RE: Ariel Atom titanium chassis new details
Discussion
annodomini2 said:
I would guess this is titanium alloy rather than pure titanium?
Correct, I doubt it would be CP Ti (commercially pure). It would 3-2.5 (3% aluminium and 2.5% vanadium) or if they feel flush 6-4 (6% aluminium and 4% vanadium).I chose Ti for my mountain-bike frame as it flexes longitudinally and therefore adds comfort without any weight penalty compared to CF and a little gain compared to steel. But the main benefit is that it doesn't rust unlike steel and is indestructible, unlike CF.
Flex is the presumably the last thing you want on a car chassis, so they must have reinforced it quite a lot hence the modest weight gain.
Scuffers said:
Justaredbadge said:
Scuffers said:
Sad part is its still a s
t chassis design, just a very expensive one.
What, you don't like all the pre-arranged fail points in the pretty curved tubing?t chassis design, just a very expensive one.sirtyro said:
Like what? Have you driven or owned one?
the whole design from a chassis perspective is just wrong, (and no I am not about to detail it all as that would take a book).Put simply, the basics are just wrong, kinematics are laughable, hence why they just don't handle/work outside of top gear bragging rights.
no, I have never owned one, yes I have driven a few and yes I have worked on a few.
Scuffers said:
the whole design from a chassis perspective is just wrong, (and no I am not about to detail it all as that would take a book).
Put simply, the basics are just wrong, kinematics are laughable, hence why they just don't handle/work outside of top gear bragging rights.
no, I have never owned one, yes I have driven a few and yes I have worked on a few.
I own a few and seen them work VERY well on the track and off the track. I'll admit that I don't know much about chassis design or preparation, but I've seen some famous race drivers come off the track and say what a great car it was and put some impressive track times in. Not sure why you're a hater on them, they do what they say on the tin...just great fun.Put simply, the basics are just wrong, kinematics are laughable, hence why they just don't handle/work outside of top gear bragging rights.
no, I have never owned one, yes I have driven a few and yes I have worked on a few.
sirtyro said:
Scuffers said:
the whole design from a chassis perspective is just wrong, (and no I am not about to detail it all as that would take a book).
Put simply, the basics are just wrong, kinematics are laughable, hence why they just don't handle/work outside of top gear bragging rights.
no, I have never owned one, yes I have driven a few and yes I have worked on a few.
I own a few and seen them work VERY well on the track and off the track. I'll admit that I don't know much about chassis design or preparation, but I've seen some famous race drivers come off the track and say what a great car it was and put some impressive track times in. Not sure why you're a hater on them, they do what they say on the tin...just great fun.Put simply, the basics are just wrong, kinematics are laughable, hence why they just don't handle/work outside of top gear bragging rights.
no, I have never owned one, yes I have driven a few and yes I have worked on a few.
compared to a Caterham/Lotus/etc they are nowhere, even with a massive power advantage.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff