[MattsAwesomeStuff]

What's interesting to me, is that different people have different blindspots in how they think things through. Lots of times in this build you approached a problem that I thought "Well why does that even matter? Just do X.", and then it's only after you're done I realize why it had to be done that way, and I would've made something that wouldn't have worked and wouldn't have realized it until I was done. This is one of the first times that the reverse happened, I looked at your hinge design and said "Well obviously that won't work... why would he think it will?" And it went exactly like I thought it would. Everyone's brain works a little differently.

Most simply, the hinge fulcrum has to be behind the farthest-back part of the trunk, or, like a teeter-totter, when one side goes up, the other side is going to dip down.

The shocks don't add any stability because they're on ball joints, so they're just loose and floppy. They're not constrained to open an equal amount either, so, nothing stops the trunk from twisting. And since they're not square, you can't add diagonal bracing to them to stiffen the motion (they're on ball joints because they need to be on ball joints, the angles change as it moves).

On my car, I'm half-considering having gull-wing doors, but the roof is arched, so it's higher in the middle than where you would put the hinges on the sides. Same problem, the middle will pinch. Can't avoid it without gigantic arched hinges and deep hinge points far inside of where the roof panel actually ends. On doors (versus for you, a trunk), you can't have a big arch swooping into the driver/passenger headspace, and you might not even have room to push them deeper, because you're already right at the spine (any further than the hinges would have to mount to the opposite door).

Solution perhaps from the aviation industry, to have deeper-sunk cutouts for the hinges:

That way, the hinging fulcrum is back far enough that the arch of roof doesn't come into play. You could try making that work

Another option for you, to go wide, might just be some different-shaped hinge beams. Different sizes/lengths of the arch might help it clear differently. Then you wouldn't have to have them pidgeon-toed in the middle only.

 

[brian_]

This is too late to be useful, but I would have made the mounting brackets on the lid for the struts larger, to spread the load out. I've had this sort of mount tear out of storage compartment doors on my motorhome, and had to add plates, because the force on those struts is surprisingly high.

Most simply, the hinge fulcrum has to be behind the farthest-back part of the trunk, or, like a teeter-totter, when one side goes up, the other side is going to dip down.

By "behind", you mean "beyond the opening", which is forward in this case (because it's a front-hinged lid), but yes, that's basically how it works.

The solution for a simple hinge is already in place in this design, with the curved hinge arms, but the pivot point just needed to be better placed... as has already been realized and executed.

The other common solution, to avoid having the lid move too far toward stuff above the hinge area, is to use a four-bar linkage hinge. That's commonly found in the engine hoods of older North American cars. With this sort of design, the hinges could probably be moved further apart for stability... perhaps even at the corners where they should be.

Solution perhaps from the aviation industry, to have deeper-sunk cutouts for the hinges...

But you don't have to do that. The aircraft cabin can't have the door hinges protruding substantially into the interior (as the curved hinge arms need to be to clear the edge of the opening), but the car's trunk can. It might even fit them at the corners in this case.


What's crazy about this whole thing is that the lid is apparently intended for access to the engine and to the trunk. With no engine and no useful storage in the forward part, there's no need to a hinged panel to access the front of this compartment; therefore, it could have been built with a simple and effective trunk lid for the rear part, and a removable panel for the front held by screws or quarter-turn fasteners. Sorry if that was already considered in an earlier video which I haven't watched.


As for the garage door clearance... you know the solution. If you change opener hardware, this would be a good time to switch to a side-mounted (wall-mounted) opener.

 

[MattsAwesomeStuff]

By "behind", you mean "beyond the opening", which is forward in this case (because it's a front-hinged lid), but yes, that's basically how it works.

Err, yes. "Back of the trunk" was my reference, as in if you were reaching for the back of the truck most would understand it to be the farthest to reach, and "farther back" being, farther back than the back... which yes is towards the front of the car.

the pivot point just needed to be better placed... as has already been realized and executed.

Hmm, no what I saw was that he put both hinges in the centerline of the car so now it's all weeble-wobbley. It's minimally functional, but crappy, and will probably buck and shake at speed even when closed.

But you don't have to do that. The aircraft cabin can't have the door hinges protruding substantially into the interior (as the curved hinge arms need to be to clear the edge of the opening), but the car's trunk can. It might even fit them at the corners in this case.

Hinges protruding down into the car solves the problem of the edge of the trunk having some gap when opened, but does not solve the problem of the pivot point being located too close to the lid and any panel past that tilting down, not up. The rotation point determines where the lid pivots around. I'm not sure there was room to put them out wider, as that's kind of where the seat-scoop things are.

 

[brian_]

Hmm, no what I saw was that he put both hinges in the centerline of the car so now it's all weeble-wobbley. It's minimally functional, but crappy, and will probably buck and shake at speed even when closed.

All I meant was that the hinge point was moved forward, as it needed to be. I agree that the narrow hinge configuration introduces another problem.

Hinges protruding down into the car solves the problem of the edge of the trunk having some gap when opened, but does not solve the problem of the pivot point being located too close to the lid and any panel past that tilting down, not up. The rotation point determines where the lid pivots around. I'm not sure there was room to put them out wider, as that's kind of where the seat-scoop things are.

I don't think you understand what I meant. The curved hinge arm doesn't fix anything itself, it is only required to allow the hinge axis to be further ahead of the opening edge. Due to the headrest fairings, the offset from hinge axis to opening would be very large.


What really makes me shake my head about this whole thing is that the lid looks like an original part of the kit, and so there should be a hinge system already worked out for it by the "manufacturer" of the "kit". Perhaps that was covered in an earlier video.

 

[dedlast]

When I saw what you were trying to do, I wondered about using a hinge assembly like some older cars used. Kind of a cantilever system rather than a simple pivot hinge. I really don't know if they would work, but something like this:

Auto Metal Direct W-996 Auto Metal Direct Hood Hinges | Summit Racing

Free Shipping - Auto Metal Direct Hood Hinges with qualifying orders of $99. Shop Hood Hinges at Summit Racing.

www.summitracing.com

B

 

[brian_]

When I saw what you were trying to do, I wondered about using a hinge assembly like some older cars used. Kind of a cantilever system rather than a simple pivot hinge. I really don't know if they would work, but something like this:

Auto Metal Direct W-996 Auto Metal Direct Hood Hinges | Summit Racing

Free Shipping - Auto Metal Direct Hood Hinges with qualifying orders of $99. Shop Hood Hinges at Summit Racing.

www.summitracing.com

Yes, there are few design variations, and that's what I was referring to in this:

​

The other common solution, to avoid having the lid move too far toward stuff above the hinge area, is to use a four-bar linkage hinge. That's commonly found in the engine hoods of older North American cars. With this sort of design, the hinges could probably be moved further apart for stability... perhaps even at the corners where they should be.​

​

​

 

[dedlast]

Yes, there are few design variations, and that's what I was referring to in this:

​

​

I see what you're saying, Brian. I admit that I was a bit behind in my reading and only skimmed through your post.

B

 

[snowdog]

It's bad luck to have a car without a name

Name my car

 

[MattsAwesomeStuff]

Has back surgery, still has time for a weekly video. Your discipline is unmatched.

Rain gutters look good.

I agree with you that the trunk is much more useful when the opening faces the exterior of the vehicle. Hood too, it's one of the things I want to change about my car since it probably has lots of room for a frunk, I don't like having that area boxed in, I'd rather it be open and accessible from a walk-up.

I am fairly firmly against naming cars myself. But this has just led to other people naming my cars for me, which means my cars have names and I didn't even get to pick them.

Naming your own car though is a bit pretentious, it's like giving yourself a nickname.

I dated a girl who's car's name was "Candy", because it was candy-apple red, and because if her car was a stripper, that would be her car's stripper name. A lot to unpack there.

 

[brian_]

All of our vehicles have a name that is routinely used for them, but not in the sense of a personal name... our Mazda 3 is called "the Mazda", the Toyota Sienna is "the van", etc. Each is unique only within our fleet (we only have one car from Mazda, one van-type vehicle, etc).

I had one vehicle that came with a name from the previous owner, which was "Rodney" (that's the car, not the owner). It made sense to her, but not to me, so I didn't use it.

I would only name a car that I had created, and was substantially different from any production vehicle - this project certainly qualifies. I would give it something like a model name (as if it is the prototype), rather than a personal name (for an individual). But what I would do doesn't matter, of course.

Naming your own car though is a bit pretentious, it's like giving yourself a nickname.

But it's your car, not you. Don't you name your own pets? I don't see a difference.

 

[brian_]

The trunk lid configuration makes much more sense now. If I understand some comments correctly, the original design hinged the engine cover at the rear where there was an essentially straight rear edge, which would have been much more appropriate for that leading edge shape, and it had either a separate trunk lid or no trunk lid at all. When the kit design doesn't suit the desired configuration, "simple" changes can get very complicated... or perhaps "rich learning experiences".

At some point the car becomes a custom, built with some K-1 frame and body parts. Perhaps a good name would be Tikaton, which - in case it's not obvious - is "not a kit", written in reverse so it's less obvious.

 

[snowdog]

At some point the car becomes a custom, built with some K-1 frame and body parts. Perhaps a good name would be Tikaton, which - in case it's not obvious - is "not a kit", written in reverse so it's less obvious.

LOL! I like it

 

[4G63T]

This car has not been cooperating for some time now . It only makes sense to name it Dottie , from movie Armageddon .

Quote from movie Armageddon :
“I wanna name her Dottie after my wife. She's a vicious life-sucking bitch from which there is no escape.”

 

[MattsAwesomeStuff]

But it's your car, not you.

Same deal, it's a thing you own, or a thing you built.

Don't you name your own pets? I don't see a difference.

Pets need a name that they understand refers to them, for purposes of instruction.

I did not name my goldfish, as they wouldn't recognize it.

I did name my rabbits, which, I mistakenly thought would not be trainable or recognize their own name, but that's because I was a child.

I also named my stuffed animals when I was a child, but, like the rabbits, that is because I was a child. That's why naming cars feels childish to me.

We also anthropomorphize pets, which we interact with and have personality. A car, much less so.

I don't name my trees or my watch either.

All I've ever called my car is "My Car" because I don't own any other cars, just larger vehicles. Like you with "the Mazda". If I did, I suppose "My GT" would suffice. Though "Rusty" and "Crusty" have been suggested by others .

Perhaps when I'm closer to finishing or driving it I'll have a change of heart.

 

[brian_]

Pets need a name that they understand refers to them, for purposes of instruction.

I did not name my goldfish, as they wouldn't recognize it.

A trainable pet's name needs to be recognizable to them, but it doesn't matter to the pet what the name means to anyone else. It seems likely that the car has been and addressed by the owner - perhaps with profanities attached - and it's not going to understand no matter what name is chosen... although if some personal digital assistant is added it could be trained to recognize its name: "Tikaton, what is your state of charge?", followed by "Why the **** can't you tell me?"

 

[snowdog]

Making a custom digital dash

 

[MattsAwesomeStuff]

Making a custom digital dash

The amount of effort you put into a fiberglass part that won't even be visible, was too much. A single flat piece of plastic would have been fine.

Letting your subscribers name your car? Ugh. That's like letting your subscribers name your child. Even worse! You can make a child faster than you made a car, and the car costs more, and you'll get more joy from the car!

 

[Swing]

Well since Matt is not being very positive, I will be Nice work!

 

[snowdog]

Well since Matt is not being very positive, I will be Nice work!

Thanks Friend!

 

[MattsAwesomeStuff]

Well since Matt is not being very positive, I will be Nice work!

I was being positive about the car. It's the subscribers and children I was expressing a low opinion of