mac

Am I the only who thinks that this car is screaming for a hatch version?

So far I am very interested in the RX8. It has a lot of the features that I am looking for. It is at the top end of my price range but the grin factor could convince me, that and the more I read about the TSX, the more I think that it will be closer to $35k CAD then $33k. I have some reservation in regards to the trunk (or lack thereof). If there was a hatchback version with fold down seats it would be a non issue. "Fold down seats only" would be better then current config but not nearly as practical as a hatch. Anyone heard if Mazda will be releasing one in the next few years?

I know it will increase the body flex and increase weight but I would be willing to accept this with the gains of cargo space. Mainly because I won't be driving it at it's limits (we don't have those kinds of roads in Ottawa). What if they were to add removeable bracing (something like the z350, it seems to have a cross beam that looks to be removable)? Wonder how much it would cost to get this custom?

Farsyde

im not trying to supress opinions but can that "leave it as is" button be changed to a lymthatic "hell no!!"

mac

I would be happy to oblige :D but it appears that I can't edit my own poll. Oh well.

lurcher

Pack your luggage into golf-bag-shaped suitcases and apparently you'll have no problem.

MrWigggles

Because of the lack of a B-pilar created by the suicide doors, there are more structural elements between the trunk and the backs of the rear seats.

The current pass-through is as large as it can be. It is about as big as the openning in the sheet metal. Fold-down rear seats are not possible.

-Mr. Wigggles

IGOZMZM

There is a V shaped brace behind the rear seats. It is there to help with in an accident anything in the trunk from launching into the cabin. I think it's also there to help with structure, but I could be wrong on that. So with those there you could not put a fold down seat because it would defeat the saftey feature that was put there in the first place.

mac

Yes, I expect it to have more structural elements for maximum rigidity. But the question becomes to what degree would safety and performance be compromised if they were redesigned. If safety would be more or less the same and performance would decrease somewhat (body would twist more so you wouldn't be able to push the car as far but how many of us will push this car even close to its limits). I'm just suggesting that some of us would trade some of that top performance for even more practicallity. Remember this car is being presented as a 'practical' sports car. If you want maximum rigidity get the trunk version. For true performance there is always the RX7.

It may not have B pillars but when the doors are closed they do act as one. If I recall reading that the mini doors are heavyly re-inforced (hence the wide pillar). Combined with a removable bracing, I bet it would be stiffer then my current ride (99 Integra). With the bracing removed it would be more prone to flex but would it be more then the 'Teg with the seats down?

It would definitely add weight but again to what extent would it affect performance?

I'm pretty sure that is just for structural purposes. If something launches into the cabin that couldn't be stopped by the rear seats, then it will be the least of your worries. My last 3 cars have been hatchback. Not even the lowly Omni (you can stop laughing now) had a problem stopping stuff from the trunk getting into the cabin. If the seats are down then it is no different then a station wagon, van, yute etc.

It's a little early in the poll but I am pleasantly surprised to see so many of us willing to sacrifice a little performance for increased practicallity.

IGOZMZM

So I was right :D I would rather have the extra saftey with all the stupid drivers that are out there.

IGOZMZM

Here is a picture of the V-shaped beams behind the rear seats.

Click here to see pic

mac

Thanks IGOZMZM, great pic, haven't seen this one yet. What I would love to find out is how much is there for stiffness versus safety.

I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but I still think that the claim that the brace is there to stop articles from coming into the cabin has more to do with Marketing gone amock then real science. Although Physics was never my best subject, I do recall that F=ma. The trunk is very shallow, objects would not be able to achieve a large difference in acceleration in relationship to the seats during rapid deceleration (frontal crash) thus the objects would not have a lot of force (unless they are very heavy). Also the angular momentum (angle that the force is applied) also comes into play. The rear seats are at an angle to the trunk floor (I would hazard a guess of 105 degrees) which would require significantly more force to break (don't remember the equation) then if they were at 90 degrees. It would not require a lot to stop the items from coming thru. If you look at the design, it provides strenght laterally not longitudinally. This means more rigidity, less body torsion during high G manoeuvres and more energy dissipation during side impacts. I would think that it would provide only marginal strenght in the front to back direction.

Again, I'm no engineer but just some casual observations.

Smoker

Mac, when you are traveling at 90MPH, everything in the trunk are also traveling at 90MPH with you. When you hit brakes, everything in the trunk is pushing against the back of the seats at ( Force = their Mass*90MPH) it doesn't matter how much space there is in the trunk for it travel, the force requires to stop those objects in the trunk from moving is still the same.

takahashi

IF the RX8 is hatch it will be good to put my bicycle in. UNLIKELY

How likely the middle pillar (the near mid mount engine) is going to benefit with a hatch... as no more space is going to be created?

bwayout

Nope, there's a few others out here ...

:D

Hey, I do hope that Mazda comes up with something that addresses our hopes in the near future ...

Here's a post that I started back in October, last year and was allittle supprized not to find more people that hoped for the same ...

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ight=hatchback

RX-8 Forum > General Topics > RX-8 Discussion > A future fastback-hatchback 2+2 RX-8 model?

If you'd like to see my photoshoped attempt at a fastback version, check it out.

mac

So where am I going wrong with my logic?

A car with a 10 lb cinder block in the trunk is traveling at 90 mph. Both the block and the seat are traveling at the same speed therefore acceleration between the block and the seat is 0. Therefore the force required for the seat to stop the block is 0.

The car slams into a wall.

At the initial impact T+1, the speed of the car is now 85, since the seat is fixed to the car it is also going 85 but the block is not, it continues to move at 90 and will continue to move at 90 until it hits the back seat. The block hits the back seat at T+3. At T+3 the speed of the seat is 70 so the acceleration of the block compared to the seat is 20. If force=mass x acceleration then the seat needs to resists 200 units of force (20 mph x 10 lbs) to stop the block. If it takes T+5 for the block to hit the seat (deeper trunk), at T+5 the seat is going 50 and the block 90 therefore the acceleration is 40. Thus force to stop block is 10 x 40= 400 units.

If this is correct then the force required to stop the cinder block increases with the difference of acceleration between the block and the seat. Since the RX8 has a really small trunk, it would require either something very heavy or the car stopping very very fast (ie hit a cement wall) for the block to come blasting thru. If it is the later, you have bigger worries then the flying cinder block.

I think the block never did hit the seat, it actually hit my head 'cause it is starting to hurt :p

mac

I agree a bike couldn't fit but it would be a lot easier to throw in a couple of suitcases (I fly a lot) or a couple of pack sacks, life jackets and paddles with my cedar strip canoe on top for when I take off to Algonquin Park :D

The middle bracing would be removable in order to provide the extra space. When removed, it would affect the dynamics of the car but if done properly it wouldn't be any worse then my Teg.

mac

I prefer the fastback (extended rear window) versus the longer trunk. The long trunk would make the RX8 look likes it has a huge butt.

The fastback look really good, kudo's. Mazda, are you reading this ??

This poll seems to favor an addition to the line up; 19 saying no change while 22 want better cargo area at the possible cost of performance.

bwayout

I aggree with you (of course)!

:D

Mazda, please, at some future time (if not on the RX-8, how about a RX-3, or RX-6) ... make it so!

Yes, please count me in that group too! A lot of times having that space came in very handy! I loved all of the great funtional space my 1990 Probe had. plus with the rear seats down I had move space to put stuff than some SUV's (I'll admit that the Suburban had me beat ) ...