How are all the budding chassis Designers fairing?

[Ian Anderson]

Thinking outside the normal
What about along the lines of the Aerial Atom
see
http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/

OK so this is not comfort loaded but pretty impressive specifications 0-100-0 (mph) inn 10.8secs 0-60 under 3 and this out of a 2300cc engine.

How about this with a 600 hp V8 and some slippery outer skin?

Oh yes to see how it rates look at the BBC Top Gear Power Laps
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps/

More ideas?

Ian

 

Dennis,

Of course these cars are going to have a level of fit and finish above what the average 'kitcar' builder could do with their cars. However, a kitcar doesn't cost 300-400k and if I was spending that kind of money, I'd expect a little more than naff nylon loop carpet and dodgy vinyl seats.

You've got to be realistic, and I'm sure that a lot of guys out there building their cars in their home workshop will put a lot more into the final fit and finish of the car - far more than what will take it to get registered.

And regardless whether its a replica, or a home built car from the likes of Ultima, the cars (GT40 replicas in particular) are probably more sorted in terms of chassis dynamics etc than the originals. Especially when one considers the variety of engine and transmission options available today. Yes, they are replicas, but they're still supercars.

And if we consider past history, I'm suprised that the most sacred of all Hallowed marques, Ferarri, is still making cars given their past attempts at making cars. They were woefully unreliable, tempremental to a tee, rusted, chassis were basic beyond belief, cabins, apart from some nice dials, a Nardi wheel, and leather were a little naff to say the least and the brakes were nowhere near up to stopping them. Classic Bentley and Rolls Royces prices when new would make the 1 million AUD look like pocket change and were still unresolved. Astons, as beautiful as they are, suffered the same problems as the average car of the day, and were unreliable.

So if you're comparing new standards in supercar technology with old, then its a little unfair.

Finally, I really don't understand your point. We all know that a replica will always be a replica, but to discount their supercar status is rude. If its nice panel gap, and a fancy interior is what makes a supercar, then a Mercedes A160 is a supercar...

Anyway, I'm going to build a supercar and b*llocks to anyone who says otherwise. It'll be SUPER because I'll be building it, and a car, as its a, erm car... So that makes it a Super-car. Maybe that's the difference!

Richard,

I looked up the Harrop web site and they do some seriously nice stuff. I'll have to put them top of the list for parts sourcing. Thanks for the email, dropped you a line.

Sorry to rant on about the supercar thing - I think its late, had too much coffee and am over the moon to be back at work, especially as my carpet is covered in ants! They got in as I left the door open a touch.

Goodnight all

 

[Howard Jones]

What I find interesting is we all pretty much agree that 100K would do the job IF we want to define supercar status to being able to outperform the +300K factory supercars.

So it shouldn't be much of a suprise to find out that the other 200K is going into regulation, profit, and bling.

I don't agree that a "Kit" isn't equal to any other kind of car. After all all cars are put together from a pile of parts.

If a guy took a RF for example and spent(sum of the parts and minum labor) 100K US on it I AM SURE you would have a supercar. The Danm thing would be MUCH faster than most of us could drive by god.

This comment applys to MDA, ERA, SPGT etc. AS well.

So our little discussion has served to underscore just how complete a modern GT40 "Kitcar" is and if done with a careful hand would surely be a "Supercar".

Hell I could rebody a good old GTD, drop in a quaife 6 speed and the aformentioned Big Alum V8 and be in the ballpart for a LOT LESS than $100K. Then I could take her out a blow the doors off that damn enzo for real!

 

Hi Ian, this must be your first post on this particular thread. Welcome! I've seen the Ariel Atom before - pretty psycho machine even in its standard guise, never mind with a crazy 600 nag bent 8.

Howard, I agree with you, maybe Dennis' build skills are so bad that anyone passing one of his machines would be in no doubt that it was a kit, and would be fooled into thinking they were replicas even if they were genuine Cobras and GT40.

I think I need to find out what constitutes a 'Supercar' - I'm sure that there is some official site that defines coined phrases.

 

[Mike Dozier]

To me a "Supercar" is an ultra high performance vehicle
manufactured for street use by a legitimate, well known automobile company. Sorry...no replica company
regardless of the work quality they do...builds "Supercars".

The turnkeys that RF/ERA/etc sell are "super performing" custom cars....high quality....high performance...but no REAL heritage that justifies them a place in History
alongside original "Supercars".

That's not to say they can't be enjoyed any less...
just a realization that they'll never be any more
than a replica of a truly great automotive classic.

MikeD

 

So if a supercar has to have heritage, then where do cars such as the Gumpert Apollo, Koenigsegg, Mosler,Pagani, Saleen, Ultima, Spyker, Noble, Stealth and I could go on and on giving you examples of Supercars with no Heritage than more than 5-10 years, so nothing in your opinion, Mike. I went to www.supercarworld.com, just to see what cars constituted a supercar in their eyes. The were even REPLICAS! The Superformance Daytona Coupe and a McLaren M6GT were just two replicas I found on the site.

Strange that it seems that your opinion, as valid as it is, is far removed from anyone else's. Its a shame that you have the arrogance to look down your nose at Replicas, regardless of build quality and regard them as a second class citizen in the world of sportscars.

Do you have a similar attitude towards people? Is the person who wears only Gucci, Chanel, Zegna, etc, etc the kind of people you regard to having real class and substance? I mean, you can only be a valid person if your clothes are perfect, hair just so and a mouth full of white teeth?

Goodness, I didn't realise there was an Arian version of motor vehicles!

 

I really have to watch what I type... And syncronise thinking speed with typing speed...

My point is how do we catagorise these marques when they have no real heritage (less than a decade in most instances)?

I find it odd that we can differentiate between cars of similar performance and put them into seperate catagories simply because one is a replica of a vehicle no longer built by the original factory.

In the latest edition of Octane Magazine, they document the creation of an Auto Union GP car dating back from the thirties. This car was based on an original chassis, or indeed could have been a newly commissioned one, but everything else had to be rebuilt, especially the bodywork. Does this mean then that this car that has been created for Audi has no historical significance, or cannot absord some of the heritage bourne out of the past glories of Auto Union? There have been many replicas built, some commanding extremely high prices, but still replicas, and they are looked upon with a serious amount of desire and respect.

Take the GT40 replica for example, properly tuned and set-up, I imagine that it could easily dust many of the more modern supercars today, let alone any contemporaries of the original. By that fact alone, a replica or not, it still deserves to be regarded as a supercar. Take away the bodyshell and some of the authentic looking parts (brass eyelet seats, Mota-lita wheel, dashboard, and what is left is a car that when we put replacement parts in that look nothing remotelty looking like the replica it was, we now have a vehicle that can only be regarded as a new supercar.

Discuss?!

 

[Joe T]

I think this sort explains why all cars differ, peoples opinions will never line up, maybe do a poll asking people there favorite 10 supercars, I reckon you would end up with a list that everyone disagrees with.

I am building/developing a 2 seater sports car and whilst I take onboard opinion, but I am sticking to a path I am happy with. When a collective opinion is involved it becomes more complicated to develop something.

I have seen a little bit of replica bashing strangley even on here, but nothing worth getting excited about.

Be happy with your own opinion and respect others. Here is someone else's opinion of what a supercar is or should have as many features of that I found on the web.

1-A top speed that exceeds 140 MPH
2-Paint color is predominantly black, white, yellow, red or silver
3-Has over 210 Bhp in the power department
4-Has a straight 6 or 8, boxer 4, 8 or 12, V8, V10 or V12 engine
5-Worth more than it's original asking price (taking inflation into account)
6-Has twin turbos
7-The model in general has won internationally recognized races
8-Wears tires more than 7" wide
9-Acceleration to 60 Mph in less than 7.5 seconds
10-Is by definition a supercar i.e. Mclaren F1
11-Is by definition an expensive car when bought from new
12-The particular model in general has been raced by an official race car team.
13-Was made in a limited production run of 3000 or less.
14-Is very rare in its own right regardless of numbers originally produced
15-Has been professionally, substantially modified in the performance department compared to more ordinary models of the same make.
16-Is or was originally a manufacturers prototype or concept car
17-Is widely recognized as a dream car or a highly desirable classic
18-Has been built using some or many light weight materials
19-Is a Porsche, Lamborghini, or Ferrari
20-Is considered to be an automotive icon of its year
21-Has an air of mystery, a certain "Je ne sais quoi" that your run of the mill weekly shopping carrier will never have.
22-Is very expensive to run and maintain
23-Was intended to have only two occupants or is a 2+2 coupe.

 

And anyway, we've gone away from trying to find out how the designers on this forum are doing with their respective projects, we're actually discussing our own car. Anyone is welcome to make suggestions and pass on ideas - you could see it in the flesh one day. So rather than smug replies, mine included, can we get on with the job in hand...

By the way, I've come up with a few body ideas, very basic, but they in scribbled ink. Will attempt to transfer them to CAD at some point and share with anyone remotely interested. ANyone else willing to post ideas?

 

That's quite a reasonable list of perameters Joe. Although cost shouldn't be considered - The likes os Ultima and the like would then be excluded. Maybe if we said that a supercar had to fulfil 15 of your 23 points.

Mid mount a twin turbo V8 in a Ford Fiesta Popular, around B-reg and we'd have a well cheap supercar, although ironically a rather expensive and fast coffin!

 

[Mike Dozier]

Matt

To me a "Supercar" has to have wide public recognition
as well as Government approval....otherwise any "one-off"
can lay claim when they haven't really earned it
(see Vector as an example).

Saleen is a true manufacturer...having passed emissions
and crash tests. Unless those items have been done,
then the vehicle is not a legal automobile...
it's a 4-wheeled custom.

And I don't degrade replicas in the least...I've built (2)
and have (2) more in my garage. There's no doubt
they could perform equal to or better than the cars
they copy if I toss enough money at them.

Does that mean that any other opinion is incorrect?
Of course not...I'm stating my point of view in the hopes
that others will think a little more before laying claim
to owning a "Supercar".
Regards

MikeD

 

[Howard Jones]

I find the vector to be a very good example. I bet I ran into that car 10 times in the last dozen plus years. Every time it was being presented as the latest supercar "nearly" ready for production. The cost as I recall was always about 3-4 time the cost of a corvette and as far as I know it never did go into production.

So what is it a good example of. Not a supercar, hotrod or even a running car as far as I know. And thats the whole point. Its how a car performs against its rivals that makes it super of pretender. The other adjective would be affordable. They are not mutually exclusive.

This thread has at least presented the logical case for a $100K two seat midengine sport car with a power to weight ratio of about 4 to 1. Cornering power as good as any car at three times the cost and a top speed in the 200 mph range.... AND IT COULD AT LEAST IN THEORY BE BUILT AT HOME!!!

Now whats not super about that?


So lets see some body shapes and get on with the dream.

 

Mike,

I don't want anyone to think their opinion is being disregarded, as it differs from another. I agree with a lot of what people are saying, even if the final outcome is different from mine. I've been looking at replicas myself, but am contemplating building my own car. Whether that takes ten years or not, I'm just going to go through the exercise of designing a car myself. However, a replica is still very appealing. But, putting all replicas in the same basket is a little harsh to all the well respected companies that makes them. The only reason why most of us are aware of supercars is the vast sums of cash that large multi-nationals put into marketing and product placement.

I've enjoyed this deviation from the original subject thread as much as I have been frustrated and bemused.

I'm with Howard, in that a reasonably capable person with a little outside assistance can build a car comparable to the accepted supercar posse. Yes, it might well have a body of fibreglass and quite possibly a space framed chassis which is quite old-school by anyone's standards, but the engines, brakes, suspension and transmission are bang up to date, along with other safety features.

I'd still argue that we could go well below the 100K build price, especially if we concentrate on the chassis, rather than massive hp.

Howard, if you're waiting for me to post some concept body drawings, you'll have to wait until I master CAD, or until I get home next week, so that I can scan in some scribbles... but don't hold your breath.

Hope everyone has a great weekend and gets time to post.

 

[Howard Jones]

I've been looking at pictures of rolex grand am prototype cars and their basic bodyshpe is in line with what we are talking about. Mid engine, enough room in the wheel house for two people side by side, doors on each side of the car, front liquid coolers, etc.

The overall size would need to be increased what looks like about 10%. This would result in a car slightly smaller than a new GT and about 8% larger than our GT40's.

Thsi brings me to another desison point. I think we should design the car around the footprint that results from the space required to seat two people side by side. We make the cabin as large as we need and then add lenght for the fuel cell behind, or between the seats but below the floor so that we are in compliance with raceing body requirements that don't allow fuel to be stored within the drivers compartment.

We can then hang the powertrain on the back the coolers on the front and we will have a basic chassis to apply suspension to.

Once we have a roller we can put skin on it. I propose we use a currently in production front windshield. Maybe the new GT's front windshield would work for this.

As far as shape goes, if we cover up the chassis and use a known windshield shape we will have a car shape 90% complete. The rest is how to get the air into and outof the coolers, wheel arches, bumpers if any, etc.

 

[Mike Dozier]

Howard et al

I have no doubt a "homebuilt" if done right could yield
"Supercar" performance for less than the price of a new GT
new Lambo or new Ferrari. But would you be willing/able/comfy
to drive it 1,000 miles at a clip on typical streets and highways? If not...then it's a racecar...not a Supercar.
All automobiles are a compromise...

Styling is another matter....personally I think the current crop of prototypes are as appealing as week old tunafish.

MikeD

 

This it a tough and complex subject to come up with a deffinition of "Supercar". In short; to me a Cobra might be a supercar for performance but it's not a beautiful supercar. Some of the old cars of the '30's were beautiful but didn't have supercar performance. To me a car has to have beautiful styling, grace, and a mistique, much like a woman. It's the shape, the lines, sound and smell that gets your eye and your reaction. I've had some experience in this thing of shaping out a few car bodies. In 1966 I had a hand in shaping out a mid-engine Dune buggy; ugly! but did it perform! Some people loved the looks, some people hated the looks of the body. Another example; we took a Lotus Elan and put it on a VW floor pan and called it the "Hustler" Looked good... not so good performance! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. More recent examples. I shaped out the Body of the Daytona Coupe for Factory Five. What do you guys think of the body shape? That was pretty much my own interpretation of the original Daytona Coupe. I shaped out another car called the "Dragon", not my shpe, but the body shape was the project owner's shape and interpretation of some style he had in his head that he thought was beautiful. How many like the "Dragon" or even know what it looks like. I also think it's a male thing and maybe a woman thing too: we all know when we see somethingor a shape beautiful! I guess it comes down to; one man's wine is another man's vinegar. But it sure is nice to say; "boy! could she perform!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flehan.gif the car I mean!

 

William,

Welcome to this (out) post. I think you're on the money when it comes to describing what a supercar is on a subjective level. We tend to measure every car that has been by what is new and groundbreaking today, whereas I'd lean towards comparing performance cars of a particular era with the competitors of the day and the more domestic vehicles that they towered over. It would be mindless to compare a Jaguar XKSS with a XJ220. The XKSS has to be compared to the cars of the day, which would demonstrate it to be one of the supercars of the period.

I think previously I may have been misunderstood. I'd argue that a modern GT40 replica is basically a new sportscar with a classic body on top. This is true when we look at the engine options (Road legal 500hp Ford Quad cam is quite an option) and all the suspension, chassis and transmission possibilities create a truly modern car with distinctly classic looks. But, as this car has a replica body, other people have stated that it could never be a supercar. What would happen if Fran, Robert, indeed any one of the many replica builders decided to plonk a new body onto their chassis and marketting it as a new sports car. With 200mph quite possible from most of the replica manufacturers, a current replica with a new body then deserves to be regarded in its own light, and thus a new supercar is born.

This is what I've tried to get at. I heard an old saying in reference to an associate. A friend of mine suggested that no matter how much money the person in question had, he would never have any class. Class cannot be bought, it can evolve, it can just appear and it can be instilled. Therefore a supercar is a synergy of all its components, creating a result greater than its parts appraised individually. Regardless of its construction, regardless of body material. So long as a vehicle has an appearance that stirs the emotions, performance that commands respect and a driving experience that leaves the driver begging for more, then it can be truly regarded as a supercar.

Mike,

If we could come to this post and offer solutions to a problem, rather than taking a compromise in design, then we'd be better off with a production car. I think we could design and build a car that is not only comfortable to drive long distances, but can perform close to the cars that we admire today. I doubt that an Enzo, Zonda, Gallardo etc would be great to drive and attempt to get out of after 1000 miles. I'm with no doubt that backsides would be numb and backs would need massage by something hot and with scant clading.

But we're going to have to be conservative in our expectations, otherwise the design will get out of hand and simply become too complex, or more importantly, too expensive and we'd be back on the forecourt of our local sportscar dealer kicking tyres. I do believe, that if we make our own car, in our own gargaes, we can tailor the basic design to suit our needs. I can't insist that electric windows are used, nor can I force Howard to put a more sane engine in the back of the thing.

I'm no expert in car design, but I know what I like and what I would want to put in my car and how I would build it. I have a reasonable talent in being able to visualise ideas and see potential problems, but thats as far as I go.

So we can sit here and contiue to discuss the philosophy of the supercar phenomena, or we could start to move forward with the design process.

I really look forward to checking this post each evening after work and I appreciate everyone's comments, so the more post that we have with people's comments, then better and potentially more informed we'll be.

Have a great day, I'm halfway through the weekend already, but I'm working so it doesn't matter!

 

[Kevin M]

You know, since most of the people on this forum either have a GT40 or like GT40s (we will assume this is true since they come to this forum). Something that would seem appropriate to most people here would be a discussion of how we improve the performance of a GT40 without changing the look too drastically.

The first area would be suspension. The front is pretty good as is so there is not a lot needed there. The rear is a bit more of a problem. The use of leading links and a reverse A-arm means that we get toe changes every time the suspension moves. This is not good.

A fairly simple fix for this is to replace the reverse A-arm with two equal length, parallel links. This causes the wheel to maintain the same toe as it moves forward and back. That will bring our suspension close to what a modern supercar would have (from a functional standpoint).

Next is Aero. There are basically four things that need to be done here and will not make the car look wrong relative to it’s time period.

First: The rear spoiler needs to be higher. We need look no further than the original GT40 racing cars for the answer to this. A number of the Mk I cars copied the adjustable flat plate rear spoiler from the Mk II. There are many pictures of them racing in the later 60s with these spoilers. The nice thing is that this type of spoiler is very easy to make and could be removed from the car in future should you ever want to.

Second: Too much air goes under the front of the car causing lift. The original cars experimented with a wide variety of front spoilers. You can make your own from a flat sheet of metal as many racing teams did in the 60s, or you could get Mark LeVea’s chin spoiler if you prefer a little more integrated look.

Third: A spoiler is not much good if the air goes over it and can then drop back down under the car before it gets to the radiator. There needs to be some sort of ductwork that will channel the air entering the grill back to the radiator without allowing it to escape and go under the car. This will have to feature overlapping panels so that the front can tilt up without interference.

Last: Once the air is in, it needs to come out easily without any of it getting underneath the car. The answer here is again as close as the racing teams of the 60s. The later GT40s used a one-piece nostril assembly that goes all the way to the bottom of the radiator like the Mk II cars. This can be seen on pictures of the Gulf cars in 68 and 69.

Simply making those changes, fairly simple to do and all of which are period correct, will bring the performance of a GT40 close to that of a modern car of similar horsepower.

Kevin

 

A very realistic approach to the quandry of developing the GT40 Kevin, and it fits in well with this forum. No doubt someone is going to come in and try and pull your points to pieces. I mentioned the tendancy for the GT40's nose to lift at high speed and start to wander and the replies regarding driving at that speed and that no race track would accomodate those speeds, so why bother, blah, blah, blah. What the posters said was quite true, but that wasn't the point - I wanted to be sure that since a decent Ford V8 is going to send you into well over 150mph teritory, so just in case I decided to go mental, the car wouldn't. Simple

I wonder whether creating a flat floor under the car would help and cutting an apperture directly under the nostril. Would that allow air that has dipped under the car to have an opportunity to escape through a venturi effect. Maybe we'd have to consider putting a protrudance like a spoiler on the trailing edge of the apperture, to create a diversion for the air flow.

What do you think?

 

Matt, my guess is, that air flowing under the nose turned up amd out the top would create too much drag. I think it's too much of a sharp turn. Air seems to go turbulant when it's forced to make sharp turns. There may be not enough room with a radiator and radiator ducting taking up so much space in the nose. There is a good conversation going on over on the FFCobra.com forum on this subject in the GTM section. Check it out!