swimming108

iTrader: (3)

Second that! Lower it down in the back to stock trunk height at the tip and you have me sold.

i know it can't look like this, but i man do i love these lines!

pusha

iTrader: (5)

That looks like dogshit.

jj_warhorse

9671111

iTrader: (10)

There we go.

jj_warhorse

Brilliant observation.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

I am starting to like that and I am a die hard convertible guy.

ZX-Tex

iTrader: (15)

OK that is better. I would also have it taper inward much more as it moves to the rear bumper, though I suppose the existing trunk lid opening makes that difficult.

Anyway, I know that you have put a lot of work into this but for $2K+ I am just not feeling it yet. For my needs this is not a big improvement over the Autokonexion offering.

jj_warhorse

Fair enough. Let me ask this: What would you consider (a) justifiably large improvement(s)?

If it gets tapered in at the back at all, it wont be much. It will at least cover the entire trunk opening.

afc2112

I can't get past AK's pinched look, the way it tapers towards the center just before the gas cap.

IMO, this looks far more organic.

jj_warhorse

Exactly. Plus we are still trying to add some trunk volume and practicality.

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

I like the slight revision/editing as well Jess. It's not a drastic change, but it's obvious to the eye and it's much close to the NB coupe we all envy.

ZX-Tex

iTrader: (15)

OK well we will have to agree to disagree on this point due to different desires and needs. Personally I like the style of the inward taper at the rear on the Autokonexion but that is a matter of taste. Also since I am looking at this for a track car I do not need the additional trunk room. I have enough space with the standard trunk as it is.

I am only providing input in the hopes of being constructive, but by no means expect you to develop it for me. The needs of the majority rule from your perspective.

Der_Idiot

iTrader: (2)

Would love to get one of these in a hardtop-like style, removable being what I mean. I can see this improving mileage quite a bit.

jj_warhorse

It will be easily removable, but it will still require uninstalling/installing the stock decklid.

The lines of this "new" design is actually very close to what we started with. It got higher and higher in the back when by request we started going for more rollbar/headroom.
The bottom line is one top will not be all things to everyone.... unless you wan it to look like the Homer Simpson car.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I think it should end flush to the current body panel (i.e, if you measurement form the ground to the "trunk" lid top), it looks bulky and weighted.

and the fastback does not necessarily need to end at very rear of the trunk lid, maybe stop it 4-5 inches from the corner. Giving it the rear more angle.

jj_warhorse

We're talking maybe an inch higher then the deck in the very back. I think the absolute lowest should be the height of the rear quarter panels, or it looks too pinched off.
Moving the base of the slope forward defeats the purpose and takes a huge step twards the AK design. The shallower the angle of the rear slope the better the aero will be, and we're already making it a bit steeper. I still think the fat *** design would have flowed cleaner air and performed better with a big wing without needing really tall mounts.

trakhoar

iTrader: (3)

Honestly most guys who run this, wont be putting it on a fast track car that actually needs aero improvements

jj_warhorse

Yeah, I see truth in that statement... hence sacrificing helmet/rollbar space for aesthetics.
I'm sure there will be racers who run it though. Track cars run the AK top for better aero.

shlammed

iTrader: (8)

it can be just as high where your head/rollbar is and taper harder both vertically and horizontally.


What you have should just go flat and make it a hatchback.

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

^^ SEX