Linner Strømlinet Vogn (Now with 3D model!)

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by CFECO

I can agree with the "parts bin" factor, much easier to use what is already designed and built. For the most part rear drive vehicles handle better and have better weight transfer than front drive layouts. Rear engine cars can have great traction due to weight distribution, as can front drive, but due to moments of inertia, mid engine is better overall. Too bad the existing "packages", due not have low profile arrangements to allow them to be installed mid-mounted, below usable spaces.

IMHO for an "ordinary" car FWD wins - the advantages it gives in terms of packaging, access to the mechanical parts for servicing and stability are more valuable in every day driving than the ultimate in handling which having a hard to get at engine mounted in the middle would provide.

However if you were going to go for it then a Flat 4 may be suitable ? This car (Clan Clover) was a development of a car called a Clan which was originally based on the rear engined Hillman Imp



The difference was that the clover used the flat four engine from an Alfa-Sud, which is a very short and low engine as shown here.



It was mounted ahead of the rear wheels with the diff mounted in between them - effectively moving the FWD drivetrain to the rear. You could mount something like this (or a Sube F4 if you wanted to) quite low I would think which would give you a reasonable amount of space.

Can't help thinking the overall shape is looking like the ECV3 of the 1980s



It was a working car, there is a road test here - 115 MPH and 62MPG from 1.1 litres with a carb.

From a safety and comfort angle I would prefer to have my feet behind the axle line rather than pushed towards the middle of the car.

This is assuming the aim of this project is to make a practical car.

[CFECO]

The Pontiac Fiero was a mid engine "parts" car, and yes the engine was hard to get at for some things. For major mantaince a few bolts and some wires and hoses, the whole drivetrain dropped out on the floor. Too bad it did not have the 4 cylinder engine on it's side. Great handling car though, also id pretty good off road.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by CFECO

kach22i, are these drawings in #28 and #30 showing the 4.5" ground clearance with the suspension compressed?

The underlays for those drawings are a compilation of the FFR contest template (Subaru mid-engine), an Eagle/Evora template I found on-line, and the addition of a 90% human male (again found on-line) which did not fit the FFR template very well for some unknown reason. If I were ever to build, I would scale it up a little for more upright seating, and more ground clearance (more like Sven7's).

One of my sketches showed an adaptation of the Lotus Evora into a car I've been drawing in one form or another for 30 years. I've been stuck on this no-hood, single frontal plane all my life, just cannot shake it. Many of my early designs were flat planes, not the bubble/egg cars I now draw, but the concept of compact packaging remains.

Originally Posted by Sven7

kachi, I'd start with Lotus package and design your stuff over those general dimensions, wheelbase etc.

That's what I've been showing, the last sketch I did was a step back to see if I could get more dynamics out of the design, it was looking boring to me.

For your car, a more upright seating position will work best. This will be more mass-market or universally accepted than an Evora/Eagle template. I could take the human figure I've cut out and fit it to your car, but don't want to step on your toes. Deciding how far in front the windshield is to the driver is 100% your discovery process Sven7. However you may end up rather Pontiac Trans-Sport van-ish, which is not terrible, just be aware of the fish bowl you could be designing.

Having some more fun with my photo program. We need to get a proper section out of Sven7, maybe this will push him.

Industrial Design pictures by kach22i - Photobucket

[CFECO]

For windshields, I have been looking at the Nissan Murano rear glass. It has a nice compound curve to it and a central mounted windshield wiper. If it was laid back some it looks as though it could be very aero.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by CFECO

For windshields, I have been looking at the Nissan Murano rear glass. It has a nice compound curve to it and a central mounted windshield wiper. If it was laid back some it looks as though it could be very aero.

And it has built-in defrosters.

I would think that the visual quality specification is higher for windshields than other automotive glass. Plus rated quality-wise for the original angle only.

Just thinking out loud, I'm no expert.

[CFECO]

The main problem is that the windshield has to be laminated glass per DOT regs. In my X-Prize car, I was going to use a rear glass if I needed to, for the shape, with the established patterns to make the future windshields off of. There are many Lexan windscreens available for race cars that look very good, however, from my understanding, they don't pass with the DOT. Good enough for an F-16, but not safe for granny going to the store, Government efficiency in action. Plastic windshields all have the problem of scratching too.

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by CFECO

I can agree with the "parts bin" factor, much easier to use what is already designed and built. For the most part rear drive vehicles handle better and have better weight transfer than front drive layouts. Rear engine cars can have great traction due to weight distribution, as can front drive, but due to moments of inertia, mid engine is better overall. Too bad the existing "packages", due not have low profile arrangements to allow them to be installed mid-mounted, below usable spaces.

Rear engine cars only handle better at the hands of experienced drivers. Anyone else taking them to the limit will have a much greater chance of lifting off mid turn and spinning into oblivion. FWD cars are economical, predictable and ubiquitous. This is not a racing car. It's a 4 person commuter sedan. Besides, with active camber it should handle pretty well regardless.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This is assuming the aim of this project is to make a practical car.

That's exactly what it is. Something that you or me or your aunt could drive and get great mileage in. It's meant to be an everyday sedan exploiting aerodynamic principles to greatest effect. I have no interest in designing a supercar. There are far too many supercars already and frankly, they get old. I went to an Italian car show with no less than ten Ferraris, and found myself checking out a FIAT 850 Spider.

Practical, high-production, bread-and-butter cars will have a greater impact on the world than niche, hand built specials.

The point of this project is to design a vehicle that posts better MPG numbers than a Prius at a lower price, using a non-hybrid gas or diesel powertrain. I guess it could be electric too but that would defeat the cost part. Doubling 10% of the populations's mileage would IMO do a lot more good than making 0.5% of cars ZEV's. Plus you wouldn't have all the post-use battery disposal/"recycling" issues.

Also, Kachi, you've seen the blue box around the model. That's a Scion xB. I'll do an overlay to appease the masses :P

[Sven7]

*Please read the following* and keep it on topic

(Maybe we need a dedicated X Prize/random DIY car thread?)

OK, everyone. remember that blue box I was talking about? That is the Scion xB's proportions. Here is an xB over the streamliner.

See the thick black curve? That's the roofline of my streamliner.

I'll be lowering the 'liner's body to add a couple inches of foot room, but it should not be so low as to have too much aero interaction with the ground.

Each grid is a 100mm square. The xB is 3900mm long. The 'liner is ~5100mm. That's about half a finger's length longer than a Lexus LS, also pictured.

Note how the streamliner's roof is taller and longer than the LS's.



NOW! I move the two Toyotas forward so their cowls (the front of the doors) are about where the 'liner's will be. Look at how much interior space I have. Yes, a 3 cylinder engine will have to be jammed in there. I'll make the body version II a bit taller in front.



PS- To whoever may like to know: you can overlay blueprints like this by setting the Photoshop layer to "multiply" instead of "normal" in the Layer tab's dropdown menu. This will make all whites and greys transparent.

[Sven7]

One more for clarity. Here you can see JUST the bB's blueprint with seats and all. That'll be approximately where my seats will be, although a little staggered front to back.

[gone-ot]

...'short' front, 'long' tail, body reminds me of the '57 T-birds!