I like it, even if it's only an intellectual exercise (and this despite my utter contempt for BMW after they voided my M-coupe warranty)

We were discussing this in the office today. Without all the possible problems of keeping the fabric tight, durability, etc, just think about the possibilities that this could offer in terms of adapting the car to various conditions. Imagine being able to morph the body to control the appearance at low speed, aerodynamic efficiency at high speed, control cooling duct size with temerature and speed, downforce in cornering, etc. The possibilities from an engineering aspect are fascinating.

OK, so we don't have the ability to make this work right now, but if material and technology were to develop in the future to allow this kind of thing to work then it has some amazing potential. I think that's all this is meant to be a glimpse of what 'might be' - a conceptual design. I don't think he is seriously expecting this to go into production anytime soon.

It winked at me! Wait till aircraft builders find out about this advanced technology! They could take a frame & some cloth & some dope, where have I heard this before?

You're kidding me, right? Obviously you've never dealt with the FAA. While there is no explicit requirement to crash an aircraft, the amount of testing required to certify an aircraft is unparalleled. Do you think automakers test their composites at -55C and 175C? After a 30 day wet soak? The amount of testing and conformity paperwork required by the FAA is simply staggering.

Several of our customers have been kind enough to perform crash testing on landings (user error), and in each case the composite fuselage has remained entirely intact, with no significant injuries to the passengers. In one case the fuselage actually rolled across the ground. Believe it or not, after analysis and repairs the fuselage was attached to a new set of wings and the aircraft was returned to flight. Roll a Koeingsegg at 80 MPH and let me know how it turns out.

I Just had a conversation with an engineer here about a change to an FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) ...which I've dealt with regularly when working a a place that made composite parts for Boeing et al. (10+ years ago).

My point was in no way that airplanes have minimal testing, but that they have different testing . . .different structural (among other) requirements. As you should well know, stiffness and toughness are very different reqirments.

Just as a data point, the Koeingsegg was the only car tested that was used for the side impact test, and then re-used for the frontal impact test. ...same car. (or so Christian Von Koenigsegg told me)

His website has more http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/safety.asp?submenu=7
...and yes, I would rather be rolling in the Koeingsegg than in a fuselage. --in tact or not, the loads would be higher to those inside the structure lacking absoption materials.

Amazing, genius, who would have thought you could make a car that is completely impractical for production or use, looks awful from every single angle you can imagine, and people would say you are a great designer. I think the Z4 looks worse in person than it does in photos myself.

Just because many other designers are copying a terrible looking vehicle, does not make it a great design.