Visit our community sponsor
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Same question as above - what is this sweet thing?
Cropped-ferrari evolution.jpg
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
It's the new Ferrari 458 Italia.Originally Posted by bromikl
I don't know what that fifth car is, but I want one.
thats a novitec 430 bodykit - called tulesto from 2008 or 09..thought i add it here because it fits quite well (and i liked it, too)
More photos in link:
http://www.carzi.com/2009/04/22/novi...tures-details/
All I could find were the renderings from 2009, sadly no real car.If you are interested in buying one, you better be quick as only 11 will ever be made each probably costing a fortune. So get your AMEX BLACK CARD ready for a swipe.
Perhaps the body changes were to close to the yet to be released Italia, so Ferrari may have asked them to stop work.
Last edited by kach22i; 01-09-2012 at 09:24 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
Hi Dave, are there any new photos of model 4? the ones that were posted were not taken from a realistic angle. what about having a quick sketch session in order to try out some variations? i`m sure several people here would like to participate in the finetuning process.. thx
Dave I have to say after the work that you guys did on the GTM and some of the good designs submitted by some of the guys for the contest and even after the contest was over I am truly sad to see the model you guys did. This car doesn't seem to have the finesse, the style and honestly the taste that you guys normally portray. This model seemed like a late night cram session to present something to your teacher because you spent the previous night at the frat house kind of design.
Below is a design that I truly liked, its modern, its exotic, its something that would put Factory Five into a different and more diversified market. It may not be the easiest car to construct a mold of but there could be much worse designs for that, the overall look though in my opinion is fantastic. I am not saying to you guys you must build the car to look just like this but I believe this is somewhere near the area that you guys should bring the kit to. The model on the first page looks to me much like a Hyundai tiburon with a body kit. I believe this is the worse direction you guys could have gone with. It makes your car look cheap. This car is going to be built for a younger crowd that can't afford a car like a GTM and is a bit young for a car like the MK4. This is a car for lack of better reference for the import market. Its already using an import donor car for the main components.
I truly beg you to look into revising this design greatly. I would really be interested to build one if it would look more like this rendering below.
What about Shawn Whetstone's design? In my opinion that car would fit the bill. Its not too expensive to build, its modern, somewhat exotic, doesn't overshadow the GTM and would open you guys up to a new market. The car looks like it would be fun to build and drive.
I'm torn. I like both Rodney's design as well as Shawn's. One of the things I really like about Shawn's design is the clean, straight, simple lines. To me, less is more, and I think his design embodies that. I also like all the practical considerations such as targa stowage.
Well, thats not far off the reality. They had to get something to SEMA, and they didn't want to distract from the car itself by bringing the models of all 3 contest winners, with attendies focusing on which model they like best instead of the basics of the car. They also didn't want to bring just one of those models, making it seem like they favor one over the others. So they did cram and build something new, and it shows. They didn't have time to refine things at all.
They are planning to build several variations of 818. Its not certain that any of those will be some refined version of model 4 or not. But even if it is, there will be others to choose from. There is even speculation that they will continue to build new body designs for the 818 chassis as time goes on. So they have an endless source of designs to choose from (the 700 entries), including these two you like so much (I like those 2 as well).
To me, SW1's (Shawn's) concept screams high mileage diesel or electric.
archull,
As Opp said, they did what they could, under extreme time pressures for the SEMA show. Of course, the one model (Xabier’s) was put together by the RISD team – so it had been brought up to at least a reasonable level, considering the stage of the project. The others from the competition were what they were, having been “printed” from the digital data with no opportunity to make even dimensional corrections let alone aesthetic ones. This, by the way, is the weakness of the theory that digital models will save time and provide usable solutions. The whole concept of push-a-button-and-we-have-tools is a complete pipe dream.
Jim did what he could with his design (which was not from the competition of course) but he doesn’t have the same ability as a designer that he does as an engineer (I am trying to say that more kindly this time). So that’s how they got to where they were at SEMA.
The irony is that the design you are liking, from the Greek entrant, is possibly the (horrible) inspiration for Jim’s attempt. If you look at the sketch, it has that same impossible-to-realize feature line traversing from the fender peak in front, through the door, into the side scoop. The guy obviously doesn’t have a clue about form or he wouldn’t have drawn that thing in the first place. That line is a practical impossibility, like an Escher drawing.
The result (wherever it came from) was the tortured surface development on the model, first full scale then ¼… that has led (partly) to the current dilemma with Model #4.
I will say I like Shawn’s design for the most part, but there is no evidence that there is any serious consideration & development of it, or any of the other possibilities – including Rodney’s or V-Man’s.
In the absence of demonstrated in-house progress on these alternate designs, the only logical conclusion is that there hasn’t been any.
Last edited by olpro; 01-17-2012 at 05:37 PM.
We know what they did up to a point, and based on that curve we can project (with optimism) a line into our current (future time). That is making a bunch of assumptions that progress is a linear thing, which we all know it isn't with any complex project. Still my hopes are up, or at least my best wishes are.
In retrospect, at the end of the model phase with the owner (Mr Smith) still not satisfied (hair not on fire) was the moment a professional designer could have been contracted with. This person would have benefited from the wealth of information; "what we like" and "what we don't like" kind. Sometimes this sort of progress is as important as any "wow factor" or actual clump of clay, right?
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
How about, Jim (designer of model 4), chief engineer at FFR, in charge of the 818 plus numerous other FFR projects, also an FFR racer, doesn't have the same refined design ability as a full-time professional designer.
Jim works in a world that requires wearing many hats. He just hasn't had as much time with his designer hat on as with many of the other hats hanging in his office. If Jim switched right now to designing full-time, many of you on this forum have more time already wearing the designer hat than Jim would by the time he was ready to retire. He can never have the design experience many of you already have. You are better at it than he is. But he is the guy with the pen on this one, and he is the guy Dave has entrusted with making decisions (though as with anything, the boss always has the final say). I am OK with that.
I somewhat disagree, that design reminded me alot of the K1 Attack car kit that was around awhile back. I think although that sketch was a somewhat difficult to build, as far as a sketch goes its not unthinkable to build. As a former architect and industrial designer I have worked off of many sketches such as this and brought them into reality with minor adjustments for realistic proportions and ease of tooling. I think that the idea is decent enough, just needs some smoothing into an actual shape that still can fit the human figure comfortably and also fit the required dimensional criteria which the contest requires. This car is going to be much smaller than many of the other cars that FFR makes, which also is kind of the beauty in it but at the same time can distort the form of it. For example the short height, longer, wider frame of the GTM allows the car to look large in proportion and allow the passengers relative comfort where as a car that is shorter and narrow still requires the same height as a car say the GTM however its going to look more egg shaped due to the required dimensional criteria.
One way to combat this height issue is by adjusting the seating angle. By tilting back the seats a little you change the seating geometry of the occupant allowing for a shorter roof line as well as requires less leg room (many hatches use this technique to allow headroom for rear passengers).
I think that shawn made a good attempt for this car and really thought things through compared to many of the proposals.
I concur with this thought, A professional designer could have taken these choices to the next level of aethetics and manufacturabilty. Or the original designers could have been brought into the fold as a contract employee to tweak their designs like Rodney O has been doing here, which may still happen supposably there was talk. I think Dave has more faith in Jim as a designer than I do but we will see in the end I suppose.
I can do anything with enough time and money.
yes, i totally like the sketch and its style, too. it looks light but at the same time comprises all relevant details.
I truly beg you to look into revising this design greatly. I would really be interested to build one if it would look more like this rendering below.
it also looks as if it could match the template.
i agree with olpro on the feasibility of the current featureline. i guess the designer thought of sth. like the bmw z4 coupe concept..
BMW_Z4_Coupe_Concept_2005.jpg
there`s sth from the 612 scaglietti in it, too. good job!
Cars by committee
Tony Davis The Age newspaper
January 20, 2012
Tony Davis looks at the pitfalls of asking customers what they want in their cars.
At the recent Detroit motor show, General Motors announced bold new plans to consult. And exactly who will the company do it with?
According to General Motors' US boss, Mark Reuss, ''We're seeking out our newest customers' opinions, listening to their advice and engaging them in new ways.''
In other words, Reuss is talking about the people. You know, those scumbags who, as the serially disappointed Paul Keating observed, don't know what's good for them. Yes, those frustrating folk of whom Henry Ford supposedly said: ''If I'd asked them what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.''
Reuss's comments were centred on two new GM concept cars ''aimed at inspiring next-generation buyers to take the wheel and suggest ideas for a car they can co-create''.
Why are GM execs becoming all touchy, feely and collaborative? Probably because a focus group told them they should. One of the problems with asking the
people for a hand is that it gives the impression that GM doesn't have a clue what to do. After all, isn't it meant to be the one with the expertise?
In the mid-1950s, Ford asked thousands of people what they wanted. The result of all these meetings with the great unwashed was an all-new car with ''more YOU ideas''. It was - drum roll, drum roll - the Edsel!
And does anyone really want a car co-created with ''next-generation buyers'' - those people who have presumably never owned a car, let alone designed one? John McFarland, who heads ''youth research'' for Chevrolet, thinks so. He gushes about how ''we want to build authentic and meaningful relationships with these customers on their terms. We want to hear what they have to say, engage them in our design process and give them what they want - not what we think they want.'' McFarland is expected to pull the covers off an even faster horse some time soon.
Now, I'm as fond of my fellow man as the next misanthropist. But there's a further problem with using people - next generation or not - in the car design process. It works only if those people are trustworthy. And we all know men and women are far more virtuous in surveys than real life. They constantly put the environment at the top of their supposed priorities and then buy a four-wheel-drive for a solo daily urban commute. They complain cars don't have enough safety features, then specify the alloys and decorative spoiler instead of the extra airbags. They buy Bluetooth-equipped cars and talk on a hand-held, while driving, with the other hand hanging out the window. Yes, people - you and me excepted, of course - continually sadden and disenchant.
Still, away from the touchy-feely-bollocky-markety arena, there is an area where the public might actually help make cars better: by using open-source technology.
Whereas we can't expect an automotive equivalent of Mozilla or Linux, absolutely free and ready to use, thousands of independent thinkers could come up with things not otherwise imagined. With projects, things such as OScar, enthusiastic contributors - rather than lassoed passers-by - are aiming to pool ideas and expertise. They will eventually use open-source, computer-aided design software to produce blueprints for a unique low-cost vehicle (www.theoscarproject.org).
The hydrogen-powered c,mm,n (yes, that's how they spelt it) was developed by Dutch universities using open-source principles back in 2007. It looked like it was sketched by SsangYong designers on the morning after their end-of-year piss-up. But the technology was promising. Until a completely democratic car is produced by such methods, Chevrolet, we are assured, will ''engage customers using the social media tools that young consumers use to talk with one another''.
How did GM come across this knowledge that youngsters are using social media to talk with one another? Probably on the wireless.
Just one reporters thinking....:--))
RE: Cars by committee above
I think one issue is that most people have never understood the benefits and drawbacks of Comittee design vs individual design.
In terms of function and safety comittee's are usually the better way to go but in terms of pure design(looks) one persons perspective is usually the more inspirational.
One brings many minds tohgether and with those many perspectives function and safety issues are less likely to be missed.
But like a great artist, the exterior design most often works when the subject of one persons vision.
I know, many will disagree with me but thats my opinion.
Also, I am not a designer and sit back in wonder at the talents of the people here who have shown their vision to us all.
I don't get it what so ever.... nothing about this project makes sense to me. I don't meant to be a butt head.. but its just another car that I would not turn my head at if I saw it going down the road..I hope it doesn't spoil the rest of the company.Sorry for being so blunt.
Dave you know we love ya, thats why we speak whats on our minds.
Thanks,
Al Adkins
Certified "Kool Aid" drinker
Al.............time will prove you to be incorrect.
FFR Daytona Type 65 Coupe
67 427 Cobra
57' Belair
72 Pinto Wagon ,306" 1/4 miler
34 5 window coupe Ford
2003 Mustang GT
99' ZX9
85 Goldwing
All toys still in the Scuderia!
Every Saint has a past..................every sinner a future
Don't take yourself so seriously........no one else does.
You never see a motorcycle parked outside a Psychiatrists office.
I work in technology, and when the iPad first came out, you can't BELIEVE the calls I fielded:
"What is it??"
"Is there a use case?"
"Why would anyone buy that over a laptop?"
etc., etc., etc.
The point is, at the time, MANY people didn't think it made any sense (for the record, I thought it was brilliant - and I'm NOT an Apple fan boy). They didn't "get it." Obviously, that's not the case today - it's a utter success by any definition, and those early opinions seem laughable.
I think there could be some parallels here. Everyone might not "get it" right now, but IF Dave and FFR are able to meet the project goals, I predict the 818 will be a runaway success and in a couple years we'll look back and laugh.
The process that FFR is using is not so much about having a committee design the car. It's about getting original shapes in front of the designers at FFR that they might not have envisioned on their own.
What GM is planning is not about designing the shape of their cars but understanding the features that might be desirable to future buyers. The sucky thing about that is relatively few of the people they target will be driving enthusiasts. They'll be technology enthusiasts with a sprinkling of environmental conscience to color their values. They'll place more importance on cars being polymorphic, serving Lattes, having auto pilot, speaking in a soothing voice and massaging their ego and their neck.
Car driving enthusiasts are a dying breed. Yesterday my wife and I were discussing monumental structures like the pyramids in Egypt and the temples in South America. We were trying to understand why it is that the knowledge to build those structures was not carried forward through the generations. There are certain types of knowledge that get carried forward; mathematics, astrology. But something as seemingly important as the engineering required to move 20-ton stones or carve a perfectly symmetrical face on them were abandoned? And not documented? Alien influences aside, I think it has to do with the fact that value systems change over time. The generations that followed those builders lost the desire to expend the effort to move 20-ton stones because they no longer valued the monument as much as they valued some other pursuit.
We're seeing the same kind of evolution in car design. The masses just don't value the act of driving as much as all the other crap in their lives. The GM execs are just coming to grips with that and trying to tap into it because they have to sell cars to the masses. The relatively fewer driving enthusiasts are becoming a smaller and less significant market.
Thank God for Factory Five.
Amen
I don't think anyone here will dispute that.
The push for automated self-driving cars is what scares the hell out me.
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
That would be awesome if he actually said that. Sounds like something he would have said.
RE: Cars by committee above
If the group is a bunch of designers, or at least designer want-a-be's then the results can be great. Just forget your average pin heads.
I read recently that the average cleaning woman working a X-car company most likely has better design sense than most automobile executives at X-car company. I'm inclined to agree.
Last edited by kach22i; 01-23-2012 at 11:01 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
It seems like the progression in automotive technology has constantly chipped away at driver involvement; automatic transmissions, front wheel drive, anti-lock brakes, traction control, dynamic stability control, flappy-paddle-gearboxes, pre-collision braking systems, lane departure warning systems. These represent billions of dollars in research and development in an effort to take human error out of the driving equation. In the face of this, it amazes me that the Miata has been so successful (automatic Miatas notwithstanding).
Careful, George. You kind of just called all of the non-designer members of 818 forum pin heads.
Couldn't disagree more. People do want convenience, sure. So do I. That doesn't make me less of a driving enthusiast. Looking at the motorcycling world for a bit, sport bike rider numbers have increased DRAMATICALLY in the last decade - predominantly younger riders - and these machines are serious torture for anyone not really into the whole "sport" part of sport bike. That tells me that as a percentage the up and coming generation has a larger group of enthusiasts than my generation. Back to the automotive industry, aren't sales of performance and/or good handling oriented cars up? That would be another indicator.
I would love to have a self driving car! That doesn't mean I don't ALSO want a car I can enjoy driving myself. But let's face it, not many of us have a daily commute that's SOOOOO exciting we want to drive a performance car everyday (I wish!). For that type of driving, why subject myself to limited onboard storage, the potential for theft or damage, additional miles on my toy, etc? That really doesn't make sense.
I do plan on my 818 being a daily driver, but that's mostly because it will get better MPG than my current vehicle. Still, it won't be driven like it was meant to on my commute, and if a self driving car were an option, I'd pick that almost every day over anything else my daily commute.
But yes. Thank God for FFR!
I don't like being driven around by other people as it is, the last thing I want is government funded computerized commuter system telling my car what to do. Peoples driving skills are bad enough as it is.
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
So then its a good thing FFR isn't asking the average person on the street to help design the 818, they are asking a group of car enthusiasts. They also aren't making us all part of the 'committee', with a vote, nor blinding taking every suggestion we have and making sure its included. Instead they are using us as a free idea factory, then filtering those ideas as they see fit. Even the contest was just a big design idea factory. They got a bunch of design ideas to choose from, to be inspired by. And a few designs they might want to simply 'adjust' and use (Rodney, Xabier, etc.)
Plus, this effort isn't simply interviewing us in isolation, its collaborative. We all get to hear each others ideas, and weigh in. Improve or discredit whatever is suggested. The effort here is nothing like the effort to build the Edsel, nor the effort GM appears to be persuing (and GM is just doing this to build a concept car, not a production car).
Its a collaboration among an enthusiast group, that simply provides ideas and feedback to the same small group of decision makers that would have been making the decisions if the collaborative group never existed. No one seems to have a problem with FFR taking good ideas from the field and pushing them back into production (tips and tricks builders have found, body shaping mods people have done, etc). What is wrong with trying to do a little of that up front?
Also, keep in mind that we aren't helping to design the WHOLE car. We've been asked to help design the pretty packaging that's wrapped around the FFR-designed chassis. The meat and potatoes of this car is from a single vision. The committee involvement is only skin deep.
E X A C T L Y! Besides not having to deal with traffic, an automated driving system would remove people's poor driving habits, preoccupations, or lack of skill from the equation.
only on the highways where you could actually implement it, which means around town the drivers will just be worse than ever
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
What amazes me is throwing ever more sophisticated technology at the problem, with never any thought to just trying to make people better drivers. I'm OK with better cars, better highways, but do we have to completely ignore trying for better drivers? Most people don't even know the rules of the road, let alone how to control their car properly.
Throw some of that $ and effort into better driver training, more difficult testing (exam and on-road skill).
Then there is law enforcement. When you ask any regular driver about safety, the first (and probably last) thing they think about is speeding. If you only enforce one law with any effort, then that is all anyone will think is important. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "No, I wasn't speeding."
Then there is the 'Universal Accident Avoidance Pedal' TM. Traffic stops short in front of you, brake hard. Big dump truck barreling down on you, from behind, brake hard. Pull out from a side street, only to realize there is car barreling down from the side, brake hard (completely block the road with your giant SUV).
Again, I disagree. There is no reason the current technology can't be applied to urban environment. In fact, that's where I believe the biggest gain is to be had.
Of course not, but it's been tried. Could we implement a better training program? Sure. It's been done to better effect in Europe. The real problem is American driving culture and arrogance (I'm American, so I'm allowed). To overcome those would be very difficult and costly - even more costly perhaps than the training itself. Implementing technology is easier and cheaper.
This is another reason I would prefer my commuter car drive itself. It eliminates the risk of getting a ticket.
DAVE ... PLEASE!!!! just a little update to get us back on track .... GEEZ!
If at first you don't succeed ... get a bigger hammer.
While I agree that is where the biggest gains would be had, it also presents the biggest logistical and programming nightmare.
You would need AI cars with sensors all over them to detect various obstacles, especially pedestrians.
Guess I'm just an éX-Driver at heart.
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
The technology is already there, and I don't think you need as many sensors as you are thinking. The basic components are GPS, wireless multi-channel communication system (to communicate with both traffic control devices and other vehicles - even those being driven by humans), a couple distance sensors (such as are used by cruise control systems and rear obstacle alert systems), and a couple cameras.
What's missing is a standard to tie bring it all together, and of course, the actual implementation in both vehicles and traffic control devices. We aren't as far off as you may think...
Dave? Dave's not here man.
Haha.
Posting Permissions
Visit our community sponsor
Reply With Quote
