Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Specs For the New KITT

Posted by Zonk on Sat Dec 22, 2007 02:22 AM
from the a-shadowy-flight-into-the-dangerous-world dept.
Media Television Transportation Technology
An anonymous reader writes "The upcoming made-for-TV Knight Rider movie features an all-new version of the Knight Industries Two Thousand (KITT). Popular Mechanics has the 'specs' for the original Hasslehoff-mobile, as well as for the digital-effects enhanced version in the 2008 production. 'Designer Harald Belker, who has created the Batmobile for Batman and Robin and a next-gen space shuttle for Armageddon, came onboard to give the new KITT. a unique look. "The goal was to make it look more aggressive without being hokey or garish," Belker says.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Entertainment: Knight Rider To Ride Again 243 comments
Penguinsh*t writes "Though the movie version of Knight Rider has remained 'up on chocks' for the better part of the last decade, Knight Rider, the TV show is revving into high gear. 'The premise of the show will essentially remain the same as the original, which centered on a mulleted man righting wrongs with the help of a particularly chatty and souped-up automobile. No word yet on who will play the hero this time around, but the Peacock is looking for some new blood.' Besides which, 'the Hoff' is busy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Specs For the New KITT 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm a little confused. Do those fall under "news for nerds," or "stuff that matters?"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rei (128717)
      I agree. Especially given that we just had a slashdot article on a car that actually matters (the Aptera [popularmechanics.com]). Who cares about Knight Rider?

    • Actually, it falls under ",".
    • Neither. But one thing did strike me. As a run of the mill and fairly low budget (by American standards) series Knight rider had an interesting component that is often overlooked. The interface with KITT was exclusively voice and nobody thought twice about it being 'realistic'. And here we are more than two decades later and we still don't have voice recognition or natural language processing that even comes close to what is displayed so off-handedly in the series. I often wonder what kind of peaceful resul

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Hognoxious (631665)

        The interface with KITT was exclusively voice and nobody thought twice about it being 'realistic'.

        So? They had talking computers in Star Trek before that.

        And here we are more than two decades later and we still don't have voice recognition or natural language processing that even comes close to what is displayed so off-handedly in the series.

        Possibly because it's not the universal man/machine interface panacea that the uneducated think it is.

  • I'm confused? (Score:4, Funny)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Saturday December 22 2007, @02:30AM (#21788816)
    What's hokey about a male model and a talking car that fight crime?

  • Science Fiction vs outright fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stox (131684) on Saturday December 22 2007, @02:33AM (#21788834) Homepage
    300MPH to 0 in 12 feet? Sure, let's calculate the G's from that. Somehow I missed the specs for the inertial dampeners. What really peeves me is that this is Science Fiction that is too lazy to try to conform to the realm of possibility rather than exceed those limits to make a really good story.

    • Assuming constant acceleration (Score:5, Informative)

      by aepervius (535155) on Saturday December 22 2007, @03:06AM (#21788994)
      Assuming constant acceleration A, speed increasing linearly A.t (speed=0 at t=0), meaning it reaches a distance X=A.t^2 (t=0 then x=0) transforming mile into furlong (sorry I meant meter) means at 12 foot it has roughly 4 meters, and a speed of roughly 300*1.6=480 km-1. Now I don't want to make complex calculation, so I will assume it will have over the 12 foot an average speed of (480+0)/2=240 km.h-1. Which is 130 meter.second -1 (we go for rough estimate). It will so take it roughly 0.03 second to make that distance of 4m with an average speed of 130 m.s-1. Since we know that X=4meter=A.T^2 and t=0.03 we get A=x/t^2=4225 meter.s-2. For reference g=9 m.s-2 so he will feel a force of 470 g roughly. Naturally I bet there are some errors in the above particularly how I calculate the time it takes.

      • Re:Assuming constant acceleration (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) on Saturday December 22 2007, @03:23AM (#21789054)
        300 miles / hour x 5280 ft / mile x hour / 3600 s = 440 ft / s a=(Vf^2-Vi^2)/2d a=(0^2-440^2)/(2*12) a=8066.67 ft/s^2 standard gravity = 32.174 ft/s^2 therefore, 8066.67 / 32.174 =~ 250 g. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the highest g-force endured was 82.6g for 0.04 seconds on a water-braked rocket sled by Eli L. Beeding, Jr., at Holloman Air Force Base on May 16, 1958. He was hospitalized for three days. Using that number, this still means that the new KITT is capable of stopping three times faster than the maximum rate within survivability limits supported by evidence.
        • The key is that KITT uses a self-directed tachyon beam which is powerful enough to induce locally a Lie dragging of the metric. In layman's terms, the car takes really thirty seconds to slow down, but the light from the red cylon eye thingy makes it so that time flows backwards to four seconds afterwards, while the car's incessant talk distracts the driver when it happens.
      • That make it a factor 4 error on the accelration A calculation. (I had taken 480 kmh as average speed instead of 240). Don't really matter. Red-meat-mash ex-driver is still dead as dead can be. even at 125g. This is why I hate tv-sf.

      • Re:Assuming constant acceleration (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 22 2007, @03:57AM (#21789136)
        Why you gotta make everything so complicated?

        Assuming constant deceleration, you'd average 150 mph over the 12 feet. Do the calculation [google.com]: 250 g.

        Another way to think about it: if you were to run that car into a solid wall at 300mph, the front might crumple 6 feet. Going from 300mph to 0 in 12 feet is about half as severe as just driving into a wall.

        Or a little worse than driving straight into a wall at 200mph. Whee.
      • For the upcoming show, the wanna-be actors have to act out a scene that's invented on the spot by the producer. When they pass this test, they undergo the second test: a nice slap in the face with a sledgehammer. To emulate KITTs acceleration.
    • Nothing in the specs states anything about driver protection, so I guess it'll simply involve an endless string of cloned Knightriders :-)

      I was hoping anyone with better physics knowledge than I would be able to calculate the impact energy. To take almost 2 tonnes of steel down from 300 mph to 0 in about 12 feet (apparently calculated as a deceleration of about 250g) means you have to get rid of a godawful amount of kinetic energy in a very short time. Hell, that's not even going to look good on FILM.. W
    • "Power output can't be measured in Attack mode."

      Sigh.
  • Clearly a fantasy story because anyone really wanting to design a powerful fast car and put a supercomputer with AI in wouldn't be using a Mustang. Heck, I would go with something like the Mazda RX8. It at least looks sporty and in some ways quite similar to the original KITT. Of course, it isn't American so I'll no doubt get modded down by y'all.....
  • ...doesn't fit. When I see that I don't see KITT and that should be what I see immediately. Looks pretty ugly...
    • Yeah. Definitely Hokey.
      It looks like a butcher job pimp-my-ride ricer toyota.
    • They seem to misunderstand what KITT was. KITT was sleek, and elegant. It had class. And it was something we all imagined we might have some day. Until the producers get what the old show had, they should stop trying to reproduce it with horrible bulky cars.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Belial6 (794905)
      No kidding! That car isn't even close to being a KITT. Right off the bat, since it is a mustang, it is specifically designed to look like a 1960's car . Then, there doesn't seem to be a red light on the front. The red light on the front was how you knew that KITT was a sentient super car. And the Specs are just stupid. Instead of being a super car, it is now a magic car.

  • Impossible Tech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (namtabmiaka)> on Saturday December 22 2007, @02:37AM (#21788860) Homepage Journal

    this virtual Stang comes tricked out with a supercomputer that can hack almost any system; a very capable weapons system; and a body--thanks to nanotechnology--that's able to shape-shift and change color at will.

    For the love of all things Holy, can we please stop making shows with impossible (or at least highly improbable) technology? KITT was really fun in the 80's, primarily because of a misconception about AI. It was felt at the time by the public (and to a lesser degree by actual AI researchers) that the only thing holding a computer back from sentience was enough computing power. 20+ years of research has since disavowed us of that notion.

    Otherwise the original show was reasonably good about keeping the tech on the level. KITT was powered by Gas Turbines (good!), had laser weaponry (okay), was capable of computer graphics (actually, that's almost amusingly primitive at this point), and had an ultra-strong "Molecular Bonded Shell". (Unlikely, but at least within the realm of possibility.)

    The show tried doing the "ridiculous tech-thing of the week" when they brought on the April character, but that didn't go over all that well. Eventually they dropped it and got back to showing solutions that didn't involve Deus-Ex Machina plot devices.

    While I understand the need for suspending disbelieve, I just can't help but think that it would make a more enjoyable show if they simply tried to ground and enhance what was already presented in the original show. Updated with modern communications technology, satellite data, reconnaissance methods (could you see KITT launching UAVs? :P), eves dropping tech, weapons technology, and computer control, KITT could be pretty damn cool without crossing the line into unbelievable territory. Which would, of course, force the writers to write rather than relying on the gadget of the moment. ;-)
    • You know that a "molecular bonded shell" IS nanotech, right?

    • For the love of all things Holy, can we please stop making shows with impossible

      Since most computers these days are eminently hackable internet connected windows boxes, I reckon the can hack almost any system bit is feasible.

      Certainly more so than it was 20 years ago.

    • While I understand the need for suspending disbelieve, I just can't help but think that it would make a more enjoyable show if they simply tried to ground and enhance what was already presented in the original show. Updated with modern communications technology, satellite data, reconnaissance methods (could you see KITT launching UAVs? :P), eves dropping tech, weapons technology, and computer control, KITT could be pretty damn cool without crossing the line into unbelievable territory. Which would, of course, force the writers to write rather than relying on the gadget of the moment. ;-)

      I think they tried that... Team Knight Rider [wikipedia.org] perhaps. I only watched a couple of episodes but I seem to remember automobiles that could morph into cycles or some nonsense. It only lasted a season.

  • Let's see Transformers comes out on the theaters, and they pick a Mustang... http://images.google.com/images?q=barricade+mustang+transformers+movie&btnG=Search+Images [google.com]

    Now we get a remake of Knight Rider, and they pick the same car.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmauro (32523)
      It was actually a Saleen S281E [wikipedia.org]. The rights to the cars we're bought by GM so all the cars had to be GM, no Fords or Volkswagons allowed. Why else would Bumblebee be a Camero instead a Beattle. The only exception was Optimus Prime, which was a Peterbuilt, because GM doesn't make Semi-Tractors.

      My guess is that the rights for the new Knight Rider were bought by Ford so it had to be a current production model car. It's sad, I really like the old Pontiac Trans-Am. It lent a air of 80's cool, like the
      • Actually Volkswagen won't let the Beetle be used for any "violent" toy. So that explains the Camaro situation and also why no Transformer Bumblebees will ever be Beetles.
    • Well even if a boatload of cash from Ford wasn't involved, you have to consider that there are two major iconic American sports cars...the Corvette and the Mustang (there are many others that are well known, like the Viper, but none nearly as popular as those two). It probably fits the general audience better by choosing one of them.
      • Well, the Viper already had it's supercar TV commercial... er... show in the 90s, but either way, it's not nearly as ubiquitous as the Mustang design or the Corvette design.

        Anyway, in the 90s, also, Ford essentially bought out Knight Rider anyway (after my consultation with Wikipedia). In 1997, a show called Team Knight Rider made a brief appearance with a whole set of Ford vehicles.

        After the 1991 flop (which GM was still involved with), the 1997 flop, you'd think Ford/NBC would be able to guess that 10 ye

  • How long will it take... (Score:3, Funny)

    by cvd6262 (180823) on Saturday December 22 2007, @02:42AM (#21788894)
    I give it 5 minutes before a physics nerd RTFA and then calculates the force of the 0-60MPH and brake times and concludes it would rip out a human aorta.
  • Unfortunately, I can't find the original PVP Online [pvponline.com] strip, so you'll have to settle for this forum-bastardized version [galacticabbs.com].
  • WTF? A 2008 Mustang looks nothing like an 80's Trans Am!

    A modern Corvette [chevrolet.com] would make so much more sense. Of course there are cooler, more exotic choices, but I think to be most consistent with the original series, it should be a GM car that's relatively common. And the Corvette has a similar body style to the 80's Trans Am.
    • Is whoever pays the most to be the supercar. Remember that commercial^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hshow that featured the Dodge Viper when it was new?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dracos (107777)

        Well then, it this case it was Ford.

        Years ago I read that Ford has a majority stake in the 3rd largest marketing firm in the country (but I can never remember the name of it), which explains why Mustangs appear in everything. Is there any other explanation why a performance car based on a platform that debuted in 1978 could survive the next 26 years on its own merits? (Yes, I know the 1994 Mustang was "all new", which structurally amounted to a new roofline, increased length and width, and crossmembers a

  • Two wings in the back, generally riced out looking... nope, not the least bit garish...

  • A Mustang? awwww... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xx01dk (191137) on Saturday December 22 2007, @04:16AM (#21789186)
    I mean, I'm sure it will be totally awesome and all, but it's like if they brought back the A-Team and used a Honda Odyssey as the van.
  • I remember two things

    1. Before Knightrider came on the air they advertised a 800 number you could call to get the specs of the KITT compared to the Dukes of Hazzard General Lee. Even as a pre-teen I thought it was rather stupid to promote a fictional car as being superior to another semi-fictional car.

    2. This used 5 years down the road as a creative use for 800 numbers.

    But I regret not picking up copies of the this advert... it would have likely been e-bay able when Hasslehoff's popularity was tops in Ge

  • All aboard the failboat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Atario (673917) on Saturday December 22 2007, @06:54AM (#21789642) Homepage

    "The goal was to make it look more aggressive without being hokey or garish," Belker says.
    Then I think your even-more-ridiculous-than-usual double spoiler has induced massive goal-fail.

    • Re:All aboard the failboat (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Alsee (515537) on Saturday December 22 2007, @09:53AM (#21790560) Homepage
      They need to drop the KITT name and call it BRICK. They lost the original concept of lean sleek smart stealthy and replaced it with a brick. They may as well replace Hasselhoff with a steroid injected pro-wrestler.

      My knee-jerk reaction is to say the designer should be fired, but according to the article it is admitted this was "because of the Ford connection" and apparently the designer was specifically ordered to use this model car and that "Maintaining as much of [this model] as possible was important". Whoever handed down the order to shoehorn this model car in as KITT needs to be fired. But no... he probably got a big cash bonus instead for bringing in big bucks from Ford Marketing to turn this onto a MOVIE-LENGTH-COMMERCIAL for the Next New Product. This goes beyond even the most grotesque level of product placement. This is one big two hour hypefomercial.

      P.S.
      According to Google I appear to have coined a new word.
      Hypefomercial: noun. Etymology: hype+infomercial.
      A television program that is an extended advertisement designed to manufacture "coolness" and social buzz for a product, in contrast to infomercials which are usually built around product discussion and demonstration.

      -

  • KITT is a Cylon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jim Hall (2985) on Saturday December 22 2007, @11:24AM (#21791208) Homepage

    I read the article, but I didn't see any mention of KITT's Cylon "eye". There's a little gap there, but not sure if that's supposed to be the "eye". I am a child of the '80s, I did watch the show (sometimes), and this can't really be Knight Rider if KITT isn't a Cylon.

    • Re:Hasslehoff (Score:5, Funny)

      by snl2587 (1177409) on Saturday December 22 2007, @02:47AM (#21788916)
      Only if the glove compartment is replaced with an open bar.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ROMRIX (912502)

      But has Hasslehoff signed on?
      Yes for a guest shot.

      But this is just another NBC anti-war propaganda show. Never mind the car, the new "Hoff" is going to be a "Jaded" Iraq war Army Ranger Who lost his entire battalion in Iraq. Funny, I never heard anything on the news about an entire battalion being lost in Iraq at any time during this war. I guess NBC has high hopes eh?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bertie (87778)
      Presumably because they're only making twenty of them, they're budget-bustingly expensive, and Lamborghini probably wouldn't be too keen on their car being used in a cheesy TV show.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.