RE: McMurtry Spéirling takes FOS Hillclimb record
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
otolith said:
To be fair, this was once a site for TVR fanciers 
No doubt at all that the i3 is a better car, in the same sense that my E class is a better car than my Elise, but you wouldn't buy an i3 as a toy.
yup your right, i'd buy a Caterham, as i'd just about be able to manage to get most of the performance out of one of those and still enjoy myself ;-)No doubt at all that the i3 is a better car, in the same sense that my E class is a better car than my Elise, but you wouldn't buy an i3 as a toy.
J4CKO said:
And the childish "Glorified Milk Float" sub Daily Mail comments section stuff, turn it in or come up with something you though of yourself. I have no particular urge for an EV, I will personally stick with noisy ICE stuff as long as I can but I dont feel the need to come out with claptrap like that, just makes you sound a bit scared and not very original. Could call any ICE car a glorified Lawn Mower, scaled up dump truck or whatever as they are about as close as a lead acid powered 25 mph milk delivery vehicle.
Yup.jsf said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Who knows, maybe one day we'll have flying cars that are battery powered.
Wouldn't that be something...
They already exist in prototype form. The challenge there is how they all interact so you don't have a pile up in the sky. You wont be driving them.Wouldn't that be something...
Equus said:
Jon_S_Rally said:
I don't know why people are talking about how well the fan would work on the road, as it's irrelevant. We simply don't need downforce in road cars.
We have these things called 'brakes' these days, mind you.Max_Torque said:
er, brakes won't save you, cause that's the problem with high DF to mass cars, once the DF is gone, you may as well just curl up into a ball, close your eyes and wait for the impact, because as a driver, when you loose your DF, you're a passenger too........
Brakes work better when you have downforce, was simply my point. Whether you can make that downforce work consistently is a different discussion.Yes, we're all well aware of the potential problems from sudden loss of downforce, but (FWIIW) the Evo article suggests that one of the reasons they're using a fairly small (hence presumably high-suction-per-unit-area) skirted area is aimed at mitigating this, and that it's sufficently successful that they can run over kerbs track without loss of downforce.
As you well know, as well as dramatically reduced downforce, increased clearance results in dramatically reduced sensitivity, so if they've sorted loss-of-downforce on the track, there's no reason to believe they couldn't achieve adequate lack of sensitivity at increased ride height (and decreased levels of downforce) on the road.
As an aside, I see no reason that you couldn't have the opposite of a turbo blow-off valve to bleed off downforce if clearance to the road is reduced by bottoming out, to maintain an adequate consistency of (relatively low) downforce for the road in the opposite direction.
Let's not make assumptions on it not working until we have evidence or good reason to support them, eh, because at the moment the evidence is that it's working rather well?
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 28th June 11:50
Skylinecrazy said:
Still think Alex Summers would be on pace if he took the firestorm up the hill.
Alex unfortunately is now going to be overlooked. Faster than max after one run.
Possibly, GW Jr did a 42 secs in 2003 with 450hp and the top cars now have around 700hp.Alex unfortunately is now going to be overlooked. Faster than max after one run.
Would be interesting to hear Alex's view on it.
The McMurtry will be at Prescott in September which should be enlightening.
Unreal said:
OK , for argument's sake let's say that you can't buy a new ICE car after 2025. Most will come with a five year warranty so will need be run until 2029.
But more importantly, how long do you think it will take before the millions of motorists in cheap old ICE cars can migrate to equivalent electric vehicles?
I'm sure you could ban all petrol cars from 2025 and you can disincentivise their use in all sorts of ways, but there are consequences, including the social factors I've highlighted and also the little matter of a reduction in tax revenue. There's no question which way the wind is blowing. I just don't think it will blow ICE cars away for quite some time.
Rough rule of thumb is most cars will turn over 10 years from a given date. So, if you impose ICE sales ban tmw, it takes about 10 years before most cars on the road are EV. That said, there will be a gradual drift to EV before any ICE ban, so the turning point will probably be a bit quicker than that.But more importantly, how long do you think it will take before the millions of motorists in cheap old ICE cars can migrate to equivalent electric vehicles?
I'm sure you could ban all petrol cars from 2025 and you can disincentivise their use in all sorts of ways, but there are consequences, including the social factors I've highlighted and also the little matter of a reduction in tax revenue. There's no question which way the wind is blowing. I just don't think it will blow ICE cars away for quite some time.
Edited by Unreal on Monday 27th June 17:26
Interesting guessing game re when most cars on road will be EVs, probably some time between 2035 and 2040, I would guess.
Equus said:
Brakes work better when you have downforce, was simply my point. Whether you can make that downforce work consistently is a different discussion.
Yes, we're all well aware of the potential problems from sudden loss of downforce, but (FWIIW) the Evo article suggests that one of the reasons they're using a fairly small (hence presumably high-suction-per-unit-area) skirted area is aimed at mitigating this, and that it's sufficently successful that they can run over kerbs track without loss of downforce.
As you well know, as well as dramatically reduced downforce, increased clearance results in dramatically reduced sensitivity, so if they've sorted loss-of-downforce on the track, there's no reason to believe they couldn't achieve adequate lack of sensitivity at increased ride height (and decreased levels of downforce) on the road.
As an aside, I see no reason that you couldn't have the opposite of a turbo blow-off valve to bleed off downforce if clearance to the road is reduced by bottoming out, to maintain an adequate consistency of (relatively low) downforce for the road in the opposite direction.
Let's not make assumptions on it not working until we have evidence or good reason to support them, eh, because at the moment the evidence is that it's working rather well?
Ive spent a lot of time with high DF to mass vehicles so i understand the principals fairly well :-)Yes, we're all well aware of the potential problems from sudden loss of downforce, but (FWIIW) the Evo article suggests that one of the reasons they're using a fairly small (hence presumably high-suction-per-unit-area) skirted area is aimed at mitigating this, and that it's sufficently successful that they can run over kerbs track without loss of downforce.
As you well know, as well as dramatically reduced downforce, increased clearance results in dramatically reduced sensitivity, so if they've sorted loss-of-downforce on the track, there's no reason to believe they couldn't achieve adequate lack of sensitivity at increased ride height (and decreased levels of downforce) on the road.
As an aside, I see no reason that you couldn't have the opposite of a turbo blow-off valve to bleed off downforce if clearance to the road is reduced by bottoming out, to maintain an adequate consistency of (relatively low) downforce for the road in the opposite direction.
Let's not make assumptions on it not working until we have evidence or good reason to support them, eh, because at the moment the evidence is that it's working rather well?
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 28th June 11:50
If you have high df to mass ratio, then you loose it, for what ever reason, you're shafted. It doesn't matter why or how or whatever. If you were relying on having 3 tonnes of tyre normal load to get round a bend or stop, then having just 1 tonne is a problem, a big problem!!
At the moment, from what i can see, the fan isn't doing a lot at any significant speed. It clearly works off the line, where with the vehicle and road stationary the seals can grab and the fan has lots of time to evacuate the suction volume (including the air trapped in the porous tarmac!). As speed builds, the fact you can see lots of stuff flying out the back of the car means the fan is moving a large mass flow, both as the sealing system looses dynamic contact, but also as the a new bit of road is presented to the suction zone. Fan laws tell us implicitly that as Mdot increases then deltaP falls, so we KNOW the car has less active DF at speed.
This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
FourWheelDrift said:
There will be an EV scandal just like the diesel scandal, you wait and see.
EVS are completely agnostic to the source of their electricity. If there were to be a "scandal" why would you blame or change the vehicles themselves? Simply mandate a minimum renewables source percentage.Max_Torque said:
At the moment, from what i can see, the fan isn't doing a lot at any significant speed. It clearly works off the line, where with the vehicle and road stationary the seals can grab and the fan has lots of time to evacuate the suction volume (including the air trapped in the porous tarmac!). As speed builds, the fact you can see lots of stuff flying out the back of the car means the fan is moving a large mass flow, both as the sealing system looses dynamic contact, but also as the a new bit of road is presented to the suction zone. Fan laws tell us implicitly that as Mdot increases then deltaP falls, so we KNOW the car has less active DF at speed.
This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
Their website says 2000kg @ 0mph and 2250kg@150mph. This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
Max_Torque said:
FourWheelDrift said:
There will be an EV scandal just like the diesel scandal, you wait and see.
EVS are completely agnostic to the source of their electricity. If there were to be a "scandal" why would you blame or change the vehicles themselves? Simply mandate a minimum renewables source percentage.Fady said:
Max_Torque said:
FourWheelDrift said:
There will be an EV scandal just like the diesel scandal, you wait and see.
EVS are completely agnostic to the source of their electricity. If there were to be a "scandal" why would you blame or change the vehicles themselves? Simply mandate a minimum renewables source percentage.But this is not the same as the issue with diesel, where the technology had a nasty sting in the tail that was visible to everyone informed at the time. Tyre and brake particulates are a problem with existing cars, and regen, better traction control, and weight which is likely to come down to ICE levels over time mitigate against it being markedly worse in the way that diesel NOx emissions were.
Max_Torque said:
Fan laws tell us implicitly that as Mdot increases then deltaP falls, so we KNOW the car has less active DF at speed.
This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
Which according to your own assertions are both good things?This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
otolith said:
Max_Torque said:
At the moment, from what i can see, the fan isn't doing a lot at any significant speed. It clearly works off the line, where with the vehicle and road stationary the seals can grab and the fan has lots of time to evacuate the suction volume (including the air trapped in the porous tarmac!). As speed builds, the fact you can see lots of stuff flying out the back of the car means the fan is moving a large mass flow, both as the sealing system looses dynamic contact, but also as the a new bit of road is presented to the suction zone. Fan laws tell us implicitly that as Mdot increases then deltaP falls, so we KNOW the car has less active DF at speed.
This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
Their website says 2000kg @ 0mph and 2250kg@150mph. This is born out by the fact the car has been fitted with a conventional rear wing, which is a direct indicator that the fan system cannot maintain full and consistent DF at all speeds and attitudes
Dumb techie question: how does one measure real-world DF? Strain gauges/sensors in the suspension? Or cameras recording the spring compression?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff