Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
If you consider how many cubic feet of air there might in the space under a car, it doesn't take an enormous amount of throughput, at low speeds at least
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance
Incredible. Great news for the world and a win for driving purity over "climate" piety.
Some technical items and differences to the original:
Gigantic fan at the back for active downforce production. Interesting...
Engine power more or less the same, 641hp up from 627hp.
Engine about 2/3rds the capacity revving more than 3/2s faster.
They have moved away from compliant high-sidewalled tyres of 17" to thin, stiff 19" and 20" tyres. I wonder what the reasoning behind this is - modern damper technology now allowing for acceptable comfort at negligible tyre thicknesses? Can anyone familiar with contemporary dampers comment here?
Tyre widths similar but rears are slightly narrower - 295 compared to 315 on the original.
The chassis seems to have moved away from the concept of providing twisting resistance via the two central rails on either side of the driver. This allowed the F1 to have very low door sills for entry. Instead the rails on either side of the driver terminate forward of the knees to allow for easier entry to the driving seat, at the expense of higher door sills.
Very heavy curvature on the windscreen.
Brakes carbon-ceramic rather than steel on the original. Murray had wanted to use carbon on the F1 but the low-temperature performance was insufficient.
No evidence of side luggage panniers, and the diffuser starts well forward of the rear wheel. Wonder what the intention is here?
Flip-up airbrake for centre of pressure regulation under braking, same as original.
Unfortunately forced by regulation to adopt the cowardly ABS, traction control and airbag.
Regrettably bulbous wheel arches at the front, presumably mandated by regulation.
The T.50’s 3.9-litre engine is extremely small and light for a V12. According to the designer’s instruction, it is also very high-revving, redlining at 12,100rpm with a hard limit of 12,400rpm, and it produces slightly more power than the F1’s 6.1-litre V12 engine of 1993. Internal details are secret for the time being, but Murray did say “everything’s titanium”.
Everything's titanium? What does it mean?
Last edited by Morteza on 07 Jun 2019, 02:47, edited 1 time in total.
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare
Imagine if F1 went in this direction. Leave hybridization and electrification to road cars.
Regarding this car and Valkyrie's NA V12s: an aesthetic choice? If F1 had freer engine regs, I wonder if we'd see well developed NA engines return or if pressure charging would always be utilized.
I think F1 would stick with turbos if they had free choice between turbo and N/A engines. The turbo engine is more compact, lighter etc. than the N/A engine required to get the same power output.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Re lack of ESC etc, they only plan to make 100 and I think I'm correct in saying that the regulations on ESC etc being mandatory don't apply to low volume manufacture like that.
For a given displacement NA will always be more compact, and turbo will always have the higher potential power. For a given power, it requires working out a whole system's math because with a turbo you have not just a lot of extra heat load, but your block and internals have to deal with higher cylinder pressures meaning more weight. When they were working it out for the Valkyrie, for the target power, twice as many cylinders and NA worked out lighter, and more compact overall.
Heat exchangers and their attendant ductwork filled with fluid take up space and have significant mass.
So, no rules: it depends on your aero philosophy, and your need for peak power. F1 has almost always favoured developing your engine for max power, which allows you to expand your weight and downforce budget. So even if you have a little extra frontal area, and a touch more mass, if you have more power you're probably still going to be at an advantage.
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance
I think I'll still elect to pick up the Corvette C8 instead... It's an unbelievable amount of car for under $60k.
Entirely different proposition. The Corvette is aimed at USians that think live rear axles are kinda modern. Metal chassis? Really?
What will beat in performance to price ratio? Go on, I'll wait.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
I think F1 would stick with turbos if they had free choice between turbo and N/A engines. The turbo engine is more compact, lighter etc. than the N/A engine required to get the same power output.
That's a bit of a toss up. In the V10 era BMW got 1000 hp out of 85 kilos.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
Same could be said for a properly designed chassis of any material. CF supplies, process and tooling likely still cost prohibitive for the mass market versions. The report is a sort of good bad-press. "We gave it too much power." Humble bragging. Who knows if this is a real cause of delay.
