View Single Post
  #8  
Old 11-11-2011, 11:14 PM
MilesR MilesR is offline
Novice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
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?
Reply With Quote