Boig Motorsports

Visit our community sponsor

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 129

Thread: Project Question and Answer with Rhode Island School of Design's Michael Lye

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like
    double post

  2. #82
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    Are questions like hood/door/trunk openings being considered at this stage? There are character lines in each sketch, but are panels being decided on? Because it would be really, really, really awesome if this car had access like this...



    My back thanks you in advance for making access easy!

    And thanks for putting up with the relentless stream of questions!
    The different openings are being considered now. The shut lines - the gaps between different body panels, for example around the hood/door/trunk opening - have a pretty big impact on the perception of the form of a car as well as on its 'personality' or 'essence.' The shut lines serve as a kind of a contour drawing that helps to define surfaces and character. Saab front ends look different partly due to the hood shut lines being moved to the sides (fenders) by the clam shell hood. From an assembly point of view, the different body panels that create the shut lines, also make alignment much more challenging. Does anyone remember the ads that a manufacturer ran showing a steel ball rolling along the hood shut lines of their car to demonstrate how perfectly uniform the gaps were? This uniformity is one way we perceive build quality in vehicles. With fiberglas it's possible to produce bodies with very few shut lines. The Lotus Europa has only 4 panels aside from the main body molding, the two doors, the hood and the rear deck lid. Most metal bodied cars require many more panels and so have more shut lines that provide detail to the surface. From FFR's perspective I suspect making more smaller panels would be easier and cheaper than a large complex mold to produce a one-piece body but it would mean more work during assembly. The smaller panels might look more interesting, but would the drawbacks be worth it? Just for my own curiosity, what would all of you prefer?

    As far as access to the mechanicals on this car, there hasn't been a final decision on the openings made yet. But I hear you about your back. If you've ever worked in the engine bay of a GT-6, it's pretty nice to just sit down on the top of a tire while you work.

    No problem with the questions. I'm glad there's enough interest to keep the thread going.

  3. #83
    Senior Member slopoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    159
    Post Thanks / Like
    pics would help ... sorry, couldn't resist
    If at first you don't succeed ... get a bigger hammer.

  4. #84
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    What would I prefer, more panels or fewer?

    More Panels
    Pro: Cheaper to replace after damage
    Con: More panels to line up
    Con: More fasteners to fasten
    Con: More panels to exchange if you switch between body styles at home
    Unknown: Lighter weight? Don't know if smaller panels require less material/weight to self-support
    Unknown: Easier/Cheaper for FFR to produce?
    Unknown: Effect of shut lines on body aesthetics

    Fewer Panels
    Pro: Potential for easier access, depending on design
    Pro: Easier to change body style if you buy more than one kit
    Con: big, heavy pivots to achieve good access, or unsightly (to some) quick-release fasteners (quick-releases may be expensive)
    Con: Expensive to replace
    Con: Must replace entire panel for small damage (ala Elise front clamshell)
    Con: Panels must be self-supporting, likely heavy
    Unknown: Higher chances for moulding flaws (I think Dave said something about this)
    Unknown: Effect of shut lines on body aesthetics


    To be honest, I think it's going to depend on the design. I think the Olmos design would probably look best with more panel lines than fewer. I think Xabier's design is going to require fewer panels to maintain its look. And I still haven't seen enough pictures of the Bansasi design to have any clue what it looks like. But from what I can see, I think it'll do well with more panels.

    Looking over the winners again, I'm back to that underwhelmed feeling I got at the Open House reveal. Please tell me dark-horse candidate #4 will kick ***.

    Until then, I'll say: more panels, with serious thought given to their removability for access.

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    From FFR's perspective I suspect making more smaller panels would be easier and cheaper than a large complex mold to produce a one-piece body but it would mean more work during assembly. The smaller panels might look more interesting, but would the drawbacks be worth it? Just for my own curiosity, what would all of you prefer?
    Unfortunately, fiberglass is typically expensive to repair, and small production body panels are typically expensive. The huge expense of repairing the Lotus Elise/Exige when it takes clamshell damage, which has sometimes led to cars with minimum structural damage being totaled by insurance companies based on body repair/replacement costs alone, would point to smaller panels being much more practical for the owner of a small production car, regardless of how they end up looking.

    I've lost track of the number of people who've told me they can or do afford an Elise to drive on the street but drive something else for track days because they cannot afford to wreck a Lotus on a track. Even for street driving, you're a lot less likely to break a bumper/lower valence, hood, and both front fenders than you are to break a single front clamshell, and the same goes for the rear.

    The Beer Baron's point about access shouldn't be ignored, however, but is there any reason a multipanel design couldn't be engineered for quick access? The third generation MR2 was; most body panels unbolt easily in a few minutes.

  6. #86
    Senior Member Silvertop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Forest Lake MN
    Posts
    880
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    What would I prefer, more panels or fewer?............

    To be honest, I think it's going to depend on the design. I think the Olmos design would probably look best with more panel lines than fewer. I think Xabier's design is going to require fewer panels to maintain its look. And I still haven't seen enough pictures of the Bansasi design to have any clue what it looks like. But from what I can see, I think it'll do well with more panels......

    Until then, I'll say: more panels, with serious thought given to their removability for access.
    I think BeerBaron did a nice job of laying out the pros and cons of multiple panels vs. fewer panels.

    Years ago (more than I care to count), I owned an early-model Saab Sonett V4 which had a one-piece clamshell type front end. The fiberglass front end was by necessity thicker than the rest of the body, so I'm sure it was also a good deal heavier than the rest. It was great for access to the mechanicals, though. Just flip the whole front body assembly forward, plant your backside on top one or the other of the front tires, and go to work. Built-in place to sit........... I glad I never crashed it, because if I had, I'm sure major damage would have resulted in a total loss. Particularly since they only made a couple of thousand of those, so body parts were expensive, and not readily available at any price. Incidentally, the front end was held down by a pair of rather crude-looking heavy black rubber bungies, suggesting to some folks that it was in fact a kit car rather than a manufactured one. The later version of the Sonett -- the Sonett III -- had much smaller panels, but also had a tiny hinged hood that made drivetrain access difficult. The Sonett III was probably better looking, and more sophisticated (certainly more modern) but to me it lacked the panache of the original (I know, I'm rambling, that's not really relevant to the discussion..).

    Kinda need to agree with BeerBaron -- smaller panels would probably be more desirable from the owner's perspective, even if access is somewhat lessened, and even if it created more work in the assembly process. And it seems to me also that the car could be lighter with smaller panels -- assuming that the large panel configuration employs large hinged pieces. If designed for easy removal, the access penalty imposed by the smaller panels could be minimized.

    I'm guessing that it will ultimately come down to production costs, though FFR is definitely going to be concerned about weight as well.

  7. #87
    Senior Member PhyrraM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,468
    Post Thanks / Like
    +1 for smaller panels. I would think that quality control would be better on smaller molds too. I've read some nasty things about warp and twist on the large clamshell moldings. As odd as it may sound, I think panels gaps could be better controlled with more, but smaller and higher quality, panels.

  8. #88
    Senior Member BrandonDrums's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Triangle area, NC
    Posts
    611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    The different openings are being considered now. The shut lines - the gaps between different body panels, for example around the hood/door/trunk opening - have a pretty big impact on the perception of the form of a car as well as on its 'personality' or 'essence.' The shut lines serve as a kind of a contour drawing that helps to define surfaces and character. Saab front ends look different partly due to the hood shut lines being moved to the sides (fenders) by the clam shell hood. From an assembly point of view, the different body panels that create the shut lines, also make alignment much more challenging. Does anyone remember the ads that a manufacturer ran showing a steel ball rolling along the hood shut lines of their car to demonstrate how perfectly uniform the gaps were? This uniformity is one way we perceive build quality in vehicles. With fiberglas it's possible to produce bodies with very few shut lines. The Lotus Europa has only 4 panels aside from the main body molding, the two doors, the hood and the rear deck lid. Most metal bodied cars require many more panels and so have more shut lines that provide detail to the surface. From FFR's perspective I suspect making more smaller panels would be easier and cheaper than a large complex mold to produce a one-piece body but it would mean more work during assembly. The smaller panels might look more interesting, but would the drawbacks be worth it? Just for my own curiosity, what would all of you prefer?

    As far as access to the mechanicals on this car, there hasn't been a final decision on the openings made yet. But I hear you about your back. If you've ever worked in the engine bay of a GT-6, it's pretty nice to just sit down on the top of a tire while you work.

    No problem with the questions. I'm glad there's enough interest to keep the thread going.
    Considering how interesting Michael's question is, I decided to make a formal poll here http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showt...or-Michael-Lye

    I wanted to post a poll within this thread because I don't want to hijack the conversation from this one but apparently you can't make a poll without starting a new thread. It would be great if we can all vote but keep the conversation here forDave, Michael & team!

    Thanks!

  9. #89
    Administrator David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eldo CA
    Posts
    443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    The different openings are being considered now. The shut lines - the gaps between different body panels, for example around the hood/door/trunk opening - have a pretty big impact on the perception of the form of a car as well as on its 'personality' or 'essence.' The shut lines serve as a kind of a contour drawing that helps to define surfaces and character.
    .
    Please consider the possible impact of the door lines on getting in and out of the car. This could be a deal breaker for bigger/long legged folks. David
    Mk4 Build Thread: http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?141-David-s-Mk4-Build-Thread

    GTM Project Build site: http://www.gtmbuild.com

    Few Cool GTM Parts: http://www.gtmbuild.com/parts.htm

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego CA & Cave Creek AZ
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don’t get this entire subject about panel size. FFR has a tooling & production capability for this project, undoubtedly based on their previous efforts and experience. That is going to inform them as to how to proceed. Whether a bunch of readers on this forum prefer big panels or little ones is kind of beside the point. Yes, there is a trade off on initial cost vs repair cost. Duh, of course everyone will want low initial cost AND cheap repair costs. Sorry, it can’t always be done.

    I am not questioning the curiosity about panel breakdown, but a POLL?

    I am a little surprised by Michael’s comments on this issue. OF COURSE the panel lines are a big part of the design. So what else is new?

    I just hope he has access to some Dynoc film so they can put color on the clays and evaluate them without painting (Dynoc is standard in the industry & has been for many decades because of the redo capability).
    Lacking Dynoc, they can always spray the clay with water, squeegee on some black garbage bag film, slather on some Johnson’s Baby Oil and read the high lights pretty well. Still it is important to tape the glass black and map-tape on the cut lines. Mockups of lamps are not that hard to do either. The more the complete the model is for evaluation the better. All these elements are integral parts of a design and it is basic to take them into account.

  11. #91
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    I don’t get this entire subject about panel size. FFR has a tooling & production capability for this project, undoubtedly based on their previous efforts and experience. That is going to inform them as to how to proceed. Whether a bunch of readers on this forum prefer big panels or little ones is kind of beside the point. Yes, there is a trade off on initial cost vs repair cost. Duh, of course everyone will want low initial cost AND cheap repair costs. Sorry, it can’t always be done.

    I am not questioning the curiosity about panel breakdown, but a POLL?
    I agree, the poll is a bit much for what I took as an off-the-cuff (and completely non-binding) question from Michael. That's best discussed in the poll thread though and to each her own.

    Given the context, I would assume (and yes, that makes an *** of me) that Michael is looking for a general feel, rather than a specific number: an aesthetic decision. Perhaps my engineering-ish analysis was off base, but this is all idle chat. I stand by my explanation of which designs I think would look better with various panel counts.

    As far as Michael's comments, remember that though you may be an OlPro, the rest of us are not. I had not considered panel counts and shut lines too carefully in my examination of the winning entries. The idea of trading off more or fewer lines as an aesthetic decision had not crossed my mind. It was an interesting topic to bring up and contemplate, and for that I'm appreciative.

  12. #92
    Senior Member kach22i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    Dynoc,
    It's great to have experience, thank you for sharing.

    Is Dynoc the non-trademark name for 3M Di-noc film?
    George; Architect, Artist and Designer of Objects

    1977 Porsche 911 Targa, 2.7L CIS Silver/Black, owned since 2003
    1998 Chevy S-10 Pick-Up Truck 4x4 4.3L V6 Black with front and rear spoilers
    1989 Scat II HP hovercraft with Cuyuna two stroke ULII-02, 35 hp with experimental skirt and sound control

  13. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego CA & Cave Creek AZ
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Spelling is not a strong point for me. Sorry about that.
    http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/ho...re4/item78128/
    There also is a spray "peel off" paint that can be overcoated with color, yet later cleaned off for clay modifications.
    Last edited by olpro; 08-23-2011 at 10:18 AM.

  14. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego CA & Cave Creek AZ
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    >> Perhaps my engineering-ish analysis was off base, but this is all idle chat. I stand by my explanation of which designs I think would look better with various panel counts.<<
    Beerbaron,
    Actually, your analysis (post #84) is very good and probably advanced the understanding of the issue for the RISD team.

  15. #95
    Senior Member BrandonDrums's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Triangle area, NC
    Posts
    611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    I don’t get this entire subject about panel size. FFR has a tooling & production capability for this project, undoubtedly based on their previous efforts and experience. That is going to inform them as to how to proceed. Whether a bunch of readers on this forum prefer big panels or little ones is kind of beside the point. Yes, there is a trade off on initial cost vs repair cost. Duh, of course everyone will want low initial cost AND cheap repair costs. Sorry, it can’t always be done.

    I am not questioning the curiosity about panel breakdown, but a POLL?

    I am a little surprised by Michael’s comments on this issue. OF COURSE the panel lines are a big part of the design. So what else is new?

    I just hope he has access to some Dynoc film so they can put color on the clays and evaluate them without painting (Dynoc is standard in the industry & has been for many decades because of the redo capability).
    Lacking Dynoc, they can always spray the clay with water, squeegee on some black garbage bag film, slather on some Johnson’s Baby Oil and read the high lights pretty well. Still it is important to tape the glass black and map-tape on the cut lines. Mockups of lamps are not that hard to do either. The more the complete the model is for evaluation the better. All these elements are integral parts of a design and it is basic to take them into account.
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    I agree, the poll is a bit much for what I took as an off-the-cuff (and completely non-binding) question from Michael. That's best discussed in the poll thread though and to each her own.

    Given the context, I would assume (and yes, that makes an *** of me) that Michael is looking for a general feel, rather than a specific number: an aesthetic decision. Perhaps my engineering-ish analysis was off base, but this is all idle chat. I stand by my explanation of which designs I think would look better with various panel counts.

    As far as Michael's comments, remember that though you may be an OlPro, the rest of us are not. I had not considered panel counts and shut lines too carefully in my examination of the winning entries. The idea of trading off more or fewer lines as an aesthetic decision had not crossed my mind. It was an interesting topic to bring up and contemplate, and for that I'm appreciative.
    Jeez, it's not that big of a deal guys. Many other forums allow for quick polls to be posted within a thread, this one does not. I didn't mean to offend anyone with trying to offer some quick constructive organization to a simple question I found particularly interesting. Posting that quick poll was one of the first things I've done on this forum for quite some time. In retrospect, I know why I haven't been active.

    2 reasons:
    1) Not a lot of action and updates going on here lately. This particular thread is by far the most exciting and interesting one in a good little while.
    2) This forum has graduated into the level of community experience of much older forums; The same guys posting every day claiming they know everything and perhaps too quick to flame out other members if they aren't in the know like them.

    A poll is just a neat little way to track and talley a groups feelings and/or opinions when there are limited and specific choices for a particular query at hand. It's not overkill, it's just convenient. Even if Michael is just looking for a general feel of our opinions, a quick poll makes that quite easy to accomplish vs. just reading through pages of Olpro's many comments about what he thinks about every little thing in between actual AND concise answers to the question the Official FFR designer posed to our community.

    Like it or not, I'm in this thread to hear Dave and Mikes input and participate in their interest in us as a whole. After reading your posts every day for the last few months, I'm fairly confident I have a feel of your opinions at this point, as for Dave and Michael, we don't get the blessing of their involvement quite as often.

    Let's chill out guys, don't give people a hard time when they actually try to contribute something other than generalized assumptions and criticism of other member's comments...I was only trying to help our little community here.

    BTW, thanks for voting everyone!

  16. #96
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by BrandonDrums View Post
    Jeez, it's not that big of a deal guys.
    Hence the "to each her own".

  17. #97
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    To divert this thread around the threadjack....

    I was wondering this morning if more panels would make it easier or harder to paint the car - do any of you who've been through the painting process know if it's easier for the shop to paint ten small panels or four large ones? I assume easier means cheaper, but maybe not.

    I'm thinking that hanging ten panels in the spray booth and being able to cover a single panel with just a few simple movements would be fewer painter-hours than dancing around a large front clamshell, then a rear clamshell, and the like. Maybe it would even get you better results.

    Again, not exactly an aesthetic decision, but perhaps an important one.

  18. #98
    Senior Member kach22i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    I'm thinking that hanging ten panels in the spray booth and being able to cover a single panel with just a few simple movements would be fewer painter-hours than dancing around a large front clamshell, then a rear clamshell, and the like. Maybe it would even get you better results.
    I cannot claim to know about professional painting. I do know a guy with an old Porsche 356 Speedster which took a hit. The insurance company wanted to do a touch up of the damage, but their were no joints or stopping points in the panels. They ended up painting the whole car, the owner insisted on it. To make the best of it, the insurance company featured the car in their magazine as a feel good story.
    George; Architect, Artist and Designer of Objects

    1977 Porsche 911 Targa, 2.7L CIS Silver/Black, owned since 2003
    1998 Chevy S-10 Pick-Up Truck 4x4 4.3L V6 Black with front and rear spoilers
    1989 Scat II HP hovercraft with Cuyuna two stroke ULII-02, 35 hp with experimental skirt and sound control

  19. #99
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Boy, I get busy and don't log on for a bit and return to find things have been quite busy here!

    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    I don’t get this entire subject about panel size. FFR has a tooling & production capability for this project, undoubtedly based on their previous efforts and experience. That is going to inform them as to how to proceed. Whether a bunch of readers on this forum prefer big panels or little ones is kind of beside the point.
    Olpro, you're right of course that FFR has capabilities that will determine how they go about producing any new vehicles. That doesn't mean they might not consider expanding on those capabilities, or trying new approaches. That is just my thinking and NOT anything official from FFR, though. But from what I know from Dave and crew, they are actually quite interested in what "a bunch of readers on this forum" think. By no means does this suggest that they will alter any plans for future production of course, but I thought it was an interesting question to see how the folks on this forum thought about the trade-offs between one big molding or several smaller ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    Yes, there is a trade off on initial cost vs repair cost.
    I was really more curious about the assembly tradeoffs and how they would be viewed here. The Elise comes pre-assembled as do most other cars we buy so this is a bit different situation. And while I've done plenty of fiberglas work, I've never built-up a Factory Five (yet!) So my curiosity was aroused.
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    I am a little surprised by Michael’s comments on this issue. OF COURSE the panel lines are a big part of the design. So what else is new?
    Don't be too surprised. I didn't suggest this was news to me but thought this might be an interesting place to talk about these issues - especially since BeerBaron's question touched directly on that. As he says later, not everyone is as aware about these things and this seemed like an interesting topic to raise and discuss.

    It was an off-the-cuff question that I thought might get some interesting responses and discussion going I'm glad to see that was successful.

  20. #100
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    I agree, the poll is a bit much for what I took as an off-the-cuff (and completely non-binding) question from Michael.
    Yes, it was intended as a completely non-binding question. While I may occasionally make comments to Dave and company, they're the ones making the decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    Given the context, I would assume (and yes, that makes an *** of me) that Michael is looking for a general feel, rather than a specific number: an aesthetic decision. Perhaps my engineering-ish analysis was off base, but this is all idle chat. I stand by my explanation of which designs I think would look better with various panel counts.
    I thought your analysis was on base and interesting. No I'm not looking for particulars just wanted to see how everyone thought about these things - if they had a choice.

  21. #101
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    Beerbaron,
    Actually, your analysis (post #84) is very good and probably advanced the understanding of the issue for the RISD team.
    Well, it certainly helped me understand how Beerbaron is thinking. How about you, olpro? If you were to build the 818, would you have a preference for a very few large moldings or a greater number of smaller panels even if that made assembly more challenging or had other drawbacks? This, of course assumes that you might have that choice at some point in the future. But purely hypothetically what are your thoughts on the assembly side of the question?

    Again, Dave and crew will make up their own minds based on the best approach for FFR, but as there are always trade-offs, how would you make the decision?

  22. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego CA & Cave Creek AZ
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any thoughts on the Di-noc?

    Michael, I just saw your last post about panel size. If I were a consultant to FFR I would advise them to capitalize on their expertise gained on previous projects rather than trying anything radically new (to them) ON TOP of the challenges of developing a completely new product. Of course the issue of a gel coat finish (not needing paint) could be a big factor and panel size might impact the resulting quality. A high scrap rate and/or excess labor requirements will kill their cost targets fast.
    Last edited by olpro; 08-23-2011 at 09:13 PM.

  23. #103
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    Boy, I get busy and don't log on for a bit and return to find things have been quite busy here!
    To paraphrase Hunter Thompson... One of the things you learn from years of dealing with forum people, is that you can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a forum. Especially when it's waving razor-sharp criticism in your eye.

    This place is ravenous for information about the 818. It ebbs and flows a bit, but the slightest rumor or innuendo can really set it off. Your presence here seems to have taken some of the heat off Dave for which I'm sure he's much appreciative. Don't be a stranger for too long, or you may find the forum in true revolt...

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    I was really more curious about the assembly tradeoffs and how they would be viewed here. The Elise comes pre-assembled as do most other cars we buy so this is a bit different situation. And while I've done plenty of fiberglas work, I've never built-up a Factory Five (yet!) So my curiosity was aroused.
    A man who owns a 35+ year old Lotus knows something about fiberglas work? Color me surprised. A nice, British Racing Green shade of surprised.

    I don't know how Factory Five mounts their fiberglas panels to the bodywork, whether you have to line up the panel, clamp it in place, then drill through mounting tab and fiberglass at the same time and perfectly plumb in order to get the alignment right, or whether there's some mechanism for adjusting fit after drilling. I imagine I can find out. I don't know which would win out - my impatience to get everything drilled and mounted so I could drive the damn thing, or my desire to get it right the first time. If it were a million panels that I had to line up precisely, all at the same time, and keep in alignment while I drilled ten million perfect mounting holes, I can see that being a problem. If it were something were I could slap the panels on in a mostly-aligned fashion, fire it up, sort it out, then come back and make it beautiful, that would go a long way towards tolerating a high panel count.

    I also wonder what quick release fasteners like dzus do to panel alignments - are the tolerances with something like a dzus fastener good enough to look right or are they only for track cars that have to look good at 50 feet and 50mph? Not every panel needs to be removable, but there will be some that I won't want to rivet. It would be a shame to have to choose between even panel gaps and removing the bones from my left arm so that I can reach certain engine fittings...

  24. #104
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by BrandonDrums View Post
    ...the question the Official FFR designer posed to our community.
    Thanks for the promotion! Really I'm just "the man behind the modeling effort of the 818" but more specifically I'm just the guy leading a team of modelers to bring Xabier's renderings into 3D. Hopefully we'll do that well enough to capture what everyone liked about Xabier's work.

  25. #105
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Interesting to note that for the Roadster, the body ships in place over the frame, and four people are recommended to remove it from the frame after delivery. Also, a wooden buck is necessary to store the body while work progresses on the rest of the car.

    Thoughts are that shipping a single large body piece bolted to a frame is a great way to save space (especially for a kit which has a goal of shipping globally in quantity), but that once at the shop it requires more than just your "hold my beer" buddy to move around, as well as considerable storage space. Maybe I'm just a little worried about how much garage space my project will take up, but I imagine for customers who might be building this in countries with smaller garages than we typically enjoy in the US, this could be an issue. A stack of rectangular boxes can go up in a loft quite easily. A full-size shell not so much. Also, cardboard boxes provide a modicum of protection against gelcoat-damaging shop accidents during the rest of the build.

    Looks like the Roadster comes with the mounting points for the main body piece pre-drilled and bolted, with adjustability provided there. Wonder what the GTM and '33 do... More digging necessary.

  26. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know if color consistency is difficult when doing the gel coat process but that could be a problem with lots of panels.

  27. #107
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by kitcarj View Post
    I don't know if color consistency is difficult when doing the gel coat process but that could be a problem with lots of panels.
    Or perhaps a feature:


  28. #108
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Michael - would it be possible for you to share more views of the winning submissions? I'm sure you've got far more pictures than we've seen around these parts. Even just a few more would be very interesting. I still have zero idea what the winning design actually looks like, other than the left-rear corner.

    I just saw the side view of the Xabier race car again and thought "man, that could look really ugly from the front and we'd never know it".

  29. #109
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    And now I'm going to put away the laptop and go to sleep. This post-fest is what happens when the pottery studio closes for the summer!

  30. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't think assembly complexity will be a problem either way - assembling the rest of the car will be more complex than hanging body panels, even accounting for alignment if necessary. I would vote for whatever is lightest, which is tough to tell. Individual panels will be lighter but will probably require more provisions for mounting and more hardware which could negate the weight difference...

    One other benefit to individual panels would be the possibility of using CF as an extra cost option (looking at the track model here) which would be much more difficult to do with a tub and front/rear clip mold.

  31. #111
    Senior Member 2KWIK4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Minnesota
    Posts
    135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    Or perhaps a feature:

    WOW I hope it doesn't look like that.
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to others, and I require the same from them." John Wayne "The Shootist"

  32. #112
    Senior Member RM1SepEx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Freeport, ME
    Posts
    3,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    I own 1969 Sonett V4 #1243, they made 1600 plus before the Sonett III restyle. The front clip is very heavy to be stiff and a low speed cruch would basically destroy 1/2 of the body. Access is great to the engine. More smaller pieces makes more sense to me.

  33. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a M roadster, and that car, besides the hood...have smaller body components. It's actually nice because of all that have already discussed with repair, but I see from reading silently with these threads is that original intent is to make this car a swatch... and the ability to swap and replace. Having smaller parts will also offer the opportunity for either the advance hobbyist or pro to make their own custom body panels as aftermarket add ons... Having one large or a few large body panels and that makes it extremely more difficult. Even if someone knew how to make carbon fiber body panels...only someone with a big garage and big oven and such to make such modification or aftermarket goodies possible. Having smaller body panels and even the home garage kings can have the small and less equipment to make mods or new parts.

    My car besides the hood and trunk have about 10 or 12 body panels. Making few body panels...I"m not sure what kind of tolerances on the frame is required to make it still line up without problems. I can also see shipping replacement body panels be cheaper. I'm only guessing as I'm new to this forum, but to get replacement GTM body panels...I can only guess it's costly.

    Really looking forward to see the models and helping decide on what car next to get in the very near future.

  34. #114
    RISD Michael Lye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeerbaron View Post
    Michael - would it be possible for you to share more views of the winning submissions? I'm sure you've got far more pictures than we've seen around these parts. Even just a few more would be very interesting. I still have zero idea what the winning design actually looks like, other than the left-rear corner
    I'm afraid we'll have to wait for Dave (and helpers) to post the additional images. I don't know what concerns they need to address before releasing any additional images. I don't want to get out in front of what they want to do. Sorry but I'm sure Dave will get them posted.

  35. #115
    Senior Member thebeerbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    25
    Understood, thanks.

  36. #116
    Senior Member Silvertop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Forest Lake MN
    Posts
    880
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RM1SepEx View Post
    I own 1969 Sonett V4 #1243, they made 1600 plus before the Sonett III restyle. The front clip is very heavy to be stiff and a low speed cruch would basically destroy 1/2 of the body. Access is great to the engine. More smaller pieces makes more sense to me.
    My Sonett was also a 1969 model. I don't remember the serial number, but I think it was a bit higher numerically. I wish I still owned it.

  37. #117
    MKIII #5835 Someday I Suppose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Stanhope, NJ
    Posts
    783
    Post Thanks / Like
    Beerbaron,

    Just some thoughts on the Roadster body, yes its one piece, except for the hood, trunk and doors. The MKIII bodies could be taken on and off by two people but the way the newer body bolts to the sides might require an added hand or two. On my MKIII I actually had it on and off a number of times by myself with a couple of pulleys. During the bulk of the build I kept the body on a buck that was built to roll over-top of the frame, so when I was working on the car, I would simply roll the body out into the driveway out of the way.

    I don't know that even FFR has decided yet on how the panels will line up and attach to the car, but I am assuming they are going to both bolt to one another as well as to the frame.

    On paint, more or less panels, the only thing there that sticks out to me is that the painter would want to line the panels up in the same positions as they will be on the car, this is especially true of metallics where the spray pattern may be more evident.

    HTH

    -Scott
    MKIII #3835 IRS, Anderson Performance 408 Levy T-5 Trans, Team III Wheels
    Paint completed November 2010, passed NJ State Safety Inspection June 21st, Tagged and First Drive 7/1/2011

  38. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Lye View Post
    I suspect making more smaller panels would be easier and cheaper than a large complex mold to produce a one-piece body but it would mean more work during assembly. The smaller panels might look more interesting, but would the drawbacks be worth it? Just for my own curiosity, what would all of you prefer?
    I understand this post has been around for awhile and it is certainly probable the development of the initial 818 is far enough along that it would not make sense to change it now. However, as a final design has not yet been released, it seems logical to assume work is continuing. I know at least three bodies are considered for this platform, so even if it is too late to change for the first release, I hope this idea might help with future projects.

    I think the thebeerbaron's More Panels/Fewer Panels analysis (#84) is great. (Although I happen to believe, when designed properly, the larger panels offer more potential for access as illustrated in the image from #78.)

    For the typical car owner, access is of little concern. A large number of owners literally never lift the hood. Another large group may limit themselves to the most routine of maintenance where accessibility is typically not much of an issue. However, anyone who is interested in building their own car is going to have a different agenda. Perhaps it's simply swapping parts as they wear out, others will add with performance gains in mind. Most of us will want to car on the street as soon as possible and many homebuilt vehicles are in a "functional but not complete" state for some time. Even after the driveline and body are installed, nonessential items like HVAC or audio may be installed later. The ability to get to those out-of-the-way places without disassembling what's been completed would be huge. Larger panels seem to better lend themselves to easy access.

    However smaller panels will be more likely to isolate damage and will certainly be cheaper to produce, warehouse, and distribute (especially overseas!). Another plus to this modular design is many of us will be building by ourselves and finding four people to lift a tub into place is no simple matter. If a minor damage results in replacement parts which cost thousands of dollars to purchase and ship, many of these cars will die off before their time needs to have come. Can we compromise?

    The design in #78 offers full access but this is without a doubt made from multiple smaller pieces. Consider a full-width panel which mounts to the roof and accepts the supporting struts where all of the other panels are attached to it. If all of the connecting pieces were designed to fit securely together, this would alleviate much of the small panel alignment issues. This addresses most of the thebeerbaron's issues, with the obvious exception of a heavy pivot point.

    However, I know whatever you release will be great. I can't wait.

  39. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Diego CA & Cave Creek AZ
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    "However, I know whatever you release will be great. I can't wait."
    I cringe when I see comments like this. What the heck makes you think that "whatever you release" will be so great. Maybe it will be, but maybe not. How about letting FFR finish their development and then judge it?
    Last edited by olpro; 04-15-2012 at 04:08 PM.

  40. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by olpro View Post
    What the h### makes you think that "whatever you release" will be so great.
    Wow! I'm not someone who strays away from controversy, but never thought my closing remark would ever spark a fight.

    But since you asked...


    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Stewart Transport

Visit our community sponsor