Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#1 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 December 2018 - 01:44

https://newatlas.com...rally aspirated

 

1000hp @ 10,500 (Redline 11,100). Watch the video. This road car engine sounds like an F1.



Advertisement

#2 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 December 2018 - 04:59

Ti pistons? Really?



#3 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 December 2018 - 08:21

Please can somebody less rusty than me WAG the VE and BMEP?


Edited by Greg Locock, 17 December 2018 - 09:46.


#4 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 1,404 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 December 2018 - 14:56

This feels like the true spiritual successor to the McLaren F1.  :cool:



#5 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 8,590 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 17 December 2018 - 22:43

Stick that in the back of an M8F - Dreamland!



#6 PJGD

PJGD
  • Member

  • 111 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 18 December 2018 - 02:51

BMEP = 14.1 bar at peak torque and 12.93 bar at rated power.  Not shabby.

 

PJGD



#7 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 18 December 2018 - 03:07

That engine is as much a production engine as are Sonny Leonard's crate engines.

Both are both produced in numbers, i.e. repeated production line,   but at that Sonny's runs on 92 octane pump gas, and they start at 1,000 hp and go a lot higher, plus they will fit in any engine bay that will take a U.S. large  block engine.

A most fascinating piece of machinery , abolutely, but not the wonder lump they  hype it as.

 

It would  be sweet to see one in the  back of McLaren or Lola at a "vintage" group 7 exhibition.

The car is hideous!

Looks like some one stepped on a cockroach.


Edited by Bob Riebe, 18 December 2018 - 03:08.


#8 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 03:59

Please can somebody less rusty than me WAG the VE and BMEP?

 

A specific output of 154 BHP/litre says it all. I don't know of a higher number for a NA road car. Honda S2000 was very good at 240 from 2L ie 120 bhp/litre.

 

BMEP is 13 bar at peak hp? Higher at peak torque.

If you assume BSFC = 300 g/kW.hr, AFR = 13:1, you get VE = 119%.

BSFC is probably better than that say 270 - gives VE = 108%



#9 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 04:01

That engine is as much a production engine as are Sonny Leonard's crate engines.

Both are both produced in numbers, i.e. repeated production line,   but at that Sonny's runs on 92 octane pump gas, and they start at 1,000 hp and go a lot higher, plus they will fit in any engine bay that will take a U.S. large  block engine.

A most fascinating piece of machinery , abolutely, but not the wonder lump they  hype it as.

 

It would  be sweet to see one in the  back of McLaren or Lola at a "vintage" group 7 exhibition.

The car is hideous!

Looks like some one stepped on a cockroach.

 

I think you are on the wrong forum Bob. :)



#10 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 December 2018 - 05:12

That engine is as much a production engine as are Sonny Leonard's crate engines.
Both are both produced in numbers, i.e. repeated production line,   but at that Sonny's runs on 92 octane pump gas, and they start at 1,000 hp and go a lot higher, plus they will fit in any engine bay that will take a U.S. large  block engine.
A most fascinating piece of machinery , abolutely, but not the wonder lump they  hype it as.
 
It would  be sweet to see one in the  back of McLaren or Lola at a "vintage" group 7 exhibition.
The car is hideous!
Looks like some one stepped on a cockroach.


I am inclined to agree. And if it hasn't got variable duration valve timing of some sort it would basically be impossible to drive on the street.

Six months to build the crankshaft? The description of its manufacture sounds very much the same as any "billet' crankshaft - and that doesn't take 6 months.

Still - nice to read a story about an engine that is NA and not turboed or etc.

Its output per litre etc. should be compared to other race-type engines - it's not a "street" engine.

#11 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 December 2018 - 11:10

A specific output of 154 BHP/litre says

 

... a high max power rpm.



#12 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 20:55

The AM Valkyrie is a "road car". That is the story. Can you drive it over the ramps on a car ferry? What is the engine life between minor rebuilds? Versus the replacement cycle of suspension joints? Custom seats for driver and passenger designed by 3D modelling of the occupants' bodies?

 

I am sure that the design team have considered my questions, which matter more to dealers than to potential buyers. But when we are talking about road cars on this forum -- and noting that annual mileage of supercars and hypercars is typically very low -- we are allowed to ask whether or how much they are practical automobiles. The AM Valkyrie is just another detuned racing sports prototype with added nonsense.



#13 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 22:24

Interesting comments. We don't normally hear this tripe when a Koenigsegg or similar is being discussed. Honda S2000 - is that a "race engine" on the road?

 

Fact is (if it makes it to the showroom) this car and its purpose built engine are production items, from a significant manufacturer, for road-registered use. The engine will have to meet significant emissions standards for one thing.

 

KC. The engine has 500 ft lbs of torque at 10,500. More than that at the torque peak. Even if it is a "peaky" monster (which I doubt) it will have more than 400 ft lbs from 2,000 - 10,000 in a lightweight car. My grandmother could drive that! Then of course it is a "hybrid". It will probably have tyre shredding torque at the wheels from zero mph and traction/launch control systems to make sure the tyres don't get shredded. It won't even have a clutch - it will be flappy paddles or fully automatic, computer controlled, delivery of that ridiculous number of horses (and torx as the ignorant JC would say).

 

I agree - the concept is ludicrous - but so are any of the succession of hypercars that have appeared continuously since Veyron - each attempting to outdo the previous king.


Edited by gruntguru, 19 December 2018 - 02:57.


#14 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 December 2018 - 22:58

Fact is (if it makes it to the showroom) this car and its purpose built engine are production items, from a significant manufacturer, for road-registered use. The engine will have to meet significant emissions standards for one thing.

I don't need to tell you that the crash test regs for small volume road cars vary internationally. Engine regs vary too. It is likely that the Valkyrie is sold for the road in some places and for the track elsewhere, and that comprehension gets muddled up.

 

Ti pistons, as Desmo questioned! There might be an interesting story in that.



#15 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 December 2018 - 00:22

If you are running bignum rpm then you want low mass, and if you are running hot because you don't want to use over rich mixtures then aluminum probably starts to look a bit dodgy. Ti isn't all that expensive if you recycle the swarf, which is standard practice. I worked on one project where the machining guys said they actually preferred Ti to some steels as it has better swarfing characteristics, even though the forces are higher.



#16 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 9,734 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 December 2018 - 13:20

You guys all make good points about the Valkyrie.

 

It is indeed a ludicrous vehicle for the road. I don't believe it will be road legal in the U.S. in it's current form

 

But some 125 people have paid 50% deposits for the road car, so things will look pretty poor for AM if they do not produce them.

 

Clutch-wise, there is no room for a pedal anyway, due to the narrowness at the front of the monocoque. And there's barely room for 2 people anyway.

I think the sign-offs by the directors  were for there own egos, rather than practicality.

 

It will have a suspension 'jack' for clearing low obstacles at low speed. (Assuming you have slowed down enough in the first place)

 

The seats don't have a range of travel, hence the idea of 'custom cushions' & how they solve the issue of having to step on the the seats with muddy shoes for ingress, I'm not quite sure.

The windscreen has a barely legal wiped area & vis is poor, needing a fully heated windscreen & cctv. 

 

It needs constant aircon, to keep the driver cell at a reasonable temperature & I am not sure how they are resolving the engine heat rejection with such tight bodywork that the Chief Designer refuses to compromise.

(Indeed, he seems much more interested in the 'track' version & not the heavy requirements of a road vehicle)

 

It just remains to be seen what turns up. The only bit I'd trust would be the Cosworth...)

 

 

On the more realistic side, AM-RB are producing a developed, more sensible version for the road as well as a something to compete with Ferrari.



#17 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,792 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 19 December 2018 - 17:47

The AM Valkyrie is a "road car". That is the story. Can you drive it over the ramps on a car ferry?

It is a road car in the sense that it will be driven from the showroom to a air conditioned storage unit where it will reside safely for decades, steadily gaining value like most of the other hypercars that have ever been built. 



#18 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 19,230 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 21 December 2018 - 01:54

From the 2018 FIA Tech Regs: 5.17 Materials and construction – Components : 5.17.1 Pistons must respect Article 5.16. Titanium alloys are not permitted.

 

So much for the touted "F1 spec" Ti pistons.I guess there is really no reason for Aston-Martin to ever have read an F1 rulebook though. Side bet: pistons won't really be Ti, it was marketing exuberance over factual accuracy again.



#19 PeterScandlyn

PeterScandlyn
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 21 December 2018 - 03:13

Sees the exuberant marketing folk went to the same school as that Palmer joker then...... :confused:



Advertisement

#20 Sisyphus

Sisyphus
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 December 2018 - 19:38

I could be wrong, but I think the writer meant the con rods would be machined from titanium, not the pistons.  Here is the sentence:  "The block, cylinder heads, sump and structural cam covers are all cast, but most of what's inside has been machined out of solid metal, including the "f1-spec" pistons, and the conrods, which are machined titanium."

 

The sentence is ambiguously constructed and I wonder if titanium pistons would make sense.  Much stronger than aluminum, lower heat transfer coefficient, higher elastic modulus, 60% higher density but ti tends to gall so I wonder if the rings would like that.  I'm sure you could make it work but to what purpose other than marketing (which is maybe the idea being the entire vehicle).



#21 Cavalier53

Cavalier53
  • Member

  • 280 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 25 December 2018 - 17:36

The website linked in the first post, now states it was updated 20 December, and the statement that pistons are Titanium has been corrected.

With a word of thanks to the commenters who brought to their attention. Just shows how many followers the Technical Forum has :rotfl:

 

The text now reads as quoted in post 20.



#22 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 25 December 2018 - 22:37

If you read Adrian Nevey's autobiography there is a section about the Valkyre and they basically made it in contract with Aston that the car has to have a bespoke Cosworth V12 engine. The cylinder count is as much a marketing exercise as it is a engineering choice. People with a couple of million to blow on a car want a NA V12... it is a very light engine and it has to have a overhaul at 100000 km.... which is not bad for an engine that revs to 11+K.

For example, a 1.6 litre 4 cyl in a R2 rallycar will have overhauls after 2000 km but 100K number is calculated according to "road" use. It will be interesting to see if that engine can hold the emissions for 100K.... Cosworth guys say it can..



#23 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 December 2018 - 05:59

gg - I would class the Honda S2000 as being pretty much a "race engine" on the road. More than any other factor a "race engine" differs from an "road" engine in its cam timing. The S2000 has in its upper cam VTEC timing mode a duration that is distinctly "race" - thus I don't think it would be fair to compare it to an "road" engine with a much milder cam. I would imagine that the Cossie V12 probably has a cam duration even longer than the upper range of the VTEC. I don't see how it could be possibly be driven on the road. If your Granny doesn't mind an extremely rough 3,000RPM idle, no power and rough running below about 6,000RPM, just about impossible to get moving from a standstill without stalling etc. - good luck to her. What an engine like the V12 needs is a VTEC-type system or (dare I mention it) a Helical Cam. Much as I dislike turbo engines - if you really want 1000BHP on the road - turbo is the answer.

As for the Koenigsegggggg and similar "supercars" of this ilk - Veyron even Lambos etc. I regard them as **** ( this means "faecal matter" - it was changed automatically) - I have no interest at all in them. I like to see a car with "clever" engineering rather than just being ridiculously expensive. Another thing that annoys me is that maybe 80%(?) of "Supercars" are bought by people who have not exactly come by the money honestly - drug dealers, dodgy businessmen and various types of criminal etc.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 26 December 2018 - 06:03.


#24 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:00

Video including more detail from Cosworth. 

https://www.youtube....h?v=pk8ZrN__nmA


Edited by gruntguru, 26 December 2018 - 10:52.


#25 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 26 December 2018 - 22:35

Kelpiecross, I worked for quite a while on an abortive supercar project. It was actually a bit boring even compared with working on a B sized car. Classic Monday morning meeting "We have to extend the wheelbase by 4" to fit the intercooler in". "OK". In comparison the screaming and moaning when we need an inch of extra track on a real light truck is hilarious.

 

I have bit more time than you for Koeniggsegg and the Veyron and the 959, but yeah the flash dolly cars don't do much for me.



#26 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,792 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 27 December 2018 - 17:11

For example, a 1.6 litre 4 cyl in a R2 rallycar will have overhauls after 2000 km but 100K number is calculated according to "road" use. It will be interesting to see if that engine can hold the emissions for 100K.... Cosworth guys say it can..

Yes, you rebuild the engine in a competition car after quite low mileages.

 

That is, however irrelevant in the case of a 'road' car like the Valkyrie.   I don't know how many they will actually make, but I can guarantee to you that the total mileage of all Valkyries that will ever be made put together wil never even approach 100,000km.  If even one car manages 2,000km, I will be astonished.



#27 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 04:48

Video including more detail from Cosworth. 
https://www.youtube....h?v=pk8ZrN__nmA

I hate to say it but that video was very interesting. This video about the rest of the car is also very illuminating.



Points on the engine video: - it seems the car is joined in the middle basically by the screws securing the cam covers (the cam covers being part of the upper engine mounts). I don't know how wise it is to put all those leverage loads through the heads either. They explain this by the use of a super-dooper Al alloy - it would want to just that. Despite what they say in the video I think the noise and vibration transmitted through the solid engine mounts would be terrible.
Cam drive at the "wrong" end of the engine? Don't think that's a great idea either.
Apparently the engine gets over its low speed tractability problems (the cam timing must be approaching F1 standards) by using the battery etc. to keep rolling - this doesn't seem terribly practical either.
The video about the rest of the car: - you get into the car through an aperture that appears to be about the size of a manhole! I don't think even racing drivers would put up with this.
Feet-higher-than-your-bum driving position? Not really practical on the road surely.

Some very interesting ideas but I suspect that this is really just a "concept" car from AM. I don't think they seriously expect anyone to drive one the road - it appears to be too extreme even for track only use.

You would also need to employ a couple of F1 level mechanics just to keep the bloody thing running.

Edited by Kelpiecross, 29 December 2018 - 04:57.


#28 404KF2

404KF2
  • Member

  • 7,333 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 29 December 2018 - 05:13

Utterly hideous; looks like an insect designed it.  The pig-snouted Bugattis are not much better looking though.



#29 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 9,734 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 07:32

Another example of (lack of) reality - the rear number plates - compulsory for road use in most countries. (and never seen in the publicity illustrations, so far)

 

The normal positions interfere with the aerodynamic intent.

 

Anywhere near the exhaust outlets & they melt.

 

Interesting to see how they deal with this.



#30 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 December 2018 - 08:49

1. Points on the engine video: - it seems the car is joined in the middle basically by the screws securing the cam covers (the cam covers being part of the upper engine mounts). I don't know how wise it is to put all those leverage loads through the heads either. They explain this by the use of a super-dooper Al alloy - it would want to just that. Despite what they say in the video I think the noise and vibration transmitted through the solid engine mounts would be terrible.

 

2. Apparently the engine gets over its low speed tractability problems (the cam timing must be approaching F1 standards) by using the battery etc. to keep rolling - this doesn't seem terribly practical either.

3. The video about the rest of the car: - you get into the car through an aperture that appears to be about the size of a manhole! I don't think even racing drivers would put up with this.

 

4.  Feet-higher-than-your-bum driving position? Not really practical on the road surely.

5. Some very interesting ideas but I suspect that this is really just a "concept" car from AM. I don't think they seriously expect anyone to drive one the road - it appears to be too extreme even for track only use.

6. You would also need to employ a couple of F1 level mechanics just to keep the bloody thing running.

 

1. I for one will be trusting the judgement of Newey, RBR, the engineering team at Aston Martin and Cosworth to analyse the engine mounting arrangements. A 60 deg V12 can have perfect balance and I bet this one is as smooth as. The lack of creature comforts seen in the Smee video suggests that performance is the sole design focus.

 

2. There was no mention of "low speed tractability problems" in the video. I did hear the Cosworth engineer say "1,000 rpm to 11,000 rpm" towards the end. KC have you ever ridden a late model 600cc sport bike? Good useable torque from 2,500 to 16,000.

 

3. Its obviously a no-holds-barred effort to produce the fasted street legal "track car" money can buy.

 

4. See 3.

 

5. See 3. Production is approx 150 units and all are pre-sold. The development cost of the chassis and a bespoke engine could not be justified for a "concept car".

 

6. Probably not a concern for anyone prepared to shell out US $3.2 million for a Sunday toy.



#31 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 29 December 2018 - 08:52

Utterly hideous; looks like an insect designed it.  The pig-snouted Bugattis are not much better looking though.

 

Good to see that AM (and the 150 buyers) are prepared to sacrifice good looks on the alter of performance.



#32 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 29 December 2018 - 09:00

Are rear view camera "mirrors" legal? Does there have to be at least one external mirror for legal road use?

 

And those pillars look like they could make entering an intersection a bit hairy!



#33 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 9,734 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 09:23

There are legal requirements for visibility.

 

This is where employing a non-road car company to do your design, without proper supervision, always brings problems.

 

The original windscreen profile, roofline & scuttle height all had to be revised to bring it to legality.

 

Wing mirrors were considered but I believe the camera option is legal. At least in some countries.



#34 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 10:51



gg - I am now saying good luck to AM. They are testing some interesting ideas and they have people (I nearly wrote "dickheads") paying for it. And I imagine AM are making a tidy profit as well. If AM ever do bring out a rear-engined car - I bet it will be a lot more conventional than this device. Probably the only thing AM will use from the car is the name.

Reminds me of the "Mustang" concept car that Ford produced in the early '60s - which appeared to be have been inspired by a Lotus 23 or something similar. The original "Mustang" was not very much like the production Mustang.

Oddly enough I have never ridden a "superbike". My first ride on a trail bike ended in a huge accident that could have very easily killed me. I took this as a serious hint from God that I should always travel on the road surrounded by a fair bit of metal.


You seem to put great faith in "authority" figures - no matter what the subject.

#35 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 29 December 2018 - 13:19

Yes, you rebuild the engine in a competition car after quite low mileages.

 

That is, however irrelevant in the case of a 'road' car like the Valkyrie.   I don't know how many they will actually make, but I can guarantee to you that the total mileage of all Valkyries that will ever be made put together wil never even approach 100,000km.  If even one car manages 2,000km, I will be astonished.

 

While I agree with you on the total mileage, do bear in mind that several mclaren f1 owners did quite big mileages in their cars.. Of course, that cosworth aston engine will not live at 11 grand all day long..



#36 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 December 2018 - 19:25

Interesting comments. We don't normally hear this tripe when a Koenigsegg or similar is being discussed. 

Tripe? Ouch, that is a big insult in vernacular English!

 

The AM Valkyrie should be a significant car because it comes from a fresh drawing board. There's going to be a track car and a road car, which are different according to the press.

 

I expect fresh creative ideas rather new ways to mould plastic. 



#37 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 9,734 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 20:00

For the road car, it's all about packaging & I doubt there will be much 'creative'. It will be a solid mass of components with many compromises making for a very 'unfriendly' experience for the owners.

The track car, by contrast will be what the designer envisaged in the first place, leaving AM
to take any negative publicity.

#38 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 December 2018 - 20:54

The seats don't have a range of travel, hence the idea of 'custom cushions' & how they solve the issue of having to step on the the seats with muddy shoes for ingress, I'm not quite sure.

I don't get it. If the seat is designed for the driver, how many driver seats should you buy when purchasing a car? Mine, one for the wife, one for the girlfriend?

 

One for the lad who delivers the car? When AM make stuff up, does anyone ask questions?



#39 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 9,734 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 29 December 2018 - 21:08

One thing the AM publicity department is good at, is making design flaws sound like positive intent & something you need or will appreciate.

I guess it means they are doing their job properly.

Advertisement

#40 kikiturbo2

kikiturbo2
  • Member

  • 827 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 29 December 2018 - 21:26

nothing wrong with a fixed seat car.... valkyre isnt the only one like that. .just make pedal box adjustable...

 

as  for custom seats... it is a feature in most race cars and is fitting for a bespoke car like this...



#41 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,792 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 30 December 2018 - 22:27

While I agree with you on the total mileage, do bear in mind that several mclaren f1 owners did quite big mileages in their cars.

Yes, but by comparison with this thing, the Mclaren F1 was a practical road car.  Then there was that one that did over 3,000 miles in 24 Hours.....  ;)



#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 January 2019 - 00:03

You seem to put great faith in "authority" figures - no matter what the subject.

Are you referring to those mentioned below? These are not "authority figures". They include three highly successful F1 entities. Two are performance engineering companies of long standing. They didn't survive to now by making rash engineering decisions.

 

1. I for one will be trusting the judgement of Newey, RBR, the engineering team at Aston Martin and Cosworth to analyse the engine mounting arrangements. 



#43 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 01 January 2019 - 04:20

Once upon a time Lotus built a research car called SID (look it up). Every significant rubber bushing in the powertrain/spine chassis/front and rear subframes was of the same form factor. We then got a long suffering bushing manufacturer to create the biggest tuning set of bushings ever seen. Therefore we could change it from a rigidly mounted engine in the spine flexibly mounted to subframes, with the body rigidly mounted to the subframes, to any other of the many permutations available.  This would have been a brilliant way of understanding exactly how far you could push the spine chassis architecture. Sadly by the time the car was available for actual experimentation I was leaving, so I never got to try out all these ideas. In retrospect it was unlikely that dismantling the car to change the bushings would happen very often!

 

Nowadays there is a physical test called transfer path analysis, and of course a CAE equivalent, that replaces all of this knife and fork development work, which is sad.



#44 DaveW

DaveW
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 01 January 2019 - 10:29

Greg: Richard Hurdwell might be able to help on SID,  It was his project, and he has a presence on the web.

It is hard to be constructive about structures, isolation, etc without specifics.  I have been involved with several attempts to make a track day car from a road car and have sometimes been successful, I think, by identifying and removing flexibly from the vehicle structure (including engine mounts), to gain control over the vehicle dynamics.  Some changes have actually improved the road car….

 

Australian V8 Supercars are good examples, I think, which use the crash structure as primary load bearers, increasing stiffness by an order of magnitude (roughly).



#45 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 January 2019 - 12:07

Are you referring to those mentioned below? These are not "authority figures". They include three highly successful F1 entities. Two are performance engineering companies of long standing. They didn't survive to now by making rash engineering decisions.


gg - Yes - I was referring to Saint Adrian et al being correct about the engine mounting arrangements. You and I (and many other people) can think of many examples where engineering projects by well-known engineering "Saints" and "Saintly" engineering companies have made huge mistakes and caused disasters.
Nobody is perfect or infallible and it is wrong to put your entire faith in something being "right" just because some famous name is attached to it.
To me (and I suspect a lot of other people) the idea of a car being held together by its cam cover screws is highly doubtful - no matter how much incredibly clever infallible computer analysis etc. has been done. If it doesn't look right - it should be challenged. (I thought even the bloke from Cosworth in the video sounded a bit doubtful and apologetic about the idea).

I first lost my faith in engineering saints when St. Colin produced the Lotus 49 in 1967. (Oddly this story also involves Cosworth and a car using the engine/gearbox etc. as part of the structure). The rear upper suspension arm at the inner end was connected to the back of the engine (and ironically the cam cover) by a very untidy and un-engineered-looking structure with the actual ball joint screwed into the end of short unsupported bit of tubing. When I pointed this out to various knowledgeable engineering types they assured me that St. Colin and Lotus et al really knew what the were doing and the whole thing would have been endlessly stress-analysed and could not possibly go wrong.
And what happened? - the short bit of tube immediately broke off repeatedly in races. It was modified by putting a tube between the two mounting points which seems to have cured the problem - it still looks "not-right" though.
A more recent and example was (I think) a Red Bull or Toro Rosso being sent out to test a new front suspension arrangement. When the driver touched the brakes at the end of the straight the two front wheels and suspension and other bits immediately parted company with the car in a most spectacular and entertaining manner. I suppose the engineer (St Adrian?) said - "Well I really didn't expect that to happen - the computer said it would be OK".

Also -putting your faith in other "authority figures" - basically believing any and all the crap about Global Warming/Climate Change that comes out (and electric cars). Adrian really is a saint compared to these criminals (which is what they are).

Edited by Kelpiecross, 01 January 2019 - 12:11.


#46 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 01 January 2019 - 23:43

"St Colin" must have been on the right path, since all F1 cars these days use the engine as a stressed member, bolting directly to the back of the tube (one of the reasons the teams preferred the V6 over the original L4 concept for the current rules).

 

The Ferrari F50 had the engine bolted directly to the chassis also.

 

Changing the clutch in the F50 looked like this

https://www.reddit.c..._a_ferrari_f50/

 

 

Not sure about the Enzo and LaFerrari.



#47 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,712 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 January 2019 - 03:33

gg - Yes - I was referring to Saint Adrian et al being correct about the engine mounting arrangements. You and I (and many other people) can think of many examples where engineering projects by well-known engineering "Saints" and "Saintly" engineering companies have made huge mistakes and caused disasters.
Nobody is perfect or infallible and it is wrong to put your entire faith in something being "right" just because some famous name is attached to it.
To me (and I suspect a lot of other people) the idea of a car being held together by its cam cover screws is highly doubtful - no matter how much incredibly clever infallible computer analysis etc. has been done. If it doesn't look right - it should be challenged. (I thought even the bloke from Cosworth in the video sounded a bit doubtful and apologetic about the idea).

I first lost my faith in engineering saints when St. Colin produced the Lotus 49 in 1967. (Oddly this story also involves Cosworth and a car using the engine/gearbox etc. as part of the structure). The rear upper suspension arm at the inner end was connected to the back of the engine (and ironically the cam cover) by a very untidy and un-engineered-looking structure with the actual ball joint screwed into the end of short unsupported bit of tubing. When I pointed this out to various knowledgeable engineering types they assured me that St. Colin and Lotus et al really knew what the were doing and the whole thing would have been endlessly stress-analysed and could not possibly go wrong.
And what happened? - the short bit of tube immediately broke off repeatedly in races. It was modified by putting a tube between the two mounting points which seems to have cured the problem - it still looks "not-right" though.
A more recent and example was (I think) a Red Bull or Toro Rosso being sent out to test a new front suspension arrangement. When the driver touched the brakes at the end of the straight the two front wheels and suspension and other bits immediately parted company with the car in a most spectacular and entertaining manner. I suppose the engineer (St Adrian?) said - "Well I really didn't expect that to happen - the computer said it would be OK".

Also -putting your faith in other "authority figures" - basically believing any and all the crap about Global Warming/Climate Change that comes out (and electric cars). Adrian really is a saint compared to these criminals (which is what they are).

He He. I was just about to pen an apologetic reply (you are certainly entitled to express healthy scepticism) then read your final sentence. This piece of crap identifies you as a "climate extremist" - well beyond a mere "climate sceptic".

 

Although I believe in AGM, I have no idea of the sensitivity and even allow for a small possibility (perhaps 10%) that AGM does not exist. This is a very realistic attitude and typical of the view held by most Australians.

 

On Ev's - blind Freddy can see they are coming. In 50 years time 90-100% of vehicle sales will be powered by something other than fossil fuel - most probably battery electric. It is 2019 now and the lifetime costs of EV's are roughly at par with petrol cars (depending of course on the operating mode but certainly for the most common use - city commuter). Range anxiety and other issues are currently holding back sales but lifetime cost is at a crossover point and changing rapidly. Hell - we aren't even seeing the efficiencies that come with high volume production . . . . yet.



#48 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,643 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 January 2019 - 08:53

DaveW, yes I know, I bump into Richard from time to time. 



#49 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 02 January 2019 - 09:35

"St Colin" must have been on the right path, since all F1 cars these days use the engine as a stressed member, bolting directly to the back of the tube (one of the reasons the teams preferred the V6 over the original L4 concept for the current rules).
 
The Ferrari F50 had the engine bolted directly to the chassis also.
 
Changing the clutch in the F50 looked like this
https://www.reddit.c..._a_ferrari_f50/
 
 
Not sure about the Enzo and LaFerrari.


Woozy - Very interesting stuff. However I think you slightly misunderstand my reference to St. Col. There is no doubt that using the engine etc. as a stressed part of the chassis is the way to go in F1. Good Old St. Col was almost certainly the greatest F1 Saint of all. He was behind almost every major advance in F1 construction. My point was that even St. Col could make the occasional abomination as he did with the Lotus 49 rear suspension.
This further video on the F50 is also very interesting:

http://www.web-cars....50/chassis.html

Note that the words say that the engine block, because it is a stressed part of the chassis it is made of nodular cast iron - not aluminium. It doesn't say, but I would suggest that the top engine mounts are attached to the block - certainly not the heads and very certainly not the cam covers. The implication would have to be that Ferrari think that what St. Ade et al are doing at AM with respect to the engine mounts etc. really isn't a great idea.

Actually - to be fair to St. Ade - he may have had very little to do with the mechanical parts of the AM - it is not really his field of expertise.

#50 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 02 January 2019 - 10:46

To me (and I suspect a lot of other people) the idea of a car being held together by its cam cover screws is highly doubtful - no matter how much incredibly clever infallible computer analysis etc. has been done. If it doesn't look right - it should be challenged. (I thought even the bloke from Cosworth in the video sounded a bit doubtful and apologetic about the idea).

The Cosworth DFV is pretty scary as a structural element. A triangular plate is typically bolted to each magnesium cam cover at the front by three or four 5/16" UNC screws, and connected to the rear chassis bulkhead via a single screw. There is usually a similar flange with 5/16" threads at the rear of the cam covers but it can be removed for clearance. Below the engine block, two 3/8" screws attach the engine to the bottom of the bulkhead. So 50% or so of the weight of the DFV engine and transmission plus suspension loads are carried via the cam covers. If you look at the cam carriers, heads and block, there are no upper engine mounts. Ouch, but it worked. For an F1 car using underfloor aerodynamics, the chassis width (at the bulkhead behind the fuel cell) is defined by the lower engine mounts.

 

Pertinent to the AM Valkyrie discussion is the fact that the DFV was originally unsatisfactory for long distance sports car racing. It was unreliable and in the days when drivers were in the seat for six or twelve hours for a race, V8 vibrations would have been uncomfortable. Later versions with higher capacity and lower revs were more successful. The Valkyrie's V12 should be smoother and few cars will receive a sustained flogging!