New TVR still under wraps!

[ChilliWhizz]

TVRMs said:

ChilliWhizz said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

Not really. Both are 'special' cars that you would not drive everyday. Would I like to have another TVR? Yes. Would I swap my Camaro for a Mustang? Yes. Both cars have V8s and are special, so, not so different really.

My next car is likely to be a 2012/13 GT500 Shelby Mustang. The GT500 new is likely to be £65-70K in the UK ready to go.

Except, as you said in an earlier post the Mustang is sold as a GT, not a sports car... to me these are two different things, each designed for a particular purpose.... If I wanted a sports car I wouldn't be looking at Mustangs...

I'm a fairly sure the "new" TVR was discussed as being a GT car in the early days...not seen anything concrete since that would suggest otherwise.

I'd suggest this early extract from the website could be construed as reasonably concrete (although maybe not cast in stone )

'TVR will issue more specification details and early images later in 2015, but the car will continue the tradition of a classic British two-seat sports car with a composite ground effect aero chassis and body package using Gordon Murray Design’s innovative iStream® technology. Enthusiasts will also be delighted to know that the car will feature the traditional TVR DNA of a front engine with rear wheel drive and a manual transmission, powered by a normally aspirated, dry-sumped, V8 engine, developed and engineered by Cosworth.'

And...

'Revered British sports car brand, TVR, is roaring back to production with an incredible all-new Cosworth powered sports car, engineered in collaboration with F1 and road car design legend, Gordon Murray.'

Chilli

[RichB]

KevinCamaroSS said:

RichB said:

essexstu said:

350Matt said:

Have you driven one of these new 'stangs'?

I was very disappointed, it a great woofly, wallowly barge of a car. Don't get me wrong a 700bhp version would be a giggle but its not a sports car

yeah I appreciate different kind of car but at nearly half the cost of the new TVR it will be worthy of consideration. I want a car I can drive on the road and enjoy in Scotland, Northern Spain or down to the Alps, not round Silverstone or Nurburgring. I just hope the cost is nearer £60-65k in which case I will still go for it.

Purely an observation but typically someone considering a Mustang would not even look at a TVR and vice versa. They are poles apart. All MO of course.

Not really. Both are 'special' cars that you would not drive everyday. Would I like to have another TVR? Yes. Would I swap my Camaro for a Mustang? Yes. Both cars have V8s and are special, so, not so different really.

My next car is likely to be a 2012/13 GT500 Shelby Mustang. The GT500 new is likely to be £65-70K in the UK ready to go.

As I said, it's all personal opinion. I have no interest in big American cars and have never been interested in Mustangs. When I bought my Griff 500 new in 1999 I did not dream of looking an American Coupe, a Noble perhaps but a Mustang to a TVR is for me like chalk and cheese. It's all a matter of opinion.

[anonymous-user]

ChilliWhizz said:

TVRMs said:

ChilliWhizz said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

Not really. Both are 'special' cars that you would not drive everyday. Would I like to have another TVR? Yes. Would I swap my Camaro for a Mustang? Yes. Both cars have V8s and are special, so, not so different really.

My next car is likely to be a 2012/13 GT500 Shelby Mustang. The GT500 new is likely to be £65-70K in the UK ready to go.

Except, as you said in an earlier post the Mustang is sold as a GT, not a sports car... to me these are two different things, each designed for a particular purpose.... If I wanted a sports car I wouldn't be looking at Mustangs...

I'm a fairly sure the "new" TVR was discussed as being a GT car in the early days...not seen anything concrete since that would suggest otherwise.

I'd suggest this early extract from the website could be construed as reasonably concrete (although maybe not cast in stone )

'TVR will issue more specification details and early images later in 2015, but the car will continue the tradition of a classic British two-seat sports car with a composite ground effect aero chassis and body package using Gordon Murray Design’s innovative iStream® technology. Enthusiasts will also be delighted to know that the car will feature the traditional TVR DNA of a front engine with rear wheel drive and a manual transmission, powered by a normally aspirated, dry-sumped, V8 engine, developed and engineered by Cosworth.'

And...

'Revered British sports car brand, TVR, is roaring back to production with an incredible all-new Cosworth powered sports car, engineered in collaboration with F1 and road car design legend, Gordon Murray.'

Chilli

Thanks Chilli, I'll hang on to your first sentence

[ChilliWhizz]

RichB said:

s I said, it's all personal opinion. I have no interest in big American cars and have never been interested in Mustangs. When I bought my Griff 500 new in 1999 I did not dream of looking an American Coupe, a Noble perhaps but a Mustang to a TVR is for me like chalk and cheese. It's all a matter of opinion.

I have a mate who, like many in Norfolk, is into most things American.. He owns two LHD Mustangs, and has a history of owning big Yank motors... For such big cars, I always find it amusing how quickly they shrink to dinky car size in the Chim's rear view mirrors

Oh, hang on, that wasn't very PC was it.... Sorry Donald... No really, it was only a bit of humour... ya know, like banter..

[Willfin]

So with the I-stream carbon, is it structural in fill panels that do the job of what would be tubular cross bracing?

Does it essentially still use a tubular steel skeletal chassis as its main structural support?

[Snakes]

As far as I can deduce from the GMD website iStream Carbon tubs consist of an iFrame which is connected and covered by iPanels.

The iFrame is.....(excerpts taken from the GMD website) "[i]created from a combination of large-diameter, thin-walled steel tubes that are formed, laser cut and profiled under computer control. These metal sections are then welded together, with the structure picking up and joining together all the structural hard points including suspension mounts, seat anchorages, powertrain mounts, battery mounts, interior controls and door hinges.......The tubes used in the iFrame are then coated both internally and externally with an organic autophoretic material to provide typically 1000 hours of salt spray protection, equivalent to a decade of complete corrosion protection.

This innovative corrosion defence also acts as a suitable surface primer for the adhesive used to bond the iPanels and the iFrame. In addition to hard pointing mounts, the frame also provides main load path members for crash scenarios required for mandatory and Euro NCAP regulations. This crash management and hard point fixation – known as Direct Load Path technology – enables the steel tubes to carry the forces through the chassis, with the sandwich iPanels stabilising the tubes and diffusing these loads in instances of shear.[/i] (don't know why that paragraph has failed to format properly!)

The iPanels in the standard iStream chassis are....."composite sandwich panels....are constructed from thin external skins of ... woven, unidirectional, random matt glass fibres or natural fibres. Sprayed with a low-cost and fast-curing matrix and then compressed in a matched tool either side of a paper or paper core-based honeycomb structure, their combination of external skins and honeycomb core deliver exceptionally high levels of strength and torsional rigidity."

On the website, the impression is given that, in the carbon version if the iStream chassis, the whole construction is carbon...."iStream® Carbon is the world's first affordable high volume carbon fibre chassis structure bringing Formula One materials and technology within reach of the everyday motorist"

However, digging a bit deeper I found...."The new system replaces the glass content in iStream® with carbon fibre which offers even more performance for lightweight and rigidity."

So, I think that the iStream carbon chassis is made of steel tubing and carbon panels. But, I am happy to be told I've got this wrong!

Edited by Snakes on Saturday 28th January 17:01

[m4tti]

Snakes said:

As far as I can deduce from the GMD website iStream Carbon tubs consist of an iFrame which is connected and covered by iPanels.

The iFrame is.....(excerpts taken from the GMD website) "[i]created from a combination of large-diameter, thin-walled steel tubes that are formed, laser cut and profiled under computer control. These metal sections are then welded together, with the structure picking up and joining together all the structural hard points including suspension mounts, seat anchorages, powertrain mounts, battery mounts, interior controls and door hinges.......The tubes used in the iFrame are then coated both internally and externally with an organic autophoretic material to provide typically 1000 hours of salt spray protection, equivalent to a decade of complete corrosion protection.

This innovative corrosion defence also acts as a suitable surface primer for the adhesive used to bond the iPanels and the iFrame. In addition to hard pointing mounts, the frame also provides main load path members for crash scenarios required for mandatory and Euro NCAP regulations. This crash management and hard point fixation – known as Direct Load Path technology – enables the steel tubes to carry the forces through the chassis, with the sandwich iPanels stabilising the tubes and diffusing these loads in instances of shear.[/i] (don't know why that paragraph has failed to format properly!)

The iPanels in the standard iStream chassis are....."composite sandwich panels....are constructed from thin external skins of ... woven, unidirectional, random matt glass fibres or natural fibres. Sprayed with a low-cost and fast-curing matrix and then compressed in a matched tool either side of a paper or paper core-based honeycomb structure, their combination of external skins and honeycomb core deliver exceptionally high levels of strength and torsional rigidity."

On the website, the impression is given that, in the carbon version if the iStream chassis, the whole construction is carbon...."iStream® Carbon is the world's first affordable high volume carbon fibre chassis structure bringing Formula One materials and technology within reach of the everyday motorist"

However, digging a bit deeper I found...."The new system replaces the glass content in iStream® with carbon fibre which offers even more performance for lightweight and rigidity."

So, I think that the iStream carbon chassis is made of steel tubing and carbon panels. But, I am happy to be told I've got this wrong!

Edited by Snakes on Saturday 28th January 17:01

Uhh like a regular kit car, but instead of alumnium panels riveted in you use carbon fibre panels and glue...

[TA14]

Willfin said:

So with the I-stream carbon, is it structural in fill panels that do the job of what would be tubular cross bracing?

Does it essentially still use a tubular steel skeletal chassis as its main structural support?

So the answer appears to be yes, the same as the T400etc..

[Sagi Badger]

The best way to find out for sure would be to see one... I shall not hold my breath.

I hope this works out for all concerned but the task is enormous. Most current TVR owners wish their cars were "just a little bit better put together", I enjoy putting mine right but deep down I am probably wishing I didn't have to along with the others who do the same. If they were better put together they would still be in business, most likely. The warranty claims on the SP6 alone is a scary prospect let alone the reputation damage.

What lured purchasers first time round to a Griff or Tuscan? Most TVRs are good looking, fast as well as being finished like a proper car and not kit car like. They are desirable because they are unusual, fast and they have some neat design and sales features, no door handles, aluminium bits, massive choice of paint and trim combinations. I replied to a thread a long while back about the Tuscan dash bracket, the aluminium one that is milled out of a solid and has the same material and relief relationship as the standard grille, the head light sockets follow the same theme. Now start from scratch and design that bracket, that grille and the rest of the dash upper and lower portion and the head light arrangement to make it unique and not looking like you robbed it from a VW Lupo or Ford Mondeo. That took the boys at Blackpool time I am sure

The factory at Blackpool needed streamlining and investment to reduce line time and costs in production and warranty claims. But the value, the sale point value, is in the desirable DNA of a product, which in turn is held by the people of the company that design it. I am not saying that the new TVR will lack design flair and desirability, I cannot comment as I am not informed enough, but I fear if the cost is capped it will struggle to be outrageous and carry the same level of detail that the later models did. I cannot mention the names of the clients I work for but one is a very very well known TV celebrity who I built a house for. He commented to me whilst having a coffee, that TVR is the iconic British sports car as they were fast, loud and fantastic to look at. He was considering something to decorate the drive and I had mentioned my TVRs. I doubt he has ever looked close up at one for any length of time yet still he rates them, when people get up close or travel in the cars that is when this bizarre attention to detail gets noticed.

I hope the DNA isn't lost, it is a bit more than front engine, manual, lightweight and leather trim.

Fingers crossed

J

[portzi]

Sagi Badger said:

The best way to find out for sure would be to see one... I shall not hold my breath.

I hope this works out for all concerned but the task is enormous. Most current TVR owners wish their cars were "just a little bit better put together", I enjoy putting mine right but deep down I am probably wishing I didn't have to along with the others who do the same. If they were better put together they would still be in business, most likely. The warranty claims on the SP6 alone is a scary prospect let alone the reputation damage.

What lured purchasers first time round to a Griff or Tuscan? Most TVRs are good looking, fast as well as being finished like a proper car and not kit car like. They are desirable because they are unusual, fast and they have some neat design and sales features, no door handles, aluminium bits, massive choice of paint and trim combinations. I replied to a thread a long while back about the Tuscan dash bracket, the aluminium one that is milled out of a solid and has the same material and relief relationship as the standard grille, the head light sockets follow the same theme. Now start from scratch and design that bracket, that grille and the rest of the dash upper and lower portion and the head light arrangement to make it unique and not looking like you robbed it from a VW Lupo or Ford Mondeo. That took the boys at Blackpool time I am sure

The factory at Blackpool needed streamlining and investment to reduce line time and costs in production and warranty claims. But the value, the sale point value, is in the desirable DNA of a product, which in turn is held by the people of the company that design it. I am not saying that the new TVR will lack design flair and desirability, I cannot comment as I am not informed enough, but I fear if the cost is capped it will struggle to be outrageous and carry the same level of detail that the later models did. I cannot mention the names of the clients I work for but one is a very very well known TV celebrity who I built a house for. He commented to me whilst having a coffee, that TVR is the iconic British sports car as they were fast, loud and fantastic to look at. He was considering something to decorate the drive and I had mentioned my TVRs. I doubt he has ever looked close up at one for any length of time yet still he rates them, when people get up close or travel in the cars that is when this bizarre attention to detail gets noticed.

I hope the DNA isn't lost, it is a bit more than front engine, manual, lightweight and leather trim.

Fingers crossed

J

Hello John, if you haven't done so already read the article in January's TVRCC sprint magazine; if your not a member l am sure you know someone locally with is. It was written by Tim&David, AKA , DA & V8GRIFF respectfully. It's gives an amazing insite into the new cars development stage, in May last year WITH GM & LE team at GMD.

[bennno]

RichB said:

urely an observation but typically someone considering a Mustang would not even look at a TVR and vice versa. They are poles apart. All MO of course.

Not sure I agree with that, have bought several new TVR's previously and loved the individuality, grunty performance, noise and value for money. I didn't like the ownership 'niggles', which occurred on multiple variants of Griff, Cerb and T350 owned.

I now have a Mustang GT with a Roush exhaust. Its an absolute blast, very close in spirit to my Griff, but mix in everyday reliable. To add it cost £3K less than the Griffith 500 I bought new 17 years ago.

Personally a TVR would need to be an ultra quick, lightweight, spaceframe chassis, coyote engined, no frills, roadster at sub £50k to really appeal.

Bennno

[8ball_Rob]

For anyone interested in learning more about the iStream process, you could do worse than take a flick through GMD's patent portfolio. Their website describes iStream as 'patented', which should mean that they have a granted GB patent that covers at least some part of the iStream process. A search on the public Espacenet database for patents/applications in the name of "Gordon Murray Design" returns 20 results, of which a few seem to relate to an iStream-like process:

WO2009/122178 - VEHICLE CHASSIS - priority date 4 April 2008

WO2010/149981 - VEHICLE CHASSIS - priority date 25 June 2009

WO2014/009271 - VEHICLE BODYWORK AND METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING THE VEHICLE - priority date 10 July 2012

WO2015/197761 - VEHICLE CHASSIS STRUCTURES - priority date 27 June 2014

The first application, dating from 4 April 2008, looks as though it probably covers the original iStream concept, while the later applications presumably cover improvements/modifications to the process. Of course, there is no guarantee the process used to build the new TVR will be identical to those described in the documents above, but I imagine it would be broadly similar. Either way, these still make for interesting reading anyway (at least if you're a patent geek like me!).

[DonkeyApple]

TA14 said:

Willfin said:

So with the I-stream carbon, is it structural in fill panels that do the job of what would be tubular cross bracing?

Does it essentially still use a tubular steel skeletal chassis as its main structural support?

So the answer appears to be yes, the same as the T400etc..

My understanding is that it is a tube frame, rapidly and uniformly constructed in jigs and then the composite panels are clipped into the gaps. So the end result is sort of similar to the T400 concept but much quicker. However, I'm not sure that the panels are that load bearing as I have a vague memory of asking how strong can they be with a cardboard core and thin fibreglass shell and getting the reply that they didn't need to be that strong.

Something I've just remembered about the GM design, which I had forgotten but found interesting at the time, was I asked why the tubing was so large and had it explained that it was to allow the tubes to be made of any material type by making them thicker or thinner but always retaining the external diameter so that you never had to change the design of the chassis. I don't think it is relevant to TVR but I just found it such an obvious and clever little solution.

Generally, the impression I got was that the real benefit of the system was speed and uniformity. The fact that the chassis could be churned out rapidly by unskilled and low labour and all be totally identical. The system just removes human error while being simpler in construction to traditional tubular frames.

[ChilliWhizz]

Sorry DA, did I just hear you say cardboard

[portzi]

ChilliWhizz said:

Sorry DA, did I just hear you say cardboard

Chilli, next time you get a cardboard box look at the Internal cross section, to see how the cardboard gets its strength, it's a honeycomb construction the same as honeycomb resin bonded aluminium used in race cars, the same as used in the st8six Tuscan race car, l know this because l supplied it

[TA14]

DonkeyApple said:

TA14 said:

Willfin said:

So with the I-stream carbon, is it structural in fill panels that do the job of what would be tubular cross bracing?

Does it essentially still use a tubular steel skeletal chassis as its main structural support?

So the answer appears to be yes, the same as the T400etc..

My understanding is that it is a tube frame, rapidly and uniformly constructed in jigs and then the composite panels are clipped into the gaps. So the end result is sort of similar to the T400 concept but much quicker. However, I'm not sure that the panels are that load bearing as I have a vague memory of asking how strong can they be with a cardboard core and thin fibreglass shell and getting the reply that they didn't need to be that strong.

Something I've just remembered about the GM design, which I had forgotten but found interesting at the time, was I asked why the tubing was so large and had it explained that it was to allow the tubes to be made of any material type by making them thicker or thinner but always retaining the external diameter so that you never had to change the design of the chassis. I don't think it is relevant to TVR but I just found it such an obvious and clever little solution.

Generally, the impression I got was that the real benefit of the system was speed and uniformity. The fact that the chassis could be churned out rapidly by unskilled and low labour and all be totally identical. The system just removes human error while being simpler in construction to traditional tubular frames.

Sounds about right and logical. TVR production line efficiency was never that good.

Presumably once the panels are clipped into place they are then bonded in place.

The switch of materials from carbon and aluminium to fibreglass and cardboard appears to be a backward step which will save costs at production time but cost the owners dearly in future maintenance. Maybe they have embraced the true spirit of TVR.

[Willfin]

I struggle to see how a jig formed tubular steel chassis can be churned out quickly and by unskilled labour? Welding itself is a certified profession, and it's certainly quite a time consuming process.

Unless it's automated, or labour and materials are managed in the it in time Japanese manufacturing concept then it will be a reletaviley slow but precise process.

[DonkeyApple]

TA14 said:

Sounds about right and logical. TVR production line efficiency was never that good.

Presumably once the panels are clipped into place they are then bonded in place.

The switch of materials from carbon and aluminium to fibreglass and cardboard appears to be a backward step which will save costs at production time but cost the owners dearly in future maintenance. Maybe they have embraced the true spirit of TVR.

I honestly can't recall if the panels are bonded in place but I'm pretty sure they are. Just not wrapped around the tubing like on mine.

Re the materials, the infill panels are mainly grp with cardboard honeycomb but they can swap grp for cf. the tubing is designed to be any number of materials depending on the application requirements but in pretty sure that in the case of the TVR is just steel as it is the most cost effective material.

[DonkeyApple]

ChilliWhizz said:

Sorry DA, did I just hear you say cardboard

Apparently. Like on the cheap internal doors that are a cardboard honeycomb wrapped in a thin cover of ply. It struck me that that is what the infil panels basically are.

[ChilliWhizz]

Many years ago we recovered what was left of an American A10 Tankbuster from the seabed off East Anglia, and the structural honeycomb was everywhere... Obviously wasn't cardboard though or it would have got soggy

You can clearly see the cardboard honeycomb that TVR are referring to in this early prototype.........










Sorry, couldn't help it...