Great post, thanks. The worst idea has to be the "smart" that has done away with ballast like doors, roof and rear windows. One side impact accident and you're dead, 10 minutes in the sun and you're sunburned or a bit of rain and you're drenched, and anything that isn't nailed down get pinched. Some of the others quite nice and inspiring. Yep give me a GT90
It is not reasonable to even think that any of the concept cars prior to the mid sixties could have included any CAD operations in their creation. And just because a single copy can be produced does not mean that even a second copy would be any easier than the first.
Solid modeling and CAD and other simulation software certainly make great designs easier, but they are by no means the only way great designs happen. Engineering brilliance and creativity are the more critical parts of the mix.
One thing that did impress me was: The GT90 concept was declared by Ford to be the "world's mightiest sports car." While I don't know what the top speed of the mid-sixties "Griffith" was, it also had a big Ford engine that was "not quite stock", and probably not even close to stock. The GT90 looks a lot like the Griffith before all of those angles were smoothed out. I don't know it it would have been called a production model, but there were two of them in the college parking lot where I attended in 1966.
Good point about fabrication, bobjengr. That's particulaly the case for high volume fabrication. That's why most concept cars never reach production. The ones that do usually see some dramatic (and boring) changes.
Very very informative slide show Charles. I love to see engineering and design talent pushed to extreme as these cars indicate they have been. I am assuming all of the design was CAD and solid modeling. In other words, the products can be built. I know that sometimes what really looks good is very difficult to fabricate. I would love to see most of these newer product on the road.
Ervin, my feeling is that if every artist was an engineer then most of them would probably not be artists. I see the two talents pointing in different directions. Of course some engineers do appreciate appearances but only a few follow appearance to the detriment of functionality. That task is most often handled by marketing and cost reduction groups.
But sometimes it becomes quite clear that some engineers have no concept of what looks good and what does not, and unfortunately a few of them have been architects responsible for buildings that the rest of us have to see.
That FourJoy looked every bit as impractical as any of the concept cars shown. And it was not nearly sporty enough to be a fun sports type of vehicle. WHAt were they thinking?
The Dodge pickup would have sold a lot if they had put regular type doors on it, it looked much cooler than the El Camino. But Chrysler management of that era was often immume to creativity, except for my 1965 Barracuda. I loved that car. With a few modifications to the suspension it handled like a real race car.
Festo's BionicKangaroo combines pneumatic and electrical drive technology, plus very precise controls and condition monitoring. Like a real kangaroo, the BionicKangaroo robot harvests the kinetic energy of each takeoff and immediately uses it to power the next jump.
Design News and Digi-Key presents: Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX, a crash course that will look at defining a project, selecting a target processor, blocking code, defining tasks, completing code, and debugging.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.