RE: Aston Martin AM-RB 001 tech partners revealed
Discussion
epom said:
Cosowrth engines, weren't they fabulously reliable even in standard form on Sierras and Escorts ??
Yes, and also in production cars like the first 16-valve Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3 16s, the Opel Ascona/Manta 400s, the original 5.9 litre V12s fitted to modern Aston Martins, and more and more and more.....I'm convinced that the new RB V12 will be astonishingly powerful and reliable too ....
epom said:
Cosowrth engines, weren't they fabulously reliable even in standard form on Sierras and Escorts ??
What's that got to do with anything? The YB series of engines was developed in 1984, which in case you haven't noticed, was 32 years ago..... (and it was developed by a team of people who are no longer at Cosworth (and a good few of them are now dead, like Keith Duckworth RIP ;-(Max_Torque said:
All three have very very similar absolute performance because their tyres are the limiting factor
There's been a huge amount of noise/hype about aero on road cars of late...ford gt, huracan performante etc but I'd always thought slicks were required to make full use of large amounts of downforce. Would additional downforce (say 100kg on a 1500kg road car) really give an actual grip benefit on road tyres, even one such as a Cup2 or a trofeo?Max_Torque said:
cidered77 said:
To make a road car - something that deals with the above - and get even close to LMP1 pace would be staggering
Consider the P1/LaLa/918.
These three cars were developed, collectively by the BEST engineers in the business, and by companies that know how to make road cars and racing cars (Mclaren, Ferrari and Porsche have very very strong racing backgrounds of course).
They were developed, no not with an unlimited budget, but with enough cash to get the job done properly.
They were all relatively low volume vehicles, allowing specific design for low volume techniques to be used (just like are used for current racing cars)
All three are imo, on the limit of being practical road cars. The 918 is probably the mosty habitable, the LaLa and P1 similarly non compromising.
They all have a level of performance that the vast majority of owners will never be able to access.
All three have very very similar absolute performance because their tyres are the limiting factor
So why is an LMP1 car faster round a circuit than the Triumvirate above?
1) Hugely optimised downforce through both above and underbody aero.
2) Racing slicks
3) No usability whatsoever. Driving an LMP1 car is not actually a nice experience particularly.
So, is this new car is to "rewrite the rules", what are they going to compromise on?
It has gone several seconds faster round the Nurburgring than the trinity with ~300 less bhp.
Aero downforce is important as a ratio of vehicle mass.
For a given level of tyre frictional co-efficient, the higher the ratio between downforce and mass, the more grip the tyre can generate. This is because the load a tyre can take laterally or longitudinally varies directly with the vertical load applied to it (ie the force pressing it downwards into the road.
Take a typical road car tyre, with a best case friction co-efficient of around 1. if you push down with 100kg, the tyre will support 100Kg of cornering or accelerating force. Push down with 200kg, and there is broadly speaking, 200kg lat/lon capability available.
So, if you consider a 1 tonne car (1000kg) with no downforce, where all four tyres have a frictional co-efficient of 1, each tyre can support 250kg of lat/lon force, as they are being pressed down each with 250kg (we should really be using Newtons here as units of force, but i'm sticking with Kg (units of mass) to keep things simple!)
And as the car weighs 1000kg, that total lat/lon force of 1000kg means it can corner (or accel/deccel) at up to 1g (F=MA, 1000 = 1000 X A, so A obviously equal to 1)
Now lets add 100kg of downforce. Each tyre now has a normal (vertical) load of 275kg, and the vehicle can now corner at 1.1g (1100 = 1000 X A the mass is unchanged, but the total lat/long force has increased.
What about a 500kg car on the same tyres. It'll do the same 1g without aero (500 = 500 x 1) but with the same 100kg aero downforce it'll be able to corner at 1.2g (600 = 500 x 1.2).
So, you can see, that what you want for ultimate performance is a low mass car, with a high downforce, ie and F1 car.
Unfortunately, once you start to use downforce to gain performance, you open up your car to the significant risk of what happens should you suddenly loose that aerodynamic assistance. Things like bumps, changes in ride height, yaw angle, and even cross winds can all have marked effect on the downforce generated. Watch any F1 race, which even in those controlled conditions, the way the car negotiates (or fails to!) a bend is highly downforce dependent. This makes high downforce cars very difficult indeed to drive. Not something you want i a road car, which must be predictable above all else.
During the development of the P1, the chassis and aero settings were actually revised to limit aero performance because the car was such a dog to drive. (and the P1 GTR appeared to fill in the more extreme performance segment)
(in fact, tyre friction, with tyres being deformable, and having a temperature dependant nature, doesn't scale linearly with vertical load. It tends to increase up to a point with load (as more small bits of rubber get pushed into (and hence mechanically 'interlocked' with the road surface) and then falls off as the tyre deforms under the increasing loading) The resultant curve shape of friction co-efficient with vertical load is complex and variable with many factors.
For a given level of tyre frictional co-efficient, the higher the ratio between downforce and mass, the more grip the tyre can generate. This is because the load a tyre can take laterally or longitudinally varies directly with the vertical load applied to it (ie the force pressing it downwards into the road.
Take a typical road car tyre, with a best case friction co-efficient of around 1. if you push down with 100kg, the tyre will support 100Kg of cornering or accelerating force. Push down with 200kg, and there is broadly speaking, 200kg lat/lon capability available.
So, if you consider a 1 tonne car (1000kg) with no downforce, where all four tyres have a frictional co-efficient of 1, each tyre can support 250kg of lat/lon force, as they are being pressed down each with 250kg (we should really be using Newtons here as units of force, but i'm sticking with Kg (units of mass) to keep things simple!)
And as the car weighs 1000kg, that total lat/lon force of 1000kg means it can corner (or accel/deccel) at up to 1g (F=MA, 1000 = 1000 X A, so A obviously equal to 1)
Now lets add 100kg of downforce. Each tyre now has a normal (vertical) load of 275kg, and the vehicle can now corner at 1.1g (1100 = 1000 X A the mass is unchanged, but the total lat/long force has increased.
What about a 500kg car on the same tyres. It'll do the same 1g without aero (500 = 500 x 1) but with the same 100kg aero downforce it'll be able to corner at 1.2g (600 = 500 x 1.2).
So, you can see, that what you want for ultimate performance is a low mass car, with a high downforce, ie and F1 car.
Unfortunately, once you start to use downforce to gain performance, you open up your car to the significant risk of what happens should you suddenly loose that aerodynamic assistance. Things like bumps, changes in ride height, yaw angle, and even cross winds can all have marked effect on the downforce generated. Watch any F1 race, which even in those controlled conditions, the way the car negotiates (or fails to!) a bend is highly downforce dependent. This makes high downforce cars very difficult indeed to drive. Not something you want i a road car, which must be predictable above all else.
During the development of the P1, the chassis and aero settings were actually revised to limit aero performance because the car was such a dog to drive. (and the P1 GTR appeared to fill in the more extreme performance segment)
(in fact, tyre friction, with tyres being deformable, and having a temperature dependant nature, doesn't scale linearly with vertical load. It tends to increase up to a point with load (as more small bits of rubber get pushed into (and hence mechanically 'interlocked' with the road surface) and then falls off as the tyre deforms under the increasing loading) The resultant curve shape of friction co-efficient with vertical load is complex and variable with many factors.
Yipper said:
Max_Torque said:
cidered77 said:
To make a road car - something that deals with the above - and get even close to LMP1 pace would be staggering
Consider the P1/LaLa/918.
These three cars were developed, collectively by the BEST engineers in the business, and by companies that know how to make road cars and racing cars (Mclaren, Ferrari and Porsche have very very strong racing backgrounds of course).
They were developed, no not with an unlimited budget, but with enough cash to get the job done properly.
They were all relatively low volume vehicles, allowing specific design for low volume techniques to be used (just like are used for current racing cars)
All three are imo, on the limit of being practical road cars. The 918 is probably the mosty habitable, the LaLa and P1 similarly non compromising.
They all have a level of performance that the vast majority of owners will never be able to access.
All three have very very similar absolute performance because their tyres are the limiting factor
So why is an LMP1 car faster round a circuit than the Triumvirate above?
1) Hugely optimised downforce through both above and underbody aero.
2) Racing slicks
3) No usability whatsoever. Driving an LMP1 car is not actually a nice experience particularly.
So, is this new car is to "rewrite the rules", what are they going to compromise on?
It has gone several seconds faster round the Nurburgring than the trinity with ~300 less bhp.
As i said, it's just a different compromise.
Max_Torque said:
Aero downforce is important as a ratio of vehicle mass.
For a given level of tyre frictional co-efficient, the higher the ratio between downforce and mass, the more grip the tyre can generate. This is because the load a tyre can take laterally or longitudinally varies directly with the vertical load applied to it (ie the force pressing it downwards into the road.
(in fact, tyre friction, with tyres being deformable, and having a temperature dependant nature, doesn't scale linearly with vertical load. It tends to increase up to a point with load (as more small bits of rubber get pushed into (and hence mechanically 'interlocked' with the road surface) and then falls off as the tyre deforms under the increasing loading) The resultant curve shape of friction co-efficient with vertical load is complex and variable with many factors.
Thanks for that post, yes I did read previously that cornering speed was a function of the ratio of downforce to mass so glad to see I had remembered that right! For a given level of tyre frictional co-efficient, the higher the ratio between downforce and mass, the more grip the tyre can generate. This is because the load a tyre can take laterally or longitudinally varies directly with the vertical load applied to it (ie the force pressing it downwards into the road.
(in fact, tyre friction, with tyres being deformable, and having a temperature dependant nature, doesn't scale linearly with vertical load. It tends to increase up to a point with load (as more small bits of rubber get pushed into (and hence mechanically 'interlocked' with the road surface) and then falls off as the tyre deforms under the increasing loading) The resultant curve shape of friction co-efficient with vertical load is complex and variable with many factors.
My main question was more whether downforce would 'work' so to speak on normal road tyres (even track biased ones) - if i read the your post right, it would as the amounts of downforce on a road car are unlikely to push the tyres beyond vertical loads the tyre coefficient of friction starts to deviate as they simply aren't high enough? So aero does work but the actual effect is likely not as much as claimed given the downforce to mass on a typical corner is never going to amount to much...
Edited by isaldiri on Saturday 18th February 23:33
Max_Torque said:
Yipper said:
Max_Torque said:
cidered77 said:
To make a road car - something that deals with the above - and get even close to LMP1 pace would be staggering
Consider the P1/LaLa/918.
These three cars were developed, collectively by the BEST engineers in the business, and by companies that know how to make road cars and racing cars (Mclaren, Ferrari and Porsche have very very strong racing backgrounds of course).
They were developed, no not with an unlimited budget, but with enough cash to get the job done properly.
They were all relatively low volume vehicles, allowing specific design for low volume techniques to be used (just like are used for current racing cars)
All three are imo, on the limit of being practical road cars. The 918 is probably the mosty habitable, the LaLa and P1 similarly non compromising.
They all have a level of performance that the vast majority of owners will never be able to access.
All three have very very similar absolute performance because their tyres are the limiting factor
So why is an LMP1 car faster round a circuit than the Triumvirate above?
1) Hugely optimised downforce through both above and underbody aero.
2) Racing slicks
3) No usability whatsoever. Driving an LMP1 car is not actually a nice experience particularly.
So, is this new car is to "rewrite the rules", what are they going to compromise on?
It has gone several seconds faster round the Nurburgring than the trinity with ~300 less bhp.
As i said, it's just a different compromise.
Yipper said:
Does not always translate to the real world. The P1 is a huge pain to drive fast. Wiggles all over the shop. Active aero on the Lambo will adjust real-time in the bends and make it easier and faster to drive.
being 'active' has nothing to do with it. if you think a P1, which has a roughly 10:1 mass to aero ratio is a PITA to drive fast, i suggest you don't anything with a higher ratio.........(also the p1 has 'active' aero, in that it adjusts the angle of the rear wing depending on chassis loading)
isaldiri said:
My main question was more whether downforce would 'work' so to speak on normal road tyres (even track biased ones) - if i read the your post right, it would as the amounts of downforce on a road car are unlikely to push the tyres beyond vertical loads the tyre coefficient of friction starts to deviate as they simply aren't high enough? So aero does work but the actual effect is likely not as much as claimed given the downforce to mass on a typical corner is never going to amount to much...
Sorry, i missed that bit!Yes you are right to some degree, although on modern, low profile, stiff sidewalled tyres (esp runflats) there is really not that much difference to racing slicks except the rubber compound. Back in the day, tyres used to roll around on the bead at very mild loadings, but these days, modern tyres are really very stiff indeed both laterally and longitudinally.
The biggest effect of a slick is of course the lack of tread. That means the active outer layer of the tyre is indeed somewhat stiffer at very high loadings, but often that is offset by race cars being lighter and having a wider profile.
Max_Torque said:
Sorry, i missed that bit!
Yes you are right to some degree, although on modern, low profile, stiff sidewalled tyres (esp runflats) there is really not that much difference to racing slicks except the rubber compound. Back in the day, tyres used to roll around on the bead at very mild loadings, but these days, modern tyres are really very stiff indeed both laterally and longitudinally.
The biggest effect of a slick is of course the lack of tread. That means the active outer layer of the tyre is indeed somewhat stiffer at very high loadings, but often that is offset by race cars being lighter and having a wider profile.
Thanks for that, that was really quite interesting to read both posts. Yes you are right to some degree, although on modern, low profile, stiff sidewalled tyres (esp runflats) there is really not that much difference to racing slicks except the rubber compound. Back in the day, tyres used to roll around on the bead at very mild loadings, but these days, modern tyres are really very stiff indeed both laterally and longitudinally.
The biggest effect of a slick is of course the lack of tread. That means the active outer layer of the tyre is indeed somewhat stiffer at very high loadings, but often that is offset by race cars being lighter and having a wider profile.
I can't help but think of this whenever this topic comes up:
I read an article on Jalopink, where someone from Aston Martin claimed that it would have both a 6.5L V12, and 1000kW of E-machine! (it also claimed to recover 400kW of regen!) - yet it also is going to weigh 1000kgs and have 1000bhp?
Unfortunately it all just sounds made up.
I read an article on Jalopink, where someone from Aston Martin claimed that it would have both a 6.5L V12, and 1000kW of E-machine! (it also claimed to recover 400kW of regen!) - yet it also is going to weigh 1000kgs and have 1000bhp?
Unfortunately it all just sounds made up.
+1, REAL CARS with REAL engines. Bullit proof in the right hands/owners too.
I'm convinced that the new RB V12 will be astonishingly powerful and reliable too ....
AAGR said:
epom said:
Cosowrth engines, weren't they fabulously reliable even in standard form on Sierras and Escorts ??
Yes, and also in production cars like the first 16-valve Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3 16s, the Opel Ascona/Manta 400s, the original 5.9 litre V12s fitted to modern Aston Martins, and more and more and more.....I'm convinced that the new RB V12 will be astonishingly powerful and reliable too ....
JD said:
I can't help but think of this whenever this topic comes up:
I read an article on Jalopink, where someone from Aston Martin claimed that it would have both a 6.5L V12, and 1000kW of E-machine! (it also claimed to recover 400kW of regen!) - yet it also is going to weigh 1000kgs and have 1000bhp?
Unfortunately it all just sounds made up.
With the assumption this thing isn't 4wd, getting lots of regen off the back axle from a light, highly aero-enhanced car is going to be interesting! The more you deccelerate, the more the weight shifts forwards, and the less tractive effort you can get from the rear tyres. And when you are heavily relying on aero downforce, one unexpected bump (which you'll notice our roads tend to have quite a lot of) one cross wind, maybe even a passing truck (they don't have those on F1 tracks either) and that aero load disappears, and you'll be backwards off into the hedge before you can say "ooh heck"I read an article on Jalopink, where someone from Aston Martin claimed that it would have both a 6.5L V12, and 1000kW of E-machine! (it also claimed to recover 400kW of regen!) - yet it also is going to weigh 1000kgs and have 1000bhp?
Unfortunately it all just sounds made up.
Max_Torque said:
The biggest effect of a slick is of course the lack of tread. That means the active outer layer of the tyre is indeed somewhat stiffer at very high loadings, but often that is offset by race cars being lighter and having a wider profile.
...and it doesn't turn into jelly from the tread blocks overheating whilst squirming around under the aero loadGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff