Pininfarina Teases Fittipaldi EF7 Vision GT Before Geneva Motor Show

[Obelisk]

It doesn't even have a rear wing. That's on an LMP, mind you.

It could have other means of aero. Doesn't it have winglets on the back?

 

[MisterWaffles]

It could have other means of aero. Doesn't it have winglets on the back?

If you wanted to generate any sort of real downforce on a track, using a large wing on say, the Bentley Speed 8 would provide much more of that than two dinky pop-up spoilers off to each side. The car better be very slippery in the game if that's the case.

 

[Obelisk]

If you wanted to generate any sort of real downforce on a track, using a large wing on say, the Bentley Speed 8 would provide much more of that than two dinky pop-up spoilers off to each side. The car better be very slippery in the game if that's the case.

Perhaps it didn't have the wing when it was revealed, but that would be added in later?

 

[Imari]

Just right offhand, I can't think of a VGT that doesn't abide by the laws of physics, aside from the Tomahawks of course. So you're taking (in your opinion) the worst example and applying it to all the other VGTs. Don't you think that's a tad unfair?

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I view the VGTs as divided into two groups. The legitimate concept cars, like the Mercedes or the VW. Pretty normal, some fancy tech that is currently possible or near to it but not economical or viable for production cars. And the ridiculous cars like the Tomahawk and the Chaparral.

There are some that are kind of in-between, but lets just talk about those two groups because it makes illustrating the point easy.

I have no problem with the first kind. I think they as part of the VGT program are a good idea. Personally, I'd have made the design brief more specific, but in general I approve. With a small car list I might personally prefer to see other cars and I think in certain cases one might be able to make arguments that specific iconic cars might have been a better choice, but at the end of the day it is what it is. They're fine.

The Tomahawk and Chaparral don't technically break any laws of physics. However, they cannot be made using any technology that we know of, nor by any reasonable extension or refinement of any technology that we know of. The Tomahawk requires massive advances in materials science. The Chaparral requires massive advances in a bunch of fields, along with the associated engineering problems in making a car that is essentially an Orion Project with wheels on function without destroying itself and everything around it. Even giving them massive benefit of the doubt in terms of energy efficiencies and material strengths, these cars are not possible. It's possible that ultimately they are not able to be built with the materials available in this universe at all.

Hence the comparison to AG craft. Technically, you could make an AG or magnetic craft that behaved very similarly to a Wipeout craft. We don't consider that realistic though, because it requires massive assumptions about technology that simply doesn't exist.

That's where I draw the line. I'm fine with VGTs, but Polyphony, SRT and Chaparral can take their flailing members and cram them where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned. They barely belong in a game like NFS or GTA, and they definitely don't belong in a game like GTS. They aren't displaying future design or new and innovative technology, they're displaying how easy it is to blind the common man with buzzwords until people will accept anything as plausible.

TLDR: I'm fine with VGTs as concept cars, I'm not fine with Tomahawk and Chaparral. I think we can keep the first and do away with the second, and the vast majority of people will be at least satisfied, if not pleased.

If you wanted to generate any sort of real downforce on a track, using a large wing on say, the Bentley Speed 8 would provide much more of that than two dinky pop-up spoilers off to each side. The car better be very slippery in the game if that's the case.

You can do a lot with underfloor work, especially if you're not really limited by regulations. They mention underbody and a 200,000rpm blower in the bumf. We all know how crazy the downforce was on the 2J and the F1 fan cars.

 

[Obelisk]

You can do a lot with underfloor work, especially if you're not really limited by regulations. They mention underbody and a 200,000rpm blower in the bumf. We all know how crazy the downforce was on the 2J and the F1 fan cars.

200,000 RPM? Isn't that going to tear the fan apart?

 

[McLaren]

Heck, even though there's no livery editor, there are a few cars in which GT6 smokes even FM6 as far as body customization (although these are still admittedly few and far between). Take for instance the KTM X-Bow. In FM6, the only body mods you can have for it are the stupid-looking Forza bumper and wing. In GT6, it's far more customizable. You can even change out the airbox. How crazy is that?!

I get the point you're trying to make, but in this case of "Add-ons vs Add-ons", I think it's safe to say Forza still retains the edge on body modifications, esp. with the ones Horizon has offered up. Some of them are just as interesting to see included.

 

[Imari]

200,000 RPM? Isn't that going to tear the fan apart?

Depends on the radius and how well it's balanced. Turbos can reach 200,000rpm. Whether it's better to have a small turbine spinning fast versus a bigger one spinning slowly...meh. It's a concept car, it doesn't have to make total sense.

I'd say totally plausible though if they wanted to make it like that.

Even the Chrysler Turbine engine gets up to ~50krpm, and that's from the '60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

 

[bremics]

Depends on the radius and how well it's balanced. Turbos can reach 200,000rpm. Whether it's better to have a small turbine spinning fast versus a bigger one spinning slowly...meh. It's a concept car, it doesn't have to make total sense.

I'd say totally plausible though if they wanted to make it like that.

Even the Chrysler Turbine engine gets up to ~50krpm, and that's from the '60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

Semi-related, I was really pissed off when the Rocket had a "atomic V-8" instead of turbine engine, especially with headlight/taillight design. Especially after waiting so long for the stupid thing to be released.

 

[Icespooncream]

I came here to say I was excited about this project and can't wait to see the car.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

I came here to say I was excited about this project and can't wait to see the car.

Agreed. 👍

I have some faith that this VGT will be far more realistic than some previous examples that garners disdain from the detractors of the programme like iron filings to a magnet.

But time will tell.

 

[CarBastard]

Some great posts by @Imari that sum up just what I'm thinking!

Again, I disagree. The customization and Course Maker features are definitely not "minimum features." For instance, games like Assetto Corsa and (sigh; do I really have to mention this game?) Project CARS have zero in-game customization. Sure, you can download mods for them and customize them to your heart's content (more so AC than... that other game). But that's only for PC players. In the game, you're limited to a number of pre-selected paint colors/liveries. Heck, even though there's no livery editor, there are a few cars in which GT6 smokes even FM6 as far as body customization (although these are still admittedly few and far between). Take for instance the KTM X-Bow. In FM6, the only body mods you can have for it are the stupid-looking Forza bumper and wing. In GT6, it's far more customizable. You can even change out the airbox. How crazy is that?!

And I defy you to name one other sim racing game within the last 10 years that allows you to create your own tracks (and no, DiRT 4 doesn't count because it's not out yet). Again, sure, you can download new tracks for AC - some of them quite amazing, and I would know because I've tried some - but unless you have a significant amount of know-how, you can't actually create them. The Course Maker in GT5 and (especially) GT6 allows anyone to make great tracks.


How do you know this? We've only seen the livery editor once for about 4 seconds in one trailer. There's no way we could possibly know how extensive customization is in GT Sport from just that alone. Is it possible that the livery editor is utter crap? Yes, but it's also possible that it even smokes Forza's. We'll just have to wait and see.

First off, I didn't mean to imply course maker was a "minimum feature", and I already admitted it worked great. Like you said, it's something that hadn't been done by other games and it allowed for the creation of great tracks. Well done there, PoDi, without sarcasm.

But besides that, it's rather telling that a game with such massive funding is being compared to games developed by way smaller studios without the kind of official support PoDI or T10 get. We're talking basically about ported versions of PC sims, so it's understandable that they don't deliver on these "minimum features" and, as you can see, they're suffering the consequences for it. The only reason they don't get much stick from us is, again, because they're much smaller studios with a much smaller budget that are giving the big guys a run for their money.

I do agree that some customization options in certain GT cars are amazing, I really do. But where's the consistency? Would it be that hard for them to make, say, two bodykits and one special item for most cars? Surely, not as hard as modelling another car from scrap. The point I made about the paint chips, however, still stands and judging by what we've seen so far the livery editor will just be more of the same. If it wasn't close to it's finished state they wouldn't have shown it to the public, and with the time running out I doubt it's high on their list of priorities to give the livery editor a major overhaul.

Games from the PS1 era like Ridge Racer Type 4 had a livery editor and Need for Speed: Pro Street had a very comprehensive and easy to use one. Again: A decade late yet still a decade behind. S.M.S and Kunos' excuse is that they don't have the man-power to make it happen and have limited resources, alright. But what's PD excuse? They have the budget and the know-how, they just don't have the will to do so because "🤬 the fans, they'll buy anything with a GT logo on it!". Well done there, PoDi, with tons of sarcasm.

It seems that they are listening
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/should-vgt-go-die.346641/

Some people like them and some not. So what should PD do? They can't please everybody

Other than the fact that, you know, there are people who do want the VGTs in the game. Quite a number of them in fact.

Some people will be satisfied with whatever you throw at them, specially if it's "free", but that doesn't mean that whatever they're getting is good. And yes, PoDi could please almost everybody if they got their 🤬 together and modelled both their trippy make believe spaceships AND the cars people desperately want to be included in their $60 product. Or just the real cars, I'm sure nobody will say "WTF PD! I didn't want a relevant and exciting McLaren P1! I wanted a car with rockets that defies gravity and you drive upside down!".

Come on, it's not like people are asking for a Mk.II Suzuki Cultus GTi (which is absolutely lovely regardless of being the FWD or 4WD version! ) or some sort of steam-powered sudanese F1 project. The suggestions that thousands of fans have made on the largest Gran Turismo-themed word on earth are VERY reasonable and make for an absolute dream garage. But, instead, we get WWII machines and laser-driven thingymabobs that require fighter pilot suits. Hurray, real driving simulator!

 

[Aphelion]

Some people will be satisfied with whatever you throw at them, specially if it's "free", but that doesn't mean that whatever they're getting is good. And yes, PoDi could please almost everybody if they got their 🤬 together and modelled both their trippy make believe spaceships AND the cars people desperately want to be included in their $60 product. Or just the real cars, I'm sure nobody will say "WTF PD! I didn't want a relevant and exciting McLaren P1! I wanted a car with rockets that defies gravity and you drive upside down!".

Come on, it's not like people are asking for a Mk.II Suzuki Cultus GTi (which is absolutely lovely regardless of being the FWD or 4WD version! ) or some sort of steam-powered sudanese F1 project. The suggestions that thousands of fans have made on the largest Gran Turismo-themed word on earth are VERY reasonable and make for an absolute dream garage. But, instead, we get WWII machines and laser-driven thingymabobs that require fighter pilot suits. Hurray, real driving simulator!

Well, ok sure, but I would also prefer it if the Mclaren P1 was in the game instead of, say, the ford mustang. Or literally anything else.

You are still accentuating that because you don't appreciate the content that makes it 'bad', which isn't true.

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

The point I made about the paint chips, however, still stands and judging by what we've seen so far the livery editor will just be more of the same. If it wasn't close to it's finished state they wouldn't have shown it to the public, and with the time running out I doubt it's high on their list of priorities to give the livery editor a major overhaul.

Games from the PS1 era like Ridge Racer Type 4 had a livery editor and Need for Speed: Pro Street had a very comprehensive and easy to use one. Again: A decade late yet still a decade behind. S.M.S and Kunos' excuse is that they don't have the man-power to make it happen and have limited resources, alright. But what's PD excuse? They have the budget and the know-how, they just don't have the will to do so because "🤬 the fans, they'll buy anything with a GT logo on it!". Well done there, PoDi, with tons of sarcasm.

Again, you're making assumptions about the livery editor based on 4 seconds of footage from a pre-final build of the game in a trailer. We still don't know anything about how it works.

 

[JKgo]

...Is there anyone from GTP forums planning to attend the Geneva Motorshow next month? It's a long shot, but I'm hoping that there might be a booth set up for another run of GT:S demos alongside the reveal of this car.

If so, it'll be interesting to hear the experiences from the members' own perspectives. If not.... well, no biggie.

 

[fortbo]

If you wanted to generate any sort of real downforce on a track, using a large wing on say, the Bentley Speed 8 would provide much more of that than two dinky pop-up spoilers off to each side. The car better be very slippery in the game if that's the case.

It does not need a huge rear wing to generate significant amounts of downforce, it can also be generated by the underside of the car.

 

[KiroKai]

Edit: Nevermind, doesn't relate to the point of the post

 

[FoRiZon]

It doesn't even have a rear wing. That's on an LMP, mind you.

 

[RACECAR]

It doesn't even have a rear wing. That's on an LMP, mind you.

Neither did these:

Seemed to work just fine to me.

 

[trustjab]

Rear of the Hyundai N2025-

That's just the show-floor model. Look at the air flow channels between the rear wheels and the rear 'wing' profile where it says Hyundai, plus above where the flying butresses meet the rear fenders. From this angle it looks more Formula car with closed wheel arches than lmp. It'd be interesting to see what kind of numbers this thing could do in real life.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You could technically propel a vehicle with electrons/laser. IIRC There's a thing NASA proposed called ion propulsion that reminds me of the laser.

Don't remember what Hyundai did.

I already showed why that isn't possible so no you can't technically do that. I could technically power my car with nuclear fission because submarines and experimental aircraft had this ability, even though it never worked with great success in an aircraft and you need a reactor of a size much bigger than the car itself...

Get the point? The technology existing doesn't make the idea science fact, thus just cause it works in one application doesn't mean in a few months we'll be zipping around in laser propelled cars. Why this is going ignored because it destroys the argument posed is beyond me.

 

[GT Sport]

Hope we get a new trailer with a new release date at Geneva show

 

[RACECAR]

Rear of the Hyundai N2025-

That's just the show-floor model. Look at the air flow channels between the rear wheels and the rear 'wing' profile where it says Hyundai, plus above where the flying butresses meet the rear fenders. From this angle it looks more Formula car with closed wheel arches than lmp. It'd be interesting to see what kind of numbers this thing could do in real life.

Interesting that the Fin now plays the same roll as the fin on the Delta wing in addition to the channels the air flows through. I actually wouldn't mind seeing this come to life as a Garage 56 entrant.

 

[mwoodski]

The fin on the Delta Wing was for regulatory purposes. Much like all the P1, P2, and DPi cars. Same with the holes above the wheels.

 

[Castrol96]

I'm surprised this car looks normal for once so far.

 

[Grippy]

Why do people hate VGT cars? Its not like you are forced to pick them, I like the idea of driving cars which different manufacturers have dreamed of but wont make because of price, regulations etc.
It's a game and work like this that manufacturers put behind is only a bonus for me, i get excited when real world car manufacturers make a concept car i can drive in a game, it's not like a random dude made a concept car

For people saying it's a driving simulator, true PD want to be a simulator but also want to satisfy all kinds of gamers, with different content, from rally, gokart, pikes peak (hopefully in GTS), le mans, formula 1, road cars, old cars new cars, concept cars, vgt cars, even moon cars lol.

I agree it's quite cool for manufactures to make these VGT cars, but I can somewhat see where the hate is coming from, though it's not exactly justified. It's because VGT cars shouldn't be raced alongside the real cars in Group 3 etc..

 

[Tassie_tiger]

After the difficulty of trying to post images yesterday, I won't bother today.

But I'm sure someone will like to post .....
The new image of the Fittipaldi VGT.
http://pininfarina.com/en/fittipald...di_ef7_vision_gran_turismo_by_pininfarina.htm


Edit.
I must have been blind before.
I've just noticed they added a few details too.

"The entire outer frame and the monocoque of the Fittipaldi Motors EF7 Vision Grand Turismo by Pininfarina will be made from carbon fiber, giving it a unique advantage on the track in terms of both speed and safety."

"As such, the EF7 will be super lightweight (around 1000kgs), meaning that speed in the straightway and nibble and quickness to enter & exit corners will be extraordinary while safety standards, enhanced by the strength of carbon fiber, are of the highest possible consideration."

"Fittipaldi also revealed that the powerful engine and gearbox are "Fittipaldi" single manufacturer-made and seamlessly integrated, while their low position on the car creates a unique center of gravity."

 

[bdj57]

After the difficulty of trying to post images yesterday, I won't bother today.

But I'm sure someone will like to post .....
The new image of the Fittipaldi VGT.
http://pininfarina.com/en/fittipald...di_ef7_vision_gran_turismo_by_pininfarina.htm


Edit.
I must have been blind before.
I've just noticed they added a few details too.

"The entire outer frame and the monocoque of the Fittipaldi Motors EF7 Vision Grand Turismo by Pininfarina will be made from carbon fiber, giving it a unique advantage on the track in terms of both speed and safety."

"As such, the EF7 will be super lightweight (around 1000kgs), meaning that speed in the straightway and nibble and quickness to enter & exit corners will be extraordinary while safety standards, enhanced by the strength of carbon fiber, are of the highest possible consideration."

"Fittipaldi also revealed that the powerful engine and gearbox are "Fittipaldi" single manufacturer-made and seamlessly integrated, while their low position on the car creates a unique center of gravity."

Nice approach by Pininfarina & Fittipaldi there about their concept for this project. Finally we might have the serious (and realistic) VGT for the first time. Really interested to wait until Geneva reveal. Also there is quote from Fittipaldi himself as an addition for the description from @Tassie_tiger just got from the official homepage :

“Owner-drivers can expect reliability, lower maintenance cost and minimal mechanic and tech teams - which means more time and elation on the track,” added Fittipaldi.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Nice approach by Pininfarina & Fittipaldi there about their concept for this project. Finally we might have the serious (and realistic) VGT for the first time. Really interested to wait until Geneva reveal. Also there is quote from Fittipaldi himself as an addition for the description from @Tassie_tiger just got from the official homepage :

“Owner-drivers can expect reliability, lower maintenance cost and minimal mechanic and tech teams - which means more time and elation on the track,” added Fittipaldi.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with one of your thoughts there.
I find nothing unserious nor unrealistic about the Merc AMG, BMW, VW Roadster, Toyota FT-1, MINI Clubman, or Lexus LF-LC.
And there's probably more I could add to that list.

I get the impression that some hear "VGT" and all they think of is 2X and Tomahawk.
That simply isn't how it is at all.

 

[bdj57]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with one of your thoughts there.
I find nothing unserious nor unrealistic about the Merc AMG, BMW, VW Roadster, Toyota FT-1, MINI Clubman, or Lexus LF-LC.
And there's probably more I could add to that list.

I get the impression that some hear "VGT" and all they think of is 2X and Tomahawk.
That simply isn't how it is at all.

I don't said all of the VGT project are not serious and realistic. Instead it is a good opportunity for manufacturer give us their future design language look like, a hint for newly production car (Bugatti) or simply as a design exercise to prove that all of the technology are plausible in near future (that's the case for 2X and Tomahawk). I don't hate these concepts, even it looks like something that come from fantasy, sci-fi world like in movies. I still like it.

What I pointed out is finally we have a serious car in all of the VGT range we have now, a track car from the mind and expertise of a racing legend featured with real mechanicals and super light chassis that is made from carbon-fibre.

 

[sparkytooth]

It sounds pretty unique so far. Around 1000kg and over 600hp out of an NA V8 in what I'm guessing is an FR car.