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

[FoxHound]

Well quoted. The tuff part of all that work you did to educate me is that you'r still wrong. They are capable of building a 250+ mph car that can also lap silverstone faster than a current spec F1 car. End of. Thanks for the links though.

I'm wrong that Andy Palmer said AM are going to build "the most luxurious car in its class, but also the quickest and the fastest" Hypercar?
I thought you said it wouldn't do 250Mph+ in the first place. Changed your tune have you?
And "they are capable" and "end of" sums your whole argument...BS.
Show me why. With facts and links. If you cannot do this, refrain from posting. This is a technical thread, not a "they are capable", "Adrian Newey is god", "end of" kinda place.

But in the end a fruitless task. You have no idea where AM is mapping its future and what part the 4 halo cars (VULCAN + 2 interm halo cars between the RB project).

I have shown you they are losing money at a rate of 100 million dollars a year. For a company that sells 3500 cars a year, that is harakiri time in some cultures.
Yet somehow, an expensive project like this which will lose the company money, is going to help the most critical problem of all...Aston Martins survival?
Because a 5 million investment does not explain a (pre tax)100 million dollar operational loss and 300 staffing redundancies.
Show me why. With links to prove.

This is an F1 technical forum - pretty sad that some people sit around naysaying companies that invest 100's of millions in projects like this - all because they lack the ability to solve the problems or see potential solutions.

Yes and in this forum, reality bites. Hot air PR does not equate to real time problem solving and potential solutions when your targets are...
The most luxurious car in its class, but also the quickest and the fastest that can lap Silverstone faster than an F1 car.

F1 1m:32.500
WEC 1m40.

WEC cars are 870Kg's with 820hp ERS included.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/f ... -revealed/

But critically....

On the engine front, various detail improvements to the 4.0-litre V6 diesel engine have seen power upped to 549bhp. But torque is the real figure of consequence here – and one which Audi isn’t disclosing.

Figures of "over 800nm " were bandied about 3 years ago.
http://www.joest-racing.de/en/index.php ... on-quattro

With improvements since then, we are approaching 900nm torque. In laymans terms you have around 1 hp per kg, and over 1nm torque per kg.
It also can "only" reach a top speed of 210Mph.

It's also a 1 seater.

It runs racing spec Michelin tyres that can only do an average 25 laps at Silverstone.
http://fiawec.alkamelsystems.com/Result ... ur%206.PDF

Given this is a racing car, which is 7.5 seconds down on an F1 car, can you not see why people are sceptical when even prototypes don't even come close to Andy Palmer's claims?
And if you look inside that Audi, are you going to tell me it's luxurious in there?

Man I could go on....but it just doesn't strike me as worth the effort anymore....if at any point.

[SR71]

Here are some things you should go on about....

Really cool insights about the LMP1 cars, nothing new, but thanks for sharing again.

How is that relevant to a car that will generate more downforce than an F1 car and have more power?

Astons operational losses were due to what? These were mostly 1 time hits and the company is recovering (clearly). Also, the financial argument is your pointless endevour to suggest this isnt possible (even though this program is active and funded - that seems to not matter to you). Since this program IS moving forward, that argument will fall on def ears.

I've done some rough calculations - an 800kg car with more power and 35% more downforce than an F1 car is = faster.

Active Aero isnt featured on LMP1 cars.... how much performance can be found here (more than it weighs for sure)

Active suspension is featured in neither category.... how much performance can be found here (more than it weighs for sure)

LMP1's are tragically underpowered. AM/RB will not be.... Did I mention the higher downforce numbers as well?

[Pierce89]

Here are some things you should go on about....

Really cool insights about the LMP1 cars, nothing new, but thanks for sharing again.



LMP1's are tragically underpowered. AM/RB will not be.... Did I mention the higher downforce numbers as well?

Lmp1s are tragically underpowered? Toyota and Porsche's both exploit ~1000hp. The Audi around 800 because of their comparatively limited hybrid elements.

[SR71]

Here are some things you should go on about....

Really cool insights about the LMP1 cars, nothing new, but thanks for sharing again.



LMP1's are tragically underpowered. AM/RB will not be.... Did I mention the higher downforce numbers as well?

Lmp1s are tragically underpowered? Toyota and Porsche's both exploit ~1000hp. The Audi around 800 because of their comparatively limited hybrid elements.

1000bhp in a car that looks like the 919 is just a disappointment. 1500 sounds nice though

[toraabe]

Interesting http://www.motorsport.com/indycar/news/ ... ke-682541/

[henry]

Would an extra pair of wheels help the tyre issues? 4 at the rear might help handle the power and weight.

[DiogoBrand]

There has been not a single shred of 'data' shown that demonstrates this project is impossible.

Are you saying that just showing data is all it takes? Is the relevancy of the data not important?

AM/RB are clearly doing something that hasnt been done before. But STILL nobody has provided any data that says it cannot be done. Why do I have to show data that it can be?

Your wishing a team to win a competition has nothing to do with a long term development program with clear engineering goals. I'm assuming that since you dont get that, nothing I said above makes sense.

I'm assuming you'd have some sort of data to prove it is possible since you're the one that's absolutely sure it's gonna work.
I never said it is possible or impossible, at least not with any certainty. To be defending your point so vigorously I assume you should have something to back that up besides hopes and dreams.

[SR71]

There has been not a single shred of 'data' shown that demonstrates this project is impossible.

Are you saying that just showing data is all it takes? Is the relevancy of the data not important?

AM/RB are clearly doing something that hasnt been done before. But STILL nobody has provided any data that says it cannot be done. Why do I have to show data that it can be?

Your wishing a team to win a competition has nothing to do with a long term development program with clear engineering goals. I'm assuming that since you dont get that, nothing I said above makes sense.

I'm assuming you'd have some sort of data to prove it is possible since you're the one that's absolutely sure it's gonna work.
I never said it is possible or impossible, at least not with any certainty. To be defending your point so vigorously I assume you should have something to back that up besides hopes and dreams.

No, I was clear that I was specifically stating I do not need to post data that proves the possibility of this program since nobody has posted data that proves the impossibility. If that's not clear enough please re-read the sentence before this.

Cheers.

[DiogoBrand]

There has been not a single shred of 'data' shown that demonstrates this project is impossible.

Are you saying that just showing data is all it takes? Is the relevancy of the data not important?

AM/RB are clearly doing something that hasnt been done before. But STILL nobody has provided any data that says it cannot be done. Why do I have to show data that it can be?

Your wishing a team to win a competition has nothing to do with a long term development program with clear engineering goals. I'm assuming that since you dont get that, nothing I said above makes sense.

I'm assuming you'd have some sort of data to prove it is possible since you're the one that's absolutely sure it's gonna work.
I never said it is possible or impossible, at least not with any certainty. To be defending your point so vigorously I assume you should have something to back that up besides hopes and dreams.

No, I was clear that I was specifically stating I do not need to post data that proves the possibility of this program since nobody has posted data that proves the impossibility. If that's not clear enough please re-read the sentence before this.

Cheers.

So unless proven otherwise I can say I can build at my garage a car capable of lapping silverstone in under a minute, simply because no one has proven it to be impossible?
Come on man, you're 100% sure that this project is doable, all I'm asking for are the numbers that back your belief.
And by saying "it's possible until proven impossible" you're just turning logic around to "prove" your point.

[DiogoBrand]

If you had any history in building performance cars - especially track focused weapons like the Vulcan, or you were a genius on the level of Adrian Newey, or you had the backing of red bull technologies and thier simulation equipment - I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you were all 3 of those things - I'd be very excited for 2018.

But you're not.

Your logic is backing forum members who use made up numbers to show how current cars cannot achieve these results.

Nobody knows the target weight of this vehicle. Don't you at least think we should have that number before slamming a project as impossible? That's logic.

We're talking about the next generation of hyper car. When you deal on those levels you don't waste time with failed engineers who cannot solve a problem that hasn't already been solved. You hire the guys and girls who can see over the horizon.

There lies my question to you:
Don't you at least think we should have that number before slamming a project as possible?

As I said before, I'm not taking sides here. I think this project is very unlikely to become true, but I'd also love to be proven wrong.
What I'm questioning about your position is that you act like this project is a done deal, when in fact it's nothing close to that, but yet you feel like you need to respond to every negative commentary, even when they show real data and all you have is your faith in Adrian Newey (who by the way, hasn't said anything about this project afaik).

I'd just like to see this thread become about data, facts and possibilities, like what weight they can achieve with road laws, what tyres will they use, and not people blindly standing up for it as if they have something to gain with the project. That way, no matter what the result will be, this will become a very interesting and informative thread, as opposed to a fanboy pointless argument which, I'm sorry to point out, is the only thing you're achieving right now.

[Just_a_fan]

One figure/fact that needs to be recognised: to make the claim of being F1-quick around a track, the new car will need to be approximately 30 seconds a lap quicker than the likes of the McLaren P1/Ferrari LaFerrari/Porsche 918 around Silverstone.

Look at Spa as another example. The P1 is about 50 seconds slower than F1. Even the Radical SR8LM is 30 seconds slower than F1 at Spa.

That shows the leap required over current top drawer performers. The SR8LM is basically a race car which just covers the things necessary for road legality. No way would one consider it a luxury hypercar.

I still doubt this thing will see the light of day; if it does get produced, I expect it to be effectively a "civilised" LMP car with silly amounts of power. Looking at the "hint" sketch certainly looks like an LMP shape without a big rear wing.

[djos]

Just reading up on the latest Koenigsegg, the One:1 has 1341hp and weighs just 1,341kg which is pretty dammed impressive imo!

I doubt very much Newey, with the resources of RBR & AM at his disposal, would struggle to get a similar 1:1 power ratio - when combined with his Aero wizzardry im sure he could make something pretty damned insane.

PS, the Regera, which is a hybrid, has 1,500hp and also pretty much a 1:1 Power to weight ratio.

[Phil]

I had done a rough calc on the high level requirements of this car in another discussion. To get F1 performance you need to match its:

• power to weight ratio: around 1 - 1.3
• downforce to weight ratio (in corners) between 1-2
• peak tyre friction: around 1.6

The killer is going to be the weight given Andy has stated it will be a 2 seater luxury car. If they can get it to 1200kg that already something unheard of in the modern luxury car market. At this point it will need around 1500hp and 2tons of downforce for which tyres are non existent. F1 tyres are already at their limits supporting 700kg + downforce.

These are good numbers Tim. Lets ignore the electric seats for a moment - if the aim was to build a car like it is claimed, or get extremely close to the claimed performance figures - what would be realistic figures?

I'm thinking around 1200kg too, at which the numbers look too difficult to achieve. What if they could make it lighter? Yes, it doesn't quite go with the luxury expectation, but I'm assuming no matter how incredible it sounds what they set out to achieve, they must have some faint idea of what is achievable.

One of the cars that has always greatly impressed me is the Nissan GT-R. What it is (or has been to me) is essentially a car that is just larger in pretty much all aspects: It's heavy, but to counter act that, the tires on that thing are huge too. It's one of the cars that personally has always amazed me in regards to acceleration and cornering ability, given its size and weight. Nothing extraordinary if you chew the numbers I'm sure, but actually trying to follow one of these things on track in a ~280bhp/tonne car half its weight is quite eye opening.

The aim is to be quicker at Silverstone, the price tag around 1 million USD. That however doesn't mean its cost will be that. From what it seems like, the biggest hurdle in achieving this, is downforce and tires that can cope with that. How close could a car get, assuming it's faster in acceleration, thus a higher speed, but slower in the corners? How much of downforce could you shed, at the expense of straight line performance?

Personally, I think the biggest issue in the claim is that it does not state what kind of F1 car. A modern one? 2004-6 era? Or something from the 90ties? Even if it's an older one, it's probably hard to achieve, but it would certainly give more insight in what we are expecting from the car that is supposed to beat it lap-time wise...

[Just_a_fan]

The only way to meet the requirement is to make it extremely light - no more than 1000kg all up and give it huge levels of downforce. Getting the power required to pull the downforce needed in a lightweight road engine, ie. doesn't require a full rebuild every 2000k km, is going to be tricky.

Once they have a 1000bhp, 1000kg car with 1500+kg of downforce, they just need tyres that will handle the stresses. Getting tyres to carry load is easy - the ones on my vehicle are rated at over a tonne each, but they're only rated to 130mph...getting a 200mph, 1000kg tyre is probably a bit tricky. I reckon Michelin could do it with their LMP experience.

Having said all of that, the one place that F1 cars make a lot of time is on the brakes. That's all down to high downforce and low mass. Replicating that will be fun.

[Just_a_fan]

Just reading up on the latest Koenigsegg, the One:1 has 1341hp and weighs just 1,341kg which is pretty dammed impressive imo!

And with all of that power, it's only about 5 seconds quicker around Spa than the McLaren P1.

So they just need to keep the power, reduce the mass by over 250kg, add about 1500kg of downforce at 180mph and they've cracked it.