RE: Ariel Atom titanium chassis new details

[dunc_sx]

Does anyone know what the weight of the equivilent steel framed Atom is? Mugen I think was meantion above?

[JonnyVTEC]

I imagine this has been assisted by a government research project fund rather that a genuine business decision.

[Stu R]

Seems pointless to me, but someone will buy them if they're only making 5 or so, which makes it a good decision I suspect.

Still a wonderful thing.

[405dogvan]

It's not 7% power to weight because its 7% of the frame and not the whole car.

If the £1000+ Ferrari charge for titanium wheel nuts is anything to go by, its gonna be pricey too!

7% from the frame is a lot more than the M3 CSL lost in it's roof tho-and people here were amazed at that so...

[ads_green]

405dogvan said:

It's not 7% power to weight because its 7% of the frame and not the whole car.

If the £1000+ Ferrari charge for titanium wheel nuts is anything to go by, its gonna be pricey too!

7% from the frame is a lot more than the M3 CSL lost in it's roof tho-and people here were amazed at that so...

Article says 40% saving of the chassis and 7% of the kerb weight so bit more than just the frame.

Big difference with the M3 is the location - taking a large amount off the roof drops the centre of gravity a fair bit. Taking 7% off the core chassis won't have the same impact.

[fathomfive]

It's better than 7% more weight though, isn't it?

[mrmr96]

405dogvan said:

It's not 7% power to weight because its 7% of the frame and not the whole car.

If the £1000+ Ferrari charge for titanium wheel nuts is anything to go by, its gonna be pricey too!

7% from the frame is a lot more than the M3 CSL lost in it's roof tho-and people here were amazed at that so...

I didn't fact check the post I quoted, because he said it was of the whole car, not of the chassis.

[MrQuick]

Can someone explain why you would not go carbon fibre instead of titanium?
It would be just as light and stiff.

I always thought the whole point to use titanium is in high heat applications because of its extremely high melting point?

[b14]

MrQuick said:

Can someone explain why you would not go carbon fibre instead of titanium?
It would be just as light and stiff.

I always thought the whole point to use titanium is in high heat applications because of its extremely high melting point?

I suspect some element of crush-resistance is required in the tubular chassis - carbon tube has very poor resistance to crushing force.

[robinessex]

wemorgan said:

AFAIK titanium has the same specific stiffness as steel, the same as aluminium.

The stiffness to mass ratio for all metals is the same.

[robinessex]

RocketRabbit said:

mrmr96 said:

7% better power to weight
7% better acceleration
7% better cornering
7% better braking
etc

Yeah, it's better than adding more power because it affects ALL aspects of handling.

You will not get 7% improvement at all!

The titanium chassis is a silly idea. If Ariel designed a chassis that was function over form and used Reynolds steel alloys the car would be much lighter.

I'll second that.

[Cotty]

Stu R said:

Seems pointless to me, but someone will buy them if they're only making 5 or so, which makes it a good decision I suspect.

Still a wonderful thing.

Its a bit like wanting to tune a Veyron

[Countersteer]

In it's various guises, the Ariel Atom probably sums up the 'gobsmackability' factor for me, more than any other car. What a toy!!!

[SeiW500]

loveice said:

The important thing is it saves 40% over the same steel chassis, that's quite a lot. That 7% overall weight saving means only chassis is changed, everything else are still the same as normal Atom 3. I'm sure Ariel will do some other weight savings as well as the 40% saving on the chassis. Let's see if they can reduce the overall weight inc. all the fluids below 500kg. I don't think there's a single 'light weight' car engined track day toy really weights under 500kg with all the fluids...

I know quite a few Westfields that do!

[Krikkit]

robinessex said:

wemorgan said:

AFAIK titanium has the same specific stiffness as steel, the same as aluminium.

The stiffness to mass ratio for all metals is the same.

No it isn't.

[kambites]

Krikkit said:

robinessex said:

wemorgan said:

AFAIK titanium has the same specific stiffness as steel, the same as aluminium.

The stiffness to mass ratio for all metals is the same.

No it isn't.

Indeed. Try making a car out of mercury.

[pagani1]

Ariel are brave to do this-good old Brits again.
Let's hope they sell every one.

[sherbert90]

Harris tweeted this earlier. I think it looks magnificent.

I think a lot of people are sort of missing the point of it really. It's clearly going to be made in limited numbers, the prohibitive cost of working with Titanium will see to that. Think of it as a 'halo' car, and it makes more sense.

[dukebox9reg]

underphil said:

mrmr96 said:

7% better power to weight
7% better acceleration
7% better cornering
7% better braking
etc

Yeah, it's better than adding more power because it affects ALL aspects of handling.

even if the weight saved did work as you've written, it'd be more like 5% once you add in the weight of the driver

So the normal atom drives itself then??

[kambites]

dukebox9reg said:

So the normal atom drives itself then??

A weight saving of X% on the car will be a considerably lower percentage once you've added a fixed-weight driver into the equation.