KITCAR DESIGN sketches/concepts year 2008-10
Discussion
FNL! Whereabouts in Anglesey? I'm originally from Cemaes and although I haven't lived in the UK for years one of my brothers is in Trearddur Bay and am back there on a fairly regular basis.
If we're still talking after I've given you my feedback (
), would like to see it in the flesh...
If we're still talking after I've given you my feedback (
), would like to see it in the flesh...Griffmonster said:
I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
Thanks
Another question is what part of the market is it aimed at? I notice the big brakes all round, for instance. If that level of expenditure is mirrored all through the car then presumably it will be quite expensive to build. If you could give an idea of the cost then that will provide a context in which we could give our opinions. Thanks
Griffmonster said:
Hi guys, I'm Griff and I thought here was the best place to post details of my exciting plans for 2010.
I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
Thanks
The rear lights:I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
Thanks
These look as if they are copied straight from a certain Ferrari. Positioning a light like this has got to be a lot harder than than a simple round light in a simple round hole. Look at he rear lights of the Sylva Spectre for example. Simple and neat.
The doors:
Do you need any? The already mentioned Strathcarron didn't have any! Think of simpler mouldings and easier assembly. If you do retain them then you could make the lower door edge flush with the bottom of the air vent feature. This makes for a simpler shut line arrangement.
You don't give any indication of the size of your project. If you have yet to start the buck you could get a head start by using a Fiat X1/9 or Toyota MR2 as the core of the buck. This way you have a ready made reference surface under the styling you add.
@singlecoil: seconded
Basics: I assume it's mid-engined, correct? What's it's market, who are it's competitors and what pricepoint are you aiming at? Primarily track or road use? If track, why bother with doors. If road, will it have anything more substantial than an aero screen?
If it only has an aero screen and no roof it's clearly not meant to be the most practical car, so even if for road use omitting doors might be worth consideration: you sidestep issues of panel fit & finish, sealing and of course make it easier to produce a stiff, strong chassis. The above mentioned Strathcarron may not have been a success, but the Marlin 5exi and Javan R1 seem to be faring better.
My feedback's going focus on any areas that might need revision so the overall tone might seem negative, but it's not - honest! Overall it looks a fine effort and if you succeed it'll drag the design median of kitcars upwards, quite considerably.
Exterior Design Analysis
The front end is pretty sorted as is with the strong, simple fender line and recessed lights - the lower part of the nose is a little bluff - a touch more planform and a swoopier lower airdam with maybe driving lights - if there was a recess the builder could decide to leave as is, open it as an intake, or actually fit a light.
I don't know if it's software you're using, but the surfacing of the bonnet between the crisp fender line and fine detail around the badge seems a little soft. There are a couple of other things I wonder are software related: there seems to be a very slight peak at the rear end of the door in the rear view, the surfacing at the top rear corner of the side intake seems a little odd.
The surfacing below the shoulder line seems to be angled slightly out at the rear wheel, and turns in under itself as it moves forward - but this and things like the intersection between the shoulder line and front fender need careful handling and can probably only be done by eye and hand. The same is probably true of the intake / rear wheel area; in your position I'd be studying this area in the Gallardo for anything useful.
The door cutout makes me think it's a non standard hinge arrangement, with a large radius at the lower front corner and a square corner at the lower rear - when one would normally see the opposite. A more conventional door cutout might soften the side intake, which is a bit harsh. I'd be tempted to add a radius to the lower corner of the intake to give a sort of italicised 'J' - more difficult to model but executed well could make a great feature.
The headrest fairings need a little tidying: again it might be the software, but they definitely seem like a fairing of two halves - in the side elevation it looks there's a break in the profile, and it seems rectangular in plan rather than the half ellipse I'd expect. The radius between the fairing and the rear deck is a bit small, enlarging this would soften the transition and make it more integrated. The flat surface between the fairings, over the high level brake light isn't very sexy; it might look a little better if it was recessed within the rear deck surface rather than sat atop. If I were you I'd add some matching vents for, let's say, engine cooling - even if not strictly needed...
The rear lights seem quite small, making it look a little piggy eyed at the back. Either the existing units could be integrated into a bigger feature or an existing production item used - how about the Smart ForTwo units (which contain all lighting functions inc. fog & reverse), rotating them through 90 degrees.
If you think I'm wrong about all of the above, it would still make a fine effort as is: good luck.
Basics: I assume it's mid-engined, correct? What's it's market, who are it's competitors and what pricepoint are you aiming at? Primarily track or road use? If track, why bother with doors. If road, will it have anything more substantial than an aero screen?
If it only has an aero screen and no roof it's clearly not meant to be the most practical car, so even if for road use omitting doors might be worth consideration: you sidestep issues of panel fit & finish, sealing and of course make it easier to produce a stiff, strong chassis. The above mentioned Strathcarron may not have been a success, but the Marlin 5exi and Javan R1 seem to be faring better.
My feedback's going focus on any areas that might need revision so the overall tone might seem negative, but it's not - honest! Overall it looks a fine effort and if you succeed it'll drag the design median of kitcars upwards, quite considerably.
Exterior Design Analysis
The front end is pretty sorted as is with the strong, simple fender line and recessed lights - the lower part of the nose is a little bluff - a touch more planform and a swoopier lower airdam with maybe driving lights - if there was a recess the builder could decide to leave as is, open it as an intake, or actually fit a light.
I don't know if it's software you're using, but the surfacing of the bonnet between the crisp fender line and fine detail around the badge seems a little soft. There are a couple of other things I wonder are software related: there seems to be a very slight peak at the rear end of the door in the rear view, the surfacing at the top rear corner of the side intake seems a little odd.
The surfacing below the shoulder line seems to be angled slightly out at the rear wheel, and turns in under itself as it moves forward - but this and things like the intersection between the shoulder line and front fender need careful handling and can probably only be done by eye and hand. The same is probably true of the intake / rear wheel area; in your position I'd be studying this area in the Gallardo for anything useful.
The door cutout makes me think it's a non standard hinge arrangement, with a large radius at the lower front corner and a square corner at the lower rear - when one would normally see the opposite. A more conventional door cutout might soften the side intake, which is a bit harsh. I'd be tempted to add a radius to the lower corner of the intake to give a sort of italicised 'J' - more difficult to model but executed well could make a great feature.
The headrest fairings need a little tidying: again it might be the software, but they definitely seem like a fairing of two halves - in the side elevation it looks there's a break in the profile, and it seems rectangular in plan rather than the half ellipse I'd expect. The radius between the fairing and the rear deck is a bit small, enlarging this would soften the transition and make it more integrated. The flat surface between the fairings, over the high level brake light isn't very sexy; it might look a little better if it was recessed within the rear deck surface rather than sat atop. If I were you I'd add some matching vents for, let's say, engine cooling - even if not strictly needed...
The rear lights seem quite small, making it look a little piggy eyed at the back. Either the existing units could be integrated into a bigger feature or an existing production item used - how about the Smart ForTwo units (which contain all lighting functions inc. fog & reverse), rotating them through 90 degrees.
If you think I'm wrong about all of the above, it would still make a fine effort as is: good luck.
cymtriks said:
The rear lights:
These look as if they are copied straight from a certain Ferrari. Positioning a light like this has got to be a lot harder than than a simple round light in a simple round hole. Look at he rear lights of the Sylva Spectre for example. Simple and neat.
These look as if they are copied straight from a certain Ferrari. Positioning a light like this has got to be a lot harder than than a simple round light in a simple round hole. Look at he rear lights of the Sylva Spectre for example. Simple and neat.
Because it's mind numbingly boring, overdone to the point of being almost an badge of kit car status?! No reason positioning a light like that will be in the slightest bit more difficult once the buck is made, and if you're going to compromise aesthetics for an extra hour at buck stage it's going to be a crap project anyway... May sound harsh but I really get irked with kit cars that take the "easy route" every time for what is in reality less than zero saving.
I like it, it's been used on a few cars other than the Fezza but it works well.
cymtriks said:
The doors:
...If you do retain them then you could make the lower door edge flush with the bottom of the air vent feature. This makes for a simpler shut line arrangement.
whereas that is the sort of aesthetic AND complexity saving that makes total sense, I like the doors, Personally I think it is restrictive in market not having doors on anything bigger than a seven ...If you do retain them then you could make the lower door edge flush with the bottom of the air vent feature. This makes for a simpler shut line arrangement.
cymtriks said:
You don't give any indication of the size of your project. If you have yet to start the buck you could get a head start by using a Fiat X1/9 or Toyota MR2 as the core of the buck. This way you have a ready made reference surface under the styling you add.
and that's just genius in it's simplicity 
Edited by Davi on Friday 16th October 09:55
OK, have more time to respond. My first comment was that that overall look was striking and I’m desperate to find a decent looking mid-engine roadster and drop a V-tec into it.
I agree with the comment about the rear lights. It’s not a matter of taking the easy way out necessarily, but I think they break up the upper aft surface of the car unnecessarily and it makes it look choppy. I would also slide those down and find a decent production lens to go in the round hole. It’s really not much of a price to pay IMO, and remember every bespoke part you make now is a PITA for someone later down the road.
The front lights could be recessed and a smooth scratch resistant plastic cover (preferably single curvature, or just slightly double in one direction) to clean up the upper surface.
The wind screen should be modeled with a single curvature (every sports car ever made (nearly) does this and it looks good, without the complexity of a double contoured surface.
I would also delete the door. Removing that section shifts a lot of the bending moment into a reduced section which adds weight and reduces stiffness [unnecessarily]. This happens whether or not the chassis is the sole structural element or not (principle is the same). It will be low to the ground (hopefully) so it shouldn’t be too tough to get in and out of.
You should plan on a rool bar tigh now and integrate that into the aft deck. I agree there is a bit of work to do there with the head rest transitions, especially if you consider the integration of the roll bar.
Your car has flavors of this one (though introduced a few years ago, and maybe a bit of updating), which I thought was a good concept when it came out:
http://www.suzukiauto.com/about_suzuki/concepts/vi...
I agree with the comment about the rear lights. It’s not a matter of taking the easy way out necessarily, but I think they break up the upper aft surface of the car unnecessarily and it makes it look choppy. I would also slide those down and find a decent production lens to go in the round hole. It’s really not much of a price to pay IMO, and remember every bespoke part you make now is a PITA for someone later down the road.
The front lights could be recessed and a smooth scratch resistant plastic cover (preferably single curvature, or just slightly double in one direction) to clean up the upper surface.
The wind screen should be modeled with a single curvature (every sports car ever made (nearly) does this and it looks good, without the complexity of a double contoured surface.
I would also delete the door. Removing that section shifts a lot of the bending moment into a reduced section which adds weight and reduces stiffness [unnecessarily]. This happens whether or not the chassis is the sole structural element or not (principle is the same). It will be low to the ground (hopefully) so it shouldn’t be too tough to get in and out of.
You should plan on a rool bar tigh now and integrate that into the aft deck. I agree there is a bit of work to do there with the head rest transitions, especially if you consider the integration of the roll bar.
Your car has flavors of this one (though introduced a few years ago, and maybe a bit of updating), which I thought was a good concept when it came out:
http://www.suzukiauto.com/about_suzuki/concepts/vi...
Davi said:
cymtriks said:
The rear lights:
These look as if they are copied straight from a certain Ferrari. Positioning a light like this has got to be a lot harder than than a simple round light in a simple round hole. Look at he rear lights of the Sylva Spectre for example. Simple and neat.
These look as if they are copied straight from a certain Ferrari. Positioning a light like this has got to be a lot harder than than a simple round light in a simple round hole. Look at he rear lights of the Sylva Spectre for example. Simple and neat.
Because it's mind numbingly boring, overdone to the point of being almost an badge of kit car status?!
I think that the simple round light is a technically simple, neat and visually clean feature. I also think that the current trend to "wacky" light designs is tacky.
Davi said:
No reason positioning a light like that will be in the slightest bit more difficult once the buck is made, and if you're going to compromise aesthetics for an extra hour at buck stage it's going to be a crap project anyway... May sound harsh but I really get irked with kit cars that take the "easy route" every time for what is in reality less than zero saving.
I like it, it's been used on a few cars other than the Fezza but it works well.
A hole breaking out on two surfaces has got to be more difficult to get looking right and also more difficult to get out of the mould.I like it, it's been used on a few cars other than the Fezza but it works well.
Your opinion that this is the easy route taken by lazy or skinflint manufacturers is just that, an opinion, which I don't share.
Davi said:
cymtriks said:
The doors:
...If you do retain them then you could make the lower door edge flush with the bottom of the air vent feature. This makes for a simpler shut line arrangement.
whereas that is the sort of aesthetic AND complexity saving that makes total sense, I like the doors, Personally I think it is restrictive in market not having doors on anything bigger than a seven ...If you do retain them then you could make the lower door edge flush with the bottom of the air vent feature. This makes for a simpler shut line arrangement.
The side profile of this car isn't a million miles away from an X1/9 with the screen and rear window surround cut off. The steel bodywork provides a stable and mobile support. Mobile means that you can easily roll the half finished car into real daylight and walk around it to check how it looks.
The restrictions are:
You need to find a "core" car that is very similar in wheelbase and silhouette.
You need to plan your changes and additions to obscure the "core" without losing your advantage of having a reference surface.
A very obvious example is the Beauford with its Mini "core". Take a look, it's there, but the additions have disguised it so well that several people I've point this out to thought I had to be wrong.
Another example would be the Ford RS200. Look at the windscreen, doors and the leading half of the roof. The cabin is taken from a Sierra but you'd never guess if it wasn't pointed out.
Edited by cymtriks on Saturday 17th October 17:05
cymtriks said:
...X1/9 ... The steel bodywork provides a stable and mobile support
LOL - if you know where you can find an X1/9 that hasn't rusted to nothing yet's cheap enough to hack up to use as a buck, please share. IF you really must go this route, surely an S1 MX-5 is the logical candidate?Either way, a body panel isn't necessarily stable enough without additional support - if using modelling clay, you can and sometimes need to actually put quite a bit of force into it: if the door skin popped, a bloody great lump could fall off. Admittedly not likely to be an issue for the X1/9 'cos there's quite a lot of form in it, but it would be an issue for a simpler shape like the Mini.
cymtriks said:
.....the Ford RS200. Look at the windscreen, doors and the leading half of the roof. The cabin is taken from a Sierra but you'd never guess if it wasn't pointed out.
Yes, the RS200 was a homologation special built in small numbers so it made sense to raid the parts bin, but saying it uses the cabin from a Sierra is a gross oversimplification. As far as I know it was a clean sheet design, and the reason why the glasshouse looks quite large in proportion is because it used glazing from probably, yes, the Sierra. However look at the door (& I mean LOOK): the RS200's is shallower, has a different shutline, different skin and the door handle is mounted lower when compared to a Sierra's. Even if it uses some of the Sierra's door architecture, this is more likely to have been added in the latter stages of the design process after the package has been defined, not as an initial parameter.The Beauford uses Mini doors and bits of scuttle & rear quarter essentially unchanged rather than as a foundation, but doesn't conform to your own definition of core.
As regards the rear lights... so if it's not some variation of bullseye light it's 'wacky'? Lexus lights are tacky, but there are plenty of nice light units out there.
It seems the whole point of this thread initially was the use of exterior / interior design as a market differentiator - so it depends on whether your priority is something easy to design / prototype or something that looks good; done right, something that may have been more difficult to model doesn't necessarily need to be hard to manufacture & assemble. Given that Griff has given us a couple of exterior shots and minimal technical info I think we can assume that exterior design is important to him.
I proposed the ForTwo units rotated through 90deg:
The panel and mounting can be copied from the ForTwo; I realise the cutouts might be tricky, but the previous gen lights could be used, but they're not as nice.
Although I'm not a fan of the finished result, I do think the Baileyspeed XTR is a good example of what I think you'd getting at: they seem to be using S1 MX-5 door (with new skins) and S1 Mazda 3 headlights; much more than that and I have to question the value add over a panel kit - especially if it's "very similar in wheelbase and silhouette"
Griff - when you respond, could you include your reasoning behind this project and your priorities? Ta
UPDATE: additional light pic - easier to see than red-on-red
Edited by seansverige on Saturday 17th October 15:53
Edited by seansverige on Saturday 17th October 15:55
One factor to consider with stuff like lights is continuity of supply.
The classic sizes and shapes are likely to be around for the life of your project.
Any part taken from a low volume car or obscure car are likely to drop you in it. If you must, choose a part that is on a brand new model then at least you are fairly certain of it being around for a while.
The classic sizes and shapes are likely to be around for the life of your project.
Any part taken from a low volume car or obscure car are likely to drop you in it. If you must, choose a part that is on a brand new model then at least you are fairly certain of it being around for a while.
Griffmonster said:
Hi guys, I'm Griff and I thought here was the best place to post details of my exciting plans for 2010.
Below are a couple of images of the first product I'm planning to launch next year. It's called the Seren (Welsh for "Star") and is a modern styled mid engined roadster to be sold in kit form.
I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
Thanks
Hi Griff, I like your new design and as others have pointed out earlier, it does look like being influenced by the old Strathcarron. The deisng has a lot of potential in my opinion but I would like to see it over a chassis to judge its proportions, as is it's hard to tell.Below are a couple of images of the first product I'm planning to launch next year. It's called the Seren (Welsh for "Star") and is a modern styled mid engined roadster to be sold in kit form.
I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
Thanks
Is this rendering based on an exhisting chassis or is it bespoke ?, it would be easier to judge its dimensions.
Looking forward to more pictures and information on your new project...
Italo
Edited by fuoriserie on Sunday 18th October 10:01
cymtriks said:
...continuity of supply.... taken from a low volume car or obscure car are likely to drop you in it
On that basis you'd have us go back to Lucas 7" sealed beams then?True, but that's not what I or anyone else proposed. The ForTwo has been around for over 10 years and they've made a million+ of 'em (admittedly not all with that taillight): continuity is assured by dint of supporting Smart customers - hell, with M-B backing it's doubtless safe to use the Smart Roadster's lights
Not many low volume models use their own lights and those that do tend to be ridiculously expensive - which is likely to rule them out: I can't remember if it's per unit or per pair, but I do remember the figure ~£1800 being uttered in conjunction with the Porsche Carrera lights - on the plus side, doubtless Porsche will ensure there always available.
The simple fact is that any lights from any mainstream model will do: they will be made in the hundred's of thousands, maybe millions and support of that customer base ensures sufficient continuity. The challenge is not supply but design: until the eighties were typically bolt on, discreet items - now they're often fully integrated into the surrounding surfaces in all three planes and so dictate those surfaces. In the last decade or so they've also become a key element in expressing a cars visual identity (which means they may be too recognisable in a new application) and of late they're also huge - look at the size of the Fiesta heads. Lighting is so important in contemporary car design you could write a book on it (OK, a short one) and laymen / consumers are very good at picking up the signals that lighting can communicate in terms of perceived value, sophistication and technology. For example, in the next couple of years pretty much anything that doesn't have some LED elements in it is going to look very dated.
Italo: really enjoyed this thread and it's given me a lot to think about but even before Griff's post it seemed to have descended into an argument about battery packs - worth starting a new thread? Also, I can't find the Stoneleigh 2007 thread you refer to in the OP: will it have beem archived or have you got a link? Ta
seansverige said:
cymtriks said:
...continuity of supply.... taken from a low volume car or obscure car are likely to drop you in it
Italo: really enjoyed this thread and it's given me a lot to think about but even before Griff's post it seemed to have descended into an argument about battery packs - worth starting a new thread? Also, I can't find the Stoneleigh 2007 thread you refer to in the OP: will it have beem archived or have you got a link? TaThey are about 5-6 yrs of discussions and comments, :
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Enjoy .......
Cheers
Italo
seansverige said:
Wow, looks like I've got some reading to do! - talk to you at Christmas
I've made a few notes so far, but I'll hold off until I've gone through this lot...
It will take you just a few hours in reading but they're worth the info, still valid today....I've made a few notes so far, but I'll hold off until I've gone through this lot...
I'm re-reading it myself as I've forgotten some of it.....
Edited by fuoriserie on Sunday 18th October 15:08
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff