RE: GMA reveals 725hp T.50s 'Niki Lauda'

[Isebac]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Then you've missed my point entirely. I'm talking manufacturing and technology. To some degree the cars are irrelevant.

Gordon prides himself in his systems thinking and design innovation and references this approach several times. He may simply not have mentioned it in his presentations but I don't see that much cutting edge innovation.

When I look at the czinger (and for the record I'd rather have a t50) as an engineer I'm blown away by some of its features. The t50... Less so... I see a collection of very carefully honed current tech.

I actually agree. There isn't a huge amount of innovation, at least in the sense that they are not really threading any undiscovered ground. The fan is probably the biggest "innovation", although it's somewhat unclear how good that solution really is compared to other active aerodynamic solutions. There might be some other cool bits that we don't know about - the engine, for example, is using Metal Matrix Composite pistons which I think is a first for a road car - but yeah, the car is relatively conventional and it's mostly the care given to every component, the initial lightweight concept and the materials that really elevate it. As you say - a very carefully honed current tech.

I see how that might not be as exciting from an engineering perspective as Mercedes trying to put an F1 engine into a road car or Czinger doing a 3D printed car, but it comes with a lot of advantages. The car doesn't take billions years to finish, there are less likely to be problems and quality issues because it's all stuff that is well understood and proven to work, and the money that would have to be spent on a long and uncertain development process can be much more efficiently spent elsewhere. All this can easily lead to a car that is much better than the "more innovative" one, especially if the "innovation" isn't actually much, if at all, better than what we have now. If you look at 3D printing, for example, it might be the "new, disruptive technology", but unless you need parts with inner structures, then 5-axis machining delivers you the same result, faster, cheaper and with higher quality. Just because 3D printing is newer, doesn't mean it's be all end all.

And just to touch on Czinger. Yeah, a lot of BS in their presentations. "They are able to make 3D printed parts as quickly as casting, etc" No, no, no. You can go see the TG video on the car and you'll see them using SLM 500 printers. You can google that, see how quickly that can print and that's it. That's how quickly they can do it. It's all about the printers they are using. There is no magic sauce that's gonna speed the process up by 10000%. Big, complex parts still take days to make and so you are still limited to extremely small production numbers and very high price. And as I mentioned, just because you can 3D print everything, that doesn't mean you should. Some parts you can for sure get stronger and lighter with 3D printing, but many will be the same and you'll just be wasting money and many will be worse because you can get a better internal structure with forgings or machinings.

Edited by Isebac on Thursday 25th February 12:26

[Spiros115]

Apart from the baboons arse and the bush baby eyes it’s a hell of a thing, and you don’t give a crap about that when your inside thrashing it round a track in a cauldron of noise, oh to be rich enough to have a play thing like this.

[stvbez]

This is the pinnacle of ICE engineering. Now I LOVE the ICE but after seeing these specs on dare I even raise it the Tesla Roadster :-

Base Specs
Acceleration 0-60 mph. 1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph 4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile. 8.8 sec
Top Speed. Over 250 mph
Wheel Torque. 10,000 Nm
Mile Range. 620 miles
Seating. 4
Drive. All-Wheel Drive
Base Reservation. £38,000

I was very depressed when I saw the specs above as its beyond obvious the EV is taking over all aspects of motoring. 10,000nm wheel torque - are you F kidding me???? Thats 10x my modded E55 AMG.

The big issue is there is no passion or occasion when the EV car is fired up .... zero emotion.

So where are we with this car?

Its a last hurrah to the ICE so for that is deserves kudos and the engineering is a marvel but sadly all somewhat redundant and a little bit desperate?

Also if I had stumped up the dep for a road version I would be a bit peeved there is now a faster / better car ‘available’ before my car has been built. Sure cant drive it on a public road but how many T50 will be on the road anyway?

Disclaimer: I don’t have a Tesla ( Dont like them generally but I could not argue with the specs above), and doubt I will ever get one - prob a Taycan if I had the choice... the above is purely to make a point!

[Sway]

stvbez said:

This is the pinnacle of ICE engineering. Now I LOVE the ICE but after seeing these specs on dare I even raise it the Tesla Roadster :-

Base Specs
Acceleration 0-60 mph. 1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph 4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile. 8.8 sec
Top Speed. Over 250 mph
Wheel Torque. 10,000 Nm
Mile Range. 620 miles
Seating. 4
Drive. All-Wheel Drive
Base Reservation. £38,000

I was very depressed when I saw the specs above as its beyond obvious the EV is taking over all aspects of motoring. 10,000nm wheel torque - are you F kidding me???? Thats 10x my modded E55 AMG.

The big issue is there is no passion or occasion when the EV car is fired up .... zero emotion.

So where are we with this car?

Its a last hurrah to the ICE so for that is deserves kudos and the engineering is a marvel but sadly all somewhat redundant and a little bit desperate?

Also if I had stumped up the dep for a road version I would be a bit peeved there is now a faster / better car ‘available’ before my car has been built. Sure cant drive it on a public road but how many T50 will be on the road anyway?

Disclaimer: I don’t have a Tesla ( Dont like them generally but I could not argue with the specs above), and doubt I will ever get one - prob a Taycan if I had the choice... the above is purely to make a point!

You're comparing flywheel torque for your Merc against wheel torque for the Roadster - your flywheel torque needs to be multiplied by the gearing, final drive and wheel size...

They announced the S at the same time as the regular car, so doubt anyone will be pissed off.

Unfortunately, the world seems to rely on stats to define how good cars are. Yet every single one of the best cars I've owned or driven is due to factors I'd have zero clue how to define numerically...

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

stvbez said:

This is the pinnacle of ICE engineering. Now I LOVE the ICE but after seeing these specs on dare I even raise it the Tesla Roadster :-

Base Specs
Acceleration 0-60 mph. 1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph 4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile. 8.8 sec
Top Speed. Over 250 mph
Wheel Torque. 10,000 Nm
Mile Range. 620 miles
Seating. 4
Drive. All-Wheel Drive
Base Reservation. £38,000

I was very depressed when I saw the specs above as its beyond obvious the EV is taking over all aspects of motoring. 10,000nm wheel torque - are you F kidding me???? Thats 10x my modded E55 AMG.

The big issue is there is no passion or occasion when the EV car is fired up .... zero emotion.

So where are we with this car?

Its a last hurrah to the ICE so for that is deserves kudos and the engineering is a marvel but sadly all somewhat redundant and a little bit desperate?

Also if I had stumped up the dep for a road version I would be a bit peeved there is now a faster / better car ‘available’ before my car has been built. Sure cant drive it on a public road but how many T50 will be on the road anyway?

Disclaimer: I don’t have a Tesla ( Dont like them generally but I could not argue with the specs above), and doubt I will ever get one - prob a Taycan if I had the choice... the above is purely to make a point!

You think a car with a top speed of "over 250mph" will cost £38k just things like the brakes, suspension, wheel strength, etc etc would cost a fortune.

[epom]

stvbez said:

This is the pinnacle of ICE engineering. Now I LOVE the ICE but after seeing these specs on dare I even raise it the Tesla Roadster :-

Base Specs
Acceleration 0-60 mph. 1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph 4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile. 8.8 sec
Top Speed. Over 250 mph
Wheel Torque. 10,000 Nm
Mile Range. 620 miles
Seating. 4
Drive. All-Wheel Drive
Base Reservation. £38,000

I was very depressed when I saw the specs above as its beyond obvious the EV is taking over all aspects of motoring. 10,000nm wheel torque - are you F kidding me???? Thats 10x my modded E55 AMG.

The big issue is there is no passion or occasion when the EV car is fired up .... zero emotion.

So where are we with this car?

Its a last hurrah to the ICE so for that is deserves kudos and the engineering is a marvel but sadly all somewhat redundant and a little bit desperate?

Also if I had stumped up the dep for a road version I would be a bit peeved there is now a faster / better car ‘available’ before my car has been built. Sure cant drive it on a public road but how many T50 will be on the road anyway?

Disclaimer: I don’t have a Tesla ( Dont like them generally but I could not argue with the specs above), and doubt I will ever get one - prob a Taycan if I had the choice... the above is purely to make a point!

Right, that’s enough of this thread, I’m out !!

[anonymous-user]

Sway said:

...
Unfortunately, the world seems to rely on stats to define how good cars are. Yet every single one of the best cars I've owned or driven is due to factors I'd have zero clue how to define numerically...

Well quite. Stat comparisons with a next generation EV miss the whole point by a country mile.

[jontysafe]

Statisticians can't define fun

[stvbez]

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:

stvbez said:

This is the pinnacle of ICE engineering. Now I LOVE the ICE but after seeing these specs on dare I even raise it the Tesla Roadster :-

Base Specs
Acceleration 0-60 mph. 1.9 sec
Acceleration 0-100 mph 4.2 sec
Acceleration 1/4 mile. 8.8 sec
Top Speed. Over 250 mph
Wheel Torque. 10,000 Nm
Mile Range. 620 miles
Seating. 4
Drive. All-Wheel Drive
Base Reservation. £38,000

I was very depressed when I saw the specs above as its beyond obvious the EV is taking over all aspects of motoring. 10,000nm wheel torque - are you F kidding me???? Thats 10x my modded E55 AMG.

The big issue is there is no passion or occasion when the EV car is fired up .... zero emotion.

So where are we with this car?

Its a last hurrah to the ICE so for that is deserves kudos and the engineering is a marvel but sadly all somewhat redundant and a little bit desperate?

Also if I had stumped up the dep for a road version I would be a bit peeved there is now a faster / better car ‘available’ before my car has been built. Sure cant drive it on a public road but how many T50 will be on the road anyway?

Disclaimer: I don’t have a Tesla ( Dont like them generally but I could not argue with the specs above), and doubt I will ever get one - prob a Taycan if I had the choice... the above is purely to make a point!

You think a car with a top speed of "over 250mph" will cost £38k just things like the brakes, suspension, wheel strength, etc etc would cost a fortune.

The 38k is the deposit.... thats what I was pointing out.

[stvbez]

Sway said:

You're comparing flywheel torque for your Merc against wheel torque for the Roadster - your flywheel torque needs to be multiplied by the gearing, final drive and wheel size...

They announced the S at the same time as the regular car, so doubt anyone will be pissed off.

Unfortunately, the world seems to rely on stats to define how good cars are. Yet every single one of the best cars I've owned or driven is due to factors I'd have zero clue how to define numerically...

Ah wasn't aware of this version when the road going unit was marketed.

On the torque ... its still double the E55 in first gear and around 9x in top. Dunno if the Tesla has gearing.

Don't get me wrong... The Tesla is a nutcase of a car but not particularly desirable in comparison. In general few EV’s are... but they are remarkably functional.

The whole point about the ICE is the associated engineering, sounds, vibrations... emotion. Its like a good analogue watch vs a digital. I know which I prefer!

Edited by stvbez on Friday 26th February 12:28

[Isebac]

stvbez said:

On the torque ... its still double the E55 in first gear and around 9x in top. Dunno if the Tesla has gearing.

Edited by stvbez on Friday 26th February 12:28

It's not 10000Nm all the way to the top speed either. This is what an EV torque curve looks like:


The faster an electric motor spins, the more back EMF it experiences, reducing the torque. Since the Roadster is supposed to go 250mph, even with taller gearing, they will almost certainly have to use a motor with a higher RPM, so torque at the top end is likely gonna be even lower than in the Model 3 (in proportion to the peak torque). Not sure it's gonna have a gearbox or not, but it should be possible to get to 250mph even with a single reduction, you just need to have enough power. The Rimac C_Two is also targeting 250mph+ and has a single speed gearbox, but needs 1900hp to get there. To get to 250mph and to meet all the other stated targets you posted, you would expect the Roadster to have a similar power - if not higher depending on how much it ends up weighing. In the end, it's not magic, it's just an enormous amount of power, but in a car that's gonna weigh more than double the T.50 and that's not gonna handle or drive anywhere close as well.

[ManyMotors]

Ahonen said:

ManyMotors said:

J4CKO said:

ManyMotors said:

I don't get all the love for Murray. He's old, has old ideas and used them to build a racecar. And, though the specific output of the mill is impressive, it is still significantly lower than many Stellantis offerings. Yet the dopes croon, "Oh,,,Gordon!"

Are you comparing specific output from an NA engine with a turbocharged one ?

Yes, of course. Gordy's motor has a weak design. And understand the engines I'm referring to are supercharged, not turbocharged - there is a difference.

I've read some of your other replies on other subjects. You're constantly contrary merely for the sake of it, without any substance. Consequently you are to be ignored.

Thanks for reading! Or don't!

[ManyMotors]

Sway said:

ManyMotors said:

J4CKO said:

ManyMotors said:

I don't get all the love for Murray. He's old, has old ideas and used them to build a racecar. And, though the specific output of the mill is impressive, it is still significantly lower than many Stellantis offerings. Yet the dopes croon, "Oh,,,Gordon!"

Are you comparing specific output from an NA engine with a turbocharged one ?

Yes, of course. Gordy's motor has a weak design. And understand the engines I'm referring to are supercharged, not turbocharged - there is a difference.

The first supercharged cars were known as "super turbo charged"... There's no real difference in principle, merely practical approaches to the powering of the fan.

Which Stellantis engines have higher specific capacity, and how does the bhp/kg figure compare? Litres of cylinder space weigh nothing...

Look to the total power - who cares about specific output? And, there is a huge difference in principle between supercharging and turbocharging. The latter uses excess heat and the former is merely crank driven. Please read some about thermodynamics. And, while your at it, try contemplating an adiabatic engine. Good stuff!

[Sway]

ManyMotors said:

Sway said:

ManyMotors said:

J4CKO said:

ManyMotors said:

I don't get all the love for Murray. He's old, has old ideas and used them to build a racecar. And, though the specific output of the mill is impressive, it is still significantly lower than many Stellantis offerings. Yet the dopes croon, "Oh,,,Gordon!"

Are you comparing specific output from an NA engine with a turbocharged one ?

Yes, of course. Gordy's motor has a weak design. And understand the engines I'm referring to are supercharged, not turbocharged - there is a difference.

The first supercharged cars were known as "super turbo charged"... There's no real difference in principle, merely practical approaches to the powering of the fan.

Which Stellantis engines have higher specific capacity, and how does the bhp/kg figure compare? Litres of cylinder space weigh nothing...

Look to the total power - who cares about specific output? And, there is a huge difference in principle between supercharging and turbocharging. The latter uses excess heat and the former is merely crank driven. Please read some about thermodynamics. And, while your at it, try contemplating an adiabatic engine. Good stuff!

Er - you care about the specific output. I've helpfully reminded you by putting it in bold...

The principle behind 'charging' is forced air induction. The difference between a pure turbocharger and a super turbocharger is what drives the turbine that supplies that increased intake pressure.

Turbos do not use "excess heat" - there isn't a Stirling engine converting thermal energy into rotational energy. They use airflow, caused by the pressure difference between the now unsealed cylinder and the outside world.

[loudlashadjuster]

Sway said:

Er - you care about the specific output. I've helpfully reminded you by putting it in bold...

The principle behind 'charging' is forced air induction. The difference between a pure turbocharger and a super turbocharger is what drives the turbine that supplies that increased intake pressure.

Turbos do not use "excess heat" - there isn't a Stirling engine converting thermal energy into rotational energy. They use airflow, caused by the pressure difference between the now unsealed cylinder and the outside world.

Thank you. You are much more polite than I would have been.

[Me Alec]

Wonder if it's available in road legal form - and what the Road Tax is likely to cost …….. the question's academic, I accept - - - -

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

Me Alec said:

Wonder if it's available in road legal form - and what the Road Tax is likely to cost …….. the question's academic, I accept - - - -

You've heard of the T.50, yes?

[anonymous-user]

Me Alec said:

Wonder if it's available in road legal form - and what the Road Tax is likely to cost …….. the question's academic, I accept - - - -

Did you actually read the article?

[PhantomPH]

Me Alec said:

...and what the Road Tax is likely to cost …….. the question's academic, I accept - - - -

Most obscure question ever? Has to be a contender.