In reply to olpro:
However in an accident it would be easier to replace smaller pieces so its a bit of a trade off i suppose
Generally all companies are far more concerned about initial costs than replacement costs. In fact, common accident replacement parts are often seen as a cash cow since the owner has little choice (and often it is the insurance company footing the bill anyway).
olpro wrote: Generally all companies are far more concerned about initial costs than replacement costs. In fact, common accident replacement parts are often seen as a cash cow since the owner has little choice (and often it is the insurance company footing the bill anyway).
I dont know how well that would work with a kit car, the enthusiast might not agree, depends on insurance cover I guess
FFR is trying to acieve a $15K completed cost. A large part of that goal is no bodywork using gelcoat panels. This would mean no mold-lines from 2 piece molds?
So I'm thinking smaller, more numerous panels AND/OR designs that do not curve back on themselves so they can actually be pulled from the mold.
here is my latest
what do you think?
In reply to Cooluser23:
This is kinda the "peoples choice" area. It's an open forum with tons of feedback.
Interestingly enough, there are a lot of entries here on the message board that haven't made it into the official entry list. Why? I have no idea. I just hope they all send them to the contest@grassrootsmotorsports.com address before June 1.
I'm not saying that a company's tendency to favor initial cost over repair costs is good, just what they generally do. It can bite them in the butt if their customers start incurring noticably higher repair & insurance costs - and the word gets around. PhyrraM, your analysis sounds right to me. As to the exact lowest cost approach, that would be up to FF and their situation with regard to tooling, piece cost, etc. Certainly the gelcoat requirements are demanding. Franze, with all due respect, it is hard to judge that sketch because it isn't close to the package with its giant wheels, etc. Also the technique is so loose that it is really hard to read the design.
In reply to arif: Pardon my gushing, but it is deserved. That is by far the best looking submission I have seen so far, a beautiful, cohesive blend of form and function. It is also a much prettier modern interpretation of the Cobra than any others I have seen. Unfortunately for me, it is probably no coincidence that I feel this way because the model I have been working on has so many similarities to, yet falls short of yours. You may have just bumped me out of the race before I even submitted.
Here's a car that hasn't shown up yet on the thread but that may be familiar to European participants: the Hommell Berlinette. I find the concept interesting due to its similarity with our scope (mid-engine, tube-frame, plastic body) and its ability for rallying.
Most interesting, the project was commissioned by Michel Hommell, editor of Echappement, which is the French equivalent of GRM, based on a reader survey asking for what would be the perfect enthusiast car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hommell
My question... would such a concept meet the $10,000 price target?
In reply to NismoNC: Thanks for commenting to my design. Anyway, I am not happy with that design, now looking for new idea.
BipDBo wrote: In reply to arif: Pardon my gushing, but it is deserved. That is by far the best looking submission I have seen so far, a beautiful, cohesive blend of form and function. It is also a much prettier modern interpretation of the Cobra than any others I have seen. Unfortunately for me, it is probably no coincidence that I feel this way because the model I have been working on has so many similarities to, yet falls short of yours. You may have just bumped me out of the race before I even submitted.
Thank you BipDBo. Btw, I am not satisfied with my Cobra, I want to alter the shape, perhaps would be different with yours later on.
Franze wrote: here is my latest what do you think?
thanks for the comments, I do need to tighten it up now, and define the surfaces more, Will do very shortly, this will be my first entry,
In reply to arif:
Does that mean that I can rip off that one? Kidding. I had the original intent to get inspiration from the Cobra and Daytona coupe, but resolved that I couldn't achieve very good downforce that way. You proved me wrong because your cobra throwback looks like it could have pretty decent downforce on the nose, and could be agmented on the tail with a wing.
I decided more to use the Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale for the front of the car. Unfortunately, I am not keen on the rest of the Stradle, so I decided to take get some lines from the Lamborghini Miura and the Porsche 904 for the rest of the car, both cars which are beautiful but I feel have ugly noses.
What I like about your design is the minimalism. There is a temptation to add elements like creases, large intakes, or redundant or even non-functional intakes or outlets. These elements hurt aerodynamics and in my opinion, distract from the curves of the car. Your design has nothing that is not needed. You have an intake and outlet for the radiator that provide maximum downforce . You have dual intakes for the intercooler and air intake, and that air could exit the back. I would only suggest three tweeks to this design. First, to streamline the headlights, not for looks, but for aerodynamics. Second, redesign the rear intakes to be less jet-style, and more flowing with the curves of the car. If they were moved to the top of the fender, the line of the top of the door could flow into the the intake. Third, I think that in general, your intakes are slightly larger than they need to be. I reference the aerea of intake seen on the Daytona coupe and the single intercooler intake on the Subaru which is about the same size as one of your 2 fender intakes. Many production cars have over-sized grills for styling, which are mostly blanked off for aerodynamics. I find that kind of stupid.
Why are there 2 weekly winners for March 25th, and no winners for April 1st or April 8th?
Hello, so we decided to send those two submissions and then work with something new:
[B]1st Submition by Team_KT[/B]
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/team_kt]team_kt[/URL] at 2011-04-15
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/team_kt]team_kt[/URL] at 2011-04-15
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/team_kt]team_kt[/URL] at 2011-04-09
[B]2nd Submition by Team_KT[/B]
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/team_kt]team_kt[/URL] at 2011-04-08
or with that rear end
By [URL=http://profile.imageshack.us/user/team_kt]team_kt[/URL] at 2011-04-09
So now I have to work on our second submition to finally decide which rear end it will have. Thanks to everyone that commented our designs ;)
BipDBo wrote: In reply to arif: Does that mean that I can rip off that one? Kidding. I had the original intent to get inspiration from the Cobra and Daytona coupe, but resolved that I couldn't achieve very good downforce that way. You proved me wrong because your cobra throwback looks like it could have pretty decent downforce on the nose, and could be agmented on the tail with a wing. I decided more to use the Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale for the front of the car. Unfortunately, I am not keen on the rest of the Stradle, so I decided to take get some lines from the Lamborghini Miura and the Porsche 904 for the rest of the car, both cars which are beautiful but I feel have ugly noses. What I like about your design is the minimalism. There is a temptation to add elements like creases, large intakes, or redundant or even non-functional intakes or outlets. These elements hurt aerodynamics and in my opinion, distract from the curves of the car. Your design has nothing that is not needed. You have an intake and outlet for the radiator that provide maximum downforce . You have dual intakes for the intercooler and air intake, and that air could exit the back. I would only suggest three tweeks to this design. First, to streamline the headlights, not for looks, but for aerodynamics. Second, redesign the rear intakes to be less jet-style, and more flowing with the curves of the car. If they were moved to the top of the fender, the line of the top of the door could flow into the the intake. Third, I think that in general, your intakes are slightly larger than they need to be. I reference the aerea of intake seen on the Daytona coupe and the single intercooler intake on the Subaru which is about the same size as one of your 2 fender intakes. Many production cars have over-sized grills for styling, which are mostly blanked off for aerodynamics. I find that kind of stupid.
Thanks very much for your suggestions, I will work again on the Cobra later on. I am working now on new design now. Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale..? That is very nice car I think.
Tom Heath wrote:olpro wrote: Any more information on the JUDGING PANEL?Yep. Look for a press release this week.
Wow, how time flys... Another week has passed and ??!
I need some help.. please i don't know how to send mail in outlook , it gives me errors, i have sent them whit yahoo mail at contest@grassrootsmotorsports.com, i want to know if works to send the attachement in yahoo mail at this contest@grassrootsmotorsports.com,.! please..
what about an awd mid-engined lotus 7 car? is there a free CAD program where I could make a sketch of it? thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Believe it or not but Google has one. its called sketch up
Here:
http://sketchup.google.com
hello all, always for to show you my progress.
I hope to show you the rear one day .... 
still in progress ...
In reply to Krozn:
Wow, that's really looking sharp!
Phenotyp, very highly quality rendering. well done! How much time does it take to do these renderings? what do you use for them? we are waiting for other views
You'll need to log in to post.
