The Project Singlecoil & Me Have Been Working On.........T

[TheDetailDoctor]

rhinochopig said:

The big issue I would have with buying that, as a road car, is the front rear overhangs. Whilst a big advantage on a track only car, on a road car it would be a liability in handling, road positioning, and damage terms. I suspect it would make a good track only car though.

If you look at any of the road legal mini Le Mans style cars, their overhangs are tiny. I think the design needs focussing on one area or the other. At the moment it seems to be too track focussed.

It is great to see another project though, I wish you all the best of luck.

ETA Is the design driven by CFD or is it a styling exercise / best guess currently?

First instance was to make a shape that was "visually acceptable". From there I have careid out some basic CFD, primarily to ensure there are no areas of high high/low pressure where we don't want them.

Certain areas, such as the angle of the front most part of the nose (was vertical, now laid back at a slight angle) are a direct effect of the findings of the initial CFD.

[bobbus]

singlecoil said:

Well I suppose the Spire looks similar but I'm not aware of what else does? In any case this car will only be more expensive that cars such as the MK Indy by the amount that it actually needs to be, so that will help sales against cars that are perceived to be similar

If you want to find similar looking cars then RGB is a good place to start.

BDN S2:



BDN S3:



Contour:



Spire:



Wolfe:



Pell Genesis:



A few of them together:




There is a new Tim Pell car coming out soon and, as mentioned before, a new car by Andy Bates. You may also want to check out sports 2000 for similar looking cars.

Rob.

[singlecoil]

bobbus said:

Several pictures of RGB cars, none of which appear to be road registered, or likely to pass the IVA test

Thanks for the pictures, though whether the car the car DD has designed could be described as similar is obviously a subjective judgemment. Our car is primarily a road car. Although it will be up to the customer what he uses it for, we have envisaged the occasional track day as the maximum of its track use. I have no interest in supplying specialist racing cars, and wouldn't know where to start.

[bobbus]

singlecoil said:

bobbus said:

Several pictures of RGB cars, none of which appear to be road registered, or likely to pass the IVA test

Thanks for the pictures, though whether the car the car DD has designed could be described as similar is obviously a subjective judgemment. Our car is primarily a road car. Although it will be up to the customer what he uses it for, we have envisaged the occasional track day as the maximum of its track use. I have no interest in supplying specialist racing cars, and wouldn't know where to start.

Fair enough, although you may be interested to know that the spire and pell genesis are both examples of road registered cars, the BDN (2&3) is designed to pass the IVA. I don't know about the Wolfe or Contour, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Wolfe wasn't designed to pass the IVA. I could also add to that list the T5 mission, which is another road registered example.

Just in case you didn't know, RGB stands for Road Going Bike-engined, which is why I linked to those cars rather than the sports 2000.

Rob.

[singlecoil]

bobbus said:

singlecoil said:

bobbus said:

Several pictures of RGB cars, none of which appear to be road registered, or likely to pass the IVA test

Thanks for the pictures, though whether the car the car DD has designed could be described as similar is obviously a subjective judgemment. Our car is primarily a road car. Although it will be up to the customer what he uses it for, we have envisaged the occasional track day as the maximum of its track use. I have no interest in supplying specialist racing cars, and wouldn't know where to start.

Fair enough, although you may be interested to know that the spire and pell genesis are both examples of road registered cars, the BDN (2&3) is designed to pass the IVA. I don't know about the Wolfe or Contour, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Wolfe wasn't designed to pass the IVA. I could also add to that list the T5 mission, which is another road registered example.

Just in case you didn't know, RGB stands for Road Going Bike-engined, which is why I linked to those cars rather than the sports 2000.

Rob.

Indeed, maybe what I should have said was that I was comparing our project with cars that are actively marketed as road going kit cars, and are perceived as such by the general kit car buying public. My reason for the comment I made about the IVA was based on one particular IVA requirement, and that is that the bottom of the headlight must be 500mm or more from the ground. Assuming that the cars shown have tyre diametes of approx 600mm you can see that only the Spire looks like it would pass as is. I'm not saying that the others wouldn't, but that it does look like their headlights are too low.

[Furyblade_Lee]

I am no Colombo, but marketing a cr that looks like yours as purely a road car which may occasionally go on track seems a bit strange to me. T5 Mission, Spire, BNR, Westfield XTR2 / 4, Radical et all all make no pretence to be biased towards road rather than the trackday and ultimately racetrack. Speaking as someone who would drive his BEC to the north pole if I could get a pass, I think you would be unwise to naje sure that thing takes tracks in it's stride at an early stage. If it turns out to not be able to use that 400bhp-per-ton on a track with downforce to good use then I think you will be VERY limited with your customer base. And it worries me a bit you have not researched and heard of two thirds of your compettitors cars?? Do not want to seem too negative but you have asked for feedback at this stage, who / what will be your target customer profile? I don't think Westfield shifted too many XTR2s will all their resources??

[singlecoil]

Furyblade_Lee said:

I am no Colombo, but marketing a cr that looks like yours as purely a road car which may occasionally go on track seems a bit strange to me. T5 Mission, Spire, BNR, Westfield XTR2 / 4, Radical et all all make no pretence to be biased towards road rather than the trackday and ultimately racetrack. Speaking as someone who would drive his BEC to the north pole if I could get a pass, I think you would be unwise to naje sure that thing takes tracks in it's stride at an early stage. If it turns out to not be able to use that 400bhp-per-ton on a track with downforce to good use then I think you will be VERY limited with your customer base. And it worries me a bit you have not researched and heard of two thirds of your compettitors cars?? Do not want to seem too negative but you have asked for feedback at this stage, who / what will be your target customer profile? I don't think Westfield shifted too many XTR2s will all their resources??

I'm aware that there are a good number of cars out there which meet the description of mid-engined kit car, but the ones that concern me are the ones that are actively marketed as such and with the emphasis on road car with occasional track use. There's little point in my trying to compete with the established track oriented (to say the least) cars as I would lose. However I believe that the DD's design is much better looking than the cars shown above, and the price structure will be good, and all aspects of the design will be optimised for road use. If someone wants to take it to a trackday then I'm sure that it will perform well there, too, especially at higher speeds, though as it will be longer, a bit wider and heavier than the RGB-type cars it won't make good competition material.

[66Quinny66]

singlecoil said:

However I believe that the DD's design is much better looking than the cars shown above

In this case, your opinion is not worth very much

[singlecoil]

66Quinny66 said:

singlecoil said:

However I believe that the DD's design is much better looking than the cars shown above

In this case, your opinion is not worth very much

I'm mildly surprised to be the target of such a snide remark, especially as I did say it was my belief. It's one thing to say that you disagree, but something else to say that someone else's opinion is of little value.

[66Quinny66]

singlecoil said:

66Quinny66 said:

singlecoil said:

However I believe that the DD's design is much better looking than the cars shown above

In this case, your opinion is not worth very much

I'm mildly surprised to be the target of such a snide remark, especially as I did say it was my belief. It's one thing to say that you disagree, but something else to say that someone else's opinion is of little value.

You're missing the point. I can't disagree with your belief but it is my opinion that your belief, in this instance, is largely immaterial. Reading it back it is perhaps a little blunt, but it wasn't intended to be a snide remark. If I rephrase it as "your opinion is not worth as much as those of potential customers" would it cause less offence? Please remember that you will be selling these cars rather than buying them.
For example: As someone who is considering a mid-engined car as the next project but happens to like the look of the Pell Genesis, I would need something slightly more persuasive than your belief that your car looked better.

[singlecoil]

66Quinny66 said:

You're missing the point.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm going with not.

[66Quinny66]

singlecoil said:

66Quinny66 said:

You're missing the point.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm going with not.

Fine. But, just to reiterate the point: You stated that you believed that your car looked better than the other cars in the photos. Who are you building the car for?
There have been a few threads recently about the best looking kits etc. Looks are an important factor in a customer's decision making. I have no issues with the appearance of your car and certainly wouldn't pick a kit solely on appearance (I have a 7!). But, in making any decisions, I wouldn't consult the manufacturer on which they thought looked the best. My opinion on looks would be far more important to me.

[singlecoil]

66Quinny66 said:

singlecoil said:

66Quinny66 said:

You're missing the point.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm going with not.

Fine. But, just to reiterate the point: You stated that you believed that your car looked better than the other cars in the photos. Who are you building the car for?
There have been a few threads recently about the best looking kits etc. Looks are an important factor in a customer's decision making. I have no issues with the appearance of your car and certainly wouldn't pick a kit solely on appearance (I have a 7!). But, in making any decisions, I wouldn't consult the manufacturer on which they thought looked the best. My opinion on looks would be far more important to me.

It’s a pity you didn’t make your point, flawed though it is, when you said this-

66Quinny66 said:

singlecoil said:

However I believe that the DD's design is much better looking than the cars shown above

In this case, your opinion is not worth very much

Now that you have made your point I will tell you that I disagree. Anyone that sets out to offer anything that has an appearance dimension to the public knows that some people will like the appearance and some will not. Now, if he is going to offer a car, and wants to know what his customers will like, which of them should he ask? If asking people what they liked led to a usable answer and one that didn’t vary, then all cars would look the same. But they don’t.

In the end, the manufacturer has to decide for himself just what he is going to offer, and hope people will like it. That’s what I am doing. And it’s what every other manufacturer does.

[rdodger]

My 2p

Why design a car that looks like it should be on a race track, with the intention of selling it as a road car? I would imagine it has little or no storage, so no use for touring. You say it's going to be heavier and less track biased than cars of a similar design? So no use as a dedicated track car.

The front overhang looks that it would struggle with speed bumps and dips in roads. My Libra smashes it's splitter on nearly every hairpin on our annual Alps trip and that has a much shorter overhang.

So who are you aiming it at? I don't want to be rude but there are many cars out there that would do the job better.

[singlecoil]

rdodger said:

So who are you aiming it at?

Not you, obviously

I will leave points about aspects of the actual design to the Detail Doctor to answer.

[mrpink]

rdodger said:

My 2p
The front overhang looks that it would struggle with speed bumps and dips in roads. My Libra smashes it's splitter on nearly every hairpin on our annual Alps trip and that has a much shorter overhang.

perhaps they are going to include a lift kit? just a thought ;-)

[koolchris99]

good luck to you, but your marketing and target user, as some people have said is completely wrong..

[Paul Drawmer]

I expect I've missed this somewhere in the thread, but how long/wide is it?

It looks as if it's a designed as a race car for the road; carrying with it the problems of poor visibility, difficulty of getting in and out, lack of weather protection, lack of luggage space, and (if it is to look credible on the road) low ride height.

On the other hand to compensate, it will need to look bloody stunning.

Edited by Paul Drawmer on Friday 19th March 07:20

[singlecoil]

I think I’m going to drop out of this thread now. I was actually more than a bit reluctant to go public with it at all, it was the Detail Doctor who was understandably keen to get some response to his design.

I’ll still look at the replies, and if there is something I can respond to I will, but if it’s just going to be people saying the marketing is wrong, based entirely on their own opinion with no supporting material and no suggestions as to the correct approach then the sooner this thread dies out the better.


Incidentally the width is 1700mm, DD will have to provide the length, and the reason for the weight is the chassis, which would be considered over-engineered in comparison to the track-oriented cars.

[Joe T]

singlecoil said:

I think I’m going to drop out of this thread now. I was actually more than a bit reluctant to go public with it at all, it was the Detail Doctor who was understandably keen to get some response to his design.

I’ll still look at the replies, and if there is something I can respond to I will, but if it’s just going to be people saying the marketing is wrong, based entirely on their own opinion with no supporting material and no suggestions as to the correct approach then the sooner this thread dies out the better.


Incidentally the width is 1700mm, DD will have to provide the length, and the reason for the weight is the chassis, which would be considered over-engineered in comparison to the track-oriented cars.

Unfortunately you will have to become hardened to this sort of criticism, because of the wide variation in likes and dislikes amongst kit car enthusiasts its inevitable. Plus a massive back catalogue of previous kit cars that have failed in one way or another.

I wish you good luck with your project