Mel
Elio Addict
While a good idea, I think this would cause a lot of problems with the frame and "off the shelf" body parts.
-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
My Elio Alternate Project Is Underway.
- Thread starter Mark BEX
- Start date
Sonoran Sam
Elio Addict
Shifter isn't an issue, relatively normal position, on a cantilever.
But if you have a male passenger, just make sure what it is you grab.
The seats in the video are sitting on the floor, they will be raised up 3 to 4" yet.
Passenger footrest is also a sensible requirement to roll the seats back into position with your legs.
You can't see it in the video, but the seat is at about 3 to 4 degrees, inline with the car side's taper.
You don't really notice it while sitting in it, but any more does become uncomfortable.
The few degrees makes quite the difference.
Under consideration, other factors do come into play. A bit odd looking though.
Velhartice
Elio Enthusiast
If the width of the chassis in the vid is close to what you’re thinking for production, I’d be ok with that. Especially if it increases front legroom. 42”+ is a minimum for me. I’m guessing there would still be a rear hatch/boot? Also, the console on the right of the driver would take up a bit of space with the shifter and handbrake (probably ok though as you mentioned), unless you did a setup like the 2000’s Honda CRV/Element and mounted both in the dash. I had a standard shift Element and it worked quite well ergonomically.
In regards to a footrest, the 1999 BMW 740IL (I miss that car) I had years ago had some upholstered wedge shaped foam blocks in the rear footwell area with some velcro like material on the bottom for the rear passengers to rest their feet on that could easily be moved or removed if you didn’t need them. A simple and elegant solution.
I agree that an offset front door would mess with the flow of the exterior. A possibly better idea would probably be to use coupe doors, which are a bit longer, at that point. It would likely also add some access to the passenger storage from the drivers side since the B-pillar is further back. I imagine that would also require different side panels, but could still be off the shelf.
In regards to a footrest, the 1999 BMW 740IL (I miss that car) I had years ago had some upholstered wedge shaped foam blocks in the rear footwell area with some velcro like material on the bottom for the rear passengers to rest their feet on that could easily be moved or removed if you didn’t need them. A simple and elegant solution.
I agree that an offset front door would mess with the flow of the exterior. A possibly better idea would probably be to use coupe doors, which are a bit longer, at that point. It would likely also add some access to the passenger storage from the drivers side since the B-pillar is further back. I imagine that would also require different side panels, but could still be off the shelf.
Last edited:
One of the reasons I love forums, good ideas!
Sonoran Sam
Elio Addict
Many years ago, I dated a young woman who had a Alpha Romeo Spider where the shifter was halfway between the dash and the floor. Kind of a unique design and it worked great. I don't remember the year of the car, but I do remember her, she had the biggest... (never mind, I'll keep this thread "G" rated)
My first truck was "3 on the tree" (column shift). I've heard of "4 on the tree" (sports car), but I can't think of who put it out.
Although, I've never seen one... I also heard Toyota made a Hilux with "5 on the tree".
Personally, I liked my old "3 on the tree" shifter and would have no problem if that design was utilized for a 5 speed.
Pictures or it didn't happen ...
When I was a kid, Dad had a few Citroen Light 15s ..
Also French, the 1950s Renault Fregate had 4 on the tree.
Some things not yet noted in the new BEX layout; (comparing to full tandem)
-Passenger conversations are much easier. Inclusion of a inside center mirror, (or more to the right, even if embedded in a sun visor,) can now help facilitate face-to-face communication, where that was difficult in full tandem seating.
-Can more easilly check on a child passenger, very important for child car seats. An interior mirror is useful here as well.
-Dual exits accessible by the driver are convienient in some challeneged parking or emergency situations.
-In emergencies the passenger now has a second exit too. Even if that is awkward.
-Although not strictly needed, a center mirror now has a view straight rearward if a rear window is also installed.
This was said, but someone suggested that the Elio concept was invalidated by the staggering.
-There will be little or no negative impact to the fuel efficency compared to full tandem. This is partly because the body can now be more optimally tapered toward the back.(and toward the top)
The objective, the concept, with the Elio was low cost and high gas mileage for two people, in a safe, all weather commuter. Tandem seating was never an objective, it was only a means to the objective. This staggered layout still represents well for those objectives, possibly even better, given how Mark is implementing it.
Anyway, supporting the AC unit is an imparative given the affects of global warming in modern cities. As was said, "all weather commuting."
I have to add something about the wheelbase. A tandem layout is very challenging in that it forces very long wheelbases. This means either heavier build to support a long reach, or some compromises in how it reacts to impacts from bumps and accidents. Having a shorter wheelbase allows a lighter stucture. That translates to a stronger structure or lower fuel consumption, or both. (Lighter, better, faster)
I am always going to be a fan of tandem seating. But this staggered layout will result in a better product for most uses.
The competitor to tandem, is the 1.5 seater, where the driver's seat is pushed back between the passenger's legs. There are some obvious tradeoffs using that layout, mostly impacting the passenger. It's likely true that 60% of the decision to buy, comes from the wife who probably will sit back there. And she will definately consider that. I'm not so sure she would buy into the 1.5.
-Passenger conversations are much easier. Inclusion of a inside center mirror, (or more to the right, even if embedded in a sun visor,) can now help facilitate face-to-face communication, where that was difficult in full tandem seating.
-Can more easilly check on a child passenger, very important for child car seats. An interior mirror is useful here as well.
-Dual exits accessible by the driver are convienient in some challeneged parking or emergency situations.
-In emergencies the passenger now has a second exit too. Even if that is awkward.
-Although not strictly needed, a center mirror now has a view straight rearward if a rear window is also installed.
This was said, but someone suggested that the Elio concept was invalidated by the staggering.
-There will be little or no negative impact to the fuel efficency compared to full tandem. This is partly because the body can now be more optimally tapered toward the back.(and toward the top)
The objective, the concept, with the Elio was low cost and high gas mileage for two people, in a safe, all weather commuter. Tandem seating was never an objective, it was only a means to the objective. This staggered layout still represents well for those objectives, possibly even better, given how Mark is implementing it.
Anyway, supporting the AC unit is an imparative given the affects of global warming in modern cities. As was said, "all weather commuting."
I have to add something about the wheelbase. A tandem layout is very challenging in that it forces very long wheelbases. This means either heavier build to support a long reach, or some compromises in how it reacts to impacts from bumps and accidents. Having a shorter wheelbase allows a lighter stucture. That translates to a stronger structure or lower fuel consumption, or both. (Lighter, better, faster)
I am always going to be a fan of tandem seating. But this staggered layout will result in a better product for most uses.
The competitor to tandem, is the 1.5 seater, where the driver's seat is pushed back between the passenger's legs. There are some obvious tradeoffs using that layout, mostly impacting the passenger. It's likely true that 60% of the decision to buy, comes from the wife who probably will sit back there. And she will definately consider that. I'm not so sure she would buy into the 1.5.
Last edited:
I mostly like your idea, but I'm wondering how 3-4 degrees off straight orientation would impact seatbelt safety, and if the rear seat would be better off with buckling the belt on the left side or the right side. I'm leaning towards having a seat oriented slightly right and how the chest belt is angled, having someone buckle on the right would provide better protection. However, given the angle and the possibility of the passenger's shoulder sliding underneath the chest belt and potentially the restraint occurring on the neck, I'm wondering if a chest belt that on the left side would anchor lower would be better and hopefully cross under an adults armpit or be better suited for a child in that seat.
It occurs to me, something that the wife wants back there in the rear seat. She now has a great spot to put that heavy purse with all that make-up. She now wants a swing out sun visor with that mirror so she can touch-up. Or a mirror on the back corner of the driver seat. Either way she has to see her own face, hands free. And for safety, it has to swing away. So a visor is triied and true.
Add a phone or tablet holster, she is going to want to turn it into a female workstation..lol.
Add a phone or tablet holster, she is going to want to turn it into a female workstation..lol.