Okrasa Special

[tim78]

But amazing none the less!

[scotal]

My first thought was longer and lower?

On the grounds that its much easier to be a critic than a craftsman, that looks to me like one of you sat on the back end.

I actually like the square on rear view, but the rear deck looks a bit droopy.


ETA, I've just read that back, and its a bit short. I should probably point out how much admiration I've got for both of you designing a car pretty much from scratch.

[tim78]

I have to say I agree with you. Longer and higher then?

[scotal]

I have to say I agree with you. Longer and higher then?

Leave it as it is, stick a spolier on it.



or maybe not

[steve wright]

yes that looks in keeping with the period and doesn't look like an after-thought!!

Interesting view on the rear being sloppy, I suggested to Barry that we drop the edge where it meets the rear window to flatten the rear boot and increase the dip from the arch. I also have a sneaking suspicion this will go away as an issue with better rubber and the rear being tied down - the car is back in the workshop and about to be re-screwed to the floor, so we'll eliminate that as a possibility this weekend.

Keep the ideas/views/opinions coming, it's all good.

Cheers,
Steve

[Barry]

TBH, the pictures are a bit misleading, as the rear really doesn't look overly low when view dead side-on, although that's not to say that raising it isn't an option. Also, I do think that I got the side view very close to the one rendering that we've been working from (page 7 on this thread).

For all that, it ain't right, so keep the ideas coming, and like I say, any pictures of kamm tailed cars (whether in period or not thinking about it, as the principles of aesthetic are still going to apply).

One thing that I know we were keen on was the idea of keeping the tail fairly short to make it visually clear that it's a mid-engined car.

From my perspective the ideal is to have some sort of image (or two) where we can say 'like that one, with a bit of this one', and I can then have a stab at taking it forward.

One lucky thing is that I think generally it looks as though we will be wanting more visual weight on the back, not less, so that means any wire modifications can be overlaid over the existing stuff without risking going backwards.

[tim78]

"One thing that I know we were keen on was the idea of keeping the tail fairly short to make it visually clear that it's a mid-engined car".


Ah, I'd just had another go at making the rear longer but at the same height.

[Barry]

I have just noticed one thing Googling around, and that's the rear valance of successfully styled cars (Dino, GT40, 904) appears to finish around the centre-line of the rear wheels, or at least, the visual (body coloured) part.

Since the overall depth of the rear probably isn't hugely out, that might imply that the tail does need lifting.

That's definitely not the only issue here (because we tried covering the whole of the bottom of the rear view with a big chunk of ply, and it still wasn't right), but may be part of it. I also suspect that I've pulled the rear panel in too much: i.e. it should be a smidge wider.

Right, that's it, 911's to restore .... laters .

[Barry]

Ooh, just noticed the change : very interesting, as that certainly looks more 'right', or at least, if you now scroll up to the orginal, it looks more wrong .

Suggests we're heading the right way?

[sladey]

Fantastic work yadda yadda yadda......

Right

I think from the rear there's a touch of the Jag XJ6 about it. Personally I think it should sweep in a bit more to make the rearmost part a bit narrower - i.e. the back edge is as wide as the rear screen; if it was narrower it would look better IMHO. Maybe if it came down a bit that would help it look less slab-arsed (and I'm talking relatively here - obviously - it still looks gorgeous)

The 904 adds interest with the swauge (?) line - but to do something like that would look like it's slapped on for the sake of it - unless there are other lines that could be reused to break it up a bit.

I like a slight camm tail as well

[Bruce M]

NO LAUGHING!

The best I can do with hammer and chisel (10mins + microsoft paint!!)

I've lifted the rear and the lights. Also cut a little off the bottom edge.
At the very least it should give a rough idea.
With a higher tail, I think you could even go shorter.

[Bruce M]

hehe .... this is good fun.

raised boot and narrowed slightly (to accent the rear arches).



it's obviously not straight and all that but half shut your eyes and you get the general idea (sort of!)....

[hot66]

I think the rear of the arch ( in the valance needs shortening or cutting up ) to be inline the axle centre. Also think the rear valance needs visibly removing . For some reason at the moment , the overall height of the rear bodywork ( lights / number plate panel & rear valance) seems too big relative to it's width ??

I also wonder wether forming the rear arches into a 'bubble' arch or lipped like the picture below might help too? This might give it some visual width.



it's this 3/4 view that I think needs a tweek

[/img]

[Bruce M]

as per the 904 above... on most kamm tails of the period, the rear surface leans back a little more (imho).

[Barry]

Brilliant stuff! Thanks everyone, feel free to pitch in all ideas.

Bruce, you're absolutely right on the kamm tail: at the time it felt as though I was already tilting it back quite a bit, but you're right, it needs to be at a much more aggressive angle. Outside, the current angle almost looks like an error rather than a design.

I must admit that when you look at cars in general of this period (any period?), it's rarely the best view. Nevertheless, the on-line collective is really taking strides to help us nail this .

All very helpful!