Alan B
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
Fire away......
with opinions....
A bit late for anything drastic (until Mark 2 ), but this is a reasonable representation of what it will look like. Some touching up has been done
(lights, for example) but nothing much.
So, fire away.............
|
|
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 02:03 PM |
|
|
v.nice Mr B. My hat is off to you sir....
Shouldn't be long now the bodyworks finished then eh?
Ned 
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
Thanks Ned.
Next step is to figure out all the body mountings, then work on the headlight buckets to get the body work ready for painting....then back onto the
frame for completion....then paint that....
Damn, I've barely started.....
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 05:43 PM |
|
|
Thanks Syd,
I did actually do a car body nearly 20 years ago....I just forgot what hassle it was....
I assume you mean the delightful, 4 cam 32 valve alloy jobbie?....the Northstar...
Yes, I believe it will...I did do an oversize engine bay....but, do I really need 275/300HP?
Of course....who doesn't....
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 11:11 PM |
|
|
Whaoo!
Looking good!
The only thing that I notice is the front arches!
The radius is continued round past the 90 degree mark at the bottom. This could possibly cause rubbing against the tyres when in droop with a certain
amount of steering lock on!
Otherwise great!
Can't wait to see a screen on it!
Terry
Spyderman
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 2/6/03 at 11:31 PM |
|
|
Thanks Terry,
Good point about the arch clearance.
The front is riding a little high (not got the full weight on) and is almost on full droop now....and just barely clears, so it is something
I'll have to watch for.....also the clearance for the headlights is minimal too.....all stuff that I'll need to look at.
Similarly the rear is riding a little low (soft springs), and I'd like the wheels to fill the arches a bit more.
But........at least I feel inspired and motivated to do these extra things, and that's partly due to the encouragement I get from you
guys.....so thanks everyone....
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
With larger rubber it would be more of a problem.
I think I need a bit of encouragement! When can you come round?
I'll supply the tea!
Terry
Spyderman
|
|
|
poloace
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 01:01 AM |
|
|
Well done Alan looks good,
Just out of interest do you have any idear how heavy the body panels are?
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 09:38 AM |
|
|
There's always one...
Hi Alan!
I've been looking at your design for a day or two... I was wondering whether to say anything, but then I thought that you had called for
comments... so, please take what follows as constructive criticism!
The area around the front wheel arches really bothers me, but I can't work out why - perhaps it just looks too hefty in comparison with the
rest, or maybe it's too square for my taste. Alternatively it may be the lack of scale in your pictures, as I guess that this is quite a small
car. I can't nail down what it is that bothers me - it's a lot easier to look at a design and be able to say "that looks just
right" without needing to know why.
As I say, I hate to criticise anyone doing something I wouldn't even consider doing myself, so I hope you'll appreciate that no malice is
intended. 
regards,
David
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 12:08 PM |
|
|
David, and anyone else, please do be honest and don't hold back with your opinions.....this is what I need....
If people do really like it, then that is great, but I really would like the bad feedback too.......
David, do you mean from this angle or some other viewpoint?....funny really, I like the front arches from this view....it's other things I like
less, but I won't say what unless anyone else mentions it too....
Just because I have spent a lot hours on it doesn't mean it can't be ugly......
It does look slighty different in real life and it is fairly small too.....
So, please everyone....fire away...
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 12:16 PM |
|
|
Syd, looks good, nice work.....I'm not into electric cars much, but that performance is good....
Poloace:
approx weights:
rear 30 pounds
body 40 pounds
front 15 pounds
So, it's no super-lightweight, but I sure some could be saved especially the rear if was a non-hinged "racing" version..
Terry, I hope to visit England perhaps next year and I hope to look up a lot of you guys..
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 12:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan B
David, do you mean from this angle or some other viewpoint?....funny really, I like the front arches from this view....it's other things I like
less, but I won't say what unless anyone else mentions it too....
<snip>
It does look slighty different in real life and it is fairly small too.....
It may be just that - some cars photograph well, while others don't but look much better 'in the flesh'.
Hence my comment about not being able to visualise the scale of the car.
It may be personal taste as well! I like the trans-am/Le Mans type of open racing cars, and I also like wedge-shaped cars, but yours doesn't
seem to fit into either category.
Maybe it's just because the wings seem a little high to me, in comparison with the back end. Imagine the seats were turned around - it would
look like a high-backed car with a long bonnet. Sounds daft, I know, but I freely admit I'm 'unconventional' (i.e. weird!). Perhaps
if the wheel arches were thinner - I don't know.
Maybe a few more views would help...
regards,
David
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
David, again thanks (really...)
If you get time there are more pics here:
http://www.desicodesign.com/meerkat/Bodywork%202.htm
at the bottom of the page.
Again, thanks.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 01:14 PM |
|
|
I must admit that I like the look of the car in the full-frontal view (the right-hand photo taken in the garden). There the wings look in proportion
with the rest.
More and more I think that it's the thickness of the front wing arches that bothers me, especially in front of the wheel. They make the front
of the car look heavy and slab sided from the side.
regards,
David
(well, you did say that I should speak freely... )
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
David, I do agree with you...I believe it was Terry who had a similar comment....(and my wife....).....
I'll see if I can do something with the front corners.......which ironically don't look as bad in this view.....IMO
The curving inwards of the sides ahead of the wheels is quite clear here, but not in other views.....
Either way, I'm either a crap car designer, or crap photographer...
Again, thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
Winston
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
I was having the same thoughts regarding the portion of the wheel arch ahead of the wheel being too "beefy." However, I think that the
comments regarding photography and front/top views vs. the side view give a clue as to how this visual "problem" can be dealt with. I
think that you simply need something -- probably a paint line -- on the side of the arch to define it from the part that begins to curve to form the
front bumper. I don't think that the arch is actually too thick, it's just that the illusion is given because of the unbroken vast expanse
of red that is seen from a side view. I'll work on a crummy MS Paint pic and upload it to try an illustrate my solution.
-Winston
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
Winston, thanks, I'll forward to seeing your ideas.....
|
|
|
Winston
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 03:03 PM |
|
|
Sorry for the large BMP file, Paint wouldn't let me save it as a JPG.
I couldn't get just a line to look good, so I tried a "blackout" ala the Chevy Camaro.
I really think that part of the lack of definition is due to the flat, unbuffed bodywork. I think that that part is shiny, the definition will be
visible.
-Winston
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 3/6/03 at 03:24 PM |
|
|
Thanks Winston, something like that has been suggested before......worth thinking about for sure.....
BTW, I've just thrown it open to opinions here too:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=42242&f=30&h=0
should be very interesting......
|
|
|
Spyderman
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 01:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan B
Snip.
Terry, I hope to visit England perhaps next year and I hope to look up a lot of you guys..
Oh bugger, erm I mean great!
I look forward to it!
I'd better get my finger out and get some work done then to show you.
Now where did I put the Garage door key, I'm sure I left it here last year!
Seriously though, the latest image really has highlighted my concerns about the front end.
The posts in the other forum confirm what I was thinking.
The car from the rear forward to just behind the front arches is tapering down and inwards into a delta like shape which makes it look quite delicate.
Then you come to the front arches and the great expanse of bonnet in between which has a very bulky, solid or heavy look to it.
As commented it is as if they are from different cars.
I think maybe if you were to open up the insides of the arches, like you originaly planned it would lighten the look of the front end. The body sides
would need to look as if they meet the front valence in a line taken from the current taper.
The other option would be to visually widen the mid section of the car. Making the sides appear parrallel until just forward of the scuttle.
Hope this makes sense!
I'll try and doctor some images for you to illustrate what I mean.
Judging from your comments I think you are not entirely happy with the appearance of the front section. I agree it is better to get other opinions
before expressing your concerns though!
Have you decided on what style of windscreen you will be using yet, because this could have a dramatic effect on how the car looks?
Terry
Spyderman
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 01:48 AM |
|
|
Hi again Terry,
Your points are well received and understood, and I'll be glad to look at yours and anyone else's suggestions. In real life the front
isn't really so bulky nor the narrow section quite so fragile looking...however, these photos are all you have to judge on, and if that
exagerates certain "bad" features then that may be a good thing...
The basic shape concept is really one tapering cuboid (pyramid?) running into the base of another giving a distinct waist...almost wasp-like I
guess....
The reason for the relatively "bulky" front end was to visually offset the rear which had to cover the engine.....It seems that has
worked.....
It is ironic that side profile is my favourite view, but enough concerns about specific areas will cause me to take action.
Again, thanks for taking the time to share your views.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 07:43 AM |
|
|
Alan,
Have you got a photo taken from the front quarter?
Might help to get another view of the 'problem' area.
cheers,
David
P.S. thinner arches sounds like a promising idea...
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 10:20 AM |
|
|
Alan,
On the constructive side, I've been trying to think of what i could suggest to improve the design of the front corner people seem to be making
comments on.
I know a different type of car all together, but have you though of a re-shape, anything along the lines of this front corner?
Obviously a different ride height/splitter type, but a suggestion none the less....
Best of luck with the mods, whichever way you go!
Ned.
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 11:59 AM |
|
|
For David (and others...)
Front 3/4 view
Thanks for everything so far....very constructive...
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/03 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
That makes it look better...
As I looked at this I glanced at your new avatar - how about the way the front of the wing is drawn on that?
Sounds silly, but have a good look at it !
cheers,
David
|
|
|
