said this ten times in ten different ways over the last few days... There is a DESIGN COMPETITION going on. A roadster can be a removable hard top (likely not at our target price point as Jim alluded to). Convertible technology has come a long long way as out latest Mk4 soft top shows. I think the entire design team here has heard clearly that the majority of guys want a top.

I drove an old Fiat x19 right out of college. That design was one of the easiest and coolest ever, top pulled off in 5 seconds, stowed up front OVER the luggage... very cool.

[kach22i]

Every person who responded to the poll wants a Targa or will settle for a solid roof.
I missed the poll, but for me an open top is what a sports car is all about. I own a 1977 Porsche 911 Targa myself and the roof is almost never on.

A Targa top is a good way to go, and I'll admit the old Ferrari 308 (Magnum Pi) solid one piece fit behind the seats top is way better than the Porsche solution. My buddy has one, and it's quiet too.

[BrandonDrums]

OK guys. I am concerned about all this talk for one reason, people are deciding the design will not have a top when there is no design!

I have said this ten times in ten different ways over the last few days... There is a DESIGN COMPETITION going on. A roadster can be a removable hard top (likely not at our target price point as Jim alluded to). Convertible technology has come a long long way as out latest Mk4 soft top shows. I think the entire design team here has heard clearly that the majority of guys want a top.

I just think people were worried that there was still a big chance that there would be no top if the winner happened to not include one. Perhaps it would be easier just making a suggestion to the designer contestants to include an optional, removable top with their design submissions while clarifying that it needs to be cost effective and will be sold as an optional extra so you don't have to disregard your target price for the kit. They'll draw a roadster and also draw that same roadster with a removable top. Done.

That way us ~60% of potential buyers can stop whining and forcing your team to get psycho therapy about it.

This is the most clear you've been on the topic and perhaps the most comforting. Thanks for chiming in. I'm out for real now.

Thanks Dave,

[D2W]

OK guys. I am concerned about all this talk for one reason, people are deciding the design will not have a top when there is no design!

I have said this ten times in ten different ways over the last few days... There is a DESIGN COMPETITION going on. A roadster can be a removable hard top (likely not at our target price point as Jim alluded to). Convertible technology has come a long long way as out latest Mk4 soft top shows. I think the entire design team here has heard clearly that the majority of guys want a top.

I drove an old Fiat x19 right out of college. That design was one of the easiest and coolest ever, top pulled off in 5 seconds, stowed up front OVER the luggage... very cool.

Dave I think what you need to say to end this discussion is the design team is thinking about an extra optional hardtop from the beginning. What people are worried about is not only the fact the car might not have a top but also if a top is not thought about until after the design is done and it ends up as a fugly add-on that no one wants. The Fiat x19 is an excellent example of a great top, and one that was designed with the car from the beginning. Can you think of any true roadster that a top was designed later that doesn't look like a wart on a supermodel.

[Justen]

Im going to build one either way, and im sure by the time im done building it, which will probably be at least 2 years from now, that there will be an option for a top. and if not, oh well, its still a sweet car. im putting in a driveway (paving the current dirt driveway) and a steel building right now so ill have a place to build!

[Magnus]

Dave I think what you need to say to end this discussion is the design team is thinking about an extra optional hardtop from the beginning. What people are worried about is not only the fact the car might not have a top but also if a top is not thought about until after the design is done and it ends up as a fugly add-on that no one wants. The Fiat x19 is an excellent example of a great top, and one that was designed with the car from the beginning. Can you think of any true roadster that a top was designed later that doesn't look like a wart on a supermodel.

The Mercedes-Benz 300SLR (W196S) was converted into the Uhlenhaut coupes with some success...

[Oppenheimer]

Actually, I don't care if its BudTugly, so long as it works well (like x19 that was mentioned). So I care that its on FFR's radar from the start, not so much from how-it-looks standpoint, but how well it works. It needs to be convenient, seal well (weather and noise), etc.

My concern was always that FFR know how much the top means to me (and others). That clearly has been accomplished. So I'll be quiet now (well, as much as I can be).

Top-penheimer

[D2W]

The Mercedes-Benz 300SLR (W196S) was converted into the Uhlenhaut coupes with some success...

What I meant was a roadster with an add on top. Not a roadster converted to a coupe.

[mn_vette]

TOP OR NO TOP.........how about both? Since the cost and weight goals will be much easier to meet without a top then that might be a great place to start to get the car on the road(no blower/ac, windows, window gapping/sealing, less complex overall). I'm hoping that after the initial launch Dave and his crew will take a second design winner with a top and take the time to create a "baby GTM" that is water tight. If they can keep everything the same except the body pannels I think it would work out well for all.

[Vman7]

Dave, since I decided to work on a design, I plan on trying to design it as a spyder (roadster) first, but at the same time design Targa/Coupe option that can be interchanged by just taking out the center engine cover section and replacing it with the Targa/Coupe section. Hopefully what I see in my Head will come out once I draw it up. This way there wouldn't be a big design change, since the top would be already part of the design, but can be added in the future depending on how sales go etc.
David

I thought I would repost this since it got kind of lost in the thread.

[bromikl]

And BrandonDrums is also right.

Initially the car needs to be a roadster to meet the design goals. AND a covered version needs to be available to double sales.

These two vehicles can be built on the same frame, and may look completely different.

And there is no requirement that the covered version uses any of the roadsters body panels, so stop worrying about the top being Fugly.

But for now, it's only available as a roadster. In a couple years, who knows?

[BrandonDrums]

And BrandonDrums is also right.

Initially the car needs to be a roadster to meet the design goals. AND a covered version needs to be available to double sales.

These two vehicles can be built on the same frame, and may look completely different.

And there is no requirement that the covered version uses any of the roadsters body panels, so stop worrying about the top being Fugly.

But for now, it's only available as a roadster. In a couple years, who knows?


Actually I meant just design a roadster with a removeable and optional hard top. All the body panels should be identical. For the base price you get the bare bones roadster. For an additional cost you get the removable hard top that was designed with the rest of the car. Release both on day 1 and double sales immediately.

I am quite against the idea of waiting a few years. The top needs to be available from the start.

But that's just me, honestly I think the top discussion need to be over at this point. I think Dave and the guys have heard us and perhaps more importantly all of the design entrants have probably gotten wind of it too. I'm pretty much not worried about this car anymore, I think it's going to be ideal for everyone and I'm just excited to see what the final design looks like.

[forced4]

Actually I meant just design a roadster with a removeable and optional hard top. All the body panels should be identical. For the base price you get the bare bones roadster. For an additional cost you get the removable hard top that was designed with the rest of the car. Release both on day 1 and double sales immediately.

I am quite against the idea of waiting a few years. The top needs to be available from the start.

But that's just me, honestly I think the top discussion need to be over at this point. I think Dave and the guys have heard us and perhaps more importantly all of the design entrants have probably gotten wind of it too. I'm pretty much not worried about this car anymore, I think it's going to be ideal for everyone and I'm just excited to see what the final design looks like.It only makes sense to integrate a roof in the initial design. Like Brandon stated, have options available up front and more sales shall follow.

I personally am not too hot on ripping my WRX apart for a sunny day only toy.

[0100]

I personally am not too hot on ripping my WRX apart for a sunny day only toy.

Oh man I wouldn't rip apart a good wrx. I would look for a totalled wrx, but it depends on how much of the donor will be re-used on the 818.

[05xtsy]

Any good design in itself has elemental aspects that can be represented in a more economic version. UGH.... Kind of frustrating though, after all this work. Again though.... The beauty of design is that you can show all possibilities.

Regardless of how simple or complex the design, There is going to require a lot of work to go from paper to pavement. If the design is going to be continuously focused and chipped away (like any good design always is :)) The most important thing is knowing all the materials/capabilities being used (which we don't know). Add the best materials to a vehicle and you obviously bump up the price. Knowing what Materials are going to be used in any design is a necessity.

I for one am actually extremely excited that I get to do more, and look at it as an opportunity. I was Putting the finishing touches on the convertible version of my design, glad I didn't start on the Iso views yet.

[BrandonDrums]

Any good design in itself has elemental aspects that can be represented in a more economic version. UGH.... Kind of frustrating though, after all this work. Again though.... The beauty of design is that you can show all possibilities.

Regardless of how simple or complex the design, There is going to require a lot of work to go from paper to pavement. If the design is going to be continuously focused and chipped away (like any good design always is :)) The most important thing is knowing all the materials/capabilities being used (which we don't know). Add the best materials to a vehicle and you obviously bump up the price. Knowing what Materials are going to be used in any design is a necessity.

I for one am actually extremely excited that I get to do more, and look at it as an opportunity. I was Putting the finishing touches on the convertible version of my design, glad I didn't start on the Iso views yet.

Tubular Steel Spaceframe
Fiberglass Body
Aluminum Chassis panels

I imagine it will be just like any other FFR kit in essence. They might also offer an optional Carbon Fiber body but for the most part you're looking at old-school fiberglass with new-school fabrication techniques for the body, Laser cut and hand welded chassis and laster cut aluminum panels that the buyer rivets in place.

Pretty simple stuff. Simple makes lightweight :D

[Pat Buckley]

My vote is for an open car.

[Dave Smith]

We are updating the contest to make it clear that the design is OPEN to a variety of configurations. I'll post this as soon as we have it written and up with Grassroots Motorsports.

[riptide motorsport]

What seemed so simple is not so simple!:) ........Glad I just build them......Steven

[PhyrraM]

We are updating the contest to make it clear that the design is OPEN to a variety of configurations. I'll post this as soon as we have it written and up with Grassroots Motorsports.

I thought you liked Jim? Something about an early grave......? ;)

[bauhaus]

We are updating the contest to make it clear that the design is OPEN to a variety of configurations. I'll post this as soon as we have it written and up with Grassroots Motorsports.

Yay!!!!! Thanks Dave.

I think D2W in comment #88 voiced my concerns that adding a top later is a risky strategy. Having an top or targa as an additional cost option that is worked into the design from day one is the right approach. Having this just as a possibility really makes this an exciting proposition.

[Jammin]

Top or no top, I am in. Been driving a FFR roadster for 7 years and just put a top on it last year. There is nothing that cannot be done, you just need to be creative. My roadster is problerly one of the most modified roadsters out there with custom mods that I have designed and manufactured on my own. I am looking forward to the chalange of building one of these cars and putting my own touch to it.
On a seperate note to Jiim, are you guys still racing Forza online Mondays and Thursday nights. I have not been online for over a year but I was Con Sniper

[spacecase70]

using the designs for an open top roadster, how about the idea of incorporating the concept of an open wheeled roadster as a possible option! I think for track day racing, it would be an awsome option, plus have the fenders available in the kit to be easily removable from the chassis using a DZUS fastener also as an option! that way people could make a decision as to how to assemble their own 818 as they see fit! I think that the idea has merit and is worthy of exploration, think of this as a design exercise, having full coverage fender (or wings) or close tire hugging fenders, with the turn indicators and tail lights installed in the body shell and the headlamps using integrated turn indicators!

what are your thoughts?

[thebeerbaron]

using the designs for an open top roadster, how about the idea of incorporating the concept of an open wheeled roadster as a possible option! I think for track day racing, it would be an awsome option, plus have the fenders available in the kit to be easily removable from the chassis using a DZUS fastener also as an option! that way people could make a decision as to how to assemble their own 818 as they see fit! I think that the idea has merit and is worthy of exploration, think of this as a design exercise, having full coverage fender (or wings) or close tire hugging fenders, with the turn indicators and tail lights installed in the body shell and the headlamps using integrated turn indicators!

what are your thoughts?

Making a car that looks good with or without fenders is far more difficult than doing one design that looks good with or without a roof. And on a car this small, the roof thing isn't easy!

Other strikes against it - tires are a huge source of aero drag, so it's beneficial to have the body smoothly deflect air around them. I think it was posted elsewhere here, but driving an open-wheeled car in the rain is fun, but gets you and your expensive fire suit soaking wet. And open wheel cars throw stones like nobody's business - especially when hot R-compound rubber is ripping them out of the pavement. Ouch! (I've been hit in the face by gravel in my autocrosser and it's got fenders and a windshield!)

I think that Dave has been pretty clear that while this car will be a hoot on the track, it is not primarily a track car. With the caveat that most Lotus Sevens have fenders, I'll go ahead and say that open-wheel cars deserve to be track cars, usually with a specific competition class in mind.

If you can come up with a body that looks pretty and has removable fenders, I'd like to see it!

[Dave Smith]

The design contest is wide open, but it is my personal opinion that open wheel cars are almost without exception, limited in the reach and size of the market. We have to be realistic and yet encourage creativity. The Ducati roadster concept that was floated at LM was pretty cool, but still, I think and enclosed body is really needed for wide appeal.

[Oppenheimer]

using the designs for an open top roadster, how about the idea of incorporating the concept of an open wheeled roadster as a possible option! I think for track day racing, it would be an awsome option, plus have the fenders available in the kit to be easily removable from the chassis using a DZUS fastener also as an option! that way people could make a decision as to how to assemble their own 818 as they see fit! I think that the idea has merit and is worthy of exploration, think of this as a design exercise, having full coverage fender (or wings) or close tire hugging fenders, with the turn indicators and tail lights installed in the body shell and the headlamps using integrated turn indicators!

what are your thoughts?

The '33 has this sort of modular options, cycle fenders, full fenders, etc (I've been preaching modular roof options for the 818, so was surprised to learn FFR has been there, done that, I checked out the '33, it has an optional hardtop, roll up windows, modular fender options, etc. Way to go Jim!)

I think it would be awesome if there could be an 818 design that lends itself to this sort of additional modularity (top or not, fenders or not, doors or not, etc), but its difficult to imagine such a design that would still look decent in street trim (look like a real car, not like a kit).

I think that looking great on the street is going to be an important factor in ensuring this kit becoming the raging sales success that FFR is aiming for. Performing great of course is the other factor. If they hit that, then it should still be an awesome track weapon.

[Olimk2]

The concept of wings / no wings has been done by Pininfarina on a Lotus Elise chassis...Enjoy concept

http://www.carstyling.ru/resources/studio/2003pininfarina_enjoy_10.jpg

[Olimk2]

http://parkoffka.ru/media/4/20060309-e1.jpg

Some mods for small production run (25 i think)

[Richard Oben]

Holy cow that thing looks like the Daisy, C car concept from Ford a few years ago. JMHO Richard.

[BrandonDrums]

http://parkoffka.ru/media/4/20060309-e1.jpg

Some mods for small production run (25 i think)

Ewww, I'm glad the top design is Xabiers submission. That thing is awesome, but it's not cool.

Top Gear top tip: Awesome does not equal cool. Caterham 7, Aerial Atom, Apollo Gumpert. They might be awesome but rolling up in one is not cool.

Rolling up in a sweet looking performance machine that doesn't make you look like a rick C**K is the definition of Cool.

FFR makes the coolest cars in the world. They look good, perform good, and because you have to know what you're doing to some extent they earn incredible credibility that a 1M Bugatti or any Ferrari simply can't provide.

The flip side is not driving something that can be mistaken for a dune buggy which are cool when you're on the dunes but not as a track car.

[Oppenheimer]

Ewww, I'm glad the top design is Xabiers submission. That thing is awesome, but it's not cool.

Top Gear top tip: Awesome does not equal cool. Caterham 7, Aerial Atom, Apollo Gumpert. They might be awesome but rolling up in one is not cool.

Rolling up in a sweet looking performance machine that doesn't make you look like a rick C**K is the definition of Cool.

FFR makes the coolest cars in the world. They look good, perform good, and because you have to know what you're doing to some extent they earn incredible credibility that a 1M Bugatti or any Ferrari simply can't provide.

The flip side is not driving something that can be mistaken for a dune buggy which are cool when you're on the dunes but not as a track car.

. +1

[UpstateCobraGuy]

Dave,

I love the idea behind this car but the possible execution scares me. What make a C0bra cool will not necessarily produce the same results with Subaru parts. The history behind the "C0BRA" speaks for itself, but an all new design will have NONE of its pedigreed. That is why I like the Lancia Stratos, a mid-engine car with a true race history. But from the looks of it, FFR is going with an"original" design. I can be OK with that but it must be a usable design. Yes, real people MUST be able to get in out without looking like circus clowns, aka Coupe/GTM! I have no problem the base kit sans top, but the new kit must have a top (hard to start, soft to follow) to appeal to the widest market. The failure of the Sypder GT is a perfect example.

JMHO, Pat

[einy]

Wow, all these years saving $$ so I can one day afford a Caterham ... only to find out here that 'rolling up in one is not cool'. Dang ... ah, heck, on second thought I think I'll get one anyway, not be cool, and have a blast !!! :cool:

[flynntuna]

OK guys. I am concerned about all this talk for one reason, people are deciding the design will not have a top when there is no design!

I have said this ten times in ten different ways over the last few days... There is a DESIGN COMPETITION going on. A roadster can be a removable hard top (likely not at our target price point as Jim alluded to). Convertible technology has come a long long way as out latest Mk4 soft top shows. I think the entire design team here has heard clearly that the majority of guys want a top.


I drove an old Fiat x19 right out of college. That design was one of the easiest and coolest ever, top pulled off in 5 seconds, stowed up front OVER the luggage... very cool.

Could this be a clue? Or just wishfull thinking.

[Benji]

Of? They already said they were going to have a top 'available' but not with the kit I thought?

[spaceywilly]

Could this be a clue? Or just wishfull thinking.


FFR will launch the car as a roadster and will hit the $9900 price point target. A soft top is planned to be offered concurrently with launch made by rod tops (same as high-line cobra and 33 HR).

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?7636-818-SEMA-Update-WITH-PICS!&p=72821&viewfull=1#post72821

is that what you're looking for?

[flynntuna]

The x19 was a targa top. Dave said a top has been designed and will be a option, just hoping the street version is a targa. More likely the top will be like the one used on the Pontiac solstis.

[Benji]

Unless it's an unusual combination of soft/targa top, maybe like the Elise?

[Silvertop]

Unless it's an unusual combination of soft/targa top, maybe like the Elise?

That's really exactly what I've been hoping for -- particularly since it would clear the way for the potential retrofit of a hard targa top to the roadster at a later date. Obviously, it would require the addition of a Targa-style cockpit hoop to the Roadster body that is not present on the 818R. This should make a soft Targa top a relatively inexpensive thing to make too.

I'm not predicting this will happen -- but it is within the realm of possibility. Either way, though, I'm committed. I'm buying.

[LS1RX7owen]

I'm sure there will be a few people who end up making their own hardtops or targa tops, out of fiberglass, metal or carbon fiber.
considering the engineering background and car building skills of this group, it seems easy to some of them to make that happen in their garage over a week's time.

[carbon fiber]

(if) there are provisions made to the windsheild frame. you will have to have latches. (mounting point of some kind).

[flynntuna]

Got to be, since a soft top will be an option.

[Flamshackle]

Let me help you guys with a little clarity as to where we stand.. The chassis is already a rock star. The concept and running gear, the market, price and configuration of the car is really a winner. The ENTIRE car comes down to a good looking body design. Jim designed the GTM 100% so I think he has an excellent ability, and frankly ALL of our cars look really good. This will NOT be a watered down crowd-sourced minivan. I dont want to constrain the design competition with rules that exclude a top, removable or soft top. At this stage we want all ideas on the table. If you guys want to cut to the chase and have strict specifics of the car, thats just not going to happen as so much is in design stage. Frankly to make a decision about buying (or selling deposits) about the design is way premature. The things that are set in cement are what we posted in terms of chassis and the bulk running gear (I dont think we are going to wake up and decide to change gears and go with Honda parts).

With respect to the top, the Viper was launched without a top. We've sold 7,000 roadsters with a less than stellar soft top. I would say that barring some INSANELY cool design that merits a coupe or a fixed removeable hard-top, the likely design will be a roadster in order to acheive the very serious price target and not compromise other things... I can absolutely see a removeable hard-top or soft-top down the road and would never rule it out.. Just too much that is open at this stage. Still the debate and strong opinions really help to drive those variables in a way that a closed in-house project could not accomplish.

Let's see where the design competiton goes. Lets see how close we can come to bringing an exciting concept to reality without watering it down and making it lame. Im going to post the original line drawings of the GTM, the earliest shape and the final car to show you guys how closely we stuck to the original concept of that car. What we posted about this car, 1800 lbs target, $9,900 price target, sub-$15,000 complete cost, WRX running gear, RH/LH drive world platform vehicle... If we nail these goals and have a SUPER SEXY body shape, the revenues will provide for plenty of directions whether it's targa/conv/fixed-removable top designs, alternate body designs on a shared platform, or something else, I have a feeling the car will be a raging success and be an exciting new direction (like the hot rod has been) for the company and inclusive community.

That's all I have to say about that (in Forrest Gump accent).

Dave Smith

As always helpful and a little humorous, thanks DS!

Just for the record, I also would prefer a targa or hard top but will take this little beauty as is! It's stunning IMO and has grown and grown on me which is my definition of a truly good looking car. It has to get better over time spent looking at it.

[Desertrunner]

Engine Cooling

Jim or Dave,
What is the size of the pipe coming from the front radiator to the engine on the suction side of the cooling system?

The reason I ask is that if its not designed correctly the engine can starve for coolant and the pump will lose prime. Its not a big issue just one that needs to be taken on board in the design.
I think the project is great, Subaru's are the toughest engine you can find, I currently own 5 of them, my main daily drive has 650,000k's on it and has driven accross deserts never missing a beat. I love the cars and your concept fits perfectly into what I want.
Keep up the good work.
Tony

[Evan78]

Engine Cooling

Jim or Dave,
What is the size of the pipe coming from the front radiator to the engine on the suction side of the cooling system?

The reason I ask is that if its not designed correctly the engine can starve for coolant and the pump will lose prime. Its not a big issue just one that needs to be taken on board in the design.Hi Tony,

How do you design it correctly to prevent this issue?

[Desertrunner]

Hi Evan,
The main issue is that the pipe coming from the front radiator to the engine on the suction side needs to be about 2 in as the vacum on the pump need to never exceed -6 psi. The reason that Subaru's have more of a issue then other car builders is that they have a very good high flow water pump and it is capiable of sucking very hard. If coolant isn't being supplied at the rate required it will lose prime. Centrifugal water pumps such as the Subaru one when they lose prime won't re prime untill the pump is stopped. In other word you have to just about turn the engine off before the pump will restart and cool the engine.

I have done a lot of work on this issue because we are using 6 cyclinder engines in race cars as a hobby. Also I am a bit of a nutter for problem solving these kinds of issues.
If you are going to give the engine a really tough time and you want to rev hard its also better to move the thermostat to the top return pipe. This also helps with flow to the pump.

Tony

[Evan78]

So, you're saying anything 2" or larger will work between the radiator and pump?

That sounds like OEM size. I would think they'd maintain at least the same size.

[wallace18]

With FFR's experience with cars and the GTM I feel confident they are in the know about this problem.