New Kitcar Design Sketches and Concepts
Discussion
slomax said:
In answer to your question, most people find cool looking cars more attractive to a well packaged vehicle. There is of course a balance to be struck within the category of the target market.
I'm sure they do, why wouldn't they? Never-the-less, if they can't actually buy one...However, your point about engineers, and making it pretty again- the car Italo has sketched above was drawn onto a design of a viable car produced by an engineer, so we are already at the stage of making it pretty again. And I can't deny that he has achieved that, but it really doesn't look viable like that.
This discussion has come up before on this forum (and presumably will again). There is a hunger out there for good looking cars that could actually make it into production, and sketches such as we are discussing, while undeniably attractive, are not going to satisfy it.
SC-
It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
As for mass produced products from major companies, there looks to be an interesting shift. The current Ford Mondeo, for example, was designed completely differently to its nearest rival, the Insignia. The Mondeo interior and package was designed, engineered and set in stone before the bodywork. The insignia was the other way around, for this reason, the Mondeo is more spacious and comfortable and the Insignia cannot seat anyone in the back above 5ft 10" without hitting your head on the roof rails and C pillar. But many people think the Insignia is the better looking car.
Why can the two be designed side by side? This is the shift that i am talking about. It is slowly happening so that there is a lot more discussion between the engineers and the designers. Traditionally the engineers have reffered to the designers as stylists, which obviously doesn't go down to well, especially now that designers are having to become acutely aware of what actually happens under the pretty exterior/interior. A few years ago, the easiest solution for a young designer to overcome an engineering problem was to put in pancake hub motors and a battery capable of 400 miles, but only weighed 50KGs and the same size a a couple of breeze blocks.
It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
As for mass produced products from major companies, there looks to be an interesting shift. The current Ford Mondeo, for example, was designed completely differently to its nearest rival, the Insignia. The Mondeo interior and package was designed, engineered and set in stone before the bodywork. The insignia was the other way around, for this reason, the Mondeo is more spacious and comfortable and the Insignia cannot seat anyone in the back above 5ft 10" without hitting your head on the roof rails and C pillar. But many people think the Insignia is the better looking car.
Why can the two be designed side by side? This is the shift that i am talking about. It is slowly happening so that there is a lot more discussion between the engineers and the designers. Traditionally the engineers have reffered to the designers as stylists, which obviously doesn't go down to well, especially now that designers are having to become acutely aware of what actually happens under the pretty exterior/interior. A few years ago, the easiest solution for a young designer to overcome an engineering problem was to put in pancake hub motors and a battery capable of 400 miles, but only weighed 50KGs and the same size a a couple of breeze blocks.
slomax said:
SC-
It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
As for mass produced products from major companies, there looks to be an interesting shift. The current Ford Mondeo, for example, was designed completely differently to its nearest rival, the Insignia. The Mondeo interior and package was designed, engineered and set in stone before the bodywork. The insignia was the other way around, for this reason, the Mondeo is more spacious and comfortable and the Insignia cannot seat anyone in the back above 5ft 10" without hitting your head on the roof rails and C pillar. But many people think the Insignia is the better looking car.
Why can the two be designed side by side? This is the shift that i am talking about. It is slowly happening so that there is a lot more discussion between the engineers and the designers. Traditionally the engineers have reffered to the designers as stylists, which obviously doesn't go down to well, especially now that designers are having to become acutely aware of what actually happens under the pretty exterior/interior. A few years ago, the easiest solution for a young designer to overcome an engineering problem was to put in pancake hub motors and a battery capable of 400 miles, but only weighed 50KGs and the same size a a couple of breeze blocks.
Speaking as an Ergonomist though, the interior/functionality of the car, i.e. the usability, is ultimately what sells it. It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
As for mass produced products from major companies, there looks to be an interesting shift. The current Ford Mondeo, for example, was designed completely differently to its nearest rival, the Insignia. The Mondeo interior and package was designed, engineered and set in stone before the bodywork. The insignia was the other way around, for this reason, the Mondeo is more spacious and comfortable and the Insignia cannot seat anyone in the back above 5ft 10" without hitting your head on the roof rails and C pillar. But many people think the Insignia is the better looking car.
Why can the two be designed side by side? This is the shift that i am talking about. It is slowly happening so that there is a lot more discussion between the engineers and the designers. Traditionally the engineers have reffered to the designers as stylists, which obviously doesn't go down to well, especially now that designers are having to become acutely aware of what actually happens under the pretty exterior/interior. A few years ago, the easiest solution for a young designer to overcome an engineering problem was to put in pancake hub motors and a battery capable of 400 miles, but only weighed 50KGs and the same size a a couple of breeze blocks.
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
rhinochopig said:
Speaking as an Ergonomist though, the interior/functionality of the car, i.e. the usability, is ultimately what sells it.
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
I'm going to try and steer this back towards the kit car end of things.... (sorr for the thread hi-jack Italo)Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
Yes, for a production vehicles that is very true...
In kit cars though, the flexibility of them makes this point a lesser issue as within an hour you can change the seats (depending on kit) to suit. you can floor mount it, raise it, get soft squishy ones, hard GRP ones. You can also move the pedals relatively easily on most kits too. It all depends on wha the owner wants to use it for. But the changeability of key interior parts is essential for the owner to get maximum use of the vehicle. Obviously there are limits to this, but it certainly helps.
I'd like to jump to Italo's defence and have to agree with Slomax's point of view, at least within a mainstream car production environment.
Italo has an obvious talent (and probably training?) in automotive art presentation. I wish I had half his abilities in this direction to get some of my ideas onto paper. Car design is evolutionary and needs lots of experiments in new directions before a production version is chosen. Hence the reason for sometimes adventurous or even 'whackey' drawings in the first place. So long as the artist/stylist/designer has something new to say, it is relatively cheap to churn out loads of styling ideas on paper.
Even if only a few small, novel elements are eventually incorporated into the production design, it is worth the effort. This is what happens ad infinitum in the design studios of the big car manufacturers, as we all know, for the most part series 5 being a development of series 4 etc. Only occasionally do we see a complete departure from the norm. Plagiarism abounds! But this is how evolution works.
However, the kit car world is necessarily very different! Here, almost exclusively, we are talking low budgets, minimum facilities and numbers of personnel (and therefore talent) involved - often a one-man-band scenario to start off with! In one way a good thing - no restraints on a new design. But, in another way, not so good - no tried and tested yardstick to develop the new car from, unless you pinch someone elses's design. Without being too critical, that is why the kit car scene is full of oddities with no major sales potential, or replicas - the easy way out. (But look what happens when a few guys and gals with a spread of talents and resources get together - LBird!!??)
It seems Italo sometimes uses a clever starting point which is to draw over a photograph of an existing car which at least exists and works in the real world. I've tried this myself. At least you get a design which stands a chance of being dimensionally viable. But the fact is, you can only test its true functionality and aesthetic appeal by building a full size mock-up. Very expensive in the kit-car world unless you get it right first time!
The OP was making a challenging request to ask budding designers to reveal their ideas on this thread - OK if they are simply designers, willing to show off their talents, maybe in the hope of gaining employment or becoming part of a team - nowt wrong with that. I do hope more concepts are posted. Go on, be brave!
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
Italo has an obvious talent (and probably training?) in automotive art presentation. I wish I had half his abilities in this direction to get some of my ideas onto paper. Car design is evolutionary and needs lots of experiments in new directions before a production version is chosen. Hence the reason for sometimes adventurous or even 'whackey' drawings in the first place. So long as the artist/stylist/designer has something new to say, it is relatively cheap to churn out loads of styling ideas on paper.
Even if only a few small, novel elements are eventually incorporated into the production design, it is worth the effort. This is what happens ad infinitum in the design studios of the big car manufacturers, as we all know, for the most part series 5 being a development of series 4 etc. Only occasionally do we see a complete departure from the norm. Plagiarism abounds! But this is how evolution works.
However, the kit car world is necessarily very different! Here, almost exclusively, we are talking low budgets, minimum facilities and numbers of personnel (and therefore talent) involved - often a one-man-band scenario to start off with! In one way a good thing - no restraints on a new design. But, in another way, not so good - no tried and tested yardstick to develop the new car from, unless you pinch someone elses's design. Without being too critical, that is why the kit car scene is full of oddities with no major sales potential, or replicas - the easy way out. (But look what happens when a few guys and gals with a spread of talents and resources get together - LBird!!??)
It seems Italo sometimes uses a clever starting point which is to draw over a photograph of an existing car which at least exists and works in the real world. I've tried this myself. At least you get a design which stands a chance of being dimensionally viable. But the fact is, you can only test its true functionality and aesthetic appeal by building a full size mock-up. Very expensive in the kit-car world unless you get it right first time!
The OP was making a challenging request to ask budding designers to reveal their ideas on this thread - OK if they are simply designers, willing to show off their talents, maybe in the hope of gaining employment or becoming part of a team - nowt wrong with that. I do hope more concepts are posted. Go on, be brave!
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).dave de roxby said:
I'd like to jump to Italo's defence and have to agree with Slomax's point of view, at least within a mainstream car production environment.
I do hope my comments were not being taken as anything he would need to be defended from. If they could be summed up, it would be that I would The problem with design sketches for people like me is the worry that by the time the idea is actually produced, the necessary changes and compromises will have diluted, or even obliterated, whetever it was that was so attractive in the first place, and that's why sketches of viable vehicles are needed in order to show that the design can be turned into reality.
I'm reminded of when I was involved on the margins of live music. Band members would often come to rehersal with the desire that the band should cover a particular song. But they also had to have found a way that that particular song could be played by the band with the existing set-up. otherwise it was a nice song that the band liked but wasn't going to be able to play.
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).But even if it did, there is a distinction between someone eager to show off his/her design idea for a new set of automotive clothes and the entrepreneur who is intent on supplying something new to the market.
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).But even if it did, there is a distinction between someone eager to show off his/her design idea for a new set of automotive clothes and the entrepreneur who is intent on supplying something new to the market.
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).But even if it did, there is a distinction between someone eager to show off his/her design idea for a new set of automotive clothes and the entrepreneur who is intent on supplying something new to the market.
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).But even if it did, there is a distinction between someone eager to show off his/her design idea for a new set of automotive clothes and the entrepreneur who is intent on supplying something new to the market.
[quote=rhinochopigSpeaking as an Ergonomist though, the interior/functionality of the car, i.e. the usability, is ultimately what sells it.
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
[/quote]
Yep. By coincidence, we've got a late model Elise in the shop, needing a bit of attention to a front wing after the owner let his wife go shopping in it! I have taken the opportunity of sitting in it, just to see what it feels like, take some dimensions etc. Looks like we'll have it in for a while so I've got a good reference car to play with. Must say, I didn't immediately like the seating position or the feel of the interior. Not sure whether they were Lotus seats or something after-market. That's what made me ask the question in another thread "what seats would you recommend for a roadster". Might have sounded like a bit of a stupid question ("Here's a guy thinks he can build a sportscar from scratch and first off he's asking what seats to use!!!!).
But as I tried to explain, having 'designed' the outside (well, let's say I know exactly what I want the car to look like) I'm starting from the inside out by building a plywood mock-up of the interior. I want this to work ergonomically as well as look good. It's a simple, mid engined roadster. Got to get this out of my system before I snuff it!
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
[/quote]
Yep. By coincidence, we've got a late model Elise in the shop, needing a bit of attention to a front wing after the owner let his wife go shopping in it! I have taken the opportunity of sitting in it, just to see what it feels like, take some dimensions etc. Looks like we'll have it in for a while so I've got a good reference car to play with. Must say, I didn't immediately like the seating position or the feel of the interior. Not sure whether they were Lotus seats or something after-market. That's what made me ask the question in another thread "what seats would you recommend for a roadster". Might have sounded like a bit of a stupid question ("Here's a guy thinks he can build a sportscar from scratch and first off he's asking what seats to use!!!!).
But as I tried to explain, having 'designed' the outside (well, let's say I know exactly what I want the car to look like) I'm starting from the inside out by building a plywood mock-up of the interior. I want this to work ergonomically as well as look good. It's a simple, mid engined roadster. Got to get this out of my system before I snuff it!
dave de roxby said:
[quote=rhinochopigSpeaking as an Ergonomist though, the interior/functionality of the car, i.e. the usability, is ultimately what sells it.
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
Yep. By coincidence, we've got a late model Elise in the shop, needing a bit of attention to a front wing after the owner let his wife go shopping in it! I have taken the opportunity of sitting in it, just to see what it feels like, take some dimensions etc. Looks like we'll have it in for a while so I've got a good reference car to play with. Must say, I didn't immediately like the seating position or the feel of the interior. Not sure whether they were Lotus seats or something after-market. That's what made me ask the question in another thread "what seats would you recommend for a roadster". Might have sounded like a bit of a stupid question ("Here's a guy thinks he can build a sportscar from scratch and first off he's asking what seats to use!!!!). Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
But as I tried to explain, having 'designed' the outside (well, let's say I know exactly what I want the car to look like) I'm starting from the inside out by building a plywood mock-up of the interior. I want this to work ergonomically as well as look good. It's a simple, mid engined roadster. Got to get this out of my system before I snuff it!
Bear in mind that production cars are generally designed with a one size doesn't fit anyone particularly, well. So don't start with a production car as a baseline.
My westy, for example, bucked the trend of an inch long gear-lever, and had one that sat parrallel to the centre line of the steering wheel about 6 inches away from hand. The steering column was also greatly extended and raised over standard to bring it closer to my chest to allow a more bent armed driving position - a much more ergonomically sound position when you need to quickly dial in some opposite lock. Positioning the wheel in that position also meant offered much more space for your knees.
Something akin to this layout...
With regards to the layout of instrumentation and control, make a list of the I&C and then rate which bits are used most frequently, and which are most important. This will then dictate the location of your I&C, i.e ranging from the Tach being closest to your eye-line as possible, to the fog light switch the furthest switch from your hand.
If you need any anthropometric data as a staring point for your mock-up, PM me as I've use a full anthrop data-base for work.
slomax said:
SC-
It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
I totally agree with you...it is the only way if you work with the curent kitcar industry, that due to the economic crisis and other, have a very limited budget to invest in any new design or project.It's interesting that this topic is being discussed again, It's one that will never be answered. People always hanker after a prettier car, and no matter what you do, there will always be people that don't like another mans design. No doubt, Italos' designs are nice, but proportionally, they are set in stone because he is working around a pre engineered chassis. You can try to trick the eye with graphics and feature lines, but the wheelbase, engine and suspension layout is pre-determined. Some people think this is the best way of working, as you are effectively making a fine piece of clothing for a frame.
This is probably the best way for the Kit car industry to work IMO.
What most can can really afford is to recloth an exhisting chassis and make the best of it.
The limitatations are inherent in the pre engineered chassis and this restricts some of your creativity when deciding what type of body would fit, but is also part of the fun in working with these type of projects...
Italo
Edited by fuoriserie on Thursday 27th January 13:26
dave de roxby said:
I'd like to jump to Italo's defence and have to agree with Slomax's point of view, at least within a mainstream car production environment.
Italo has an obvious talent (and probably training?) in automotive art presentation. I wish I had half his abilities in this direction to get some of my ideas onto paper. Car design is evolutionary and needs lots of experiments in new directions before a production version is chosen. Hence the reason for sometimes adventurous or even 'whackey' drawings in the first place. So long as the artist/stylist/designer has something new to say, it is relatively cheap to churn out loads of styling ideas on paper.
Even if only a few small, novel elements are eventually incorporated into the production design, it is worth the effort. This is what happens ad infinitum in the design studios of the big car manufacturers, as we all know, for the most part series 5 being a development of series 4 etc. Only occasionally do we see a complete departure from the norm. Plagiarism abounds! But this is how evolution works.
However, the kit car world is necessarily very different! Here, almost exclusively, we are talking low budgets, minimum facilities and numbers of personnel (and therefore talent) involved - often a one-man-band scenario to start off with! In one way a good thing - no restraints on a new design. But, in another way, not so good - no tried and tested yardstick to develop the new car from, unless you pinch someone elses's design. Without being too critical, that is why the kit car scene is full of oddities with no major sales potential, or replicas - the easy way out. (But look what happens when a few guys and gals with a spread of talents and resources get together - LBird!!??)
It seems Italo sometimes uses a clever starting point which is to draw over a photograph of an existing car which at least exists and works in the real world. I've tried this myself. At least you get a design which stands a chance of being dimensionally viable. But the fact is, you can only test its true functionality and aesthetic appeal by building a full size mock-up. Very expensive in the kit-car world unless you get it right first time!
The OP was making a challenging request to ask budding designers to reveal their ideas on this thread - OK if they are simply designers, willing to show off their talents, maybe in the hope of gaining employment or becoming part of a team - nowt wrong with that. I do hope more concepts are posted. Go on, be brave!
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
Hi Dave,Italo has an obvious talent (and probably training?) in automotive art presentation. I wish I had half his abilities in this direction to get some of my ideas onto paper. Car design is evolutionary and needs lots of experiments in new directions before a production version is chosen. Hence the reason for sometimes adventurous or even 'whackey' drawings in the first place. So long as the artist/stylist/designer has something new to say, it is relatively cheap to churn out loads of styling ideas on paper.
Even if only a few small, novel elements are eventually incorporated into the production design, it is worth the effort. This is what happens ad infinitum in the design studios of the big car manufacturers, as we all know, for the most part series 5 being a development of series 4 etc. Only occasionally do we see a complete departure from the norm. Plagiarism abounds! But this is how evolution works.
However, the kit car world is necessarily very different! Here, almost exclusively, we are talking low budgets, minimum facilities and numbers of personnel (and therefore talent) involved - often a one-man-band scenario to start off with! In one way a good thing - no restraints on a new design. But, in another way, not so good - no tried and tested yardstick to develop the new car from, unless you pinch someone elses's design. Without being too critical, that is why the kit car scene is full of oddities with no major sales potential, or replicas - the easy way out. (But look what happens when a few guys and gals with a spread of talents and resources get together - LBird!!??)
It seems Italo sometimes uses a clever starting point which is to draw over a photograph of an existing car which at least exists and works in the real world. I've tried this myself. At least you get a design which stands a chance of being dimensionally viable. But the fact is, you can only test its true functionality and aesthetic appeal by building a full size mock-up. Very expensive in the kit-car world unless you get it right first time!
The OP was making a challenging request to ask budding designers to reveal their ideas on this thread - OK if they are simply designers, willing to show off their talents, maybe in the hope of gaining employment or becoming part of a team - nowt wrong with that. I do hope more concepts are posted. Go on, be brave!
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I agree with your comments and thanks for the defence....
My initial idea for the post was to have an open discussion on kitcar design, just as we're having, for the sake of a deeper understanding of car design and what is involved, from styling to engineering and most importantly ergonomics .
In reference to my rough sketches, most are created to start a discussion and have others involved critique and discuss and yes I do use images as underlays to have an idea of how the design would look like.
By experience I can tell you that most of the time, maybe 85-90% of the time, they're close to the final design...
In reality for a real projetc, I'm normally supplied with chassis blueprints and more to design a real car for production.
Yes I'm trained in car design, but I normally don't come forward with it openly, as I'm here to enjoy myself, make friends and have fun shooting the breeze during the day....
I also agree with you, that if someone was willing to enter the scene maybe he wouldn't be showing something like the final design rendering, but the FBS Census design story should have taught us a few lessons, and that car design feedback of your potential customer is vital for any project to succeed, as you could end up with something that nobody is really interested in buying or your are answering questions nobody asked...so i would show something.
You're always going to decide on your own on any kitcar design project, but having some constructive critisism and feedback is good in my opinion.
If I ever was going into production with a kitcar, I would be willing to show a Concept Kitcar sketch, close enough to the real car project but not exactly the same...but that would be me and haven't really seen many others do so...
Cheers
Italo
Edited by fuoriserie on Thursday 27th January 14:15
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
slomax said:
dave de roxby said:
But in reality, I think if a designer has any intention of actually building a new car to enter the commercial kit car scene, then they are unlikely to be revealing much on here?
I think this is an important one to outline. I dont think this was meant as an "all new car" thread (although Italo, if i'm wrong, correct me). I think this is a thread for body kits/conversions for existing proven chassis like that of Stiggys and various 7's and the like, in a similar vein to the Epona, which was designed over a Locost chassis (IIRC).But even if it did, there is a distinction between someone eager to show off his/her design idea for a new set of automotive clothes and the entrepreneur who is intent on supplying something new to the market.
Good luck with your studies and I really think Coventry is a very good design school.
Looking forward to some of your sketches in this thread...
Cheers
Italo
singlecoil said:
slomax said:
Steve_D said:
fuoriserie said:
.......All my designs comply with regulations, they have to, otherwise it would make no sense as real kitcar concepts....
Italo
As I said I love the designs so criticising them is difficult.Italo
In the earlier design the body does not cover the wheels. The requirement is that the wheel is covered 30 degrees forward of the wheel CL and 50 degrees rearward. Also the body, or a mudguard, to the rear of the wheel must extend down to a point 150mm above the wheel CL.
Maybe we should have a real Open Source Design project in this forum, but then who is going to do the Design Brief? who will be supplyng the donors and compnets? who will be supplyng the money for the project...
In reference to buildable designs, all my rough sketches are buildable and I already know from the very beginning what components I will be using, but I wasn't going to make this thread a Car design build blog...but could be an idea for another thread in the future...
My idea, as stated earlier, was to have open discussions and feedback on Kitcar design ideas, by using for reference some of my old rough sketches, but wanted to involve everybody willing to show something similar...some have done so, but most aren't showing anything, so you're stuck with just a few of us for the time being.
Italo
rhinochopig said:
dave de roxby said:
[quote=rhinochopigSpeaking as an Ergonomist though, the interior/functionality of the car, i.e. the usability, is ultimately what sells it.
Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
If you need any data as a staring point for your mock-up, PM me as I've use a full anthrop data-base for work.Take the Elise for example, Lotus must have lost thousands of sales because of the poor driver ergonomics. The design precludes anyone over 6'4 being able to drive one in comfort, and even shorter drivers are put off by the poor driver position. Remember Plato's review?
A good looking car, will get people interested, but it's how well it drives that generally seals the deal.
Thanks in advance
Italo
rhinochopig/ said:
Plywood mock-ups are by far the best way to quickly and cheaply verify the ergonomics. We use this process a lot when developing stuff - even things as complicated as nuclear subs start out with a ply mock up to test instrumentation and control layout concepts.
Thanks for your wise advice. As I mentioned in my other thread, I am a 5'6" Grandpa version of Hammond and, whilst I obviously want to get comfy in my own car, it's gonna have to have more room than I personally need if it is ever going to be to be productionised. I suppose adjustability of every element is the ideal although that's bound to increase cost, weight and complexity. Also, I am trying to use readily available parts from a single donor or manufacturer where possible. (Changes in UK legislation have really b***ered up my thinking over the years - single donor not so important now). But affordability of the base model is all important to my start-up business success - if the basic body/chassis design is good enough with well thought out provision for modifications, the fancy performance stuff can always come next. Thanks for your offer - shall be in touch! Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff