New Kitcar Design Sketches and Concepts
Discussion
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
The snag with the Byers design is the headlight height, of course (min 500mm to the bottom of the headlight). Raise those and it's really not too different to a Cobra.
Not the bottom, the main beam cut off, about half way up the headlight IIRC.I Reckon it's close to legal.
cymtriks said:
On other threads I've often suggested a 2+2 and have cited the Caterham 21 as a starting point so here is roughly what I had in mind.
I think that demonstrates what you're up against with an open 2+2, though: it already looks a bit odd (too long in the centre section) by the proportions we're used to seeing with front engined 2-seaters. Now stretch the wheelbase so that you actually have space to fit an engine in between the footwells and where the nose becomes too low to clear the cam cover...cymtriks said:
I've also suggested that the Fiat X1/9 could make a starting point for a new design. The buck for this is an X1/9 (so the buck is half finished on day one) with a racecar style minimal windscreen, aero fairings behind the seats and minor reshaping of the front and the rear panel. No doors which keeps things as simple as possible, just jump in. There might be many more mass produced cars that could be used as a short cut to a buck like this.
I actually quite like that, but then I have a thing for 'wedge' designs (I was brought up in the Stratos/Countach LP400/Esprit era and my first sports car was an X1/9). If you can get into an X1/9 without opening the door, though, you either have longer legs or are considerably more athletic than me (the latter isn't difficult...). The Macintosh M1 was a very similar concept, but rather lower:
singlecoil said:
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
The snag with the Byers design is the headlight height, of course (min 500mm to the bottom of the headlight). Raise those and it's really not too different to a Cobra.
Not the bottom, the main beam cut off, about half way up the headlight IIRC.I Reckon it's close to legal.
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
The snag with the Byers design is the headlight height, of course (min 500mm to the bottom of the headlight). Raise those and it's really not too different to a Cobra.
Not the bottom, the main beam cut off, about half way up the headlight IIRC.I Reckon it's close to legal.
I would imagine the reference below would suggest they "mean" to the edge of the light emitting area.
Note 1: Lamp/reflector lateral position is measured from the extreme
outer edge of the vehicle (disregarding tyres, mirrors, lamps and reflectors) to the edge of the illuminated area (or reflective surface on a reflector) nearest that side of the vehicle. Lamp/reflector vertical position is measured from the ground:
I Reckon it's close to legal.Table 1 in the IVA manual just says 500mm minimum height. It's never been an issue for me so I don't have personal experience of it, but a case could be made that if some of the headlight were below 500mm, then that part would be below the minimum height.
Note 1: Lamp/reflector lateral position is measured from the extreme
outer edge of the vehicle (disregarding tyres, mirrors, lamps and reflectors) to the edge of the illuminated area (or reflective surface on a reflector) nearest that side of the vehicle. Lamp/reflector vertical position is measured from the ground:
singlecoil said:
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
The snag with the Byers design is the headlight height, of course (min 500mm to the bottom of the headlight). Raise those and it's really not too different to a Cobra.
Not the bottom, the main beam cut off, about half way up the headlight IIRC.I Reckon it's close to legal.
stig mills said:
I would imagine the reference below would suggest they "mean" to the edge of the light emitting area.
Note 1: Lamp/reflector lateral position is measured from the extreme
outer edge of the vehicle (disregarding tyres, mirrors, lamps and reflectors) to the edge of the illuminated area (or reflective surface on a reflector) nearest that side of the vehicle. Lamp/reflector vertical position is measured from the ground:
I Reckon it's close to legal.Table 1 in the IVA manual just says 500mm minimum height. It's never been an issue for me so I don't have personal experience of it, but a case could be made that if some of the headlight were below 500mm, then that part would be below the minimum height.
IVA Section 20 page 1of8Note 1: Lamp/reflector lateral position is measured from the extreme
outer edge of the vehicle (disregarding tyres, mirrors, lamps and reflectors) to the edge of the illuminated area (or reflective surface on a reflector) nearest that side of the vehicle. Lamp/reflector vertical position is measured from the ground:
singlecoil said:
cymtriks said:
singlecoil said:
The snag with the Byers design is the headlight height, of course (min 500mm to the bottom of the headlight). Raise those and it's really not too different to a Cobra.
Not the bottom, the main beam cut off, about half way up the headlight IIRC.I Reckon it's close to legal.
"In the case of a Dipped Beam headlamp the minimum height will measured to the apparent trace of the beam cut-off on the lens. If this point cannot be determined then you will take the lower edge of the illuminated area."
Steve
Steve_D said:
IVA Section 20 page 1of8
"In the case of a Dipped Beam headlamp the minimum height will measured to the apparent trace of the beam cut-off on the lens. If this point cannot be determined then you will take the lower edge of the illuminated area."
Steve
You have 8 pages on just the headlamps? Ours is also lame. Just on a bigger scale."In the case of a Dipped Beam headlamp the minimum height will measured to the apparent trace of the beam cut-off on the lens. If this point cannot be determined then you will take the lower edge of the illuminated area."
Steve
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007C00601
Sam_68 said:
cymtriks said:
On other threads I've often suggested a 2+2 and have cited the Caterham 21 as a starting point so here is roughly what I had in mind.
I think that demonstrates what you're up against with an open 2+2, though: it already looks a bit odd (too long in the centre section) by the proportions we're used to seeing with front engined 2-seaters. Now stretch the wheelbase so that you actually have space to fit an engine in between the footwells and where the nose becomes too low to clear the cam cover...
Crumbs, I thought it looked fine for a four seater. The wheelbase is roughly the same as an Excel and the distance between the front axle line and the bottom of the windscreen is enough for a four cylinder engine. Remember that the C21 has its engine positioned well back, this concept doesn't. The bonnet would need to be reprofiled but that sketch already has a circa 1-2 inch higher bodywork. I reckon a car looking very similar to that would be doable.I think that demonstrates what you're up against with an open 2+2, though: it already looks a bit odd (too long in the centre section) by the proportions we're used to seeing with front engined 2-seaters. Now stretch the wheelbase so that you actually have space to fit an engine in between the footwells and where the nose becomes too low to clear the cam cover...
Sam_68 said:
cymtriks said:
I've also suggested that the Fiat X1/9 could make a starting point for a new design. The buck for this is an X1/9 (so the buck is half finished on day one) with a racecar style minimal windscreen, aero fairings behind the seats and minor reshaping of the front and the rear panel. No doors which keeps things as simple as possible, just jump in. There might be many more mass produced cars that could be used as a short cut to a buck like this.
I actually quite like that, but then I have a thing for 'wedge' designs (I was brought up in the Stratos/Countach LP400/Esprit era and my first sports car was an X1/9). If you can get into an X1/9 without opening the door, though, you either have longer legs or are considerably more athletic than me (the latter isn't difficult...). Edited by cymtriks on Tuesday 18th January 23:33
Edited by cymtriks on Saturday 8th October 13:30
cymtriks said:
The body work could be lowered by simply cutting out a few inches around the waist but this would prevent the fast track to a buck provided by using an X1/9 shell. You could always leave doors in the design but I think it could work without them as a very pure and simple shape. Engine choices are probably going to be restricted to a tilted forwards car unit or a bike engine. Anything else would be too tall.
Yes, it's tempting to think of slicing a couple of inches out of the middle of the X1/9 shell to lower it but may be trickier than at first sight. As has been mentioned, the doors would provide more than a little work on the inside and, if we take the existing Fiat engine as a benchmark which already needs a rear engine cover sticking nearly three inches above the rear deck, an upright transverse mid engine in the lowered buck would stick up even more and spoil the lines. We're back to boxer engines and, in a not-too-expensive design, we are lumbered with old or expensive choices. Also, the wheel arches couldn't just be cut - shape would have to be maintained - quite easy but more work. And headlights? Suppose the pop-ups could be made to comply.Edited by cymtriks on Tuesday 18th January 23:33
They're probably too old now, but back in the 80/90's, I had considered using the Renault/Peugeot 'Douvrin' so called 'suitcase' engine (Pug 104 to Citroen BX etc) which lies backwards, almost flat, over an integral gearbox. They went up to 2.2 litres (around 138 bhp), were fairly light weight and presented, to my way of thinking, a possible package for a mid-engined sports-car or even a front-engined three-wheeler. Can't seem to find a photo or diagram to illustrate my point.
Edited by dave de roxby on Wednesday 19th January 19:06
So we now have:
Fuoriserie - MEV rebody
ajprice - Hotwheels inspired Seven rebody
Me - C21 inspired 2+2
Me - X1/9 inspired wedge barchetta
Me - Byers copy
ajprice - updated Midas & GTM
Stig Mills - Indian Rocket rebody
Surely there are more ideas than this?
It is already obvious that a lot of old kits could be brought back into production with a bit of updating, so far out of 8 concepts 4 are updates or copies of existing designs!
So are there any more...
Fuoriserie - MEV rebody
ajprice - Hotwheels inspired Seven rebody
Me - C21 inspired 2+2
Me - X1/9 inspired wedge barchetta
Me - Byers copy
ajprice - updated Midas & GTM
Stig Mills - Indian Rocket rebody
Surely there are more ideas than this?
It is already obvious that a lot of old kits could be brought back into production with a bit of updating, so far out of 8 concepts 4 are updates or copies of existing designs!
So are there any more...
cymtriks said:
So we now have:
Fuoriserie - MEV rebody
ajprice - Hotwheels inspired Seven rebody
Me - C21 inspired 2+2
Me - X1/9 inspired wedge barchetta
Me - Byers copy
ajprice - updated Midas & GTM
Stig Mills - Indian Rocket rebody
Surely there are more ideas than this?
It is already obvious that a lot of old kits could be brought back into production with a bit of updating, so far out of 8 concepts 4 are updates or copies of existing designs!
So are there any more...
I have a few more old sketches to show....Fuoriserie - MEV rebody
ajprice - Hotwheels inspired Seven rebody
Me - C21 inspired 2+2
Me - X1/9 inspired wedge barchetta
Me - Byers copy
ajprice - updated Midas & GTM
Stig Mills - Indian Rocket rebody
Surely there are more ideas than this?
It is already obvious that a lot of old kits could be brought back into production with a bit of updating, so far out of 8 concepts 4 are updates or copies of existing designs!
So are there any more...
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff