retro or contemporary body work?
 

Every now and again the question gets asked about full bodied GRP to fit the Roadster chassis or a version of it so given the choice between retro 50-60's or a new contemporary design what would you want? Don'y worry I'm still working on the basic body parts with the enclosed wings just looking in to expanding my options towards the middle of the year.
Here is what I had in mind by retro but would it make the Roadster more of a replica than making some thing new and contemporary? So thoughts...

Jag D type


Ferrari 625 spider


TVR


p538-Barchetta

The Ferrari 625 spider looks good, but so does the p538-Barchetta.

But in the end i would go for the Barchetta with it's modern styling.

Terry

Phil, can I have a Barchetta style with removable hard top pls :D :D :D

Something modern, but simple and achievable.

TT

Also loving the Barchetta, that rear end is sweet.
Always thought that the rear of a seven lacks imagination somewhat.

I think retro would look better and be more popular. With the greatest respect, a lot of 'contemporary' design looks dated fairly quickly and unless its a clone of something established there's a real risk you'll end up with a quirky 'marmite' design... You might appeal to a few mavericks, but i think the fact that so many kits are replica rather than 'new' designs tells its own story...

My vote's for classic - something along the lines of the fisher fury would be good!

The Fisher Fury would get my vote, the shape is timeless and as long as the paint is kept in good condition they look the dogs bits.

If you want a Fisher Fury, get a Fisher Fury. They look ugly as sin with bike or larger engines in. People put Frankenstien bonnets or blisters on them. I'd say classic D type for a Haynes chassis. Anything like a Lotus 23 is too small.

The raw fulcrum is a good example of a interchangeable body on a 7 chassis

I never said I wanted a Fury, but the shape is definitely the right shape for a classic sports car just like the MX5 or the Z3 BMW. That's why these cars sell so well. I still can't see the point of turning a roadster into a roadster, why not just restore the roadster and make it better?

The mx5 as a car has got a habit of rusting around the sills and floor making them very flimsy and dangerous to use But thats just my experience of them although I still think its a great little car when the body gives up the roadster is a fitting way of keeping the mx5 running gear doing the job it was designed for having fun

I won't argue with that but if the body still good I can't see the point.

ferrari 250 testa rossa would be my vote, probably the most beautiful car ever made. or the d type

Since my first post there has been a small development on the D type idea so that will not be going on a Roadster chassis as it could (fingers and toes crossed) cause a conflict of interests in 2-3 months time.
I like the Raw Fulcrum as it's a squared off Fury and would also appear to be easier to make as the basic shape unlike the Fury which has all sorts of contours.
As much as I like the retro styling with wire or steel wheels I think most people would want a nice set of alloys on the car, which is why the fury seams to appeal so much it looks like modern classic.
I've been looking at 50-60's sports cars and also the more modern designs and have come to the conclusion that there is scope to make contemporary classic. What I have in very rough sketches and what has been pointed by some one else is that I've inadvertently designed the 7 that TVR might have made.
I'm going to start a 1/2 scale model next month and see what people think.

Ferrari testarossa? For gods sake just no big heavy lump of lead that boils its brakes every time it sees a corner worst car ever to come out of italy although cant argue with a classic D type

I think you may have the 250 Testa Rossa mixed up with the Testarossa

I think the replica thing has run its course and some fresh ideas/shapes need to appear to stir up the kit/home built car market. Some of these so called replica`s just look wrong. Mainly because they are out of proportion and that hurts the eye. If something is made thats not a copy it can judged for what it is. I am sure the roadster chassis could be clad with a new shape but it will have to be an open top roadster type thing because doors cant be cut into the side.

Bob

After the IVA I'm going to go to a full body style like the donkervoort d8 rs 06. I know its not quite the same but it reminds me of the old morgan style also of the car from "the league of extraordinary gentlemen"

It was donkervoort I had in mind. Along the seven line but made it their own. Genius.
Bob

I was mixed up I will crawl back into my cave now

just to clarify vmax... i was talking about the 250 (talons first picture) not the second picture

I've been looking at head lights and have come across a few different options in both design and approach in how it effects the styling of the front end. With the standard cycle wings you are not limited by space so your choice of head light is not limited as such, with the Fury and Fulcrum type designs the lights must fit within the surrounds and under the covers which restricts your choice some what.
Now the lights on the Fury are used on the Austin Mini and Landrover 7" WIPAC £30-40 a pair plus mounting bowls. The small universal projector head lights of which you would need 4 are £30-40 each. Then there is the option of using OE head light units from some thing like a Ford £20-60 each. Now the 7" WIPAC and projector units would need indicators and the OE units would have them included.
What if I offered two head light options the first being I leave the head light recesses as a pre made blank and just supply the clear covers, and the other option is that people use OE head light units from some thing like a Ford?
So thoughts for and against this approach or just not offer the option and it be a case of either take or leave it?