thestig wrote:
I was looking into the k series kit. One question I had which Keith can probably answer, how much horsepower can a stock miata trans handle and does anyone make upgraded internals for it?
In a Miata, the 5-speed becomes a liability at around 250 rwhp and the 6-speed is stronger. Those are the lower limits, your experience may vary.
Actually, it's probably torque that's more of a concern so I wouldn't be worried about a high rev, low torque engine in a light car. I'm assuming a K series is some sort of Honda mill, not the Rover!
Warren-
Will you and the car be at The Mitty? If you are starting a list for test rides, put me down...
We're making the Mitty a priority this year. There was a conflict last year, but worst case scenario I'll take XP-3 as participant and park in the Mazda area.
In reply to Warren v:
Awesome. Can't wait to see it in person. Hmmm...did you strategically ignore the second part of my post? 
The Mitty is a poor arena for test rides, unfortunately.
Had a couple of friends drop by FM and sit in the Exocet last week. They liked it. A lot.
Keith Tanner wrote:
thestig wrote:
I was looking into the k series kit. One question I had which Keith can probably answer, how much horsepower can a stock miata trans handle and does anyone make upgraded internals for it?
In a Miata, the 5-speed becomes a liability at around 250 rwhp and the 6-speed is stronger. Those are the lower limits, your experience may vary.
Actually, it's probably torque that's more of a concern so I wouldn't be worried about a high rev, low torque engine in a light car. I'm assuming a K series is some sort of Honda mill, not the Rover!
2 & 2.4 liter engines from the RSX, TSX, and Civic SI. 250+whp naturally aspirated builds are not uncommon, although pricey. An improvement over the S2000 mill, which itself is no slouch. Internally stock engines with cams and breathing mods seem to hit low 200s whp without a problem.
mightymike wrote:
In reply to Warren v:
Awesome. Can't wait to see it in person. Hmmm...did you strategically ignore the second part of my post?
I can't promise anything, since they like to keep everyone in place at the Mitty. If you're there in the evening when everyone starts to get out, we might be able to work something out.
Cough Cough Page 9: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf
We's all officially classed and stuff.
tuna55
PowerDork
12/17/13 2:10 p.m.
NICE! You guys are really doing this right.
The bodywork design has a secret. Like the frame, I'm using it to try out a new method. Every surface is single-curvature, which lets me build the molds like you would a custom boat. It also gives some huge benefits on the part-production side of things.
That all slots together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Warren v wrote:
Cough Cough Page 9: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf
We's all officially classed and stuff.
Interesting chart. Am I right to understand that those are time trial adjustments? If so, the speed factors seem to put it in with some seriously fast company.
Warren v wrote:
The bodywork design has a secret. Like the frame, I'm using it to try out a new method. Every surface is single-curvature, which lets me build the molds like you would a custom boat. It also gives some huge benefits on the part-production side of things.
You're not thinking aluminium body work, are you?
Warren v wrote:
The bodywork design has a secret. Like the frame, I'm using it to try out a new method. Every surface is single-curvature, which lets me build the molds like you would a custom boat. It also gives some huge benefits on the part-production side of things.
That all slots together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Neat. More purposeful than voluptuous (gotta love compound curves), but cool regardless. This UK track car appears to have been designed in the same way, and it's a quite pleasing look:
Nonono, that would at least triple the kit cost. Fiberglass still, but the single curvature lets us do creative things like carbon fiber upgrades for a reasonable amount of money. Obviously that will need to be developed, so don't ask for it just yet.
Warren v wrote:
Nonono, that would at least triple the kit cost. Fiberglass still, but the single curvature lets us do creative things like carbon fiber upgrades for a reasonable amount of money. Obviously that will need to be developed, so don't ask for it just yet.
I understand. Not asking for it. Just talking. You guys need to stay focused, lean and mean. After your 500th unit you can start getting crazy on us
That's exactly the plan, except the crazy-mark is 150 cars, which should be the end of 2014. The goals until then are to ramp up and streamline production as well as perfect the customer experience/build process.
And trust me, we can bring the crazy. 
kreb wrote:
Warren v wrote:
Cough Cough Page 9: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf
We's all officially classed and stuff.
Interesting chart. Am I right to understand that those are time trial adjustments? If so, the speed factors seem to put it in with some seriously fast company.
It's right up with a Caterfield Seven, which is a reasonable match. The Exocet has a bit of a weight penalty compared to those cars though.
From all of us at Exomotive, Merry Christmas!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nldK-M_vo4s
The use of developable panels makes a lot of sense in simplifying the construction of a simple boat, cutting down on labor vs. strip or cold mold when building them one at a time. I don't see the advantage when building a mold (or plug for a mold) when that labor is amortized across all of the parts. And it really constrains the available shapes. The jigsaw mold support approach can work for any finished mold shape.
If you are constraining to developable, Rhino has some nice functions to draw the shapes you want, checking Gaussian curvature, and unrolling to flat. It is focused for the marine industry which uses that functionality often (when not making a mold...).
You're missing a few details in those renders.
Notice the little tabs? All will be revealed in time.
The goal of this method is to eliminate the need for a gantry CNC, ensure dimensional accuracy, and reduce the manual labor force required to "just me". Going to easy routes (tons of labor, check templates, and/or hiring a gantry CNC) would mean needing to increase the kit cost by $1k~2k. One of the leading project goals for the Exocet is to keep the average full-build cost under $10k. It's all-too-easy to let scope creep and development costs push a low-volume product like this into a price range that no longer provides value.
Keith Tanner wrote:
kreb wrote:
Warren v wrote:
Cough Cough Page 9: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Super-Touring.pdf
We's all officially classed and stuff.
Interesting chart. Am I right to understand that those are time trial adjustments? If so, the speed factors seem to put it in with some seriously fast company.
It's right up with a Caterfield Seven, which is a reasonable match. The Exocet has a bit of a weight penalty compared to those cars though.
Seems about right since the Miata typically has a weight penalty vs other cars in NASA classing as well.
kinda looks like 3D printer body. I'm hoping the new body is both flexible & ridged at same time.
