UCP Supercar II

[Ferrer]

i feel ignored... noone answered my question...

As you can see, mid engined rear driven four seater.

[Matra et Alpine]

The windscreen is too far forward, too shallow, and it is also curved, so it is a big lens.

2 possible comments ....

1) It's a sales feature and will be offered in different prescriptions so that drivers won't need to wear their normal glasses when driving and hence can "Look cool"

or

2) The curve doesn't make it a lens. If their are different curves on each side of the glass then yep, THAT is a lens. But on something that size it would need to be about 6 inches thick to make a difference


I took it to just be a line indicating normal limits of movement for the passengers and not the actual lines of the car he was proposing. If it was curved and especially if also covered across the vehicle it would be VERY expensive to make in glass --- of course perhaps it could use plastics

[70cuda88]

the shecmatic looks like rear engine, or would you call that mid?

[Ferrer]

the shecmatic looks like rear engine, or would you call that mid?

Well the engine is ahead of the rear axle. I guess that makes it a mid engined car.

[70cuda88]

oh i see, hmm ok

[Mr.Tiv]

Did a montage of a skemathic found on another post just to get a view, what do you guys think? Changes?

In addition to that which has already been said, I think it looks like the front overhang might end up being a bit long for my tastes.

[ruim20]

turn the engine around

EDIT: Also ..... don't need that much leg room in the rear.
It's a GT not a Maybach

I was hopping for it to have "some" leg room in the back, i don't want a visual rear seats, for that we might as well do a 2 seater and forget about the back passengers, less space and less weight, yes?

do i turn the engine, 90º or a full 180º so the gearbox moves to the front? could we make it so the gearbox could stay in the midle of the back seats?

and Conventry... it doens't even sound like you that's just a seat layout, engine and wheels, the rest came with the original picture.

[Matra et Alpine]

I was suggesting a 180 turn ( so it matches the Alpine layout
Nice idea ... with modern matierals a gearbox coudl be compact enough to fit between the two rear passangers ? Now THAT would be somethign different !!
Agree, don't make it too small -- or too difficult to get in and out of ... BUT I've managed 4 grown adults in the RX-8 and everyone comfortable. Done the sam ein teh A610 too, but it is more claustraphobic and you need to be fit to climb in and out of the back !!! BMW 5-series size woudl be fine, just not Maybach

[Coventrysucks]

do i turn the engine, 90º or a full 180º so the gearbox moves to the front? could we make it so the gearbox could stay in the midle of the back seats?

Turning the engine 180° might be an idea, but a potential drawback is that the return from the gearbox to the axle will tend to push the engine up, raising the COG.

and Conventry... it doens't even sound like you that's just a seat layout, engine and wheels, the rest came with the original picture.

Course I don't sound like this "Convent" fellow.

I know you pilfered the picture, I was just pointing out some bits that didn't look right.

Shamelessly pilfered from my notes:

Back angles - traditionally front occupant manikins are positioned into vehicles at a back angle of 25°, rear occupants 27°.

Hip to Heel point (height) - as a general rule of thumb this dimension underlies the nature of the driving position i.e. upright SUV type or sports type driving position. As the occupant is raised and the knee and hip angles close, the effective leg room gets shorter.

Sports car = c.173mm
Small/medium/large car = c.260mm
SUV = c.321mm

Hip to Heel point (length)

Small = c.1005mm
Medium/Large = c.1045mm
Sports = c.1095mm

I can't find what the recommended maximum angle of rake for windscreens is at the moment.

FWIW I don't think the front overhang needs to be any shorter. Remember that presumably that will be where both the fuel tank and any luggage is going to go.

[Matra et Alpine]

Turning the engine 180° might be an idea, but a potential drawback is that the return from the gearbox to the axle will tend to push the engine up, raising the COG.

Maybe the tranny designers can look at taking the power off both ends of the mainshaft in the gearbox - assuming it's still AWD ?
It shouldn't' have to raise the engine.
Are their targets for ground clearance and wheel sizes ? Might be ok for the driveshafts to exit ABOVE the engine output shaft line. Needs the geometry of the drive shafts looked at.

[Ferrer]

Maybe the tranny designers can look at taking the power off both ends of the mainshaft in the gearbox - assuming it's still AWD ?
It shouldn't' have to raise the engine.
Are their targets for ground clearance and wheel sizes ? Might be ok for the driveshafts to exit ABOVE the engine output shaft line. Needs the geometry of the drive shafts looked at.

Wasn't it supposed to be RWD?

I suppose a tranversely mounted engine would be better for packaging.

[Matra et Alpine]

Wasn't it supposed to be RWD?

ah right, missed that easy then !

I suppose a tranversely mounted engine would be better for packaging.

"depends"
Large reciprocating mass can lead to "precess" forces making handling different between left and right hand high speed corners SO only if you keep the eingine small !!
Also if you go for a V ( or W ) then exhaust routing becomes a problem and the attendant heat. Could avoid if you vent the exhuasts through the top deck But likely to fail health and safety in every market

[Ferrer]

"depends"
Large reciprocating mass can lead to "precess" forces making handling different between left and right hand high speed corners SO only if you keep the eingine small !!
Also if you go for a V ( or W ) then exhaust routing becomes a problem and the attendant heat. Could avoid if you vent the exhuasts through the top deck But likely to fail health and safety in every market

Small-ish straight six could be a solution then?

[ruim20]

I was suggesting a 180 turn ( so it matches the Alpine layout
Nice idea ... with modern matierals a gearbox coudl be compact enough to fit between the two rear passangers ? Now THAT would be somethign different !!
Agree, don't make it too small -- or too difficult to get in and out of ... BUT I've managed 4 grown adults in the RX-8 and everyone comfortable. Done the sam ein teh A610 too, but it is more claustraphobic and you need to be fit to climb in and out of the back !!! BMW 5-series size woudl be fine, just not Maybach

Yeah, the rear wheels can come much closer to the rear seats know, so probably it wont look so long, i'll give it a try

Turning the engine 180° might be an idea, but a potential drawback is that the return from the gearbox to the axle will tend to push the engine up, raising the COG.


Course I don't sound like this "Convent" fellow.

I know you pilfered the picture, I was just pointing out some bits that didn't look right.

Shamelessly pilfered from my notes:

Back angles - traditionally front occupant manikins are positioned into vehicles at a back angle of 25°, rear occupants 27°.

Hip to Heel point (height) - as a general rule of thumb this dimension underlies the nature of the driving position i.e. upright SUV type or sports type driving position. As the occupant is raised and the knee and hip angles close, the effective leg room gets shorter.

Sports car = c.173mm
Small/medium/large car = c.260mm
SUV = c.321mm

Hip to Heel point (length)

Small = c.1005mm
Medium/Large = c.1045mm
Sports = c.1095mm

I can't find what the recommended maximum angle of rake for windscreens is at the moment.

FWIW I don't think the front overhang needs to be any shorter. Remember that presumably that will be where both the fuel tank and any luggage is going to go.

Thank you for thoose, i'll use them in the next "sketchs"

[aNOBLEman]

Small-ish straight six could be a solution then?

Or a TT V-6 in the Noble M12/M400 style, but seeing as this is apparently going to be a larger car than those it could use some more power.