Thinking a little out of the box...

[jwalton]

I've been eagerly lurking here and awaiting the 818 project to come to fruition for some time now. In fact, I found out about the contest about a week after the submissions were do which killed me because I wanted to submit something. Oh well...

Anyway, my doodles all took one assumption which I thought would allow the car to take on a far more balanced and proportioned profile, at least to my eyes. My assumptions centered around the thought that with nothing in front of the driver save suspension pick-ups and ultimately the radiator assembly, why does the driver have to sit so far back/upright? I drew a concept that kept the driver's head in the same position longitudinally in the car, but dropped it roughly 6". Doing this allowed the windshield header and roofline (if you wanted one) to be 6" lower, allowing the car to not look so tall relative to its length. I figured the driver's position could be updated in this fashion because there's not a whole lot of anything in front of him and I assume that 6" could be found for his/her feet.

All that being said, my doodles were just that, doodles. There are probably very good reasons for the driver position as it was defined during the contest. It also doesn't mean that the concepts that were chosen to go forward weren't beautiful in their own right, it just occured to me that I couldn't have been the only one to struggle with finding a well proportioned profile.

Am I the only one thinking this way? Should I just shut up and go back to where I came from? I honestly hope I didn't offend anyone, the designs I've seen have been truly imaginative, way beyond my own and I'd be proud to build/own any of them.

[Draco-REX]

It's neat idea on the surface, but there are some issues. A laid-back design like a Fighter Pilot makes for easier design of the body, but causes issues for the driver.

First, climbing in and out of a car with a position like that is difficult, especially with a roof over the driver's head. The problem stems from the driver's center of gravity being so close to, or even under, the steering wheel. The natural way to get out would be to sit up to get the center of gravity over the driver's hips. But if the wheel is in the way it becomes awkward to climb out. Formula drivers can sit this way because A: they have to due to the car's shape, and B: they have no roof over their heads so they can slide up out of the seat and stand on it.

Second, sitting upright is a better position for racing. Having the head in a natural orientation to the body conveys motion to the inner ear in a way the brain can interpret better. Additionally, the placement of the wheel in front of the chest rather than tilted down by the belt makes it easier to make quick steering inputs. I used to have more of a relaxed position when driving until I started racing in RallyCross and AutoX. Sitting in a more upright position is so much better when you have to work the wheel so much. Now I sit that way in my normal cars. You'll also find the upright seating position in any full-bodied race car fur just these reasons. Granted, these seats are bolted to the floor to keep CG height as low as possible, but they are not laid back beyond 10 degrees or so.

I'm all for wild and new. Hell, my vote is for the Olmos design. But seating position is probably one of the most important things in car design. If someone isn't comfortable, they won't buy the car. And most people do not want to make the sacrifices to comfort that formula drivers must.

[backafter20]

No need to go back to where you came from. I had in mind something a bit wilder as well, at least in general appearance. I was hoping for something as radical as the KTM X-bow or Ariel Atom. Something less, well, regular car-like. The four models shown thus far are all nice looking, but look as if they could be production vehicles. Not that I want something that obviously looks like a "kit-car", but, for me at least, the models do not qualify for "hair on fire" status.

[crackedcornish]

No need to go back to where you came from. I had in mind something a bit wilder as well, at least in general appearance. I was hoping for something as radical as the KTM X-bow or Ariel Atom. Something less, well, regular car-like. The four models shown thus far are all nice looking, but look as if they could be production vehicles. Not that I want something that obviously looks like a "kit-car", but, for me at least, the models do not qualify for "hair on fire" status.

like this one?
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/album...achmentid=4224
Chris Ito's Submission - View 2

[BipDBo]

No need to go back to where you came from. I had in mind something a bit wilder as well, at least in general appearance. I was hoping for something as radical as the KTM X-bow or Ariel Atom. Something less, well, regular car-like. The four models shown thus far are all nice looking, but look as if they could be production vehicles. Not that I want something that obviously looks like a "kit-car", but, for me at least, the models do not qualify for "hair on fire" status.

I agree. It seems like most of the submissions as well as the judging went down a much more conventional car path than I had in mind was the intent for the 818 project from the beginning. Dave originally described this it as something like the Aerial atom, but with a little more body to make it less scary driving on the highway next to a truck. It seemed to me that we were designing a street legal track car. What came to fruition seems much more like a standard production roadster. My submission had neither a windshield or doors. With the budget and weight constraints, I figured that was almost a project requirement. How much weight is a hinged door? What about a DOT glass windshield, supporting structure and wipers? I also had in mind to keep the back of the car mostly open to have an exposed engine bay to reduce weight.

I also figured that sticking to the template, including the rollbar, was a project requirement. I know that the template is a well tenderized horse carcass, but not one of the top 3 winners stuck to it. Nouphone omitted the roll bar. Olmos' car was 12" too wide. Xabiers car had the roll bar, but it was much more narrow and would not be affective. Even Dave's model omitted the roll bar.

[bromikl]

FFR isn't going to do anything as radical as the XFactor. I don't work at FFR but I'd gladly bet a weeks wages on it. You could always hope some other entrepreneur develops optional body kits for the FFR frame. There have been a couple of threads on the subject.

[kach22i]

Am I the only one thinking this way?

I've overlaid the template, true to original driver head height but with a larger six foot tall driver over the majority of designs MadDog has put up in the album/wall. You are in fact aligned with the majority of the submissions, most of which are 3"-6" lower than the template.

My guess is that FFR is still debating the issue of re-using stock Subaru seats (6"-7" SEAT HEIGHT), there is no parts list to prove re-use one way or another.

Adjustable seats typically angle down as you go back, so that larger drivers will fit (heads may still be one or two inches higher). This could lead to the car staying at original template height, with larger drivers lowering their seats at extra effort and expense. However, if the original gas tank is being flipped up 90 degrees standing on it's narrow end (no proof of this, just a guess), this could limit how far back one can slide, and lower themselves. My best guess is this car would be 48" high with targa roof on, but it could as easily be 4" higher or 4" lower than that in the end.

Here are some rough studies I've marked-up examining seating height, I hope it helps you to read FFR's collective mind.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...2i/Automobile/


NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Lets see your doodles!

[kach22i]

It's neat idea on the surface, but there are some issues.....................

Nice post, brings to light many issues which have been lurking in the dark for some time now.

[bromikl]

However, if the original gas tank is being flipped up 90 degrees standing on it's narrow end (no proof of this, just a guess),

Custom tank wedge shaped behind the seats, like the '33 Roadster. Not chiseled in stone, but likely; per Dave (please don't ask me to find the post from 2-3 months ago.)

[kach22i]

Custom tank wedge shaped behind the seats, like the '33 Roadster. Not chiseled in stone, but likely; per Dave (please don't ask me to find the post from 2-3 months ago.)

I could not find the original "hint" if I had too either. It may be better and safer to custom build a gas tank than to modify a gas tank, the cost may even be the same in the end.

[flytosail]

I've overlaid the template, true to original driver head height but with a larger six foot tall driver over the majority of designs MadDog has put up in the album/wall. You are in fact aligned with the majority of the submissions, most of which are 3"-6" lower than the template.

My guess is that FFR is still debating the issue of re-using stock Subaru seats (6"-7" SEAT HEIGHT), there is no parts list to prove re-use one way or another.

Adjustable seats typically angle down as you go back, so that larger drivers will fit (heads may still be one or two inches higher). This could lead to the car staying at original template height, with larger drivers lowering their seats at extra effort and expense. However, if the original gas tank is being flipped up 90 degrees standing on it's narrow end (no proof of this, just a guess), this could limit how far back one can slide, and lower themselves. My best guess is this car would be 48" high with targa roof on, but it could as easily be 4" higher or 4" lower than that in the end.

Here are some rough studies I've marked-up examining seating height, I hope it helps you to read FFR's collective mind.

http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...2i/Automobile/


NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Lets see your doodles!

Could you draw in where the fuel tank is? Thanks.

[jwalton]

Thanks for the responses. Draco-REX did bring up some good points that I hadn't thought through, but I would like to expand on my thoughts a little...

I never looked at this car as a daily driver with all of the ease of use requirements that comes with that intended application. Take a Lotus Elise/Exige as an example. I'm a 6'2" guy and getting in and out of those is not exactly a graceful act. Once you're in, very comfortable, but other than that not so much. I wouldn't bet most potential buyers would be buying something like this as a daily driver so I think that certain liberties could be taken in the interest of performance and aesthetics. I don't think a drop in seating position (including the slight increase in recline angle) would put you in a formula car position either. Getting in and out of those is cumbersome to say the least, but again, very comfortable once your there. The key to feeling like you're in control of the car is the seating position combined with the location of the steering wheel. I don't think anyone would argue that in a formula car you don't feel like you're in command if your fitted appropriately.

If I get suitably adventurous, I'll put up my doodles and it'll be clear how much of a difference a couple of inches can make to the profile/visual balance of the car (at least with my concepts). The stuff I've experimented with is very conservative styling wise, but that approach just highlighted the profile of the car even more, prompting my original post.

Sorry for being long winded...

[PhyrraM]

See, that's one of the problems. Most of us are of the feeling that our intended useage is "common" and our particular thought patterns are "most of us".

I see many comments here in these forums suggesting that a daily driver is a strong desire.
I see many comments saying that power to weight is king.
I see many comments that wish it was an autocross monster.
I see many comments that hope for a track star.
I see many comments looking for a low slung exotic imposter.
I see many comments looking for a $15000 world beater.

All of those comments have been made thinking that those particular thoughts are in the majority. Even when supposed majorities seem to clash.

[Oppenheimer]

Just be careful with the term 'Daily Driver'. To many, this means a full production car, with all the refinement, safety gizmos, and luxuries that make driving safe, and sedate, and add weight. To a lot of other people, a lot of them on here, DD just means a car you can drive to work if its not snowing or icy, with some sort of protection from the elements (that is not a soft top that has to be assembled like a tent). To such people people, a car like an Elise would be considered a DD.

[Niburu]

To such people people, a car like an Elise would be considered a DD.

I be one of those people, actually the Elise is a bit fancy compared to the Miata I DD when I'm not hauling kids.

[kach22i]

Could you draw in where the fuel tank is? Thanks.

Look for the question mark............?

We in the forum don't know for sure where it will end up, or what shape it will be.

More studies in the link below:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...cpZZ5QQtppZZ20


http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...cpZZ4QQtppZZ20

[backafter20]

Yes, like that one. (referring to the X-factor, though I'd change the name. Sounds like a cosmetics brand.) That fits exactly what I was hoping for. Great idea to allow for a coupe/roadster conversion as well. Simple, exotic, lightweight, obviously non-production, but not like a cheesy beetle-based car that gave the "kit" prefix a bad name. Too bad that's not where this is going.

[flytosail]

Look for the question mark............?

We in the forum don't know for sure where it will end up, or what shape it will be.

More studies in the link below:
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...cpZZ5QQtppZZ20


http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x...cpZZ4QQtppZZ20

What are the heights of the two drivers in the first photo?

[kach22i]

What are the heights of the two drivers in the first photo?

If you click either link, it takes you to my album, each detail is taken from an overall drawing beside it or near it.

I checked both, and they are the same, which is not always the case because I've been looking at seating from many different possibilities.

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...erlay-base.jpg

My notes say the original FFR head height is 43-1/2", and the revised study head is at 47-1/2". This is the possible 4" increase I've been discussing in other threads (2" torso + 2" chassis frame bottom). Many are advocating a 4" lowering of the head height, which is yet another way to go if you want to sit on the floor or very near the floor.

Please remember that FFR used a 50% male manikin, my studies focus on seeing how a 6 foot tall male (95%) would also fit. I dare not try a 6-4" American male, I'm unpopular enough with some people.

[BipDBo]

kach22i,
I got on your case about putting templates on all of the submissions because I felt that there wasn't any reason to criticize the submissions that didn't win and won't be developed by Factory 5. I do, however find tis very enlighteneing and hopefully productive when applied to the shapes that were selected and even the popular choices that are being requested for developement, namely, Whetstone and Vman. Anyway, some of these drawings where you show the overlays of the 6'-0" male make it look very cramped. I'm 6'-1, and I not only want to be comfortable, but i want the rollbar to be functional when I am wearinga helmet.

There's been a lot of discussion about the seats. I think that reusing the stock seats would be a mistake. The stock seats are heavy and high. They also absorb water, which wouldn't be good for a open roadster that may not be perfectly watertight. Most donor are going to have some pretty worn, nasty looking seats, anyway. Another problem, is that you would want the driver's head to be in the same position front to back relative to the rollbar regardless of the driver's height, so a sliding seat wouldn't be the best idea. This has probably come up before, but my vote is for the seats to be molded into the fiberglass tub, and for the steering columns and pedals to adjust back and forth.

[kach22i]

This has probably come up before, but my vote is for the seats to be molded into the fiberglass tub, and for the steering columns and pedals to adjust back and forth.

The Porsche 904 style molded tub has been mentioned before, I guessing now that it was you. That may be a benchmark car, but a different era, just as the 550 was.

The Lotus Evora is as low as they come (at a slightly longer wheelbase), I've studied the similar "Eagle" car found on-line and there is a single line for the floor, no steel tubes under the seat as in the 818 (see frame photos). With all this Lotus technology at work, they still end up with a 48" tall car, at least according to this website (48.1").

http://www.carfolio.com/specificatio...ar/?car=183139

It's not up to me how tall the car is, just remember that at 48 inches tall it will still be shorter than 99% of the cars on the road. They have to see you first to turn heads.

[BipDBo]

The Porsche 904 style molded tub has been mentioned before, I guessing now that it was you. That may be a benchmark car, but a different era, just as the 550 was.

I wasn't the one who brought it up before, but I still think it's an idea worth being explored. I wasn't thinking of the 904, but a much more modern car, the AAerial Atom.
ariel_atom seats.jpg
If Factory 5 built this, it would give new seats, and it would be by far lighter and lower than a conventional seat on rails. Padding could be added by the builder. Notice that the harnesses bolt directly to the car's frame.

[kach22i]

I wasn't the one who brought it up before, but I still think it's an idea worth being explored. I wasn't thinking of the 904, but a much more modern car, the AAerial Atom.
ariel_atom seats.jpg
If Factory 5 built this, it would give new seats, and it would be by far lighter and lower than a conventional seat on rails. Padding could be added by the builder. Notice that the harnesses bolt directly to the car's frame.

That's a great image, shows how close together two people can sit, how low you can go, the side diagonal frame (access), and a center diagonal frame (I assume under the center fiberglass console), and the elbow room of which has me wondering how usable it is.

So where are the cup holders?

If I were advocating going "off-template" I might take the time to impose an Aerial Atom seating layout over the FFR template. it cannot be that hard to do, can it? Do this as a starting point so you can see the differences and make informed design decisions.

There might be a huge generational thing going on here. I was trained in a era of trace paper overlays to develop an idea into a concept, a concept into a design. Younger people who develop projects on computer might not go though a similar process. In fact from what I know it's more a process of making revisions than anything else. If you are in a mind-set of revising, it may be more difficult to start over with a clean sheet of paper (or screen). If anyone is interested in starting their own design, I suggest just starting over if the FFR template does not suit your goals.

Just do it.

[BipDBo]

That's a great image, shows how close together two people can sit, how low you can go, the side diagonal frame (access), and a center diagonal frame (I assume under the center fiberglass console), and the elbow room of which has me wondering how usable it is.

So where are the cup holders?

If I were advocating going "off-template" I might take the time to impose an Aerial Atom seating layout over the FFR template. it cannot be that hard to do, can it? Do this as a starting point so you can see the differences and make informed design decisions.

There might be a huge generational thing going on here. I was trained in a era of trace paper overlays to develop an idea into a concept, a concept into a design. Younger people who develop projects on computer might not go though a similar process. In fact from what I know it's more a process of making revisions than anything else. If you are in a mind-set of revising, it may be more difficult to start over with a clean sheet of paper (or screen). If anyone is interested in starting their own design, I suggest just starting over if the FFR template does not suit your goals.

Just do it.

I'm not advocating for going off template at all. The template is the car. Our job is to put skin over it, not to modify the car itself. It doesn't matter how good a design looks if it doesn't fit. With your overlays of a 6'-0" male, there doesn't look to be much if any room especially if the guy is wearing a helmet. I must assume that the template was created having in mind the seats as low as possible (not above a gas tank), or that it is designed for only the Japanese market.

You say there's a generational gap here. I don't think that's the issue, and it's not the paper vs. computer. The issue is with design methodology. There are engineers here and then there are artists / designers. You and I are in the engineer's camp, and it seems that we are outnumbered. The engineers are likely to stick to rule number 1: It must work. The engineers will therefore most likely start by recreating the chassis dimensions as accuratly as possible and then build the body around that. That's how I started. Next i imposed more rules on myself, like low aerodynamic resistance, high downforce, proper ventilation, ease of manufacturing, location for european license plate, etc. The end result is very functional, but might not give thatHoF experience. The artists / designers will draw a beautiful car. They rely on an engineer to come after them to just make it work. The result is very impressive looking but might not work. The most popular entries, and most of the winners wre obviously the works of people who are mostly in the artist camp. For example, Olmos designed his car, then later realized that it was 12" wider than the template. That's the typical result of not using an engineer's methodology. By contrast Jim's car shows that he employed methodolgy of an engineer. I may come off as insulting toward the artist camp. I'm not trying to, it's just that people start getting offended when an engineer gets involved and says, "Hey we need to change some things." Well, they need to get over it. Draw all of the radical concept sketches you want, but the final product is going to look much less than something from the Hot wheels collection because ultimately, it's just got to work.

[kach22i]

artists / designers..........engineer's camp

There is something in between an artist and an engineer, its called an architect, that's what I am. I look both ways before I cross the design street.

BipDBo, I'd love to see your base template. I'd like the rear overhang dimension without your body and cushion space.

[BipDBo]

There is something in between an artist and an engineer, its called an architect, that's what I am. I look both ways before I cross the design street.

BipDBo, I'd love to see your base template. I'd like the rear overhang dimension without your body and cushion space.

Ah, architect. Sorry to hear about you being overqualified, overworked and underpaid.

I did not create my own template. I scaled the pdf templates provided by factory 5. When drawing my design in CAD, I just made sure my design would fit around the measurments from the templates. My body had some room off of the back of the transmission for a bumber of some sort, but that wasn't the only place where I added a little bit of "cushion.". I had in mind that the tamplate was simply an outline of the existing car without its body, so I also gave an inch or two here or there for thickness of material, wheel travel, etc. The only "modification" to the template I made was to increase the tilt of the radiator to get the hood a bit lower. I figured that could be be done easily.

[kach22i]

Ah, architect. Sorry to hear about you being overqualified, overworked and underpaid.

I did not create my own template.

Your process was not much different than mine.

Maybe I'm a little more focused on the template than others because not only does it package the exterior as forum, but it creates an internal space as well. Architects create space, be it inside of a building or the greater outside space called a the Urban Environment.

[BipDBo]

Your process was not much different than mine.

Maybe I'm a little more focused on the template than others because not only does it package the exterior as forum, but it creates an internal space as well. Architects create space, be it inside of a building or the greater outside space called a the Urban Environment.

But architects never want to create any reasonable amount of space for mechanical rooms or ductwork. Nor do they usually want to do what it takes to create a building envelope that keeps the outside space from coming into the inside space. They also never want to light the space to comply the energy codes. In my experience, the engineer makes sure that the architect's building will work.
Done ranting.

[kach22i]

But architects never want to create any reasonable amount of space for ..................

You forgot retention ponds regarding site design.

See, I told you we were also artists/designers too.