Optimum Super Car Setup

You may have seen my predator concept before, and figured out that I first designed the car without designing the chassis. Right now the Predator is at version 4, and I was about to upgrade it to version 5. Considering the vast number of revisions I was going to be doing to the car, I decided I might as well build the chassis design before I re-modeled the entire car.

http://phantom.ssip.net/
…or…
http://phantom.ssip.net/Gallery/Predator/wallpaper.htm
(site is not quite complete yet...sorry, but I started it from scratch (Including all graphics) on 02-23-03)

Anyways, right now I’m trying to get some general ideas for the chassis design. The main concern at the moment is not styling (which I’ll worry about that my self at the moment). The main concerns are legality, technology, performance, and comfort.

A thing you may want to consider is I really want to keep my convertible system. If you haven’t figured out yet, it’s a hard top convertible system that transforms from a single intake (when top is up) to a dual intake (when top is down). It does it quite efficiently. I may be quite uneasy about stuff that would require me to get rid of that, especially since it is MY idea. I’ve never seen anything like it, and it’s a key feature on the car. The race version won’t be a convertible, but the commercial will.

I think by looking at the pictures you should easily be able to understand the type of car chassis I’m looking at. Cost is not really a factor since the car will cost at least $500,000 U.S. and as much as $1,250,000 U.S. Rich people will foot the bill, and you’ll enjoy the pictures and videos.

So suggestions are welcome about….
Weight
Power
Handling
Aerodynamic drag
Aerodynamic down force
Passenger comfort
Views (cameras can be included, but there might be legal issues)
Brake System
Engine
Drive train
Superchargers/Turbos/etc…
Exterior Panel Composition
Interior structure Composition
Radiators
Wheel composition
Shifting Style
Exhaust
Engine Position/Location/Size/Orientation
Suspension/shocks
Steering
Additional parts/electronics needed (for stuff like traction control system [are any extra parts needed?])
Wheelbase
Car Length
Car Height
Car width
Tire thickness (distance between the edge of the rim and the edge of the tire)
Clearance (nose, rear, and center clearance)
Front wheel rotation angle (max sharpness of steering)
Driver Setup (steering wheel & Shifter & petals location relative to seat + seat setup)

I’m sure the list is at least twice that long. If you think you’re an “expert” at any of this stuff, feel free to give your advice.


Feel free to critique anything else, even though I’m completely changing the design. I’m not offended by very much, except personal attacks. I love critiques.

I’m very good at mathematics, and dimensions, so I doubt any of you will loose me there. I’m a little new to car design, so I may ask for a simple definition of some terminology.

If any of you would like to directly discuss the issue with me, feel free to instant message me.

AIM Screen Name: PhantomCarDesign
E-mail: [email protected]
Web-Site: http://phantom.ssip.net/
(my website is not complete yet…but feel free to critique it anyways)

Whoa dude OK lets narrow it a little and ask something specific

id say chassis costruction should be

monocoque carbonfibre/titainium composite (or alluminium for reduced costs)

drag and downforce go hand in hand u cant have DF without drag

so adjustable front airdam and rear wing would give u a balance

Hmmmm cameras well im not sure on this but in car TV systems are not
allowed to function while the vehicle moves (In Aus anyway) and navigation isn't either I think (noy sure)

but ive heard of cars that use cams in USA so ????

to keep the cam system simple store all the hardware in one location and use optical fibre to send the image

for that matter i wonder if its practical (i a sense) to use optical fibre through out the car instead of copper this would save waight providing the acconpanying electrics dont outway the copper wire equivalent.

Brakes once again carbon fibre 18inch Discs with Dual 6-8 piston calipers

horizontally opposed Flat 12 quad cam quad turbo
through a single gear variable speed Gbox (not sure of the technical name) all wheel hydraulic drive.


that ll do 4 now

You can actually have quite a lot of downforce without any additional drag - gound effect.

Steering - should be able to go lock to lock without taking the hands off the wheel, and an electronic power steering with the assisting force dependant on speed.

Suspension - can't beat double wishbone front and rear.

Cameras are a good idea to help reversing.

Engine - V8/V10 turbo (quad turbo - two on each bank, one turbo smaller for fast spoolup and low-end grunt, and the bigger one for high revs when the smaller turbo runs out of breath)

Passenger comfort - last thing to consider! :)

I agree on other points with Zammo.

So, I'm assuming you're studying the NHTSA regulations for automobiles if you want to sell this in the US? I can see a few points where that car would not bee street legal in the US.

How many do you intend to build at those prices? What engine do you think would power it? When do you expect to have it completed for testing?

And do you need a test driver? ;)

Originally posted by Zammo
Whoa dude OK lets narrow it a little and ask something specific

id say chassis costruction should be

monocoque carbonfibre/titainium composite (or alluminium for reduced costs)

drag and downforce go hand in hand u cant have DF without drag

so adjustable front airdam and rear wing would give u a balance

Hmmmm cameras well im not sure on this but in car TV systems are not
allowed to function while the vehicle moves (In Aus anyway) and navigation isn't either I think (noy sure)

but ive heard of cars that use cams in USA so ????

to keep the cam system simple store all the hardware in one location and use optical fibre to send the image

for that matter i wonder if its practical (i a sense) to use optical fibre through out the car instead of copper this would save waight providing the acconpanying electrics dont outway the copper wire equivalent.

Brakes once again carbon fibre 18inch Discs with Dual 6-8 piston calipers

horizontally opposed Flat 12 quad cam quad turbo
through a single gear variable speed Gbox (not sure of the technical name) all wheel hydraulic drive.


that ll do 4 now
The chassis should definitely be of a aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque type. Body panels also.

Carbon fiber brake discs would be completely out of the question for street use. Maybe if you were to clamp the pads on the discs constantly to maintain operating temperature. However, it might be nice to use carbon fiber-reinforced silicon carbide brake discs. About the lightest material next to aluminum, but distortion and wear are negligible.

With dual calipers, brake fade would be a concern, I would think.

Flat and horizontally opposed mean the same thing. A flat 12 would pretty much have no benefit except for lower center of gravity. Intake/exhaust piping and general space concerns would probably null that idea. Quad cam, fine. DOHC is a must. You might want a 5-valve head - but Ferrari's F1 cars switched back to 4-valve, so...

Bad ideas for transmission. A continuously-variable transmission would NO chance at handling the torque I'm expecting the engine to provide. An electrohydraulically-actuated manual transmission would probably be for the best, for both experienced and newbie drivers.

How about a titanium flywheel /w CF-reinforced SiC friction plate? Center-sprung titanium clutch /w said friction material? Titanium carbonitrided maraging steel gears? (come to think of it, TiCN EVERY metal that encounters friction :)) Carbon fiber drive/halfshafts?

All wheel drive, while good for harsh weather and terrain, don't offer much for dry use, where one would expect a car like this to be used. You can get neutral steer, yes, but you can dial that in with suspension settings, but I think many prefer a tad of oversteer. Good AWD systems generally weigh a lot. Viscous-coupled front wheels will only get torque if the rears spin faster than the front wheels, and even then, the compensation won't be instantaneous. A good setup might consist of a clutch-based LS center differential, and Torsen differentials front and rear - a tad heavy, though.

If you choose to go the way of the Torsen diffs, put in a computer system that engages the brakes (did I mention it might be good to have separate cylinders for each caliper driven by electric motors? :)) on the wheel(s) that lift off the ground or otherwise lose traction. This'll send lots of torque to the opposite wheel with traction.

Since this is mostly likely a one-off project, email me and we can discuss next-gen engine materials?

For induction, I would like to suggest a twin-charging intake system. A tight-tolerance clutch-actuated (off the crank, of course) twin-screw supercharger can handle the low revs while TWO (for packaging reasons) big turbos (also from next-gen materials, email me to discuss) can handle boost from each bank.

A throttleless intake manifold is a must. I have an idea for a variable lift/timing/duration cam system that can work without a throttle valve, thus eliminating power loss from sucking vacuum. You can also get maximum torque from all RPMs except for idle, heh. I also think telescoping intake runners would benefit the wide powerband - you want that, right? One of Mazda's Le Mans (IIRC) rotaries used telescoping runners.

One other thing about the cam system - put some thought into using the Miller intake cycle - throughout 15-20% of the beginning of the compression stroke, the valves remain open. You'll find some nice numbers from the single Mazda engine that used it.

I'd like to suggest direct fuel injection, but I don't really see a need for it, as we aren't going for max fuel economy.

Dry-sump lubrication a must, fully synthetic engine oil /w mixed boric acid and suspended molybdenum disulfide particles, etc.

Now for the suspension - double wishbone is a must. Carbon fiber control arms and the like will serve you well. For the springing/damping stuff, I suggest you take a look at Citroën's Hydractive series of suspensions. They look to be as close as you come to active suspension. They also have a nice anti-roll technology.

Like I said, email if you want to discuss such things.

Howard Li
[email protected]
149794156

BTW, I'd like to see a HUGE displacement 60-deg V12 in there.

...placed behind the driver (who sits in the middle just like in the Mc Ell F1) and in front of the rear axle, longitudinally mounted of course.

No time for a full reply (sorry)

http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Predator%20Chassis.htm

Please check that out!!!

wow i want one already... if you ever realise your dream and create at least one of these we can all say we watched its birth and creation. if i ever get super rich i WILL fund this project

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
wow i want one already... if you ever realise your dream and create at least one of these we can all say we watched its birth and creation. if i ever get super rich i WILL fund this project

-GTi-VR6_A3
If you have Brand Names, Model Numbers/Names, and links of the best stuff out there, please include them in your suggestion.

Well I psoted here at version 3...so, you missed the begining of hte borth process(who wants to watch that anyways..yUck!!!) Most importantly You have an option to interact and be a part.

get rich soon enough... I don't expect tis to sit aroudn waiting. Of course I'll have many more cool designs. This is only my second.

For those of you who think this is just purely technical specifications being randomly thrown around, make sure you visit my site(even though it's incomplete).

[url]http://phantom.ssip.net/
http://phantom.ssip.net/Gallery/Predator/Wallpaper/027.jpg

What about the aerodynamics? it needs to be designed in the windtunnel to make sure it produces downforce, not lift (anyone remember the flipping mercedes slr at lemans 99? :eek: )

And don't take the discussion off the forum - we're all interested, and some might contribute something useful.

You forgot to remove the original brake disc idea. It's not good at all to mix and match brakes. :)

Same with chassis - one or the other. Body panels should only be carbon fiber to save weight.

Too much random nonsense was here...

I replaced the previous post due to an excess of random nonsense (lol)
=======================================

I have been carefully reading and dissecting all suggestions, so don’t think I have necessarily ignored anything yet. I have not yet researched much, so my list is very unrefined. If you are going to critique something specific, please quote the item on the list.

Brakes: I really don’t know much about brakes at all. Also, does carbon fiber-reinforced silicon carbide brake discs" that are "crossdrilled and grooved" sound good? Is there a better system/setup of brakes?

Questions:

I received a suggestion of “monocoque carbonfibre/titainium composite” Is this a titanium & carbon fiber combination? Would a “aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque” work better (weight and strength).

Aslo for the body said to use “aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque” also for body panels also. Is this different than just carbon fiber, and if so, what are the advantages.

I received a really good seat suggestion: Sparco Milano. I’m trying to find specifications about various things like dimensions, mounting, weight, etc. The seat looks like you can’t get much better.

Any specific suggestions (an example part) or modifications of a specific part would also be appreciated if possible. I’m going to try to figure out what every part is going to be (A modification of an existing part, materials, weight, size, pros, cons, cooling needs, durability).


It’s kind of crazy communicating with so many people (9 forums) at once…but I really appreciate the suggestions so far, and want tons more. Pretty soon (Wednesday night probably) instead of getting as many options as possible, I’ll start to eliminate options.


A thing of concern is I don't want to purely copy a McLaren F1. So, if you are suggesting stuff JUST because a McLaren has it, let people who know about various parts make the suggestions.

If you have anything to back up your validity (only if you do not mind), please state it (saying “I’m a brake engineer” would probably put you on the top of my list for brake suggestions rather than accidentally putting your suggestion on the bottom.)

Originally posted by ales
What about the aerodynamics? it needs to be designed in the windtunnel to make sure it produces downforce, not lift (anyone remember the flipping mercedes slr at lemans 99? :eek: )

And don't take the discussion off the forum - we're all interested, and some might contribute something useful.

I've considered a lot of aerodynamic issues. Feel free to sugest anything.

I'm not removing this thread, so no wirries. You guys have been very useful so far.

Originally posted by 454Casull
You forgot to remove the original brake disc idea. It's not good at all to mix and match brakes. :)

Same with chassis - one or the other. Body panels should only be carbon fiber to save weight.

Which was a mixing of hte brakes? I dont know much about brakes. Please wuote the item on my list you're critiquing.

Originally posted by 454Casull


bla bla bla....

....60 paragraphs of really useful stuff...

...bla bla


(it was a really long quote)



Thans for all the info!!!!!

I send you an e-mail. Either youre an awesome BS-er or you really know what you're talking about.

So far his suggestiosn look liek hte best...so critiqueing his suggestions, an giving some comarisoons, and adding some more specifics, ideas, brand-names and models, or anything would help(from the rest of you).

Anyways, I hope to discuss thsi stuff in detail with you through e-mail.

Aeroynamically, I'd suggest the "gound effect" design of the bottom of the car, and a well-designed diffuser. You might even not need any wings (look at the Enzo), as wings produce drag, while the downforce at from the underside of the car is "free". And leave the wing mirrors off as they also produce drag (unless you need them for a particular airflow over the bodywork that you need) - use small cameras instead with a lens that allows a wide angle of view on the sides and on the rear.

And 454Casull is very knowledgeable, too much so for his own good :D, so you can trust his opinons and ideas 100%.

Brakes: I really don’t know much about brakes at all. Also, does carbon fiber-reinforced silicon carbide brake discs" that are "crossdrilled and grooved" sound good? Is there a better system/setup of brakes?

Carbon fiber-reinforced silicon carbide brake discs do not gas, therefore they do not need to be cross-drilled nor grooved/slotted. However, they should have vents to assist in cooling.

^^ My mistake! I forgot that brake discs don't gas anyway. :o They DO need to be cross-drilled or slotted if used with gassing brake pads.

I received a suggestion of “monocoque carbonfibre/titainium composite” Is this a titanium & carbon fiber combination? Would a “aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque” work better (weight and strength).

A monocoque is simply a big tub or shell. What they do with carbon fiber is lay multiple layers of it around a metal honeycomb and shape it using blowdryers (so that it forms the shape of a real monocoque chassis). They then toss it into an oven so that the pre-impregnated epoxy holding together the carbon fibers hardens into a binder. Now, aluminum is about half as light as titanium but with worse mechanical properties. I would suggest you choose aluminum honeycomb because it's very popular and lightweight, and (I would think) easier to to form (read: less expensive).

Aslo for the body said to use “aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque” also for body panels also. Is this different than just carbon fiber, and if so, what are the advantages.

If by body you mean chassis, then yes, I would suggest that. As for the body panels, you don't really need the excess weight (skins like the metal sheeting on normal cars would do fine), unless you're looking for very good crash protection.

Any specific suggestions (an example part) or modifications of a specific part would also be appreciated if possible. I’m going to try to figure out what every part is going to be (A modification of an existing part, materials, weight, size, pros, cons, cooling needs, durability).

Just pick a part of the car.

Originally posted by ales
And 454Casull is very knowledgeable, too much so for his own good :D, so you can trust his opinons and ideas 100%.
I resent that!

Time to go shovel the snow...

All right, some quick stuff about dimensioning.

As low as possible, definitely. Wheelbase need not be as long as you can make it, as the polar moment of inertia would likely increase. A high width/length ratio MIGHT be good, I have to look further into that.

Chassis

//
Aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate monocoque

Longitudinal mid-car engine mount
\\

Body

//
Carbon fiber laminate body panels
*Removable carbon fiber rear wheel well covers, optional. I don't know if using them will affect brake cooling or possible brake duct airflow.*

Impact-modified polycarbonate windshield/windows
*you may want to make the windows fixed (unrollable, etc.) to save weight*
\\

Aerodynamics

//
Carbon fiber front air dam /w electrically-actuated bottom lip
*increase angle of attack for more front downforce, decrease for less drag/higher speed*
Carbon fiber rear spoiler /w end plates
*the shape and number of foils, etc. depends on shape of car, I should think*

Carbon fiber underbody panels /w built-in diffusing sections
*again, complexity of diffusion panel depends on shape of car?*
\\

Steering

//
Carbon fiber steering column /w pair of aluminum U-joints
Titanium carbonitrided (hereafter referred to as TiCN) aluminum rack/pinion
*gearing of pinion/rack teeth up to you*
Carbon fiber tie rods
\\

Suspension

//
Four-wheel double wishbone suspension
Forged titanium OR steel Heim joints
Carbon fiber wishbones, unequal-length non-parallel control arms

Shotpeened cold-wound steel springs
Fully-adjustable billet aluminum oil/N2 monotube dampers

\\

Induction

//
Forced induction still under consideration?

Some kind of air filter... foam or oiled cotton, placed in area of direct airflow
Ceramic-lined/coated hydroformed aluminum intake tubing
Aluminum tube/fin intercooler(s) if using forced induction

Hotwire air sensor
Hydroformed aluminum OR magnesium intake manifold
Welded hydroformed intake runners, possibly telescoping

\\

Fuel

//
K&N stainless steel fuel filter will do fine
Electric in-line fuel pump(s)?
Billet aluminum fuel rail(s), fuel pressure regulator(s)

*not much here, I know*
\\

I'll get around to the rest afterwards...

For current dimension plans, go to that "top secret" page.

http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Predator%20Chassis.htm

I'll be updating that semi-often.


========Width==================
I'll probably try to decrease the width of the car by 2-6 inches from the planned. I'm not sure if that wil affect the interior or anythign else yet. I'm studying my asthetic & physical desing to see what it can handle. Is 80 too wide?

Currently: http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Predator%20Chassis.htm
==============================

========Brakes==================
Which brake setup should I use? What would be the pros and cons of each. Would ceramic use cross drilling/groves?

Currently: http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Chassis/Wheels%20&%20Brakes.htm
===============================

========Engine=================
Look at....

http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Chassis/Engine%20Stats.htm

...and critique the various options. Make additional options or add mroe information to the current options if you would like.
===============================

========Seats=============
I'm looking for dimension or a diagram of the Sparco Milano, plus it's weight. If anyoen knows the company homepage, or could find it, I could probably e-mail them for that information.
==========================

critique anythign else..jsut bringing some issues up....

Hmmm...jsut got another reply...reviewing....well, I'll update my statistics accordign to your suggestiosn in the previous reply, but it'll be a little while before they are on the site.

The most recent versions are soooo much more attractive than the first images you posted on the version 1 thread. The orignal design's sides were too flat, making the car look too cheap. I realize that flat sides create more interior room... but ugliness creates less sales. IMHO the new, big side intakes look good! Think Lotus Elise when it comes to Complex Curves (harder to model, but great for sales).

If you'd like any help, I know a thing or two... went to ArtCenter for a while. E-mail or PM me:smoker2:

Be careful how much you take out of the cars width, not only does that often force things to be mounted higher in the chassis (meaning a higher center of gravity) it increases weight transfer to the outside wheels, pulling traction from the inside ones on a turn. Obviously you need some transfer to the outside so super wide isn't good, but it needs to have a balance.
Double wishbones are nice, but they eat up room like candy, It's definitly the way to go but make sure you keep that in mind, a large reason why the corvette has a large rear is because of the room a good double wishbone setup takes. Plus whether the design needs to use equal length or unequal arms in order to keep the wheel vertical.

Have you chosen what engine you want to use? I don't suppose you'll be making your own design for this specific car, so theres a host of engines you can use to help you choose the size of a car you'll need, those DOHC V12s are monsters.

I've got a lot of room for an engine...

So 80 inches isnt too wide. I dont actually want to reduce the width.

Engine: what was said about the injection is that direct fuel injection is not really needed. But "normal" fuel injection is still a must - don't want to be having carbs in there, do you? ;)

In my opinion you should be looking at 1500 - 2000 hp out of the box. That would make the car the ultimate supercar. I know this sounds like much, but there's no point in having any less. 2000 sounds good http://www.streetrace.org/forum/images/smilies/asthanos.gif. And as you have TC and ESP, it should be reasonably easy to control.

And a couple of things about these aids. Make it so that it would be possible to disengage all of them at will (for a bit of fun), and also make TC adjustable by the driver from no wheelspin to slight to completely off.

Also adjustable from the cockpit brake balance and I like the idea of being able to adjust the stiffness of the shock absorbers fron the cockpit as well (fronts and rears separately).

I'm against a rear spoiler as it will add drag and if it's made retractible - it will weigh too much (?). Adjustable frot airdam - http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/icons/icon14.gif

"Carbon fiber underbody panels /w built-in diffusing sections" I know the thing in the back, underneath is a diffuser, but what would other diffuseing sections be? Where would I put them?

Otehr than that I recoded everything :)

Keep it comming!! Bring it on!!!

I think I have enough info on brakes, and I'm trying to contact Brembo. If I establish a dialogue with them, then I probably wont need much additional help. Lemme see if this works out or not.

Right now the engine is probably the focus concern sicne a lot depends on that. I have a sizable list, and I need to start reducing it. Remember 100 to 750 units will be produced, and rich people won't care about cost as much as the performance. We need to be realistic, but we have some room for customization. Any customization needs to be possible without technological advances or extensive testing. We amy have a decet amount of $$$ to play with, but not nessecarly time or research ;)

So, time to narrow the engine list down. Eliminate not as good ideas, and start going mroe indepth with the best ideas.

http://phantom.ssip.net/Files/Chassis/Engine%20Stats.htm

(Updating it in like 3 minutes)


I would also like to know how a front end radior system works in a mid-engined car.

Originally posted by ales
Engine: what was said about the injection is that direct fuel injection is not really needed. But "normal" fuel injection is still a must - don't want to be having carbs in there, do you? ;)

In my opinion you should be looking at 1500 - 2000 hp out of the box. That would make the car the ultimate supercar. I know this sounds like much, but there's no point in having any less. 2000 sounds good http://www.streetrace.org/forum/images/smilies/asthanos.gif. And as you have TC and ESP, it should be reasonably easy to control.

And a couple of things about these aids. Make it so that it would be possible to disengage all of them at will (for a bit of fun), and also make TC adjustable by the driver from no wheelspin to slight to completely off.

Could I pack 1500-2000 hp efficently adn have good torque etc? The car ahs plenty of room for a sizeable engine, and plenty of space/air for coolign and combustion. The main issue would be weight.

If you don't mind me asking, where does the initial funding come from?

I'm really not worried about that yet since my first goal is to have a car company produce it themselves, and send back a percentage of the sale price on every car produced (100 to 750 production units)

If no one bites for too long, I'll look for sponsors. I shouldnt have any problem gettign any if I've laready designed an entirne chasis (engine, suspension, ect...) and have the coolest lookign car in the world.
(Wait till version 5 is complete...it'll be even cooler.)

I received a suggestion of “monocoque carbonfibre/titainium composite” Is this a titanium & carbon fiber combination? Would a “aluminum honeycomb-reinforced carbon fiber laminate moncoque” work better (weight and strength).

well its been covered

definatly flat 12 to keep CoG down

OK: tibanachi Ratio : (SP?) take that and see if your design incorporates it buy chance if not see if you can incorp it

Y have cams this thing is a monster anyway hell lets go for negative presure nitrogen gas for valve actuation instead of those old friction cams


Who said u can have additional down force with no wxtra drag???

sorry thats a world of fantasy (wow if only that were possible)

if you want me to xplain it no worries but its a very complicated subject

and i will argue my points till the end

but even ground effect too, increases drag

two main factors are surface area which the air moves over and turulance itself

argh

double wish bone is the go
(thats y i choose my old corona cuase its got DW in the front all round be nicer though)

I've studied physics before, no need to explain. Ground effects though are the most efficent method of down force on a car.

What is CoG?
Why a flat 12? I recieved a suggestion against it earlier.


Flat and horizontally opposed mean the same thing. A flat 12 would pretty much have no benefit except for lower center of gravity. Intake/exhaust piping and general space concerns would probably null that idea.


Do you have a link for tis below....


Y have cams this thing is a monster anyway hell lets go for negative presure nitrogen gas for valve actuation instead of those old friction cams



I'll try to look up this....


OK: tibanachi Ratio : (SP?) take that and see if your design incorporates it buy chance if not see if you can incorp it

Closest thign I could find was...

"Fibonacci Ratio"

Look up the spelling.

COG = centre of gravity.

I'm opposed to flat 12 (not too much, though) - V12 quattroturto (or better yet the wild turbocharger/supercharger setup offered earlier - love that! :D)

You also mentioned fron radiators - bad idea (ask Countach owners) - the cabin will be getting very hot from the pipes. So Testarossa-style side intakes are preferable (imo) and the F40-style intercoolers.

Brakes: if you have no luck with Brembo, try also AP Racing (http://www.apracing.com/) They are almost as respected as Brembo.


Zammo: How exactly does ground effect produce as much drag as an inverted wing in the direct airflow? Or any drag for that matter? :confused:

that might be right

its a ratio of something to something

found in nature roman architechture astrology leonardo davinci's work

there ssomething in that designers know it



CoG = Center of Gravity which will be kept as low as possible hence the flat 12


no link its F1 technology so good luck finding info (may have to design your own)

Zammo: How exactly does ground effect produce as much drag as an inverted wing in the direct airflow? Or any drag for that matter?


i never said as much just not non

like Phantom said its the most efficient form

even for air travel

but you still disturb the particle flow over the suface area by increasing

the ground effect hence addinding to the drag coefficient (but a small % of inverted wings)


(waiting for gravitational field manipulators)

Hey! I was the one who mentioned ground effect :D

I still fail to see how a car with the underside designed to produce downforce will have more drag than an absolutely identical car with a flat bottom or the underside that we find in most passenger cars now. (not trying to argue with you, trying to understand)

Originally posted by ales
Hey! I was the one who mentioned ground effect :D

I still fail to see how a car with the underside designed to produce downforce will have more drag than an absolutely identical car with a flat bottom or the underside that we find in most passenger cars now. (not trying to argue with you, trying to understand)

It would produce less, a car with anunderbody like the enzo has no exposed suspension or drivetrain pieces to disturb airflow, I believe he's saying an underbody designed witht he bernoulli principle in mind would have more drag then one with just a flat covered panel underneath. The only thing I can see doing this, is the front splitter, the rest is just simple air velocity and pressure, there is no wing forcing the air around it, though a rear diffuser if used would create drag.

As to a flat 12, nobody makes those anymore to my knowledge, and you would definitly need all 80 of those inches to make use of it.

Should have put my question more clearly:

Same car, one has a designed to incorporate the Bernoulli effect bottom, the other - a flat bottom. Why would the first car produce more drag? I think if anything, the air will be going faster under the car on the first car.

That's why I called the downforce produced by ground effect "free", as it has no downside as far as additional drag is concerned. At least to my knowledge and understanging.

You have an upwards slope ing surface with low pressure underneath it. That will create drag. The fact that the underside of hte car si smooth though reduces the drag relative to most standard vehicles. It's physics :)

Besides my other unanswered questions (where's the engine coming from, what changes are being made to meet NHTSA regulations, etc), I have a problem with your funding problem.

What company is going to build this car for you? At the minimum $500,000 list price you mentioned, I have trouble believing you'll hit your targets of 100-750 units. If these are annual projections, do you really think there are 100 potential buyers for a half-a-million dollar car out there each year? Bugatti stopped production after 149 units (over three years) and many millions of dollars invested. McLaren stopped production at just shy of 100 units, again spread over years. Ferrari and Lamborghini have well established histories (not that Bugatti didn't) and their pricier products (not counting the "bargain" 360) sell in the range of a few hundred a year at prices well below $500k.

I really think you're underestimating the cost of producing this vehicle and you're overestimating both the potential market and the desire of "a car company" to produce your design "and send back a percentage of the sale price." Like it's that easy. Vector wanted to get a major company to produce their vehicles...didn't happen even when the exotic car market was hot, which it isn't now.

Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of Chrysler (father of the Viper) and current vice chairman of General Motors, wanted to resurrect the Cunningham brand. He had a design. He had the backing of the son of Briggs Cunningham. He even had the backing of General Motors (they actually invested in the start-up). Lutz claimed it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to get Cunningham off the ground...and that didn't include the cost of developing the engine which GM would shoulder. Cunningham closed its doors late last year.

Good luck to you. Pipe dreams are wonderful. If you want more honest and well-researched information on starting a car company, let me know. If you want to continue building a dream car, again, good luck to you...but don't bet that it'll make production.

I dont want to produce this my self (people dont listen well)!!!!

I want a car company to "buy" the design. They'll worry about costs and all other things. I'll collect royalties and buy a few for my self.

If I am to build the design myself, It'll cost in the millions of dollars to do it right (according to further research). I could probably get that money eventually, but that is not my goal!!!

Plus you really have to have someone intelligent to head an operation like this. I have plenty of inteligence, but not enough research. THIS is research right now.

I'm not worried about personal costs of building the car right now since I'm not planning on building it.

I'm not overestimatign market potential. I knwo it'll take a while for someone to buy my design, but I'm a patient person. New supercars dont come out often.

This si mroe a showcase item, to attract attention to my other future designs.

Oh, one more thing...probably no more than 50 would be released each year.

Here are some specs I got from Brembo about their Grand Turismo Kit.


The Gran Turismo Kit Includes 1 Complete Front Axle Set

2 Four-Piston Cast Aluminum Calipers or 2 Eight-Piston Cast Aluminum Calipers
2 Two-Piece “Floating” Discs or 2 One piece discs
Aircraft Quality Assembly Hardware
Black Anodized Aluminum Mounting Brackets.
Goodridge’s Stainless Steel Braided Brake Lines
High Performance Brake Pads

Originally posted by FYRHWK1
Be careful how much you take out of the cars width, not only does that often force things to be mounted higher in the chassis (meaning a higher center of gravity) it increases weight transfer to the outside wheels, pulling traction from the inside ones on a turn. Obviously you need some transfer to the outside so super wide isn't good, but it needs to have a balance.
Double wishbones are nice, but they eat up room like candy, It's definitly the way to go but make sure you keep that in mind, a large reason why the corvette has a large rear is because of the room a good double wishbone setup takes. Plus whether the design needs to use equal length or unequal arms in order to keep the wheel vertical.

Have you chosen what engine you want to use? I don't suppose you'll be making your own design for this specific car, so theres a host of engines you can use to help you choose the size of a car you'll need, those DOHC V12s are monsters.

Body roll is pretty much good for only one thing - telling the driver when he's about to hit the limit. Otherwise, it just decreases from total cornerning traction.

Double wishbones take up a lot of room, but not THAT much room. The gains in cornering offset the decrease in usable space.

"Plus whether the design needs to use equal length or unequal arms in order to keep the wheel vertical."

What does this mean?

Originally posted by PhantomDesign
I've studied physics before, no need to explain. Ground effects though are the most efficent method of down force on a car.

What is CoG?
Why a flat 12? I recieved a suggestion against it earlier.


Indeed. Ground effects involve having lower pressure underneath the car than above it. If there's no turbulence, there's no drag. The atmospheric pressure simply exerts more force (No, I'm not using correct terminology) on the top because the forces at top and bottom don't cancel each other out.

Originally posted by Zammo
that might be right

its a ratio of something to something

found in nature roman architechture astrology leonardo davinci's work

there ssomething in that designers know it



CoG = Center of Gravity which will be kept as low as possible hence the flat 12


no link its F1 technology so good luck finding info (may have to design your own)

Flat 12s are NOT F1 technology. They may have once been, but now the teams are using 75-degree (IIRC) V10s.

Originally posted by Zammo


well its been covered

definatly flat 12 to keep CoG down

OK: tibanachi Ratio : (SP?) take that and see if your design incorporates it buy chance if not see if you can incorp it

Y have cams this thing is a monster anyway hell lets go for negative presure nitrogen gas for valve actuation instead of those old friction cams


What is ... ratio and how might you incorporate it? Closest thing I know of is a Fibonnaci sequence.

Negative pressure nitrogen? First off, there's NO such thing as negative pressure. Theoretically, you can have almost zero pressure, but you can't have negative pressure EVER. Now, if you want non-pressure-balanced gas chambers (is that what you are thinking of?) to actuate the valves, how are you going to pick when the valves are to move and when they are to close?

BTW, naming astrology as something that "uses" ... doesn't help your case at all. :)

Originally posted by 454Casull


Body roll is pretty much good for only one thing - telling the driver when he's about to hit the limit. Otherwise, it just decreases from total cornerning traction.

Double wishbones take up a lot of room, but not THAT much room. The gains in cornering offset the decrease in usable space.

"Plus whether the design needs to use equal length or unequal arms in order to keep the wheel vertical."

What does this mean?

Not always tue, bodyroll provides downward loading of the outside tires, it's one of the benefits solid axle cars in trans am take advantage of, solid axle cars see no camber change from bodyroll either. As to the arm length, in order to keep the wheel vertical some systems require a shorter upper A arm in order to keep the top of the wheel from pushing out away from the car in certain ranges of motion, but thats all in the geometry of the system, and space requirements are very limiting in that sense.

Ales, I seem to have rambled there, i lost track of what i was trying to say :bloated: I meant that a car with underbody effects & front splitter/rear diffuser would have more drag then a car without those. The front spltter design traps air above the splitters panel or whatever it's called so theres your drag, an underody & diffuser probably wouldn't cause any drag, drag slows air down and both of those are trying to speed it up.

Originally posted by 454Casull


Flat 12s are NOT F1 technology. They may have once been, but now the teams are using 75-degree (IIRC) V10s.



not the engine the gas cam actuation

my terminology may have been inccorect

but prsurised nitrogen holds the valves closed while removing that presure makes them open (hence negative) maybe reverse woulda been better suited

and you could regulate it using solenoids to open an close smaller inlet/outlet in the gas chambers

Originally posted by 454Casull
BTW, naming astrology as something that "uses" ... doesn't help your case at all. :)

shoulda been

Originally posted by 454Casull
BTW, naming astronomy as something that "uses" ... doesn't help your case at all. :)


my bad i was was tired

Originally posted by FYRHWK1


Not always tue, bodyroll provides downward loading of the outside tires, it's one of the benefits solid axle cars in trans am take advantage of, solid axle cars see no camber change from bodyroll either. As to the arm length, in order to keep the wheel vertical some systems require a shorter upper A arm in order to keep the top of the wheel from pushing out away from the car in certain ranges of motion, but thats all in the geometry of the system, and space requirements are very limiting in that sense.

Traction VS Vertical load (http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/handling/friction.jpg)

Originally posted by Zammo




not the engine the gas cam actuation

my terminology may have been inccorect

but prsurised nitrogen holds the valves closed while removing that presure makes them open (hence negative) maybe reverse woulda been better suited

and you could regulate it using solenoids to open an close smaller inlet/outlet in the gas chambers
Sorry, but F1 engines only use pressurized nitrogen to keep the valves closed. Valve opening is strictly controlled by valve springs and camshafts.

I suggest you use the term "low pressure"

Originally posted by 454Casull

Traction VS Vertical load (http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/handling/friction.jpg)

That website misses half the facts about how a car really handles, that kind of graph doesnt take tire type, contact patch size, vehicle weight or anything else into account, body roll DOES add downward loading to the outside tires.

Originally posted by 454Casull

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zammo




not the engine the gas cam actuation

my terminology may have been inccorect

but prsurised nitrogen holds the valves closed while removing that presure makes them open (hence negative) maybe reverse woulda been better suited

and you could regulate it using solenoids to open an close smaller inlet/outlet in the gas chambers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, but F1 engines only use pressurized nitrogen to keep the valves closed. Valve opening is strictly controlled by valve springs and camshafts.


seems to be the same thing