Vehicle Development Project - Interests

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Schumi Il Maestro
Schumi Il Maestro
0
Joined: 07 Mar 2007, 20:00
Location: Formeleinsland

Post

checkered wrote:Damn, y'all,

you don't know what you're putting me through with all these proposed projects. Last night I actually woke up - like 2.30 am, or something - all confused and tired after having dreamt quite vividly (bordering on nightmarish) of tangential equations, CAD surface meshing, the most advantageous placing of a gurney flap, single form airfoil drag-to-downforce parameters and the basic structural geometry and longitudinal sections of an LMP2 canopy. In other words, some rather unconscious part of my mind began working the stuff without my explicit permission.

Sheesh.




:lol:
Welcome to the Club.Not qualified enough to say that,but what the heck-Here's to a hyperactive brain!! :P

:wink:
Schumi-Sic transit gloria mundi.

Adieu,Michael.You are 'for ever'.

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

What motor should we use? This will define our firewall to some extent.
My preference is to keep that rather open, while using direct fully stressed mounting for stiffness. That doesn't say much, let's get some propositions.

What do you guys think of using a mazda r20b with bespoke end housing to fit the Judd 4.0L pattern? Using f1-style pegs from the firewall.
I took a rather superficial look

on what kind of engines different manufacturers have on offer for the LMP2 class. I'm a big fan of rotary engines, but that approach would presently mean some "development work" of our own since it seems Mazda has developed a straight four cyl. 2 litre turbocharged one for 2007 (MZR-R). But why not.

Other candidates (for further research):

1- Acura has its own LMP2 spec engine. Doesn't seem likely it will be very available, though, as they're just introducing it with specific partners.
2- AER has two choices that might work: P07I4 and P32N (Note: Any specific designations might not be entirely correctly spelled. Do your own checking.)
3- Judd XV675
4- Mader HMR V8, powers the Dome le Mans LMP2 project. Seems pretty rare, even for an LMP2 engine.
5- Mazda MZR-R, as said, but I guess pretty much the same deal with availability as is the case with Acura. New project, company out to make a point ... engines available later, if ever.
6- Mecachrome apparently also has an LMP2 engine on offer. Not entirely sure who is currently using it, or intending to do so, though.
7- Porsche has a couple of chassis and engines in ALMS LMP2. Apparently. Don't know, but I would imagine the racing engines of such a renowned manufacturer aren't available "over the counter".
8- Radical Powertec RPD Macroblock V8, meant for thir own project, don't know if they would part with it.
9- Zytec 2ZG408

Cosworth, I gather, has no applicable LMP2 engine. Despite this, Nicholson McLaren seems to have a Cosworth XB Indycar engine evolution (rebuilt?)that is LMP2 compatible. Don't know if those are currently put to use in that capacity anywhere. WR has used Peugeot engines until recently, don't know if those are available any more.

On the face of it, the AERs, Judds and Zytecs would seem like the most realistic options. (I am supposing this would be a privateer effort, and not a manufacturer supported operation?) But as said, my research has been superficial (and thus most likely incomplete even when it comes to ALL possible engine suppliers). I suggest you also consult the LMP2 2007 tech.regs in more depth than I have thus far done on the issue of engines.

AER, Judd and Zytec feature highly on the "le Mans proper" entry list, so I guess one could decide on worse options than those to power an LMP2 project.

User avatar
humble sabot
27
Joined: 17 Feb 2007, 10:33

Post

Tom wrote:I was meaning underbody aero, of course the car as a whole will have to be lamina perfection. Is the plan to actually build this car or just design it, if we're building it then it would shurely be much easier to go for LMP3 (it exists) where budgets are smaller and racing is closer.

Why open cockpit by the way? Is there any difference performance wise? I thought a roof would make the car stiffer, more aero friendly and more Class C style beautiful.
my real answer will have to wait for a bit, but in the interim, my reasoning was that it would be less of an endeavour, and a upper section could be added later, or the molds amended; if it came to that. let's keep things simple if we want a prayer of actually assembling something functional. I take it our budget is modest :P

btw; i was in Edinburgh last month and i thought of posting you from there or something but my ideas weren't super presentable.

As far as underfloor, i was trying to bring that up, current regs have some mandated shapes. http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aco2004.html
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

FW 21
FW 21
0
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 13:20

Post

my real answer will have to wait for a bit, but in the interim, my reasoning was that it would be less of an endeavour, and a upper section could be added later, or the molds amended; if it came to that. let's keep things simple if we want a prayer of actually assembling something functional. I take it our budget is modest :P

btw; i was in Edinburgh last month and i thought of posting you from there or something but my ideas weren't super presentable.

As far as underfloor, i was trying to bring that up, current regs have some mandated shapes. http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aco2004.html[/quote]

If you start the car as an open cockpit, you must stay the course!

To modify the chassis or moulds later would be a hell of a lot of work!

You also have to take into account that the roll hoop dimensions would be
different, and therefore you have to choose early and stick to it.

The engine would also define the rear face of the chassis, and also the fuel tank. Does your engine have an oil tank that would fit into a recess in the chassis, or is it located somewhere else?

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

I have some ideas

forming, but as of yet I haven't done anything I'd venture to call "designing" yet. Of course it's a question of available time, and there are additional considerations about what tools and media are appropriate at this stage. I will likely not post napkin doodles albeit I have done a couple of those already.

I also think it'd be a good idea if people interested in such design work were to post questions about those aspects of the LMP2 design and rules that they don't completely understand at this stage. This has the potential to expediate the process enormously, as people won't waste time getting their heads around the same concepts separately. Equally it will clarify for everyone involved where they want to contribute the most.

To fire the first shot of inquiry:

Article 3.6.2 (ACO TR LMP1/2 2007) states:
"No aerodynamic element can be added on the bodywork apart from :

- Two aerodynamic elements maximum at the front of the front fenders provided that :

• They do not obstruct the driver's view
• They do not mask the headlights ;
• They are not situated more than 600 mm above the
reference surface ;
• They are approved by the manufacturer and the ACO
(homologation form of the car).

- One “Gurney” at the rear of the bodywork.
- The rear wing described below."
(Consult the ACO TR for what constitutes an "aerodynamic element") My main problem (so far, when it comes to external bodywork) is with the "two aerodynamical elements at the front". First, I can't remember/find anywhere what constitutes an LMP2 "front fender"? The physical fenders are there, of course, but this statement must refer to something that is more conceptual than tangible.

Second, if I read this correctly, LMP2's could have two quite prominent wing profiles at the front. Since I haven't seen any examples of what I'm thinking this allows for on any le Mans car, I have to suspect I'm misreading the rule somehow? The diffuser/underbody plate usually extends forward from what I consider the "fender", but that (I think) has its own regulation apart from the "aerodynamic elements" in question here.

If anyone can post a clarification - not guesswork, but a solid clarification - (preferrably with links to pictures that higlight the content of the rule), it might help me, and perhaps others, along. I've seen plenty of winglets in LMP2 cars by now, but since they appear to be "of constant thickness, with a common centre", the said winglets might well not be considered "aerodynamic elements" despite their self-evident function of diverting the airflow/creating vortices etc.

The simple solution would be that these "winglets" are the aforementioned "aerodynamic elements", but I think I've seen examples of LMP2 cars with way more than two of these elements on their noses. Usually close to the front wheel wells. Like in the Audi R8, here:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/Audi-PM5.jpg

Two on each side. Unless I can't put two and two together (let's hope this isn't the case), that's four in total already. :roll:

Anyway, go ahead, ask questions. I assure you, at this stage it will be just as valuable to many if not most as is the ability to answer those questions.

User avatar
humble sabot
27
Joined: 17 Feb 2007, 10:33

Post

i'm fairly certain they are referring to things like dive planes. my guess off the top is that they've decided to leave that open enough that should a team choose not to use dive planes they do still have another option, but not both.
It does sound like prime oddball structure verbiage though, things like 'ears' and 'horns' on last years f1 cars could seemingly fall under that description.

for closed v. open, what if we sort of split the tub roughly level with the ground?
sketch impending
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

I don't think I've

seen very many examples of dive planes in "front" of "fenders", the usual arrangement seems to be that they're attached to the "sides" ... like so:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/imag ... nlarge.jpg
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/images/cfima ... romap2.jpg

In a Lister, they do extend beyond the apparent fender, but then again there are too many of those?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/Lister-BC9.jpg

Maybe I'll try to consider something other than using dive planes, just for the heck of it. My schedule, though, is such that if everything moves along terribly swiftly I will be left to contend with my proposals alone ... let's see.

I will be interested to see how people tackle this sort of a project, though, no matter how I can(not) contribute. Let's hope that I can.

User avatar
humble sabot
27
Joined: 17 Feb 2007, 10:33

Post

Upon reading the same section from the past couple years' regs it looks to me like the rule is two per side.
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

friesenb
friesenb
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 01:22
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post

Hello,
I'm new here as you can see by the low post count.

Seeing that other people have interests of building their own cars like this is really inspiring, especially if you are designing your own. I guess I'll let this be the opportunity to show my own project, if you're interested in having a look.

http://bfreeze.ath.cx/Banshee/

I'm in the design phase as well as the parts-gathering phase. On that page, follow the link for "Design Sketch". Several of the views are out of date: this car was originally supposed to be powered by a motorcycle engine. Since the original design idea, I've changed it to be this:

Single seater road car, fully adjustable suspension (compression, tension, rebound, via 4x Suzuki GSX-R750 monoshocks), Acura Legend differential and CV shafts (a Legend is 250HP in stock form: should be sturdy), Nissan SR20DET engine from a 1991-1994 Nissan S13 Silvia/180SX.

It took a few months for me to decide on the best engine for the project. Since we have a little bit of engine discussion in here, the S13 SR20DET in stock form produces 205HP and 203ft-lbs torque. The block and head is all aluminum. I'm pretty sure that the pistons, crankshaft, and connecting rods are all forged steel. The valvetrain is a dual cam, 16-valve system with rockers and a hydraulic lash system. The cam sprockets are chain driven. Stock turbo is a Garrett GT25.

The front-wheel-drive version of this engine has a distributor. The rear-wheel drive version (which I have) has a completely digital ignition system, with individual coil-on-plug ignition (single coil sits directly on top of each spark plug). The cam position sensor has extremely high resolution: 360 slots. The computer reads on rising and falling edge for 720 degrees of cam resolution, or 360 degrees of crank resolution.

The engine weighs approximately 300LBs, with all manifolds and accessories installed. The bottom end of this engine can handle about 400-450HP without needing to be rebuilt for race components (Typical Bulletproof Nissan performance engine). There is one team that pulled 885HP from this engine (no idea on reliability of that modded engine). I've purchased mine for $2000CDN, then needed about $300-400 worth in parts to get it running on my garage floor.

I've got small space requirements, but if size is not an option, you could always look for the Nissan RB-series engines (comes from a Nissan Skyline). You can get an RB20DET (2.0L inline 6-cyl, dual cam) for under $1000, or an RB26DETT (2.6L inline 6-cyl, dual cam, twin turbo) for about $4000. The RB engines are iron blocks, at least 500LBs, but there are 1100HP RB26DETT's out there.

Just my comments..

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

Hi Brandon,

I leafed through the available documentation. First off, I have to say I haven't embarked on such a project myself, so I have little in the way of experience in building an experimental road- or trackgoing car by myself. The project reminds me of Ariel Atom a bit, I'm sure you're familiar with it. http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/04/frames.htm Roughly the same philosophy. Just take care of the most important component - yourself. I would've liked to have seen more info on the design of your tub, crumple zones, roll bars etc.

friesenb
friesenb
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 01:22
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post

Hello,
Yes, I have heard of the Ariel Atom; it's quite an incredible machine. The top-gear video is pretty impressive.

About 2 or 3 weeks ago, I've been thinking on a tub very similar to the Koenigsegg CCR/CCX series cars:

http://www.koenigsegg.com/graphics/enla ... ocoque.jpg

The difference being that my version will be single-seat. Construction is an aluminum honeycomb core, covered in Carbon Fibre. Originally, I was thinking to just use fibreglass, but a friend convinced me to just go ahead with carbon fibre (just a bit more expensive than fibreglass for similar strength and even less weight). One key factor is price (this is why I was considering fibreglass). I do not have access to an autoclave, but I'm sure I can find one nearby (Toronto's about an hour away).

I haven't thought anything about crumple zones, but I figure that I drive a motorcycle too, and this car will be safer than that. Aesthetics are an important aspect in the design as well. There are no roll bars, so a flip would probably be a problem :)

User avatar
checkered
0
Joined: 02 Mar 2007, 14:32

Post

I take it that you

want the 'Banshee' to be road legal in Canada? If you haven't done so already, do some research on how vehicles such as yours are inspected upon registration. Better to include anyone with authority early than later on. I'm sure you've considered this already, I was just thinking that it's unlikely that the chassis wouldn't need a certain amount of passenger protection to pass an inspection.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/
http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... _mvsrg.htm
Edit: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/mvstm_tsd/index_e.htm

Even if you're building it for track days only, I suspect there are some safety criteria the vehicle has to meet.

http://www.asncanada.com/

--------------

And then onwards to our LMP2 project.

This might be completely stupid, but I've been looking into engines from other series that could be converted to le Mans standards. The idea came to me as I realized that Dome's "Mader" is actually a modified Renault GP2 engine (they must've shortened the stroke, GP2 is 4.0l, LMP2 free aspiration is 3.4l). This could carry the advantage of having a sequential semi-automatic gearbox with electronics that are designed for the engine already.

Now, the Renault World Series FR3.5 V6 is compact, based on the Nissan 350Z aluminum block (everything else bespoke) and has a 6-speed, semi-automatic sequential gearbox with gear change via steering wheel mounted paddles. Doesn't sound too shabby to me. Or how'bout taking a Daytona Prototype Porsche engine (3.99l, based on the GT3R block) and modifying it to suit the purpose.

Honda has a HF386E 3-liter V8 and Toyota an RV8J for Formula Nippon, both producing around 550 hp. Details are scarce, though, as is information about JLMC which is actually based on the ACO LMP rules but is a national series ... I would be interested in information about the Mugen engines they have, though. Maybe farfetched, but one's gotta try and think out of the box once in a while.

friesenb
friesenb
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 01:22
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post

Thanks for the links; keep them coming :)

Yes, I've looked into some of the safety standards here. I've looked into the MTO quite heavily, and I'm fairly certain that safety certification is not required for cars that you build yourself. The Ariel Atom is not legal to purchase and drive in Canada due to this. The only way you can drive an Atom in Canada is if you purchase the Ariel Atom as a kit car and build it yourself.

More safety standards that I dug out of my bookmarks:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/mvstm_tsd/index_e.htm
http://www.canadianrodder.com/features/ ... tering.htm

The vehicle would be registered as a home built vehicle, and the licence bureau would assign a VIN. Regulations are alot more lenient for home built or kit cars. I'm fairly certain that I would just need to pass a standard safety certification, which would prove the road worthiness of the car. Home built or "hotrods" are exempt from "clean air" inspection.

One of the most complicated aspects or road-worthiness, I believe to be the lighting system. There's many strict guidelines about specific placement. I've got DOT approved headlights for the project:
http://bfreeze.ath.cx/Photos/Headlamps/DSC01998.JPG <--- high beams
http://bfreeze.ath.cx/Photos/Headlamps/DSC02002.JPG <--- low beams (note the diverter plate on the reflector and the spreader in the front of the lense)

More engine details:
Since you were saying the Renault World Series FR3.5 V6 is based off the 350Z engine, that would be a good choice, especially for a long distance run. The VQ35DE engine in the 350Z has been on the "Ward's 10 best engines" list for 12 years, according to Wikipedia. I'm not so sure what regulations you're looking for about engine size, but if I can help select an appropriate engine, I'll see what I can do.

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

It is not important how you interpet the rules or how a site on the web interpets the rules. As recommended, contact the official responsible for registration and obtain a written ruling . You mention the regulations pertaining to lighting and it's location, rather ambiguous in relation to the HOM registration category and the design of a homemade trailer. It may also interest you to investigate insurance categories and the cost of obtaining insurance. That industry may have difficulty with the conflicting idea of a frame on wheels loaded with a boat and a self powered vehicle.

Best of luck with your project. Perhaps you might update us on this issue.

friesenb
friesenb
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 01:22
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post

It's true that HOM was intended for trailers, but it does also cover other home built vehicles. I've talked to my insurance company a few months back, and they told me that they can cover my vehicle, so long as I am able to register it.

The one thing they did not like is the fact that it's got a turbocharger. They almost told me "No" right there, however I think they are assuming an aftermarket turbocharger, not an engine that has a turbocharger from stock. Even so, I think it's unfair to discredit my car project simply because of a turbocharger, as many other cars out there have a turbo from stock.

I'll have to look into this further, but I'm positive that it's allowed, and I'm positive that that is how my car will be registered. One thing that I do need to keep track of is my bills/receipts for everything that I buy and put into my car. I do have a folder so far with all of these, even down to customs/duty fees and shipping invoices for every item that I've purchased so far. This is necessary so that the government can get their taxes :P