The Ultimate Racing Car

[MIKEY_!]

Ok people what do you think the ultimate racing car would look like. What would power it and what innovations can you think of that would mean more speed. Those who have a design can share it but even if you just have an idea feel free to post it here. There are no rules except that it must be a car... this is fairly open so go crazy with it.
PS I have a couple of ideas myself that i will share when i get the chance.

[Just_a_fan]

Active aero (probably including fan driven ground effect), fully active suspension, ABS, TC, ESP, large capacity multi-turbo diesel driving all 4 wheels through a true CVT system (not one of the "stepped" versions). Enclosed fighter-style cockpit.

Would be all but undriveable though because it would generate silly g-loadings in the corners (and under braking too).

Alternatively, see Newey's team's recent Red Bull special.

[RH1300S]

'Racing Car' or fastest thing round a track?

Ultimate racing car probably looks like a BTCC car

[machin]

Back in April 2009 I sat down and thought about that question for a money-no-object "Ultimate Sprint/hillclimb car" (i.e. a 4 wheel vehicle that can cover a given stretch of tarmac road in the fastest possible time)... The UK Sprint/hillclimb regulations are very open... pretty much anything goes, although ground clearance is 40mm minimum (so no sliding skirts). There's basically no engine regs; so you can have anything you want (/afford!!!!)... I run a Westfield with a little 4 cylinder 8 valve push-rod engine and I'm always bemoaning the fact that the class struture means that the 16valve screamer engines are in the same class, so I sat down one day dreaming that if I won the lottery I would build the ultimate sprint/hillclmb car, and basically it was this:-

Single seater with covered front and rear wheels.
Full canopy
Full (huge) underbody tunnels
Extract fans in the diffusers
Moveable Front and Rear wings
Huge Tyres
Twin turbo-charged small capacity petrol engine

The inspiration for the front "fenders" actually came from the Caparo two-seater that came out a couple of years ago, -but amazing how similar it looks to the Newey-Red Bull concept that came out last year(?)....

I did these a while ago... before I had full rendering capabilities.. hence no colours or textures....

[machin]

large capacity multi-turbo diesel

Why not a small capacity, high reving petrol engine? Same power for lower weight and lower packaging volume....

Diesel engines are currently "in-vogue" because the rules are written around them (restrictor size allowances and overall car minimum weight restrictions)... take away those restrictions and nobody would run a Diesel... The UK sprint/hillclimb scene (being devoid of many rules) is a good example to show "Natural Selection" of the ideal prime mover configuration... it isn't a diesel....

[Just_a_fan]

Partly because using a CVT means the engine can be kept in the best working range and thus lots of lovely torque is available for accelerating the thing out of corners. Large capacity, multi-turbo to give some decent power to combat the inevitable drag (although active aero would help with this anyway).

Whilst I take our point that other series with "no rules" tend to follow the petrol route, they don't have fully active aero / suspension. And by this I mean a bodywork package that is constantly changing shape to give the best downforce / drag figures as the car moves around the track. Not just a wing flap that moves but the entire bodywork. No one has done it because it's probably not yet possible but that was part of the brief too. This will also require some power to run it and a suitable diesel (which, attahced to a CVT, is running almost in a generator mode anyway) might be better here than a petrol.

The current diesel vogue is slightly false not only, as you say, because the rules allow for them, but also because the rules don't allow them to used in their best way.

Yes, a diesel block is heavier than a petrol block but again, using novel materials will help that and the weight penalty is slightly offset by the better potential fuel useage - provided the diesel can be used as a diesel and not as a pseudo-petrol as is currently the case.

[zorog]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvxMEOO4a_E[/youtube]

I guess your racing this

[Robert.Gardner]

This is the type of question that can't be adequately answered without asking for more details.

1)Track surface. It could be that the Dakar rally winner is the ultimate racecar for most surfaces, other than snow or ice (or underwater).

2)Altitude/gravity. Can you imagine racing on the surface of the moon. Either floating away or running Nitromethane, as it can produce power even in the absence of Oxygen.

And others with more knowledge could offer even wilder propositions with this basic question. The FIA try to limit the engineers and designers as much as possible, but we are still getting fantastic innovations occuring without them even considering the possibility beforehand.

[machin]

Why not a small capacity, high reving petrol engine?

lots of lovely torque is available for accelerating the thing out of corners.

If engine "A" produces more power than engine "B" then Engine "A" will also be able to produce more torque at the road wheels (Where it counts) than engine "B", regardless of the flywheel torque of the two engines....

Check out this more detailed explanation of the relationship between power and torque on my website:-
http://www.competition-car-engineering. ... Torque.htm

Using a CVT is the ideal application for a small capacity petrol engine optimised to run over a small rev range.... or even a tiny little gas turbine engine.... lots of power, very low weight, and small volume...

Whilst I take our point that other series with "no rules" tend to follow the petrol route, they don't have fully active aero / suspension.

Whether the car has active aero/suspension or not its always going to be best to have the smallest, lightest possible engine for a given power don't you think? (Or have more power for the same weight/volume). Low weight improves acceleration and small size allows more freedoms for other aspects such as ground effects tunnels, etc.

This is the type of question that can't be adequately answered without asking for more details.

The "rules" for UK sprint and hillclimb (and hence for my car above) are basically;

4 wheels, 1 driver, 40mm ground clearance, 1.8m maximum width. Running on tarmac road (on earth!), must use normal pump fuel, must have rollover protection, a battery kill switch... course length is normally between 1 and 3 miles long and that's about it.....

[MIKEY_!]

Thanks guys you are really on the ball. My compliments to machin on the hill climb car. Red Bull X-2010 (X-1) is certainly a serious car but i think we can do better than that people.

And yes we are on earth and using GP tracks.

Some ideas to consider:
If we go down the petrol route i think we modify a 1980's spec turbo v6 with modern materials (Beryllium-Magnesium or Tungsten/Tungsten carbide combined with Aerogel and carbon fibre) and used in a flat6 configuration. Linking four of these to create a H-24 turbo with 6000hp + in qualifying spec!!!!!!
Turbines have their advantages but they lag massively (Lotus did some work with these years ago) so best used at a constant speed with CVT or as a method of charging batteries.

PS Fighter jet style G-suits will help overcome the G-forces.

[machin]

Might make sense to give a limit to overall car width and possibly even a maximum fuel tank size (on safety grounds)….?

Given that the amount of power that a car can use is governed by the grip that it can generate (for a wheel-driven car anyway), but that active aero is allowed (thus allowing very high grip levels to be generated)… the interesting thing would be how much power is “enough”?

I guess you would need to know whether refuelling would be allowed, and what the refuelling rate is and the pit lane speed limit (i.e. determining how long a pit-stop would be). This might actually then be the driving factor for determining the maximum power the car could generate (i.e. no point burning more fuel if it results in needing to do a 20 second pit stop at the end of each lap!!!!)…..

…Interesting little problem!

[wesley123]

As Ultimate racing car I just prefer Group C cars, instead of these overdone things like the X1 which more look like a batmobile then a racing car. The downforce, development and raw speed by the Group C was incredible, while being strictly limited by fuel usage, the best 14 years in Motorsport those where.

[Just_a_fan]

Check out this more detailed explanation of the relationship between power and torque on my website:-
http://www.competition-car-engineering. ... Torque.htm

What happens if you use the same gear ratios for each of the 3 engines? Changing the gearing as well as the engine doesn't help.

For example, diesel road cars sharing the same transmission as the petrol equivalent are usually quicker in-gear (e.g. 50-70mph) although the petrol is usually quicker 0-60 (0-100kmh).

[machin]

In my examples the gear ratio is optimised for each case to match the characteristics of the engine and get the highest possible torque at the road wheels [EDIT] at the specified road speed (in this case 100mph). I would assume a racing car would have optimised gear ratios, don't u think?

Remember its the engine output across the rev range used when accelerating through a road speed range which determines the acceleration... Peak values can be misleading...

[machin]

I should add 'each car is optimised with respect to its gear ratio to achieve the highest possible torque at the road wheels at the specified road speed...'

What the examples you've seen tell u is that the diesel engines in question must have higher power in the rev range used between 50 and 70mph than the petrol engine... Regardless of what the flywheel torque is of each engine.