thebeerbaron

There has to be a balance between beach buggy/exocar and Toyota Camry. Yes, we car enthusiasts give the ugly eye to the Camry because it is the definition of 'boring transportation.' But exciting doesn't necessarily have to mean a 180 degree departure from what makes the Camry so appealing to the average buyer. If you are simply trying to make a statement, and sales numbers don't really matter, then by all means, follow your dreams and make moon buggies and Batmobiles. The masses wont eat them up, but for the quirky car lover that wants to be on the very edge of style, it's perfect.

When the first post went up on the front page of Factory Five's main site, I read through the description, and as a car nut with a disposable, high horsepower Impreza in my garage, I got real giddy. I got giddy because the description seemed to read like a call to arms. A "world car" sports car, mid engine, RWD, with Subaru donor so that anyone anywhere can find a donor and do it. It said it was going to be a roadster. The sketches of cars on the page seemed to indicate that the goal was a sporty, semi-exotic, full bodied roadster. That's what drew me in.

I guess my hope was that it would end up following design cues from the GTM. As if Factory Five was branching off from the replica car makes to start a line of their own original cars that were easily identifiable as Factory Five cars. Every time I see a GTM, I know it is a GTM and I know Factory Five made it. Just like you can tell a Porsche vehicle because the front ends look alike for the most part. In a sense, I'd like to see the 818 be a "poor man's GTM"...exotic styling, full body and interior, affordable. Like everyone, I'll have to wait to see what the final design is. But I'm going to mirror that sentiment that has been repeated thus far. "If it looks like a buggy, I wont buy one."

So I agree with you that a 180 degree departure is a recipe for disaster. What I am suggesting is that the use of styling queues that not everyone accepts right now is the key to having a design that "pops". Look at my previous post regarding the Ascari (I actually had to go look up the name again it was so forgettable). The body design for the 818 has to have impact and I don't think design-by-committee can accomplish that. In this case, I'm not advocating beach buggy-ism. My plan is to make a stylistic point by exposing the rear suspension and some of the framework (some). Not everyone has to like it - art is rarely appreciated when the paint is still wet.

Here's where we depart - The thing that got to me about the original announcement was the weight, the powerplant, and the engine location. Heck, that's pretty much all they announced, aside from wheelbase. I knew from the weight that this was going to be a minimalist car and I completely embrace that for a variety of reasons. I think that a body where the rear has some visual lightness to it and a dash of the minimalist, like the rear of that 917, is a good reflection of the stated design goals and done right could be very beautiful.

As far as the GTM - I don't think that design has enough unique design queues that could be used on a body the size of the 818 and be both attractive and relate back to the GTM. Honestly, it was one of the things that caught me up when I was sketching for this design - the low and wide look is drastically difficult to accomplish when you have such a short wheelbase and assume a reasonable roof-height. I think the GTM derives a lot of its beauty from its dimensions and squishing them to fit the smaller 818 would be design suicide. But I've been wrong before (often).

For some reason, the picture of the Porsche track car didn't load for me this morning when I made the original response. And I do apologize if it sounded a bit harsh. I'm not usually one to sugar-coat, but you took it well, and for that please clink a glass full of your favorite beer against another glass and yell cheers...I'll do likewise.

After viewing the Porsche picture, I think we are close to the same page, and that there was a bit of a visual miscommunication on my part. I understand where you are coming from on the GTM, it's long and flat, and doesn't lend itself to a 95" wheelbase all that well. But when I say borrow design cues from it, I don't mean drag the length constraints into the 95" wheelbase and go for the gold. I am saying that certain cues and styles from the GTM can be borrowed, thus keeping a sort of "brand identity" through your unique car designs. I've always loved the subtle arch of the front fender on the GTM, and how the headlamps were integrated into that with a smooth front 'glass' that follows the contours of the car. That boxed in sealed beam idea would look great on any car you build, and if the shape and style can been adapted to the 818, it'd be great. Same with the tail lamps from the GTM, loved those. Hell, the entire back face of the GTM looked great.

But that pic of the Porsche race car definitely leads me to believe you have your head in the right place. I trust your judgement. Cheers and keep on keepin' on.

Oh, and the Ascari is a beautiful design, but I agree, it's a little bland. If you can squeeze out a Pagani Zonda type of style with that Subaru power plant growling and rumbling out the back, you've got a winner.

No offense taken, honestly. I did the art thing in college and the computer security thing in grad school. I'm used to people critiquing my ideas and trying to find flaws in my designs.

My issue with the GTM is that I don't see an individual style emerge from the car. It's a pleasing design for sure, but I can't see what you would grab that you could apply to the 818 and still see GTM. You brought up the headlights, the trouble I see with that is this cue is common across a number of designs (look at many of the Prototype-ish racing cars, including the two that are following the GTM on the Factory Five page) - unless the lights were uniquely shaped or placed, I don't think this would scream "Factory Five". I can't see the curve you like over the front wheel, maybe I need to see a GTM in person. I like the tail of the GTM too, but to me it screams 80s Ferrari, not Factory Five.



In short, I just don't see what makes a GTM a GTM other than the low, swoopy, wide shape. If someone could do that and distill that onto an 818-size frame, I'd love to see it.

I really hope that the body that gets produced will have Zonda levels of style. I think the kit-car graveyard is littered with the corpses of many cars that lacked that "pop". I can only hope that Dave knows this, because he is the gatekeeper and my money is riding on his decision!

I guess the really tough issue, at least for me, is the driver placement in the frame. I think there could be alot more aggressive designs based around the more forward positioned cab. Especially since the Subaru engine/drivetrain is somewhat long. The positioning it has now almost worries me a bit in terms of balance. Nothing that can be done about that at this point, I suppose.

I like where you are headed and will reserve most of my judgement until you are further along. As far as the rear is concerned how about just exposing the transaxle through the rear of a diffuser while keeping most everything else covered? My only other comment is I think your nose tapers down too much. Overall I like the lines, keep going.

Originally Posted by readymix

I guess the really tough issue, at least for me, is the driver placement in the frame. I think there could be alot more aggressive designs based around the more forward positioned cab. Especially since the Subaru engine/drivetrain is somewhat long. The positioning it has now almost worries me a bit in terms of balance. Nothing that can be done about that at this point, I suppose.

You must have missed my post The Curse of the Mid-engined Roadster. I'm concerned not so much about cabin location, but overhangs and carrier decks.

Personally, the thing I'm struggling with now is the transmission. It have a very short front overhang on my model, which I think works very well. At the back however, the transmission hangs way behind the rear wheels. Where the Elise/Exige can have a very nice little upwards curve that would play nice on my design, this sucker has a meaty lump of metal. Hence my desire to visually "lighten" the area in the rear by confining the body to a line above the wheels...

D2W - thanks for the input. The lighting doesn't show it, but the nose is actually quite flat - something that happens when your car actually has a frame and you have almost zero front overhang - the body has to go from the ground to the top of the frame very quickly. I think I see what you're saying in that the actual nose/grille opening is quite small, hence it looks "tapered", but that's what it is for now. We'll see where it ends up.

Yeah, I just went back through your blog posts to get a better understanding of where you were and how you got there.

Thanks for taking the time to go back - there are quite a few posts. Apparently I like to blather on quite a bit. I wish the blogs were in a more readable format, like Blogger, rather than this list of snippets. And the URL to get to "my" blog is quite ugly. I've thought about porting this over to Blogger so people outside the forum can access it more easily, but I've had such good feedback from forum regulars that for now at least it will stay here.

A little late getting here. I like your first clay models, but I'll be honest in that I can't really see where your going with it from the pictures posted. I do like that your influenced by the Porsche and it's 'mechanical' based design.

Have you considered the fuel tank and FFRs proposed under-the-seats location?

Also, you much more eloquently stated what I have tried to convey in the forums. The GTM has no unique styling identity. Mechanical, Engineering and Purpose identities it has in spades, and that more than makes up for it's lack of anything on the asthetic styling front.

PhyrraM - I want to make it utterly clear that I mean no disrespect towards Jim and his GTM design. It is a good looking design, but part of its beauty is its inoffensiveness. I think that to really stand out, the design has to be out there.

As far as the fuel tank - you have to remember that I'm in the design competition, not trying to design the final product. While I'm trying to strike a balance between the open-ended guidelines and the physical realities, the only things I've constrained myself to are the wheel placement and the engine size. Anything more is just blocking me from producing something beautiful, which is, as I understand it the intent of the contest.

I don't mind that you can't see where I'm going with the design. There's so little there, I don't expect anyone to see anything. I didn't want turn the blog into documentation of my model building, but people wanted to see how to work with clay. I hope I'm doing that!

I agree. No GTM disrespect intended. It's an awesome accomplishment when measured by most any yardstick. You and I seem to be on the same wavelength here.

As far as the fuel location, I was just curious as to what 'camp' you were in. I'm glad to see your opening your design to the intent of Dave's words. I'm hoping that enough good designs come forth to push FFR into moving away from the OEM tank.

BTW PhyrraM - I have looked in the 818 forum, but have not seen any posts by either Jim or Dave in the 818 forum that say anything about fuel tank location. Do you remember where you heard that?

I'll try to find it, but I seem to remember a post that when questioned about the unusually high seating position of the driver in the "official" layout templates the answer was that the OEM tank was currently located under the seats.

Found it over on the GRM forum, Look for Dave's post. Ugh. I seriously hope it is in the rear-bulkhead and not under the seat. As as Junior Wookie (look at my helmet relative to the hard points on the Miata), I hate anything that moves my butt off the floor.

So, what's the word on your clay? Any updates?