Printable View
A car with 2 full size seats side by side in the front as usual
plus a smaller seat behind the 2 front seats. This seat is pretty much like the usual 2+2 bench only that is narrower so it can only accommodate 1 passenger whose legs may be placed over the transmission tunnel partially between the front seats back rests.
Got this idea as usually its more comfortable (actually less uncomfortable) to sit in the middle of the rear seat in 2+2 cars.
can we make the car FWD to avoid the transmission tunnel?
Why woudl you want that arrangement ?
The McLaren works as the legs of the rear seat passengers find space beside the driver.
Turn it the other way round and there is NO advantage in having only one seat in the rear, so you'd be as well making it a 4 seater ( a la the 1915 morgan 4-seater ) and concentrating in putting in decent seats !!
( Cant think of ANY car I've ever sat in where the middle was better then the "seats" )
Isn't the layout he's proposing just a narrower (in the rear) version of the Volvo C30?
I think some Japanese Kei car has this layout, I forget which one though.
Why wish for narrower in the rear ? The aero benefits are there , yes, but not that significant.]
I think one of the rear/mid engine kei cars were based on a truck engine/drivetrain and it was mounted to the side of the centreline thus losing one seat.
So like a more comfortable Toyota iQ? Or more like a reconfigured VW 1-litre car?
[quote=henk4;977097]can we make the car FWD to avoid the transmission tunnel?[/quote]
No...
I must agree that it does seem a bit pointless, as the car would end up 2 seats + leg room wide, instead of just 2 seats wide. Its only advantage would be in a situation where width is not a problem, but length is. It would allow a 3-seat car to be almost as short as a 2-seat car. I cannot think of many situations where that would be useful, as even a Smart would have to be stretched a bit to fit that configuration. Cars that are short enough that they would require that kind of packaging to fit a rear seat, were probably not intended to have a rear seat in the first place.
There is one clear advantage over something like the Gordon Murray Design T.25, or the McLaren F1, with their 1-front, 2-rear layout, though. If you want to carry a passenger, and talk to them at the same time, 1-front and 2-rear configuration requires you to shout over your shoulder. 2-front and 1-rear would allow you to talk directly to one passenger, and put your hand on his/her leg. This makes 2 front seats a preferable option, regardless of what is in the back, as far as I am concerned.
In addition, it would not necessarily be much wider than the 2-rear layout, as you would only need to allow space for one set of legs to intrude into the front, rather than two. The Mclaren was not all that narrow a car. It might find a use for a specialist car, like a supercar, where it allows use of free space, without forcing repackaging of the chassis or drivetrain. I still cannot think of any cars, or car designs, where it would help, though.
Besides, if you had a passenger seat in the middle at the back, where would you put the engine?
[quote=Matra et Alpine;977102]Why wish for narrower in the rear ? The aero benefits are there , yes, but not that significant.]
I think one of the rear/mid engine kei cars were based on a truck engine/drivetrain and it was mounted to the side of the centreline thus losing one seat.[/quote]
No idea. Just thinking of a car that was narrower in the rear.
[quote=kingofthering;977103]So like a more comfortable Toyota iQ? Or more like a reconfigured VW 1-litre car?[/quote]
Does it have a 3 passenger layout as stated? That would have been my first guess.
[quote=MilesR;977108]I must agree that it does seem a bit pointless, as the car would end up 2 seats + leg room wide, instead of just 2 seats wide. Its only advantage would be in a situation where width is not a problem, but length is. It would allow a 3-seat car to be almost as short as a 2-seat car. I cannot think of many situations where that would be useful, as even a Smart would have to be stretched a bit to fit that configuration. Cars that are short enough that they would require that kind of packaging to fit a rear seat, were probably not intended to have a rear seat in the first place.
There is one clear advantage over something like the Gordon Murray Design T.25, or the McLaren F1, with their 1-front, 2-rear layout, though. If you want to carry a passenger, and talk to them at the same time, 1-front and 2-rear configuration requires you to shout over your shoulder. 2-front and 1-rear would allow you to talk directly to one passenger, and put your hand on his/her leg. This makes 2 front seats a preferable option, regardless of what is in the back, as far as I am concerned.
In addition, it would not necessarily be much wider than the 2-rear layout, as you would only need to allow space for one set of legs to intrude into the front, rather than two. The Mclaren was not all that narrow a car. It might find a use for a specialist car, like a supercar, where it allows use of free space, without forcing repackaging of the chassis or drivetrain. I still cannot think of any cars, or car designs, where it would help, though.
Besides, if you had a passenger seat in the middle at the back, where would you put the engine?[/quote]
Why would you want to put your hand on your passenger's leg?
I kept thinking of this.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxKtqnUZU5k"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxKtqnUZU5k[/ame]
:D
[quote=henk4;977097]can we make the car FWD to avoid the transmission tunnel?[/quote]
Can we? Yes we can.
But who'd want FWD in his dream car?
[quote=Matra et Alpine;977098]Why woudl you want that arrangement ?
[/quote]
To improve practicality without increasing length or wheelbase as much as in a 2+2.
[quote=MilesR;977108]and put your hand on his/her leg.[/quote]
Hopefully her leg. Assuming you're a male of course.
[quote=MilesR;977108]It might find a use for a specialist car, like a supercar, where it allows use of free space, without forcing repackaging of the chassis or drivetrain. I still cannot think of any cars, or car designs, where it would help, though.
Besides, if you had a passenger seat in the middle at the back, where would you put the engine?[/quote]
I think a front engine sport car like the Corvette would benefit from a 3rd seat.
To fit a third seat in you'd have to increase either length or width, else there's be no leg room. It's surely easier to optimise a 2 seater in an ideal length/width ratio than 3, and by the time you've managed to sort out three seats, you might as well have four - if the third seat is practical at all you'll be able to fit four in, and if it's not you'll be able to fit two pointless rear seats in. See also many of the 2+2s available today.
[quote]Hopefully her leg. Assuming you're a male of course.[/quote]
Yes, indeed I would prefer it that way, but was just making sure that the suggestion complied with all the best equal-opportunity standards.
[quote=Big time;977169]Can we? Yes we can.
But who'd want FWD in his dream car?[/quote]
He would.
Don't ask...
[quote=Ferrer;977179]He would.
Don't ask...[/quote]
Engineered properly there's nothing wrong with FWD.
Honest! :D
[quote=NSXType-R;977193]Engineered properly there's nothing wrong with FWD.
Honest! :D[/quote]
Oh, I've had plenty of fun in front drivers, but they simply do not have the poise and balance and natural action a good rear wheel drive car has.
[quote=Ferrer;977179]He would.
Don't ask...[/quote]
but why would I put a single seat in the rear of an SM?