GTDesigned: A Community Vision GT Project

[Nessy]

I know you'll say it's too kind and stuff like that.

You're too kind. Seriously though, thank you very much. 👍

I do love to try and illustrate things. Sometimes thoughts/ideas don't always translate that well onto paper, but as long as people can kind of understand what we're trying to illustrate, be it through drawing or writing, then that makes it all worthwhile. 👍

 

[iName]

This is still my favorite design. @Nessy: I think I would look amazing without a roof as well.
View attachment 418291

That's my favorite design as well. To me, this design could be worked on the most. Small high-output engine and an aerodynamic body setup for high downforce, it's completely possible.

 

[Exorcet]

@Exorcet

Would it be beneficial if the Aero-car (Road Regatta ) could tilt when cornering?

Was thinking it could make use of moving skirts on the pontoons/side-pods, a bit like ground effect F1 cars of old.


Front view describing what i mean:

Hard to say. Some lean in the corners would change the angle of the downforce vector, and you could make it point into the corner which would increase turning force, but you'd also tend to lose some downforce as well. Then you would also need to consider the weight of the suspension that would allow the car to lean. It's not something I've really looked into.

 

[YukinoSuzuka]

Well said and very possible you've to much weight of the suspension to gain advantage over a normal flat body style that stays on the ground.

I Think this 'Road Regetta' could be an awesome idea for the Community VGT, it is now Nessie's drawing, but not his idea, thanks to his contribution together with his own Giga-kart'ish design 2 very plausible designs for the VGT !

And I remember the cool drawings & idea's from @eran0004 as well ?! Is he still in the race?

We are getting somewhere !!


*Feeling excited*




*Pretty to much to soon... though*

 

[iName]

Well said and very possible you've to much weight of the suspension to gain advantage over a normal flat body style that stays on the ground.

I Think this 'Road Regetta' could be an awesome idea for the Community VGT, it is now Nessie's drawing, but not his idea, thanks to his contribution together with his own Giga-kart'ish design 2 very plausible designs for the VGT !

And I remember the cool drawings & idea's from @eran0004 as well ?! Is he still in the race?

We are getting somewhere !!


*Feeling excited*




*Pretty to much to soon... though*

I really do feel like we're getting somewhere. For a while so many ideas were being spat out that the tires kept spinning, and it wasn't until we buckled down for seriousness did we ever get somewhere.

I feel confident enough that we'll be finished within 365 days. I'll even place a bet on that.

 

[eran0004]

@Exorcet

Would it be beneficial if the Aero-car (Road Regatta ) could tilt when cornering?

Was thinking it could make use of moving skirts on the pontoons/side-pods, a bit like ground effect F1 cars of old.


Front view describing what i mean:

Assuming that the central body is creating downforce, wouldn't it be better to let it stay horizontal or even rotate away from the apex? Right now they would create a force pushing the car out.

 

[Andyc709292]

 

[YukinoSuzuka]

Assuming that the central body is creating downforce, wouldn't it be better to let it stay horizontal or even rotate away from the apex? Right now they would create a force pushing the car out.

Like something with pop-up vertical wings out of the horizontal (base) wing? The vertical fins could turn 60 degrees both ways for maximum presure on the wheels for the most grip, I see this also as a nautical kind of aerodynamics, like bow thrusters on a yaght or big catamaran. And while braking they are rotating all 90 degrees creating a wall of fins for maximum air-brake.

 

[YukinoSuzuka]

I really do feel like we're getting somewhere. For a while so many ideas were being spat out that the tires kept spinning, and it wasn't until we buckled down for seriousness did we ever get somewhere.

I feel confident enough that we'll be finished within 365 days. I'll even place a bet on that.

Nah, I don't feel it is all done within a year !! That is far to soon. To much pressure and to much to do to make a good VGT in that time. I see it as a long term project, as I believe we'll finish this project within 3/4 years. Seriously, when we've our competitors (3 to 6 designs ??), this thread needs a clean-up and only the posts with the ideas and innovations collected in one view/file (a big one) to choose for the most favourite innovations the community like to see on the VGT. Together with the plausible VGT's the community wants to, the most favourite innovations could also be an important sight of what people want.

 

[eran0004]

Like something with pop-up vertical wings out of the horizontal (base) wing? The vertical fins could turn 60 degrees both ways for maximum presure on the wheels for the most grip, I see this also as a nautical kind of aerodynamics, like bow thrusters on a yaght or big catamaran. And while braking they are rotating all 90 degrees creating a wall of fins for maximum air-brake.

I'm thinking the entire wing rotates, like in Nessy's sketch, just tilt it the other way. The wing can also be used to control the tilt of the wheels.

These sketches is the front view. There's the left wheel and the right wheel. In between the wheels there's the wing (the upper horizontal body) and a fixed bar (the lower horizontal body). The wing is attached to the bar at the center, allowing it to rotate. The wheels are attached both to the fixed bar and to the wing, so when the wing rotates it will change the tilt of the wheels.

Here is the configuration when driving in a straight line:

Here it is turning left:

And turning right:

Edit: With the central pivoting point above the wheel attachments, the tilting becomes more pronounced, and both wheels will now tilt in the same direction:

Edit 2: Here I placed a cockpit as well, and a mechanism to make it tilt.

 

[Nessy]

Assuming that the central body is creating downforce, wouldn't it be better to let it stay horizontal or even rotate away from the apex?

I honestly don't know, i have little to no experience or knowledge when it comes to physics. I guess the common sense K.I.S.S (keep it simple) approach would suggest we keep the horizontal aerofoil static, in relation to the sidepods/vertical foils. Because with complexity often comes extra weight (as pointed out by Exorcet & YukinoSuzuka).

As for the pitch/direction of a moving central aerofoil, i would've thought the way iv'e approached it, would take advantage of the wheels with the most downforce load on them, being closer to the apex of a corner, (imagine an ice-skating speed skater, and the way they cross over their legs to grip the corner better). I think applying the 'Bernoulli's principle' to the inside turn of a corner compared to the outside makes more sense, especially when we add weight balance and tipping points into the equation, (though obviously i could be completely wrong, please someone correct me if i am).

[EDIT]

Sorry eran, i forget to ask: In this model is the the vehicle turning right or left? And is it the back or front of the vehicle we're looking at? I'd be lying if i said i completely understand it. (i'm not the sharpest tool in the box )

[This pic]

View attachment 419056

 

[eran0004]

I honestly don't know, i have little to no experience or knowledge when it comes to physics. I guess the common sense K.I.S.S (keep it simple) approach would suggest we keep the horizontal aerofoil static, in relation to the sidepods/vertical foils. Because with complexity often comes extra weight (as pointed out by Exorcet & YukinoSuzuka).

As for the pitch/direction of a moving central aerofoil, i would've thought the way iv'e approached it, would take advantage of the wheels with the most downforce load on them, being closer to the apex of a corner, (imagine an ice-skating speed skater, and the way they cross over their legs to grip the corner better). I think applying the 'Bernoulli's principle' to the inside turn of a corner compared to the outside makes more sense, especially when we add weight balance and tipping points into the equation, (though obviously i could be completely wrong, please someone correct me if i am).

[EDIT]

Sorry eran, i forget to ask: In this model is the the vehicle turning right or left? And is it the back or front of the vehicle we're looking at? I'd be lying if i said i completely understand it. (i'm not the sharpest tool in the box )

[This pic]

View attachment 419056

The car is turning in this direction: >>>

As for the tilt of the wing, when the wing is not perfectly horizontal it will create some force to the side. The black line in this picture is the wing, the red arrow is the downforce and the grey dotted arrows is the downforce split in a horizontal force and a vertical force. If the apex of the corner is on the right side of the wing, the downforce will help pushing the car towards the apex. If the apex is on the left side of the wing, the downforce will push the car away from the apex.

So by letting the wing tilt in the opposite direction of the wheels, the tyres gets some help from the aero in turning the car. It's not a lot, but it's better to let the force work with the tyres rather than against the tyres.

And it wouldn't require much complexity to let the wing tilt in the other direction, all you need is a central pivoting point that's higher than where the wing connects to the body.

 

[Nessy]

From my understanding, the upturned aerofoil/wing generates low pressure underneath, that in-turn creates suction (to the ground), thus equaling downforce/ground effect.


Red = high pressure airflow (gurney/lip, of the aerofoil/wing)

Yellow = undisturbed airflow

Blue = low pressure airflow

Darker blue = lower pressure airflow creating increased suction (Bernoulli's principle)

Green = direction of turn

 

[787bcgr]

So, basically, two bikes connected by a central aerodynamic section. Interesting. Sounds like it'll be lightweight and aerodynamically efficient.

 

[ALeftRighter]

So, basically, two bikes connected by a central aerodynamic section. Interesting. Sounds like it'll be lightweight and aerodynamically efficient.

Also fuel efficient, will there be two motors? Or one?

 

[Alex Pepe]

This design is really cool and all guys, but seriously lacking in some areas.

The driver is not going to receive the right kind of feedback (tire contact on road, grip levels etc) if he is sitting as extremely to the left/right as the concept depicts.

The center of gravity is not close to the middle.

There is no device shown or intake that will allow enough airflow to the brakes to keep them from overheating.

Due to the separation of the 1 cockpit into 2 individual cockpits on the sides, the steering will have to be electronically relayed by wires etc to the other pods wheel. That means no feedback can be given to the drivers hands for the front tires.

The motor is also an issue. Either 2 different engines for the back wheel having to be synced together. Or 1 motor and then offset the weight of the car.

The car is really cool to look at but its over complicated and pointless to make. System is too complicated and maybe impossible for some aspects.

I have an idea for a cool design as well.

 

[787bcgr]

This design is really cool and all guys, but seriously lacking in some areas.

The driver is not going to receive the right kind of feedback (tire contact on road, grip levels etc) if he is sitting as extremely to the left/right as the concept depicts.

The center of gravity is not close to the middle.

There is no device shown or intake that will allow enough airflow to the brakes to keep them from overheating.

Due to the separation of the 1 cockpit into 2 individual cockpits on the sides, the steering will have to be electronically relayed by wires etc to the other pods wheel. That means no feedback can be given to the drivers hands for the front tires.

The motor is also an issue. Either 2 different engines for the back wheel having to be synced together. Or 1 motor and then offset the weight of the car.

The car is really cool to look at but its over complicated and pointless to make. System is too complicated and maybe impossible for some aspects.

I have an idea for a cool design as well.

I have an idea that could make it work. I'll draw it up when I get the chance.

 

[Exorcet]

From my understanding, the upturned aerofoil/wing generates low pressure underneath, that in-turn creates suction (to the ground), thus equaling downforce/ground effect.

Bernoulli gives a good general idea, but you need to look at more than the ground clearance. Since tires work on slip angle, the car will also yaw in corners. Besides area ratios, curvature radius also changes air pressure. The yaw of the car can create different low pressure zones. What eran said about the downforce vector change direction is important to take into account because pressure is purely a normal force. It will only exert a force perpendicular to the point it's acting on. If the wing isn't level, you will get a side force. In your drawing it's lowering the car's turning ability.

Finding the optimum would take CFD or wind tunnel testing. It would also require a more finalized designed as everything would be geometry sensitive.

This design is really cool and all guys, but seriously lacking in some areas.

The driver is not going to receive the right kind of feedback (tire contact on road, grip levels etc) if he is sitting as extremely to the left/right as the concept depicts.

The center of gravity is not close to the middle.

There is no device shown or intake that will allow enough airflow to the brakes to keep them from overheating.

Due to the separation of the 1 cockpit into 2 individual cockpits on the sides, the steering will have to be electronically relayed by wires etc to the other pods wheel. That means no feedback can be given to the drivers hands for the front tires.

The motor is also an issue. Either 2 different engines for the back wheel having to be synced together. Or 1 motor and then offset the weight of the car.

The car is really cool to look at but its over complicated and pointless to make. System is too complicated and maybe impossible for some aspects.

I have an idea for a cool design as well.

Right now it's just a concept, or at least that's how I was presenting it. There is a lot of room to be flexible. A more conservative design could be made by enlarging the sidepods, allowing for more internal room. A thicker center airfoil section could also provide room for a more centralized engine, etc. We could also do something more like the Lotus 79 and use two center tunnels on either side of a low center section.

The design in its current form is pretty extreme, but I still doable in my opinion. Before ruling it out we need more specifics like required driver and engine space, etc.

 

[iName]

For engine placement, I see us having two options.
1. One pod for the driver, other for the engine.
2. Both pods have seats, and one has an engine and the other with an electric engine.

I'm not sure how the engine would do in the middle piece.

 

[ScottPuss20]

To really maximise performance the engine and driver should be plonked in the middle of the car. A massive aerofoil will be placed underneath the body much like the ground effects F1 cars.

 

[Alex Pepe]

Bernoulli gives a good general idea, but you need to look at more than the ground clearance. Since tires work on slip angle, the car will also yaw in corners. Besides area ratios, curvature radius also changes air pressure. The yaw of the car can create different low pressure zones. What eran said about the downforce vector change direction is important to take into account because pressure is purely a normal force. It will only exert a force perpendicular to the point it's acting on. If the wing isn't level, you will get a side force. In your drawing it's lowering the car's turning ability.

Finding the optimum would take CFD or wind tunnel testing. It would also require a more finalized designed as everything would be geometry sensitive.



Right now it's just a concept, or at least that's how I was presenting it. There is a lot of room to be flexible. A more conservative design could be made by enlarging the sidepods, allowing for more internal room. A thicker center airfoil section could also provide room for a more centralized engine, etc. We could also do something more like the Lotus 79 and use two center tunnels on either side of a low center section.

The design in its current form is pretty extreme, but I still doable in my opinion. Before ruling it out we need more specifics like required driver and engine space, etc.

Thats cool. But that doesn't address the extremely important issue of steering and feedback. The driver really needs those factors to be able to do anything worth while in the car. With this design the driver is getting the butt feeling of one side of the car, bad bad bad. And cant get feedback from steering wheel or any tires.

 

[Alex Pepe]

This design should be scrapped or put on hold. It's overly complicated and for what??? Whats the huge advantage this car gets from its design. Its not worth it.

 

[Nessy]

Bernoulli gives a good general idea, but you need to look at more than the ground clearance. Since tires work on slip angle, the car will also yaw in corners. Besides area ratios, curvature radius also changes air pressure. The yaw of the car can create different low pressure zones. What eran said about the downforce vector change direction is important to take into account because pressure is purely a normal force. It will only exert a force perpendicular to the point it's acting on. If the wing isn't level, you will get a side force. In your drawing it's lowering the car's turning ability.

Finding the optimum would take CFD or wind tunnel testing. It would also require a more finalized designed as everything would be geometry sensitive.

That all sounds very complex. Yep, fixed wing it is.

Thats cool. But that doesn't address the extremely important issue of steering and feedback. The driver really needs those factors to be able to do anything worth while in the car. With this design the driver is getting the butt feeling of one side of the car, bad bad bad. And cant get feedback from steering wheel or any tires.

I can only speak for my interpretation of @Exorcet's design, but for you to assume that the steering front wheels would not be connected? You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[eran0004]

I made a Lego model of the tilting wheels design
What's interesting about this configuration is that it only tilts the outer wheels, while the inner remains straight.

 

[Nessy]

That is sooo cool. 👍

Not sure about the non tilting inside wheels though. Can't be good for the lateral forces exerted, possibly?

[edit]

Actually, i guess that wouldn't make a difference on the lateral force.

[edit 2]

Quick sketch. Bit of a boring approach (imo), but something that's more realistic and conventional:



I think the way it was before (occupants sitting within the pontoons/sidepods) seemed less of a disturbance to airflow, due to the small (in comparison) canopy. Albeit at the detriment of COG/COM..

 

[Exorcet]

This design should be scrapped or put on hold. It's overly complicated and for what??? Whats the huge advantage this car gets from its design. Its not worth it.

You're jumping the gun. It's good to call out issues with proposed designs, but remember it's only at a conceptual stage. Scrapping at this point wouldn't be helpful because we haven't even looked at how well the design can get around its short comings.

The intended advantage of this car is high downforce for low drag, which allows it to get more out of light and low powered engines.

To proceed from the concept stage we need to look at and optimize dimensions. I've mentioned widening the pods repeatedly in part because I'm aware of some of the flaws pointed out. Any solid conclusions will require more information, such as a target powertrain so that we know how much room we even need in the first place.

We also don't need to focus on one design, so feel free to propose more. I don't know how we're going to select a design, I'm just playing the role of aero adviser.

 

[YukinoSuzuka]

And remember it's about Vision GranTurismo. The Chaparall VGT for example, is it really tested a small laser propulsion system that could work on a racing car that size? I believe they are these days not that far with techs like that and as compact as the Chaparall is, I believe if they build a car now to deliver the same thrust/performance, they would need a big big lorry truck.

It's very good we deal and discuss with the innovations we all come up with, but maybe we are sometimes a bit too sceptic/nittpicky for really great ideas and the Road Regatta is one of the best ideas/concepts this far after 71,5 pages !!! From my point of view, really VGT-able !!

 

[MatskiMonk]

I made a Lego model of the tilting wheels design
What's interesting about this configuration is that it only tilts the outer wheels, while the inner remains straight.

View attachment 419559 View attachment 419560 View attachment 419561 View attachment 419562 View attachment 419563 View attachment 419564

Is it worth the impact that the suspension design would have on the overall style? The same thing could be achieved with servos or hydraulics at each corner to tilt the wheel. It'd be more compact and wouldn't dictate so much of the design.

Just a thought.

Didn't Mercedes do a concept on this theory a little while ago?

 

[eran0004]

Is it worth the impact that the suspension design would have on the overall style? The same thing could be achieved with servos or hydraulics at each corner to tilt the wheel. It'd be more compact and wouldn't dictate so much of the design.

Just a thought.

Didn't Mercedes do a concept on this theory a little while ago?

Well, the actual car wouldn't be made by Lego, so the mechanism can be made a lot more compact and subtle I'm thinking a system of wires could be used, it would connect nicely to the maritime theme

 

[787bcgr]