New Kitcar Design Sketches and Concepts
Discussion
dmulally said:
Wow Italo, that looks stunning!
Reminds me of the Holden Hurricane. Mid mounted 253 V8 concept car.
[
And while I am at it, Holden made another fibreglass concept based on the Torana.
Thank You...Reminds me of the Holden Hurricane. Mid mounted 253 V8 concept car.
[
And while I am at it, Holden made another fibreglass concept based on the Torana.
, I remember seeing the Hurricane a few years ago and really liked it, this sketch does have a 60/70's feel to it, maybe a should develop it further.
stuleah said:
Does anybody fancy designing a new body for the typhoon valdris, keeping the seal area and bear in mind that the rear is now double wishbone.
Why not.., just post some pictures of the car without the bodywork, so that we can all sense b the hardpoints, a front and rear 3/4 view and side view pictures could be enough to start.looking forward to your pictures.
Italo
stuleah said:
Here is a car that we would love to make but unfortunately after talking to Anthony he is building one himself and therefore will not give permission.
http://www.ducatinewstoday.com/2010/05/what-if-duc...
I will post deimensions with some pics when i get home.
Cheers Stu
You could have had something very similar a few years ago and closer to home...http://www.ducatinewstoday.com/2010/05/what-if-duc...
I will post deimensions with some pics when i get home.
Cheers Stu
....oh well....stuleah said:
Forgive me for being thick, but i dont get that?
Hi Stuart, I was joking a little.., but just to say that most designers have in their current design portfolio a similar sketch, both in the kitcar industry and in the OEM design studios.Edited by fuoriserie on Friday 11th February 23:17
http://domestic1.sjc.ox.ac.uk/~jn/caterham-bbc4-do...
A very good and informative documentary to watch a few times before anyone decides to design the next new kitcar concept of the future
seansverige said:
Not sniping, just busy; and it doesn't take a sniper to hit a barn door.
Qdos' idea for friendly debate was great, but there's no reason why it need be confined to that thread: if you can't be positive, constructive - or at the very least courteous, maybe the politest thing to do would be to keep your own counsel; especially about matters (concepts & sketches) you have previously, and repeatedly, expressed a largely disdainful opinion.
I totally agree with you.Qdos' idea for friendly debate was great, but there's no reason why it need be confined to that thread: if you can't be positive, constructive - or at the very least courteous, maybe the politest thing to do would be to keep your own counsel; especially about matters (concepts & sketches) you have previously, and repeatedly, expressed a largely disdainful opinion.
cymtriks said:
Guys, cut it out!
I never interpreted Singlecoil's "blank canvas" as anything other than as an invitation to create a concept within a realistic template.
Fuoriserie and Seansverige have come up with some dramatic and interesting concepts which, just like most concepts, would need some changes to make them reality. That doesn't make them worthless, it just provides a challenge to engineers who may well come back and change things a bit causing the designers to reconsider and so on until a good, and makeable, design emerges. I think some of them could be turned into real products without losing the overall style of the posted designs.
Regarding my own designs, I think they would make good looking cars but I'm under no illusions that they couldn't be improved. This is the other side of the process described in the above paragraph, engineers can create pretty and dramatic designs but often are constrained by a subconscious desire to use tried and tested features. This where a designer can add value, by suggesting how to move the design forwards, to capture a new generation of customers without losing the previous one.
My contribution may be "a breath of fresh air" to an engineer frustrated by impractical concepts but it does look very much a sixties car which might put off some people wanting something a bit less retro. This is where a designer could add value, moving the concept away from the early sixties to a more modern shape without losing the customers who like the sixties look.
In other words, work together guys, you'll achieve more!
Thanks Chris...I never interpreted Singlecoil's "blank canvas" as anything other than as an invitation to create a concept within a realistic template.
Fuoriserie and Seansverige have come up with some dramatic and interesting concepts which, just like most concepts, would need some changes to make them reality. That doesn't make them worthless, it just provides a challenge to engineers who may well come back and change things a bit causing the designers to reconsider and so on until a good, and makeable, design emerges. I think some of them could be turned into real products without losing the overall style of the posted designs.
Regarding my own designs, I think they would make good looking cars but I'm under no illusions that they couldn't be improved. This is the other side of the process described in the above paragraph, engineers can create pretty and dramatic designs but often are constrained by a subconscious desire to use tried and tested features. This where a designer can add value, by suggesting how to move the design forwards, to capture a new generation of customers without losing the previous one.
My contribution may be "a breath of fresh air" to an engineer frustrated by impractical concepts but it does look very much a sixties car which might put off some people wanting something a bit less retro. This is where a designer could add value, moving the concept away from the early sixties to a more modern shape without losing the customers who like the sixties look.
In other words, work together guys, you'll achieve more!
, you said it better than I could have...
Now back to work with something new....
Hunky Dory said:
If you expect this level of detail to come solely from ID, you are going to be severely disappointed and similarly frustrated at the apparent lack of gasp of reality exhibited by the sketches (no offence intended to the individuals providing sketches 
)
It makes me ask the (genuine) question "have you been through the process of sketch to production before and was it successful?".
Yes I have, but have you ? no offence intended.... )It makes me ask the (genuine) question "have you been through the process of sketch to production before and was it successful?".
BCA said:
fuoriserie said:
http://domestic1.sjc.ox.ac.uk/~jn/caterham-bbc4-do...
A very good and informative documentary to watch a few times before anyone decides to design the next new kitcar concept of the future
Been looking for that for ages, thanks.A very good and informative documentary to watch a few times before anyone decides to design the next new kitcar concept of the future
What a brilliant cock up from start to finish. Personal highlights; completely disagreeing on the simplest of things like engine position (both parties guilty here IMHO.) Nearn nicely suggesting he didnt give a flying feck about the current/previous customers. Bringing his Dad back to argue about aesthetics, against a decision they had previously struggled to make. Carbon fibre chassis at that price point, which even today it is laughable, and it was a while ago! Unrest from within, their own chief engineers answer to the question about why it wasnt done in house said it all... They even suggested they knew of an avenue of improvement early on (aerodynamics) and effectively ignored it from there on in. Years later, an article appears in evo about them working on aerodynamic improvements to the seven itself - if only they had done it sooner.
Caterham survived long enough to be bought by someone else. From what this documentary showed - to my eyes atleast - it was purely the fantastic product that got them through that long, if they had managed to somehow make a 'new' caterham, I am almost certain they would have gone bust before hand.
Ignoring the above, what a fascinating topic, I have enjoyed reading it all immensely. Long may it continue...
I believe it's a very good documentary on sportscar design do's and don'ts and in my opinion everybody should see it a few times before starting a new design from scratch...
Frankthered said:
illyan said:
Design by committee doesn't work; there are too many egos and conflicting opinions.
Yes, echo the thanks Italo, it was definitely worth a watch. Got a very strong impression that "design by committee" was one of the worst issues. It was also undermined by them all sitting down together and agreeing that FRONT engine was the way to go, only for Reynard to go away and come up with a MID engine design. If I was leading the project, I'd have fired them on the spot!!
illyan said:
fuoriserie
Thanks for posting that utterly fascinating documentary. Potential kit car manufacturers who want to know 'how-not-to-do-it' should watch this a few times. There's so much to learn from this progamme:
Design by committee doesn't work; there are too many egos and conflicting opinions.
Don't employ consultants; conceive a good simple design and employ skilled craftsmen to make it happen.
Ask potential customers what they want. Seven-esque cars may seem pointless, but Lotus and Caterham have been producing them for 40 years!
Don't develop everything from scratch; keep it simple and use standard components.
You're welcome....Thanks for posting that utterly fascinating documentary. Potential kit car manufacturers who want to know 'how-not-to-do-it' should watch this a few times. There's so much to learn from this progamme:
Design by committee doesn't work; there are too many egos and conflicting opinions.
Don't employ consultants; conceive a good simple design and employ skilled craftsmen to make it happen.
Ask potential customers what they want. Seven-esque cars may seem pointless, but Lotus and Caterham have been producing them for 40 years!
Don't develop everything from scratch; keep it simple and use standard components.
, and I agree with your points, most designs that work and have worked in the past are the vision of only one person and not of a commitee....but in todays automotive world ego's play an important role...seansverige said:
@Slomax: sorry, meant include a disclaimer against stating the obvious - probably should take it as read with my posts...
), set clear targets, etc., but the single most important thing is don't forget who's monkey, and who's organ grinder: you're the client, they're there to provide a solution that best suits you, not them and if they don't tow the line, get shot.
I.T. is what pays my bills, but this example seems to indicate it's the same shhh..., whatever the industry.
Yep..Frankthered said:
Got a very strong impression that "design by committee" was one of the worst issues. It was also undermined by them all sitting down together and agreeing that FRONT engine was the way to go, only for Reynard to go away and come up with a MID engine design. If I was leading the project, I'd have fired them on the spot!!
I actually thought the front / mid issue was more the tail wagging the dog. Speaking as a(n independent) consultant, they're not inherently bad and can offer significant advantages - with careful management. Do a little research, don't be baffled by BS (or a couple of fancy sketches... ), set clear targets, etc., but the single most important thing is don't forget who's monkey, and who's organ grinder: you're the client, they're there to provide a solution that best suits you, not them and if they don't tow the line, get shot. I.T. is what pays my bills, but this example seems to indicate it's the same shhh..., whatever the industry.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff