I thought I would share an email conversation unedited on DDK that highlights some of the challenges that exist in designing a car. Thank goodness for Barry and Al is all I can say, to keep me in check, but I suspect my thinking and aspiration would be pretty common. It's also hilarious prose, especially from Al which I think will really make people chuckle. Barry and Al were okay with me sharing this BTW....
--------------------------------
Hey. Al in case you had missed the post on DDK I moved the Special up to Barry's new workshop last weekend, so am hoping the car will be finished at the end of the month given its convenience for Barry now
On a more serious note I spent a bit of time looking afresh at the design and think we need to tweak it. I know we need to conclude what we currently doing but I can't help feeling we're going to be satisfied that it's better than it was (especially in resolving the roof dominance) but something is still nagging about 3 aspects for me:
1. The length of the rear wing needs to be extended aka Porsche 910, Lotus 23, Cooper Monaco. All three are mid engined and have the front half of the wing extend well forward into the quarter panel, with a ruddy big hole for the air inlet. I know it might cause issues with the quarter window but we can solve that.
2. It would then force us to raise the height of the wing itself, which I think is still too low, ie it needs the top of the wing to be much higher than the front, to give a visual sense of aggression to the car
3. The lower part of the rear wing behind the wheel looks too low. I think the station section running front to back needs to be radically trimmed to give less weight to it.
I'll send through a couple of photos to accompany these thoughts.
Cheers
Steve
-------
On 11 Jun 2013, at 09:39, alastair brown wrote:
Hi Steve,
eh, not quite sure I agree.......
I know the 910 is a real favourite, and I know why, it's a great looking thing. The problem is that from the rear it is far wider than the Okrasa - wheels gained about 1" per year in the intervening period. That said, I have tried to accomodate as much of the rear of the 910 in the current design as fits the roof (and the period)
I know it is a bit of a leap of faith, but the current design is probably much closer than you think - remember what a difference a single mm or two makes to a line - well in 3D it is just the same - the sheet test gives a bit of the picture, but the volume of the panel is in the surface. This volume will come with the foam, and I promise, it'll look balanced, and the proportions will be right for the age of the car.
Think of it like Kelly Brook (ahhhhh, and breath........) if you saw her skeleton (as the buck is now) you might think she needed more hips, a bit of a tweek here, or there etc, you could spend forever fine tuning something which doesn't exist yet. Now, imagine Victoria Beckham / Angelina Jolie - that's your sheet test - it's far better, but you can see the ribs sticking out so the shape doesn't flow, but you get an idea....... Now, the foam will give us 'the full Kelly'. that extra bit of shape and form makes all the difference!
Of course, there will be elements of the design which will change and evolve as we build the shape on the buck - the curve of the wing at the C pillar as previously discussed, will be developed 'in the round' on the car. If you want to look at a vent feature in the wing, that can be accomodated within the current buck, though I think the 906-910 style is going to jar in the scale of the car without massively wider wheels / wings to give the volume into which to sculpt the opening, and as you say, the area by the C pillar is already tricky.
BUT...... all of this can be resolved while actually carving the shape, but to do that we need to start from a fixed point, build a shape, tweek it and refine it - remember, car design took years to go from the 550 to the 910, with a lot of steps in between. The Okrasa is about the mid point. To do the car justice we need to control how far we take it.
If you start thinking about changing the 'skeleton' before seeing the true shape, you risk being back to where you were with the wire, with an endless quest for something that works. To make real progress at this stage we really need to get the bulk into an actual car shape and THEN start making changes. If we do them now, we'll never keep moving forward.
Innevitably, the current stantions will not be the final shape - (I'm quite good, but not THAT good!) but they will give a good basis to build on. If forms need changed or even lifted or moved etc, doing that once they have the foam in will make it easier to see how such changes work.
I think we can make good progress quite quickly from where we are at the moment, and having the rear panel on will make a big difference, as will lights etc. Once we have a better idea of where we are, with the kamm tail in place etc, you'll see how close parts are to the 910 whilst incorporating the roof. Once we have looked at that, that is the time to look at the inlets etc, and remember, as much of the re-shaping for such a vent is actually in the door as it is in the upper leading edge of the rear wing. Yes the rear wing looks high, but that's 'cause the door is very low, relative to both wing tops
You are right about the lower part of the rear wing - it is yet to be trimmed at the bottom as part of the tail work still to be done, so yes, it will loose some of that 'weight'. The current shape was just done quickly when I was down, but was revised in the sections I sent down to Barry to tie in with the new rear panel profile.
I think you, like me, need to buy a 910 relica as well, so you can scratch that itch!!!
Barry, any thoughts?
Al
-------
On 11 Jun 2013, at 10:42, Barry Carter wrote:
My thought? Agree with Al 100%: we started wanting to create something along the lines of the original rendering, and particularly embraced the aggressive short-tail, nose forward hill-climber aesthetic, as far as we could make work.
It's your car Steve, but I think it's far too early to dismiss the recent progress IMO. It'll never be a 910: the roof dictates that. As Al said, perhaps it would be better mull over a suitable 910 donor project, so the Okrasa can stay true to it's period (albeit forward looking as we know David would have been doing), and a future 910 could be done true it's own period.
For all that, of course there'll be tweaks along the way, and I expect that, but a shift in the basic principle of the design is another matter at this stage. Frankly I'm not sure much more body with that (lovely) little engine sits right: I've always taken the view that we're coming from 550's (albeit with early, possibly mid, '60's bodywork) and the like, rather than the bigger, and enormously more powerful later cars.
Just my thoughts laid out: take them as you will: no offence intended, just where I'm at.
Cheers chaps!
B.
------
On 11 Jun 2013, at 15:06, Steve Wright wrote:
All great thoughts gentlemen and absolutely spot on. You've called me out which is absolutely right. Irrespective of it being my car we have to do what's right from a design perspective and period-correct. There are too many retro inspired designs based on more modern thinking that simply don't work, so I shouldn't make that mistake. I obviously need to go find a suitable chassis or donor and make the next one 910 inspired, as I will never have the cash to own an original.
Cheers Steve