Aston Martin wants hyper-car to be faster than F1 cars

[FW17]

I don't think it is too difficult. The lancia group b rally car was fast enough to be on the grid.

Faster than f1 would be in selective circuits like a Hungary, Monaco, Estoril with short straights and lot of twisty bits where you can slide the car around and have a engine with some unheard of acceleration figures for between 60 and 250 kph.

But if the aim is also to beat the Bugatti top speed then it becomes more difficult

[DiogoBrand]

I don't think it is too difficult. The lancia group b rally car was fast enough to be on the grid.

Faster than f1 would be in selective circuits like a Hungary, Monaco, Estoril with short straights and lot of twisty bits where you can slide the car around and have a engine with some unheard of acceleration figures for between 60 and 250 kph.

But if the aim is also to beat the Bugatti top speed then it becomes more difficult

I don't think they'd bother with top speed when they're already climbing such a high mountain.

To me this car is definitely not gonna achieve what they want in road legal fashion. It has to have track special tyres and a track special mode like the P1, which isn't legal when it's suspension is in full race mode.
With road legal tyres, even if they're semislicks, I really doubt they can go into F1 territory.

[Tim.Wright]

many of you faced the problem of corner speed but I have not read much about braking...
how do you think >5g braking capabilities can be achieved?

Carbon fibre brakes plus full active aero.

Brake material has very little to do with braking acceleration. Carbon brakes are all about weight saving. Your braking performance is defined by tyre grip downforce & drag.

Once you reach the required 3-4g in cornering you will already be at around the required level in braking. You normally get more longitudinal grip than lateral grip for various reasons. In addition an active aero solution could supply the >1G in braking that comes from drag at high speed. So you only need around 3-4g from the tyres.

While adding extra tyres would solve a lot of the problems it's also going to add too much weight. Consider that the unsprung mass of an "axle" (2 wheels + suspension) is in the order of 80-100kg per axle - it's a bit of a show stopper.

The only viable path I see to get the performance would be LMP1 tyres and a <1000kg car. At this point its no longer street legal or a luxury car but it's already pretty clear that there is going to be some sort of cop-out if they want to reach F1 performance.

[J.A.W.]

Brake material has very little to do with braking acceleration. Carbon brakes are all about weight saving. Your braking performance is defined by tyre grip downforce & drag.

Once you reach the required 3-4g in cornering you will already be at around the required level in braking. You normally get more longitudinal grip than lateral grip for various reasons. In addition an active aero solution could supply the >1G in braking that comes from drag at high speed. So you only need around 3-4g from the tyres.

While adding extra tyres would solve a lot of the problems it's also going to add too much weight. Consider that the unsprung mass of an "axle" (2 wheels + suspension) is in the order of 80-100kg per axle - it's a bit of a show stopper.

The only viable path I see to get the performance would be LMP1 tyres and a <1000kg car. At this point its no longer street legal or a luxury car but it's already pretty clear that there is going to be some sort of cop-out if they want to reach F1 performance.

AFAIR, the original McLaren F1 road car was designed to not exceed a tonne. luxury ,or no..

As for carbon brakes, naturally the weight of vehicle/stopping requirements comes into play..
..since even G.P. bikes weighing 130 Kg (plus rider) used them for their non-fade performance..

I have to agree, though, the seemingly fanciful notion of a practicable road-legal car lapping quicker than an F1..
..Q - pole time-wise, around any given track.. including corners.. not just straight lining/top end - is simply implausible..

Check the current modified production sports car class.. even stripped down, lowered, & with non-road legal
aero add- ons/noise-levels/emissions concessions, they barely match the current (limited) Moto GP bike lap times,
let alone 'bout any F1 lap times since downforce became S.O.P.. ..as the Aussie truism relates.. "Tell 'em.. they're dreamin!"

[VARIANT | one]

many of you faced the problem of corner speed but I have not read much about braking...
how do you think >5g braking capabilities can be achieved?

Carbon fibre brakes plus full active aero.

Brake material has very little to do with braking acceleration. Carbon brakes are all about weight saving. Your braking performance is defined by tyre grip downforce & drag.

Once you reach the required 3-4g in cornering you will already be at around the required level in braking. You normally get more longitudinal grip than lateral grip for various reasons. In addition an active aero solution could supply the >1G in braking that comes from drag at high speed. So you only need around 3-4g from the tyres.

While adding extra tyres would solve a lot of the problems it's also going to add too much weight. Consider that the unsprung mass of an "axle" (2 wheels + suspension) is in the order of 80-100kg per axle - it's a bit of a show stopper.

The only viable path I see to get the performance would be LMP1 tyres and a <1000kg car. At this point its no longer street legal or a luxury car but it's already pretty clear that there is going to be some sort of cop-out if they want to reach F1 performance.

Oh, it's never going to be a luxury car. I don't know why anyone would start with that logic. You could go to La Ferrari levels of livability and not much more, otherwise you're chucking too much weight in there, IMHO. Also, I'd imagine you'd go single seater for this experiment.

The wheels thing could work: Adding weight, yes, but you're doubling the loading potential and hardly doubling the mass of the car. If we can go with race tires to begin with though, yeah, probably not necessary.

Digging about race car history, the AAR-Toyota Eagle Mk.III probably had the most loaded tires (though I don't have the time to crunch the top speed math right now) in its high downforce setting in 1993 as the regs brought a heavy-ish car up to 914 kg. Toss in driver, fuel and the numbers had to be pretty high, certainly more than a mid 2000s F1. It was hardly overloading its tires. In fact, it was obliterating the competition. I don't think F1 is the peak of how loaded a tire can be.

[VARIANT | one]

But if the aim is also to beat the Bugatti top speed then it becomes more difficult

With the same car? Yeah. Building a street legal car to beat the Veyron SS record? That would be relatively easy and could be done with a lot less horsepower.

[djos]

is simply implausible..

Most here seem to think it's impossible, personally I think my signature written by the late great Douglas Adams covers it nicely.

[J.A.W.]

is simply implausible..

Most here seem to think it's impossible, personally I think my signature written by the late great Douglas Adams covers it nicely.

Well.. if by "integrity" you mean.. overweening ambition/arrogance - beyond the threshold of self-delusion.. then, sure..

[Cold Fussion]

If Douglas Adams was an engineer and not someone who wrote about singing dolphins then that quote might carry some weight.

[flmkane]

is simply implausible..

Most here seem to think it's impossible, personally I think my signature written by the late great Douglas Adams covers it nicely.

Now thats a thought... Whales and daffodils popping up around the improbable Red Bull Aston

[Tim.Wright]

Oh, it's never going to be a luxury car. I don't know why anyone would start with that logic.

Well, Aston have, for a start...

[DiogoBrand]

Oh, it's never going to be a luxury car. I don't know why anyone would start with that logic.

Well, Aston have, for a start...

Where does it say they want it to be a luxury car?
If they really said that, then I say we completely ignore this "project", because it would make clear that it's just gibberish.

[FoxHound]

Oh, it's never going to be a luxury car. I don't know why anyone would start with that logic.

Well, Aston have, for a start...

Where does it say they want it to be a luxury car?
If they really said that, then I say we completely ignore this "project", because it would make clear that it's just gibberish.

From Aston Martins' CEO, Andy Palmer...

“This is a no excuses halo car – the most luxurious car in its class, but also the quickest and the fastest.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/aston-mart ... 1-road-car

[VARIANT | one]

From Aston Martins' CEO, Andy Palmer...

“This is a no excuses halo car – the most luxurious car in its class, but also the quickest and the fastest.

Welp, no more clean living for me as an industrial designer, obviously I should switch up to smoking unfathomable amounts of pot and move up to CEO pay. Should I be ripped out of my gourd when I enter Britain to ensure my resume makes it to the right people?

[Tim.Wright]

Interestingly Aston's press release doesn't contain the faster than F1 quote.

I think what's happened is Andy got a bit over enthusiastic in an interview and made that claim off the cuff and of his own accord. Now the quote's grown legs of its own and become the main theme of the car which I don't really think was the plan.

Lets just see how this develops.