|
Raize
1,052 posts
48 months
|
rhinochopig said: Hands up if you're over 6'2" (95% male) and into lightweight sports-cars? 95% of males are over 6'2"??? Where'd you get that one from?
|
|
|
CBR JGWRR
5,078 posts
18 months
|
Raize said: rhinochopig said: Hands up if you're over 6'2" (95% male) and into lightweight sports-cars? 95% of males are over 6'2"??? Where'd you get that one from? 95th percentile height.
|
|
|
dave stew
1,320 posts
36 months
|
mazdaman1980 said: I lovethe promise and the ethos of the build but i still buy with looks in mind and that looks like a nasty, cheap kit car which is such a shame as i bet its an absolute riot to drive.
I guess its like having Elle Mcpherson with Jo Brands face!! That would be a triple bagger!
|
|
|
binnerboy
71 posts
19 months
|
like the sound of the handling and the performance, I could probably live with the looks if it was cheaper, for that money I would probably go caterham anyway. i can fit in anything being a bit of a short arse, probably the only time its and advantage  The point is moot however as I could probably only stretch to 1/10th of the price , so back to the classified looking for second hand kit cars
|
|
|
Stew2000
2,513 posts
47 months
|
I'm seeing Ginetta, Marcos and Lotus in that styling.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Krikkit
2,460 posts
50 months
|
rhinochopig said: Well done Mr Coates you've successfully excluded a big percentage of potential customers. Even Caterham have learnt that lesson.
Hands up if you're over 6'2" (95% male) and into lightweight sports-cars?
Such a shame that this sector of the car market skimp on using proper design resources. Get an Ergonomist involved (or shoot the one you used). Apart from punishing you freaky gangly bunch, read it again - 95th percentile with a helmet etc on (no doubt with an inch of room to spare to the roof), so 6'4" should be comfy, taking you up to at least 98%. That's not to mention the possibility of fabricating a lower seat.
|
|
|
sideways sid
323 posts
84 months
|
A head-to-head with the Ginetta G40R would be great to see/read. PH?
|
|
|
Gizmo!
15,535 posts
78 months
|
MCBrowncoat said: I'm not sold on the styling though; why design a new car then stick wide arches on it? Why not just have them flared in the first place? That's exactly what I was thinking.
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,056 posts
67 months
|
Krikkit said: rhinochopig said: Well done Mr Coates you've successfully excluded a big percentage of potential customers. Even Caterham have learnt that lesson.
Hands up if you're over 6'2" (95% male) and into lightweight sports-cars?
Such a shame that this sector of the car market skimp on using proper design resources. Get an Ergonomist involved (or shoot the one you used). Apart from punishing you freaky gangly bunch, read it again - 95th percentile with a helmet etc on (no doubt with an inch of room to spare to the roof), so 6'4" should be comfy, taking you up to at least 98%. That's not to mention the possibility of fabricating a lower seat. I understand that, I'm an ergonomist. So what do us freaky gangly bunch do when we want to take our driver focussed car on track  Also if he's used a 95% percentile maquette in his cad drawings, reach, and leg room will be wrong for the taller driver. I must admit it's a bit of a soap-box issue for me, as there are so many car manufacturers that get this wrong. We had a SportKa as a commuter for a while and despite it being low and tiny it had loads of head-room and leg room. If the ford handbag can fit us freaks in there is no reason why other small cars can't. Even my westy fitted my 6'5" frame easily. You'd be surprised how many people on PH are over 6'3".
|
|
|
robsco
5,316 posts
45 months
|
I think it looks brilliant. And for those commenting on build quality "looking" poor, how can you make that judgment, unless you have seen the car in the flesh? Just my sort of car this, I love that front end.
|
|
|
Raize
1,052 posts
48 months
|
robsco said: I think it looks brilliant. And for those commenting on build quality "looking" poor, how can you make that judgment, unless you have seen the car in the flesh? Just my sort of car this, I love that front end. It's British, must be crap. 
|
|
|
FWDRacer
2,842 posts
93 months
|
Looks are ahem " Challenging".
Like a Cox GTM that somebody has comprehensively screwed up.
|
|
|
robsco
5,316 posts
45 months
|
Raize said: It's British, must be crap. Unfortunately, you've hit the nail on the head. People really can be narrow minded.
|
|
|
Masher
36 posts
131 months
|
Should have gone to specsavers........... 
|
|
|
dandarez
4,476 posts
152 months
|
rhinochopig said: Well done Mr Coates you've successfully excluded a big percentage of potential customers. Even Caterham have learnt that lesson.
Hands up if you're over 6'2" (95% male) and into lightweight sports-cars?
Such a shame that this sector of the car market skimp on using proper design resources. Get an Ergonomist involved (or shoot the one you used). Well, simples. You have the G40R instead. Cheaper £29k (if £38k then the G40R saving is a substantial!) plus better looking, Sutcliffe also tested it and really liked it. And, it's actually in production. And it's a true British marque with long standing history (1958) - or of course, buy a classic Ginetta G15 (I had one for 10 years, tiny car but my 6ft 1 posed no problems, although in those days obesity was rare!). http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/ginetta-g40-vid...
|
|
|
thelad288
1 posts
16 months
|
I have to say that that is as close to my perfect car as anyone has ever made. Looks wise, it's neat and compact to me. I love Caterhams having done many miles in them, but I always wish they made a coupe. The 21 GTO race car if memory serves me correctly would do me just fine.
Power wise, I think I would plump for the lower spec as the type of roads that I like to drive really don't need more than a Caterham with 150bhp (or maybe I'm just a wuss!!!)
|
|
|
veevee
869 posts
20 months
|
Proper sports car, I'd much rather have this than a lot of the stuff considered to be a 'sports car' nowadays - 500hp and weight approaching a small saloon!
Build quality looks a bit iffy but it's nice to see another small British company making something that looks like it might go pretty well?
|
|
|
Chris71
19,992 posts
111 months
|
Gizmo! said: MCBrowncoat said: I'm not sold on the styling though; why design a new car then stick wide arches on it? Why not just have them flared in the first place? That's exactly what I was thinking. My thoughts too. It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but with what sounds like such a good package in other respects it's shame the body doesn't quite live up to the rest of it. I wonder if the moulds are shared with anything? The front does look a little bit like a Caterham 21 with flared arches.
|
|
|
400SE Dave
666 posts
40 months
|
280bhp and less than 700kg. Why 4.5 to 60 then?? Can't be long geared as it 'only' does 140mph.
Would like to see the in-gear times, hopefully strong in there somewhere
|
|
|
carmental
42 posts
20 months
|
|
