Alpine A110 owners
Discussion
leglessAlex said:
...and many many cars have been comfortably running around 380nm for thousands of miles and many trackdays
Honest question, if they are completely fine at 380NM torque in all use cases, why did Alpine only give the original cars 320NM, and then the revised S 340NM? They must have categorically *not* thought it was okay in all cases at 380NM?Olivera said:
Honest question, if they are completely fine at 380NM torque in all use cases, why did Alpine only give the original cars 320NM, and then the revised S 340NM? They must have categorically *not* thought it was okay in all cases at 380NM?
The PEs seemed to dyno around the 340nm mark in any case, so I'm not sure if there ever a problem at that level. Not seen any dyno figures for the revised S (or later non-S cars) - it will be interesting to see what they actually dyno at. If Autocar do another road test of the S we should get an idea of any extra torque from in gear acceleration figures.AlexNJ89 said:
I would do the same, except I do like the premium sound system which I don't think is available in the pure?
So I'm happy to stick with my car and put up with the dodgy infotainment.
Yes, l see an option for the same price for the GT for the Focal Premium system of 620 Euro. But in the configurator with Pure as the model version, l do now notice that it says Focal system... so drops the word “Premium”. But it can’t be anything else than Premium as the infotainment + carplay etc is stated as a standard option, with 620 Euro for Focal etc. Or have l missed a 2022 change and the Pure now uses standard (non Focal) speakers as used for Renault models? So I'm happy to stick with my car and put up with the dodgy infotainment.
(Note 1: my service loan car was a 2022 Kaptur and l have to say that its sound system came across as superior to the Premium Focal set up ...so, if the Pure has that set-up, then fine by me.
Note 2: l recently gave an update on our 3 week road trip, with one of my few pain points being the regular bluetooth connection breaks. I mentioned this to Alpine and as part of the service they re-set the infotainment software. Voila! Problem solved :-)
Note 3: I also learnt from my Alpine dealer that if you want to pay the 450 Euro to receive the latest Bosch navigation software you only have to plug the SD card into the front SD input. It will override the old card which is behind the dashboard somewhere. I mention this as l recall seeing on this thread the update from an owner who went the whole hog to remove half the dashboard and its gubbings...
If anyone finds another SD card option which is proven to work for the My Spin Bosch set up for say 50 Euro, then that’s the way to go l reckon...)
Franzino said:
What is that about the transmission software? Is there an update been done by Alpine (and what changed)?
During our roadtrip last month taking in France and Italy, l dropped by a French Alpine dealer (partly for fun, and partly to check something out) and during our discussion regarding the power and torque differences on the 2022 GT vs my 2020 GT, l was advised it’s all down to transmission software tweaks as well as the modified engine ECU. No hardware differences...Olivera said:
leglessAlex said:
...and many many cars have been comfortably running around 380nm for thousands of miles and many trackdays
Honest question, if they are completely fine at 380NM torque in all use cases, why did Alpine only give the original cars 320NM, and then the revised S 340NM? They must have categorically *not* thought it was okay in all cases at 380NM?My image is that at 320Nm input, the gearbox is tested/proven to last (complete guess) 20 years/200k miles or whatever - some internal standard they want/need to deliver, and prove via accelerated (aggressive) testing. At 380Nm input, this might reduce to (also complete guess) 15 years/150k miles. Might even be 10 years/100k miles or less. Might manifest as bearings giving up. Might manifest as clutch wear. We don't know, and probably won't have any idea until cars are much older.
Point is, it won't go 'ping' the moment you put 341Nm through it - it'll just begin to last for a shorter time than intended. None of us know what we're taking it from and to - so go nuts and enjoy it.
(Says the guy whose car is completely standard because he wants it to last forever)
Meonstoke said:
Yes, l see an option for the same price for the GT for the Focal Premium system of 620 Euro. But in the configurator with Pure as the model version, l do now notice that it says Focal system... so drops the word “Premium”. But it can’t be anything else than Premium as the infotainment + carplay etc is stated as a standard option, with 620 Euro for Focal etc. Or have l missed a 2022 change and the Pure now uses standard (non Focal) speakers as used for Renault models?
The Pure never has had the Focal system as standard. It used to be an option with or without the subwoofer, but now the standard Focal system is only available on the Pure as part of the "comfort" package. The subwoofer (Premium) isn't an option at all on the Pure (at least not in the UK) On the Pure the reversing camera is also only available as part of the comfort package - which also forces you to have 18" wheels. It's all a bit bizarre and rather annoying.Hoofty said:
Most likely answer is to enable the unit to meet a durability target, relating to how long the gearbox lasts. Durability relates to fatigue loading (lots of cycled loads), not one-off loading (which is strength testing).
My image is that at 320Nm input, the gearbox is tested/proven to last (complete guess) 20 years/200k miles or whatever - some internal standard they want/need to deliver, and prove via accelerated (aggressive) testing. At 380Nm input, this might reduce to (also complete guess) 15 years/150k miles. Might even be 10 years/100k miles or less. Might manifest as bearings giving up. Might manifest as clutch wear. We don't know, and probably won't have any idea until cars are much older.
That's the complete opposite of what David from Life110 has posted on here previously, namely the DCT clutches will immediately begin slipping with excessive torque, possibly caused by sub-optimal mapping, as he experienced on several cars.My image is that at 320Nm input, the gearbox is tested/proven to last (complete guess) 20 years/200k miles or whatever - some internal standard they want/need to deliver, and prove via accelerated (aggressive) testing. At 380Nm input, this might reduce to (also complete guess) 15 years/150k miles. Might even be 10 years/100k miles or less. Might manifest as bearings giving up. Might manifest as clutch wear. We don't know, and probably won't have any idea until cars are much older.
Olivera said:
Hoofty said:
Most likely answer is to enable the unit to meet a durability target, relating to how long the gearbox lasts. Durability relates to fatigue loading (lots of cycled loads), not one-off loading (which is strength testing).
My image is that at 320Nm input, the gearbox is tested/proven to last (complete guess) 20 years/200k miles or whatever - some internal standard they want/need to deliver, and prove via accelerated (aggressive) testing. At 380Nm input, this might reduce to (also complete guess) 15 years/150k miles. Might even be 10 years/100k miles or less. Might manifest as bearings giving up. Might manifest as clutch wear. We don't know, and probably won't have any idea until cars are much older.
That's the complete opposite of what David from Life110 has posted on here previously, namely the DCT clutches will immediately begin slipping with excessive torque, possibly caused by sub-optimal mapping, as he experienced on several cars.My image is that at 320Nm input, the gearbox is tested/proven to last (complete guess) 20 years/200k miles or whatever - some internal standard they want/need to deliver, and prove via accelerated (aggressive) testing. At 380Nm input, this might reduce to (also complete guess) 15 years/150k miles. Might even be 10 years/100k miles or less. Might manifest as bearings giving up. Might manifest as clutch wear. We don't know, and probably won't have any idea until cars are much older.
Clutch slip does limit clutch life (ie durability), but that's perhaps splitting hairs.
bcr5784 said:
The Pure never has had the Focal system as standard. It used to be an option with or without the subwoofer, but now the standard Focal system is only available on the Pure as part of the "comfort" package. The subwoofer (Premium) isn't an option at all on the Pure (at least not in the UK) On the Pure the reversing camera is also only available as part of the comfort package - which also forces you to have 18" wheels. It's all a bit bizarre and rather annoying.
Thanks BCR, l wasn’t aware that even Focal speakers were not standard on the Pure. If the standard sound system of the Pure is similar set up to the one l experienced in the Captur loan car then no issue. I think l’ll check out a new Pure demo car with std speakers to gauge the difference.Olivera said:
That's the complete opposite of what David from Life110 has posted on here previously, namely the DCT clutches will immediately begin slipping with excessive torque, possibly caused by sub-optimal mapping, as he experienced on several cars.
Both can be true surely? Higher torque levels generally may indeed increase wear on components, and specific large dollops of torque at certain rpm may cause the DCT to slip, hence careful mapping is required.I have the Life110 map installed and it’s an absolute joy: quite apart from the extra power (300PS) and torque (395Nm), it’s creamy smooth throughout the rev range, like a really well tuned engine should be… Very much recommended!
bcr5784 said:
Meonstoke said:
... the comfort package - which also forces you to have 18" wheels. It's all a bit bizarre and rather annoying.
It sure is. Any fool knows the Pure's standard spec' 17" wheels are more comfortable than 18s. If The Advertising Standards Authority get to hear of this, they'll be forcing them to call it the Less Comfortable Package.&, yes, it's very annoying. I had quite a bit of "we won't sell you that unless you buy these other bits you don't want" when I placed my order, in November. Now, it seems, things have got worse.
Olivera said:
Honest question, if they are completely fine at 380NM torque in all use cases, why did Alpine only give the original cars 320NM, and then the revised S 340NM? They must have categorically *not* thought it was okay in all cases at 380NM?
Easy, they have to design the car for a massive range of temperatures and use cases, and then have to have headroom on top of that, as well as take overall power into account.No manufacturer is ever going to run any part even remotely close to it’s limit, that doesn’t mean there isn’t often an enormous amount of headroom there if you wish to use it.
leglessAlex said:
Olivera said:
Honest question, if they are completely fine at 380NM torque in all use cases, why did Alpine only give the original cars 320NM, and then the revised S 340NM? They must have categorically *not* thought it was okay in all cases at 380NM?
Easy, they have to design the car for a massive range of temperatures and use cases, and then have to have headroom on top of that, as well as take overall power into account.No manufacturer is ever going to run any part even remotely close to it’s limit, that doesn’t mean there isn’t often an enormous amount of headroom there if you wish to use it.
For those interested, the way drive train design works is you select and life gears and bearings depending on different operating conditions with different lubricants and contamination levels, misalignments and loads etc. So you could have a typical load case (operating condition) called max torque drive, where the gearbox is subjected to maximum max torque at its maximum torque operating speed, you may also have a maximum speed operating condition, reverse etc etc etc.
You put all these load cases together and create a duty cycle (with different durations for each load case) and you basically get a component life based on ISO standards, in-house testing etc, whichever one you choose. This will give you a value that is typically called L10 life, where 90% of the individual components would survive (so if you had 100 identical bearings under this loading, then 10 would fail by the L10 life duration).
This is all done in simulation, because castings and changing moulds etc costs a fortune.
So you create your gearbox, its done, you then start prototyping it or maybe you're using one thats already in manufacture, you can then start plugging the other factors that you cant always simulate accurately, e.g. your mounts are now accurate (or tweaked to help stabilise the gearbox from twisting), your load data is much more accurate as suddenly you can bring in vehicle dynamics for a specific vehicle, you can inspect the gears/bearings and see how the are wearing when in your vehicle, instead of a different vehicle. You can get a better understanding of the power delivery from the engine in your vehicle, is it smooth, does the engine twist in the chassis and cause misalignment of everything in the gearbox etc....list goes on.
A gearbox is rated at XNm because thats the worse case for the gearbox, maybe the operating conditions are less harsh for a different car so suddenly the allowable torque is more.
There are also safety factors involved, but these are not large, we are talking 1.1-1.3 depending on what its looking at.
So we've got all this, an idea on how long the gearbox components live (L10) for the vehicle operating conditions...cool, so does this mean that if I put x+1NM in that my gearbox is going to explode? No it just means that my L10life is actually a bit lower, so my damage to my bearing is accumulating a bit faster.
e.g. My bearing can have 200 'damages', at normal operating I use 1 every hour, so it lasts for 200 hours, if I suddenly chuck some more torque in, it uses up 1.1 damages per hour, so now its likely to only last for 181 hours. Its all stats but basically its no going to explode, it will just wear out faster.
Source: Me, I'm a gearbox designer....
You put all these load cases together and create a duty cycle (with different durations for each load case) and you basically get a component life based on ISO standards, in-house testing etc, whichever one you choose. This will give you a value that is typically called L10 life, where 90% of the individual components would survive (so if you had 100 identical bearings under this loading, then 10 would fail by the L10 life duration).
This is all done in simulation, because castings and changing moulds etc costs a fortune.
So you create your gearbox, its done, you then start prototyping it or maybe you're using one thats already in manufacture, you can then start plugging the other factors that you cant always simulate accurately, e.g. your mounts are now accurate (or tweaked to help stabilise the gearbox from twisting), your load data is much more accurate as suddenly you can bring in vehicle dynamics for a specific vehicle, you can inspect the gears/bearings and see how the are wearing when in your vehicle, instead of a different vehicle. You can get a better understanding of the power delivery from the engine in your vehicle, is it smooth, does the engine twist in the chassis and cause misalignment of everything in the gearbox etc....list goes on.
A gearbox is rated at XNm because thats the worse case for the gearbox, maybe the operating conditions are less harsh for a different car so suddenly the allowable torque is more.
There are also safety factors involved, but these are not large, we are talking 1.1-1.3 depending on what its looking at.
So we've got all this, an idea on how long the gearbox components live (L10) for the vehicle operating conditions...cool, so does this mean that if I put x+1NM in that my gearbox is going to explode? No it just means that my L10life is actually a bit lower, so my damage to my bearing is accumulating a bit faster.
e.g. My bearing can have 200 'damages', at normal operating I use 1 every hour, so it lasts for 200 hours, if I suddenly chuck some more torque in, it uses up 1.1 damages per hour, so now its likely to only last for 181 hours. Its all stats but basically its no going to explode, it will just wear out faster.
Source: Me, I'm a gearbox designer....
Edited by Juffled on Friday 27th May 15:01
Juffled said:
For those interested, the way drive train design works is you select and life gears and bearings depending on different operating conditions with different lubricants and contamination levels, misalignments and loads etc. So you could have a typical load case (operating condition) called max torque drive, where the gearbox is subjected to maximum max torque at its maximum torque operating speed, you may also have a maximum speed operating condition, reverse etc etc etc.
You put all these load cases together and create a duty cycle (with different durations for each load case) and you basically get a component life based on ISO standards, in-house testing etc, whichever one you choose. This will give you a value that is typically called L10 life, where 90% of the individual components would survive (so if you had 100 identical bearings under this loading, then 10 would fail by the L10 life duration).
This is all done in simulation, because castings and changing moulds etc costs a fortune.
So you create your gearbox, its done, you then start prototyping it or maybe you're using one thats already in manufacture, you can then start plugging the other factors that you cant always simulate accurately, e.g. your mounts are now accurate (or tweaked to help stabilise the gearbox from twisting), your load data is much more accurate as suddenly you can bring in vehicle dynamics for a specific vehicle, you can inspect the gears/bearings and see how the are wearing when in your vehicle, instead of a different vehicle. You can get a better understanding of the power delivery from the engine in your vehicle, is it smooth, does the engine twist in the chassis and cause misalignment of everything in the gearbox etc....list goes on.
A gearbox is rated at XNm because thats the worse case for the gearbox, maybe the operating conditions are less harsh for a different car so suddenly the allowable torque is more.
There are also safety factors involved, but these are not large, we are talking 1.1-1.3 depending on what its looking at.
So we've got all this, an idea on how long the gearbox components live (L10) for the vehicle operating conditions...cool, so does this mean that if I put x+1NM in that my gearbox is going to explode? No it just means that my L10life is actually a bit lower, so my damage to my bearing is accumulating a bit faster.
e.g. My bearing can have 200 'damages', at normal operating I use 1 every hour, so it lasts for 200 hours, if I suddenly chuck some more torque in, it uses up 1.1 damages per hour, so now its likely to only last for 181 hours. Its all stats but basically its no going to explode, it will just wear out faster.
Source: Me, I'm a gearbox designer....
More please! You put all these load cases together and create a duty cycle (with different durations for each load case) and you basically get a component life based on ISO standards, in-house testing etc, whichever one you choose. This will give you a value that is typically called L10 life, where 90% of the individual components would survive (so if you had 100 identical bearings under this loading, then 10 would fail by the L10 life duration).
This is all done in simulation, because castings and changing moulds etc costs a fortune.
So you create your gearbox, its done, you then start prototyping it or maybe you're using one thats already in manufacture, you can then start plugging the other factors that you cant always simulate accurately, e.g. your mounts are now accurate (or tweaked to help stabilise the gearbox from twisting), your load data is much more accurate as suddenly you can bring in vehicle dynamics for a specific vehicle, you can inspect the gears/bearings and see how the are wearing when in your vehicle, instead of a different vehicle. You can get a better understanding of the power delivery from the engine in your vehicle, is it smooth, does the engine twist in the chassis and cause misalignment of everything in the gearbox etc....list goes on.
A gearbox is rated at XNm because thats the worse case for the gearbox, maybe the operating conditions are less harsh for a different car so suddenly the allowable torque is more.
There are also safety factors involved, but these are not large, we are talking 1.1-1.3 depending on what its looking at.
So we've got all this, an idea on how long the gearbox components live (L10) for the vehicle operating conditions...cool, so does this mean that if I put x+1NM in that my gearbox is going to explode? No it just means that my L10life is actually a bit lower, so my damage to my bearing is accumulating a bit faster.
e.g. My bearing can have 200 'damages', at normal operating I use 1 every hour, so it lasts for 200 hours, if I suddenly chuck some more torque in, it uses up 1.1 damages per hour, so now its likely to only last for 181 hours. Its all stats but basically its no going to explode, it will just wear out faster.
Source: Me, I'm a gearbox designer....
Edited by Juffled on Friday 27th May 15:01
Could a vehicle like the Alpine have increased tolerances with the box given its lightweight and therefore less forces to overcome in moving the car?
The same gearbox is used on a renault espace, the chassis will react very differently on these 2 cars when loaded up, and the gearbox will have been designed for a test bench with 'typical' engine mounts and external loads.
So when you put it into an espace, it will react differently to an alpine. You can't say the alpine will be better because its lightweight, you can just say it will be different (Espace may have a super stiff chassis, it weighs more so more material etc to stiffen it + also more stuff to twist the chassis). And while the engine mounts will do their best to isolate this twist, they can't completely.
Then you have shock loading (could be from the park lock, max acceleration) which is different and gets chucked into the life calcs.
Then you have the fact that the gearbox is usually cooled by a forced airflow from somewhere which will blow over some of the housing from some direction, but its bolted onto a hot engine, so you get a temperature gradient across the housing. Which means you get uneven thermal expansion, so maybe one end of the housing expands lots and the other end not so much and this twists the housing slightly and misaligns the gears + changes the bearing loads (from your design loads, could be more, could be less) which changes your L10 life. Note these misalignments are very small but it all goes into the calcs and adds up.
So when you put it into an espace, it will react differently to an alpine. You can't say the alpine will be better because its lightweight, you can just say it will be different (Espace may have a super stiff chassis, it weighs more so more material etc to stiffen it + also more stuff to twist the chassis). And while the engine mounts will do their best to isolate this twist, they can't completely.
Then you have shock loading (could be from the park lock, max acceleration) which is different and gets chucked into the life calcs.
Then you have the fact that the gearbox is usually cooled by a forced airflow from somewhere which will blow over some of the housing from some direction, but its bolted onto a hot engine, so you get a temperature gradient across the housing. Which means you get uneven thermal expansion, so maybe one end of the housing expands lots and the other end not so much and this twists the housing slightly and misaligns the gears + changes the bearing loads (from your design loads, could be more, could be less) which changes your L10 life. Note these misalignments are very small but it all goes into the calcs and adds up.
I agree with the above, I also design gearboxes but for industrial applications and not automotive.
we aim for 10,000 hours life, based on the bearing life and also the gear life (tooth wear rather than outright gear failure) the duty cycle in industry is quite different though as a machine can be running full speed and 90% torque hour after hour, this just doesn't happen with cars.
I would think that the manufacturers 'torque caution' isn't necessarily down to the gears/ bearings failing and maybe more to do with the clutches. My PE is remapped and i think much of the problem with the Alpine set up is that it tries to be too smooth in Auto, and i guess reduces the clutch pressures to allow a certain amount of slip during gear changes, the Gearbox is calibrated to the expected input torque and once the engine is remapped the numbers don't add up. If i floor the throttle to overtake from a previously light throttle the clutches slip, if i change down or blip the throttle moments before i need to overtake i don't get any slip as i expect the clutch pressures are ramped up in these circumstances. I think this is the area that needs more investigation and tweaking, along with the engine remap, my feeling is the clutch life is the area of concern and this could be helped with remapping the gearbox software, maybe even altering pump / internal pressures. It would be interesting to chat to someone who knows more about the workings of these boxes.
we aim for 10,000 hours life, based on the bearing life and also the gear life (tooth wear rather than outright gear failure) the duty cycle in industry is quite different though as a machine can be running full speed and 90% torque hour after hour, this just doesn't happen with cars.
I would think that the manufacturers 'torque caution' isn't necessarily down to the gears/ bearings failing and maybe more to do with the clutches. My PE is remapped and i think much of the problem with the Alpine set up is that it tries to be too smooth in Auto, and i guess reduces the clutch pressures to allow a certain amount of slip during gear changes, the Gearbox is calibrated to the expected input torque and once the engine is remapped the numbers don't add up. If i floor the throttle to overtake from a previously light throttle the clutches slip, if i change down or blip the throttle moments before i need to overtake i don't get any slip as i expect the clutch pressures are ramped up in these circumstances. I think this is the area that needs more investigation and tweaking, along with the engine remap, my feeling is the clutch life is the area of concern and this could be helped with remapping the gearbox software, maybe even altering pump / internal pressures. It would be interesting to chat to someone who knows more about the workings of these boxes.
Yeah I think thats probably the case, as people have said earlier that some maps dont have clutch slip (Life110 maybe?) but others do and the absolute torque is basically the same, so I guess the clutch pressures need sorting out? I'm no clutch specialist (far from it) so I could be talking rubbish.
Peter.R said:
I agree with the above, I also design gearboxes but for industrial applications and not automotive.
we aim for 10,000 hours life, based on the bearing life and also the gear life (tooth wear rather than outright gear failure) the duty cycle in industry is quite different though as a machine can be running full speed and 90% torque hour after hour, this just doesn't happen with cars.
I would think that the manufacturers 'torque caution' isn't necessarily down to the gears/ bearings failing and maybe more to do with the clutches. My PE is remapped and i think much of the problem with the Alpine set up is that it tries to be too smooth in Auto, and i guess reduces the clutch pressures to allow a certain amount of slip during gear changes, the Gearbox is calibrated to the expected input torque and once the engine is remapped the numbers don't add up. If i floor the throttle to overtake from a previously light throttle the clutches slip, if i change down or blip the throttle moments before i need to overtake i don't get any slip as i expect the clutch pressures are ramped up in these circumstances. I think this is the area that needs more investigation and tweaking, along with the engine remap, my feeling is the clutch life is the area of concern and this could be helped with remapping the gearbox software, maybe even altering pump / internal pressures. It would be interesting to chat to someone who knows more about the workings of these boxes.
Indeed, this explains why Alpine also remapped the transmission software...and not just the engine ECU. I like the idea of the latest Life110 remap (after the extended warranty has expired) but l’d want the gearbox remapped too. I hope this becomes a Life110 option too in the future.we aim for 10,000 hours life, based on the bearing life and also the gear life (tooth wear rather than outright gear failure) the duty cycle in industry is quite different though as a machine can be running full speed and 90% torque hour after hour, this just doesn't happen with cars.
I would think that the manufacturers 'torque caution' isn't necessarily down to the gears/ bearings failing and maybe more to do with the clutches. My PE is remapped and i think much of the problem with the Alpine set up is that it tries to be too smooth in Auto, and i guess reduces the clutch pressures to allow a certain amount of slip during gear changes, the Gearbox is calibrated to the expected input torque and once the engine is remapped the numbers don't add up. If i floor the throttle to overtake from a previously light throttle the clutches slip, if i change down or blip the throttle moments before i need to overtake i don't get any slip as i expect the clutch pressures are ramped up in these circumstances. I think this is the area that needs more investigation and tweaking, along with the engine remap, my feeling is the clutch life is the area of concern and this could be helped with remapping the gearbox software, maybe even altering pump / internal pressures. It would be interesting to chat to someone who knows more about the workings of these boxes.
Gassing Station | Alpine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff