RE: Aston Martin Valkyrie design secrets revealed
Discussion
The Vambo said:
Fair enough.
I don't understand how an engineer can have the attitude that things cant possibly be improved and not very quickly become an ex-engineer.
Because compromise.I don't understand how an engineer can have the attitude that things cant possibly be improved and not very quickly become an ex-engineer.
Technology moves on, we find ways of making lighter stronger structures, engines that are yet more powerful. But despite that, cars have fundamental physical limits that effectively cap their performance. Lets face it, 34 years ago we could build a car that lapped the N'ring in 6.11, a time that stands unbeaten today (i'm sure we could beat it, btw, but not by that much and not without significant risk).
If you extrapolate the power density of an F1 car to a no limits value, and then estimate the L/D ratio for an unlimited aero chassis, it's quite clear that an engineer could build a car that would be fantastically fast, and yet no human could drive it. So what would be the point i ask?
The reason my skills are in high demand is precisely because i am very good at finding the best compromise, that more often than not, isn't necessarily the ultimate engineering solution (and very very very rarely is for a road car)
And for all this, it brings nothing new to the party. In this (and the coming) day and age of electric cars and all the tricks the engineers can do with them (instant torque/response/drive, negative torque at each wheel to do funny things to your face in the corners, etc etc) this thing is a dinosaur.
Jimbo. said:
And for all this, it brings nothing new to the party. In this (and the coming) day and age of electric cars and all the tricks the engineers can do with them (instant torque/response/drive, negative torque at each wheel to do funny things to your face in the corners, etc etc) this thing is a dinosaur.
It has an electric motor and Lithium ion stack alongside the Cosworth formula 1 engine. Total output over 1000bhp, and you still complain 
Max_Torque said:
The point i was making is that there is a lot more to a good road car than just sticking some number plates on a track car.
Lets face it, if you've got £3M in expendable cash on a toy, just get a F1 car, and get someone to SVA approve it. Really not that hard to do. What you'll have is a ballisitically quick total shed, that is impossible to drive, can't go more than a few miles without either a) running out of fuel, b) overheating, c) cooking it's driver or more likely d) ending up backwards in the scenery when the downforce disappears without warning on a road bump or pothole.
AML/RB can crow on till they are blue in the face that this is a "road car" but lets be honest, it isn't, is it. It's an ultra high performance track car that is juuuuuust road legal (and i suspect there is going to be a lot of bluring the lines in getting it through even limited volume type approval.
For example, it's possible to get two large adults in a Lotus Elise, but have you actually done that and then driven it for more than 10mins. er no. and this cockpit looks to be several sizes smaller.
(IMO.. lol)
You seem to be applying what is needed for a mass produced car for the public to this a bit much. For example there is quite a lot of Elise drivers who use them as daily drivers. So even though it is too small for some people many others are ok with it. And since this will only have 150 made then it doesn't need to be suitable for large numbers of the public. Plus it will never be meant to be driven as a daily driver - owners of these will have many other cars. Don't feel like being cost with the passenger? Just take the Panamera out instead that day.Lets face it, if you've got £3M in expendable cash on a toy, just get a F1 car, and get someone to SVA approve it. Really not that hard to do. What you'll have is a ballisitically quick total shed, that is impossible to drive, can't go more than a few miles without either a) running out of fuel, b) overheating, c) cooking it's driver or more likely d) ending up backwards in the scenery when the downforce disappears without warning on a road bump or pothole.
AML/RB can crow on till they are blue in the face that this is a "road car" but lets be honest, it isn't, is it. It's an ultra high performance track car that is juuuuuust road legal (and i suspect there is going to be a lot of bluring the lines in getting it through even limited volume type approval.
For example, it's possible to get two large adults in a Lotus Elise, but have you actually done that and then driven it for more than 10mins. er no. and this cockpit looks to be several sizes smaller.
(IMO.. lol)
In addition as a very expensive car you can do a lot of stuff that is not normally possible to justify - for example basically no seat because you built the seating position around the actual owner. And for aero - you won't need aero when driving normally - so you're unlikely to end up in a hedge due to a pothole as you won't be relying on aero on the road. It would be when you take it to a track, and then you'd have the same 'issue' with any car.
The cost of the cars will let you engineer out some of the worst of the issues you would expect from a hard-core car like this, while giving amazing performance.
MrScrot said:
I think it looks awesome but not as an Aston Martin. It doesn't state luxury for me as much as it screams Usain Bolt's running shoes.
That was my thought when I first read about the “Aston that will be faster than an F1 car”. I couldn’t imagine them brining this to market without significant compromise to make it fit the ‘brand’. I’m happy to say that I was wrong, and it looks like they’re gonna let Adrian Newey build his dream. Fantastic.
The Vambo said:
Max_Torque said:
"Space for two large adults"
Well, technically speaking you can probably fit two large adults into a Wheely Bin if you squash the lid down hard enough......
The good news, is that because they've only left enough space for a thimble sized fuel tank, you're going to run outta gas before your ass goes to sleep........
(BTW, anyone unfortunate enough to have ever followed a car with no wheel arches down the back of the tyres (like my rally car) is going to hate this car, unless it's on a surgically clean / dry road)
This seems a weirdly bitter post.Well, technically speaking you can probably fit two large adults into a Wheely Bin if you squash the lid down hard enough......
The good news, is that because they've only left enough space for a thimble sized fuel tank, you're going to run outta gas before your ass goes to sleep........
(BTW, anyone unfortunate enough to have ever followed a car with no wheel arches down the back of the tyres (like my rally car) is going to hate this car, unless it's on a surgically clean / dry road)
kambites said:
I don't understand the underbody aerodynamic concept. Sure, a large diffuser volume is great at creating downforce but you need an area of flat floor mounted close to the ground in front of it to get the velocity up. It looks from that rear view as if it has damned near a foot of ground clearance all the way to the front!
Having said that, the pictures of the front and rear appear to be different cars because you clealry should be able to see that front wing from the back through the diffuser tunnels.
Just understand it's been designed by best Aero designer in f1 mere mortals might not understand but bet your last pound it will work Having said that, the pictures of the front and rear appear to be different cars because you clealry should be able to see that front wing from the back through the diffuser tunnels.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 12th July 19:14
If I was AM I'd only consider building Valkyrie if it were both eligible and competitive in endurance racing. I'm no expert but manufacturers need to build at least 100 cars, limited to 1245kg with 5.5L NA or 4.0L forced induction engines. Valkyrie doesn’t currently comply here bar build-run but it could, however, the real elephant in the room is its fuel tank size. In no CEO but I wouldn't have signed-off a project like this unless it could be proven to win endurance races, as the Ford GT was I speculate.
iwantcheese5 said:
robemcdonald said:
How exactly is the power transmitted to the rear wheels?
Portal axles?
Something like this probably:Portal axles?
Apparently the KERS system for the rear wheels used raised half shafts to allow them to run above the aero tunnels under the car, and used special rear uprights with a "drop gear" to transmit drive to the wheels, similar to a portal axle. Maybe they are doing the same thing here.
Mike348 said:
If I was AM I'd only consider building Valkyrie if it were both eligible and competitive in endurance racing. I'm no expert but manufacturers need to build at least 100 cars, limited to 1245kg with 5.5L NA or 4.0L forced induction engines. Valkyrie doesn’t currently comply here bar build-run but it could, however, the real elephant in the room is its fuel tank size. In no CEO but I wouldn't have signed-off a project like this unless it could be proven to win endurance races, as the Ford GT was I speculate.
That's probably why you're not CEO... The main thing is to make money for the company. You've effectively got a modern day F1 in that one of the best designers in F1 is making what seems to be his dream car. Presumably it is sold out already. Yet you would not go for it because it (might) not be going for endurance racing? Also it would be a bit pointless for endurance racing as the cars are effectively equalised, so there is no point in designing a "dream car" that then is so modified to fit a series that is in theory neutralised in performance.Max_Torque said:
If you extrapolate the power density of an F1 car to a no limits value, and then estimate the L/D ratio for an unlimited aero chassis, it's quite clear that an engineer could build a car that would be fantastically fast, and yet no human could drive it. So what would be the point i ask?
A question I find myself asking about your posts. The aero, or more specifically the sudden loss of, is completely irrelevant on the road, besides, the design appears not to rely on slamming a flat floor within mm of the road to generate downforce. Newey surely knows he can't build a road car that loses downforce suddenly once the airflow rotates; one has to assume he's pretty good at this stuff 
. Besides, innovation means the compromises needed to achieve fast lap times do not have to make a car undrivable on the road. Something relatively humble, in this company at least, like a 675LT is faster than most previous generation race cars and more comfortable than most previous generation road cars.robinessex said:
From the Top Gear interview:-
He tells me about one customer, an American lady, who’s designing her entire house with the Valkyrie as its centrepiece.
Can't even think of a suitable response to that!
I can. Drive the damn thing, don't put it in your house!He tells me about one customer, an American lady, who’s designing her entire house with the Valkyrie as its centrepiece.
Can't even think of a suitable response to that!
Mind you, I can see where Max_Torque is coming from, somewhere in that shape they need to fit a V12 engine, gearbox, electric motor, battery, fuel tank and two people.
Either the car itself is huge, we just haven't seen it next to anything yet to get a sense of scale. The range will be horribly compromised. Or the design team managed to bend the laws of physics.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff