Visit our community sponsor
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
design by committee worked for Local Motors, so don't write it off just yet.
I am sorry, but the local motors car/truck is ugly in my opinion. It is a complete beast and does what its meant to do. However, it looks like it fell down the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Lots of Subaru guys here. Ugly = good.
I was talking to my wife about the way that people used to have to drive;
two lane dark highway, passing opposite direction to cars with dim headlights
drum brakes that pulled and didn't slow anything down until the tires started sliding
seat belts? optional...
metal dash (my dad's '57 still has an ankle dent from me flying over the bench seat)
safety glass? crush zones? naw...
So the next time you see a Prius in the left lane doing 5 under, just think to yourself, we used to have natural selection.
btw, since we are designing...
I'd like to take some multi-rotor electric, gps, accelerometer driven flyby-wire, composite clothed parts and make a sky cycle.
that'll keep me away from the idiots on the street...
Dude! How close is this technology?!? THAT would be FANTASTIC!!! I already love motorcycles, so a sky cycle seems like the next perfect vehicle! Seriously, where did you read about it? How close are they to a working prototype? Or do they already have one?!? More info please!!
Yes, I'm a smart @$$, so no I wasn't serious...
you can get one now!Originally Posted by Xusia
2011 Subaru Forester - the DD - uber rare 5spd manual
1990 Miata - Track Rat, autocrossing cheap POS - love it
2018 Factory 5 Racing 818 Hardtop Coupe - preapproved by the wife
Funny, but that's not what I meant.Careful, George. You kind of just called all of the non-designer members of 818 forum pin heads.
I meant the sort of average person who is more concerned with if McRestaurant supersizes their fries, than the new Porsche.
There is a lot which big manufactures can learn by listening to housewives when regarding Minivans, and by the same token there is a lot FFR can learn by listening to all of us (non-average) automotive enthusiast in the forum.
Last edited by kach22i; 01-24-2012 at 03:50 PM.
George; Architect, Artist and Designer of Objects
1977 Porsche 911 Targa, 2.7L CIS Silver/Black, owned since 2003
1998 Chevy S-10 Pick-Up Truck 4x4 4.3L V6 Black with front and rear spoilers
1989 Scat II HP hovercraft with Cuyuna two stroke ULII-02, 35 hp with experimental skirt and sound control
Careful, George, you just called all minivan driving women housewives :-O
We really need an update from Dave soon.
Last edited by Oppenheimer; 01-24-2012 at 06:12 PM.
I love this forum!
Okay my skycycle goes something like this...
and I'm not the first to come up with the idea...
http://www.notcot.org/post/44140/
e-volo_IMGP2424.jpg
UAV styling that could be used...
http://novus2.com/uav360/2011/07/page/3/
etop-1.jpg
and there is an American firm that has all of the awesome electronics and the configuration that I like...
http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicop...pecifications/
x6-techspecs-hero2.jpg
Last edited by Nelff; 01-24-2012 at 07:39 PM.
and yes I'm a smart a$$ too...
I'd still like one tho...
+1,I knew there was something it reminded me ofStill love the car UNTIL you get fwd of the windscreen.
Allow me to demonstrate without saying it looks like an MR...
The front hood lines and headlights still need some attention.
the big problem with all the wingless skycycles is if the motors goes out you're gonna drop like a rock
better pack a parachute at all times
2011 Subaru Forester - the DD - uber rare 5spd manual
1990 Miata - Track Rat, autocrossing cheap POS - love it
2018 Factory 5 Racing 818 Hardtop Coupe - preapproved by the wife
Sky Cycle:
greengoblin.jpg
But my point is that GM is going to get little feedback from their focus groups about having lightweight, well balanced, powerful (i.e. good PTW ratio), RWD cars for under or around $20k. As a driving enthusiast, that's what I want. And they could do that. But it would have to be executed properly, unlike the Saturn/Sky, which were not well executed.
other than the under $20K price point, which would be hard price target to hit for any manufacturer, the new Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S is damn close to what your asking for
2011 Subaru Forester - the DD - uber rare 5spd manual
1990 Miata - Track Rat, autocrossing cheap POS - love it
2018 Factory 5 Racing 818 Hardtop Coupe - preapproved by the wife
I think the Subaru/Toyota offerings are gorgeous. I'll wait until full comparison tests are out before I drink the koolaid. If those cars trounce the Miata on the fun-o-meter, they'll be a hit.
The $20k price point is doable. If you can deliver a s***box like the Yaris for $14k, at a profit, you'll never convince me that a rear drive coupe with an off the shelf motor has to cost $11k more. It's not like the WRX motor is balanced and assembled and ported and polished by a guy with an engineering degree. The only reason they can't do it is because it would sell like hotcakes and throw off their CAFE numbers.
The silver car design is dead (this version at least)... I owe alot of guys updates on where we are with the project. I'm working on it right now.
Dave Smith, FFR 001
President
Factory Five Racing
Thanks for the update Dave.
I would add that in my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges. FFR's target audience is NOT the same as GM's, nor are the desired outputs from any "focus groups" (or whatever term is used). People - driving enthusiasts included - have multiple needs and wants of a vehicle. But one vehicle can't do it all, so any feedback provided is going to be based on the outlined use case. For instance, even though I am a driving enthusiast, low weight is not something I consider important in a family vehicle. I would put safety and convenience features at the top of my feedback list.
The BRZ uses a unique motor, the FA20. Its a 2.0 liter direct-injected boxer that is supposedly more compact than the EJ series. I've also heard that it has normal injectors in addition to the direct injection, but I haven't been able to confirm that. The transmission is also a one-off for the BRZ.
Unfortunately (to pull this back OT), because the motor and trans are unique, it's not likely that the motor will bolt up to a WRX trans. So it won't make it into an 818.
The BRZ motor is technically unique. However it has very strong ties to Subaru's new corporate motor - the FB series. It is smaller than an EJ, but so are all the FB motors. While exact details are still scarce, the MOST unique part of the motor is Toyota's DI tech that uses both a direct in-cylinder injector and a port injector.
Subaru has previewed the new line of turbo motors and they look almost identicle to the FA in the BRZ with the exception of the manifolds and injection system. They seem to use a single in-cylinder DI tech....possibly homegrown Subaru.
I forsee (guess) that the BRZ will not be unique in motor design/hardware, but will end up being the only Subaru motor to use Toyota's version of Direct Injection.
The transmission details have not been released, but knowing how companies save and spend cash, it's likely to be a standard Asian transmission on the inside with just the case casting and linkage special to the BRZ. Many have speculated it might even be the same excellent unit used in the Miata. I'm sure the service manuals will tell all once they are released.
True, but the FA20 is still not an off-the-shelf unit as was mentioned in an earlier post. The point was that the BRZ isn't a parts-bin car which is why it's north of 20K.
You're making my point. FFR did not illicit feedback from this forum to decide what components to put into the 818. They did it to get ideas for the shape of the body. GM does not illicit feedback from "the great unwashed" to get ideas for the shape of the body but for ideas on what features are important to MOST buyers. And all I did was expand on that by saying that it is unfortunate that the features that are important to driving enthusiasts are not likely to factor heavily (or even equally) into the resulting cars GM will produce.
On the topic of the $20k enthusiast's car, if a car like the Mazda3 can be delivered for $20k, then so can a lighter weight RWD car with many of the same components.
Thanks Dave, anxiously awaiting.....
Glad to hear and cant wait to have a bone thrown to the pack
Aerodynamics and rear wing down force ...??
Engineer debunks theory of flight
David Millward and Nick Collins London
January 27, 2012
AN ENGINEER has debunked one of the most common myths in science - why aircraft fly.
Aeroplanes fly because their wings cause the air pressure underneath to be greater than that above, lifting them into the air. For years engineers have been frustrated by a theory that wrongly explained the change in pressure.
The myth is common in textbooks, and even Einstein was rumoured to have subscribed to it.
Advertisement: Story continues below A Cambridge scientist was so fed up with it that he created a minute-long video to lay it to rest. The video, published on YouTube by Professor Holger Babinsky, seeks to explain in simple terms why the theory goes against the laws of physics.
According to the myth, the pressure change happens because the air on the curved upper surface of the wing has further to travel than that below the flat underneath surface, meaning it must travel faster to arrive at the other side of the wing at the same time.
The true explanation is nothing to do with the distance the air has to travel. The curvature of the wing causes the change in air pressure because it pulls some of the air upwards, which reduces pressure, and forces the rest beneath it, creating higher pressure.
Professor Babinsky explains that, although lift is caused by a pressure change between the top and bottom surfaces, it's due to the change in the shape of the air flow, rather than its speed. ''This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift,'' he says. ''In this case, the distance on each side is the same but it is slightly curved when it's rigged, acting like an aerofoil.''
Professor Babinsky filmed smoke passing across a wing. If traditional wisdom had been correct the smoke above and below should have reached the back at the same time. Actually, the plume above the wing reached the back much sooner.
comments so far
This article is rubbish. This theory had been discarded long before I studied Aeronautical Engineering in the 60s, 45 years ago.
Commenterbirdman
LocationDate and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 7:49AM
Yep, it's *not* due to differential camber (path lengths).
Now, who wants to take on:
1. It's hotter in summer than in winter because the earth is closer to the sun (wrong, it's the Cosine Law, with the sun's radiation spread over a *larger area* in winter due to the earth's changing inclination to the sun),
2. Clouds stay up because "water vapour" is lighter than air (wrong, water particles in clouds have condensed from the gaseous state, and release latent heat as they do - this warms them, and the resulting updrafts suspend them until they become large enough to overcome the updrafts and fall as rain).
As an outsider, how does this account for inverted flight as most wing undersides are flat?
CommenterDenisPC9
LocationNew England Region
Date and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 8:22AM
•
Most undersides are not flat. Lift is achieved on inverted wing by ensuring leading edge is higher in airstream than trailing edge [+ve angle of attack].
CommenterMycroft
LocationDate and timeJanuary 27, 2012, 8:53AM
•
All horizontal surfaces have some form of lift or its opposite - Drag. Even an antenna on the aircraft. It may be both efficient and inefficient.
For example aircraft attitude (nose up/down) can be altered so almost every aircraft can fly flat at high speed and comfort (and fuel burn) or can fly up to maybe 60%+ nose-up. Its very slow and uncomfortable but achieves the correct lift co-efficient for the wing shape relative to the air it flys within. A high nose-up requires flap, low speed and caution regarding stall. When stall is achieved (inefficient) the pilot releases control and the aircraft should correct its stall with small nose-down to become efficient.This whole process isnt about the aircraft nose - Its the position of the wing to the direction of travel in the air. (ie at high nose-up the wing is banked and changes the surface below and over the wing). The wing needs to balance drag and lift so lift exceeds drag.
In an inverted state flight response changes and its likely inefficient but most modern jet aircraft are flown by computer. Watch a harrier fly backwards - Now that defies logic. MASSIVE trust offsets the drag. Its more rocket than plane.
nnnnooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
PLEASE no aero discussions, particularly oversimplified ones.
Fast818, I confused on what your point was/is. In fact, reading the text is confusing in and of itself because it's difficult to follow who is saying what.
I invite such discussions to be off site then.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/aerodynamics.html
You might want to focus the discussion on automobile aerodynamics though.
I also know a good physics forum. An example of such a discussion already in progress below.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...t=aerodynamics
And another:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=430717
m2f2.jpg
Not on all wings, the air foil on this lifting body has the longer path on the bottom:
Last edited by kach22i; 01-27-2012 at 08:26 AM.
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
Kach, I have no problem with most aero discussions but that one was so CONFUSED (like Xusia said) and beside the point (why airplanes fly/ how can a flat bottom wing fly upsidedown/etc.).
Posting Permissions
Visit our community sponsor
Reply With Quote
