Kit car industry and how to revive interest and sales
Discussion
Nikolai said:
But going for a 2+2 for taking the family out, I'm not sure people would go for it - I don't think I'd want my kids (I don't have any yet thank god) in a lightweight, less than robust car with no ABS, airbags, crumple zones, DSC etc when I could have got all those things for the same money in an RX8:
The trouble with the RX8 is the running costs, my wife is getting 18 mpg in hers, plus the depreciation has been horrific. Secondly, I don't agree that a kit car is any less safe than a euro clone box. Just look at the crash pictures from some of the racing incidents with a Westfield, plus you could design in a full roll cage rather than retro fit one meaning that pasenger comfort and safety could be taken into account in the design phase. And lastly, airbags, crumple zones and the like are all secondary devices for after you've had an accident. A more involving car to drive that's fun at legal speeds is more likely to reduce the chances of an accident happening than one you need to wring the neck of to feel any feedback. My own theory as to the decline in driving standards is the rise in drivers aids and "safety" equipment separating the driver from driving meaning that to feel the same levels of experience you need to drive faster and harder or go the other way and lose any sense of driving completely and just become a passenger who steers occasionally between texting, applying makeup or shaving (or all 3). Can you imagine shaving whilst driving a classic Mini Cooper, I can't, you were likely to be too busy and involved.
MKnight702 said:
I don't agree that a kit car is any less safe than a euro clone box. Just look at the crash pictures from some of the racing incidents with a Westfield, plus you could design in a full roll cage rather than retro fit one meaning that pasenger comfort and safety could be taken into account in the design phase. And lastly, airbags, crumple zones and the like are all secondary devices for after you've had an accident. A more involving car to drive that's fun at legal speeds is more likely to reduce the chances of an accident happening than one you need to wring the neck of to feel any feedback.
My own theory as to the decline in driving standards is the rise in drivers aids and "safety" equipment separating the driver from driving meaning that to feel the same levels of experience you need to drive faster and harder or go the other way and lose any sense of driving completely and just become a passenger who steers occasionally between texting, applying makeup or shaving (or all 3). Can you imagine shaving whilst driving a classic Mini Cooper, I can't, you were likely to be too busy and involved.
I totally agree. In fact I've had an accident in a kit where I went through two concrete posts and 3 iron railings. Rebuilt the car and drove it another 11 years. Didn't have a scratch on me or my brother. All the additional gadgets in modern boxes are hyped up and SOLD as safety features. Do you really believe the things sales and marketing tell you? I'll remind you that crash tests are done at 30mph into stationary objects.My own theory as to the decline in driving standards is the rise in drivers aids and "safety" equipment separating the driver from driving meaning that to feel the same levels of experience you need to drive faster and harder or go the other way and lose any sense of driving completely and just become a passenger who steers occasionally between texting, applying makeup or shaving (or all 3). Can you imagine shaving whilst driving a classic Mini Cooper, I can't, you were likely to be too busy and involved.
But just to put folks minds at rest here's a photo of a Midas Kit Car being crash tested and passing with flying colours.
And below a production car equivalent
I couldn't agree more about how you are lulled into a false sense of security by modern cars. In fact if anything I'd say it makes them extremely dangerous because of it. I frequently hurtle around a track in a kit at twice the legal limit and some. Being as we give people test drives it's not at all uncommon to wind up going off track at 100+ mph backwards or sidewards. Every single time it happens the drivers are absolutely amazed by the safety of a rock steady car and appreciative of proper chassis protection around them. It really is at that moment they become sold on the car. There's no way on Earth I'd get into a production car and let people do that.
Seriously? You're saying that modern safety features are sales gimmicks? I'm sure you can design a chassis that's strong in a crash but you're not going to crash test it so how do you know that in some situations a piece of 1" rhs deforms straight through the drivers abdomen or legs? I know that in a front end impact in my friends GBS Zero the first thing to break would be my shins due to the chassis rails above footwell.
I totally agree that simple cars make you much more aware as a driver but that doesn't help when some bell in a BMW x6 ploughs into you cause he was too busy fiddling with his iDrive.
I totally agree that simple cars make you much more aware as a driver but that doesn't help when some bell in a BMW x6 ploughs into you cause he was too busy fiddling with his iDrive.
qdos said:
MKnight702 said:
A great deal of excellent, informative, detailed comments on Kit Cars abilities
I think qdos is spot on with his comments on Kit Cars. I have actually been in a Midas which was minding its own business trundling down a road, when a middle aged lady motorist turned right in front of the Midas. About fifteen feet away. No way to do anything, we collided against the nearside corner of the Ford Focus.
The Focus was a write off the Midas was quite easily repaired. In fact we drove the Midas onto the tow truck the Ford was well busted with engine trouble, slam panel gone, bumper in the ditch, front wings wrecked, bonnet gone and so so. Not drivable at all. The driver actually said "I did not see the car" to the PC who turned up because the road was blocked. She was done for DWDCA and her insurance paid all costs.
That made me realise that the strength of the Midas is genuinely high. An exceptionally robust egg like structure: the strength is far better than any of my Locosts, Robin Hoods, or Dutton V8.
In fact I am going to triangulate the V8 with a Chassis man I know because the long square sections are unsafe, in use, the entire car twitches and shakes like a squirrel. You can actually see the tubes moving and feel the seats swaying under minor torque and that clearly cannot be safe. All right if you are a squirrel but crap if you are a car chassis. I will never drive that Dutton till this is done it could be a killer. I take enough risks anyway.
The Midas is certainly a Kit Car that I would recommend. Since I have two and have had a number in the past I should be a fair judge. An excellent usable and enjoyable, safe, secure solid sports car and with the K series Metro engines, which are as cheap as chips and pretty reliable IMO, or even an 1800 MG K series if you really want to fly, these have got to be worth a try. I would strongly suggest that visitors to Stoneleigh make the time to look at the quality of these cars. I will certainly be doing just that.
Nikolai said:
Seriously? You're saying that modern safety features are sales gimmicks?
Seriously yes. As I say the crash test is 30mph into a stationary object. That's 2 vehicles approaching each other at 15mph. When a company submits an item to be tested all it means is that it meets the minimum acceptable standard when it passes. It's not a mark of what we think means 'quality' it means minimum acceptable. It's gimmicks and generally a mass production company will design to just scrape through the test as any more is wasted profit.Of course there are many items out there that could be considered dangerous by many people but thankfully we don't live in a nanny state, though sometimes I do wonder. You rightly do question some vehicles and it's good that you do but just because there's something with a 'safety label' on it does not mean that it's safe or any safer than one that does not have it.
Example... Which is safer in a fire? A sofa or a park bench? Both will burn and the sofa has a label on it to say it's been tested (It's the law these days) but the fumes from the sofa will kill you and it will burn hotter and faster than the park bench. The park bench though has no certificate.
It's all about NCAP ratings these days and that's a bit more than 30mph front crash (40mph offset deformable barrier, drivers door impact @ 50kmh, side pole impact @ 29kmh, whiplash testing etc. etc.) .... http://www.euroncap.com/testprocedures.aspx
I feel we may be kidding ourselves that kits are as good as modern production cars in terms of occupant protection. They do spend millions developing safer cars for us. A lot depends not just on design but quality of welding and materials. A 7 chassis welded by a home builder may not be as good as a manufacturers chassis. A customer of mine did demolish 2 tress with his Exocet at 60mph and only suffered bruising from the harness on his shoulders. Not a recommended way of arresting speed though.
This accident was the subject of another thread on here.
This accident was the subject of another thread on here.
qdos said:
As I say the crash test is 30mph into a stationary object. That's 2 vehicles approaching each other at 15mph.
It's not, it's the same as two approaching at 30mph. This is assuming each car deforms by the same or similar amounts, obviously if one car doesn't deform at all, it's a little different. On the road, of course, no two collisions are alike, so it's very difficult to make that comparison.The whole 'head on at X mph is like 2X mph into a wall' is a complete myth, propagated by people who fail to understand how shock absorbtion and crumple zones work.
MKnight702 said:
Hmm, been giving this more thought.
Where I think there may be a hole is in the light, sports, semi practical 4 seater. The classic version would be the Elan+2, the closest you will get now is the RX8 and maybe shortly the GT-86.
If the Kit Car industry could produce a 21st Century Elan+2 but with proper rear seats like an RX8, that was cheap to build using as many off the shelf parts as possible, had decent power from something like an Audi 1.8T up front, maybe running an Audi box moved to the rear like the Porsche 924 with torque tube to suit for better weight distribution.
Funny you should pick the only Elan never sold in kit form. I do question the use of rear wheel drive for your new Elan+2. Take the Midas or Mini Marcos (This start off as 2+2) both great design that use FWD and are quick fun cars. The Mini Marcos has a Le Mans history, to back up its performance looks.Where I think there may be a hole is in the light, sports, semi practical 4 seater. The classic version would be the Elan+2, the closest you will get now is the RX8 and maybe shortly the GT-86.
If the Kit Car industry could produce a 21st Century Elan+2 but with proper rear seats like an RX8, that was cheap to build using as many off the shelf parts as possible, had decent power from something like an Audi 1.8T up front, maybe running an Audi box moved to the rear like the Porsche 924 with torque tube to suit for better weight distribution.
I like the idea of 2+2 kit, but in the past these have not sold well, so wonder who would buy these today. Could a 3 seater fit this market as well? A mid engine 3 seater coupe? An Aeon GT3 fitted with a 1.8T!
Its to be hope the kit car industry move to offer new cars to different buyer car like a 2+2 coupe.
qdos said:
But just to put folks minds at rest here's a photo of a Midas Kit Car being crash tested and passing with flying colours.
...And below a production car equivalent
Do bear in mind that the reason the MINI crumples progressively in a frontal impact s to ensure that the energy from the impact is dissipated gradually and the deceleration involved is kept withn survivable limits....And below a production car equivalent
If you build a car to be very, very strong and rigid, all it means is that it and the occupants stop dead (literally) when it hits an immovable object.
Sam_68 said:
Do bear in mind that the reason the MINI crumples progressively in a frontal impact s to ensure that the energy from the impact is dissipated gradually and the deceleration involved is kept withn survivable limits.
If you build a car to be very, very strong and rigid, all it means is that it and the occupants stop dead (literally) when it hits an immovable object.
I totally agree. It's also about penetration into the passenger cell too and as has been mentioned above there's the fact that you've got organs inside the chassis of your body (skeleton) which rattle around too, not least of all your heart and your brain.If you build a car to be very, very strong and rigid, all it means is that it and the occupants stop dead (literally) when it hits an immovable object.
The point I'm making is that because something has a certificate does not mean it's safe. All too often I see people on public roads sitting in their recling armchair in air conditioned comfort pretty much completely oblivious to that fact that they are in control of a two tonne chuck of metal on rollers hurtling towards another more often than not at a combined approach speed of over 100mph. No matter weather it be a Volvo or a Dutton someone's going to be hurt. It's the occupants of the drivers' seats that make the vehicles safe or not.
The more insulated the driver is from the outside world and the more reliant he is on someone else having done things for him the more likely they are to get things wrong.
Most kit cars are built by enthusiasts who actually drive what they produce be it as the builder or the designer. Generally they've got good interest in making it safe particularly as very often the cars do wind up being driven faster than your typical mass produced box and frequently on a track too. The scape goat for mass produced items is that "well it met the standard and that is what was required of it."
As is shown above the Midas was crash tested and passed. I don't doubt there are other kits that could do it too. Don't go rubbishing kit cars just because they don't have the bits of paper associated with mass produced vehicles.
As I've said above there's not many production cars I'd get into as a passenger on a track and enjoy doing twice the speed limit in, let alone have a spin and go into the rough in.
qdos said:
"well it met the standard and that is what was required of it."
As is shown above the Midas was crash tested and passed. I don't doubt there are other kits that could do it too. Don't go rubbishing kit cars just because they don't have the bits of paper associated with mass produced vehicles.
As I've said above there's not many production cars I'd get into as a passenger on a track and enjoy doing twice the speed limit in, let alone have a spin and go into the rough in.
I fear that one day kit cars will have to have that bit of paper. That would make the moans above IVA (and SVA) by manufacture look silly. Sadly I fear this could happen, as the kit car industry lacks a voice. Who did the govenment speak to about the SVA and IVA rules? The fact we don't know shows the problem! As is shown above the Midas was crash tested and passed. I don't doubt there are other kits that could do it too. Don't go rubbishing kit cars just because they don't have the bits of paper associated with mass produced vehicles.
As I've said above there's not many production cars I'd get into as a passenger on a track and enjoy doing twice the speed limit in, let alone have a spin and go into the rough in.
qdos said:
The point I'm making is that because something has a certificate does not mean it's safe.
Don't go rubbishing kit cars just because they don't have the bits of paper associated with mass produced vehicles.
But you do seem to be questioning of the value of such certification & testing. The Midas pic is post impact, the Mini during - in tests that are years (decades?) apart, to a different standard. Don't go rubbishing kit cars just because they don't have the bits of paper associated with mass produced vehicles.
Yes, there has been criticism that some cars are being optimised to perform well in NCAP, but this is an independent body who've been tightening test scenarios based on research (not to any mfrs agenda), and it's undeniable that such legislation and testing has resulted in significant improvements in certain areas; pedal box intrusion & side impact being the ones that spring to mind. So even 'just' meeting the standard is unquestionably of value.
No doubt many kitcars could a basic crash test, but without the certificate how do you know? You don't is the simple answer; for the typical kitcar demographic this might not be an issue as they're capable of drawing their own conclusions (for example, I'd guess that most exos are over-engineered as a side effect of putting the structure on display). However, in the context of reviving sales, which do think is going to inspire more consumer confidence: 'Trust me, it's fine - I drive one every day' or 'passed Euro NCAP crash test'? There is even a basic, official crash test a specialist mfr could make use of - the low volume type approval (admittedly I have no idea if it can be done in isolation or how much it would cost)
It's not reasonable to expect a kitcar to match mass market item, but a good basic crash structure (pref. independently verified as such), ABS and basic airbag setup would really help broader market appeal. As regards the last, I don't know if they succeeded, but Tata were trying to get unit cost of a self contained, standalone airbag down to $10 for the Nano...
Not sure driving standards have got that much worse, but it has been shown that some safety devices / automated aids increase driver complacency, which can have much the same effect. The classic example being the perception that ABS reduces stopping distance. Does that misconception mean you're better off without ABS? Though things might be going a bit too far now with recently mandatory ESP: amongst what I call the SatNav people ("Why did you drive off that cliff?" "Cos the SatNav told me to") this could be subject to the same specious line of reasoning, with even greater consequences when it really matters.
And beyond that there's whole number of safety devices the EU wants to make mandatory, which really peeves me because a) in places like the UK we have got traffic related deaths down to a consistent & 'acceptable' level, and there is no evidence that these devices will inherently make a major difference b) doesn't target the demographic most vulnerable (i.e. most UK road deaths are under 25 & male) & c) will force manufacturers to invest literally billions on devices that at best will only save ~3500 lives p.a. if it's 100% successful - if public safety/health is the
....And as I've now just drifted back off topic I'll try to wrestle it back again: Autocar reckoned that the proposed safety measures could add £1-2000 to the average cost of a car (in addition to any emissions related costs) so might be good news for kitcar mfrs if they're still only subject to IVA - just gotta survive the next 10-15 years...
qdos said:
As is shown above the Midas was crash tested and passed.
Let's be clear about what test it passed, though: it underwent the ECE 12 test ('Protection of driver against steering mechanism in the event of impact'), slightly more than a quarter of a century ago, when we were still quite happily buying new Issigonis Minis and Citroen 2CV's. The ECE 12 regulation has been revised 3 times since then and is only one of 5 regulations applicable to frontal impact alone that are now in force.
What the Midas almost certainly wouldn't pass, from looking at that photograph (and the reason the MINI looks so bad to the untrained eye) is ECE R 33: the snappily titled 'Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the behaviour of the structure of the impacted vehicle in a head-on collision' (which was first introduced in 1993 and has itself since been revised). This was the regulation that introduced a regulatory requirement for the infamous 'crumple zones'.
Don't get me wrong: I agree with MKnight and yourself that there's a lot to be said for the awareness of vulnerability that you get in a kit car, and I personally don't worry in the slightest about driving cars like the Elan, with no side impact or roll over protection at all.
...But I'm conscious that there are a lot of people out there these days who won't even entertain the idea of driving a 'Seven' unless it has a full cage and we're definitely kidding ourselves is we think that any kit car can match up to full type-approval safety standards if the worst happens and it is involved in a major accident.
Sam_68 said:
qdos said:
As is shown above the Midas was crash tested and passed.
Let's be clear about what test it passed, though: it underwent the ECE 12 test ('Protection of driver against steering mechanism in the event of impact'), slightly more than a quarter of a century ago, when we were still quite happily buying new Issigonis Minis and Citroen 2CV's. The ECE 12 regulation has been revised 3 times since then and is only one of 5 regulations applicable to frontal impact alone that are now in force.
What the Midas almost certainly wouldn't pass, from looking at that photograph (and the reason the MINI looks so bad to the untrained eye) is ECE R 33: the snappily titled 'Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the behaviour of the structure of the impacted vehicle in a head-on collision' (which was first introduced in 1993 and has itself since been revised). This was the regulation that introduced a regulatory requirement for the infamous 'crumple zones'.
Don't get me wrong: I agree with MKnight and yourself that there's a lot to be said for the awareness of vulnerability that you get in a kit car, and I personally don't worry in the slightest about driving cars like the Elan, with no side impact or roll over protection at all.
...But I'm conscious that there are a lot of people out there these days who won't even entertain the idea of driving a 'Seven' unless it has a full cage and we're definitely kidding ourselves is we think that any kit car can match up to full type-approval safety standards if the worst happens and it is involved in a major accident.
But is is a timely reminder that serious impacts in lightweight racers are a very risky situation even with full headgear.
Returning to the original topic - kit cars need to cheap and fun, because after all they will be hobby cars taken out for the occasional drive at the week-end or maybe on track.
To my perspective the thread drift about safety is not relevant. People who drive such cars know and accept the risk, rather like bikers do.
Too many kit cars are simply too expensive for what they offer - or maybe they try to offer too much making them too expensive?
Mainstream OEMs know what the mass public want and make such cars. If there's a viable market they will exploit it - the scraps are taken up by kit car OEMs.
To my perspective the thread drift about safety is not relevant. People who drive such cars know and accept the risk, rather like bikers do.
Too many kit cars are simply too expensive for what they offer - or maybe they try to offer too much making them too expensive?
Mainstream OEMs know what the mass public want and make such cars. If there's a viable market they will exploit it - the scraps are taken up by kit car OEMs.
Back on topic:
Why is there only one Beauford when so many wedding car companies seem to have one?
Byers CR90
Evante
What happened to the TVR molds or even the Bristol Fighter? Could these make top end kits?
- Advertising
- Marketing
- Ease of build
- Styling
- Keep it simple
- design to minimise stuff you aren't good at
- stop ignoring market segments
Why is there only one Beauford when so many wedding car companies seem to have one?
- stop abandoning potentially good kits
Byers CR90
Evante
What happened to the TVR molds or even the Bristol Fighter? Could these make top end kits?
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff