- 462
How can you tell F1s won't be upgradable? Personnaly I think we should be able to, if it's possible to make a twin turbo F1 in real life why not in GT5.
X1 Prototype- WOW!
- Thread starter GT_Prologue5
- 875 comments
- 86,286 views
How can you tell F1s won't be upgradable? Personnaly I think we should be able to, if it's possible to make a twin turbo F1 in real life why not in GT5.
- 3,130
- HaylRayzor
I look at it the same as I look at the F2007 and Citroen GT in Prologue. Which is to say it's an interesting oddity which I will buy only after I have bought every car I'm actually interested in in every color I like.
- 203
- Sweden
- Autavia
The Brabham BT46B "fan car" only raced once and won: Niki Lauda Swedish GP 1978.
Since moving aerodynamics was banned Brabham called their fan a cooling device, but the other teams, mainly Colin Chapmans all dominating JPS Lotus, were blowing their gaskets off when they saw this thing and immediately knew what it could do. Especially on a track like the Scandinavian Raceway with long, banked and constant radius turns.
The fan was powered individually with a small 2-stroke engine.
It was the only car that came close to the Lotus 79 that year, beeing a ground effect car without moving parts.
I believe Brabham withdrew their car before it was deemed illegal so they got to keep their one and only victory.
The two finished cars were converted back to "non fan" BT46 Brabham Alfa Romeos.
Then the X1 with a turbine. The main reason for having a CVT transmission can only be because a turbine that produces this amount of torque and power will have a sluggish responce.
That doesn't matter much in a aircraft or a pump- or power station were engines are allowed to work with very few changes in rpm. In a car - especially one designed for track use - the changes in engine rpm is extreme. If You wish to maintain decent torque You need a motor that either reacts quickly or You try to create an environment were a slow engine can operate with near constant rpm.
Still. With a car You need to come to a complete halt every once in a while. So if You do not want to be left behind when You get the "GO" standing starts and pit stops must be a pretty loud affair in a car like this.
In a car with electric motors and batteries turbines make more sence as a power generator.
But still. Turbines are space age cool. And this is a super hero car.
Keep it unreal!
Since moving aerodynamics was banned Brabham called their fan a cooling device, but the other teams, mainly Colin Chapmans all dominating JPS Lotus, were blowing their gaskets off when they saw this thing and immediately knew what it could do. Especially on a track like the Scandinavian Raceway with long, banked and constant radius turns.
The fan was powered individually with a small 2-stroke engine.
It was the only car that came close to the Lotus 79 that year, beeing a ground effect car without moving parts.
I believe Brabham withdrew their car before it was deemed illegal so they got to keep their one and only victory.
The two finished cars were converted back to "non fan" BT46 Brabham Alfa Romeos.
Then the X1 with a turbine. The main reason for having a CVT transmission can only be because a turbine that produces this amount of torque and power will have a sluggish responce.
That doesn't matter much in a aircraft or a pump- or power station were engines are allowed to work with very few changes in rpm. In a car - especially one designed for track use - the changes in engine rpm is extreme. If You wish to maintain decent torque You need a motor that either reacts quickly or You try to create an environment were a slow engine can operate with near constant rpm.
Still. With a car You need to come to a complete halt every once in a while. So if You do not want to be left behind when You get the "GO" standing starts and pit stops must be a pretty loud affair in a car like this.
In a car with electric motors and batteries turbines make more sence as a power generator.
But still. Turbines are space age cool. And this is a super hero car.
Keep it unreal!
- 2,706
- Knoxville, Tennessee
lol, take a test flight in a turbofan aircraft, the pilots play with the throttles a LOT. And considering the planes I work on have high bypass turbofans with quite a bit of rotational inertia, they can change RPM quite quickly. But really, it all depends on the type of turbine. Some just have more lag than others. An M1 Abrams AGT1500 gas turbine spools relatively quickly, enough so that the M1 can accelerate as fast or faster than many diesel powered tanks with much larger engines. Also, the Howmet TX gas turbine endurance racer from the 1960's used a sort of anti-lag system which nearly eliminated turbine lag. But it used an engine extensively modified just for the car instead of a normal off the shelf turboshaft. Lotus also tried the turbine 56T, which nearly won the Indy 500, but that is the kind of race where a engine is at a near constant RPM.Not necessarily. I only have experience in the aviation industry and absolutely no experience with turbines driving wheels, so I'll gladly admit if I'm wrong here. But if you lock the throttle in place on say, a Huey, then it's locked. The only time you might have a decrease in N1 would be if you just yanked the hell out of the collective. Same goes for a King Air, you set the throttle lock and the engines stay at a constant speed, regardless of prop speed or pitch.
I imagine there would have to be some sort of give somewhere in the system if power is being transmitted to drive wheels and being forced to move a car, because there's a lot more resistance there than provided by air over an airfoil, but I dunno how it would work.
If you're in the know, fill me in!
I even came up with several of my own nutty ideas for gas turbine road/race cars lol
And for a lot of you don't quite understand turbine engines.... Nearly all turbine engines operate the same way. They just tend to do different things with the power they generate. A turbofan or turbojet uses the high velocity exhaust gasses, along with the bypass air from the fan on a turbofan to create forward thrust. A turboshaft or turboprop uses that high velocity gas to turn a shaft instead of a fan. The V-220 Osprey and C-130J Super Hercules use Rolls Royce (formerly Allison) turboshaft/turboprop engines derived from the AE3007 turbofan engine, which is used on the Embraer ERJ-145 regional jets I work on. Basically, a thrust producing jet engine can indeed be modified to turn a shaft and thus wheels, a prop, or a rotor system. Oh, a good one is the General Electric CF6 turbofan found on Boeing 747 and 767 airliners... a modified version without the fan is used to power many US Navy ships, along with power generation stations on land and at sea.
Anyway excuse the random long off topic post lol...
This X1 amuses me... greatly. In fact, kinda seems like something I might have came up with lol
Peter
(Banned)
- 4,352
- pj-gm
- lol not happening
The X1 would perhaps be the first car ever made that's faster than an F1 car around a track, that's not another F1 car. That is, if it's made. I think it's perhaps going to cost some $100 million, and a couple million to run and maintain, after every use. With 1500hp, surely the downforce won't be enough to keep it on the road always, will it? I think it'll be a monster to drive.
- 400
- Teh_Loserer and GTP_Teh_Loserer
- Teh Loserer
Oh, I'm aware. I was talking about turboshaft/prop engines, though. There's not much throttle work at all.
But even with all the throttle-jockeying going on in a 'jet/'fan engine, idle is still something like 70% max N1 speed, there's not a whole lot of change in RPM, just power output.
- 746
- Sternendaal
- 462
Seems to me that using a transmission and shaft to drive the wheels is a pretty obvious choice, it's not an airplane but a car, it won't leave the ground and propeling the car with wheels is much more efficient than using air, to move the car with air would take a lot more power and a bigger turbine weights more, furthermore if you extrapolate the car to a real life situation a proper aircraft size turbine would burn anything behind it. Seriously I am the only one who went to college in science?
You don't need to put out 1400 horsepowers all the time, and 545kg isn't too light, if they could make it 100 kilos they would, it would start off the line even faster.
You don't need to put out 1400 horsepowers all the time, and 545kg isn't too light, if they could make it 100 kilos they would, it would start off the line even faster.
- 421
- United Kingdom
- Darty08
Its been a project for ages now , but unveiling it now instead of when GT5 is released kind of ruined it but still what a rapid car that's going to be ! Its probably not safe and prone to exploding if it was real. And if you crash the only crumple zone is wind shield being smashed by one of the front wheels .
- 4,004
- Croatia
Why on Earth would it cost such ridiculuos amount of money?
With all the imagnable costs of build and very probable fact that all techology needed is on thei disposal - except the powertrain, which would probably be generously gifted by Mercedes-Benz or anyone similary intrested for crazy amount of marketing that such car would push - I presume it would cost less than anyone can think.
- 400
- Teh_Loserer and GTP_Teh_Loserer
- Teh Loserer
I don't think anyone's suggested that a turbojet or turbofan engine would power the car since sygare did, and was corrected. To whom are you speaking?
- 462
I did a quick read over the last posts, the discussion was about the role of the CVT transmission versus a straight driveshaft from the turbine, I misunderstood it for a "turbine and transmission" versus "turbine alone" argument, once again I got caught by my own stupidity. I will blame the time, it's very late.
Seems to me though that the argument of lag is kinda wierd, a turbine should have less lag by design, a 4 stroke engine is a very inneficient engine, how can a jet engine of comparable power have a slower rotation acceleration, there's the engine start but beyond that they are fast, anyway wouldn't the lag you'd experience with no load be faster than when it's under load with the X1 specs? In other words, wouldn't the engine accelerate faster in neutral than in gear, so lag would not be experienced?
Last edited:
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
Launch Control has a way of manipulating the throttle input so that wheelspin is kept to a minimum and the car can get away without hassle.
Anyway, in the day of Group C/IMSA GTP cars, they were faster than their F1 counterparts. It's sad to see them go, but F1 had to be faster, so the FIA canceled their FIA world sportscar championship. F1 was fast, but the Group C cars were faster, even though they weighed about 200lbs. more. Around Monza they were faster, also around Spa, and at other tracks, they were just as fast. With modern Rubber and a weight loss, those cars could be faster than anything today. I don't doubt it.
Anyway, in the day of Group C/IMSA GTP cars, they were faster than their F1 counterparts. It's sad to see them go, but F1 had to be faster, so the FIA canceled their FIA world sportscar championship. F1 was fast, but the Group C cars were faster, even though they weighed about 200lbs. more. Around Monza they were faster, also around Spa, and at other tracks, they were just as fast. With modern Rubber and a weight loss, those cars could be faster than anything today. I don't doubt it.
- 759
- South Africa
- GTAS_PEETHAM
It looks great, but any car to me that covers the wheels looks less appealing.
Also that about the transmission. Will it be similar to the Citroen GT from GT5P...?
If so, not cool.
I will only try out this car for the hype. If it's fun, great, if not, no biggy, as I will still have 999 others to play with...:-)
Also that about the transmission. Will it be similar to the Citroen GT from GT5P...?
If so, not cool.
I will only try out this car for the hype. If it's fun, great, if not, no biggy, as I will still have 999 others to play with...:-)
- 544
Will this car appear in the movie "Tron" It looks like a car from that movie
Well its not Gt5 anymore but Wipeout. By the way , it may take a long time for you to unlock this car. Maybe you need to pass all license test, get all cars, and win all competition mode, and it is worth 100 million in the GT5 to get this. Hahaha just imagine this car against that tiny Fiat.
Imagine everyone using it online. That will cause a lot of chaos.
Well its not Gt5 anymore but Wipeout. By the way , it may take a long time for you to unlock this car. Maybe you need to pass all license test, get all cars, and win all competition mode, and it is worth 100 million in the GT5 to get this. Hahaha just imagine this car against that tiny Fiat.
Last edited:
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
Am I the only one a little disappointed here as it seems the car could be faster if it had more aero parts such as an F duct or a few inverted aerofoils or if they started to cause too much drag make them lamina flow (moving the bulge of a wing back to create less drag although less lift or downforce its what made the P51 mustang have such good range) And what about using jets (without burning any fuel) to alter air pressure?
Also what about the middle of the two nose connections build an inverted aerofoil into the floor of the car with two slits to alow air over the top of it with a wing piece on the nose connections to channel air to it.
(thats my idea of improving the X1 at 16 never set foot in a university and im probably about to be told that im talking trash)
Also what about the middle of the two nose connections build an inverted aerofoil into the floor of the car with two slits to alow air over the top of it with a wing piece on the nose connections to channel air to it.
(thats my idea of improving the X1 at 16 never set foot in a university and im probably about to be told that im talking trash)
- 3,130
- HaylRayzor
- 17,394
- United Kingdom
Am I the only one a little disappointed here as it seems the car could be faster if it had more aero parts such as an F duct or a few inverted aerofoils or if they started to cause too much drag make them lamina flow (moving the bulge of a wing back to create less drag although less lift or downforce its what made the P51 mustang have such good range) And what about using jets (without burning any fuel) to alter air pressure?
Also what about the middle of the two nose connections build an inverted aerofoil into the floor of the car with two slits to alow air over the top of it with a wing piece on the nose connections to channel air to it.
(thats my idea of improving the X1 at 16 never set foot in a university and im probably about to be told that im talking trash)
Well, I'm not particularly going to argue with this,
..but Newey is likely to have thought through the basics! The thing is, changing the air pressure over a certain part of the vehicle may appear beneficial, but if it (for instance) pushes a suspension component beyond it's maximum adjustment, then you have to evaluate, whether the gain in aero efficiency is greater than the negative effect of having to "re-optimize" your suspension configuration, which could make the car less drivable through corners... for instance.
On an "unlimited" car, I would have expected to see alot more moving aero and suspension components, personally - but again, the weight of actuators for moveable aero could affect weight distribution and have a greater negative affect....
...hhhmm...
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
-
-
-
-
The credits cost of all 523 cars in Gran Turismo 7 [563 Million total]- Latest: Eliminatorek