Kit car industry and how to revive interest and sales

[dom9]

Ferg said:

hankfully that's not going to happen.

What awas wrong with the Ballista, Ferg? Conceptually, it seemed to be going in the right direction. I think I remember it being fiercely expensive though.

Very much looking forward to following the development of the GTA and seeing where that goes...

Is this much different to taking say an MR2 (mk2), cutting the front and back off and creating a new car? It seems interesting to me that the new spaceframes on the GTM mount to mainly existing holes. Fran knows his cars so I am sure it will be more than strong enough, but welding the new sections in would make me more comfortable. However, I, like everyone else, am yet to see the car and the design so I will reserve all judgment.

I suspect Fran will offer RHD and many of the Eclipse parts are shared with other Mitsubishis in the range, so parts shouldn't be too much of a problem... Ebay is global, you know?

[LMRACER]

Many cars have bolted subframes...almost every production car has a subframe that the front and/or rear suspension hangs on and is bolted to the monocoque/unibody chassis..

Lots of high end cars also have bolted chassis sections from your beloved 962 to the Zonda and the Saleen S7/Mosler...

Interesting concept and already quite tried,tested and proven..

[dom9]

LMRACER said:

Many cars have bolted subframes...almost every production car has a subframe that the front and/or rear suspension hangs on and is bolted to the monocoque/unibody chassis..

Lots of high end cars also have bolted chassis sections from your beloved 962 to the Zonda and the Saleen S7/Mosler...

Interesting concept and already quite tried,tested and proven..

They don't use existing bolt holes that were never intended to have a subframe bolted to them; they have purpose designed mountings and presumably have had plenty of FEA analysis etc.

I'm not syaing Fran is right or wrong and for ease of build, this sounds excellent but it is the only bit that makes me (uncomfortable is too strong a word) 'interested' at this point in the development.

[Ferg]

dom9 said:

What awas wrong with the Ballista, Ferg? Conceptually, it seemed to be going in the right direction. I think I remember it being fiercely expensive though

The Ballista was a cheap and cheerful attempt by the then owners of the company to sell a new model without any development work. They bought an existing, low tech defunct design (Larini) and 'chavved' it up with some questionable cosmetic work.

I believe GTM have disappointingly given up on the idea of a GRP monocoque and built a skinned spaceframe for the next model, but if it makes it viable I suppose... at least the engine is in the right place.

[dom9]

Ferg said:

I believe GTM have disappointingly given up on the idea of a GRP monocoque and built a skinned spaceframe for the next model, but if it makes it viable I suppose... at least the engine is in the right place.

Hmmm... Will be interested to see this car then, Ferg. Are there any pictures floating about the web?

[KDIcarmad]

dom9 said:

Ferg said:

I believe GTM have disappointingly given up on the idea of a GRP monocoque and built a skinned spaceframe for the next model, but if it makes it viable I suppose... at least the engine is in the right place.

Hmmm... Will be interested to see this car then, Ferg. Are there any pictures floating about the web?

Not seen any in the magazines yet! Keep looking you may find them. Very sad the GTM new will not be a monocoque. Was the Libra a monocoque? Or the K3-Rossa? Always liked the classic GTM of the 70's-80's. The Rossa and Libra carried on the idea of these.

[paulpsz008]

Why/how did GTM manage to produce a coupe with proper working doors and yet no-one else seems to be able to?

[seansverige]

In the course of refreshing my memory concerning the Ballista, found this project for sale:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Complete-set-body-moulds...
Front lights a bit scattergun, and rear intakes fussy (just pick one), but overall pretty tidy and definite potential even now. The description initially suggests it as an Elise rebody, which I can't see the point of (and why is it on an old E plate?) but goes on to say it was originally based on a modified Midtec chassis, definitely has more legs. Something about photos (not just cars in background) make me wonder when they were taken.

The Ballista itself looks like S1 Elise designed from a description over the phone. OK, maybe not that bad, but who thought making it a bit faster than the then 10 year old design it was aping and charging about the same was going to pan out?

I'd be surprised if they had gone for a composite monocoque on the new car - surely it's more difficult to develop, and definitely harder to update (in terms of styling) so skinned spaceframe seems rational choice.

I'm happy to proved wrong but unless the bulkhead (which sounds like it's being used) is one of the shared parts, RHD Superlite GTA not likely.

[dom9]

seansverige said:

In the course of refreshing my memory concerning the Ballista, found this project for sale:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Complete-set-body-moulds...

I quite like the look of that actually... If only it were a hard top! And it sounds like a Lee Noble (Midtec) chassis under there!

Were there no RHD Eclipses ever made? Singapore/ Australia markets, maybe? Is it likely the front bulkhead will only have the relevant holes etc for RHD?

[Dreamspeed]

Sorry seansverige, I thought your reference to the Guigiaro/TR7 joke was that you didn’t like the styling of the Bailey Blade. (I did know the joke though)

Yes, I think the Elise was Lotus’s first attempt at their own rear lights, and yes they are incredibly expensive! I gave a large amount of research into bespoke lights, so I’ll try and be brief, but trying to remember my goal, to produce an in-line, mid mounted, be-spoke chassis, full glass, weather protection, possible big power upgrades, low slung, wide “super-car” flavour kit, for a complete on-the-road price of under £20,000; this gave very little in the way of budget for lighting.

Factor in the cost of a subcontractor to make bucks of my design, moulds to cast the injection moulded plastic or Perspex covers, LED components and IVA development cost to get the approved “E” marking, Shipping costs, watertight rubber gaskets, the low volume sales of the final Kit-car the lights would have cost thousands to the builder, and not around £200 as I’ve got them down to.

I would truly have loved some “Concept-car” type lights, but I had to stay within the budget. Sure I could have taken money away from other areas, drop the in-line layout and big power, drop the be-spoke chassis and go for a re-body, but that’s not what my concept is all about. That said, I am really interested in the finished kit for the GTA. I’m interested in the final cost of those lights, and how this effects the “low-budget” build. Good luck to them, I hope they succeed, then I can find out how they did it and copy it.;)

If anyone is reading this, who actually makes be-spoke lights, and thinks they would like to be part of my project, please get in touch. In fact if anyone has ANY skills especially in making a full size buck, making fibre glass moulds and panels, and you want to be a part of this project; then also get in touch. In fact, ANYONE who wants to help in anyway, you are all more than welcome to e-mail, drop in for a coffee, chat, whatever. What I’ve done so far has been all my own work; I would like to have a “dream team” club, with the same goals as me.

Dom9, I think you may be right; although I don’t have much information to add a more informed opinion, but it looks similar to a MR2 re-body, but using a Mitsubishi eclipse. Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, if that’s your thing, and I think the Artist impressions look truly great but…but…. I still want in-line monster power!

Yeah, eBay is Global and has helped me with a Jap-import 300zx I had many years ago; Halfords couldn’t help when a headlight popped, eBay came to the rescue, 3 days later I had my correct Japanese bulb. Having a non-UK donor can be done, as long as you’re prepared for the extra work/cost in getting parts. Anyone who owns a Lancia will probably know what I’m referring to. (and yes I owned one of those too!)

Anyway, back to the thread. I noticed many people’s comments on using sub frames taken from other cars, to reduce costs in a build, and everyone has made good valid points and are all correct, depending on your point of reference.

Let’s remember, OEM sub frames are designed on computer, to work in conjunction with the matching OEM monocoque. The sub frames are “laser-lined” up with the monocoque at the factory, and MUST be lined back up if ever they are removed from the car, by a main dealer. If you’ve replaced a clutch on some Ford Cougars/Mondeos, then if done properly, you would have had to have the sub frame lined up again.

So if you’re removing the sub frames from a donor and bolting it on to a different monocoque or unibody, then it must be designed with the correct reference marks to alignment it, plus thought as to who will carry out this work for you. Ford will do Mondeos, but not kit-cars with ford sub frames on them.

Get this wrong and your car will crab when driven, getting worse as the speed increases. But if your car is more show than go, and the sub frames are only a bit out, and you’re not intended to go track day racing, and you’re keeping the power stock from the donor, then it probably isn’t too much of an issue.

But if you want big-power, high speeds and track days, then you really need to get this right. It’s just my opinion, maybe I’m wrong, but I’d prefer to drop the dual sub frame/unibody set up for one be-spoke chassis. It would be interesting to hear what other people think?

[LMRACER]

Having read the GTA thread it certainly is not a rebody by the looks of things as the engine is moving from the front to the back as well...
Longer and lower than the standard car...the use of the cabin is to provide OEM water tight seals and all functioning electric windows, locks and mirrors by the sounds of things...nothing more.

It also says that the whole door is being used which also leads me to believe that the cabin will have good NVH capabilities too..

Dom9... OEM mounting points and holes is whats mentioned so it will be interesting.

Sean...can you show us some bodies/cars you have designed as you seem to be plugged into the style/design of the bodies of the cars mentioned.

Edited by LMRACER on Thursday 10th May 12:25

[seansverige]

Dreamspeed said:

Sorry seansverige, I thought your reference to the Guigiaro/TR7 joke was that you didn’t like the styling of the Bailey Blade. (I did know the joke though)

LOL! I don't - I thought you were saying you did, as in "the PC image below looks great", or did you mean the execution of the computer rendering is great, but what's being represented, less so?....

@LMracer: never practised professionally, and any full presentation work I didn't throw out is pushing 20 years old, and buried somewhere in storage container. I keep threatening to make the leap to photoshop but I've been saying that for a while.... So I guess that makes me an armchair critic - though in fairness I am literally qualified do so...

[Ferg]

paulpsz008 said:

Why/how did GTM manage to produce a coupe with proper working doors and yet no-one else seems to be able to?

In MY opinion this was due to the drive and slow-burning approach taken by the two Directors of the company at the time. Starting with the 13" wheel re-style of the original Mini based GTM, they slowly evolved the company whilst always ensuring that the product worked.
The company, remember, even had the resources to 'rescue' the NG and Midas projects.
The Libra was a brave, and expensive, project. The masterstroke, I think, was getting Richard Oakes in to style it.

Once the company was sold the new owners failed dismally to maintain the evolution of the marque...hell, they even failed dismally to maintain the moulds. The cars produced in Coventry were eventually painted as the Gelcoat finish achievable was just too poor.
Sticking carbon-fibre wrap on it and other cosmetic tweaks couldn't slow it's decline and, please, only Google GTM 40TR with a sick bag at the ready.

[Pat H]

The original GTM on 10" wheels was a splendid little car, with Mini subframes put to good use.

It is properly regarded as a classic.

Wonder whether there would be a market for it to be reproduced today?

Or a Unipower GT?

[Artstu]

Hmm I'd forgotten about that GTM 40TR

This also came up in the search

[KDIcarmad]

Ferg said:

The Libra was a brave, and expensive, project. The masterstroke, I think, was getting Richard Oakes in to style it.

I believe Richard Oaks had been working on the design before offering it to GTM. I agree the new owner failed to look after GTM.

[Ferg]

Artstu said:

Hmm I'd forgotten about that GTM 40TR

This also came up in the search

ROFL! Looks familiar.
That's before I reversed my wife's car into it...

[Ferg]

KDIcarmad said:

I believe Richard Oaks had been working on the design before offering it to GTM. I agree the new owner failed to look after GTM.

This is true, although much of the design was finalised in the GTM factory in Sutton Bonington.

[Dreamspeed]

Sorry everyone, but there’ll be no pictures of my car for quite some time. Looks like the “so-called” PC artist can’t deliver.

This is what I get when I trust a young chap, just starting out and looking for his break.

So if anyone out there knows of a PC artist, who wants to turn my “rough” photo’s into quality PC images, then please get in touch. Thanks.

[Artstu]

Is this the new GTM? a Metro on top of a Westfield