PDA

View Full Version : Update 11/30/07



Miracleman89
12-01-2007, 03:44 PM
This post was originally posted by Ian Bruce Administrator on the official Venture Vehicles website.

Vv Update 11/30
Hi guys,
I’d like to start this week’s update by suggesting that we all take a collective deep breath. Things are continuing to move forward VERY positively and there still remains a lot to be done.
I ask that you keep in mind that the magnitude of this project is enormous, and things of this nature take a tremendous amount of time -- whether it is the vehicle design, the engineering, performance, safety, parts & component sourcing, or design for manufacturing.
Our goal has never changed. It continues to be creating a unique & innovative new solution for personal transportation, to create the best possible product we can and a company and brand that we’ll all be proud of.
As we continue to move ahead, one of the things that has been extremely important is for us is to get your feedback and input via the Forums. We are also getting input and feedback from others as well, most recently, through some consumer research we are conducting.
So you know, the audience for this research is really two-fold: a consumer database through a high recognized research firm that specializes in consumer research in automotive industry, AutoPacific. They have over 10,000 consumers in their database, and we have had great success in getting solid feedback from them in the past. The other audience we thought was extremely appropriate was the nearly 4,000 folks, including many of you, who have pre-registered on FTR.com. Getting this kind of feedback is incredibly important for us -- and frankly, just good business practice.
The questions on the AutoPacific survey are (were) designed to help us better understand different perspectives and opinions from diverse groups of people -- whether it’s vehicle design, branding, what they like, what they don’t and why. Or other issues -- including things like performance tradeoffs or affordability.
What’s important for you to understand is that our goals for the vehicle and our company have not changed -- but as you know, we are all blazing some new, and unexplored trails. We continue to learn more and more each day, but as you might guess, there are no easy answers or simple solutions with something this unique. There are a lot of moving parts, with a lot of different partners.
We have told you before that communication is very important to us. We committed to providing everyone with a bi-weekly update posting to help keep you in the loop, this very post, in fact. We also committed to you that our communications would be upfront and candid and we wouldn’t BS you. To be very honest, while we'd like to communicate with you every day, addressing every question or issue that may arise, the reality is that Vv is still an early start-up company -- we have a small team of highly experienced professionals that have been and are literally working around the clock with our strategic partners helping to build this company.
The Vv community is growing every day and is the backbone of the company. We sincerely thank you for your support and also ask for your patience and understanding as we fly ever faster and further down this road.
Shameless plug department: We have our first official "Fly the Road" merchandise site up. The items there are our first-run, very limited, soon-to-be collector pieces. ;) Please stop by at:
http://www.flytheroadstore.com/ (http://www.flytheroadstore.com/)
-- Ian

also later he posted these comments in reference to what Texan wrote:

Texan wrote:

"Pose specific questions on the forum, request detailed feedback on different aspects of the issues you raised above. I'm sure the smart people on this fourm will have some valuable insight to the challenges you face in all areas."


Ian wrote:

"It's interesting that you brought this up, since we're looking at Kawasaki 440's and similar liquid-cooled engines for our gensets. The Kawi's about 65 lbs, and de-tuned, generates about 40hp -- actually more than we need. But drop on a cat, muffler, and gear/belt reduction, and it comes in line with our target specs -- about 30hp (22-23kW) at a reasonable RPM.
BTW: No way I'm taking a jetski past 60mph. The water's about as forgiving as reinforced concrete at that speed. ;) "


Then he added these comments in refernce to what jmeineck1 wrote:
jmeineck1 wrote:

1. Have the full scale models beens started?
2. How close is the propulsion system component selection to completion
3. Interior design started (and maybe some drawings)
Ian wrote:
"1. Yes -- and we expect to see them at the end of the month.
2. We've made selections for the Alpha build already. This is primarily for the purpose of testing and debugging of the hybrid and battery management systems. We'll be refining the specific component selection as we move forward.
3. Yes -- they're being modeled in Alias, and I'm told they look fantastic. The design team will be presenting them to us in a couple of weeks -- after which, we'll share them with you here.
Hope that clears things up for you. "

AZEqualizer
12-01-2007, 08:05 PM
Posted: 2007-12-01 15:43:03


"All the ICE has to have is enough power to turn the generator. (at least that is how I understand the concept)."Rogwild, that's it exactly. A+. We need enough torque and RPMs to crank the generator to 15kW for intermittent periods. The IC engine operates at it's optimal speed during this time.


Posted: 2007-12-01 19:06:29


jmeineck1 wrote:

"I don't think they are close to being ready to start quoting spec's yet. "

Not specs, necessarily -- but our targets haven't changed: 100MPG, 100MPH, with a maximum 0-60 acceleration time of 7 seconds. We expect to do better than that, but that's our minimum benchmark.

Ian added this at 19:37




Sorry Derwin. The first part of 2009 (Q2) is our expected release date -- about 16 - 18 months from now. Earlier if we can manage it.
Posted: 2007-12-01 19:37:17

AZEqualizer
12-02-2007, 09:34 AM
Posted: 2007-12-01 11:39:45 by IanBruce on FTR forum:



rogwild: "Some initial 'off the cuff' comments:
1. I'm a bit concerned about driver 'side visibility', (especially for 'shorter' drivers). Need to check this out in the 'seating buck' with a mock door/window.
2. Glad to see the 'canard' removed. Although 'stylish' it may have provided some 'down force' to the front end at speed, but could have caused problems during turns and 'tilting'.
3. Is the 'roof rack' still an option, or will we have to go with the "Google rabbit ears" for extra storage?
4. I like the more extended nose and the added rear 'shelf storage' on the Nov 15 drawing.
5. How much TAILIGHT rear surface area is visible (I want others to KNOW when I am braking).
6. Has a 'normal sized' passenger tried to get into the rear seat through the "door sized" opening depicted yet? The curved, flowing opening looks great, but seem very 'restrictive'."

Rogwild: Great observations as always. We're taking the seating buck data, as well as creating window masks for the drivable prototypes. If "D" is a go, the canards might be an optional panel replacement for the more performance minded. The roof rack and an airline checkable rolling case is a definite -- the "Google rabbit ears" is a fixed cargo/utility option. We're planning to have a sliding roof as a standard feature.

AZEqualizer: I like the transparent panels too -- it's a bit like a helicopter in terms of additional visibility while turning.


Miracleman90: "well I noticed alot of people are talking about rims, so how about this one:
http://www.tiresdelivered.com/HE35722904215.htm?Helo+F3"

Miracleman89: NIce. We may be doing a custom cast design since we'll want to match the cycle (front) and car rims (rear). I like this direction though.


Hardtime11: 'I personally like the Concept C 101607 version. It just looks the best visibility and most sturdy cruiser of all the designs.

I could go with the refined Version of the C 110807 as it looks pretty clean and functional. It looks good in any of the profile views.

The Concept "D" just looks like ti would have some serious visibility issues like only seeing about 1/2-2/3 of the side view mirrors. It also looks like the side windows are non functional or not fully opening. I do like the wheels on the "D". "

Hardtime11: The side windows on "D" open fully.



doc3osh: "Since this vehicle doesn't ACTUALLY fly, the jet fighter wings on the D version are a big showy waste of space that says "Look at me! I have a small penis!" (Women drivers, I leave for you to decide what it says about you.) On the other hand, the D version seems to have more window space in the rear, which I like, and I like the lights around the rear wheels, and the front I like better than "C" as well. I guess it's just the wings I don't like.

AND BRING BACK 1.5 DOORS!

Also, AZEq, you owe me a beer since the NY Times article was in fact "the big review" he was waiting for. "

Doc3osh: See my comments to Rogwild regarding optional penile enhancement.


Daver:"Where can I find drawings fo the models? does the jet fighter D model come with a pair of 50 cals in the nose (for show only of course) as a pilot with several hours of jet time and a production analyst at a major aircraft manufacurer I would love to have a car with fighter jet styling. How about detachable storage bins shaped like drop tanks?"

Daver: Form follows function -- to a point. A fighter jet looks like a fighter jet since it's the best shape for the job (the exception being Boeing's X-32 JSF entry -- though their F-15K Strike Eagle is awesome). I'll get back to you on the drop tank idea. ;)


jmeineck1: "rogwild

I took a look and your modified design from Paint your own V-1

http://tinyurl.com/yvpadc

The design looks great, I really wish it was part of the designs we had to choose from. The side window sill line is perfect and I turely like how you used the front of the body as the fender.

As for C or D since those are the only 2 choices. The things I don't like about both are the side window sill lines don't match any of the detail lines of the V-1 and also that front fender doesn't flow with the top line of the vehicle at all. None of these are deal breakers just my preferences. "
Jmeineck1: I got a "bad request" when I went to your URL. Please post again.
Posted: 2007-12-01 11:39:45

AZEqualizer
12-03-2007, 11:07 AM
Ian had posted some further info on the windtunnel testing.


Rogwild: I was referring to the optional canards. BTW: We will be doing windtunnel testing at Swift with 50% models:

http://www.swiftengineering.com/standard.asp?content=25

Expensive? Sure. But one of the things I want to test is the downforce created by the addition of canards at higher speeds.

AZEqualizer
12-03-2007, 11:21 AM
http://flytheroad.com/blog/forums/topic.php?id=435&replies=45

Ian had this to say.(Posted: 2007-12-02 11:33:26 on FTR forum)


This is a fantastic thread! Give me some time to digest it all and I'll be back with my own comments.