RE: FBS Census driven by Fat Slags
Thursday 31st July 2003
FBS Census driven by Fat Slags
Is all product placement a good thing?!
 |
The FBS Census is to star in a film. In fact two of them are. Assuming this isn't some late April Fool's joke, we've just heard that the cars are to star in the first film to be made including characters from the adult comic Viz. The film 'Fat Slags - the Movie' will see Sharon and Tracy driving about in a Census!
Product placement is a tool used by most manufacturers these days with some spending fortunes to ensure their vehicles appear in the right films. One has to question the merits of two such comically undesirable characters driving the Census though!
Links : www.fbs-eng.co.uk , www.viz.co.uk
Discussion
Apache said:
hark! whats that I hear? 'death knell for Census?'
it'll be a shame to see such a sterling effort come to such an ignominious end, even if it is a bit (understatement)of an ugly bastard
>> Edited by Apache on Thursday 31st July 18:24
Bit like the Fat Slags then ,, hmm now it all makes sence now somehow
Consider this: the FBS Census has a torsional rigidity of 17,000 NM/degree.
The Ferrari 360 Modena - a coupe, not a convertible - has a torsional rigidity of 20,000 NM/degree.
Furthermore, unlike the Modena, Noble M12, and the Dynamic Performance Attack (other story), the Census uses a monocoque safety cell, not a spaceframe.
Spaceframes are well known for providing poor crash protection.
The fact the FBS can offer such high chassis stiffness even while using a steel monocoque (which weighs more than a tube spaceframe) gives an indication of the technical promise of the car.
Unfortunately, as has been often observed, the car is not attractive to most people's eyes (mine included).
When you consider they spent 100 UK pounds on the styling (the amount awarded to the design student who won the contest for the styling of the car) this is not suprising.
Small car makers are hamstrung by the need to use off the shelf engines. They therefore need to get the chassis and styling right in order to do something better than the volume car producers.
The FBS Census succeeds on 1 of 3 counts - good chassis, bad styling, off the shelf engine.
Who would buy it when for less money you can get the new RX-8? Also has a good chassis, good styling and an excellent engine.
Bottom line is this is a classic case of undercapitalisation: they did not have the money to do the job right. With another million quid or so I'm sure the master Leonardo Fioravanti ( http://autozine.kyul.net/0_Inspiration/Current/Inspiration.htm ) would pen a gorgeous small convertible that would put the Elise S1 to shame.
Another million or two so buys you a bespoke rotary engine from Lotus - they will even buy some engines from you once it is made.
Considering FBS spent about half a million to create an excellent chassis with bad styling and an unremarkable crate engine, I think the minimum startup cost to make a truly outstanding small convertible is around 3 million pounds.
If you assume you could make 3000 pounds profit per car you would have to sell 1000 of them to recover your initial investment. For comparison, consider that Lotus assumed the Elise S1 would sell 300 a year for a few years before they introduced it - selling 1000 cars as a noname manufacturer is quite a big ask.
So the next time you all slag off FBS, consider the impossibility of their task in the first place, and give them the respect they deserve for trying.
So I think you need to
The Ferrari 360 Modena - a coupe, not a convertible - has a torsional rigidity of 20,000 NM/degree.
Furthermore, unlike the Modena, Noble M12, and the Dynamic Performance Attack (other story), the Census uses a monocoque safety cell, not a spaceframe.
Spaceframes are well known for providing poor crash protection.
The fact the FBS can offer such high chassis stiffness even while using a steel monocoque (which weighs more than a tube spaceframe) gives an indication of the technical promise of the car.
Unfortunately, as has been often observed, the car is not attractive to most people's eyes (mine included).
When you consider they spent 100 UK pounds on the styling (the amount awarded to the design student who won the contest for the styling of the car) this is not suprising.
Small car makers are hamstrung by the need to use off the shelf engines. They therefore need to get the chassis and styling right in order to do something better than the volume car producers.
The FBS Census succeeds on 1 of 3 counts - good chassis, bad styling, off the shelf engine.
Who would buy it when for less money you can get the new RX-8? Also has a good chassis, good styling and an excellent engine.
Bottom line is this is a classic case of undercapitalisation: they did not have the money to do the job right. With another million quid or so I'm sure the master Leonardo Fioravanti ( http://autozine.kyul.net/0_Inspiration/Current/Inspiration.htm ) would pen a gorgeous small convertible that would put the Elise S1 to shame.
Another million or two so buys you a bespoke rotary engine from Lotus - they will even buy some engines from you once it is made.
Considering FBS spent about half a million to create an excellent chassis with bad styling and an unremarkable crate engine, I think the minimum startup cost to make a truly outstanding small convertible is around 3 million pounds.
If you assume you could make 3000 pounds profit per car you would have to sell 1000 of them to recover your initial investment. For comparison, consider that Lotus assumed the Elise S1 would sell 300 a year for a few years before they introduced it - selling 1000 cars as a noname manufacturer is quite a big ask.
So the next time you all slag off FBS, consider the impossibility of their task in the first place, and give them the respect they deserve for trying.
So I think you need to
Fair enough. Maybe they were hamstrung by underinvestment and could only afford a blind student to do the styling. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't put them together properly. The one that I saw at the Motor Show looked like it had been assembled in the dark by a bunch of politicians. The panel gaps were all over the place. There were finger marks in the window sealant (they could have paid an Autoglass fitter a few quid on his day off to get a better job done). It even had a flat tyre ferchrissakes!
It's a shed. No matter what their excuses are, it's still a shed.
James
It's a shed. No matter what their excuses are, it's still a shed.
James
Steven, that's a top post and a pleasantly constructive one in regard of the Census.
Given the investment they have made I must confess I am surprised that they are still in business. When I first visited FBS they told me that the target production level was 70 cars a year.
Given that they're in their third(?) year of production and have only sold five cars despite some good publicity and thousands of people laying eyes on it, I'm astonished that they're still at it.
I know they get very annoyed with the negative vibes on here and have done their best to ignore the comments, it has to be said that PHers are the target market for such a car. Affluent 25-50 year old men into sports cars. If they can't sell to us then that leaves a very small market.
I've driven the car and it's a great drive. Whack on one of Fioraventi's bodies and there'd be people queueing up to buy them.
Unfortunately that costs money, which as far as I understand they haven't got. So what do they do?
Given the investment they have made I must confess I am surprised that they are still in business. When I first visited FBS they told me that the target production level was 70 cars a year.
Given that they're in their third(?) year of production and have only sold five cars despite some good publicity and thousands of people laying eyes on it, I'm astonished that they're still at it.
I know they get very annoyed with the negative vibes on here and have done their best to ignore the comments, it has to be said that PHers are the target market for such a car. Affluent 25-50 year old men into sports cars. If they can't sell to us then that leaves a very small market.
I've driven the car and it's a great drive. Whack on one of Fioraventi's bodies and there'd be people queueing up to buy them.
Unfortunately that costs money, which as far as I understand they haven't got. So what do they do?
Or just look around at some nice looking cars and pick up some styling queues from them.
The McLaren F1 was designed by a school boy (ok, they didn't use the design until many years later when the school boy had become the chief designer for McLaren, but it was basically the car he had been scribbling in his school exercise books at school). Maybe FBS should take heed, and pick a more talented student to do their design work for them.
The McLaren F1 was designed by a school boy (ok, they didn't use the design until many years later when the school boy had become the chief designer for McLaren, but it was basically the car he had been scribbling in his school exercise books at school). Maybe FBS should take heed, and pick a more talented student to do their design work for them.
The FBS styling thing has been done to death, but I'd just like to say this; while it might be difficult to pen a beautiful car, surely it isn't so difficult to draw an at least ok looking one. It doesn't have to be knock-your-socks-off beautiful, but surely average (even bland if you will) is better than ugly, provoking such a negative reaction...ok they may have got people talking, but I for one don't believe theres no such thing as bad publicity.
Anyway, good luck to them for trying, although by the sounds of it I think they'll need it.
Anyway, good luck to them for trying, although by the sounds of it I think they'll need it.
Some of you may remember my post a few months ago when I had a little 5-6 mile run with a Census being driven by Joe90. I must say I was surprised by the agility of the car on the twisty road we were drining along - although Joe obviously knows it like the back of his hand 
- In my mirror the car looked better than I would have expected quite agressive, however when I let him pass so I could see it from a different angle I discoivered the rear is an absolute mess. Probabaly the worst rear of a car I have ever seen and that includes kit cars, MGTF replicas, Morgan look alikes, the Mini-Marcos etc. words fail me (again) other than to say it looks a mess. So good nose, weird sides and an arfull behind. And with Joe driving that's what most people will see 
Rich...
- In my mirror the car looked better than I would have expected quite agressive, however when I let him pass so I could see it from a different angle I discoivered the rear is an absolute mess. Probabaly the worst rear of a car I have ever seen and that includes kit cars, MGTF replicas, Morgan look alikes, the Mini-Marcos etc. words fail me (again) other than to say it looks a mess. So good nose, weird sides and an arfull behind. And with Joe driving that's what most people will see Rich...But Joe90 has already said, they don't have any more money to redesign the car, so what you see, really is what we're stuck with. No 'back to the drawing board', no 'find a more talented student' - they can't do anything to change the car because they're tooled up to produce this one. Which, unfortunately, no one wants.
A case of lesson learned (or maybe not, judging by the ambivalence in the face of PHers criticism) and another British sports car company goes to the wall. Maybe PHers could club together and buy the chassis design, stick a V8 in and design our our own 'Future British Sportscar'.
A case of lesson learned (or maybe not, judging by the ambivalence in the face of PHers criticism) and another British sports car company goes to the wall. Maybe PHers could club together and buy the chassis design, stick a V8 in and design our our own 'Future British Sportscar'.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff