Friendly chat re. Future kit car design in a commercial co..
Discussion
As the original thread has declined into a slagging match and there's several people who would like to continue exchanging ideas and thoughts on the topic rather than discuss personalities I thought I'd start a new thread over here with the sole purpose of discussing the topic.
So Ladies and Gents let's continue civilised discussion here.....
First off picking up on a reasonable and valid question which is pretty fundamental. Donor vehicles.
There's very few donor vehicles available today to build what was a traditional sports car with front mounted engines and rear wheel drive. This is because mass production and cost cutting to try and maximise profits for the Original vehicles production lines has meant that the majority of modern vehicles now use transverse engine/gearbox units with a McPherson strut suspension set up that can be quickly plugged into a monocoque body/chassis unit on a production line with the main focus on efficient assembly at a factory.
Two cars spring to mind as donor vehicles which are the Mazda MX5/Miata and the BMW 3 Series these are both front engined and rear wheel drive and found in good numbers though there's few kit cars using these units as donors.
Secondly transposing FWD engines to fit a RWD gearbox set up. Ford Zetec Duratec units are the most obvious which are generally mounted to Ford Type 9 gearboxes which were found in the mass produced Ford range up to and including the Sierra Not unusually the Vauxhall 16v engine unit was also quite popular to mount on this set up too but the gearbox and rear differentials have become a rare commodity nowadays but it was a popular set up throughout the 1990s and early part of the 2000s
Wheel hub units can also be an item to consider too as the McPherson strut set up does not lend itself to traditional sports car designs where double wishbones are the preference. In short there's just these two donors that really fit the bill for a single donor kit. So the question is what to do with the now traditional set up of FWD transverse McPherson layout that is very common?
PLEASE if you can not discuss in a civil and polite manner perhaps you should consider staying quiet or another thread and bear in mind the rules given here http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
.... So Ladies and Gents let's continue the chatting :-
So Ladies and Gents let's continue civilised discussion here.....
First off picking up on a reasonable and valid question which is pretty fundamental. Donor vehicles.
There's very few donor vehicles available today to build what was a traditional sports car with front mounted engines and rear wheel drive. This is because mass production and cost cutting to try and maximise profits for the Original vehicles production lines has meant that the majority of modern vehicles now use transverse engine/gearbox units with a McPherson strut suspension set up that can be quickly plugged into a monocoque body/chassis unit on a production line with the main focus on efficient assembly at a factory.
Two cars spring to mind as donor vehicles which are the Mazda MX5/Miata and the BMW 3 Series these are both front engined and rear wheel drive and found in good numbers though there's few kit cars using these units as donors.
Secondly transposing FWD engines to fit a RWD gearbox set up. Ford Zetec Duratec units are the most obvious which are generally mounted to Ford Type 9 gearboxes which were found in the mass produced Ford range up to and including the Sierra Not unusually the Vauxhall 16v engine unit was also quite popular to mount on this set up too but the gearbox and rear differentials have become a rare commodity nowadays but it was a popular set up throughout the 1990s and early part of the 2000s
Wheel hub units can also be an item to consider too as the McPherson strut set up does not lend itself to traditional sports car designs where double wishbones are the preference. In short there's just these two donors that really fit the bill for a single donor kit. So the question is what to do with the now traditional set up of FWD transverse McPherson layout that is very common?
PLEASE if you can not discuss in a civil and polite manner perhaps you should consider staying quiet or another thread and bear in mind the rules given here http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
.... So Ladies and Gents let's continue the chatting :-
Well, I think the starting point of any kit car design ( in a commercial context) would be to decide what sort of car one wanted to produce. Obviously the majority of kit cars have performance as a main objective, but there are other things to aim for. For instance, some people are fascinated with enclosed tricycles, especially in a commuter, city parking context.
Whatever the puprose of the vehicle, I think the next step would be to decide its overall mechanical layout, and then decide which production vehicle would best serve as the donor for the main mechanical components. Obviously the required parts could be bought separately, brand new, but the difference in cost to the project is going to be considerable, and unless the kit was to be built in large quantities it would be unlikely that a no-donor car would be a commercial success.
Choosing a donor is an interesting and potentially tricky process. If one is doing the sensible thing, and tryong to keep the costs down, then donor choice is quite involved. One will be looking to find a donor that can provide as many parts as possible. Everything that the donor does NOT provide will have to be bought new, and will add to the cost. With some parts, for instance brakes, new is good, but we need to keep an eye on those costs. The other thing one will be considering is whether those parts require to be modified to work in the new car. Moidifications, especially if the manufacturer sets up to carry them out as part of the service he provides, are probably cheaper than simply buying a new part, but if one donor needs modification than another then it's worth taking that into consideration.
A good example would be if one was planning a car based on a Mondeo. The Mk1/2 Mondeo uses a Zetec engine, and the Mk 3 uses the Duratec. The Duratec is generally reckoned to be the better engine. However, the Zetec will bolt straight to a type 9 box but the Duratec will need a new bellhousing. Also the (older Mondeos have less complex electrics and it is much easier to use the original ECU in the new kit than it would be to use the newer version (if that were possible at all).
One major problem with donor selection is getting information about the actual parts contained. Haynes manuals don't provide the sort of information that a kit manufacturer needs, the OEM manuals are usually better because they are more detailed and have line drawings rather than photos. Most OEM manuals can be bought in CD/DVD form from ebay for a fiver or less, but are often difficult to load onto a computer because of the dubious provenance.
Someties the only way is to get an example of the donor car you have in mind and take it to bits. I've done this several times! I'll write some more later when I have time.
Whatever the puprose of the vehicle, I think the next step would be to decide its overall mechanical layout, and then decide which production vehicle would best serve as the donor for the main mechanical components. Obviously the required parts could be bought separately, brand new, but the difference in cost to the project is going to be considerable, and unless the kit was to be built in large quantities it would be unlikely that a no-donor car would be a commercial success.
Choosing a donor is an interesting and potentially tricky process. If one is doing the sensible thing, and tryong to keep the costs down, then donor choice is quite involved. One will be looking to find a donor that can provide as many parts as possible. Everything that the donor does NOT provide will have to be bought new, and will add to the cost. With some parts, for instance brakes, new is good, but we need to keep an eye on those costs. The other thing one will be considering is whether those parts require to be modified to work in the new car. Moidifications, especially if the manufacturer sets up to carry them out as part of the service he provides, are probably cheaper than simply buying a new part, but if one donor needs modification than another then it's worth taking that into consideration.
A good example would be if one was planning a car based on a Mondeo. The Mk1/2 Mondeo uses a Zetec engine, and the Mk 3 uses the Duratec. The Duratec is generally reckoned to be the better engine. However, the Zetec will bolt straight to a type 9 box but the Duratec will need a new bellhousing. Also the (older Mondeos have less complex electrics and it is much easier to use the original ECU in the new kit than it would be to use the newer version (if that were possible at all).
One major problem with donor selection is getting information about the actual parts contained. Haynes manuals don't provide the sort of information that a kit manufacturer needs, the OEM manuals are usually better because they are more detailed and have line drawings rather than photos. Most OEM manuals can be bought in CD/DVD form from ebay for a fiver or less, but are often difficult to load onto a computer because of the dubious provenance.
Someties the only way is to get an example of the donor car you have in mind and take it to bits. I've done this several times! I'll write some more later when I have time.
choice of donor vehicle can be very difficult depeding on what you are aiming for at the end,my murt uses lots of parts from subaru impreza with cheap donors now available back to 93 for example but that is because i love my scoobies!
the old kit car favourite sierra is i presume very hard to find nowadays so mx5 old 3 series are the easiest for front engine rear wheel drive but my choosing that option surely you are limiting your donor choices unless that is your overall plan of rear wheel front engine?
martin
ps scoobies can be converted to rwd with most having 40f 60 r in classic form
the old kit car favourite sierra is i presume very hard to find nowadays so mx5 old 3 series are the easiest for front engine rear wheel drive but my choosing that option surely you are limiting your donor choices unless that is your overall plan of rear wheel front engine?
martin
ps scoobies can be converted to rwd with most having 40f 60 r in classic form
I'm not familiar enough with Subarus etc to know how easy it would be to dispense with the original struts, which with a low sportscar design you would probably want to do. The problem with the struts is often not the struts themselves, but designing a chassis to cope with them, as they often put the upper strut mounting in an inconvenient place for a spaceframe.
There's several details in 'SC's comments with which I disagree and it's fine for people to disagree, that is indeed a healthy thing to do and is the point of debate. To listen to other people's opinions gives us opportunities to refine and improve things, or different aspects to consider.
We have jumped to a number of assumptions right at the beginning of things here and 'SC' has raised one of those quite rightly. That is, what type of vehicle it is that we are airing our opinions on?
Generally speaking Kit Cars are niche vehicles that fulfil the wants of their drivers which were not found in the main stream "off the forecourt" (big concrete shelf) market. To some this is the desire for a performance car, to some it's the desire to be different, other's it may be to recycle a particular vehicle and there's also a fair number who just like to build things themselves. How ever you look at it we're talking about a niche.
I think we'd all agree that it's very sad how the British car industry has as good as vanished these days and indeed it's pretty much the case for any nation, since the car manufacturers are now multinational conglomerates who generally have no loyalty to their country with the possible exceptions of the Italians and the Americans but then that's a whole different discussion. The reason for the disappearance of the many hundreds of car manufacturers is basically a commercial one and as such the same thing will and does happen to kit cars. If you make a success of it you grow and grow till you get swallowed up and vanish into a big conglommerate who takes you away from your origins. This has happened time and time again and is happening today to several of our Kit Car manufacturers who've moved on to be great British marques which sadly not uncommonly then disapper, though might just survive as a badge.
So I think when we say commercial I think (in my opinion) we're talking about paying it's way as opposed to simply being a rather serious hobby.
So if we're looking at this, and we are as that was one of the words used in the title of the topic, then we need to put away our own personal desires for what we want ourslves and listen to other people's opinions.
I am involved in several vehicles and I have been in vehicles which died too. The one's that died died due to clashes of opinions. The others survive because those that are involved in them listen to one another and take people's opinions into consideration. Whether or not we make a commercial success of them is dubious but I can absoloutely assure people that if you blindly ignore people's opinions you don't make a commercial success. At the end of the day you've got someone who is only going to put their hand in their pocket if they happen to agree with something you've made. They are called customers and they can be a very fickle lot the easiest way to win them is to build what they want, and the majority just want something to get you from A to B in comfort and cheaply and that is NOT a kit car. So we're on a crash course for commercial disaster if we analyse things to the nth degree and we need to realise that we're looking at compromises somewhere along the lines if we concentrate on the word commercial.
Two good examples might be Bugatti and Bently both originally fine examples of niche vehicles. Bugatti got it wrong whilst Bently have got it right but which is the better car? Well surely it's the Bently as they now make money and that's a commercial success isn't it? Unless you haven't noticed I'll also mention that Messers Bugatti and Bently have no word in the matter as both are long dead. Or is there a bigger picture and I think there is and it's always worth looking at the bigger picture if you want to survive.
We have jumped to a number of assumptions right at the beginning of things here and 'SC' has raised one of those quite rightly. That is, what type of vehicle it is that we are airing our opinions on?
Generally speaking Kit Cars are niche vehicles that fulfil the wants of their drivers which were not found in the main stream "off the forecourt" (big concrete shelf) market. To some this is the desire for a performance car, to some it's the desire to be different, other's it may be to recycle a particular vehicle and there's also a fair number who just like to build things themselves. How ever you look at it we're talking about a niche.
I think we'd all agree that it's very sad how the British car industry has as good as vanished these days and indeed it's pretty much the case for any nation, since the car manufacturers are now multinational conglomerates who generally have no loyalty to their country with the possible exceptions of the Italians and the Americans but then that's a whole different discussion. The reason for the disappearance of the many hundreds of car manufacturers is basically a commercial one and as such the same thing will and does happen to kit cars. If you make a success of it you grow and grow till you get swallowed up and vanish into a big conglommerate who takes you away from your origins. This has happened time and time again and is happening today to several of our Kit Car manufacturers who've moved on to be great British marques which sadly not uncommonly then disapper, though might just survive as a badge.
So I think when we say commercial I think (in my opinion) we're talking about paying it's way as opposed to simply being a rather serious hobby.
So if we're looking at this, and we are as that was one of the words used in the title of the topic, then we need to put away our own personal desires for what we want ourslves and listen to other people's opinions.
I am involved in several vehicles and I have been in vehicles which died too. The one's that died died due to clashes of opinions. The others survive because those that are involved in them listen to one another and take people's opinions into consideration. Whether or not we make a commercial success of them is dubious but I can absoloutely assure people that if you blindly ignore people's opinions you don't make a commercial success. At the end of the day you've got someone who is only going to put their hand in their pocket if they happen to agree with something you've made. They are called customers and they can be a very fickle lot the easiest way to win them is to build what they want, and the majority just want something to get you from A to B in comfort and cheaply and that is NOT a kit car. So we're on a crash course for commercial disaster if we analyse things to the nth degree and we need to realise that we're looking at compromises somewhere along the lines if we concentrate on the word commercial.
Two good examples might be Bugatti and Bently both originally fine examples of niche vehicles. Bugatti got it wrong whilst Bently have got it right but which is the better car? Well surely it's the Bently as they now make money and that's a commercial success isn't it? Unless you haven't noticed I'll also mention that Messers Bugatti and Bently have no word in the matter as both are long dead. Or is there a bigger picture and I think there is and it's always worth looking at the bigger picture if you want to survive.
p1doc said:
choice of donor vehicle can be very difficult depeding on what you are aiming for at the end,my murt uses lots of parts from subaru impreza with cheap donors now available back to 93 for example but that is because i love my scoobies!
the old kit car favourite sierra is i presume very hard to find nowadays so mx5 old 3 series are the easiest for front engine rear wheel drive but my choosing that option surely you are limiting your donor choices unless that is your overall plan of rear wheel front engine?
martin
ps scoobies can be converted to rwd with most having 40f 60 r in classic form
Absolutely right there 'P1' and well mentioned there are indeed plenty of Japanese cars to consider other than the MX5 there's Nissans too and plenty of Scoobies which are used in the Murtaya which went through a bad patch recently and is a crying shame as that could well be a Great Car and possibly become Britain's TVR or Marcos or ummm err they went tits up too woopsthe old kit car favourite sierra is i presume very hard to find nowadays so mx5 old 3 series are the easiest for front engine rear wheel drive but my choosing that option surely you are limiting your donor choices unless that is your overall plan of rear wheel front engine?
martin
ps scoobies can be converted to rwd with most having 40f 60 r in classic form
Anyways yep got to keep looking around and seeing what is happening
qdos said:
There's several details in 'SC's comments with which I disagree and it's fine for people to disagree, that is indeed a healthy thing to do and is the point of debate. To listen to other people's opinions gives us opportunities to refine and improve things, or different aspects to consider.
I'm always very happy for people to disagree with things I've said. Debate is a healthy thing.Sometimes it's good to make it clear what exactly is meant by terms and expressions that people are using in any particular context. When I started the original thread what I meant by commercial is a kit car manufacturing project that will, overall, make money as opposed to lose it. A self-sustaining project, in other words. Some projects will cost a lot to develop (an Ulitima competitor, for instance). Other projects can be a good deal less expensive, for instance one might choose to make the car from a published design, such as the Haynes Roadster, and design one's own simple 7esque bodywork. A project like that would cost little more than the cost of a single car, and the moulds needed. To sum up, I used the phrase commercial context to hopefully rule out suggestions that, although attractive ideas in themselves, had virtually no hope of making money for the developer (I don't want to suggest anything in case it upsets anyone
)qdos said:
We have jumped to a number of assumptions right at the beginning of things here...
The other major assumption seems to be that we are thinking in terms of a (single) donor vehicle instead of considering the increasingly common option of selecting suitable donor components from several sources?Sam_68 said:
qdos said:
We have jumped to a number of assumptions right at the beginning of things here...
The other major assumption seems to be that we are thinking in terms of a (single) donor vehicle instead of considering the increasingly common option of selecting suitable donor components from several sources?The reasons for a single donor are really all about registration, and the effect that has on how the kit would sell.
Sourcing components from more than one existing car will give greater freedom of design, and the possibility of better cost/performance ratio.
So as a commercial consideration, what's more important; the price/performance or lack of a Q plate? I'm not sure the stigma of a Q plate is as bad as it used to be, and would go down the multiple donor route if it was the way to a better car for the same money. Although I can see that others may see it differently.
Sourcing components from more than one existing car will give greater freedom of design, and the possibility of better cost/performance ratio.
So as a commercial consideration, what's more important; the price/performance or lack of a Q plate? I'm not sure the stigma of a Q plate is as bad as it used to be, and would go down the multiple donor route if it was the way to a better car for the same money. Although I can see that others may see it differently.
Are we thinking here mainly about motorcycle engined cars (which definitely need different donors ) or do people have something else in mind? The reason I ask is that it doesn't crop up a lot in kit cars constructed from second hand donors that one item is sourced here and another there, in the way that it does with cars such as Lotus, Westfield and TVR.
The main donor items are usually going to be the engine and gearbox, and usually, it they are arranged longitudinally, the differential will be usable as well (witness the new crop of BMW and Mazda based cars). If transverse then the diff will be part of the gearbopx anyway. Such cars are usually constructed in such a way as to be able to use the donor steering column, and if suitable, the instruments, so that mainly leaves the suspension components, and there isn't an obvious donor for these about at the moment, so new parts or adapting the donor parts (or a combination) will usually be required anyway.
So unless it's a BEC I can't see the multiple donor thing cropping up much.
) or do people have something else in mind? The reason I ask is that it doesn't crop up a lot in kit cars constructed from second hand donors that one item is sourced here and another there, in the way that it does with cars such as Lotus, Westfield and TVR.The main donor items are usually going to be the engine and gearbox, and usually, it they are arranged longitudinally, the differential will be usable as well (witness the new crop of BMW and Mazda based cars). If transverse then the diff will be part of the gearbopx anyway. Such cars are usually constructed in such a way as to be able to use the donor steering column, and if suitable, the instruments, so that mainly leaves the suspension components, and there isn't an obvious donor for these about at the moment, so new parts or adapting the donor parts (or a combination) will usually be required anyway.
So unless it's a BEC I can't see the multiple donor thing cropping up much.
Edited by singlecoil on Friday 24th December 13:56
I've built cars based on single donor and cars that are not. Ironically the single had a Q Plate and the multi has a nice 1972 K plate. Nice because it means the road tax is zero and nothing to do with the snobbery attached to some plate numbers.
Personally I was very proud of the Q plate as it showed people I had built the car and I think it shows far more for the the person driving it than a so called personalised plate. It's only really the replica boys who seem to get so stuck up about Q plates.
Personally I was very proud of the Q plate as it showed people I had built the car and I think it shows far more for the the person driving it than a so called personalised plate. It's only really the replica boys who seem to get so stuck up about Q plates.
Funny thing the Q plate, isn't it? When it was first introduced, it was almost a badge of honour for kit car enthusiasts to say "I built this". But they've been really out of fashion - I would say you're right, qdos, I can understand replica owners wanting something else, but I can't see a lot of difference myself.
I speak as somebody who is about to go through the process in the next few months (hopefully) I can't get too excited about it either way. As my car is essentially a single donor kit, it would be nice to have an age related plate, but if I end up with a Q I can't say I would be too upset.
Q plates can have an impact on resale values, but again, probably only an issue for replicas.
I speak as somebody who is about to go through the process in the next few months (hopefully) I can't get too excited about it either way. As my car is essentially a single donor kit, it would be nice to have an age related plate, but if I end up with a Q I can't say I would be too upset.
Q plates can have an impact on resale values, but again, probably only an issue for replicas.
Does anyone have any thoughts about the place of CAD in kit car design?
I have an old version of TurboCad which I use for straightforward 2D stuff, but have wondered whether the amount of learning (and the time consumed whereby) makes going into the third dimension worthwhile. If so, which CAD program should I be looking at.I've experimented with Sketchup but have been reluctant to invest the time required because I don't know if it would be sufficiently advantageous over over methods of designing.
I have an old version of TurboCad which I use for straightforward 2D stuff, but have wondered whether the amount of learning (and the time consumed whereby) makes going into the third dimension worthwhile. If so, which CAD program should I be looking at.I've experimented with Sketchup but have been reluctant to invest the time required because I don't know if it would be sufficiently advantageous over over methods of designing.
Its necessary if you ever want to use modern production methods,
Spaceframe chassis sections cut with all the profiles on the end.
Moulds made from a CNC cut foam Buck.
Suspension, CNC uprights etc
Sketchup is a very good package, I think it would be good enough to test yourself to see whether you have the aptitude for a 3D CAD program, once you have mastered it any other package will not be too difficult as a lot of the principals are the same.
The best thing is you can learn Sketchup for practically nothing as its a free download etc.
The Trouble with sketchup is the industry, most people still want Autocad3D, Solidworks or Catia based information for production.
If you only going to build a handful of cars maybe you can do without it, if your ambitions are bigger then personally I think its worth either teaming up with someone who can do it or learn yourself, my only comment is I think its a bit like welding some have a gift for it.
Spaceframe chassis sections cut with all the profiles on the end.
Moulds made from a CNC cut foam Buck.
Suspension, CNC uprights etc
Sketchup is a very good package, I think it would be good enough to test yourself to see whether you have the aptitude for a 3D CAD program, once you have mastered it any other package will not be too difficult as a lot of the principals are the same.
The best thing is you can learn Sketchup for practically nothing as its a free download etc.
The Trouble with sketchup is the industry, most people still want Autocad3D, Solidworks or Catia based information for production.
If you only going to build a handful of cars maybe you can do without it, if your ambitions are bigger then personally I think its worth either teaming up with someone who can do it or learn yourself, my only comment is I think its a bit like welding some have a gift for it.
I've explored Cinema 4D and it's amazing what it can do, but at £739 for the base version—the Studio version is £3171!), you will need a very good reason to buy it. I couldn't justify the expense, but if your project is a commercial operation—a customer is paying for your services—it should be worthwhile. You should also be able to get the cost deducted from tax and the VAT refunded.
I contacted Maxon U.K. in 2008 and their service was excellent. They sent me a CD with the C4D Demo and several excellent tutorials. One movie '02_Modeling.mov' covers the basics and in one of the other movies, '03_HyperNURBS.mov,' the narrator creates a plane from a cube! As he says in the movie, with HyperNURBS, it's possible to create a car or just about anything else. If you've never seen it in action, it's amazing how much can be created so quickly.
I prefer the old-fashioned ways—sketching the design on paper and creating a model with plywood and filler. If nothing else, creating stuff on the computer is great fun, but if it remains as cold as it is currently, working at a computer will be preferable to freezing your bits off in the workshop!
http://www.maxonshop.com/uk
I contacted Maxon U.K. in 2008 and their service was excellent. They sent me a CD with the C4D Demo and several excellent tutorials. One movie '02_Modeling.mov' covers the basics and in one of the other movies, '03_HyperNURBS.mov,' the narrator creates a plane from a cube! As he says in the movie, with HyperNURBS, it's possible to create a car or just about anything else. If you've never seen it in action, it's amazing how much can be created so quickly.
I prefer the old-fashioned ways—sketching the design on paper and creating a model with plywood and filler. If nothing else, creating stuff on the computer is great fun, but if it remains as cold as it is currently, working at a computer will be preferable to freezing your bits off in the workshop!
http://www.maxonshop.com/uk
As for the computer 3d design stuff, the main industry standard for major companies is autodesk alias automotive. This is nothing like sketchup. It is more like rhino though, if any of you have used that as it models using nurbs. You need to do all of your drawings first though, including a detailed package drawing before you can make it in alias, learning the program is an absolute nightmare though, I'm slowly getting there, but it isn't easy. Once you have the model made you then import it to a rendering package like showcase where you can do movies and walkarounds and that.
I still think that sketch models and then final models are the best though. This is what we do at uni. The vehicle is designed on paper and sketch models are produced, then we make various detailed models for windtunnel testing ( if you want to) and make an alias model from you're package drawings and a 1/4 scale clay model all painted up ( this takes a long long time) For the final degree show.
As for kit cars to build, if you can fund a modern light fwd engine layout that was pretty narrow you could build a modern 3 wheeler light enough for an MSVA. A lot of fwd cars are a lot of fun and many people want a cheap, fun car that looks a bit different without the temptation of going too fast and killing themselves. I have spoken to a few older gentlemen that would love to build a kit car, but they are too fast, too low and too modern and they cannot afford a replica. This is actually the gap that the Lomax covered wonderfully, and there isn't anything that really repleced it when it went out of production.
So, can anyone think af a donor with a narrow engine that could be used in a fwd 3 wheeler layout that is also light enough to get through the MSVA?
I still think that sketch models and then final models are the best though. This is what we do at uni. The vehicle is designed on paper and sketch models are produced, then we make various detailed models for windtunnel testing ( if you want to) and make an alias model from you're package drawings and a 1/4 scale clay model all painted up ( this takes a long long time) For the final degree show.
As for kit cars to build, if you can fund a modern light fwd engine layout that was pretty narrow you could build a modern 3 wheeler light enough for an MSVA. A lot of fwd cars are a lot of fun and many people want a cheap, fun car that looks a bit different without the temptation of going too fast and killing themselves. I have spoken to a few older gentlemen that would love to build a kit car, but they are too fast, too low and too modern and they cannot afford a replica. This is actually the gap that the Lomax covered wonderfully, and there isn't anything that really repleced it when it went out of production.
So, can anyone think af a donor with a narrow engine that could be used in a fwd 3 wheeler layout that is also light enough to get through the MSVA?
Marketing
- emphasise the hobby, fun, individuality and (in the right cars) performance and track days.
- don't try to be a mini version of even the smallest mass make.
- complicated shut lines and features will cost you
- if your design is a two seater consider not having doors (not just sevens, look at the 595 Barchetta and the Byers CR90)
- do a reality check, bad styling will cost you sales and will make people assume all kinds of negative things about the whole design.
- Still plenty to choose from, BMW, Merc, Audi (4 or mid), Porsche (mid), Subaru (4 or mid), MX5, RX8, Jaguar. FWD units can be used as FWD or moved to a mid setup.
- Consider mix and match, for example replace struts with RX8 hubs.
- consider using the doors and the glass. The Ford RS200 used Sierra doors and windscreens but looks nothing like a Sierra. The Ginetta G32 used Fiesta doors and the Beauford used a mini body shell and doors but looks nothing like a Mini at all.
- you don't need to be the cheapest option, plenty of companies aren't but do OK.
- keep the design as simple as possible
- Consider no doors or using a mass produced door design
- Monocoques might be lighter and cheaper than spaceframes if designed properly. A design with no doors would really lend itself to this approach.
- An X braced ladder frame will be simple and cheap with only a small weight penalty and more space for doors and mechanicals. Plenty of Cobras use it and do pefectly well as did the BRA P anf J types and the NG range. A properly integrated tunnel will help with the bending issue.
- spaceframes could be shown off a lot more. Not only Exo skeleton designs but plenty of little track cars could make a feature of the chassis in the doors and the inside of the cockpit. There is no rule that they have to be painted black and covered in riveted on ally...
- plus two designs might be worth considering. The Quantum sold over 300 in the first nine years, that's circa 35 a year. They will still be a lot more individual and, if designed this way, more focused on handling, than any mass produced version. In fact the mass market contains very few 2+2s that appeal to an ordinary enthusiast. (There's the RX8 and the TT (the only convertable) and then there are FWD and exotica...)
Joe T said:
Sketchup is a very good package, I think it would be good enough to test yourself to see whether you have the aptitude for a 3D CAD program, once you have mastered it any other package will not be too difficult as a lot of the principals are the same.
The best thing is you can learn Sketchup for practically nothing as its a free download etc.
The Trouble with sketchup is the industry, most people still want Autocad3D, Solidworks or Catia based information for production.
I'd agree with Joe that you need AutoCAD (not necessarily 3D), Solidworks or Catia, if you're serious. The best thing is you can learn Sketchup for practically nothing as its a free download etc.
The Trouble with sketchup is the industry, most people still want Autocad3D, Solidworks or Catia based information for production.
We've had the AutoCAD vs. Solidworks debate before. My personal perspective is that AutoCAD is fundamentally a 2D program with (increasingly sophisticated) 3D functions bolted on, whereas Solidworks is fundamentally a 3D program with superficial 2D functions bolted on.
As a design professional, I'm more interested in decent 2D drawings (which are used for all real 'production' purposes) than in 3D (which is basically there to produce pretty pictures to wow the non-professionals with), so I heavily favour AutoCAD, but each to their own... and it has to be admitted that AutoCAD is a very complex program to learn, but that's because it has commands that allow you to do just about anything very quickly, once you know your way around.
I'd personally say that SketchUp isn't any use for automotive design, other than as a toy. It's designed (if anything - remember that it's a freeby and you get what you pay for) for architectural/urban design. We use it a lot for knocking up quick 3D visuals, but it is very limited if you want to represent complex 3D surfacing or anything of mechanical complexity, with any accuracy.
Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 27th December 18:32
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff