Red Bull X Prototype In Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter HakiraDyson
  • 57 comments
  • 4,565 views
to the op : That's why F1 and other motorsport have limitations rules. To avoid stuff like that. Now oval racing with cart cars is just plain stupid and dangerous if you ask me. Sure it's thrilling but there's no safety whatsoever for the driver...

Now remove rules in F1 that limits power and aero and you'll see stuff like X1 coming same with LMP or other racings category. But they wont do it because they know it's too dangerous and they know it.

I'm pretty sure any big company could make 1500HP cars. Look at the veyron supersport it's 1200 HP on a road car and it's made by the same car maker that does the beetle and the Samba bus :D Pretty awesome stuff.
 
I'm pretty sure any big company could make 1500HP cars. Look at the veyron supersport it's 1200 HP on a road car and it's made by the same car maker that does the beetle and the Samba bus :D Pretty awesome stuff.

That is an 8L W16 Quad turbo engine. We're talking about a small, 2.4L Twin Turbo V6. I dont think your argument works to well...

Note: I have no doubt it could be done, just clarifying that yes, the Veyron SS is only 300hp shy, it also has 10 more cylinders and 2 more turbos to do it...
 
What evidence can you present on this? Why can fighter pilots do it in more extreme conditions than those found in the X1?



Yes, it sounds possible. I'm not aware of any car pulling 8g, but there are plane videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wLKvXMxZ0 (about 2:05)

As everyone has pointed out, side g-load is a completely different situation than the vertical gs that pilots experience.

Keep in mind also that a few years back, 2001, the CART race scheduled for Texas was cancelled because the g forces experienced were excessive, and drivers were coming out of the cars dizzy and exhausted.

Everyone talks about how "easy" it is for pilots to pull those 9 or 10 gs, but who here has actually had the experience? The pilot's pull is momentary, and even if he's pulling multiple turns, for example evasively, he's not pulling 9 gs that whole time. The plane slows down when pulling those seconds of gs and needs some straight flight time to recover. And again, those forces are down, into the seat, so the pilot uses none of his own strength to hold himself in position. He definitely does exert to keep breathing during high-g, though!

Side loads, on the other hand, require severe exertion on the driver's part, even in a formed cockpit. He has to hold his head up. He has to keep his foot on the pedal, even though his foot is a 50-pound weight at the end of a 3-foot lever. Driving hard is an athletic activity!!!! And this is at a 4-g max!

Going back to experiencing g forces, we've all ridden roller coasters and other amusement park rides. The most severe of those will approach 4 gs, and then for less time than it takes to realize you've had the force on you. How do you feel after that 55-second coaster ride, with a couple g max just a few times, and always into the seat, not side-ways? And you want a human being to experience 8 gs laterally all day long?
 
As everyone has pointed out, side g-load is a completely different situation than the vertical gs that pilots experience.
Included in that list of people is me from my first post. Lateral g is less taxing on staying awake than vertical.

Keep in mind also that a few years back, 2001, the CART race scheduled for Texas was cancelled because the g forces experienced were excessive, and drivers were coming out of the cars dizzy and exhausted.
The banking created more vertical g loads than usual for a car/driver. It wasn't purely lateral.

Everyone talks about how "easy" it is for pilots to pull those 9 or 10 gs, but who here has actually had the experience? The pilot's pull is momentary, and even if he's pulling multiple turns, for example evasively, he's not pulling 9 gs that whole time. The plane slows down when pulling those seconds of gs and needs some straight flight time to recover.
Ever since the 1970's fighters have been capable of sustaining 9 g indefinitely at low altitude, so a pilot pulling 9g for a long time is certainly possible.

These can sustain 9 g even longer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMVNWZ4FzwM

And again, those forces are down, into the seat, so the pilot uses none of his own strength to hold himself in position. He definitely does exert to keep breathing during high-g, though!
Yes, the pilot has to deal with vertical g load, meaning that the g's felt are much more efficient at draining blood from the brain than in a race car.

Side loads, on the other hand, require severe exertion on the driver's part, even in a formed cockpit. He has to hold his head up. He has to keep his foot on the pedal, even though his foot is a 50-pound weight at the end of a 3-foot lever. Driving hard is an athletic activity!!!! And this is at a 4-g max!
I felt pretty comfortable in a HANS, and 6 point harness, though I don't drive F1 cars.

Going back to experiencing g forces, we've all ridden roller coasters and other amusement park rides. The most severe of those will approach 4 gs, and then for less time than it takes to realize you've had the force on you. How do you feel after that 55-second coaster ride, with a couple g max just a few times, and always into the seat, not side-ways? And you want a human being to experience 8 gs laterally all day long?
I've gone on coasters, jumped off and then went straight back in line. I could ride a coaster all day. I already have.

However, no one said anything about sustaining 8 g all day. A race can be 1 lap or 1000. Drag racing last literally seconds. There's no reason that X1 racing couldn't be the circuit equivalent of that.
 
Even if the X2010 is possible in real life, it would be impossible to make it safe, crash wise, IRL. Wheldon crashed at ~220 MPH, a crash in the X2010 could EASILY be at 250 MPH. And in a time where the recent trend has been to slow down cars for saftey, making a car that is 70 MPH faster then anything else and expect no major accidents with it is sanity.
 
How would the X1 go 250 mph if the track doesn't allow the X1 to go 250 mph?

Then on those tracks it won't go 250 MPH. But it will still hit the walls hard and fast; it can reach above 200 MPH on Autumn Ring Mini, which is the slowest track in-game (top speed wise)
 
Everyone says that Vettel could conquer it. I honestly think he couldn't, and you'd have better luck with a fighter jet pilot. Those Gs are the biggest issue, and you'd need a military-grade suit to even consider starting the cardio and leg workouts to fight them. I get how Vettel is a good driver and all, but I'm not sure he'd be able to........Course, what do I know, fastest I've ever gone in a car is 80. Thats just my two cents (or pence, If you even say that...)
 
One could easily make a track far tighter than AR Mini, they could also make it extremely wide while limiting the space that the X1 driver could legally use, ie the track is x ft wide, but the "lane" that the driver must stay in is x/5 ft wide. Speeds would be kept way down, and the dangers of hitting a wall be heavily reduced.
 
But if they added a speed limiter and had less power it wont hit its top speed as much.
 
One could easily make a track far tighter than AR Mini, they could also make it extremely wide while limiting the space that the X1 driver could legally use, ie the track is x ft wide, but the "lane" that the driver must stay in is x/5 ft wide. Speeds would be kept way down, and the dangers of hitting a wall be heavily reduced.

But if a track like that was made, how would the drivers pass each other?

Or would passing not occur?
 
Who's to say. There might only be one car on track at a time like a time trial. There might passing zones designed to facilitate passing, or it might just be extremely difficult.

I think one of the problems people are facing in trying to accept the X1 is that they think the only racing there is, is the racing we currently have. No existing race series is designed for a car like the X1, so it should be surprising that using the X1 in common racing conditions might lead to extreme situations. There is however no limit on what kind of structure a specially designed X1 series might use.
 
That is an 8L W16 Quad turbo engine. We're talking about a small, 2.4L Twin Turbo V6. I dont think your argument works to well...

Note: I have no doubt it could be done, just clarifying that yes, the Veyron SS is only 300hp shy, it also has 10 more cylinders and 2 more turbos to do it...

You do know that it's the rews that decides how much output you can get from an engine.... in combination with it's volume (Torque).
A NA engine produce close to 100 Nm (73,75 Lb.ft) / L engine volume.
An aspirated (Supercharger / Turbo) engine produce more, depending on how much pressure the unit and engine can take.

Tourqe x Rews = Power

An 8L W16 engine that produce 1200 bhp at 6000 rpm would produce at around 850 Lb.ft. 850 Lb.ft seems like an reasonable fighure keeping in mind that the engine got 4 turbos. (This is just made up fighures, but I'm sure they are close to the real life number)

(850 x 6000) / 5258* = 969 bhp

So, on to the 3,0 (You said 2,4, but I believe it's a 3,0 L engine from what I've read) L V6 then:
It produce 714 Nm (527 Lb.ft).

The X2010 rews a lot more compared to the Bugatti. 10.000 rpm's more to be exact.
(527 x 16000) / 5258* = 1603 bhp (This is a bit to much, but the engine does not produce max tourqe (the fighure I used calculating it's max bhp output) at max bhp (Usually, an engine produce more tourqe lower in the register, but produce less power due to the lower rpm's)

With these numbers, you could say that 527 Lb.ft is a huge number for a 3 L engine since a 3 L engine produce at around 250 Lb.ft (in a normal NA engine that is. Supposed to be mounted in an every day car).
An engine like this is put together with very expenive and specially made parts parts to make it able to rew so much. The Bugatti on the other hand have to last without service needed every 500 km (750 miles), because dispite it's price, is still an every day car.


*To get from pound-feet of torque to horsepower, you need to go through a few conversions. The number 5258 is the result of lumping several different conversion factors together into one number.


So with this in mind, the X2010's engine specs is actually something that could be made with the knowledge we posess today.


A quick example:
1. My car with a 4 L V8 produce 200 Nm (147,5 Lb.ft) at 3000 rpm
2. My other car, with a 2 L S4 produce 100 Nm (73,75 Lb.ft) at 6000 rpm
Wich engine produce the most Bhp at the given rpm?










Both cars produce the same amount of bhp.
1. (147,5 x 3000) / 5258 = 84,1 Bhp at 3000 rpm.
2. (73,75 x 6000) / 5258 = 84,1 Bhp at 6000 rpm.



I appologize if my english from time to time can be hard to understand, but I hope my post is understood for the most part. 👍
 
The formula is physics and can therefore be used to any type of fuel.
However, the "100 Nm / litre Engine volume" will bedifferent, but it does not affect the formula.

A diesel engine that produce 1000 Nm (737,5 Lb.ft) at 3000 rpm
A petrol engine that produce 1000 Nm (737,5 Lb.ft) at 3000 rpm
Wich one produce most bhp?
Yes, you got it... The same bhp is produced.
The fuel type does not matter.

Note: It's the rpm and tourqe that combined create the bhp output.
It's the same with a bicycle:
Your muscles input on the pedals can be 100 Nm, but if you're going uphill, and your muscles can't create enough rpm's, you will not move.
Chose a lower gear, and that same torque (100 Nm) will now in combination with the revs make your bicycle to move.

Torque x revs = power (effect)
Effect (power) is what moves an object.
 
Ok, That formula is restricted to working out BHP at, say 6000rpm, using the torque value at the same RPM, correct? Is there a way to work out the BHP at a different RPM to the Torque Value, so, say I wanted to work out the power of a car @6000 rpm using the known torque value which resides at 4000rpm? If you get what I mean...
 
The entire point is that they don't have to think about things like driver safety or regulations. It's purely a technical exercise.
 
One could easily make a track far tighter than AR Mini, they could also make it extremely wide while limiting the space that the X1 driver could legally use, ie the track is x ft wide, but the "lane" that the driver must stay in is x/5 ft wide. Speeds would be kept way down, and the dangers of hitting a wall be heavily reduced.

Yes, but at this point I really don't see why bother removing limits to cars and then building new mini-tight tracks just to limit the speed of that cars. At this point is better to stay with the current regulations and the current tracks instead making dangerous cars and ugly tight courses. Removing limits and then building tracks to limit these cars is a contradiction to me...
 
Building the care is possible, to drive it, also possible, to race with it, also possible, just change the engine, find drivers who are willing to dedicate their lifes to keep up with driving the car, find sponsors who are willing to pay the money for fuel, tires and other kind of maintance.
 
Last edited:
That is an 8L W16 Quad turbo engine. We're talking about a small, 2.4L Twin Turbo V6. I dont think your argument works to well...

Note: I have no doubt it could be done, just clarifying that yes, the Veyron SS is only 300hp shy, it also has 10 more cylinders and 2 more turbos to do it...

Yeah not sure why'd anyone should say the Veyron SS...I guess people just like to throw that about. Anyways like you said using a smaller litre engine is the problem.

A better example would be the MP4/4 McLaren that was a 1.5 V6 single turbo capable of making close to 1000 hp. BT52 Brabham had 1400 Hp back in 1983 so the engine is the least of the issue for the X2010 or X2011.
 
Yeah not sure why'd anyone should say the Veyron SS...I guess people just like to throw that about. Anyways like you said using a smaller litre engine is the problem.

A better example would be the MP4/4 McLaren that was a 1.5 V6 single turbo capable of making close to 1000 hp. BT52 Brabham had 1400 Hp back in 1983 so the engine is the least of the issue for the X2010 or X2011.

The problem is also maintance and stuff, that cost money. not just Ooh I can afford an old Volvo kind of money, it's more like Ooh I can buy a 2 F1's instead of repairing this X10.
 
Yes, but at this point I really don't see why bother removing limits to cars and then building new mini-tight tracks just to limit the speed of that cars. At this point is better to stay with the current regulations and the current tracks instead making dangerous cars and ugly tight courses. Removing limits and then building tracks to limit these cars is a contradiction to me...

Why is it better to stay with regulations then? The X1 would still be faster and more advanced than anything else by far. The only thing limiting it would be technology. That's the point of the X1, it's the ultimate car. It doesn't have to drive wide open at 300 mph down a 5 mile straight to be the best.
 
Why is it better to stay with regulations then? The X1 would still be faster and more advanced than anything else by far. The only thing limiting it would be technology. That's the point of the X1, it's the ultimate car. It doesn't have to drive wide open at 300 mph down a 5 mile straight to be the best.

I was just saying that with no regulations / limits what so ever, it would become more a technological war between teams than driver's ability matter. Even now in most categories (even limited categories such F1) is the car that makes the difference 90% of time, and I think that removing limits can make it even worse.
I said that is better to stay with regulation also because if the X2010-based cars can't go on classic courses like Spa, Monza, Montecarlo, Imola, Interlagos, La Sarthe, Suzuka etc because it would be unsafe, I prefer to keep the cars technologically limited but with the possibility to race on these awesome tracks instead of racing in a wipeout missile on tracks made on purpose to slow it down. It's just my opinion anyway, and I think it would be cool if someone tries to make such a car, but I really don't see it hitting motorsport for the reason I stated now and in the previous post :)
 
Nismo34: No, there is no such method.
If you want to calculate the entire register curv, you need several (at least 2 different) values.

My Engine produce 100 Nm (73,75 Lb.ft) of torque at it's best at 3000 rpm.
(73,75 x 3000) / 5252 = 42,1 bhp
It also produce 90 Nm (66,38 Lb.ft) of torque at 5000 rpm.
(66,38 x 5000) / 5252 = 63,1 bhp

Put those numbers in a squared sheet, and you'll get a rough idea how the power is produced (engines caracter).

So, the more numbers you got, the more exact you'll be able calculate an engines performance.

You can ofc calculate the torque by changing the formula around.
My Engine produce 500 bhp at 6000 rpm.
(500 x 5252) / 6000 = 437,6 Lb.ft

When you buy a new car, you can read the Engine specs similar to this:
Max torque: 200 Lb,ft between 2500-4500 rpm
Max bhp: 300 bhp at 5800 rpm
Ok, so here we got enough numbers to get a good idea about the performance of the engine.

(200 Lb.ft x 2500) / 5252 = 95,2 bhp @ 2500 rpm
(200 Lb.ft x 3500) / 5252 = 133,3 bhp @ 3500 rpm
(200 Lb.ft x 4500) / 5252 = 171,4 bhp @ 4500 rpm
(300 x 5252) / 5800 = 116,4 Lb.ft

Above, we got 8 different values at 4 different rpm.
Just put in the numbers, and you'll be able to get a good idea about your engines performance.
We can instantly see that the torque is decreasing, while the bhp increase between 2500-5800 rpm.
When you drive this car, and come to a traffic light, and you're going to race your friend in the car next to you, you'll try to keep the revs as close to your engines bhp peak (5800 rpm) as possible thru the gears, not close to your engines max torque (2500-4500 rpm).

Note: In a drag race, other factors come in to play as well.
Such as gearing, drivetrain powerloss, frictions, grip of tires, driver skill and so on.
But as long as all numbers are equal, you can by a calculation like this "see" what the outcome will be before even racing.

You can do a real life test by running two identical cars against eachother.
Driver A will only stay as close to the max torque produced
Driver B will only stay as close to the max bhp produced
Driver B will win.
 
I was just saying that with no regulations / limits what so ever, it would become more a technological war between teams than driver's ability matter. Even now in most categories (even limited categories such F1) is the car that makes the difference 90% of time, and I think that removing limits can make it even worse.
I said that is better to stay with regulation also because if the X2010-based cars can't go on classic courses like Spa, Monza, Montecarlo, Imola, Interlagos, La Sarthe, Suzuka etc because it would be unsafe, I prefer to keep the cars technologically limited but with the possibility to race on these awesome tracks instead of racing in a wipeout missile on tracks made on purpose to slow it down. It's just my opinion anyway, and I think it would be cool if someone tries to make such a car, but I really don't see it hitting motorsport for the reason I stated now and in the previous post :)

I can see a lot of what your're saying, but it's not like X1 racing and traditional racing can't coexist. We might even be able to have a "X2" class which is between F1 and X1, which could run at classic tracks.

I personally have nothing against the idea of the car making the difference, but maybe it's because I'm an engineer. That the ground effect technology was so heavily restricted feels like a crime to me. We'd be driving upside down in the tunnels by now if the aero was unrestricted.
 
I can see a lot of what your're saying, but it's not like X1 racing and traditional racing can't coexist. We might even be able to have a "X2" class which is between F1 and X1, which could run at classic tracks.

I personally have nothing against the idea of the car making the difference, but maybe it's because I'm an engineer. That the ground effect technology was so heavily restricted feels like a crime to me. We'd be driving upside down in the tunnels by now if the aero was unrestricted.

I am a lot for technological progress, even if I'm not studing engineering I'm a lot interested in these things, and I agree with you that limiting technology is a crime, because limiting technology is limiting human progress to me. But here I was just saying that for some motorsport classes like F1 where the challenge between drivers is the most exciting element (at least to me) would be good if the drivers makes really the difference. I'm not saying that every car should be equal, because it's just stupid and can take the interest in the competition off the biggest team (mostly McLaren and Ferrari), but the actual regulations made this sport more a matter of who has the best car than who is the best driver. I.E. I was very disappointed when FIA decided to freeze the engines because it was like a punishment for that teams good in building engines.

Anyway yes, if cars like X2010 would be made in the future, I see them more in a new own class instead of growing up from an already existent class, because it's very different from everything existent at the moment :)
 
X1 racing would be Time Attack Racing, around a Track with AMPLE run off areas. If there's nothing to crash into a fatal wreck is far less likely.
 
The problem is also maintance and stuff, that cost money. not just Ooh I can afford an old Volvo kind of money, it's more like Ooh I can buy a 2 F1's instead of repairing this X10.

Sorry, but how the hell did you pull that out of my quote? I was just talking about how that type of HP in an engine isn't hard to achieve especially since smaller engines have come close or exactly the power of a fictional X2010 & X2011. What point are you trying to make? Also this is F1 they have the money for these types of machines obviously.
 
Back