knight rider online

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.

TurbomanKnight wrote:

seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons

What kinda story are you talking about here?

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...

Seriously, a car needs to have a certain appeal to people. The G5/G6 doesnt have what we're looking for.

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.

Not even all car enthusiasts agree on what is appealing; many of them think the Shelby Mustang looks great as KITT. It's just a matter of opinion. The G5 and G6 don't appeal to you, they do appeal to me.

I just saw a Chevy Cobalt SS today, it was only going 40 or so, but because of the styling it looked like it was going a lot faster. But car enthusiasts look at that car and know its horsepower etc. and say "it is underpowered, therefore I am blind to the external appearance." Well, obviously people do buy these cars, so someone thinks they look good.

To me, as a non car enthusiast, they look cool. They certainly look more aerodynamic than a Shelby Mustang. I wonder if a Cobalt SS would be that much slower than a mustang if it had an engine/electric motor of the same power. But that's cool, everybody has different views on what looks cool to them.

seeker78 wrote:

TurbomanKnight wrote:

seeker78 wrote: and I want a backseat for story reasons

What kinda story are you talking about here?

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...

Thanks for making TurbomanKnights funny remark even funnier, seeker78. I think you missed his little joke!

I'm sorry I didn't read the whole thread..but I say agree with the initial poster. Just because a car is FWD shouldn't discredit it from being KITT, hypothetically of course, if it still has the "look."

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.

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.

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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ytGd09DphaQ

--Brian

seeker78 wrote:

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.

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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ytGd09DphaQ

--Brian

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.
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.

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.

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.

It has clearly been demonstrated that with a professional stunt driver, most of the stunts seen on Knight Rider could be done with FWD. Any subtle differences could be solved with CGI. Plus it is clearly not correct that "no sports car uses FWD", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:F ... ports_cars

Perhaps some are going to say that the Mitsubishi Eclipse is ugly, but I think it is a beautiful machine. And it IS a sports car, and it IS front wheel drive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess it could be said that a FWD car is somehow less "manly", but isn't that the objection many of us had to the Mustang originally, that the current models look "manly" or "aggressive" as opposed to sleek and spycar like? So some of you are saying "we want it to be manly, but we don't"?

If the standard is for the car to be "manly", then clearly the Mustang is the only choice. The Mustang is certainly more boxy/manly/aggressive/jock-like than a Camaro. But that whole concept is quite silly, Bruce Lee and Muhammed Ali were both equally good fighters, just different styles of martial arts, same with a Mitsubishi Eclipse and a Mustang, one is technique, the other is brute force. Would anyone suggest that Bruce Lee was not "manly" because he couldn't hit someone as hard as Muhammed Ali? Perhaps the people who say FWD is not manly.

This reminds me of all the people in school who used to make fun of me and beat me up because I wasn't built like they were. I was a scrawny little guy, like a Mitsubishi Eclipse (263 hp V6). But then, I learned martial arts, and one day I went after one of the bullies, and he tried to hit me, but I dodged as I often did, then executed a perfect punch, full hip rotation, but deliberately stopped a few inches from his face. Everyone saw what I could have done if I wanted to. He did hit me in the face with a binder later that day, but after that he basically left me alone. Point being, there are different kinds of power, they're all equally strong.

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.

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.

It can also be more dangerous, even for professional stunt drivers.

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 ):



Keep in mind this is a Front Engine/FWD "Sport" Compact

Stock specs for this car is as follows: (keep in mind this is a 1.8 liter inline 4 cylinder)

Horsepower : 180hp @ 7600 rpm
Torque : 130 lb-ft @ 6800 rpm
Redline : 8400 rpm

Curb Weight : 2500lbs

Top speed : 149 mph
0-60 mph : 6.6 sec.(manual)
0-¼ mile : 14.9 sec @ 93.7 mph
60-0 braking distance : 115 ft.
Slalom speed: 68.8 mph
Skippad: 0.89g

compare this to a semi-similarly priced "classic" Front engine/RWD sports car, the Mazda Miata MX-5 (2007 specs) which now comes with a bigger 2.0 liter inline 4:

Horsepower : 166hp @ 6700 rpm
Torque : 140 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
Redline : 6500 rpm

Curb Weight : 2573 lbs

Top speed : 134 mph
0-60 mph : 7.0 sec.(manual)
0-¼ mile : 15.6 sec @ 90.1 mph
60-0 braking distance : 116 ft.
Slalom speed: 66.5 mph
Skippad: 0.85g

Judging from these times, the "sport" compact is up there in terms of performance with the "classic" sports car (even when compared to performance specs of a 1982 V8 Pontiac Trans Am), showing that a FWD can perform as well (or better) than a RWD up to a certain extent... Off course increasing the displacement and HP alot will inevitably end in the RWD being the superior platform. In the case with the car pictured above, it has been modified to be AWD and the motor changed to a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and runs with RWD cars with twice the displacement and possibly horsepower as well... If a regular gearhead can make such modifications on this FWD vehicle, I'm sure the top-notch scientists that designed KITT could 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....



For anyone interested, the car is a project from FENSPORT and can be found at: http://www.fensport.co.uk/fensportcarsf ... Celica.htm

The car makes 576hp from a 2.0 liter turbocharged engine (and runs the 1320 at 10.56 at 139.24 mph), which is a bit more than Ford's V8 Supercharged GT500KR (Granted the GT500KR will have a warranty and the Super Snake, but KITT isn't just a regular GT500KR right?)

In short I agree with the argument that KITT should not be limited to being RWD and a V8, especially with the technology available today.... (I'd actually prefer he be AWD in the fictional specs.... I could care less what his actual drivetrain is... as long as he looks SLEEK) ^.^

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.

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.

So, sounding like a broken record, KITT needs to be RWD or selectible AWD for two reasons:
1. Superior performance
2. Better entertainment

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.

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!

KITT's fictional specs should be over 2,000 horsepower and have a special computer controlled AWD.

And by the way, my daily driver (not the Camaro) is FWD with 300 horsepower and I love the car. So I am not biased in favor of RWD.

"RWD and AWD is superior to FWD"

Though I agree that KITT's fictional specs should definitely be RWD or preferably symetrical AWD, I would just like to point out that FWD is actually a better/efficient platform when it comes to hp classes below 250hp and 200 ft lbs of tq. Generally speaking, the less hp a car has, the more advantage FWD has because of less drivetrain loss from its shorter "driveshaft". Less hp travel from engine to wheel, less parasitic loss. AWD and RWD get progressively worse as hp figures go down (with AWD being the worst because it has to transfer its already small power to all 4 wheels) because of their power robbing long driveshafts. As displacement, horsepower, torque, and curb weight increases however, AWD/RWD advantages over FWD become more apparent. This is why most small passenger cars are FWD (besides the more passenger space due to long driveshaft deletion). A Subaru Impreza 2.5RS AWD with approx 165hp will be slower than a FWD Scion TC with similar power figures... Consequently, a FWD Acura TC with 271 hp will be slower than a similarly weighted RWD/AWD with approx the same HP figures (AWD Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII and RWD Honda S2000 with the Lancer being the fastest in terms of acceleration).


It would indeed look really ridiculous though if we were to see KITT accelerate off the line with just the front wheels spinning and the car tending to swerve to the left due to torque steer ;p

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 ):

That car is SWEET!!

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....

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.

KITT would have some kind of ADAPTIVE drivetrain that can distribute power to the wheels as needed.

I could care less what his actual drivetrain is... as long as he looks SLEEK) ^.^

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But, of course, if someone, such as myself, who admits he doesn't know much about cars, says THE EXACT SAME THING, he is regarded as being daft by the gearheads, but that's ok, I don't need validation from others. I know that I'm Qualified in Submarines, and thus have proven myself to a 200+ year old institution, so I'm solid.

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.

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.

I did see a reply to a youtube video that said something like "just engage the clutch, slam on the brakes and hit the gas in reverse, the rear wheels smoke a lot more and it looks a lot cooler". I don't recall the exact wording, but I strongly suspect that this in fact possible with a professional driver.

I think we should hesitate to speak of acts that require skill, discipline, and years of practice, and say "that is impossible" as opposed to "that is very difficult".

Like they say on MythBusters, "Don't try this at home. WE have YEARS of experience that makes US safe."

I don't have a problem with a FWD car being selected as KITT

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.

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.

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.

From a dead stop, smoke will only come from the front wheels on a FWD car. Now that was a "No, Duh" statement!

The same was said about the "no donuts at all from a fwd car" statement. That was supposedly a "no, duh" statement.

We keep modifying the description of the stunt so as to make it harder for a given vehicle to perform it.

If I show a car doing donuts with smoke from the rear wheels, you guys will think of an additional requirement to rule out FWD or any other drivetrain.

KITT is supposed to be the car of the future and should have superior performance characteristics.

KITT is the car of the future, not the vehicle used to represent KITT.

By this logic, we can't use ANY car to be KITT, as there is NO SUCH THING as a car with KITT's performance characteristics.

The Tesla Roadster electric car goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, that is still orders of magnitude slower than the Knight Industries Two Thousand. KITT would leave even the Tesla in the dust; the Tesla is not a realistic representation of what KITT would be able to do.

Nor is any other car that has ever been built, ok. There's no such thing.

KITT's fictional specs should be over 2,000 horsepower and have a special computer controlled AWD.

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.

Somehow, because I state "I'm not a car enthusiast" any statement I make along the lines of yours above is ignored. That aspect of this board is starting to get old.

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). The old 1982 trans am had a very nice 0.29 drag coefficient, and I believe one of these cars were modified to break landspeed records (I think it went past 250 mph)... More importantly, it definitely looks like something that can go that fast! (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).

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).

EXACTLY!!!!!!

But see, some people don't like the mustang just because it's a Ford.

I say that's stupid, we want a Made in USA car, regardless of company (like, Toyota Solara = good because it is Made in USA, but Camaro = bad because made in Canada).

The problem I have with the Mustang is that it is too boxy, or as you said, the coefficient of drag is too high.

The Camaro has that problem as well. I don't know what its coefficient of drag is, but I know the camaro is like a boxy version of a Trans Am, and I don't want boxy anything.

See that was when I said "well they should use something like the Pontiac G5 or G6 for example" and people went off on me because it is FWD and has a "underpowered" engine, and I was saying, who cares about the engine and drivetrain if it looks sleek.

Hence this thread.

(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).

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.

Or, as the people behind the new KR said:

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.

No mention of drivetrain or engine type, just "that car was just pretty cool".

Which is my point.

--Brian

it had to have some muscle to it, and be exciting to watch.

Hmmmmm.....

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. the use of a fwd car in this series would defeat the porpose. a fwd car cant handle jumps, cant drive on two wheels in ski mode and would look just plain goofy in super pursuit mode. the mustang is a cheap, easy to replace car like the trans am was back in the day. 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 but they didnt and the best, cost effective car out there for TRUE american preformance on looks is th mustang. because 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. but today sorry to bring it to your attention but the mustang is all that is out there for a new series. thank you

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.

Well, three made in the USA high performance sports cars that use RWD.

a fwd car cant handle jumps,

I'm not quite sure about that one.

cant drive on two wheels in ski mode

This it can do. Observe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf6rOCxTC_g

The Mini Cooper is a FWD drive car that was used in racing all the time in the 60s, and did all kinds of stunts in The Italian Job.

and would look just plain goofy in super pursuit mode.

Well, some would say anything looks goofy in super pursuit mode. lmao.

the mustang is a cheap, easy to replace car like the trans am was back in the day.

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.

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

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.

but they didnt and the best, cost effective car out there for TRUE american preformance on looks is th mustang.

Agree.

because 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.

definitely

but today sorry to bring it to your attention but the mustang is all that is out there for a new series. thank you

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.

--Brian

PHOENIXZERO wrote:

it had to have some muscle to it, and be exciting to watch.

Hmmmmm.....

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.

--Brian

seeker78 wrote: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.