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

[Nickel]

Wow quite the pissing match.

There is no law of physics that says a street legal car can't be much faster than is currently the case. The personal attacks relating to this are terrible.

I've read through the whole damn thread and no one has put forward a single reason why it can't be done. Oh there's loads of reasons why it shouldn't be done, but those literally don't matter.

Those claiming that it's impossible should just remove themselves from the thread. It's patently false that it's impossible. Debating the likelihood that RB and AM will follow through is one thing, but labeling it impossible shows some interesting mental traits.

Diogo and foxhound, I know no one in this thread, or even on this site on a personal level, so take this as you will. As an outsider, it is your discourse that I find deplorable as you've decided what is possible and condemn dissent. Get a grip, you've provided no proof that it can't be done, other than that it has not yet been done.

Mods should shut this thread down. It could be a great discussion but frankly it's just a terrible display of bickering.

[flmkane]

Wow quite the pissing match.

There is no law of physics that says a street legal car can't be much faster than is currently the case. The personal attacks relating to this are terrible.

I've read through the whole damn thread and no one has put forward a single reason why it can't be done. Oh there's loads of reasons why it shouldn't be done, but those literally don't matter.

Oh yeah? Really? I'll give you a simple reason that I've given twice before, including this very page.

The aerodynamics of a high download car is incredibly sensitive. Road bumps cause flow detachment and loss of downforce. It's practically impossible to make a car that will achieve consistent F1 level downforce on real life road surfaces. There is a reason why f1 tracks are super smooth.

Banned f1 aero, such as active aero and ground effects are even more sensitive, especially ground effects with full blown venturi tunnels. A high downforce car would thus be fatally undrivable on a real road.

Also, due to high Gforces few drivers could physically withstand being inside the car. That applies especially to the fat oil shiekhs that would be the intended market.

All that assuming you make a street legal tyre that can provide the required grip, have a reasonably long life and work in different weather.

[SR71]

Fox I totally disagree, while current super cars have excellent aero, none is particularly extreme and there's a lot left they could be doing to utilise fully active aero.

Nonsense. And ignorance.

Extreme active aero results in a car that is ultra sensitive, with unpredictable variation in downforce, balance and grip.

The driver will be killed, unless he is an f1 driver or ex fighter pilot.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the car is already in development and ALREADY producing more downforce than any F1 car Red Bull has designed to date?

Are you saying they are straight up lying?

If not, then you have to come to terms there is a production car chassis, most likely a 2 seat'r, in simulation that produces more DF than an F1 car.

[flmkane]

Fox I totally disagree, while current super cars have excellent aero, none is particularly extreme and there's a lot left they could be doing to utilise fully active aero.

Nonsense. And ignorance.

Extreme active aero results in a car that is ultra sensitive, with unpredictable variation in downforce, balance and grip.

The driver will be killed, unless he is an f1 driver or ex fighter pilot.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the car in is already in development and is ALREADY producing more downforce than any F1 car Red Bull has designed to date?

Are you saying they are straight up lying?

If not, then you have to come to terms there is a production car chassis in simulation that produces more DF than an F1 car.

Yes I think they are lying. Not the first time Horner has spouted nonsense and misinformation.

[SR71]

Wow quite the pissing match.

There is no law of physics that says a street legal car can't be much faster than is currently the case. The personal attacks relating to this are terrible.

I've read through the whole damn thread and no one has put forward a single reason why it can't be done. Oh there's loads of reasons why it shouldn't be done, but those literally don't matter.

Oh yeah? Really? I'll give you a simple reason that I've given twice before, including this very page.

The aerodynamics of a high download car is incredibly sensitive. Road bumps cause flow detachment and loss of downforce. It's practically impossible to make a car that will achieve consistent F1 level downforce on real life road surfaces. There is a reason why f1 tracks are super smooth.

Banned f1 aero, such as active aero and ground effects are even more sensitive, especially ground effects with full blown venturi tunnels. A high downforce car would thus be fatally undrivable on a real road.

Also, due to high Gforces few drivers could physically withstand being inside the car. That applies especially to the fat oil shiekhs that would be the intended market.

All that assuming you make a street legal tyre that can provide the required grip, have a reasonably long life and work in different weather.

You realize you just gave exactly ZERO reasons. Why is that so hard to see?

1) all your "reasons" continue to reference road surfaces. We are in 2016, most people with a basic comprehension of hypercars will understand they all have track modes. If this is a completely new concept to you, you shouldnt be arguing in this thread and should be educating your self about track modes. Start with the Mclaren P1 to get a basic idea.

All of your reasons that justified road surfaces as the reason why something cannot be done have now just been removed from the argument.

2) You reference G Forces on the drivers. This is the most pointless excuse used on this thread so far. Reason count: still ZERO. (PS - the fact you dont consider the car could have autopilot means you're not with current technology trends)

3) Tires - this old argument? Track tires/ Street tires. It's nothing for companies like this to also have special tires developed for a special car. Happens all the time. Oh, did I mention separate tires for the track?

Lets recap, total reasons the project cannot be done: ZERO

[SR71]

Nonsense. And ignorance.

Extreme active aero results in a car that is ultra sensitive, with unpredictable variation in downforce, balance and grip.

The driver will be killed, unless he is an f1 driver or ex fighter pilot.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the car in is already in development and is ALREADY producing more downforce than any F1 car Red Bull has designed to date?

Are you saying they are straight up lying?

If not, then you have to come to terms there is a production car chassis in simulation that produces more DF than an F1 car.

Yes I think they are lying. Not the first time Horner has spouted nonsense and misinformation.

Fair enough, as I've said, this thread is filled more with Red Bull hate and jealousy then facts.

So you cannot provide a reaon this project is impossible and you're calling the project leaders liars. Why are you still here?

[flmkane]

Dear mods... I am so... So very sorry I ever replied to this thread.

Sr71 i don't think you have ever worked on a car with down force, let alone a car with downforce exceeding the cars weight. There are forum members who have.


There are also certain members who have worked in engineering racecar tyres.

A high proportion of the forum are engineers.

You have successfully made us all look silly, by turning f1t into 4chan

[SR71]

Dear mods... I am so... So very sorry I ever replied to this thread.

Sr71 i don't think you have ever worked on a car with down force, let alone a car with downforce exceeding the cars weight. There are forum members who have.


There are also certain members who have worked in engineering racecar tyres.

A high proportion of the forum are engineers.

You have successfully made us all look silly, by turning f1t into 4chan

So you're not going to respond to the fact that you provided a list with ZERO reasons as to the impossibility of this project?

Nice dodge mate! Keep ignoring that one.

[mrluke]

SR71

Please prove to me it is impossible that there is a workshop full of monkeys in Edinburgh about to release a car faster than f1.

[Nickel]

The aerodynamics of a high download car is incredibly sensitive. Road bumps cause flow detachment and loss of downforce. It's practically impossible to make a car that will achieve consistent F1 level downforce on real life road surfaces. There is a reason why f1 tracks are super smooth.

Why does it need to achieve this downforce on public roads? If the aero devices are actively controlled, they can have their effects drastically reduced on public roads. I don't know what RB/AM intend, but surely you will acknowledge that this is easily resolved and has nothing to do with lapping Silverstone.

Banned f1 aero, such as active aero and ground effects are even more sensitive, especially ground effects with full blown venturi tunnels. A high downforce car would thus be fatally undrivable on a real road.

Again, not relevant. It doesn't need to drive f1 speeds on public roads.

Also, due to high Gforces few drivers could physically withstand being inside the car.

Who said that just anyone would be able to drive the car on the limit? There are pictures of smashed HyperCars all over the Internet. Please explain why this will be any different?

All that assuming you make a street legal tyre that can provide the required grip, have a reasonably long life and work in different weather.

Yes of course.

Question: with active aero how much of the downforce generating surfaces would you say can be detuned when on public roads? Reduced aoa of wings, raising and lowering skirts for the GE floor, what else could be done? Legitimate question.

Just in ride height alone it would seem fairly simple to have a track mode which lowers the car significantly to achieve greater DF...

All this is heavy mind you I agree, but let's discuss what's possible.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't know what RB/AM intend, but surely you will acknowledge that this is easily resolved and has nothing to do with lapping Silverstone.

They're going to build a limited number of track-only examples and the rest of the production will be road cars. It's obvious that the track version will be the super-downforce version with tyres suitable for the task. The road version will almost certainly be a "watered down" version with less extreme downforce. This is a sensible approach although it is a little disingenuous to claim that "the car will lap Silverstone in an F1-rivalling time".

It's also disingenuous to claim that the car is making more downforce than any car RedBull have previously made. An F1 car needs a certain level of downforce in relation to its mass to get its cornering performance. A heavier car will need commensurately more downforce to get the same performance. What we really need to know is the new car's downforce/weight ratio compared to the F1 car's ratio. If they do make a "track special" then they can get the weight down by removing such things as air bags, radios and air conditioning. Look at McLaren's F1 for an example of how much effort is needed to get a road car to be lightweight. With even more "stuff" on modern cars weight will be difficult to manage.

It's an interesting project, no doubt, but I fear it will not tick all of the boxes that some in here expect.

[Tim.Wright]

They're going to build a limited number of track-only examples and the rest of the production will be road cars.

Has this been confirmed anywhere? It's the first I've read of it.

[No Lotus]

They're going to build a limited number of track-only examples and the rest of the production will be road cars.

Has this been confirmed anywhere? It's the first I've read of it.

"There will be two variants of the AM-RB 001, one road legal and the other an extreme, stripped-down track version that will chase that headline-grabbing, F1-bettering lap time." - Autocar, April 20.

I think Newey's statement that when beginning this project he first referred back to his 1980 dissertation on ground effect in a road-going car is quite important. We're likely to see full skirts.

[FoxHound]

Inevitable the goal posts would be moved.

[SR71]

I don't know what RB/AM intend, but surely you will acknowledge that this is easily resolved and has nothing to do with lapping Silverstone.

They're going to build a limited number of track-only examples and the rest of the production will be road cars. It's obvious that the track version will be the super-downforce version with tyres suitable for the task. The road version will almost certainly be a "watered down" version with less extreme downforce. This is a sensible approach although it is a little disingenuous to claim that "the car will lap Silverstone in an F1-rivalling time".

It's also disingenuous to claim that the car is making more downforce than any car RedBull have previously made. An F1 car needs a certain level of downforce in relation to its mass to get its cornering performance. A heavier car will need commensurately more downforce to get the same performance. What we really need to know is the new car's downforce/weight ratio compared to the F1 car's ratio. If they do make a "track special" then they can get the weight down by removing such things as air bags, radios and air conditioning. Look at McLaren's F1 for an example of how much effort is needed to get a road car to be lightweight. With even more "stuff" on modern cars weight will be difficult to manage.

It's an interesting project, no doubt, but I fear it will not tick all of the boxes that some in here expect.

It would be 'disingenous' except for the fact that it came directly from Christian Horner, one of the few people on the planet that could confirm this.

Those were his words, not mine, so nobody is claiming anything. I realize total DF and its effect on performance is relative to the mass of the car - but we can assume with the track time goal set by the project that the car will be in the ball park total weight of an F1 car - perhaps +200kg. If we already have more DF (according to RB) than a RB F1 car, then this car is on the right track.

If it laps faster than an F1 car around silverstone it will have ticked the only box that matters.

And to all the naysayers - even if a stripped down version is the one that sets the record - you will still all be wrong. F1 cars are archaic at best when it comes to what's possible. It's the "formula" that keeps them archaic. AM/RB arent bound to that formula.