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

[flmkane]

Newey is the designer, you cannot discuss this car without discussing him. It's his philosophy, his concept, its not fanatical devotion to discuss him in context of the car he designed. You're a smart guy though as we already deduced, so you know that.

One can discuss the car without mentioning Newey once. One can certainly discuss the car without constantly saying "Newey's a genius" or similar.

Try it. Try to discuss the car without mentioning the designer. Go on, try it.

Answer my question, what are the chances Newey got it wrong? Go on, answer it...

Ahem... MP4-21



MP4-19


MP4-18



FW16

[DiogoBrand]

You could mention it.... does it have a point? No.

But lets get some stakes in the ground, when it comes to the underbody and COG of the AM/RB-001, Newey has no idea and you know what he should do to correct it, confirm or deny.

The point is that Newey designed the Mp4-18 and it was a total lemon. It's a reminder that the man is very good but he isn't infallible.

I'm making no comment about the CoG of the car, merely your fanatical devotion to Newey. It's sycophantic to the point of inducing vomit from those us having to read it every other post. Other forum members have already made this point to you. We're not being nasty, we're trying to keep this excellent thread on topic.

How about you try to analyse the car technically? Try to figure out what we're not seeing and how it might be designed? Just saying "Newey knows what he's doing and you lot don't" isn't moving our understanding forward.

Red Bull have whats considered the best simulation tools available, surely you know this.

Given that you're a smart guy and know a simple fact like that you could easily deduce that when I say "what are the chances Newey got it wrong" you know that I mean Newey (he is the aero designer) would have ran many permutations through simulation to arrive at the final. This context is quite easy to arrive at, you're a smart guy so of course I dont have to point that out.

Given that you're a bright guy you also know that people with as much talent as Newey have rarely make the same mistake twice and therefore bringing up prototype race car from over 10 years ago prior to the simulation software available today is pretty irrelevant.

Newey is the designer, you cannot discuss this car without discussing him. It's his philosophy, his concept, its not fanatical devotion to discuss him in context of the car he designed. You're a smart guy though as we already deduced, so you know that.

Dude, no one is stating that Newey is wrong. This is a technical forum, and when something looks unusual, it's only natural that we'll want to know why it is the way it is. If it's the best solution or not, it's irrelevant, we want to know how and why it works (or doesn't) anyway.
I've pointed this out before, but you should know that the argument of authority is a fallacy, which means it's irrelevant in any intelligent discussion. If Newey has achieved what he has, it definitely wasn't by saying "this car will work because I'm Adrian Newey and I designed it".
I've said this before: I really don't get your fanatism to Newey and to this project, you defend everything related to both and attack, sometimes personally, anyone that questions it, even though you a lot of times have no basis to do so. This just ruins the discussion and keeps everyone (especially yourself) from getting the precious knowledge we can get from a project as great as this one.
Please man, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and for the sake of engineering, keep to the relevant stuff. Please!

[DiogoBrand]

http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/a ... k=5ptOcBtb

I would assume that in track mode those skirts will be pretty much touching the ground, that way the CoG will be very low and it will generate "many downforces", pretty much a mix between the early 80's skirts and early 90's active suspension.
I really wouldn't think they'd run the car like this on track mode.

The problem is that the lower the aero elements (such as wheel skirts) get to the road, the less suspension travel you can have and the stiffer the ride. That sacrifices ride and mechanical grip. When you get really close to the ground with the aero elements, the car gets really sensitive to ride height and pitch changes.

As Colin Chapman showed us 35 years ago, the way forward is to separate the ground effect generating underbody from the main sprung mass of the car. When you do that the underbody can be truly optimized. You also have the significant advantage that the high DF load bypasses the car's primary suspension. With my retractable movable underbody system there is also no change in suspension geometry going between low ride height track mode and normal ride height street mode.

I really have no extensive knowledge about the FW14b active suspension, but isn't it able to provide all the benefits of a stiff suspension, mainly stable downforce at low heights, without the unstable ride that usually comes with a stiff ride?

[turbof1]

Can we please stop talking about Newey? Even though he must desperately long for GPTechnical's approval, we aren't going to give that up as long as mister Newey does not field a championship winning car for us. No money, no honey!

[flmkane]

Can we please stop talking about Newey? Even though he must desperately long for GPTechnical's approval, we aren't going to give that up as long as mister Newey does not field a championship winning car for us. No money, no honey!

I wish I could buy you a beer.

[DiogoBrand]

Cool racecars bro...

we're talking about production cars though.

Are you expecting to see a road-going design from Newey that went wrong?
Pretty difficult since he never did any.
Just shows how strong your point is.

[SR71]

Cool racecars bro...

we're talking about production cars though.

Are you expecting to see a road-going design from Newey that went wrong?
Pretty difficult since he never did any.
Just shows how strong your point is.

Diogo underestimating the differences between F1 development and production car development, not surprising.

Here is how strong my point is (hint, same company, 1 is a legend, 1 is a joke):

[DiogoBrand]

Cool racecars bro...

we're talking about production cars though.

Are you expecting to see a road-going design from Newey that went wrong?
Pretty difficult since he never did any.
Just shows how strong your point is.

Diogo underestimating the differences between F1 development and production car development, not surprising.

Here is how strong my point is (hint, same company, 1 is a legend, 1 is a joke):

https://postimg.org/image/io1x6mdj5/

But if Newey is infallible as you're trying to point, he should be able to cope with the challenges of F1 at all times, shouldn't he?

[turbof1]

I am giving you guys the choice: either a formal warning and a lock on the topic, or you 2 quit this nonsense right after this very post. Your call.

[henry]

Here are the 2 main aero wings or features as i see it...

The entire car is essentially an upside down wing from tip to tail (red line). This is complimented by the Mid size blue wing.

The front and rear spoilers/diffusers will probably be active as @Just A Fan has suggested. These will constantly be augmented to make sure the Red and Blue lines are being as effective as possible at given speed/performance window.

https://postimg.org/image/wdz5zyx5t/


EDIT:

After looking at some more photos I see a double diffuser, the white line traces this as well as the leading edge of the floor.

Overall still following the RED line as i see it...

https://postimg.org/image/raiphxlz5/


EDIT 2

Not sure if this helps but I tried placing the lines in perspective...

https://postimg.org/image/8goszif93/

Why would there be a double diffuser? The double diffuser only came into existence to circumvent the regulations. This car is intended to demonstrate what is possible in a regulation free environment. So what is it circumventing?

[Just_a_fan]

I really have no extensive knowledge about the FW14b active suspension, but isn't it able to provide all the benefits of a stiff suspension, mainly stable downforce at low heights, without the unstable ride that usually comes with a stiff ride?

I think the basic idea was that the suspension maintained the car's ride height and pitch/roll so that the downforce was consistent. It sacrificed the driver's comfort for this - I seem to remember reading that the ride was bone shaker firm.

One side effect of the system was that the driver lost the natural speed-related feedback of roll and pitch. I read somewhere that Patrese struggled with the lack of feedback. Apparently when the driver turned in to the corner there was no obvious initial response. The driver had to trust that the car would turn in. Mansell just accepted that the car would turn where Patrese was always slightly hesitant/mistrusting. Certainly, Mansell's "chuck it in hard and sort it out later" style seemed to suit the car more than Patrese's.

There is (was?) a forum member with extensive knowledge of (I think) Lotus's active suspension system. Hopefully he will pop up and be able to give some insight.

[No Lotus]

http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/a ... k=5ptOcBtb

I would assume that in track mode those skirts will be pretty much touching the ground, that way the CoG will be very low and it will generate "many downforces", pretty much a mix between the early 80's skirts and early 90's active suspension.
I really wouldn't think they'd run the car like this on track mode.

The problem is that the lower the aero elements (such as wheel skirts) get to the road, the less suspension travel you can have and the stiffer the ride. That sacrifices ride and mechanical grip. When you get really close to the ground with the aero elements, the car gets really sensitive to ride height and pitch changes.

As Colin Chapman showed us 35 years ago, the way forward is to separate the ground effect generating underbody from the main sprung mass of the car. When you do that the underbody can be truly optimized. You also have the significant advantage that the high DF load bypasses the car's primary suspension. With my retractable movable underbody system there is also no change in suspension geometry going between low ride height track mode and normal ride height street mode.

I really have no extensive knowledge about the FW14b active suspension, but isn't it able to provide all the benefits of a stiff suspension, mainly stable downforce at low heights, without the unstable ride that usually comes with a stiff ride?

No, the problem has to do with the fact that the underbody has to be able to move independently to closely follow the road - at least if you want your underbody aero truly optimized. The main sprung mass of the car, whether it's actively or passively sprung, needs to move less harshly for ride and in order to distribute load to the contact patches evenly.

Consider the extreme example of Newey's X2014 that has a large suction surface covering much of the undersurface. In order to maintain suction, that surface must necessarily follow the changing undulations of the road very closely - not only for the skirts, but to maintain a fixed volume of air within the enclosed space. That car can tolerate essentially no suspension movement at all. In order to optimize the underbody aero, you need to have the underbody move with the wheels (not the main sprung mass) in order to follow the road.

[djos]

I am giving you guys the choice: either a formal warning and a lock on the topic, or you 2 quit this nonsense right after this very post. Your call.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRaHLgBKVqA

Thanks turbo, the Wang waving at ten paces was getting really tiresome!

[Just_a_fan]

EDIT:

After looking at some more photos I see a double diffuser, the white line traces this as well as the leading edge of the floor.

Overall still following the RED line as i see it...

https://postimg.org/image/raiphxlz5/

Your white line is what I basically described several posts before...

Your red line is a bit of a red herring, I fear. If you had an aero body like that the centre of pressure would be massively in front of the centre of mass and the car would be totally undriveable, especially with the blue one in front. You need to balance the downforce distribution to be consistent with the mass distribution, with the centre of pressure to the rear of the mass. That what gives stability at speed. Think of a dart - centre of mass at the front, centre of pressure at the rear.

Most likely is your blue line (but smaller, obviously) and your white line. This would give a distribution of downforce consistent with the major masses. By placing the throat of the diffuser somewhat rear of centrally in the wheelbase, it will be close to the big mass that is the engine/transmission group.

Look at the 001 and compare it to the pressure plot:

I think the front wing will not be as effective as in the plot, not will the rear diffuser. I think the central blue portion will be much bigger on the 001 with the rear end balancing it to ensure correct distribution.

Certainly, there is nothing much forward of the car's waist, other than the front diffuser/wing, that will generate downforce in meaningfully large amounts. So far as we have seen, anyway. Having a flat portion of floor near the waist, driven by the diffusers, would seem to be the obvious solution from the images available.

[DiogoBrand]

I really have no extensive knowledge about the FW14b active suspension, but isn't it able to provide all the benefits of a stiff suspension, mainly stable downforce at low heights, without the unstable ride that usually comes with a stiff ride?

No, the problem has to do with the fact that the underbody has to be able to move independently to closely follow the road - at least if you want your underbody aero truly optimized. The main sprung mass of the car, whether it's actively or passively sprung, needs to move less harshly for ride and in order to distribute load to the contact patches evenly.

Consider the extreme example of Newey's X2014 that has a large suction surface covering much of the undersurface. In order to maintain suction, that surface must necessarily follow the changing undulations of the road very closely - not only for the skirts, but to maintain a fixed volume of air within the enclosed space. That car can tolerate essentially no suspension movement at all. In order to optimize the underbody aero, you need to have the underbody move with the wheels (not the main sprung mass) in order to follow the road.[/quote]

So basically the ideal solution is the one from the Lotus T88, where the mass can be transferred from side to side, but the aero stays "flat" and moves with the road?

In your POV, on what way would RB's concept be able to work (if at all)? From the pictures shown the CoG and underbody seem too high to generate efficient and stable downforce.