RE: 250 orders for new TVR
Discussion
crossplane vs flatplane... very different sounds
Griffith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0NJu3mjNE
Vs Cerbera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K7DnxBuNic
Griffith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0NJu3mjNE
Vs Cerbera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K7DnxBuNic
dvs_dave said:
Tell me how this is a feasible option for a startup aiming to sell their entire car for around 75 grand, vs using a 10 grand, 500+hp emissions compliant plug and play crate V8 that comes with a 100k mile warranty?
Have to agree, surely the key to success for the new TVR is to follow a similar formula as the Corvette, rather than trying to over-engineer a car into the wrong market.Interesting point noted whilst rummaging last night through GMD stuff.
Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
HarryW said:
Interesting point noted whilst rummaging last night through GMD stuff.
Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
That is interesting - especially as a convertible would have to be an essential part of the tvr plan, increasing the structural requirements of the istream idea still further. Thermoplastic doesn't sound ideal when you get any bigger than a smart car. Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
The way I understand it, the istream process is almost a holistic thing, like the jap just in time production processes - but folded sheet metal is part of istream theory - maybe the tvr will indeed be ally-chassied - interesting stuff.
It'd certainly get weights down one heck of a lot and the rigidity needed for a good stiff chassis would be easy using ally.
Panel gaps being a bit off due to variation in mouldings could be botched as on previous tvrs, doing the recessed leading door edges thing again, but the actual chassis stiffness is essential.
No idea on bent and glued ally vs heat moulded plastic costs though - both sound expensive, but probably cheaper than lotus's approach?
Now, about that straight six again......
skyrover said:
crossplane vs flatplane... very different sounds
Griffith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0NJu3mjNE
Vs Cerbera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K7DnxBuNic
Yea I know, but my point still stands, they sounded sGriffith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0NJu3mjNE
Vs Cerbera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K7DnxBuNic
te in comparison 
andy43 said:
HarryW said:
Interesting point noted whilst rummaging last night through GMD stuff.
Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
That is interesting - especially as a convertible would have to be an essential part of the tvr plan, increasing the structural requirements of the istream idea still further. Thermoplastic doesn't sound ideal when you get any bigger than a smart car. Going back to an interview with GM in late 2013, he alludes to the same number of customers he did in his later 2014 pod cast, linked below, where he talks of the sports car designed for iStream production, now assumed to be the TVR.
In that earlier 2013 interview he mentions difficulites in scaling up the car size in iStream manufacturing with getting acceptable panel gaps in the outer skin which is hung off the IStream chassis. The concept is it's normally a thermo-plastic, as seen in the Yamaha, but because of panel gaps it is being made from aluminium for one project. Which raises an interesting point, is that the TVR or another proect?
The way I understand it, the istream process is almost a holistic thing, like the jap just in time production processes - but folded sheet metal is part of istream theory - maybe the tvr will indeed be ally-chassied - interesting stuff.
It'd certainly get weights down one heck of a lot and the rigidity needed for a good stiff chassis would be easy using ally.
Panel gaps being a bit off due to variation in mouldings could be botched as on previous tvrs, doing the recessed leading door edges thing again, but the actual chassis stiffness is essential.
No idea on bent and glued ally vs heat moulded plastic costs though - both sound expensive, but probably cheaper than lotus's approach?
Now, about that straight six again......
The out skin, the body you see, can be anything, ideally lightweight. Molded plastic can be used but it was this I understood to be the issue in scaling up and hence ali body statement. That said, TVR styling of old always incorporated design cues that took the eye away from panel gaps, such as the door openings…. So it could still be plastic bodied.
It's definately a V8.............
Haha, this thread makes me think of that picture of the small girl yelling at a goat. Makes me smile.
Rover, you're a loon. However, I love the way that you post stuff as if it's irrefutable fact, despite it being a complete work of fiction.
Re. the P6, and my utterly erroneous statement...:
I wasn't going to talk about my old car, but this comment is so utterly erroneous that it cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.
The P6, however, was a true landmark - your statement that it was not innovative could not be more untrue. Its unibody construction with all external panels being unstressed was remarkable - borrowed from the Citroen DS, but hitherto unavailable on any other mainstream car.
So not a new innovation then? The DS was the innovative car.
It had de Dion semi-independent trailing-arm rear suspension,
....Invented in 1894
the Rover just had tons of grip and eventually very progressive oversteer (didn't even know the meaning of the word understeer).
No, it didn't have a straight-six (except in the P7 prototype, which I think had an extended nose and an excessive propensity to understeer).
So did the P6 know what understeer was then?
at a steady 120mph, the loudest noise inside the cabin was the clock (and the horrendous wind roar from the recessed windscreen seal, but that's another story).
How loud is this clock like? I mean since clipping on in a modern A8 with triple glazing is still relatively audible, I'm wondering did Rover make the clock version of the annoying speed dependant volume setting on stereos? At max power, I presume the clock must have been somewhere north of 95 dB, which is quite impressive for a timepiece.
no two switches were shaped quite the same (so you could find them by feel even if their back-lighting failed)
Wow. Such innovation. You see, terrible engineers like Gordon Murray would have just made switches that didn't fail as often. Sadly, GM clearly can't innovate.
Rover, you're a loon. However, I love the way that you post stuff as if it's irrefutable fact, despite it being a complete work of fiction.
Re. the P6, and my utterly erroneous statement...:
I wasn't going to talk about my old car, but this comment is so utterly erroneous that it cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.
The P6, however, was a true landmark - your statement that it was not innovative could not be more untrue. Its unibody construction with all external panels being unstressed was remarkable - borrowed from the Citroen DS, but hitherto unavailable on any other mainstream car.
So not a new innovation then? The DS was the innovative car.
It had de Dion semi-independent trailing-arm rear suspension,
....Invented in 1894
the Rover just had tons of grip and eventually very progressive oversteer (didn't even know the meaning of the word understeer).
No, it didn't have a straight-six (except in the P7 prototype, which I think had an extended nose and an excessive propensity to understeer).
So did the P6 know what understeer was then?
at a steady 120mph, the loudest noise inside the cabin was the clock (and the horrendous wind roar from the recessed windscreen seal, but that's another story).
How loud is this clock like? I mean since clipping on in a modern A8 with triple glazing is still relatively audible, I'm wondering did Rover make the clock version of the annoying speed dependant volume setting on stereos? At max power, I presume the clock must have been somewhere north of 95 dB, which is quite impressive for a timepiece.
no two switches were shaped quite the same (so you could find them by feel even if their back-lighting failed)
Wow. Such innovation. You see, terrible engineers like Gordon Murray would have just made switches that didn't fail as often. Sadly, GM clearly can't innovate.
Wow, There is some proper guff in this thread.
As one of the first (mad) 250, I'm looking forward to see what Les and the team come up with. Inevitably there will be some delays, but I have confidence it will get built and deliver on what the team have set out to do.
Deluded of Oxfordshire
Hughesie
As one of the first (mad) 250, I'm looking forward to see what Les and the team come up with. Inevitably there will be some delays, but I have confidence it will get built and deliver on what the team have set out to do.
Deluded of Oxfordshire
Hughesie
Out of interest, what would the top 5 things be in order for it to be considered a TVR v the competition i.e. how do you define the TVR brand?
1. V8 - I think that has been established now
2. Manual.
3. Tubular chassis?
4. Fibreglass body?
5. 'Unusual' interior design?
Otherwise is it not just another 'sports car' with a crate engine but different badge on the front - a formula that has been tried and failed) before?
1. V8 - I think that has been established now
2. Manual.
3. Tubular chassis?
4. Fibreglass body?
5. 'Unusual' interior design?
Otherwise is it not just another 'sports car' with a crate engine but different badge on the front - a formula that has been tried and failed) before?
teamHOLDENracing said:
RoverP6B said:
Enough I6s have done well enough in racing over the years to suggest it's not a bad configuration, though - not least the Bentley Speed Six, the Jaguar XK6, Maserati A6 and the BMW M30/M88/S38, S50 and S54. There was a one-make TVR race series too, think it was called the Tuscan Challenge, in which the I6 played an important part. .
You've mentioned various race cars with I6 engines above and earlier in the thread. To set you straight:The Tuscan Challenge cars originally used the Rover V8 and were then converted to the AJPV8
The BMW Z4 GT3 uses a V8 that was never available in the road car but is permitted as GT3 regs use a balance of performance formula. BMW chose the V8 over the road car based i8
The BMW 320si Touring Car was a 4 pot
The BMW M4 DTM uses a V8
The TVR T400 did use the i6, but it proved very difficult to make it competitive AND reliable simultaneously.
I like I8 engines (I have one in my car outside), but the format is not in favour for modern race cars.
jamieduff1981 said:
All this crap about first and second order balancing and stuff is just that - crap. Did any sportscar owner ever care about second order vibrations? Within the subset of sportscar owners is the further subset of grinning idiots that are TVR owners who usually find that sort of thing a positive attribute of a TVR.
No it isn't - primary and secondary order harmonic balance is of the utmost importance in a sports-car engine, which is why all the best sports cars use I6s, V12s or H6s.Housey said:
Started with the Rover V8 and sounded ace, went AJP8 and sounded st. This is a statement of FACT, it CAN NOT be refuted.
That's subjective. What isn't subjective is that the combination of flat crank and 75-degree bank angle made it far from smooth. Its ability to rev is severely constrained by the unbalanced configuration, uneven torque delivery and less-than-ideal bank angle.t. This is a statement of FACT, it CAN NOT be refuted. andy43 said:
P6 was a steaming pile of crap, only saved by the Sweeney or whatever the black and white plod show that used the P6 was called....
Asthmatic four, boat anchor US castoff eight, and questionable styling.
Triumph 2000 - now we're talking... Lovely smooth inline sixes, sporty design, and a very svelte estate version.
The Triumph handled nothing like as well as the Rover, it looked very staid compared to the muscular P6, the steering was awful and the OHV straight-six wasn't that wonderful. The 4-pot was among the best of its kind at the time, and the V8 was very light.Asthmatic four, boat anchor US castoff eight, and questionable styling.
Triumph 2000 - now we're talking... Lovely smooth inline sixes, sporty design, and a very svelte estate version.
Some Gump said:
So not a new innovation then? The DS was the innovative car.
In using the same construction method in a mainstream rear-drive application, it was an innovation. The DS was much more expensive and a very niche market choice. Fabulous car, though - if only it had got the flat-six they originally wanted...Some Gump said:
....Invented in 1894
Most stuff then still had leaf-sprung live-axles, including the Ferrari 250 series. The de Dion was then otherwise only used by Aston Martin and (I think) Maserati, and cost a lot to engineer properly. It was then-current F1 technology.Some Gump said:
So did the P6 know what understeer was then?
Not with the I4 or V8. Sticking an I6 (which I think was a cut'n'shut of two iron-block I4s) in the P7 mule put far too much weight too far forward.Some Gump said:
How loud is this clock like? I mean since clipping on in a modern A8 with triple glazing is still relatively audible, I'm wondering did Rover make the clock version of the annoying speed dependant volume setting on stereos? At max power, I presume the clock must have been somewhere north of 95 dB, which is quite impressive for a timepiece.
LOTS of insulation and the engine itself was whisper-quiet at steady rpm. Clock wasn't loud, just the engine was quieter still.Some Gump said:
Wow. Such innovation. You see, terrible engineers like Gordon Murray would have just made switches that didn't fail as often. Sadly, GM clearly can't innovate.
In the eight years that I ran it daily, my P6 never suffered a single electrics-related failure. Even when I revived it after 16 years of storage, the electrics still worked faultlessly. Gordon Murray's one true road car used a variety of bought-in electrics - e.g. I think the rear lights came off a Dennis bus. It's the only road car he's designed from the ground up, and that was 20-odd years ago... there's been a lot of guff about iStream and a modernised Lotus Elan made as light as the original (despite modern crash safety) with alloy engine block, gearbox and diff casings... but no product has yet been put on sale...
RoverP6B said:
I remember seeing one of the cars at some get-together at Brooklands. The rollcage, carbon bucket seats, fire extinguisher, huge rear wing and I6 engine were readily apparent. I think it was called T400R.
And one of the FIA homologation cars for the Le Mans series it raced in was the Typhon. The T400R was never about single series racing but about GT racing and specifically Le Mans.
Www.tvr-Typhon.com
RoverP6B said:
"Z4 GT3 originally had an I6"
"A TVR one-make series latterly used the I6"
"which is why all the best sports cars use I6s, V12s or H6s"
Jesus wept, beggar's belief"A TVR one-make series latterly used the I6"
"which is why all the best sports cars use I6s, V12s or H6s"
No, Z4 GT3 NEVER had an I6, was V8 from the get go.
No, Tuscan Challenge cars (the only TVR one make series there has ever been) all used either the Rover or AJP8 V8 engines.
Name a modern sports car (i.e released in the last decade) that uses an I6? The BMW Z range...hardly the best are they?
Got any more made up facts for us to laugh at?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff