Industry outlook 2
Discussion
Thanks Mark
I've asked a few mates to post them for me, and here is what I think you could do with a Locost seven chassis and a mid-engine chassis.
Some of you know that I like the Mojo chassis, and I thought of a reskin of this chassis, no alterations or modification, just a new body.
If someone wanted to update a seven here are my two proposals, if you wanted a fun inexpensive mid-engine sportscar, you could go for the other.
If you wanted a Ducati 999 powered threewheeler, here is my other idea.
I have others (ie. fwd sportscar, one of my things..) but can't show yet......
Let me know what you guys think
Thanks
Italo
I've asked a few mates to post them for me, and here is what I think you could do with a Locost seven chassis and a mid-engine chassis.
Some of you know that I like the Mojo chassis, and I thought of a reskin of this chassis, no alterations or modification, just a new body.
If someone wanted to update a seven here are my two proposals, if you wanted a fun inexpensive mid-engine sportscar, you could go for the other.
If you wanted a Ducati 999 powered threewheeler, here is my other idea.
I have others (ie. fwd sportscar, one of my things..) but can't show yet......
Let me know what you guys think
Thanks
Italo
...Very nice..... 
Wacky Racer
I don't know if I would want them in 40 years time!! I would be 82 years old l!!!!! and I will be having problems by then with my knees, legs, joints!!!!
Well maybe an evolutionary design process, just like the Porsche 911 could well keep things going, but maybe it would be a fuel cell/hybrid kitcar by then...........and maybe we won't have the chance to play as much as we have lately....
A fuel cell/hybrid seven could be closer than we can all think, maybe 10/15 years away, and these toys could be out of reach for most of us, money and all, let's enjoy while we have it..........
Italo
I don't know if I would want them in 40 years time!! I would be 82 years old l!!!!! and I will be having problems by then with my knees, legs, joints!!!!
Well maybe an evolutionary design process, just like the Porsche 911 could well keep things going, but maybe it would be a fuel cell/hybrid kitcar by then...........and maybe we won't have the chance to play as much as we have lately....
A fuel cell/hybrid seven could be closer than we can all think, maybe 10/15 years away, and these toys could be out of reach for most of us, money and all, let's enjoy while we have it..........
Italo
Just in keeping with the simple and inexpensive idea of one donor kitcar, I'm working on a bare bones design with a fwd engine, very basic and light.
A front wheel drive Atom, that is the idea, light and cheap to build and manufacture.
Maybe that could become an affordable niche in the kit industry, there are so many great handling fwd cars, take the weight out and you have you affordable sportscar......
Italo
A front wheel drive Atom, that is the idea, light and cheap to build and manufacture.
Maybe that could become an affordable niche in the kit industry, there are so many great handling fwd cars, take the weight out and you have you affordable sportscar......
Italo
Hi all,
Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the ideas simply re-body an existing space frames i.e. a locost or other. To me this presents a problem in that by adding more elaborate body work the weight goes up and hence your car becomes slower accelerating and the performance has to be one of the big plus points of a kit car.
For this reason I think the industry should be looking towards developing cars that use some form of monocoupe wither that is ally or some form of composite that way if a cotpit section is developed a frame can be hung on either end for the suspension and engine mount. If the monocoupe is well thought out it may be possible to use it for both front and mid engine type cars.
This way you can develop a more interestingly shaped car and hopefully not add all that much weight if any to the car.
Blake
Ps sorry for the spelling
Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the ideas simply re-body an existing space frames i.e. a locost or other. To me this presents a problem in that by adding more elaborate body work the weight goes up and hence your car becomes slower accelerating and the performance has to be one of the big plus points of a kit car.
For this reason I think the industry should be looking towards developing cars that use some form of monocoupe wither that is ally or some form of composite that way if a cotpit section is developed a frame can be hung on either end for the suspension and engine mount. If the monocoupe is well thought out it may be possible to use it for both front and mid engine type cars.
This way you can develop a more interestingly shaped car and hopefully not add all that much weight if any to the car.
Blake
Ps sorry for the spelling
ceebmoj said:
Hi all,
Part of the problem as I see it is that a lot of the ideas simply re-body an existing space frames i.e. a locost or other. To me this presents a problem in that by adding more elaborate body work the weight goes up and hence your car becomes slower accelerating and the performance has to be one of the big plus points of a kit car.
I accept your argument, however the original design was based around an engine giving nearer 100bhp (or less), compared to many modern engines offering in excess of 150bhp (and many people having in excess of 200bhp).
So why will an extra 50kgs matter?
ceebmoj said:
For this reason I think the industry should be looking towards developing cars that use some form of monocoupe wither that is ally or some form of composite that way if a cotpit section is developed a frame can be hung on either end for the suspension and engine mount. If the monocoupe is well thought out it may be possible to use it for both front and mid engine type cars.
Robin Hood have tried ally panelling riveted to form a monocoque. It looks like it coulds work quite well.
GTM use a monocoque on the Libra.
This could be a possibility.
ceebmoj said:
This way you can develop a more interestingly shaped car and hopefully not add all that much weight if any to the car.
The idea of the drawing is to create an alternative to the basic '7' shape, not to redesign it and make a new car.
Italo already has shown designs as you suggest.
Some interesting debate on the issue of business v hobby in the kitcar manufacturing stakes.
I think that kitcars sell and survive because they aren't mainstream motors, rather than in spite of it. The main reason small businesses survive, in the face of large corporations, is because there are things that they can do that the big boys can't, and they can do it faster and cheaper too. There are vehicle niches that simply aren't worth Ford or GM's time, which could result in some healthy sales for a low volume manufacturer willing to market something. Dutton, for example, has been going for years, previously making the 'staple diet' kits, and now surviving in the niche of amphibious vehicles. There are people out there who need these kind of vehicles, but, it seems, not enough for a large manufacturer to cater for them. It doesn't mean someone else can't.
Re: styling - this is an issue that has particular meaning to me(my profile explains why), so excuse me if I rattle on a little.
There are 2 main issues here I think: firstly, the urge a kit car manufacturer has to do everything themselves, and secondly, the emphasis placed on engineering in a kitcar project.
We all know what it feels like to start something new and challenging. There's nothing you can't do, and nothing in the world to stop you. I can't think of anything this could be more true of, than getting to create your own car. I mean, just imagine! I think this is what causes a lot of kitcar companies to be started in the first place. But it can also be why there are some cars in the marketplace now that are a bit of an acquired taste. The belief that the shape you have in your mind, will be the sexiest thing since a a jelly truck crashed into a strip club, may not bear out in the cold light of the marketplace. If you desperately want that unique car that you can't get anywhere else, then build it. It's not that hard in the grand scheme of things. But if you expect other people to love it and want to throw their hard-earned at it, you may be disappointed. One of the first things I learnt about commercial design was, "be prepared to design things you don't like". Your tastes come second, the tastes of your customers come first. There are a lot of cars on sale that are the pride and joy of their creator, which barely anyone else wants. We don't need any more.
When I talk about the emphasis on engineering as a bad thing, I don't mean to say that engineering is bad. Engineering is bloody great!
What I am talking about is the fact that a lot of kitcars are conceived by engineers, who look at engineering aspects very closely when considering a kit for themselves. When they think of what would make someone want to buy a kit, they naturally look to their own experience. As such, we end up with lots of cars that engineers would kill to own, but the rest of us aren't that fussed about.
There is a perfect example of this in the Motoring News forum, when PH announced a new British supercar under development, from 3 ex-F1 aerodynamicists. Despite it being a little challenged in the looks department, they were expecting to flog 50 of these at 300k each. It makes interesting reading: the company themselves posted in the thread, and everyone who commented said the same thing: ugly. The answer: "But it's got the most front downforce of any car in its class, and we think this is very important to the car's success." Success dynamically perhaps, but not in the marketplace. People looking to spend that kind of money on a car don't spend it on something that looks like a catfish that swallowed a plate. Downforce or no downforce!
The point I'm making is, a commercially successful product is successful because there is talented input from lots of different areas. Styling, engineering, image, brand - they all contribute to a buying decision. If you don't know much about one of these, then sit down and learn, buy in the know-how, or save your money and don't do it. There's nowt so queer as customers, believe me. If you're worried about cost, then think of the cost of not investing in getting it right to start with, and not having the funds to fix it later on - something the producers of the FBS Census learned all too well. Besides you may be surprised, there's some good designers around for less than you may think. There's at least 2 of us, right Italo?
I hope no-one takes offence at what I've written above, but I'm just a bit sick of seeing so many brilliant pieces of engineering rolling around under yet another Seven or Cobra shell, or some hideous concoction that doesn't sell and disappears soon after. There are a couple of very notable exceptions - GTM, Phantom etc - but there could so easily be so many more!
I think that kitcars sell and survive because they aren't mainstream motors, rather than in spite of it. The main reason small businesses survive, in the face of large corporations, is because there are things that they can do that the big boys can't, and they can do it faster and cheaper too. There are vehicle niches that simply aren't worth Ford or GM's time, which could result in some healthy sales for a low volume manufacturer willing to market something. Dutton, for example, has been going for years, previously making the 'staple diet' kits, and now surviving in the niche of amphibious vehicles. There are people out there who need these kind of vehicles, but, it seems, not enough for a large manufacturer to cater for them. It doesn't mean someone else can't.
Re: styling - this is an issue that has particular meaning to me(my profile explains why), so excuse me if I rattle on a little.
There are 2 main issues here I think: firstly, the urge a kit car manufacturer has to do everything themselves, and secondly, the emphasis placed on engineering in a kitcar project. We all know what it feels like to start something new and challenging. There's nothing you can't do, and nothing in the world to stop you. I can't think of anything this could be more true of, than getting to create your own car. I mean, just imagine!
I think this is what causes a lot of kitcar companies to be started in the first place. But it can also be why there are some cars in the marketplace now that are a bit of an acquired taste. The belief that the shape you have in your mind, will be the sexiest thing since a a jelly truck crashed into a strip club, may not bear out in the cold light of the marketplace. If you desperately want that unique car that you can't get anywhere else, then build it. It's not that hard in the grand scheme of things. But if you expect other people to love it and want to throw their hard-earned at it, you may be disappointed. One of the first things I learnt about commercial design was, "be prepared to design things you don't like". Your tastes come second, the tastes of your customers come first. There are a lot of cars on sale that are the pride and joy of their creator, which barely anyone else wants. We don't need any more. When I talk about the emphasis on engineering as a bad thing, I don't mean to say that engineering is bad. Engineering is bloody great!
What I am talking about is the fact that a lot of kitcars are conceived by engineers, who look at engineering aspects very closely when considering a kit for themselves. When they think of what would make someone want to buy a kit, they naturally look to their own experience. As such, we end up with lots of cars that engineers would kill to own, but the rest of us aren't that fussed about. There is a perfect example of this in the Motoring News forum, when PH announced a new British supercar under development, from 3 ex-F1 aerodynamicists. Despite it being a little challenged in the looks department, they were expecting to flog 50 of these at 300k each. It makes interesting reading: the company themselves posted in the thread, and everyone who commented said the same thing: ugly. The answer: "But it's got the most front downforce of any car in its class, and we think this is very important to the car's success." Success dynamically perhaps, but not in the marketplace. People looking to spend that kind of money on a car don't spend it on something that looks like a catfish that swallowed a plate. Downforce or no downforce!
The point I'm making is, a commercially successful product is successful because there is talented input from lots of different areas. Styling, engineering, image, brand - they all contribute to a buying decision. If you don't know much about one of these, then sit down and learn, buy in the know-how, or save your money and don't do it. There's nowt so queer as customers, believe me. If you're worried about cost, then think of the cost of not investing in getting it right to start with, and not having the funds to fix it later on - something the producers of the FBS Census learned all too well. Besides you may be surprised, there's some good designers around for less than you may think. There's at least 2 of us, right Italo?
I hope no-one takes offence at what I've written above, but I'm just a bit sick of seeing so many brilliant pieces of engineering rolling around under yet another Seven or Cobra shell, or some hideous concoction that doesn't sell and disappears soon after. There are a couple of very notable exceptions - GTM, Phantom etc - but there could so easily be so many more!
It has to remembered that the chassis is still the most cost efective way of producing a basis to hang the suspension and engine off the car , mono's - because of their inherant complexity are expensive to build (Labour costs). just look at the Elite , Midas etc . fantastic cars but people baulked at the price thinking they were expensive , if they looked further they saw why . Even now they are still regarded very highly .
D-Angle
I always look forward to your comments and agree with your point view, butI would like to see more designers take up the challenge to show their work, using as a parameter exhisting and available kit car chassis to keep development costs low.
II think designers should do their part and show what could be done with exhisting kitcars, helping the kit industry to look forward and not backwards.
Real life concepts that could be built, with a reasonable cost by a small kit manufacture and bult by the enthusiast.
Show your renderings here, so that all can see and give constructive critisism, we all need it to improve, and explain our points of view and why we did a certain design.
The designers should take this as a fun challenge........Justin and all the others, show us some of your ideas you certainly have in your drawer waiting to be seen.
Looking forward to them
Italo
I always look forward to your comments and agree with your point view, butI would like to see more designers take up the challenge to show their work, using as a parameter exhisting and available kit car chassis to keep development costs low.
II think designers should do their part and show what could be done with exhisting kitcars, helping the kit industry to look forward and not backwards.
Real life concepts that could be built, with a reasonable cost by a small kit manufacture and bult by the enthusiast.
Show your renderings here, so that all can see and give constructive critisism, we all need it to improve, and explain our points of view and why we did a certain design.
The designers should take this as a fun challenge........Justin and all the others, show us some of your ideas you certainly have in your drawer waiting to be seen.
Looking forward to them
Italo
re: the decline of mainstream RWD donors, I'm very surprised that the BMW E30 3-series isn't utilised more often (or even the E36). I mean, these are highly reliable cars that are found without faults below £1k in the classifieds, yet feature the last popular (since the Sierra) drivetrain with RWD. The only kits I can think of with this as a basis are the Hawk AC Ace replica and the WAM Aston Martin DB3S replica.
Having said that, I have a feeling the more popular 4WD cars will start coming into play. I wouldn't count out Subarus as they get older, and there's a Ferrari 360 Modena replica based on Peugoet bits coming onto the market soon featuring 4WD basically taken from front-engined, transversely-mounted platforms, reversed. I wouldn't put the GM RWD platforms - Carlton & Omega - past being used as donors either.
And what about the MG TF/F? So far as a compact ME/RWD package goes, it's on a plate.
Having said that, I have a feeling the more popular 4WD cars will start coming into play. I wouldn't count out Subarus as they get older, and there's a Ferrari 360 Modena replica based on Peugoet bits coming onto the market soon featuring 4WD basically taken from front-engined, transversely-mounted platforms, reversed. I wouldn't put the GM RWD platforms - Carlton & Omega - past being used as donors either.
And what about the MG TF/F? So far as a compact ME/RWD package goes, it's on a plate.
fuoriserie said:
Show your renderings here, so that all can see and give constructive critisism, we all need it to improve, and explain our points of view and why we did a certain design.
The designers should take this as a fun challenge........Justin and all the others, show us some of your ideas you certainly have in your drawer waiting to be seen.
Excellent idea Italo, I think I'll do that. I have a few things I can pull out of the drawer that need a little polishing. I've been working on an idea for a modern sports car body to fit a Locost chassis, Caterham 21 style, which I could get up to a developed stage fairly easily. Last time I mentioned it to someone, they tried to snatch my hand off to produce it, so it could be worth my time...
By the way, the £300,000 car I was referring to in my last post can be found here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=142041 (the thread with the manufacturer's comments)
and here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=57&t=178470
>> Edited by D-Angle on Saturday 14th May 02:48
Twincam16 said:
And what about the MG TF/F? So far as a compact ME/RWD package goes, it's on a plate.
Indeed.
My own car uses an MGF engine and box behind me. Having said that there's no surprises there since Rover's engineers allegedly visited GTM (as did Lotus) to see the fitting of the 'K' in the rear of the K3 Rossa derivative.
Wishbone length can be an issue in transverse setups since they can't extend over the gearbox as in the traditional longditudinal engine setup.
A friend of mine is building a Mini Pick-up with a rear mounted BDA engine for which he has cast his own crankcase/gearbox case in what I would call a 'motorcycle engine' style with primary chains
(so that he can mount the wishbone inboard enough to lose some camber change). He's also installed an AP clutch with Jordan F1 gearset too, but that's a different story..... no spell checker to day sorry
because is never stopes at 50kg once you have acepted that weight ther will be somthing else. I acept that you are bulding a road car and not a racing car. But the perfomance of a 7 or 7 like car comes from its weight and I beleve that this is one of the things that has made the designe last so well
added to the fact that if the dona engins are more poweful it stands to reason that the dona car it came from is also faseter and so to give you the perfomance benifit over the dona car the kit still has to be the same % lighter than the original dona car.
the 21 being a good example i.e. more weight added made a slowere car so why boter and the stounding market sucses of this car showes a numer agree
I have seen the Robin Hood ally thing however I was not a whwere that is was not avaloble for sale yet. the only reson that I sugest this aproch is that as tecknology if it can be done at a resnoble price then you can hopefuly build a car that will still maintain a low weight and hence perfomance
I understand this however I feal that the kit car industry would benifit from more inervation less reheating.
Ex-biker said:
So why will an extra 50kgs matter?
because is never stopes at 50kg once you have acepted that weight ther will be somthing else. I acept that you are bulding a road car and not a racing car. But the perfomance of a 7 or 7 like car comes from its weight and I beleve that this is one of the things that has made the designe last so well
added to the fact that if the dona engins are more poweful it stands to reason that the dona car it came from is also faseter and so to give you the perfomance benifit over the dona car the kit still has to be the same % lighter than the original dona car.
the 21 being a good example i.e. more weight added made a slowere car so why boter and the stounding market sucses of this car showes a numer agree
Ex-biker said:
Robin Hood have tried ally panelling riveted to form a monocoque. It looks like it coulds work quite well.
GTM use a monocoque on the Libra.
I have seen the Robin Hood ally thing however I was not a whwere that is was not avaloble for sale yet. the only reson that I sugest this aproch is that as tecknology if it can be done at a resnoble price then you can hopefuly build a car that will still maintain a low weight and hence perfomance
Ex-biker said:
The idea of the drawing is to create an alternative to the basic '7' shape, not to redesign it and make a new car.
I understand this however I feal that the kit car industry would benifit from more inervation less reheating.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff