Formula Ford EcoBoost. Street Legal Racer on Road and Nürburgring - CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZMwk14r4c#ws)
Here is something to separate the men from the mice. Danger + immediacy + speed of a motorcycle, stability + grip of a car. No radio, no traction control, no crumple zones, no alcantara suede headliners, no MyTouch, no bullshit. O, and lights, mirrors, and plates. Hey Raza... would you???
Street legal in the UK (and other parts of Europe) maybe, but that would never meet US requirements for being street legal.
Quote from: MX793 on June 07, 2013, 07:34:02 PM
Street legal in the UK (and other parts of Europe) maybe, but that would never meet US requirements for being street legal.
Maybe they could do it up like the Plymouth Prowler?
Quote from: TurboDan on June 08, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Maybe they could do it up like the Plymouth Prowler?
At a bare minimum, it will need 5 mph bumpers mounted 16-20 inches above the road (which would put the bumper about even with the top of the tires and just below eye level for the driver) and airbags. Good luck fitting either to a Formula Ford.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2013, 06:30:33 AM
At a bare minimum, it will need 5 mph bumpers mounted 16-20 inches above the road (which would put the bumper about even with the top of the tires and just below eye level for the driver) and airbags. Good luck fitting either to a Formula Ford.
But the Ariel Atom is US street legal is it not?
Quote from: Galaxy on June 09, 2013, 08:03:54 AM
But the Ariel Atom is US street legal is it not?
As of the 2007 MotorTrend review of the Atom 2, they were not street legal in every state and owners have to jump through some hoops to get legal status for the cars in the states in which they can be made street legal. In other words, you don't show up to a dealership, write a check, and drive it home. IIRC, in California they are made road legal by classifying them as kit cars (and there are only so many "kit car" registrations handed out in a given year). Other states are probably similar.
This might be too extreme... but something open wheeled and minimalist is def the future.
Plus they can make it much greener than a conventional sports car which could be a selling point for marketing and legalization.
This is not much more dangerous than a motorcycle... its a wonder motorcycles are still legal. But in any case I'd much rather take my chances in this than a 2 ton Z....
WANT!
On another note, I am driving something with the same engine, the Ford EcoSport: (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9829/04062013z.jpg)
It only makes around 124 bhp though.
1.0T?
That really is a horrible looking car...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2013, 09:10:56 AM
This might be too extreme... but something open wheeled and minimalist is def the future.
Plus they can make it much greener than a conventional sports car which could be a selling point for marketing and legalization.
This is not much more dangerous than a motorcycle... its a wonder motorcycles are still legal. But in any case I'd much rather take my chances in this than a 2 ton Z....
Sure there'd be a few buyers but street legal + open wheel + minimalist I don't think has any sort of future beyond what it is today - those who have the coin and desire to buy such a car couldn't care less if it's street legal. Even sidestepping cost such a car can't be driven anywhere near its potential on the street and can't be driven any material distance or carry much of anything (as in, going to track day) so why bother with the cost and compromises?
Also, I'd be very interested in seeing a 2 ton Z...
Quote from: 2o6 on June 09, 2013, 09:52:16 AM
1.0T?
That really is a horrible looking car...
Yep, it also comes with a pair of 1.5-litre petrol and diesel engines.
The general public here seems to love it. In this one week, I've been stopped many times in traffic and asked about it. Of course, that's probably because it hasn't been launched yet.
God damn, I want.
This reminds me of the conversation in the dangerous elderly driver thread. Make everything else computer controlled, and make the enthusiast cars all like this.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2013, 09:10:56 AM
This might be too extreme... but something open wheeled and minimalist is def the future.
How many "cars" do companies like Ariel and Caterham sell? Most people consider a Lotus Elise to basic.
Quote from: Galaxy on June 09, 2013, 11:06:59 AM
How many "cars" do companies like Ariel and Caterham sell? Most people consider a Lotus Elise to basic.
An Atom is like $100K to start. Not sure how much the Cateram is. But cost/market wise I see it like this. Ducati found 7500 buyers for a motorcycle starting at $18K last year. And the Fiesta ST starts at like $20K. Granted the Fiesta has the advantage of economy of scale, but its also saddled with federalization costs. Point being, there is a market, and there are means to build such a machine at a <$20K price point profitably.
An Elise is too basic... for something that costs $50-60K new (which it did if I remember). But for something... $10K? $15K? $20K? Why not? It wouldn't have to be aluminum or federalized or any of that crap. Just 4 wheels, 2 seats, an engine and the means to control it all.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 09, 2013, 10:01:39 AM
Sure there'd be a few buyers but street legal + open wheel + minimalist I don't think has any sort of future beyond what it is today - those who have the coin and desire to buy such a car couldn't care less if it's street legal. Even sidestepping cost such a car can't be driven anywhere near its potential on the street and can't be driven any material distance or carry much of anything (as in, going to track day) so why bother with the cost and compromises?
Also, I'd be very interested in seeing a 2 ton Z...
The "cant be driven at potential" argument is valid, but machines this visceral are pretty damn fun just tooling around town. Plus as far fetched as it seems, cars like this could be used for short commutes. This thing supposedly gets 57 MPG at 75 MPH. It could easily do more w/a more aerodynamic shell. Plus again, by sticking to a basic formula rather than chasing boutique & high end customers, I think such a machine could generate viable volume. I mean this thing is built for racing. Something similar built for the street & to a price point could do well.
I really don't see Ford coming out with this Formula Ford for under $20k, even without federalization...
I woud rock a 2 seat version
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2013, 01:32:51 PM
An Atom is like $100K to start.
It's like half that and the earlier models were cheaper.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2013, 01:32:51 PM
An Atom is like $100K to start. Not sure how much the Cateram is. But cost/market wise I see it like this. Ducati found 7500 buyers for a motorcycle starting at $18K last year. And the Fiesta ST starts at like $20K. Granted the Fiesta has the advantage of economy of scale, but its also saddled with federalization costs. Point being, there is a market, and there are means to build such a machine at a <$20K price point profitably.
An Elise is too basic... for something that costs $50-60K new (which it did if I remember). But for something... $10K? $15K? $20K? Why not? It wouldn't have to be aluminum or federalized or any of that crap. Just 4 wheels, 2 seats, an engine and the means to control it all. The "cant be driven at potential" argument is valid, but machines this visceral are pretty damn fun just tooling around town. Plus as far fetched as it seems, cars like this could be used for short commutes. This thing supposedly gets 57 MPG at 75 MPH. It could easily do more w/a more aerodynamic shell. Plus again, by sticking to a basic formula rather than chasing boutique & high end customers, I think such a machine could generate viable volume. I mean this thing is built for racing. Something similar built for the street & to a price point could do well.
Atom3s start at like $60K. And $18K isn't
that expensive for a bike. Goldwings start at $24K and aren't exactly "exotic" or rare. Any of the full dressed touring bikes run north of $17K. Heck, a Vmax starts at $20K.
And a Formula Ford isn't going to cost <$20K. 20+ year old examples go for more than $10K. New rolling chassis (no powertrain) go for north of $30K. The car in the video... Ford said that if they built it, production runs would be 20-40 units a year at a price of "under £50k ($80K US)".
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 07, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
Formula Ford EcoBoost. Street Legal Racer on Road and Nürburgring - CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZMwk14r4c#ws)
Here is something to separate the men from the mice. Danger + immediacy + speed of a motorcycle, stability + grip of a car. No radio, no traction control, no crumple zones, no alcantara suede headliners, no MyTouch, no bullshit. O, and lights, mirrors, and plates. Hey Raza... would you???
My car doesn't have much more than that....
Looks like an exciting drive, but frankly it's an evolutionary dead end if you're looking at it from the perspective of a street-legal road car.
* Did you see the glassy smooth roads he was driving on? We don't have them here... and they've only been getting worse, it seems.
* NHTSA has a habit of making nannies mandatory.
* Everybody else is driving enormous SUVs. Have you driven an Elise on the freeway before? It's utterly terrifying! You are *completely* under the radar of the distracting texting bimbo in a Range Rover that's about to change lanes into your car. This car would be even worse.
Quote from: Raza on June 09, 2013, 04:29:57 PM
My car doesn't have much more than that....
lol
Quote from: Raza on June 09, 2013, 04:29:57 PM
My car doesn't have much more than that....
If you took your car's motor, seats and wheels and bolted them to a tube frame, I'm pretty sure the result would weigh a bit less than 3100 lbs. Its got at least 1000lbs more "than that".
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2013, 04:37:42 PM
Looks like an exciting drive, but frankly it's an evolutionary dead end if you're looking at it from the perspective of a street-legal road car.
* Did you see the glassy smooth roads he was driving on? We don't have them here... and they've only been getting worse, it seems.
* NHTSA has a habit of making nannies mandatory.
* Everybody else is driving enormous SUVs. Have you driven an Elise on the freeway before? It's utterly terrifying! You are *completely* under the radar of the distracting texting bimbo in a Range Rover that's about to change lanes into your car. This car would be even worse.
I dont think this is the exact direction cars will go in. I am thinking somewhere between this and a side by side ATV. W/that you'd get more side clearance + visibility. As far as the NHTSA, the whole thing would be predicated on them making an exemption. Basically saying, 'if you can prove you can drive this thing safely and get someone to insure you, youre on your own'. I dont think insurance would be a hurdle as insurers will put (very expensive) policies on brand new riders on 200HP Hayabusas, and motorcycles in general. It's a big "if" but I think its necessary and realistic.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Atom3s start at like $60K. And $18K isn't that expensive for a bike. Goldwings start at $24K and aren't exactly "exotic" or rare. Any of the full dressed touring bikes run north of $17K. Heck, a Vmax starts at $20K.
And a Formula Ford isn't going to cost <$20K. 20+ year old examples go for more than $10K. New rolling chassis (no powertrain) go for north of $30K. The car in the video... Ford said that if they built it, production runs would be 20-40 units a year at a price of "under £50k ($80K US)".
Well, that Goldwings and Vmaxes go for so much and have been selling for over 20 yrs only bolsters the case for cars like this. There is a strong market for $20K vehicles that can't carry much stuff or people and aren't great for long drives.
And I don't think the inboard suspension or racing slicks of the Formula Ford would really translate well to the road. But something like a tube frame Miata would. Motorcycles don't have crash standards. We know the deal. I don't think too many people here check crash test results for their sports cars. I think there is a huge market for cars that are exempt or just barely legal crash wise for enthusiasts. For $10K and the choice between a motorcycle or something w/a motorcycle engine, 2 seats and 4 wheels I think we know what most people would go for.
$10K is a pipe dream. A BRP/CanAm Spyder, which is about as close to a mass produced vehicle as you're describing (OK, it's got 3 wheels instead of 4) is $17K in its cheapest, most bare-bones configuration.
Due to the height of this thing I think you might be safer on an MC.
$10K is prob a pipe dream
But $15-20K... not so much. Can Am w/a 4th wheel and a steering wheel is exactly what I'm thinking
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2013, 07:22:11 PM
$10K is prob a pipe dream
But $15-20K... not so much. Can Am w/a 4th wheel and a steering wheel is exactly what I'm thinking
Problem is, as soon as you add that 4th wheel, it gets classified as a car and now must meet car safety and emissions requirements. Or be sold as a "kit" vehicle, which limits sales in some states since they restrict how many new "kit" vehicles can be registered in a given year.
Quote from: MrH on June 09, 2013, 08:18:40 PM
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.
I see the touring models as a viable option to the big, fully dressed tourers like the Goldwing. Especially for smaller folks who don't have a lot of leg strength, or anybody who's not comfortable with the thought of throwing a leg over a 850+ lb 2-wheeler. If you're not going to spring for the touring models (and are physically able to ride a 2-wheeler), you're better off spending a lot less and getting a bike that will be quicker, handle better, and get better mileage. And take up less space in your garage.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2013, 08:49:42 PM
I see the touring models as a viable option to the big, fully dressed tourers like the Goldwing. Especially for smaller folks who don't have a lot of leg strength, or anybody who's not comfortable with the thought of throwing a leg over a 850+ lb 2-wheeler. If you're not going to spring for the touring models (and are physically able to ride a 2-wheeler), you're better off spending a lot less and getting a bike that will be quicker, handle better, and get better mileage. And take up less space in your garage.
I asked him why he bought it. He's probably only 5'2"-5'4". He said he isn't big enough to ride a 1 liter bike.
I guess just the idea it's much more stable makes the can am seem like a viable option. Two wheeled motoring just scares the shit out of me.
Quote from: MrH on June 09, 2013, 09:06:13 PM
I asked him why he bought it. He's probably only 5'2"-5'4". He said he isn't big enough to ride a 1 liter bike.
I guess just the idea it's much more stable makes the can am seem like a viable option. Two wheeled motoring just scares the shit out of me.
More stable at a stop or very low speeds. Cornering at speed, I'd wager a bike is more comfortable/confidence inspiring (basing this on my experience with snowmobiles and ATVs). When your vehicle doesn't lean, lateral cornering forces now try to throw you off the side of the vehicle and when you don't have seat bolsters or anything belting you in, that means you have to hang on that much harder to keep from being flung off. But for someone with such a short stature, yes, he's going to have trouble touching the ground on any 2-wheeler other than a cruiser.
I guess the KTM X Bow is not street legal in the US either?
(http://cdn.justluxe.com/thumbs/articles/images/news/ktm-x-bow-gt2.jpg.570x)
(http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/E7/9C22E64FC233882A98F2DBF423A9_h498_w598_m2.jpg)
(http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/d/714129-3/ktm-x-bow-gt-8.JPG)
It is relatively successful. They had to increase production from a planned 500 to 1000 a year.
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 ~$20K new, would you get one?
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 09, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
lol
I lol'ed too. Raza's car is FAR from basic. Hell my car is more "hardcore" than his but I wouldn't even begin to consider it to be anywhere close to the FF.
The closest to what you are looking for in terms of a raw car at a relatively low price, was made by Renault in the late 1990s.
(http://www.shorey.net/Auto/French/Renault/1998%20Renault%20Sport%20Spider%20f3q.jpg)
(http://www.renaultspider.co.uk/images/For%20Sale/jacob/Jacob1.jpg)
(http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/front_website/octane_interact/modelpicture.php?id=6907)
It cost the equivalent of U$ 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.
Sporty is talking about a 4 wheeled version of a T-Rex....which costs north of $60K.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2013, 05:59:01 AM
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 :mask:
Unfortunately, by the time I called, it was already gone. Thing moved really quick.
Quote from: MrH on June 10, 2013, 08:14:38 AM
Unfortunately, by the time I called, it was already gone. Thing moved really quick.
Yeah, sorry about that. :evildude:
Quote from: SVT666 on June 10, 2013, 07:48:21 AM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 10, 2013, 09:32:58 AM
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.
Quote from: MrH on June 10, 2013, 09:38:23 AM
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. :lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 10, 2013, 09:50:54 AM
Well he's only a designer so he just has to come up with the idea and styling. :lol:
Pretty much :lol:
"JUST MAKE IT PRETTY AND CHEAP DAMNIT!"
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....
IT'S A MODULAR SKATEBOARD NOW. ENGINEERS ARE OUT OF THE PICTURE. DESIGNERS DICTATE ALL
Quote from: 2o6 on June 10, 2013, 10:03:28 AM
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"
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2013, 11:57:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Galaxy on June 10, 2013, 04:26:50 AM
I guess the KTM X Bow is not street legal in the US either?
(http://cdn.justluxe.com/thumbs/articles/images/news/ktm-x-bow-gt2.jpg.570x)
(http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/E7/9C22E64FC233882A98F2DBF423A9_h498_w598_m2.jpg)
(http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/d/714129-3/ktm-x-bow-gt-8.JPG)
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2013, 08:57:32 AM
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.
Quote from: MX793 on June 10, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
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.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2013, 08:57:32 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 10, 2013, 03:37:10 PM
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
Quote from: r0tor on June 10, 2013, 04:32:13 PM
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.
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.
Nice post Laconian.
None of this is ever going to happen.
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 09, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
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.
Quote from: MrH on June 09, 2013, 08:18:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on June 11, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
They are so retarded. Buy a sports car or a bike, don't get a tricycle. It looks like a motorcycle with training wheels.
Or buy both!!! Can-am's are retarded expensive. I'd take the 20G's and buy a 15K sports car and a 5K bike.
Yea I am totally lost on trikes
Or why four wheels are the threshold for crumple zones, air bags, bumpers etc. I want a 4 wheel motorcycle god damn it.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 11, 2013, 12:19:13 PM
why four wheels are the threshold for crumple zones, air bags, bumpers etc. I want a 4 wheel motorcycle god damn it.
I wonder the same thing. I don't know why motorcycles are road legal, but ariel atoms aren't.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 11, 2013, 12:19:13 PM
I want a 4 wheel motorcycle god damn it.
(http://www.bunker-nrw.de/php/images/smilies/w2c7q0.gif)
The Swiss company Grüter + Gut hears you.
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/quadinangelesforest051gross_517.jpg)
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/stocker-1_lbb.jpg)
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/stocker-4_lbb.jpg)
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/hub-quadster-39_lbb.jpg)
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/meier-erhard-rot-5_lbb.jpg)
(http://www.gg-technik.ch/eng/quad/images/anderhub-16_lbb.jpg)
However I am assuming that the US government has never heard of Grüter + Gut, plus Made in Switzerland is not compatible with your price wish.
That looks really weird but really awesome at the same time. Like a jetski/waverunner on wheels.
I'd rather have a motorcycle, but still neat.
Now they just need to let it steer with a wheel and put the seats lower..........
Bars = 2 wheels
Steering wheel = 4 wheels
Toddlers = 3 wheels
I want a T-Rex. They're classified as a motorcycle up here.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Red_Campagna_T-Rex_in_New_York_left_rear.jpg)
(http://www.autowp.ru/pictures/campagna/t-rex/autowp.ru_campagna_t-rex_4.jpg)
Only problem with being classified as a motorcycle and looking like that is that you'll look really goofy with a helmet on just driving around.
Quote from: Rupert on June 12, 2013, 12:53:08 PM
Only problem with being classified as a motorcycle and looking like that is that you'll look really goofy with a helmet on just driving around.
I would wear a helmet with it anyway just because of the lack of a windshield. I would just get decked out all in white like the Stig.