RE: New TVR Griffith - official
Discussion
fblm said:
dxg said:
I genuinely don;t think you can call the tvr chassis cutting edge in terms of the material technologies.
It's not really cutting edge in terms of the production technique, either.
What it is, however, is affordable for smaller production lines because it avoids the need for much tooling...
Also, they do keep going on about how istream can accommodate carbon tubes instead of steel. Doesn't say anything about how they're joined...
Whilst neither spaceframe nor flat panel composites are new I can't think of a car that's used this combo before. Lister storm did something similar iirc with al honeycomb. It's not clever just because tooling costs are low, they were for the original griff too; It's clever because it's a compromise between expensive carbon monocoque and cheap spaceframe that I'm going to hazard a guess approaches the performance of the former closer to the cost of the latter. I wonder how automated the spaceframe manufacture is planned to be.It's not really cutting edge in terms of the production technique, either.
What it is, however, is affordable for smaller production lines because it avoids the need for much tooling...
Also, they do keep going on about how istream can accommodate carbon tubes instead of steel. Doesn't say anything about how they're joined...
Murray was not very complimentary about its construction either back then, seems to have changed his itune!
Edited by PAUL500 on Friday 15th September 18:15
RumbleOfThunder said:
FWIW my schoolboy memory always had F40 at 201mph with F50 at 202mph and Porsche 959 at 199mph. Then you have the Ruf CTR clock 213mph with circa 470hp. Insane!
That's what I remember too or was it the 959 at 201 mph? There was a CAR mag - must have been 1987? and IIRC the headline was something like: 'there'll never be another month like this'. Comparison of the 959 and F40 and something else very tasty that I can't remember. All very hazy. 
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
braddo said:
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
Link here 
http://www.motorsportpaint.co.uk/gallery/respray-r...
braddo said:
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty fking massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
Tbf the last designed TVR was the Typhon which had a chassis very much like this new TVR...A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
Olivera said:
More cack.
0-100mph in 7 seconds is very fast indeed, way faster than something like a 996 Turbo which dipped into the 9s only 15 or so years ago. The Ferrari 430 from 10 years ago only managed 100mph in the 8s, so I'm not sure how 6 seconds was a target back then.
The 5.1 second time for the V10 M5 is clearly a typo, it can't go from 60mph to 100mph in 1 second, which anyone with a clue would realise.
Anything that can do 0-100 mph even today is bloody quick. Even my Tuscan 0-100mph is 9.5 secs & it's not what you call slow. Interesting looking at the stats of the three cars in this test namely Audi R8, McLaren & Porsche 911 turbo and their 0-100mph which are all low 6 seconds. If the new TVR can hold its own in this company & for significantly less money then I will be very happy!0-100mph in 7 seconds is very fast indeed, way faster than something like a 996 Turbo which dipped into the 9s only 15 or so years ago. The Ferrari 430 from 10 years ago only managed 100mph in the 8s, so I'm not sure how 6 seconds was a target back then.
The 5.1 second time for the V10 M5 is clearly a typo, it can't go from 60mph to 100mph in 1 second, which anyone with a clue would realise.
Btw, the Cerbera in the famous Top Gear drag race was not standard. It was running one of Mr Wheelers race engines and some 450bhp. Standard cars were well below 400bhp.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-audi-...
braddo said:
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty fking massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
When 500bhp, 1500kg saloon cars can get to within 10mpg of 200mph, the TVR should breeze it?A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
Ares said:
braddo said:
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty fking massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
When 500bhp, 1500kg saloon cars can get to within 10mpg of 200mph, the TVR should breeze it?A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
HarryW said:
Ares said:
braddo said:
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty fking massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
When 500bhp, 1500kg saloon cars can get to within 10mpg of 200mph, the TVR should breeze it?A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
HarryW said:
Ares said:
braddo said:
A Porsche 997 GT3 does 190mph with 415hp. They're slippery though, like 0.29cd, I guess zero lift rather than any meaningful downforce. But it's not like a road car needs downforce, just an absence of lift, which it sounds like the new Griffith will have, so with 480+hp and sub-1300kg it might very well be able to accelerate up to around 200mph?
A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty fking massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).
Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
When 500bhp, 1500kg saloon cars can get to within 10mpg of 200mph, the TVR should breeze it?A lot of posters seem to be forgetting what TVRs were like in real performance terms. The images of the new car's chassis demonstrate a pretty f
king massive evolution from the last cars (at least to me).Anyone got an image of a Sagaris chassis?
StottyGTR said:
Don't know if I need a parrot here or not but that's because weight doesn't influence top speed, except from a negligible increase in rolling resistance.
Weight doesn't even increase rolling resistance for top speed. Without aerodynamic aids uplift is greater than weight so weight won't add any rolling resistance.TA14 said:
StottyGTR said:
Don't know if I need a parrot here or not but that's because weight doesn't influence top speed, except from a negligible increase in rolling resistance.
Weight doesn't even increase rolling resistance for top speed. Without aerodynamic aids uplift is greater than weight so weight won't add any rolling resistance.StottyGTR said:
TA14 said:
StottyGTR said:
Don't know if I need a parrot here or not but that's because weight doesn't influence top speed, except from a negligible increase in rolling resistance.
Weight doesn't even increase rolling resistance for top speed. Without aerodynamic aids uplift is greater than weight so weight won't add any rolling resistance.Stick with the weight aspect that you started with. At low speeds, say up 40mph, weight has an effect on rolling resistance and significant at that because the down force = weight + aerodynamic aids and aero will do very little at that speed. At 200mph the weight won't be enough to resist the natural tendancy of the car to lift, since cars are generally the same shape as a wing, so aerodynamic aids are required. The designer decides what value he would like the downforce to be and sets the aero accordingly. Note that the designer sets the amount of downforce - it is not a function of weight.
Well...
I've just watched the Goodwood Revival program on ITV4 with a nice little segment on the car, Edgar and Murray.... I'll admit I've completely changed my mind on it.
Car looked far more cohesive inside and out,and the interviews added kudos to the launch.
Whoever commissioned and approved those launch photos must have had one heavy night the night before.
I've just watched the Goodwood Revival program on ITV4 with a nice little segment on the car, Edgar and Murray.... I'll admit I've completely changed my mind on it.
Car looked far more cohesive inside and out,and the interviews added kudos to the launch.
Whoever commissioned and approved those launch photos must have had one heavy night the night before.
essexstu said:
Olivera said:
More cack.
0-100mph in 7 seconds is very fast indeed, way faster than something like a 996 Turbo which dipped into the 9s only 15 or so years ago. The Ferrari 430 from 10 years ago only managed 100mph in the 8s, so I'm not sure how 6 seconds was a target back then.
The 5.1 second time for the V10 M5 is clearly a typo, it can't go from 60mph to 100mph in 1 second, which anyone with a clue would realise.
Anything that can do 0-100 mph even today is bloody quick. Even my Tuscan 0-100mph is 9.5 secs & it's not what you call slow. Interesting looking at the stats of the three cars in this test namely Audi R8, McLaren & Porsche 911 turbo and their 0-100mph which are all low 6 seconds. If the new TVR can hold its own in this company & for significantly less money then I will be very happy!0-100mph in 7 seconds is very fast indeed, way faster than something like a 996 Turbo which dipped into the 9s only 15 or so years ago. The Ferrari 430 from 10 years ago only managed 100mph in the 8s, so I'm not sure how 6 seconds was a target back then.
The 5.1 second time for the V10 M5 is clearly a typo, it can't go from 60mph to 100mph in 1 second, which anyone with a clue would realise.
Btw, the Cerbera in the famous Top Gear drag race was not standard. It was running one of Mr Wheelers race engines and some 450bhp. Standard cars were well below 400bhp.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2017-audi-...
Still effing fast the best part of 2 decades on! Although it's clear that it's braking performance is well off modern day standards. That's where electronics and tyre tech have quietly moved on massively.
Edited by dvs_dave on Saturday 16th September 19:16
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff