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

[humble sabot]

New stuff:
http://www.astonmartin.com/en/live/news ... n-revealed

[Holm86]

Top gear has a good article too :
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-re ... n-valkyrie

[MadMatt]

I really like that car. Looks very futuristic, they are really pushing the envelope, as they say.

The key with these hypercars is to produce lot of downforce, but keep the car predictable. Pitch sensitive or ride-height sensitive devices are tricky to use on such cars, hence why you always chose diffusers, wings in non-ground effect situation, and so on.

If I could change 2 things, I would revise the front end. I don't really like the shape of the nose, I think it looks too simplistic compared to the rest of the car.



They should remove the 2 wing pillars, and go with a more aggressive nose, in my opinion.

Also I am not sure about the engine choice. I know N/A V12 because Aston Martin, but that is a non very effective way of producing power (these days). They didn't go the turbo/super-charging route, and good for them, they can argue their car is very "pure", and that is true, but I would personally have gone with a turbo-charged v6.

Anyway, great job Aston Martin and Red Bull, I have been following this car since the beginning, and it looks fantastic! =D>

[Holm86]

Also I am not sure about the engine choice. I know N/A V12 because Aston Martin, but that is a non very effective way of producing power (these days). They didn't go the turbo/super-charging route, and good for them, they can argue their car is very "pure", and that is true, but I would personally have gone with a turbo-charged v6.

Anyway, great job Aston Martin and Red Bull, I have been following this car since the beginning, and it looks fantastic! =D>

Read the link I've posted. They explain there is only 2 options, either a V12 or a turbocharged V6.
But the plan was to mount the engine directly to the chassis, and a V6 is not in natural balance, so would cause too many vibrations.
Really don't think they want this car to be efficient, and how can anyone be against a NA V12 reving to about 10.000 rpm??

[Just_a_fan]

The car that laps as quickly as an F1 car will be very different to the road version. Much more downforce etc. The road car won't be hitting the kind of pace required to do the Silverstone laptime required. All a bit of a marketing con, really.

Aston says there will be distinct race and roads versions of the Valkyrie, linked by their styling but with “big differences” in weight and aero downforce.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new- ... e-pictures

[humble sabot]

Efficiency can be indexed different ways. The car is overall a more efficient package if the power unit is more compact and lighter, which is much easier to accomplish if there doesn't have to be a subframe to isolate the passenger compartment from vibration, and if space doesn't have to be found for intercoolers. In one of the earlier interviews Newey said something like "it would have been a v10 but it wouldn't have been smooth enough". This article the quote from Newey is that they had narrowed it down to TTv6 or NAv12, and with some study they figured the 12 edged out the v6 in total mass, volume and cooling. No it's not the easiest way to reach the power figure, but it's definitely the most glorious, and with the greatest relative potential for compactness. Everything else being equal, more cooling equals more drag too, which makes the car less efficient yet again.

Though I do suspect they may still need to reevaluate their cooling scheme once the first engines are mounted in rolling chassis. Certainly happens enough in F1

[ME4ME]

Read the link I've posted. They explain there is only 2 options, either a V12 or a turbocharged V6.
But the plan was to mount the engine directly to the chassis, and a V6 is not in natural balance, so would cause too many vibrations.
Really don't think they want this car to be efficient, and how can anyone be against a NA V12 reving to about 10.000 rpm??

Efficiency can be indexed different ways. The car is overall a more efficient package if the power unit is more compact and lighter, which is much easier to accomplish if there doesn't have to be a subframe to isolate the passenger compartment from vibration, and if space doesn't have to be found for intercoolers. In one of the earlier interviews Newey said something like "it would have been a v10 but it wouldn't have been smooth enough". This article the quote from Newey is that they had narrowed it down to TTv6 or NAv12, and with some study they figured the 12 edged out the v6 in total mass, volume and cooling. No it's not the easiest way to reach the power figure, but it's definitely the most glorious, and with the greatest relative potential for compactness. Everything else being equal, more cooling equals more drag too, which makes the car less efficient yet again.

Though I do suspect they may still need to reevaluate their cooling scheme once the first engines are mounted in rolling chassis. Certainly happens enough in F1

I'm no engine expert but I was under the impression that a V10 is inherenty smoother than a V6. Also not sure why a V12 would be any smoother than a V6. Care to elaborate on this?

[humble sabot]

Why certainly. We're talking about four stroke engines here and the key thing to keep in mind is that that means each piston is at a different stage in the cycle at any given time. This necessarily implies that engines with multiples of 4 pistons are easier to balance. More pistons always helps too. Each stroke puts a different torque on the crankshaft and therefore the engine. With different parts of the engine putting different stresses on the crank, resonances can be setup, or cancelled by movements in the opposite direction. You can fiddle with firing order to help smoothness. And/or you can use a balance shaft keyed to the rotation of the crank. From what I understand, all v6s have balance shafts. With a 12 you can set the firing order to come pretty close to canceling any fundamental resonances. The higher the rpm the more likely you are to excite higher order resonances due to harmonics. Those are relatively easier to damp out but much harder to engineer out of existing in the first place.

[Cold Fussion]

I'm no engine expert but I was under the impression that a V10 is inherenty smoother than a V6. Also not sure why a V12 would be any smoother than a V6. Care to elaborate on this?

A V12 naturally has balanced primary and secondary forces where as V6s and V10s do not.

[roon]

Which means: in an I-6 or V12, there are an equal number of pistons rising and falling simultaneously, correct? In an I-3 or V6, this is impossible to achieve. Unless the three-cylinder bank(s) had two half-size pistons flanking a full-size piston, running like an I-4 & firing like a parallel twin. You'd get even masses rising and falling and even combustion loading. And no discernable benefit

[Cold Fussion]

Which means: in an I-6 or V12, there are an equal number of pistons rising and falling simultaneously, correct?

This isn't correct. In reciprocating piston engine the piston velocity profile from TDC to BDC is not the same same as the velocity profile from BDC to TDC; as a result two pistons moving opposite one another will not have balanced secondary forces. The engineering explained youtube channel has good videos showing the basics of engine balancing and examples of a few engine layouts.

[Holm86]

Which means: in an I-6 or V12, there are an equal number of pistons rising and falling simultaneously, correct?

This isn't correct. In reciprocating piston engine the piston velocity profile from TDC to TBC is not the same same as the velocity profile from TBC to TDC; as a result two pistons moving opposite one another will not have balanced secondary forces. The engineering explained youtube channel has good videos showing the basics of engine balancing and examples of a few engine layouts.

What is TBC, dont you mean BDC?
In an inline-6 the two outmost pistons is at the same position all the time, so is the next two, and the inner two.
So longitudinally, it's in balance. Same with a V12.
A V6 needs balanceshafts.

[Cold Fussion]

Which means: in an I-6 or V12, there are an equal number of pistons rising and falling simultaneously, correct?

This isn't correct. In reciprocating piston engine the piston velocity profile from TDC to TBC is not the same same as the velocity profile from TBC to TDC; as a result two pistons moving opposite one another will not have balanced secondary forces. The engineering explained youtube channel has good videos showing the basics of engine balancing and examples of a few engine layouts.

What is TBC, dont you mean BDC?
In an inline-6 the two outmost pistons is at the same position all the time, so is the next two, and the inner two.
So longitudinally, it's in balance. Same with a V12.
A V6 needs balanceshafts.

Yes sorry I meant BDC. That is true of the position but in an I6 you have 4 pistons moving in the same direction, but which pairs move in the same direction alternate.

[gandharva]

NSFW

[ME4ME]

Looks absolutely stunning!

Also, just had a weird idea: Let's make one of these the official F1 safety-car.