Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 80

Thread: Unlimited Class Race Car

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    2,755

    Unlimited Class Race Car

    For sometime i've been thinking about and drawing race cars that would take advantage of all available todays technology. Race cars that would race only on tarmac race tracks, circuits around the world.

    After viewing the new video of GT5s Project X1 i can't but feel a bit dispointed about the result. At least in my mind there is a lot of possible technology that was left out.

    Gran Turismo 5s Ultimate Car: Red Bull Project X1 Prototype (UPDATE: Screenshots)

    Some of the things i've thought about using on a machine like this are:

    Active aerodynamics - Horizontal wings that change angle, in part guided by the accelaration/braking/driving imputs but also by GPS. Also vertical 'wings' that would help the cars in those long fast corners and stabilization in braking/accelarating

    Active aerodynamic systems like the Brabham BT46

    All kinds of electronics aids, everything you can put in a car.

    Engine is of free choice obviously

    All wheel drive and stearing

    Active suspension, guided thru driver input and GPS

    Etc.

    Some rules would have to exist, mainly refering to drivers safety.

    I'd like to know what are your ideias and what you also think about project X1.
    "Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Open cockpit just seems wrong....

    I have a feeling though its still being govern by realm of possibility, and maybe even the limitation of the game's physics. Once you start add in a lot of that stuff, it will be difficult to model, if thats actually how the cars are driven in the game...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Real world, horizontal wings = bad.
    Using horizontal to steer planes is fine, if a wind gust means they shift 20 feet it makes no difference. That's a WALL in a car
    Real world, steering driven wheels = not so good.
    Real world, awd = not so fast in all cases.
    AWD is lots of weight. Which then needs lots of power to move quickly. Which THEN means the drive shafts have to be stronger. Which adds weight
    IF you torque split to the rear on cornering then the exit gets iffy as NOW the driven wheels will exhibit torque steer ( heaven knows how that feels on a rear driven set )
    NOW the rear drive train as to have beefier drive shafts - more weight, more inertia, slower acceleration.
    Trying to "control" all of the above via the diffs will make for a horrendous car with it trying to wrestle control back against the laws physics.
    Ultimate ? Put an electric motor as each rim and then MORE power can be used to assit stability rather than braking and crude torque splitting

    I think the Red Bull will be "ultimate" because it will keep it simple.
    Grip matching power matching performance.

    Will be interested to see how your math and design works out trying to create a control system for active aero ( downforce is "easy" in comparison as more than is needed just slows you down a bit, more sideways than is needed (eg that gust again) pushes you into a wall ) AND on all wheel steering for losses and control ( the more bits that move the more unintended movement there is )
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,457
    Vertical wing(or rudder, I think is more appropriate), probably is not much use. The cornering capability comes from the tire, you are not trying to scrub or yaw the tire across the pavement if you are trying to go fast. The only "active" aero I'd use is to match the downforce split on the contact patches based on available grip, and perhaps trim out the car on the straight and act as air brake in braking zone. Whatever you are doing in a car, you are aiming to maximize the tire use. To that effect to aim for the ultimate car, you probably will also want to have some type of active camber control, and active suspension to manage tire load in all condition.

    The issue as Matra said though might simply ends up being weight. The force at those level might necessitate powerful actuator which in terms might need more power, and the components will end up being beefier....

    I think "practically", you'd take the current F1 car, and free-up some of the existing constraints in terms of componentries. For example, you'd probably want actuated wings, much like they already have on the front, but free up the idea of it being limited to number of adjustment, and make it computer controlled. Actuators are there, and sensors are there. Might add adjustable rear(which they are anyway). You free up the rear diff being passive and let it do active function with some kind of yaw capability. Again, its already electronically controlled. Cross-linked hydraulically actuated pitch/dive/anti-roll control, like the Kinetics System probably is more practical than the full active suspension, with the ever decreasing size of powerplant, thats probably a good thing...
    University of Toronto Formula SAE Alumni 2003-2007
    Formula Student Championship 2003, 2005, 2006
    www.fsae.utoronto.ca

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Western Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    11,112
    For the vertical veins you should see the WRC subaru from 04/05 (?)



    I think that is more of the idea behind what RUIM suggested.
    Weekly Quote -

    Dick

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    ah, now THAT is different.
    Rally cars are constantly being PITCHED and forced yaw movements over yumps - large and small.
    So that's about trying to give a little resistance to that.
    HOWEVER, it equally puts the same forces when cornering trygin to stop you doing it.
    Just that in the air preventing the yaw matters, on the ground it doesn't apply enough force to be significant to the tyre grip.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    I'm not sure I would start my ultimate car with an F1 car. F1 has some very screwy rules that result in design choices that would otherwise not be taken. Note that Champ/Indy cars never adopted the high nose used on F1 cars. That was because the drawbacks of the high nose are bigger than the advantages under the Indy car rules. You would also likely never see the balloon tires and really odd geometry F1 cars run. Heck, the cars would almost certainly be closed cockpit and covered tires as well. This open wheel thing is anachronistic. In that regard even NASCAR is more advanced than F1.


    What is "ultimate" would very much depend on the track you want to run on. What works on a very smooth track may not be the best on the Ring. What works on a high speed oval like Michigan or a somewhat slower oval like Indy could be a bad choice for a street circuit.

    The problem we run into if we say the only rules are safety is that many of the rules that neuter the performance of an F1 or Indy car are there to make the cars safer and in part to slow them down. At Texas drivers were blacking out around several turns. These days the technology exists to exceed with the car what the driver's body can take. It's just like a jet fighter where the limits of the pilot limit the performance potential of the aircraft.

    Now if might be interesting if you could limit each car to say 100hp...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA, Colorado, Vallecito Lake
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    At Texas drivers were blacking out around several turns. These days the technology exists to exceed with the car what the driver's body can take. It's just like a jet fighter where the limits of the pilot limit the performance potential of the aircraft.
    What the conclusion of every unlimited class runs into and a part of the reason F1 has evolved the way it has. Driver saftey, and instead of modifying the cars, we come to drugging the drivers into consciousness and endurance.
    "Horsepower sells motor cars, but torque wins motor races."
    -Carrol Shelby

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    What might be really interesting is just how fast could we make an RC car circle these same tracks. Take the driver out, so we don't have to worry about driver safety nor limits. That might even let the larger guys compete with the current crop of short drivers. AJ Foyt was a great driver but he would be simply too big to ever run F1 or Indy these days even though he was one of the all time great drivers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Culver, I think you've misinterpreted F1 "rules".
    Cars end up high nosed not BECAUSE of the regs but that within simpler regs a high nose gives better performance - because it allows more air to the side pods ( which are thus smaller = lower drag ) and allows splitter arrangements to keep the underfloor flow cleaner and gets it's point of force more to the rear of the car.
    It's all the Add-Ons that the designers came up with - like winglets - that some of the rules THEN get added to remove because they were unsafe.

    Given the idea of "driverless" is sound EXCEPT that the control system feedback could never work for a car on a real track. eg remote controlled PLANES work because if it yaw'ed 10 feet sideways it's not an issue. Car would be in barrier If you watch 1/5 scale R/C track racing ( not "off road" ) then most of the issues are recognisable there too and there the drivers can see directly what's happening

    Computer controlled woudl be interesting, but still a long way off
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wishing I was in Moscow, Idaho
    Posts
    2,585
    Car and driver did an article where they went to a bunch of designers (some past greats and some current firms)with this question to see what they came up with. I can't find the article but the responses varied greatly (I seem to remember a 16 wheel monstrosity) and was an interesting read. But yeah, safety kills everything.

    Matra, I don't think we're that far from the technology for driverless cars, but we are from there being any series with the money to do it. Now it's just cheap little RC cars. If something like F1 for remote or computer controlled cars (with that kind of budget) were to spring up, cars would be running pretty soon.
    Last edited by wwgkd; 09-19-2010 at 10:35 PM. Reason: typo
    Big cities suck

    "Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    Nope, I haven't misinterpreted it. The rules are such that that is the design that makes sense. The rules don't state the car must be like that but given the rules that design makes sense.

    The high nose exists for a number of reasons. One is to get the suspension and nose out of the way to feed more air into the sidepods as you have said. Another is to increase the usable front wing area. The wing rules make the wing rather narrow and place it close to the front wheels. To maximize what area they have they step up the nose. It also helps cooling because, thanks to the very narrow track a low nose would pinch air between the front tires and the nose thus reducing air that could make it to the sidepods.

    However, if the rules allow the wings to be further forward of the tires and allowed wider track width we might see the noses drop again. If power were cut down so the cars had less muscle to push through the air then things also would change.

    Remember though the changes in the rules which governed the wings were done to slow the cars. The narrower tracks were also to slow the cars and improve passing. Slowing the cars has always been done for safety.

    Outside of F1 I can only think of one class where high nose and low nose cars compete to the same rules. That's the young SCCA F1000 class. So far the low nose car seems to be the fastest though it's really to early to tell. But relatively speaking, F1000 is a low power class with a long wheel base, wide track and with a properly designed chassis a conventional low nose and wings seem to work well.


    I didn't claim the RC car idea would be without flaws, only that the current technology exists to create a car that has capabilities beyond what the driver could withstand.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Porto - Portugal
    Posts
    2,755
    I really meant full vertical wing 'rudders' in front and in the back, movable thru the Z axis, and i see how wind can end that ideia, maybe using sensors to measure wind speeds around the car and trakc could prepare it for thoose lateral 'pushes'?

    I also understand that it all hads weight but you also have an unlimited engine. Matra has given a great ideia, electrical engines that would work autonomous from each other doing the work of a AWD with electronic diffs.

    At one point i did make one car with 8 wheels, 2 in each corner that worked with a kind of Maglev drive, if that worked it could save some 'unsprung'? weight.

    I guess it would just come down to what is worth, maybe the awd with the weight would have a slight advantage over the lighter 2wd or not.

    I'm just playing with ideas here. i haven't got mathematical knowledge like you guys to make any kind of calculations regarding these ideas.

    I must retain that a driver would and should be used, fans can't see a computer as a hero. Maybe a rotating cockpit along the longitudinal axis could help with the stronger Gs in the corners?

    Like i said, just some 'crazy' ideas
    "Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,536
    A rotating cockpit would just result in drivers blacking out, if the cornering was that extreme. Also it'd severely mess with their preception through a chicane.
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    IA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by culver View Post
    Now if might be interesting if you could limit each car to say 100hp...
    But in that case you would be stifling one aspect of engine design.

    Why not just limit the total amount of fuel a team is allowed to use. To slow cars down just provide them with less fuel so they must use it more efficiently. The desire for the highest power output would be balanced with the need to finish the race. The governing racing body would only need to determine the amount of fuel to provide to the teams based on target lap times. Everything else could be unlimited.
    "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite James Bond Automobile
    By toyota_trevor in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 12-06-2019, 03:14 PM
  2. Famous Touring Cars
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 353
    Last Post: 07-04-2010, 08:57 AM
  3. Lotus Evora Cup
    By Ecnelis in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 11:38 AM
  4. 2007 Bathurst 12 hour
    By motorsportnerd in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 12:24 AM
  5. V8 Supercars: Round 6 Hidden Valley, NT
    By fpv_gtho in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-01-2005, 03:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •