The contradictory nature of the X1/X2010

  • Thread starter Thread starter kanjifreak
  • 105 comments
  • 8,890 views
Yes, there are fictional tracks in GT5 that don't exist in real life, but there is nothing about them that makes you say, "Hey thats not possible" like the X2010 does.

If there was a track where you drive upside down or something then yeah, but comparing the fictional tracks to the X2010 is not a good analogy.
 
Yes, there are fictional tracks in GT5 that don't exist in real life, but there is nothing about them that makes you say, "Hey thats not possible" like the X2010 does.

If there was a track where you drive upside down or something then yeah, but comparing the fictional tracks to the X2010 is not a good analogy.

Spot on.
 
You know, the whole X2010 thing reminds me of a Top Gear episode.

After testing the Gumpert Apollo, Richard Hammon mentions how Gumpert claims that their car could drive upside down on the roof of a tunnel due to the downforce.
Jeremy Clarkson replies that everyone does make those kind of claims, as they know they can't be proven wrong.

Well, scratch that. The driver issue alone is enough to prove them wrong, this should be aimed more towards the whole 'the X2010 confirms 100% to Adrain Neweys specifications'.
I'll say this: If Adrian Newy worked on the X2010 as seriously as he works on hos F1 cars and if PD did exactly what Newey envisioned, how come he didn't take care of actually making the car drivable?

Personally, I think Newey lent PD a hand when designing the exterior of the car and brought up the idea of the fan, but I guess most of the X2010 was conceived by PD themselves.
I kinda think this resembles some of the newer 'Tom Clancy' games. someone just got the right to stick that name on whatever they're making, no matter how involved Tom Clancy actually was.
 
The car is crazy but once you actually drive it you realize that it's a lot of fun and in theory it could exist in the real world, but would be very dangerous and tough on a human body
 
Personally, I think Newey lent PD a hand when designing the exterior of the car and brought up the idea of the fan, but I guess most of the X2010 was conceived by PD themselves.
I kinda think this resembles some of the newer 'Tom Clancy' games. someone just got the right to stick that name on whatever they're making, no matter how involved Tom Clancy actually was.

Yeah. Pd asked what kind of car Newey would make if there were no limits. Then Newey had some ideas, drew some sketches and maybe calculated some simple numbers. Like peak downforce, maximum lateral g and so forth. Then pd put the car into the game. Theoretical maximums became real numbers.

Theoretical maximums are easy to achieve on drawing board but a lot harder in real life. Surely the x10 in gt5 isn't all that realistic. After all how well does gt5 simulate ground effects, for example, which the x10 relies soo much?
 
I have no problem with "what if" scenarios. Quite the contrary. I love to fiddle with things, so this fictional piece of engineering is inspiring in many ways. Practical, hell no. Our current tire technology simply couldn't handle what the car could do, but it's the thought that counts.
 
The whole game is fantasy. I mean it's not very realistic that I can own a Veyron, a McLaren F1 or a Ford Ka, but this game is a giant 'what if?' in that it lets you simulate a dream garage with free access to a number of tracks. It simulates the realities of this fantasy in the physics and looks but it's still fantasy. And so is the X2010. It's another 'what if?' simulated for us to have the fantasy.

Car porn.
 
I don't understand all of the debate in relation to the ability of the tyres to handle the loading generated by the RBX1.

Is the debate about whether a tyre can be created to give enough "grip" for a car to corner at the speed of the X1? or is it whether a tyre could be created which would not fail during cornering? And please state your credentials if you are giving an authoritive answer, otherwise you are just stating an unqualified opinion and your posts should reflect that.

Does anybody know what the horizontal components of these cornering forces would be? - The mass of the car? The speed/downforce figures? The coefficients of friction of the tyre compound and the asphalt etc? I'm sure Mr Newey knows what he's doing in this regard.

Tyre technology has been incredibly advanced in the last number of decades. If the tyres used on large commercial passenger jet liners can withstand the incredible forces they are subjected to during a landing, then it should be very possible to manufacture a tyre for a 500kmph road vehicle. Red Bull have access to a lot of knowledge in this regard with their involvment in racing, both automobile and aviation.
 
But racing team does not build tires, nor do they have full knowledge on how tire works, that's why every team has a few engineers send directly from the tire manufacturer in the race, and even for tire makers how tire works is still some sort of black magic, since nobody can measure the movement of a tire in action, there are alot of assumptions and estimates in that regard.

Mr Newey isn't a tire specialist, his strength is in aerodynamics.

The Jet liner analogy doesn't fly, because there are more than a dozen tires working together and it only has to work hard when landing, and that's under 80knots when the physical brake is applied.

Remember one year at Indy Ralf Schumacher has a blown tire on the banking and the race only started with 6 cars? No matter how advanced the tire technology is it still needs to be produced and tested in real world, until somebody actually done it, it is all just that, theoretical.
 
Call it a 'real world simulator' all you want. GT5 is a game. Just have fun with it...
 
Yeah. Pd asked what kind of car Newey would make if there were no limits. Then Newey had some ideas, drew some sketches and maybe calculated some simple numbers. Like peak downforce, maximum lateral g and so forth. Then pd put the car into the game. Theoretical maximums became real numbers.

Theoretical maximums are easy to achieve on drawing board but a lot harder in real life. Surely the x10 in gt5 isn't all that realistic. After all how well does gt5 simulate ground effects, for example, which the x10 relies soo much?

With the upmost respect you are incorrect in your assumption regarding the design.

It was Kaz who had the initial idea, and it was Adrian Newey who took that idea and made it work in the "real world". Everything on the final car was designed in house by redbull on the same systems they use to design the current F1 cars and the technical specification was set by Newey right down to exact downforce levels, wet and dry kurb wieghts, engine specification etc etc etc. Trust me, this is very much a car designed by Adrian Newey. Kaz may have had the initial idea, but Newey made it happen.
PD took the design and digitised it programing in the exact figures given to them by Newey, they didn't make some figures up for a Newey sketch.

There was a great article in evo magazine on this car and the knowledge that went into it was everything Adrian Newey had.

A few quotes from the article and Adrian Newey as printed in evo ...

'My initial involvement was the specification and the plans. Yamauchi did the first proposal and bought it to the UK. We went through various aspects, mad a second evolution and there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing from there. I remember very clearly that my first sketches were done on a skiing holiday in February, though'

'Its refreshing to turn your mind to something where regulations aren't a factor, because obviously with my day-to-day work, regulations are key to how we design the car, so there's a bit of escapism involved, if you like. The X1 has been a fun "what if" project...'

When asked if the car could be driven by a human...

"It would be difficult to create and environment whereby the driver could survive those sort of G-Forces for a race distance rather than a single lap, but a combination of driver training and restraints - particulaly for the head and neck - mean it would be possible"

evo also printed the cars exact specs including the dimensions, weights, powers etc.

As for the tyre questions. Again, Newey is far smarter than you guys give credit. Remember the tyres in F1 are actually not the absolute grippiest tyres the manufacturers can produce. They are designed like everything else in F1 to meet a certain regulation regarding the amount of time they last, amount of mechanical grip they provide etc. Throw that regulation out and the tyres can get way stickier.
Newey knows all this and the tyres on the X2010 are again to "real world" specification of what is possible now and the car has been designed accordingly with all the relevent tyre calculations carried out by Newey and Redbull. Tyre pressures, tyre loads, tyre friction figures, tyre temps... all these figures exist for the car and were factored into the design.

Again this is talked about in the evo article in issue 151.

Love it or hate it the car could (according to Newey with a HUGE budget) be built today. Lets hope Redbull are insane enough to do it :)

It was also interesting to find out that the full size mock up was built in total secrecy and even most of the Redbull F1 factory didn't know it was being made until it was finished... and it was built in the factory in a room alongside them.


ps. Apparently when Newey was shown the full size mock up in the Redbull workshops he was totally "Gobsmaked". Not surprised.
 
With the upmost respect you are incorrect in your assumption regarding the design.

That may be the case. But I was not really questioning the design but the actual car in gt5. I don't think gt5 physics engine is sophisticated enough to simulate the x10.

A lot more though has then went into the design than I assumed. I stand corrected :).
 
That may be the case. But I was not really questioning the design but the actual car in gt5. I don't think gt5 physics engine is sophisticated enough to simulate the x10.

A lot more though has then went into the design than I assumed. I stand corrected :).

You may be right that the GT5 engine doesn't have 'ground effect' built into the engine. But it does have downforce programmed in, and the ground effect can be worked out to an exact downforce equivalent figure and this figure can be programmer into the car thus producing realistic 'ground effect'.
 
I think it's a joke...
why not have a hovercraft powered by nuclear fusion?
 
I think it's a joke...
why not have a hovercraft powered by nuclear fusion?

Can you actually make one of those with current existing technology then?

According to the experts (who know more than you or I) you could make an X2010 right now without having to invent any new technology. Just apply what's already possible and a really big budget.

Like I said earlier, love it hate it, the car really is the pinnacle of what's actually possible

Besides, there are 999 other cars you can drive if you don't like it :)
 
I think that the Red Bull design team drank too much of their own product....:dopey: :boggled: :D :lol:

Yes, you can probably guess that I'm not a fan of the mighty X2010. :yuck:
But that's just my personal opinion..

It appears to be quite taken by most of you, and that's fine by me. :)
I haven't won the car yet, and IF I do, it will just sit in the garage, waiting for .......well, I'm not sure yet. :indiff:

I think it's kinda un-realistic, but if the engineers who designed it say it could work, who am I to argue. ;)
 
Back