MEV SONIC7 RIP OFF
Discussion
Very interesting thread over on
http://www.exocars.net/showthread.php?t=7121&p...
I should be flattered, a guy buys a Sonic7 kit, re shapes the body, uses the chassis and offers it for sale at the SEMA show as an Atom beater.
He has not driven it yet as the wheels catch on the body! Clever guys.
http://www.exocars.net/showthread.php?t=7121&p...
I should be flattered, a guy buys a Sonic7 kit, re shapes the body, uses the chassis and offers it for sale at the SEMA show as an Atom beater.
He has not driven it yet as the wheels catch on the body! Clever guys.
You are not alone. There has been a thread running on the Ultima forum where a bunch of Red Neck clowns build a GTR and try to market it as the new US developed Kurkthrustermaxximus (or some such name)
No mention of Ultima Sports anywhere on there site. A few owners went into the video links and posted one or two comments putting things right!
They never even bothered to change the shape!
No mention of Ultima Sports anywhere on there site. A few owners went into the video links and posted one or two comments putting things right!
They never even bothered to change the shape!
Why don't you play them at their game and copy their bodywork design.
Apart from that stupid front wing it looks pretty cool.
I bet you could get it to market a darn sight faster than they could, as they are spending their time on fancy videos.
Interesting turnabout when kit cars get copied......... :-)
Apart from that stupid front wing it looks pretty cool.
I bet you could get it to market a darn sight faster than they could, as they are spending their time on fancy videos.
Interesting turnabout when kit cars get copied......... :-)
Nigel said:
Just watched the video on You-Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsndrAAtuA0
I wouldn't say the chassis looks familiar more like IDENTICAL
Mind you they do say to be copied is the greatest form of flattery :shhead:
nigel
(from exocars.net)I wouldn't say the chassis looks familiar more like IDENTICAL
Mind you they do say to be copied is the greatest form of flattery :shhead:
nigel
Has to be said they do look mighty similar... As I've said, steering column has switched sides but other than that .....
http://www.qdoscars.co.uk/sonic half way down there's the MEV chassis from a couple of years ago
Have a look at MEV's original chassis.
So to my mind you're paying an AWFUL LOT MORE for a body kit. As There's been so much reference to the Atom which frankly is nothing like the car (but hey it gets people finding the Vortex website on a web search, neat sales trick that and Vortex have done a superb job on the sales pitch) maybe someone might also do a comparison on the MEV Sonic Seven comparing the prices of the Vortex F1 and mentioning the importance of the chassis in the design and that the bodywork is simply cosmetic. Hence the rise of exo cars lately such as our own Deronda Type F which we'd happily compare to the Atom and do when ever we're out on the track with one. See the engine is in the right place in the Deronda and that's far more F1
Interesting looking shapes on the Vortex but I'd save my money and put some really nice finishing touches to a Sonic 7 I think it's a really nice looking machine and I'd definitely have one if I was in that market and just do a few personal touches to the ancillaries, there's some smart looking MEVs out there just look at RTR's, or if I wanted to pay the money for a track car I'd go for the Deronda
To see someone's car and then make something else that looks similar is flattery. But to take a car and copy it exactly and dress it up as your own contender for another great car's glory well....
No, we like to compare things in the flesh on real tarmac in the real world in a fair race. But hey some folk like to be all about dressing up and bling which is fine if you're in show biz, or American Football
To be fair though Stuart did say quite some time ago in another thread here on PH he'd supply a chassis for people to do a different body on it in a 'Chassis for a Buck' with some of Italo Sciacca's inspirations and folk did join in with some ideas. But hey for our sins we play cricket not baseball and credit is deserved where credit is due.
Edited by qdos on Tuesday 9th November 04:39
Good point Qdos, I had not forgotten the "BUCK" idea. Maybe I did not make it clear that the offer was for people to do their own one off design, not for a manufacturer to use as a means of cutting down his development time and costs.
Sadly the man now keeps posting pictures on various forums of a Sonic being assembled incorrectly. He has the left and right suspension mixed up at both ends. Must be the LHD bit that is confusing him! Hillarious. He will not get any help from our tech help line, that's for sure. Not keen on the wide front.
Sadly the man now keeps posting pictures on various forums of a Sonic being assembled incorrectly. He has the left and right suspension mixed up at both ends. Must be the LHD bit that is confusing him! Hillarious. He will not get any help from our tech help line, that's for sure. Not keen on the wide front.
stig mills said:
Good point Qdos, I had not forgotten the "BUCK" idea. Maybe I did not make it clear that the offer was for people to do their own one off design, not for a manufacturer to use as a means of cutting down his development time and costs.
I'm no cricket fan but I do think if someone's copying your chassis they should at least acknowledge the fact and come to some form of agreement over using it in their product. I think what I'd be tempted to do is to take them on and produce a machine that will out pace their rendition which I think you should be able to do quite easily given they appear to not be as good at the engineering as they are at the showy sales talk.Just been through the thread and attendant links. Incredible..... so a central part of their defence quoting your offer of a buck kit on another forum (!) LOL doesn't seem appropriate, is there one for words fail me?.... And anyway, the discussion was about rebodying an existing chassis, and not as an offer to piggyback off your engineering & development effort; maybe they thought it was open source 'cos it was on the interweb...
The Ultima / Macca comparison doesn't hold water either as the F1 chassis has nothing to do with the Ultima...(IIRC it was an engine/drivetrain mule.) Also, Ultima hardly suffered by the association - not that I'm suggesting MEV will, but as a startup right they don't have a reputation either way.
Lord knows I'm an advocate of quality exterior and interior design input, and though I see it as integral to the whole (rather than an optional afterthought), it shouldn't be at the expense doing the engineering. Designers and engineers typically get on like cats and dogs, but surely Mr. Trinh (their designer) remembers a few names from his time at Ford & Mazda?
The styling of the Vortex is a little overwrought for me, but the standard of finish evident in the photos can't be argued with. But the chassis is clearly not up to the same standard - something that could have been communicated a little better: if the chassis were a package buck mule, why was it on display at SEMA at all? (And how hard is it to 'package' the suspension on an open wheeler, really?) And how is torsional rigidity at all relevant if it wasn't being used for more that packaging.
Take all of that in connection with the apparent lack of communication I don't see why one wouldn't assume the worst.
Rest assured that they have far more to lose. As a potential MEV customer, would I be more influenced by these jokers or the (numerous) existing owners? On the flipside, reading this I'd want to know why so much of the Vortex's initial engineering was based on a much cheaper kit; and if the stand and SEMA is anything to go by, the apparent premium placed on aethestics over engineering has gotta be a concern.
The Ultima / Macca comparison doesn't hold water either as the F1 chassis has nothing to do with the Ultima...(IIRC it was an engine/drivetrain mule.) Also, Ultima hardly suffered by the association - not that I'm suggesting MEV will, but as a startup right they don't have a reputation either way.
Lord knows I'm an advocate of quality exterior and interior design input, and though I see it as integral to the whole (rather than an optional afterthought), it shouldn't be at the expense doing the engineering. Designers and engineers typically get on like cats and dogs, but surely Mr. Trinh (their designer) remembers a few names from his time at Ford & Mazda?
The styling of the Vortex is a little overwrought for me, but the standard of finish evident in the photos can't be argued with. But the chassis is clearly not up to the same standard - something that could have been communicated a little better: if the chassis were a package buck mule, why was it on display at SEMA at all? (And how hard is it to 'package' the suspension on an open wheeler, really?) And how is torsional rigidity at all relevant if it wasn't being used for more that packaging.
Take all of that in connection with the apparent lack of communication I don't see why one wouldn't assume the worst.
Rest assured that they have far more to lose. As a potential MEV customer, would I be more influenced by these jokers or the (numerous) existing owners? On the flipside, reading this I'd want to know why so much of the Vortex's initial engineering was based on a much cheaper kit; and if the stand and SEMA is anything to go by, the apparent premium placed on aethestics over engineering has gotta be a concern.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff