seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons
What kinda story are you talking about here?
Seriously, a car needs to have a certain appeal to people. The G5/G6 doesnt have what we're looking for.
Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro
seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons
Well, the original kitt had a backseat, and it makes sense, the car is intended to assist law enforcement and rescue people among other things, a backseat is useful, having only 2 seats restricts the story. Other people have mentioned this too, I think Nelson B did, not exactly sure, I don't memorize people's posts...TurbomanKnight wrote:What kinda story are you talking about here?seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons
Well, you have to consider the fact that most on here, at least the ones who care to discuss the "what cars look spycar/kitt-like" subject, are car enthusiasts, and surely we don't want KR to appeal only to car enthusiasts. I'm not a car enthusiast, and the original KR appealed to me. I didn't know what kind of drivetrain or what kind of engine or how thick the tubing was in the engine of the 1982 Trans Am. Like Glen Larson, I just thought it looked cool.Seriously, a car needs to have a certain appeal to people. The G5/G6 doesnt have what we're looking for.
Thanks for making TurbomanKnights funny remark even funnier, seeker78. I think you missed his little joke!seeker78 wrote:Well, the original kitt had a backseat, and it makes sense, the car is intended to assist law enforcement and rescue people among other things, a backseat is useful, having only 2 seats restricts the story. Other people have mentioned this too, I think Nelson B did, not exactly sure, I don't memorize people's posts...TurbomanKnight wrote:What kinda story are you talking about here?seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons
Interesting, this clip shows the Saab cars making the rear wheels smoke, something that car enthusiasts claimed in this thread to be impossible with FWD. Such people need to remember to say "it is impossible FOR ME to make the rear wheels smoke with a FWD car". Based on this clip I would have to conclude that a donut with rear wheels smoking is in fact possible with FWD, if the driver is a trained professional stunt driver.vampire knight wrote: On that note, if you want to see some insane stunt driving on FWD cars do a YoutTube search for Saab Performance Team or Saab Stunt Team. You'll be blown away.
The tires smoke whenever the rubber is burning. When the rear wheels slide around they're going to smoke, no matter which wheels are driving the car. I don't think anyone said that making the rear wheels smoke on a FWD car was impossible.seeker78 wrote:Interesting, this clip shows the Saab cars making the rear wheels smoke, something that car enthusiasts claimed in this thread to be impossible with FWD. Such people need to remember to say "it is impossible FOR ME to make the rear wheels smoke with a FWD car". Based on this clip I would have to conclude that a donut with rear wheels smoking is in fact possible with FWD, if the driver is a trained professional stunt driver.vampire knight wrote: On that note, if you want to see some insane stunt driving on FWD cars do a YoutTube search for Saab Performance Team or Saab Stunt Team. You'll be blown away.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ytGd09DphaQ
--Brian
Well I don't have all the posts memorized, but at first, the claim was that FWD can't do donuts. I disproved that. Then they said, it can do donuts, but not with smoke on the rear wheels. I don't have a specific video showing exactly that, but that SAAB team clip does show smoke on the rear wheels, so I'm going to assume a donut with smoke on the rear wheels is possible as well.tamatt27 wrote: The tires smoke whenever the rubber is burning. When the rear wheels slide around they're going to smoke, no matter which wheels are driving the car. I don't think anyone said that making the rear wheels smoke on a FWD car was impossible.
I didn't say it wasn't difficult. I certainly could not do it (I've never even driven a car), I'm guessing you couldn't either. But a skilled, professional stunt driver can do things a normal driver could not do with a FWD car. And you wouldn't have a normal driver on Knight Rider, a stunt driver would be used.Donuts are basically a controlled, tight turning powerslide. A powerslide occurs when there is enough torque to the rear wheels to lose some traction while turning the steering wheel. It is very difficult to do that with FWD because the wheels are turning AND pulling.
While I was wrong about FWD doing forward donuts, the fact of the matter is that FWD is not as entertaining as RWD doing donuts. All of the FWD donuts I have seen just don't look nearly as cool as RWD donuts. It's impossible to get smoke billowing out of the rear wheels with a FWD doing donuts. You may be able to get some smoke by locking the rear wheels like on the SAAB video, but it just won't look as cool and you can't get nearly as much entertaining smoke. Smoke from the front tires is not as entertaining. Yes, that's an opinion, but I think you would find it an overwhelming opinion.seeker78 wrote: Well I don't have all the posts memorized, but at first, the claim was that FWD can't do donuts. I disproved that. Then they said, it can do donuts, but not with smoke on the rear wheels. I don't have a specific video showing exactly that, but that SAAB team clip does show smoke on the rear wheels, so I'm going to assume a donut with smoke on the rear wheels is possible as well.
I think to some extent I am being taken advantage of, when I admit I am not a car enthusiast, and people are making claims that are easily disprovable.
I don't have a problem with a FWD car being selected as KITT as long as it's modified to be either RWD or selectible AWD in it's final form. A FWD being able to do the stunts is irrelevent since it will not be as entertaining and if you know it's FWD from seeing smoke come from only the front wheels, then it doesn't follow the show's premise. From a dead stop, smoke will only come from the front wheels on a FWD car. Now that was a "No, Duh" statement! KITT is supposed to be the car of the future and should have superior performance characteristics. RWD and AWD is superior to FWD. You can't change the physics of weight from shifting to the rear of the car!seeker78 wrote:I didn't say it wasn't difficult. I certainly could not do it (I've never even driven a car), I'm guessing you couldn't either. But a skilled, professional stunt driver can do things a normal driver could not do with a FWD car. And you wouldn't have a normal driver on Knight Rider, a stunt driver would be used.
Hence, there is no reason to rule out a given car because it is FWD, in my opinion.
That car is SWEET!!shinobi594 wrote:Hello I'm new and I'd like to add my $ .02 on this thread....
I think this vehicle would be a nice KITT due to its sleek and streamlined design (provided he's Jet Black everwhere and no stickers are visible ;p ):
Indeed, as I said myself earlier (I am the original poster of the thread) KITT, THE FICTIONAL VEHICLE, would not USE any of the traditional methods, RWD, FWD, AWD, they are ALL too restrictive.make far greater modifications as well... Like others have said earlier in this thread, KITT may also be a Symetrical AWD vehicle, with a Driver or Computer Controlled Center Differential that distributes power to any one or all wheels, allowing KITT to behave like an FWD, RWD, or AWD....
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I could care less what his actual drivetrain is... as long as he looks SLEEK) ^.^
Well, I question that. I don't have a specific video of that right now, but based on the SAAB video, I would suggest it would be possible. I'm definitely not going to go by what car enthusiasts say anymore without verifying it. I would expect that a professional stunt driver, an experienced expert on a given car, would be able to do that.89IROCNDoug wrote: While I was wrong about FWD doing forward donuts, the fact of the matter is that FWD is not as entertaining as RWD doing donuts. All of the FWD donuts I have seen just don't look nearly as cool as RWD donuts. It's impossible to get smoke billowing out of the rear wheels with a FWD doing donuts.
ok, well, let's drop the RWD nonsense, then, and just look at the external appearance of the vehicle, which is what I've been saying.I don't have a problem with a FWD car being selected as KITT
Granted, but you're assuming a professional stunt driver cannot make this happen, and you're also assuming that it can't be fixed with computer graphics.A FWD being able to do the stunts is irrelevent since it will not be as entertaining and if you know it's FWD from seeing smoke come from only the front wheels, then it doesn't follow the show's premise.
The same was said about the "no donuts at all from a fwd car" statement. That was supposedly a "no, duh" statement.From a dead stop, smoke will only come from the front wheels on a FWD car. Now that was a "No, Duh" statement!
KITT is the car of the future, not the vehicle used to represent KITT.KITT is supposed to be the car of the future and should have superior performance characteristics.
Not sure about the 2,000 horsepower necessarily, but I agree that it would have a special computer controlled adaptive drivetrain, making its drivetrain superior to the Corvette and the Mustang. I have stated this several times.KITT's fictional specs should be over 2,000 horsepower and have a special computer controlled AWD.
EXACTLY!!!!!!shinobi594 wrote:On a slightly different topic, a car that can go 300+ mph should look the part and have aerodynamics and a drag coefficient of something that can go that fast. Though I am open to KITT being the current mustang in the new series, the star car's aerodynamics are not very convincing of something that has a nice top speed (even the current GT500, equipped with approx. 500 hp, has to be speed regulated at 155mph to avoid getting embarrased by its 0.38 drag coefficient, making it one of the slowest 500hp production sports cars available).
Yeah I know, as I have said on this board several times, KITT would have some kind of adaptive drivetrain, kitt would be able to drive the rear wheels, just one wheel, the front wheels, or whatever, as the situation demands.(And with a car going this fast, stability becomes a big factor, where RWD configurations start become a bit problematic... this situation can be where "FWD H-spd stability mode" could also play a part in).
No mention of drivetrain or engine type, just "that car was just pretty cool".CS: What was behind the decision to go with the Ford Mustang instead of the Trans-Am?
Bartis: [...]We also knew it had to be American. It had to be two-door and it had to have some muscle to it, and be exciting to watch. When you line up all the options available, it fulfilled all the requirements. For me personally, it became sort of an obvious choice. When we started digging into all the lines available, and Ford showed us this new Shelby, which isn't even on the market yet, it kind of blew us away. That car was just pretty cool.
it had to have some muscle to it, and be exciting to watch.
Well, three made in the USA high performance sports cars that use RWD.sstout351 wrote:hello, i just wanted to say one thing on this whole topic. the mustang and corvette are the only true sports cars left. yeah i know what about the viper. the viper is an american exoctic.
I'm not quite sure about that one.a fwd car cant handle jumps,
This it can do. Observecant drive on two wheels in ski mode
Well, some would say anything looks goofy in super pursuit mode. lmao.and would look just plain goofy in super pursuit mode.
True. A lot of us just felt like it was too boxy though. But my feelings have changed on the mustang since I first saw it as KITT.the mustang is a cheap, easy to replace car like the trans am was back in the day.
Well, is this new Trans Am going to be AMERICAN MUSCLE or CANADIAN? Because the 2009 Camaro is canadian muscle, not American. Mustang and Corvette and Viper are American. The Camaro is made in Canada.dont get me wrong if nbc would have waited a year or two to do this when the NEW trans am comes out that would be great
Agree.but they didnt and the best, cost effective car out there for TRUE american preformance on looks is th mustang.
definitelybecause you have to admit the trans am was an icon of the time. if you had one and the mullet to go with it, you were cool.
That's true as long as you include RWD and V8 in the requirements, I don't agree that we have to use those criteria. Mine are different: Made in USA, 2 doors, backseat, sloped/sleek/aerodynamic nose. The mustang doesn't have that last part, but it has the others, and the Made in USA part is most important to me.but today sorry to bring it to your attention but the mustang is all that is out there for a new series. thank you
Yeah but that part is subjective. In MY OPINION, the Pontiac G6 or the Chevy Cobalt SS are exciting to watch. Others might not agree. But to me, they are exciting. I've seen both cars in real life, and they are more exciting to me than a Mustang GT500KR. I saw a Chevy Cobalt SS just recently, it drove right past me, and was only doing about 40 or so but looked like it was going 80 because of the styling etc of the car. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.PHOENIXZERO wrote:Hmmmmm.....it had to have some muscle to it, and be exciting to watch.
seeker78 wrote: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.