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

[SR71]

I'm not sure how the FW14 handled bumps, and I guess none of us know how it would handle a public road, but it was able to keep the car at the exact same height despite road irregularities and weight transfer, and more than 20 years has past since then.
McLaren(maybe others as well, but I don't know about them) makes road cars without physical anti-roll bars just by using clever suspension.
So I'm guessing this car will have some state-of-the-art suspension that's able to handle a public road and keep the car at the optimal heights at all times, not to mention featuring several modes.

And for the people that at the beggining of the thread disagreed with me, saying that active suspension wouldn't be a big part of the car, and that it wouldn't have wings, I guess you were wrong. And for the people that said it would feature a big fan at the back... really?!

The wings are pretty minuscule, I think flow conditioners for the "main wing" ( the underbody ) is a more appropriate term...

But yes, it does have some small wings.

You're probably the first one to call that front wing "small".

I see 2 wings... one I call "small", what would you call it? Nothing wrong with being first



Thoughts?

[DiogoBrand]

My doubt is: The aerodynamics of this car aren't limited by any technical regulations, but as far as I'm aware LMP1 rules are fairly open as well. So what makes this car so much superior to an LMP1 aero-wise, that even weighing over 100Kg more it will still be as fast if not faster? What are the limitations that hinder LMP1 aerodynamics from being as good as a rule-free road car?

[DiogoBrand]

I see 2 wings... one I call "small", what would you call it? Nothing wrong with being first

https://postimg.org/image/brsno9mt3/

Thoughts?

I see only one, and it's pretty much an unrestricted Formula One front wing, and I wouldn't call it small by any means, but anyway I'm gonna stop commenting on the matter since you have a great talent to drag discussions into irrelevant BS.

[SR71]

My doubt is: The aerodynamics of this car aren't limited by any technical regulations, but as far as I'm aware LMP1 rules are fairly open as well. So what makes this car so much superior to an LMP1 aero-wise, that even weighing over 100Kg more it will still be as fast if not faster? What are the limitations that hinder LMP1 aerodynamics from being as good as a rule-free road car?

I believe LMP1 regulations have a reference plane and a mandatory flat floor section/zone that must be co-planar. There also might be some zones when viewed from below that prevent the large venturi channels Newey has created. These zones have a maximum height above the reference plane specification (when viewed from below).

I think...

[SR71]

I see 2 wings... one I call "small", what would you call it? Nothing wrong with being first

https://postimg.org/image/brsno9mt3/

Thoughts?

I see only one, and it's pretty much an unrestricted Formula One front wing, and I wouldn't call it small by any means, but anyway I'm gonna stop commenting on the matter since you have a great talent to drag discussions into irrelevant BS.

That front wing has more in-common with LMP1 than formule one, so that might be the main problem of your analysis. Not seeing the second wing isnt a problem, Newey relies on peoples lack of vision to perform tricks right in front of them all the time....

[FoxHound]

Thoughts regarding the engine:

As it has a dry weight of 900Kg's, and is aiming for 1bhp to 1kg, It will need circa 950bhp inclusive of fuel mass.

It is a V12.

Bhp to litre is approximately 150bhp naturally aspirated, and that's with reliability included in the package.
So if naturally aspirated and to be used functionally, we are looking at a 6 litre plus V12 engine. likely 6.5.
That's a large engine.

If we go down the turbo route, I still don't see anything less than 5 litre's, with added mass for intercooling etc.

[turbof1]

@SR71

It's what I would call modern front wing, which is build around ground effect and endplates integrated into the aerofoil itself. I don't think it matters if you label it F1, LMP1 or Indycar. At first side it isn't really lmp1-like, but it's very plausible the WEC rulebook does not allow for the complex shapes. In the end what a front splitter in lmp1 does, and what a front wing in f1 does are deceptively similar.

The second, big wing you mentioned is the car itself. And you are right to call that a wing. Effectively the whole car can be turned into one big wing when the underbody is shaped correctly. A ground effect car.

[Just_a_fan]

I guess it has to be very high revving to get to their power requirements. Won't that require a lot of cooling? There's no front radiator, though, and no visible cooling vents anywhere. I've been a believer in Newey and this car, but I don't see how this thing is going to work as presented.

Think F1 car with wheel covers. Now look at the rear wheels. You'll see an obvious air inlet in front of the wheel. Look in the gap between the front and rear wheel pods - the car's waist - and you'll see a horizontal yellow line. I think that is the lower lip of a large air duct. In effect, the car has sidepods with the radiators mounted in them - just like an F1 car. Indeed, the design just looks like an LMP1 car from the side, and the concept of using a front wing to generate downforce and then to use the air coming off that wing to feed mid-mounted radiators, is obviously nothing new. Some of the air will go below the rear floor to feed the rear diffuser/aero package. The car looks to be designed to only use the air that goes under the nose. Air along the flanks is prevented from going under the car. Air that goes through the ducts will be discharged immediately behind the rear wheels and through the central section of the rear diffuser.

Looking at the car from the side, I think the downforce components are the big ground-effect front wing and a pair of tunnels that are throated somewhere around the yellow line I mentioned above. I'd guess that there will be another device between the rear wheels - perhaps another wing type of design. This will shroud the lower suspension and driveshaft and perhaps assist the large tunnels to actually work - a bit like a double diffuser but not a double diffuser, if that makes sense.

One thing this car won't do, at least as shown so far, is generate huge amounts of drag. I think a central part of the performance claim is the ability to accelerate like it's been hit from behind by a freight train. F1 race cars are pretty slow to accelerate above about 150mph because they carry so much drag. This thing will, like the F1 and the Veyron, out accelerate F1 cars and LMP1 at high speeds.

In terms of practicality, I think the canopy bubble will lift and take the part of the waist bodywork with it. The occupants will then step in over the central structure. If not, they will have to climb on the bodywork to get in. Again, it's like an F1 car with low drag bodywork. In fact, I'm reminded of the Mercedes 300 SLR which was effectively a low drag version of the W196 GP car.

[DiogoBrand]

I see 2 wings... one I call "small", what would you call it? Nothing wrong with being first

https://postimg.org/image/brsno9mt3/

Thoughts?

I see only one, and it's pretty much an unrestricted Formula One front wing, and I wouldn't call it small by any means, but anyway I'm gonna stop commenting on the matter since you have a great talent to drag discussions into irrelevant BS.

That front wing has more in-common with LMP1 than formule one, so that might be the main problem of your analysis. Not seeing the second wing isnt a problem, Newey relies on peoples lack of vision to perform tricks right in front of them all the time....

Let me try to give you the friendliest piece of advice I tan think of:
I've criticized you several times for having no technical knowledge, but I have to say I'm wrong. You've been able to show relevant knowledge a number of times, and I do believe you have the capabilities to take part in an interesting technical discussion.
The problem is, you have a tendency to resort to silly semantyc games and irrelevant facts to try and show you're right about some subjects, and instead of looking smart you just look childish and unintelligent.
I believe you were the one that said the car would have no wings, and that's a fair guess, you can generate way more efficient DF through ground effect than a traditional wing. But wings have evolved over time, and as shown by this car, they've become very advanced, efficient and useful even on unrestricted designs.
But then you start discussing how big or small the wing actually is to show you weren't "so much wrong", and, as I said, you just look silly in doing so. I've been wrong so many times, and the beautiful thing about being wrong is that you can learn and grow a lot from it.
So if this text is of the TL;DR sort for you, here's the advice. Start trying to be more relevant to the technical discussion, as you've already shown you can be, instead of focusing on who's right or wrong, or who's "more right" or "more wrong".
Everyone on the forum will benefit from it, especially yourself.

[Tim.Wright]

That lower front element looks similar to what's in use in F1 at the moment which according to some works more as a diffuser than a wing:


Though I'm not really qualified to say any more than that, some others around here might be:

[No Lotus]

As presented this car is set really high off the ground. Is this an illusion? In terms of aero it's unnecessary and in terms of cg it's bad.

[ChrisDanger]

Well, this thing is optimised (mostly) for low drag, and it's hardly hugging the ground.

[bhall II]

That lower front element looks similar to what's in use in F1 at the moment which according to some works more as a diffuser than a wing:

If it faces the ground, it most likely acts like a diffuser. In fact, in LMP1, they're called front diffusers...

[SR71]

As presented this car is set really high off the ground. Is this an illusion? In terms of aero it's unnecessary and in terms of cg it's bad.
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/a ... k=5ptOcBtb

1) I think you and others have already stated these may not be final surfaces or something has been omitted for this press preview.

2) if these are final are you really saying something Newey did aero wise is unnecessary? How many championships have your F1 cars won?

[Pierce89]

As presented this car is set really high off the ground. Is this an illusion? In terms of aero it's unnecessary and in terms of cg it's bad.
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/a ... k=5ptOcBtb

1) I think you and others have already stated these may not be final surfaces or something has been omitted for this press preview.

2) if these are final are you really saying something Newey did aero wise is unnecessary? How many championships have your F1 cars won?

Why is every single comment you make always aggressively deriding someone? Apparently unbeknownst to you, this forum is pretty full of engineers or engineering students, with a good grounding in maths and physics. You don't even seem to have a good grounding in reality, much less any engineering or technical category.