Want a sneak peak at the future of the driver's car?

[Galaxy]

I guess the KTM X Bow is not street legal in the US either?








It is relatively successful. They had to increase production from a planned 500 to 1000 a year.

[12,000 RPM]

I cant get w/the trikes. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

X-Bow starts at an equivalent of $90K. Way too much

Let me ask you guys. Obv as is a car like an FF or even an X Bow is pretty much impossible to federalize. But if somehow that changed and a car like the X Bow were available watered down for ~$20K new, would you get one?

[Cookie Monster]

lol

I lol'ed too. Raza's car is FAR from basic. Hell my car is more "hardcore" than his but I wouldn't even begin to consider it to be anywhere close to the FF.

[Galaxy]

The closest to what you are looking for  in terms of a raw car at a relatively low price, was made by Renault in the late 1990s.






It cost the equivalent of U$ 38,000, albeit 1999 money. Perhaps with modern production techniques you can keep the price range. The problem is something like this is always going to be a niche car. If you could figure out how to sell 50,000 a year you could probably get the price down.

Interestingly, the Renault Sport Spider seems to have kept at minimum almost 100% of it's value, based on a quick glance at a German used car website. The cheapest I found is offered for € 26,990, one low mileage model in good condition is being offered for € 44,000. In that case I guess one could say that it was an extremely good buy from a financial point of vew.

[SVT666]

Sporty is talking about a 4 wheeled version of a T-Rex....which costs north of $60K.

[MrH]

I cant get w/the trikes. Seems like the worst of both worlds.

X-Bow starts at an equivalent of $90K. Way too much

Let me ask you guys. Obv as is a car like an FF or even an X Bow is pretty much impossible to federalize. But if somehow that changed and a car like the X Bow were available watered down for ~$20K new, would you get one?

100% yes.  There was a used Ariel Atom for sale in Cincinnati that was registered in Ohio for the street.  I called and seriously started thinking through cost cutting to be able to afford it

Unfortunately, by the time I called, it was already gone.  Thing moved really quick.

[hotrodalex]

Unfortunately, by the time I called, it was already gone.  Thing moved really quick.

Yeah, sorry about that.

[12,000 RPM]

Sporty is talking about a 4 wheeled version of a T-Rex....which costs north of $60K.

We just established that Can Am makes trikes for $17K. Furthermore, Kawasaki, Polaris and a bunch of other ATV manufacturers have side x side vehichles starting from $11K. Thats more in the vein of what I'm talking about. If they made an ATV but modified it for road and track use it would be perfect. And it would be as cheap as or even cheaper than a dirt based ATV. Even with a lowly 500cc motor (and ~70-80HP), in a 1000lb body one of these things would scoot. W/a 1000cc superbike grade motor these things would be downright dangerous. Plus they could do V4s, triples, all types of fun engine configs free from the NVH confines of a big regular car lump. The registration/regulation is obviously an issue but I don't think the price is. Ariel, KTM, these companies were going for a certain clientele. I'm talking about a different market entirely

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I'd buy one, and drive it....almost daily.

Then again, I'm the type of person that is constantly irritated by all the houses and other motorists clogging up my roads.

[2o6]

I could actually get with this. I have drawn up a few conceptual ideas - a sort of "Commuter sports". Tall gearing and engine for economy and emphasis placed upon handling. Basically a Miata, but more economical.

[MrH]

I could actually get with this. I have drawn up a few conceptual ideas - a sort of "Commuter sports". Tall gearing and engine for economy and emphasis placed upon handling. Basically a Miata, but more economical.

Just a heads up:  You don't really gear your car for a desired fuel economy.  It's done to match the torque curve of the engine mostly.  You can't take a high, strung out engine and gear it really tall.  Flooring an engine when it's out of it's power band just to accelerate slowly isn't necessarily better for fuel efficiency.

I'm interested to see what you come up with though!  Post it here when you get something sketched up.

[hotrodalex]

Just a heads up:  You don't really gear your car for a desired fuel economy.  It's done to match the torque curve of the engine mostly.  You can't take a high, strung out engine and gear it really tall.  Flooring an engine when it's out of it's power band just to accelerate slowly isn't necessarily better for fuel efficiency.

Well he's only a designer so he just has to come up with the idea and styling.

[MrH]

Well he's only a designer so he just has to come up with the idea and styling.

Pretty much

"JUST MAKE IT PRETTY AND CHEAP DAMNIT!"

[2o6]

I think most designers need to have a basic understanding of how a car works - I see a lot of totally unproducable 1-box design studies coming out of schools these days. They all follow the same thought pattern it's fucking sickening. 1-box design with all "traditional" features removed, some pie in the sky propulsion system, some interior seating layout that's reminiscent of your living room rather than an actual car....

[Laconian]

IT'S A MODULAR SKATEBOARD NOW. ENGINEERS ARE OUT OF THE PICTURE.  DESIGNERS DICTATE ALL

[12,000 RPM]

I think most designers need to have a basic understanding of how a car works - I see a lot of totally unproducable 1-box design studies coming out of schools these days. They all follow the same thought pattern it's fucking sickening. 1-box design with all "traditional" features removed, some pie in the sky propulsion system, some interior seating layout that's reminiscent of your living room rather than an actual car....

Same deal w/architects.... "we want the whole building to be glass. no ugly ductwork or wiring"

[Laconian]

Same deal w/architects.... "we want the whole building to be glass. no ugly ductwork or wiring"

Same with software UI designers, at least for the past half-decade.
https://alexcabal.com/the-cult-of-design-dictatorship/

A few days ago there was an interesting discussion over at Hacker News about Gnome 3 and how it's going downhill. The topic isn't new; you don't have to look hard to find lots of posts about how Gnome 3 is a mess. I wrote a comment about my interpretation of the deeper problem, and after thinking about it some more I wanted to flesh out my comment a little further in this post.
What struck me about the post is that the main complaint the author seems to have is about a problem that I've been thinking about for some time now. It's a problem that doesn't just apply to Gnome 3—though Gnome 3 certainly suffers from it. It's the problem of the Cult of Design Dictatorship.
This cult is insidious. Its two main tenets are:
The designer is always right.
If you don't like what the designer is doing, you're wrong, and you should go somewhere else.
Doesn't sound very friendly, does it? The strange thing about this—and why the cult is so insidious—is that its members are typically nice people. They genuinely think they're doing the right thing, and a very small few of them actually are. But the majority of the cult's members aren't doing the right things, even though they don't mean to.
I blame two actors for the rise of this cult: Steve Jobs and 37 Signals. Steve Jobs made a zillion bucks cramming his design decisions down peoples' throats. 37 Signals was the developer's darling for many years, and they were the big early proponent of "opinionated design." (That's even the title of a chapter in their book.)
Both of these actors are highly successful. Steve Jobs, the messiah of this cult, took a nearly-bankrupt company that had become a mockery in the industry and turned it into a corporation that at one point held more liquid cash than the entire USA. 37 Signals, the Pope of this cult, made Ruby the popular go-to web language that it is today, made a few popular web products that bring in millions in revenue, and now one of its founders spends his days custom-building and racing F1 cars.
They did all this by being design dictators. Steve Jobs had a vision, and if you didn't like his vision, you could go home. 37 Signals made its products like it wanted to, and if you didn't like it, you could suck it.
Then entrepeneurs started using Apple products and getting this notion: Steve Jobs is highly successful, and he did that by not compromising on his vision. Then 37 Signals started blogging—and even writing books—about business, where they said the same thing: be opinionated, don't compromise on your vision, and you'll be successful. Job's position as the industry leader and producer of geek-loved hardware, and 37 Signal's position as a popularizer of "Web 2.0″ and rags-to-riches story, made their teachings that much more influential.
Well, it turns out people loved listening to this advice. That's because these role models appeal so much to the human ego: "Do what you want. Being opinionated and picky will result in a quality product. You know best!"
When people hear that, they say: "Yeah, Steve Jobs is right! I'm such a great designer, so if I want to make a zillion bucks, I must realize that users are idiots and my beautiful product will make them love their lives again, and if they don't like it they, can suck it!"
Or, they say: "Yeah, 37 Signals is right! I'm so smart, I can decide what my users want, and if they don't like my opinion, they can suck it!"
Well, there's no doubt that those models worked for Steve Jobs and 37 Signals. Both are very successful. But when a regular-Joe developer who lacks superstar talent joins the Cult of Design Dictatorship, what we get are projects like Gnome 3 and Unity. People acting like design dictators—Steve Jobs—but forgetting that he was a once-in-a-century genius. People acting like their opinions are the best and different ones can suck it—37 Signals—but without the special sauce, design talent, and determination that made that team successful.
The Cult of Design Dictatorship is bad because it so easily appeals to every human's ego, and it give bad designers an excuse to always be right. When bad designers are always right, bad design becomes par for the course.
Folks: You are not Steve Jobs and you are not 37 Signals. With few exceptions the cult of design dictatorship is the worst thing to happen to fledgling software projects in the past decade. Good designers (both graphic and architectural) can and do succeed as dictators, but good designers are few and far between.
Don't join the cult. It behooves you as a responsible designer to stay humble and listen to what your users are saying. Being opinionated may make you successful, but it can also make you an asshole; and assholes don't always go that far in life.
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW IF WE CAN PULL IT OFF?
One of the replies to my comment in HN brought up a good point: How does one know if they have the chops to be a dictator? Doesn't that mean that everyone should at least try to be one?
My answer is that yes, a product must have some kind of vision, and at the end of the day someone's got to implement it, regardless of their talent. But humble designers recognize complaints and the needs of their users. Design dictators ignore them, because the dictators are by definition always right.
Well, that's a bad attitude to have, because most designers aren't perfect. Most designers haven't spent the millions of dollars doing UI research or running focus groups to find out what their users really want. Most designers don't have the time or determination to iterate their pruduct hundreds of times before they find the right combination. Most designers don't have the humility to admit they might have been wrong.
It's fun being a dictator, because you can never be wrong—that's a powerful proposition to a lot of people. But it's a really bad attitude to have if you want to care about your users.

[MX793]

I guess the KTM X Bow is not street legal in the US either?








It is relatively successful. They had to increase production from a planned 500 to 1000 a year.

No, and I don't think you can use the "kit car" loophole like you can with the Atom to make it road legal.

[MX793]

We just established that Can Am makes trikes for $17K. Furthermore, Kawasaki, Polaris and a bunch of other ATV manufacturers have side x side vehichles starting from $11K. Thats more in the vein of what I'm talking about. If they made an ATV but modified it for road and track use it would be perfect. And it would be as cheap as or even cheaper than a dirt based ATV. Even with a lowly 500cc motor (and ~70-80HP), in a 1000lb body one of these things would scoot. W/a 1000cc superbike grade motor these things would be downright dangerous. Plus they could do V4s, triples, all types of fun engine configs free from the NVH confines of a big regular car lump. The registration/regulation is obviously an issue but I don't think the price is. Ariel, KTM, these companies were going for a certain clientele. I'm talking about a different market entirely

A 70-80 hp 500cc motor?  While possible, there currently isn't one on the market (the old EX500 was rated at 59 hp and the new CB500 is 47).  For that kind of output, you're realistically looking for a high revving 4 cylinder, which is that much more expensive.  Not to mention higher maintenance (mmm, 12K mile valve adjustments).  These inexpensive side-by-sides with much larger motors (Kawi Teryx 750 or Polaris RZR800) than you're proposing are only putting out 50-55 hp.

[12,000 RPM]

A 70-80 hp 500cc motor?  While possible, there currently isn't one on the market (the old EX500 was rated at 59 hp and the new CB500 is 47).  For that kind of output, you're realistically looking for a high revving 4 cylinder, which is that much more expensive.  Not to mention higher maintenance (mmm, 12K mile valve adjustments).  These inexpensive side-by-sides with much larger motors (Kawi Teryx 750 or Polaris RZR800) than you're proposing are only putting out 50-55 hp.

We can overbuild and turbocharge.

[SVT666]

We just established that Can Am makes trikes for $17K. Furthermore, Kawasaki, Polaris and a bunch of other ATV manufacturers have side x side vehichles starting from $11K. Thats more in the vein of what I'm talking about. If they made an ATV but modified it for road and track use it would be perfect. And it would be as cheap as or even cheaper than a dirt based ATV. Even with a lowly 500cc motor (and ~70-80HP), in a 1000lb body one of these things would scoot. W/a 1000cc superbike grade motor these things would be downright dangerous. Plus they could do V4s, triples, all types of fun engine configs free from the NVH confines of a big regular car lump. The registration/regulation is obviously an issue but I don't think the price is. Ariel, KTM, these companies were going for a certain clientele. I'm talking about a different market entirely

I don't understand the point of this thread.  You want a car that would appeal to enthusiasts, is cheap, but could never be street legal?

[r0tor]

I would love a x-bow if it were street legal and not the cost of a 911.

At one point when I had too much time on my hands, I started to scale up our college formula sae car... but I ran out of free time and realized it would be next to impossible to register and insure.

[12,000 RPM]

I don't understand the point of this thread.  You want a car that would appeal to enthusiasts, is cheap, but could never be street legal?

It could be street legal if the laws changed, or people were allowed to buy cars that were exceptions to the law while accepting whatever risks came with driving them. I would much rather something in this vein modified to a lower price point and for normal street duty than any "normal" car under 30, 40, 50K. If you could buy a 2nd car and had the choice between something like a 20K Ariel Atom clone or a 50K Boxster I think the choice would be pretty obvious

[12,000 RPM]

I would love a x-bow if it were street legal and not the cost of a 911.

At one point when I had too much time on my hands, I started to scale up our college formula sae car... but I ran out of free time and realized it would be next to impossible to register and insure.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about. A big cheap street tuned FSAE car with 2 seats and a removable roof. It would be awesome.

[r0tor]

I figures it would be fairly simple to widen the tube chassis and build for around 15-20k... afterall, the drivetrain and most of the suspension points could remain unchanged.  But legalization looked to be a fiasco.

[veeman]

Nice post Laconian.

[hotrodalex]

None of this is ever going to happen.

[12,000 RPM]

Nice post Laconian.

+1

None of this is ever going to happen.

Its nice to dream

[Raza]

lol

Hey, it's not a stripped down racer or anything, but it is pretty basic as far as modern cars go.  It has some creature comforts, which I'm glad for when I'm driving top down at 35 degrees. 

[Raza]

Speaking of can am spider... Has anyone here ridden one? A coworker just got his second one. Talked to him for awhile about it. He keeps buying the lame touring ones with all sorts of shit on them. The rs-s version looks pretty slick.

They are so retarded.  Buy a sports car or a bike, don't get a tricycle.  It looks like a motorcycle with training wheels.