X1 Prototype- WOW!

[GT_Prologue5]

Craziest fantasy car ever. A sick looking lightweight rocket with 1500 horsepower. Imagine the tire wear... I don't think the tires will last at ALL. I can only imagine how wild of a ride this would be after giving it Stage 4 turbo too...
But oh my God what a crazy car... Now all I need to do is get a Gameshark and hybrid this engine into an FGT . That would have the worst tire wear ever

I don't think any upgrades will be allowed for the X1 besides the whole Rigidty stuff. And I wouldn't get hyped up for GS Codes.

 

[Falango]

I demand a race mod for this car. Weight reduction X3? Imagine if we could, and bring this car down to 400kg, haha.

 

[analog]

I wouldn't really call it a fantasy car, as it is based off of a real car, and seems to use realistic restrictions, proportions, and weight.

Although using realistic weight and performance figures calculated by the supposed materials and construction used and using technology which actually exists ( but banned by the FIA ) this is strictly speaking still a fantasy car as it doesn't exist in real life, unless a car only consisting of pixels can also considered to be real.
It isn't based on an existing car either and with no regulations to consider ( being part of the 'what if' theme ) they didn't have any limitations apart from the laws of physics so they could choose any proportion or shape if they wanted to.
The proportions and shape ( and the performance figures and the rest of the spec ) of the X1 evolved as they are due to the methods and approach Newey and Kaz took, not due to being based on an existing car or taking into consideration being 'realistic looking' compared to existing racecars.
This thing perhaps could be build so therefore it's perhaps not an 'ordinary' fantasy car as in being too far fetched.
But it's also not even a concept car, if anything it's just a concept of a car build for a videogame, fulfilling a fantasy.

 

[Falango]

When you say fantasy, unrealistic and imaginative are the words that come to mind. This could be realistic in my opinion.

 

[analog]

When you say fantasy, unrealistic and imaginative are the words that come to mind. This could be realistic in my opinion.

Maybe those words come to mind first but fantasy isn't limited to those, a fantasy can be a realistic fantasy too.
Don't want to get into a semantics discussion but because it's designed as a real car doesn't necessarily make it a real car ( as it only exists in a videogame ).
And yes, it is the result of the imagination of Adrian Newey and Kaz, that their imagination focusses on realism doesn't make the result real, just a real possibility, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Falango]

I didn't say the car was real. I'm saying it's realistic, there's a difference.

 

[analog]

I didn't say the car was real. I'm saying it's realistic, there's a difference.

True, you didn't claim that and you'll agree that I didn't call it unrealistic either.
Just meant to correct your claim initially that it was based on a real car ( which it isn't ) and to question your claim it wasn't a fantasy car which we could argue forever I guess as that definition could be explained multiple ways.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

Well the car is based from physics, it does not defy, it is based from a real computer-tested design that cannot be produced because it has no purpose to be produced. It's pracitically a concept car, except it has no physical being, but it's virual being is as realistic except it cannot convey motion and feeling.

 

[GMTN]

This car is absolutely impossible, and would have too many problems to run theoretically or in the real world.
Looks cool though.

 

[Falango]

True, you didn't claim that and you'll agree that I didn't call it unrealistic either.
Just meant to correct your claim initially that it was based on a real car ( which it isn't ) and to question your claim it wasn't a fantasy car which we could argue forever I guess as that definition could be explained multiple ways.

Yes we could argue about this forever. I think it's safe to say the car is based on real cars. You can see heavy influence from the Caparo T1, and an F1 car, whether it's the RBR5 or RBR6 specifically, don't really know. I can see elements from both the T1 and F1 in there though. The T1 influence is why I think it's called the X1 too.

 

[Griffith500]

This car is absolutely impossible, and would have too many problems to run theoretically or in the real world.
Looks cool though.

It makes me smile to think of the number of times that's probably been said in the past, and whoever uttered it was subsequently (eventually) "proven" wrong.

There are problems bringing any concept into a fully-functioning state, and I see no reason why this particular concept shouldn't work, outside of the fact that all those components have never been used together before.

If there's any niche of tinkering that epitomises a "can-do" attitude, top-flight motorsport is probably it. 👍

 

[Falango]

Reason why I think this car can be built to near the same function and quality of what we will see in the game, is because we have the T1. The turbine is probably the speed bump.

 

[Griffith500]

Reason why I think this car can be built to near the same function and quality of what we will see in the game, is because we have the T1. The turbine is probably the speed bump.

To be frank, the T1 is a completely different animal, and is much less sophisticated (packaging-wise, for starters) than the X1. Additionally, X1 could stand for any number of things; maybe they copied McLaren's foray into excellence - although that was XP1 etc. Or Colin Chapman's Type-1 through to 93 or so. Or the Ascari KZ1... and I could go on. I think it's a fairly common naming convention, to be honest.

I think the visual similarity comes from starting with an open-wheel formula-style car, and "covering" the wheels for the obvious aero' benefit, and, in the case of the Caparo, as a legal necessity!

I agree, though, the turbine would need to be designed from the ground-up, and, along with the untested aerodynamics, probably represents the bulk of the R&D time needed were the X1 to become a reality.

 

[Falango]

I dunno, I still think it's heavily inspired by the T1. That's why so many people look at it and see a resemblance with the T1. A front end shot is probably the best evidence of this.

 

[ghostrider135]

Anyways back to the aquaplaning issue i earlier pointed out , Im pretty sure the 4 front wheels were to prevent aquaplaning and for more front end grip, If having an extra pair of wheels at the front was for aero then why did the panther 6 have 4 wheels at the front

 

[eddiing]

I dunno, I still think it's heavily inspired by the T1. That's why so many people look at it and see a resemblance with the T1. A front end shot is probably the best evidence of this.

It is clearly inspired by the 90s anime called "Cyber Formula"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at7yvxK1IzM

 

[freshseth83]

There were turbines in cars before, ground effects on cars before, and 1500hp in cars before, as well as CVT transmissions in F1 before (williams). None of what the X1 has is 'fantasy' Adrian Newey doesn't do 'fantasy'. All the X1 would need for actual production is money and a reason.

 

[analog]

Yes we could argue about this forever. I think it's safe to say the car is based on real cars. You can see heavy influence from the Caparo T1, and an F1 car, whether it's the RBR5 or RBR6 specifically, don't really know. I can see elements from both the T1 and F1 in there though. The T1 influence is why I think it's called the X1 too.

Like Griffith500 said, the similarities lookswise to an extend ( as they're still completely different ) between the Caparo T1 and the X1 are due to arriving at the same conclusions regarding implementing aerodynamics, etc. in the most efficient and most functional way they could.
Both have lights ( for the Caparo essential and legally required for road use and for the X1 a choice to be able to use it during nighttime in GT5 ), both have a glass canopy for aerodynamic, and it the case of the Caparo, practical reasons too.
I admit they share similarities at first glance but on closer inspection they are entirely different animals, in fact a different species ( won't make a list of biological field notes though ).
It's not based on another car like you insist on declaring, ofcourse there are hints of the RedBullRacing F1 cars which is entirely logical as they all have the signature of the same designer, Adrian Newey.
Why would he base it on existing cars anyway? This might be his only chance to design a car without any restrictions ever ( both free of race regulations and economic concerns ) and given a clean sheet to work on, better make use of it without bothering about real life practical concerns for once.

 

[Griffith500]

Anyways back to the aquaplaning issue i earlier pointed out , Im pretty sure the 4 front wheels were to prevent aquaplaning and for more front end grip, If having an extra pair of wheels at the front was for aero then why did the panther 6 have 4 wheels at the front

I read that it was for aerodynamic reasons, at least it was for the Tyrell P34. Having four smaller front wheels instead of two tall ones allowed for the "nose" of the car to blend in with the wheels, or vice versa, such that air flow is smoother over it and lift thereby reduced. There are probably other advantages regarding grip etc, since the contact patch is larger - but that's generally a bad thing for aqua-planing (what stones are best for skimming?) - however, the fact that the contact patches are sequential (two front axles), rather than contiguous (one front axle) may alleviate the initial "float" and allow better penetration of the standing water.
You can see that Tyrell was heading that way with the 006 and 007, the way the front wing almost incorporates the wheels (as I'm sure others did, but Tyrrell took it that one step further!)

The P34 came after a ban to four-wheel drive systems (Williams, March and Ferrari etc. had all tried four wheels at the rear, which never got beyond testing.) After the P34, it didn't take long for the rules to stipulate a maximum of four wheels

This is what makes the X1 so interesting. The P34 was conceived to take advantage of the rules and regulations (an important and apparently legitimate endeavour in F1). You could argue that this is where some of the best engineering takes place, in order to maximise performance within a set of boundaries (e.g. maximum track width, front and rear versus bodywork permitted around the wheels - the wheels are always going to stick out since track width is an advantage that oughtn't be given up, and bodywork is restricted in the rules.)

Most of this work is "invisible", though (unlike the P34, which is plainly obvious) to the lay-person whilst the X1 represents some truly interesting, visible improvements over the usual top-tier stuff.

 

[daan]

I dunno, I still think it's heavily inspired by the T1.

It is clearly inspired by the 90s anime called "Cyber Formula"

The X1 is not inspired by the T1 as it, and the T1, are restricted by the fact they are cars with wheels and they have to obey the laws of physics and aerodynamics. There is only so much you can do and designs will obviously be similiar.

 

[analog]

There are probably other advantages regarding grip etc, since the contact patch is larger - but that's generally a bad thing for aqua-planing (what stones are best for skimming?) - however, the fact that the contact patches are sequential (two front axles), rather than contiguous (one front axle) may alleviate the initial "float" and allow better penetration of the standing water.

That's what I read somewhere in an article in a classic car magazine about these 6-wheel Tyrell monsters which interviewed one of the former drivers who said that those 6-wheels had the biggest advantage in the rain where the first 2 front wheels acted effectively as water-clearers giving the second pair of front wheels extra grip, if that's what you meant anyway.
The aerodynamic advantages are perhaps irrelevant on the X1 having a closed bodywork and enclosed wheels but I would've really liked it to have 6 wheels only for the sake of having 6 wheels to be honest ( although that wouldn't ofcourse be the 'Newey way of thinking' ).

 

[SCUD77]

I was just reading this http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?6,948851 and it got me thinking which lap time did he beat ? a real world one (not difficult tbh) or the prologue Suzuka record ? heres the piece that got me thinking. Step forward virtual test driver Sebastian Vettel who took the X1 Prototype for a shakedown around Suzuka in Japan. On his first virtual lap, the German beat the lap record – set by Kimi Raikkonen in 2005 – by more than 20 seconds.

Sorry double post.
Kimi Raikonen 2005 real lap record. 1.31.540.
Prologue lap record. 1.28.062
So I'm going with the real world time is the one he beat by doing a lap in the region of a 1.11.xxx. pretty impressive I wonder how quick it will do the High Speed Ring? 30 seconds maybe ? prologue F1 is 48.4

 

[ghostrider135]

6 wheels for the sake of having 6 wheels now thats my way of thinking lol, maybe we should all write to Mr Newey and ask them to make an X1 and and X1 6wheeler to compare how they both act in differing conditions haha, That would also show how the weather affects racing on GT5 would be quite something to see

 

[analog]

6 wheels for the sake of having 6 wheels now thats my way of thinking lol, maybe we should all write to Mr Newey and ask them to make an X1 and and X1 6wheeler to compare how they both act in differing conditions haha, That would also show how the weather affects racing on GT5 would be quite something to see

That's probably part of the reason why we ( presumably ) both, unlike Mr Newey, aren't succesful racecar designers.
Although those 6-wheel Tyrells did inspire Panther to build their 6-wheel sportscar called "Six" in 1977 which only had 6 wheels for the sake of having 6 wheels ( which the designer admitted was the reason ).

 

[ghostrider135]

That's probably part of the reason why we ( presumably ) both, unlike Mr Newey, aren't succesful racecar designers.
Although those 6-wheel Tyrells did inspire Panther to build their 6-wheel sportscar called "Six" in 1977 which only had 6 wheels for the sake of having 6 wheels ( which the designer admitted was the reason ).

haha have to admit everytime i see the panther 6 i always think its a sexy piece of kit shame only 2 ever got made, there was this italian supercar a few years back that also had 6 wheels though i cant for the life of me remember the name of it but i dont know if they used the 6 wheels for 6 wheels sake principle

Edit its the Covini C6W

 

[Griffith500]

That's what I read somewhere in an article in a classic car magazine about these 6-wheel Tyrell monsters which interviewed one of the former drivers who said that those 6-wheels had the biggest advantage in the rain where the first 2 front wheels acted effectively as water-clearers giving the second pair of front wheels extra grip, if that's what you meant anyway.
The aerodynamic advantages are perhaps irrelevant on the X1 having a closed bodywork and enclosed wheels but I would've really liked it to have 6 wheels only for the sake of having 6 wheels to be honest ( although that wouldn't ofcourse be the 'Newey way of thinking' ).

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking! It makes better sense the way you put it though.

It would look cool with six wheels, but it's pretty extreme, and totally redundant, as you say. It would certainly make more of a stir. It's a bit like those tuners who lament that their customers sometimes don't know what they want, and ask for all the biggest stuff just so they can say that's what they have, completely ignorant to the fact that it would ruin the car's on-road performance (and possibly on-track, to some extent). Here's a nice list of six+ wheelers...

The X1 should have been a half-track, in my mind, so it can take on the Paris-Dakar at the same time...

 

[analog]

haha have to admit everytime i see the panther 6 i always think its a sexy piece of kit shame only 2 ever got made, there was this italian supercar a few years back that also had 6 wheels though i cant for the life of me remember the name of it but i dont know if they used the 6 wheels for 6 wheels sake principle

The Covoni C6W you mean, although that one didn't look very good at all in my opinion, unlike the Panther Six which I too find extremely good looking for some odd reason ( and an interesting car technically too ).
Indeed a shame they only build 2 but it does add to the 'mythical' status I reckon but we're getting off-topic I think.......

The X1 should have been a half-track, in my mind, so it can take on the Paris-Dakar at the same time...

Reminds me of a truck with a retractable half-track system entered in Paris-Dakar somewhere in the mid-eighties which sounded pretty clever on paper but when retracted made the centre of gravity of this already tall truck so high that it ended on one side at the first rally stage with a few tight corners....

 

[Dravonic]

I was expecting it to look more like an LMP than an F1. But well, it's Newey so it's not surprising it looks like an F1.

 

[ghostrider135]

Yeah i think we may be starting to think up wishlists as opposed to focusing on this frankly amazing piece of engineering, Should we start wondering and pondering and what not about if there will be an X1 only championship or if we will actually be able to use it in any races like when we couldn't use the caterham from GT4

 

[Griffith500]

Yeah i think we may be starting to think up wishlists as opposed to focusing on this frankly amazing piece of engineering, Should we start wondering and pondering and what not about if there will be an X1 only championship or if we will actually be able to use it in any races like when we couldn't use the caterham from GT4

I think the reason why the Caterham couldn't be used might be the same reason that the convertibles could only be raced with the top up. Perhaps polygon count was an issue. That shouldn't be the case anymore, though

@ analog: I think my half-track idea is probably flawed also. Although, I think it had been done before, more successfully, but perhaps not in a competition.