wooriegi found posted something rather rare at the Cohort: the one and only FF91, a “Gamma” prototype of a very high end ($300k) EV that Faraday Future has been struggling to get to production for some years now. The ups and down of the company has been a roller coaster ride, and I’m not going to rehash it all here.
But things are looking up. FF is merging with a SPAC, which should yield one billion dollars in fresh cash (two billion have already been spent since its founding back in 2014). In addition to a lot of other glitzy specs (1050 hp; 0-60 in 2.39 sec, and all the electronic goodies one can imagine), what most interests me about the FF91 is its basic body shape, proportions and size. It’s the future shape of the car, no less, at least in my humble opinion. It’s tall (62.9″) without being stuck overtly in the crossover look. The cab-forward body allows it to have a huge interior, directly competitive with the top end sedans like Rolls-Royce and Bentley, but without aping any of their traditional luxury design cues.
The FF91 may not have a viable future, but I’m convinced that its body configuration does.
Here’s the back seats, fit for a king and queen. Obviously the quality of the materials and features are requisite for a $300k car, but there’s no reason the proportions, with the resulting luxurious interior space can’t be adapted to sedans in the typical high end class. If Lexus had built its new LS with these proportions, they might have something bold and new to compete more effectively against the Germans.
First class comfort.
The cab forward proportions and resulting huge interior space are possible because like most EVs, the batteries are under the floor. As I see it, the revolution in EV body shapes and improvements in interior packaging is comparable to the similar changes that took place in the 1930s, when rear engine cars like the Tatra created a drastically larger and roomier cabin by moving the whole drive train to the rear, and moving the passenger compartment significantly forward, compared to the conventional cars of the time.
Ultimately, cars are conveyances, and the manner in which they convey us, in terms of their accommodations, space, comfort and convenience will inevitably improve as technology and forward thinking consign the outdated longer, lower, wider format to the ash heap of history.
Here’s a recent (6/18/2021) interview with the current CEO of Faraday Future. Based on that, its future looks brighter than at any point in its past.
Someone sat on an Avantine.
I sat in one of these at a motor show what seems like 200 years ago, and have never forgotten the nutcase oddity of it. “This is for me!”, I thought, which, given the previous adjectival phrase, says the appropriate things about me and the actual persons who bought one.
As a nutter, I reckon the old Renault looks better than this Faraday thing of 20 years later, which means either that the Avantime was a sculpture way, way ahead of the curve or that the Faraday isn’t much. I’m going with the latter, natch.
Personally, I don’t see a flat Renault, more a sat-upon RAV4. But now you’ve reminded me, make my Faraday an Avantime that’s electric.
“This is for me” . Me too.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/un-curbside-classic-2001-2003-renault-avantime-two-door-hardtop-luxury-turbo-diesel-vancoupe-my-lust-object-du-jour/
The Avantime’s biggest problem was that it was only a two door. The 2007 or so 5door Renault Megane showed the shape in a more useful, albeit also shrunken format. Why no 5door Avantime, the game may have been changed considerably.
Two door issue, problem solved with the 2002-2009 Renault Vel Satis.
Last car my father had. I did not like it, cheap interior and just too big. Unrefined. It drove pretty well but was not as comfortabele as expected. All a bit disappointing rally.
That Avantime has really aged very well as a design, it still looks as good as it did when it debuted (and I loved it then, also how mad it was). I guess part of that is that they never were a big hit, so it’s remained timeless rather than tired and overexposed. Though it’s name does basically mean before/ahead of its time, so I guess its form coming into its own now is accurate of the design/marketing intention. Saying that, I’m with you in that I don’t see a flattened Avantime in the FF91, though it has elements of other models stretched and softened.
I guess the Faraday Future would’ve been ahead of the curve if it had actually arrived when originally promised, a couple of years back proper… but now there’s some level of fatigue with masses of other new startups from around the world, particularly China, showing off similarly proportioned EVs and even already getting them to market (e.g., HiPhi X which has already sold a few hundred units over the last few months). The styling, for those of us who’ve been following the industry, is no longer groundbreaking or revolutionary. Regular consumers may disagree.
“Not aping any traditional luxury design cues” means boring and unremarkable.
Nothing really luxurious about this thing and its bland styling sure won’t turn any heads on the boulevard.
Most buyers of high end luxury cars want understated power (not a pointless 0-60 sprint of 2.39 sec), traditional luxury (not digital gadgets) and road presence. This car has none of either.
Yes, and that’s exactly why Tesla has done so poorly in the luxury field.
Yes, amen, praise the himself, pass the watercooler, Harley looya, as it was in the beginning, etc, ad infinitum. Or, more likely in this size, “But of course!”
I am too old to let go of the past emotionally – a car has to bang and cough and smoke (if invisibly now) for it to be interesting, and I can’t feel an emotional joy for the electric future that’s already with us. But that doesn’t matter.
Electric is a source of propulsion that’s better beyond any measure of those old exploding fuel cars, and, had the battery tech been there, it always was. I might find the unhistoried silence these new sparkies cold, but I am receding as we speak. I literally don’t matter, and shouldn’t.
This limo here IS your new transport when you succeed, or graduate, or marry, the details of maker being irrelevant. It isn’t the car of the future – that car will be taller in every incarnation – but it’s the luxo part of it. And, in the modern idiom – which also isn’t for me – it looks fine.
Anyway, the future is the past. Cars were always just a way to get around, and things like this thing are how it will be, maybe even sans driver.
It’s a wonder to be enthused about. Only the oddity of human nature has made the old stuff stuff to be fetishized.
I do hope I live just long enough to meet the semi-old farts from 30 years time who’re waxing lyrical over the details of which model from that long-forgotten maker Faraday this one is.
The Lucid Air has a more restrained take on this shape and does look like it will enter production soon, with more of a traditional sedan form yet much better space utilization than ICE-powered cars, and better than a Tesla S too. Lucid and Rivian look like the most promising EV startups to me.
It really doesn’t look all that “Cab-forward” to me, beyond having an extremely raked windscreen pushing the base of it far more forward than it really needs. The door mirror looks in a very similar position relative to the front wheel as that of the RAV4, which it does kind of look like – except for the fact that this car is two whole feet longer, 20″ of it of it in the wheelbase which would add a ton of room inside.
Heightwise it’s about the same as a Mercedes GLA, as you said, not full-on CUV height but taller than most modern sedans including the Model S. About the same as a Subaru Outback once the 3″ of above the roofline rack is removed on that which more will be familiar with. The batteries under the floor will add a higher floor inside potentially negating that interior body height space, they do still take space instead of having a thin floor like most cars unless of course it goes the other way with less ground clearance which it doesn’t look like (relative to a standard sedan). Or, put another way, about 2″ shorter in height than the Scion xB with about 6″ more floor thickness, so 8″ less headroom, is that about right? I’m kind of guessing on the thickness, but I don’t think it’s much thinner than that.
It’s also massively wide at an 1/8th of an inch under 90″. And surprising that with that height it still has those extremely gunslitty windows.
“Cab forward” is a relative term, not an absolute. It’s all about relative proportions, which are of course essential elements to all car design. Yes, a Geo Metro has a much shorter hood than a “cab forward” Dodge Intrepid, but that doesn’t make it “cab forward”.
Here’s a comparison shot of the FF91 and the Lexus LS. They’re both the same 206″ length, so it was easy to line them up. The “cab forward” proportions of the FF91 are quite apparent, at least to me.
I guess. The cutline between the doors look maybe a couple of inches further ahead on the FF, that driver seems to be pulled quite far forward in the seat, there’s no headrest visible. The roofline is vastly different as well but the forward curvature starts at about the same point too. The increased upper body as relative to the lower body mass I suppose adds a lot of volume. But look ahead of the driver’s head. That’s all unusable space. And then the rear gets a hatchback/sportwagon shape, a la Porsche Panamera Turismo.
The wheelbase with the rear wheel moved so far rearward is what’s really apparent.
And here’s a comparison shot of the FF91 and a RAV4. In this one I blew up the size of the RAV4 to be the same length as the FF91, so that the comparison of their relative proportions are more apparent. As I said before, comparing the absolute length of a shorter car’s hood to a much longer one isn’t applicable.
In this comparison, the relative cab forward proportions of the FF91 seem quite apparent to me.
And here’s one with the RAV 4 in its actual size relative to the FF91. The overall effect due to the F91’s length creates a rather different visual massing.
This one’s interesting in that the front of the front doors is in just about the same place, indicating that the seating position is about identical. The FF has longer doors than the RAV which makes sense due to the wheelbase difference. Put the FF windshield roofline on the RAV and it would look similar.
It’s kind of like a RAV4 Long Wheelbase. 🙂
Blowing up the picture doesn’t really do much though – if the RAV4 were the same length as the FF then the proportions would likely be very different, not just bigger. There’d be no reason that the RAV would need an extra 5-6″ of hood from a packaging perspective which is what this picture is translating to..
The FF windshield COULD slope down to base just before the front door front edge with no difference to the driver. Do that and I think it’d look much the same as the RAV.
An excellent comparison is the HiPhi X, already on sale in China.
I came in thinking it and the FF91 are similarly proportioned, but compared to that the FF91 is very obviously ‘cab forward’ despite using a broadly similar form/elements.
One last picture. Chrysler made a lot of hay with its “cab forward” LX platform, but almost all of that was also a more forward and steeper windshield. The actual passenger compartment was very little different in terms of its location than other FWD sedans of the time like the Taurus.
That’s kind of my point, compare the doors and the seating positions for the front seat, very similar.
Yes, “cab forward” is a styling theme, having to do with the proportions of the body massing, and not about where the actual seating elements are.
One more point: the cab forward design allows for a more aerodynamic shape for a relatively taller vehicle. That’s really the point with the FF91, and very critical for an EV. A tall blunt front end like on a RR is not at all ideal in that regard.
Agreed, but then the cab forward does nothing for interior *usable* volume if the front seat is in the same place. The 20 extra cubic feet or whatever over the hugely long dashboard are useless. The volume in the FF comes from the back (and the excessive width). If they could put a 1985 Volvo 740 wagon-esque rear on it it’d be even better but not for aero.
Same as what we are seeing with everyone moving to CUVs, just without the step-in height. Higher roof for more upright seating position although this doesn’t look that upright overall, and more interior upper roof length instead of a sedan rear window.
Frankly it’s too long. 206″ in the Lexus is already a foot more than the Avalon which is already a hugely long car. But for the Chinese chauffeur driven market it probably works. Over here I could see a model with 18″ cut out of the middle and 8″ out of the width, but then you’d lose a lot of the volume and the lady would have to get off the massage table she’s laying on.
The 2021 Avalon is a hugely long car at 196″? It is the same length as the current Accord and actually a tad shorter than the 1996-2005 Taurus.
I certainly don’t consider my 194″ car long by any standard, in fact, since the others are 212″ I consider it the small car 😉
Today’s full size sedans are 232″ +/- in the “short” version.
“hugely” may be an overstatement, the Avalon is 14.5″ longer than the best selling car (RAV4) so that’s perhaps what I consider a good median length for lots of people. Both the Avalon and the LS have massive rear seat legroom on the order of a full size crew cab pickup. There are always outliers and longer vehicles that don’t use space efficiently as well.
I wouldn’t call 1/2 ton crew cab ~5.5′ bed pickups outliers in today’s market. Yes it is a pickup but many people use them as daily drivers/commuters.
Whatever, call it what you want, they don’t readily fit into most people’s garages either nor do they fit easily into most parking spaces either at work or when errand running if there are other vehicles parked on either side. They CAN fit but not usually as simply as just swinging it on in, especially if others of the same are on either side or across the aisle. Yes, they are super common. Many recent crewcab pickup trucks have a decent amount of length that isn’t used either, specifically as extra back seat legroom in the race to have “the most” as well as in the engine bay.
Frankly it’s too long. 206″ in the Lexus is already a foot more than the Avalon which is already a hugely long car. But for the Chinese chauffeur driven market it probably works. Over here I could see a model with 18″ cut out of the middle and 8″ out of the width, but then you’d lose a lot of the volume and the lady would have to get off the massage table she’s laying on.
I’m quite perplexed by your statement. The FF91 is priced at $300k, or right up against the R-R Ghost. The Ghost is some 7″ longer. My guess is that the FF91’s rear seating accommodations are somewhat more generous than the normal (non extended) Ghost, but without the stats, it’s only a guess. The FF91’s seats appear to be taller, which would contribute to spaciousness.
As to cutting 18″ out of the middle and 8″ width, are you suggesting that would be a good strategy for R-R and Bentley and others in the $300+k price bracket? I don’t see the logic in that at all. This is NOT a RAV4 competitor.
My whole point here is to show that by moving to a taller, one-boxish shape, it allows rear seating spaciousness that equals or exceeds typical luxury sedans with a similar (or greater) overall length.
I’m not sure what the fixation on the RAV4 is, as it’s playing in a very different segment of the market, and except for some styling cues mostly at the rear, it’s really quite a different vehicle.
I’m also not particularly sanguine about Faraday’s future in the market. They’ve had a very rough road so far for obvious reasons. A Tesla Model X offers much the same, if not quite as luxurious appointments, for one third the price.
My point was simply to suggest that the three box sedan, which lost its rear box some time ago, might also be ready to lose its front box too. But then the streamliners and the Avantime didn’t exactly last. So I might well be wrong.
We’re probably talking at cross-purposes and not discussing the same points. I don’t really see any path to success by endeavoring to sell a $300k vehicle due to the extremely limited market. And using it as a halo vehicle only works until the mass market cheap one comes out and then nobody wants the expensive one anymore. It’d be (as my opinion only) far better to figure out how to build something similar for a third of the price and have significantly more sales volume, i.e. actually compete against the establishment. I don’t see anything in the FF that isn’t more or less already sold at that $100k or so price point, the battery at 374miles or whatever the range is isn’t even particularly large or anything.
No fixation on the RAV, I merely agreed they looked similar since someone else mentioned it before I did, then you used it in your comparison pictures so that’s how that stayed relevant to the conversation re cab forward or whatever (not that the RAV is, but move the windshield base forward and it looks it). Being intro’d within a year of each other indicates either two people had some of the same ideas, or someone hired someone else’s guy a couple of years earlier, Toyota didn’t engineer and bring the RAV to market within a year of first seeing the FF design if they in fact did see it when intro’d. In the end, selling a million+ RAV4’s every year around the world seems a better strategy, again not your point at all I know
Going to or closer to a one-box design starts to get awfully close to a minivan, the length is even similar, nothing mini about those anymore. The height would be the key differentiator (here it’s about 6″ lower), and likely inevitably makers would want to not be confused with a van and then keep making the roof lower again…
I don’t really know either though, which is probably why I’m commenting on the internet on stuff instead of on a zoom call with the engineering department of some automaker figuring out how to design it best…
Without moving the occupants forward with it, “cab forward” really just denotes an excessively long windshield and deep dashboard are wasting space instead of exterior sheetmetal. The faraday doesn’t look to me like the occupants moved much forward, maybe an inch or two but the pillars and side mirrors are in almost the exact same place as on the Lexus LS which are both pretty clear hints that the seat is in the same place relative to each other.
As a marketing term, it’s definitely cab forward but from a packaging point of view it doesn’t seem much different than past “cab forward” designs used with an ICE, biggest difference is the cab intrusion doesn’t screw engine access for mechanics, since there isn’t one.
The biggest difference on the front seems purely visual, the driver doesn’t seem to be much further forward beyond it being a small person depicted that doesn’t look like they are leaning back in the seat at all (no headrest or seatback contact, like when my 12yo gets in my car and grabs the wheel). The space increase in the back is mainly due to the rear roofline, like a Porsche Panemera Turismo or, more prosaically, a Malibu Maxx.
In that pic vs the Lexus the Lexus is wearing 20″ wheels, that looks like the FF has massive 23’s or similar.
the RAV4, which it does kind of look like
The FF91 was revealed in January 2017. The current RAV4 over a year later. When I first saw the current RAV4, my first thought was that it has certain styling elements of the FF91.
Rear seat headroom is compromised, stupid for a chauffeur-driven car. Bezos and Bloomberg may be short, but the Chinese are getting taller.
My wishful thinking is that a tall, roomy sedan that thumbs its nose at aerodynamics will appear and resurrect the market. Perhaps if hats came back in fashion on the coasts….
I’m surprised so many people tolerate so much hot glass over their heads. I have to keep my solid shade closed all summer. A fabric shade won’t cut it.
I’ll just leave this here.
I think it’s been done before.
Interesting. It’s half an inch taller than the FF so almost the same, and some of the interior height will be negated by the battery pack in the floor.
Length of the old Venza was 189″, so about 8″ longer than the current RAV but 17″ shorter than the FF. This is probably about the size I’d predict the FF would shrink to above to have more of a chance for US market sales if they survive long enough.
This is probably about the size I’d predict the FF would shrink to above to have more of a chance for US market sales if they survive long enough.
Priced at $300k? I don’t think so…
Speaking generally on the architecture, size and stance as an electric, it strikes me generally as having presence and a premium feel.
In addition to the Porsches, this put me in mind of the Citroen CX and XM.
Taller, and more upright is now the most popular selling format now anyway, and that’s not too much height to spread out over a car this size.
Premium hatchback/fastback is pretty much accepted now, except for Niles Crane. Or perhaps this would be exclusive enough.
I never understand why these days all EVs have such powerful output while the battery range is still a concern. Do we really need such powerful machine? Increasingly these vehicles are adopted into autopilot mode, fast pickup time is not that irrelevant, plus is it safer to have slower vehicles? I just found out even Chevy Bolt has a 200 hp motor!? Part of adoption into EV is for environmental concerns, more waste energy will have impact on environment.
I also doubt Toyota will use this Faraday theme into its LS soon. It is just not kind of company offering this innovative design. Remember it walked away from Tesla few years ago? That is a huge mistake from both financial and technology points of view.
Because it doesn’t make a difference. Electric motors are so efficient, a 1000 max hp electric motor doesn’t really use any more energy rolling along the freeway generating 60hp than a 100 max. hp motor doing the same. There’s no real penalty, energy-wise.
Frankly, that’s largely the case with IC engines too, thanks to modern technology like VVT and such. There’s not all that much difference in energy consumption between a 600 hp and 200 hp engine when they’re both just generating 60 or so hp cruising on the freeway. That’s especially the case with downsized turbo engines.
But is it sufficient power is an efficient engineering. I am not a believer of over engineering. Engineering is to seek effective way to solve problem effectively. 600 HP passenger car is not efficient.
Like paul said, the motors are efficient, limiting horsepower capability for sufficient power won’t add range to them so it’s more economical to just put in the most powerful ones available. I tend to agree that the power is pretty ridiculous but it’s only wasteful if you use the pedal like it’s an on off switch, zapping range away with full throttle(err pedal?) blasts from every light. For modest outputs under everyday use it can be achieved by selectable driving modes
The battery plays a big part in the power rating of the vehicle. In one of the Lightning intro videos I saw one of the Ford spokesperson refer to it has having the choice between a 426hp and 563hp battery. That larger battery can safely supply more amps which means more power out of the motors. Of course the motor’s safe output can’t be exceeded even if you have a battery capable of more power.
However it is not just a motor it is a motor/generator and that is a big reason for higher capacities, it makes the cars more efficient, not less, at least when driven the same. The higher power motor can produce more regen braking current and force and thus recover more energy.
The other factor is that with a fixed ratio transmission that power peak is only available in a certain speed range. In other words they design for the power needed at relevant rpm/speed, but of course advertise peak power even if that doesn’t occur until extra legal speeds.
The other factor is that with a fixed ratio transmission that power peak is only available in a certain speed range. In other words they design for the power needed at relevant rpm/speed, but of course advertise peak power even if that doesn’t occur until extra legal speeds.
The Model S Plaid Plus’ dyno chart begs to differ with you.
Hmm, sure seems to me that shows you can’t get 1000hp out of the Plaid until you reach 60mph.
The more telling chart is one that includes torque. Unfortunately I didn’t find one that includes the Plaid but this one includes the older models.
The shape of that torque curve, specifically the plateau indicates that the torque output is limited by the current it is being supplied. If enough current could be supplied (and the motor didn’t overheat) the torque output would be even higher at the lower speeds.
The Plaid of course is designed for maximum output and to do so it uses 3 motors, not just one. That chart shows the combined output of the 3 motors as installed/controlled in the vehicle.
Which brings me back to my 1st point that the battery can be the limiting factor to an EV’s power output. What that “perfect power curve” really shows is that the Plaid’s battery pack and control system is capable of delivering 1000 hp/750kw but the motors could put out much more if they had a sufficient power source.
1000 horsepower is so overkill, that you needn’t worry about its full availability below 60mph. Sure, an intermediate gear might lower the amperage a little for the first second of a dash to freeway speed, but getting a transmission to execute a shift quickly enough, as well as tires being able to maintain traction… this would also put more strain on downstream driveline components. My guess is that this might make the car a tad slower.
Same goes for the battery. More range is probably going to be the real world benefit, for those taking longer trips in their EV’s. I mean, I’m sure we haven’t reached the end of the road for horsepower. I’m sure it will keep edging upward, and an honest sub-2 second 0-60 will be achieved, just because. Does that have any real use on real roads? Prolly not.
That is the entire point, that a fixed gear ratio means that you need to design for those times when the motor can’t make peak power and to optimize for regen braking. The seemingly overkill of something like a 200hp Bolt is more of a byproduct of those design parameters rather than a design goal in and of itself.
The model S Plaid of course in not the typical EV as it was designed with maximum performance as a primary goal.
This is sure a serious discussion about a car at a price level that sees few sales. The question seems to be if buyers could accept another type of design language that would communicate prestige. They clearly have, they have adopted the Luxury SUV as the new template of status. Be it a Bentley, Range Rover, Mercedes, Lexus, Cadillac or Lincoln. None of these SUVs looks like an old fashioned Rolls Royce of the ’50s, or a early 60’s Cadillac Fleetwood or a 1980’s Mercedes S class. They look like an off road truck and buyers can’t get enough of them. The idea that different automotive designs could be more efficient in carrying passengers in the back seat is pretty much a given, but it only seems to be an issue with livery class vehicles. The Maybach had a similar rear seat set up and it didn’t prove too popular. Do rich people really want to sleep in the back seat of a car while they are being ferried about? If sleep is only a euphemism, then they can get the job done in a Chevy van, and that’s alright with me.
Wow! That thing really pegs the needle on the ugly scale!
i took the featured photo on central park west where limos are a common sight. until i read paul’s write up, i wouldn’t have guessed it was a luxury vehicle. i figured it was some new chinese electric full size suv. i see lots of rolls and bentleys in that neighborhood and they stand out in a way that the faraday doesn’t. it’s not just the vaguely toyota styling but the paint job had no depth. the only thing interesting was the blacked out panel behind the rear door and the way the wheels were pulled to the corners like the original ford edge (or a versa as was pointed out in the comments above.)
I actually don’t mind the look of this one at all. It was fresher when it debuted in 2017, but still doesn’t look dated.
I still can’t help but think “vaporware” whenever I see the FF91 or Faraday Future in type. As far as EV (and most other) startups go, I tend to label them all as vaporware until real, physical cars start rolling off the production lines in quantity. It’s not that I don’t want these guys to succeed, but more that so much is always promised, but seldom delivered.
The Lucid Motors factory is only about 50 miles away from me, and I’ve been wanting to see what’s happening there, but I’ve always been too busy to stop when I’m in the area. It’s actually located on the same road as the “Casa Grande Domes”, which are the remains of another manufacturer that went bust in the early 1980’s.