I agree, Newey has form, if he thinks he can do this then I reckon he's thought it through and can at least get danged close to his goals.SR71 wrote:Not ONE person has put up a single piece of data to suggest this is an impossible concept.DiogoBrand wrote:SR71
Seriously man, it's not even funny anymore.
Why the hell do you have to reply to every post in an attempt to "prove" that they will achieve what they're saying?
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't showed anything that proves you work for either RB or AM, or any car maker for that matter. There's people showing tons of data to argument that this is an impossible concept, and yet you defend Red Bull's claims with your life.
I'm not saying it is possible or not to make a road car faster than F1, but unless you show some data to prove once and for all that this concept will definitely be achieved, by defending your point so 'violently', you're just looking childish and annoying.
Horner has said their development is already showing more DF than any race spec F1 car RB has ever produced. You're saying every naysayer in here is correct and AN is wrong? Talk about looking childish.
'violently' - LOL i think we have a new definition of hyperbole
False arguments? Did you miss this?SR71 wrote: Foxhound, can you show me where RB/AM has said this car will go 250+ mph?
Please, just 1 link to help me understand your point.
If you're having a hard time providing this link to back up your false argument, the reason might be"
"I am sure there are other cars that can go in straight lines quicker than this. " -Andy Palmer
Funny, when you're using false arguments to back your position, "no it doesnt" is all thats needed. Simple isnt it?
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/aston-mart ... 1-road-car“This is a no excuses halo car – the most luxurious car in its class, but also the quickest and the fastest.
"No it doesn't" will not suffice, geezer.Talk to Aston Martin personnel privately, though, and they say they are gunning for the fastest car, period — potentially encompassing both 0 to 60 and overall top speed. They’re even entertaining the idea of outdoing the new Bugatti Chiron, which will be electronically limited to 261 mph on the street.
I got sauce.SR71 wrote:You also assume that with a limited production run of 99 cars, they intend to make massive profits. Do you have a source to base this assumption on? If a loss on 99 cars propels AM's image forward those things can be deemed worth it. Just as Bugatti (your example).
I'm not telling you it's impossible. I'm telling you this is expensive, and can bury Aston Martin.SR71 wrote:One more thing. You're all effectively saying that no road car will ever be able to lap silverstone under 1:31. Is that really the side of history you want to be on? It's not an intelligent one if you use history as perspective.
You're the people telling the Wrights they were chasing an impossible dream. I identify myself more with the Wrights I guess, that's just me though.
Exactly, dont try to convince this crowd though. they know everything.Seattle wrote:I'm very skeptical of this lap time goal. But could both sides at least agree that if this car does attempt an F1 rivaling lap at Silverstone, it would not be doing so on street legal tires?
Well... We know physics.SR71 wrote:Exactly, dont try to convince this crowd though. they know everything.Seattle wrote:I'm very skeptical of this lap time goal. But could both sides at least agree that if this car does attempt an F1 rivaling lap at Silverstone, it would not be doing so on street legal tires?
Sorry but if Newey takes this to car the extreme with full active aero and suspension plus they do the run on proper racing slicks there is no reason he can't meet his goals.flmkane wrote:Well... We know physics.SR71 wrote:Exactly, dont try to convince this crowd though. they know everything.Seattle wrote:I'm very skeptical of this lap time goal. But could both sides at least agree that if this car does attempt an F1 rivaling lap at Silverstone, it would not be doing so on street legal tires?
Some us have built racecars in real life. Some of us have engineering degrees and a select few have actually worked in tyre companies and pro race teams.
So yeah... We definitely know physics
Hah.djos wrote:Sorry but if Newey takes this to car the extreme with full active aero and suspension plus they do the run on proper racing slicks there is no reason he can't meet his goals.flmkane wrote:Well... We know physics.SR71 wrote:
Exactly, dont try to convince this crowd though. they know everything.
Some us have built racecars in real life. Some of us have engineering degrees and a select few have actually worked in tyre companies and pro race teams.
So yeah... We definitely know physics
Those who underestimate Newey do so at their own risk.
If i'm wrong i'm wrong, however Newey's history in F1 has more credibility than anonymous naysayers on the internet.flmkane wrote: Hah.
Full active aero meaning moving wings and diffuser? Sure you can do that safely, but the changing grip levels can wreak havoc with the driver's car control reflexes. You need an f1 driver for that car.
A fan would be deadly on a real road. Bird hits are bad enough for an aircraft jet engine. What happens when the fan socks in pebbles? Furthermore, there will be deadly debris being blown out behind the car.
Excessive ground effect downforce will cause changing grip levels depending on surface conditions. It'd bad enough on racetracks, on a real road you would kill the driver if he loses downforce mid corner (Senna).
Tyres would need to be container truck tyres to handle download, bumps and power delivery without exploding. But those tyres would not have high grip at all.
This aint happening. It's possible if you put all of Ford or Toyota behind the project, with government test facilities and taxpayer money. Not with Newey and Aston Martin
djos wrote:If i'm wrong i'm wrong, however Newey's history in F1 has more credibility than anonymous naysayers on the internet.flmkane wrote: Hah.
Full active aero meaning moving wings and diffuser? Sure you can do that safely, but the changing grip levels can wreak havoc with the driver's car control reflexes. You need an f1 driver for that car.
A fan would be deadly on a real road. Bird hits are bad enough for an aircraft jet engine. What happens when the fan socks in pebbles? Furthermore, there will be deadly debris being blown out behind the car.
Excessive ground effect downforce will cause changing grip levels depending on surface conditions. It'd bad enough on racetracks, on a real road you would kill the driver if he loses downforce mid corner (Senna).
Tyres would need to be container truck tyres to handle download, bumps and power delivery without exploding. But those tyres would not have high grip at all.
This aint happening. It's possible if you put all of Ford or Toyota behind the project, with government test facilities and taxpayer money. Not with Newey and Aston Martin
The fact of the matter is: all of these 'naysayers' have shown data to back their claims up. Data which you choose to ignore and replace with your blind belief funded in god-knows-what. Even if that concept is possible, the least I expect is that someone defending it so firmly as you are would at least show the data to prove it is possible. If we are gonna argue based on belief, then I can say I believe McLaren will win the constructors' championship this year simply because I believe so.SR71 wrote:Not ONE person has put up a single piece of data to suggest this is an impossible concept.DiogoBrand wrote:SR71
Seriously man, it's not even funny anymore.
Why the hell do you have to reply to every post in an attempt to "prove" that they will achieve what they're saying?
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't showed anything that proves you work for either RB or AM, or any car maker for that matter. There's people showing tons of data to argument that this is an impossible concept, and yet you defend Red Bull's claims with your life.
I'm not saying it is possible or not to make a road car faster than F1, but unless you show some data to prove once and for all that this concept will definitely be achieved, by defending your point so 'violently', you're just looking childish and annoying.
Horner has said their development is already showing more DF than any race spec F1 car RB has ever produced. You're saying every naysayer in here is correct and AN is wrong? Talk about looking childish.
'violently' - LOL i think we have a new definition of hyperbole