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

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
humble sabot
15
User avatar
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 am

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

Post by humble sabot » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:44 am

the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

Holm86
147
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

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

Post by Holm86 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:19 am


MadMatt
146
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:04 pm

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

Post by MadMatt » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:40 am

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.

Image

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
147
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

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

Post by Holm86 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:44 pm

MadMatt wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:40 am
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
243
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

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

Post by Just_a_fan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:34 pm

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
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

humble sabot
15
User avatar
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 am

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

Post by humble sabot » Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:51 am

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
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

ME4ME
121
User avatar
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:37 pm

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

Post by ME4ME » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:40 am

Holm86 wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:44 pm
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??
humble sabot wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:51 am
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
15
User avatar
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 am

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

Post by humble sabot » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:54 pm

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.
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

Cold Fussion
117
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

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

Post by Cold Fussion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:59 am

ME4ME wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:40 am
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
98
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

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

Post by roon » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:13 pm

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
117
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

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

Post by Cold Fussion » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:17 am

roon wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:13 pm
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.
Last edited by Cold Fussion on Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Holm86
147
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

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

Post by Holm86 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:21 am

Cold Fussion wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:17 am
roon wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:13 pm
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
117
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

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

Post by Cold Fussion » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:39 am

Holm86 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:21 am
Cold Fussion wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:17 am
roon wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:13 pm
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.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 1 guest