Here's some pictures of Renesis powered project that I'm working on. I thought that to share some pictures and info.

It's a semy monococue (catbon fiber and alu honeycomb) with tubular steel front subframe and rear/roll over structure which is simply an integrated roll cage. Weight under 800kg. Extensive aerodynamics including underbody tunnels etc. Now working on choosing FI components - turbo, intercooler etc. to give it reliable ~ 350hp with fastest possible spool up.

This car is intended to compete with UK's Noble. What do you rotary poisoned people think about it?

Cheers
Ted

wow. how much would you sell the chassy for? that's for the future reference haha

and i must ask why renesis? why not a 13b from rx7? you can have variable compression with those blocks. i've seen as low as 8 to 9.5:1.

either way, hope you kick noble's ass.

oh and merry christmas!

keep the renesis. He's only trying to make 350hp and a renesis can do that w/ FI and has the side ports, computer managment and all the other fun stuff a 13b doesn't. Remeber he's keeping weight under 800kg (under 1800lbs) which is just stupid light. That's like an Exige S with 100 more HP.

As for poster's actual questions, I think it looks absolutely fantastic. Looks a lot more like a TVR to me. One thing I noticed is it looks like the sideview mirrors won't function, as the rear wheel hump appears to completely block their viewpath.

Major points for the exhaust and taillights! One question, if you have a rear valence like that don't you need a venturi tunnel in the front air splitter? I'm not too brushed up on my fluid mechanics but I thought that's how underbody tunneling worked... (?)

I'll say this, that looks to be a beautiful body shape.....

Good luck, if you are serious.....

can we get a front shot?

I like it. That's really cool looking. I'd love to see a rotary in that. Forget 13B suggestion. Keep the Renesis. It's funny that you are making it to compete with Noble. My friend Curt's shop here in Houston is a Noble builder/finisher. It's a neat car but the turbo Ford V6 isn't nearly as cool as a turbo Renesis would be! Go for it and keep us updated.

Very awesome.

I, too, agree with flomulgator that it looks like a TVR, but regardless it's nice lookin'

Yeah, stay with the Renesis, it's lighter than the 13b's from the 7's, and being lightweight is a factor for your goal amount of weight.

Good luck! Can't wait to see more of this. (Subscribed)

-Cody
:smoker:

wow, i really like it.

Just a thought.. if you are looking for FI to come on quick and strong.. have you considered S/C over turbo? for the power you are looking for, it seems reasonable that you could use something like pettit's twin screw, and i am pretty sure there are many more..

Very nice design BTW.. will look forward to seeing progress in time

This is beautiful! I see Panoz Esperante and Ferrari F599 influences and love it! Even better is that it is a renisis rotary! There are definitely 350 WHP solutions you can look into with a Turbo and Supercharger on this Forum. From what I have seen and read on this forum I would recommend PM'ing Rotarygod and MazdaManiac for their suggestions on engine/drivetrain layout. The three shops that seem to have the most desirable solutions are: Mazsport (turbo), Petit Racing(supercharger), Richard Paul(axial flow s/c).

What price range are you shooting for for a rolling chassis and complete package with engine?

dude that is sweet... what program are you generating the drawings with?

We are about 1/13 power to weight. He will be at 1/5! That should be about a 11 second or better 1/4 mile.

I use Lightwave myself but don't know how to model architecturally accurate forms. Any suggestions?

Good lord! Put me down for two.

Definetely one of the coolest hey look what im doing threads! I hope you succeed and kick some serious ass. I would love to see more rotary sports car! Not only does it have a rotary but it looks cool. Even batter then that it should be pretty damn fast. Im stoked!

I would be happy with a car like that with a non turbo renesis at that weight to keep cost and complexity down. Great project! I would be in on one if this were a serious project.

i like the shape, but why the long hood.. with such a short motor? you could have lots of fun with the front..

beers :beer:

damn man i wish i had skill like this. looks VERY NICE!!:rock:

I can see this car on barret jackson in 30 years for millions! It looks nice! Good luck with it.

Thank you very much for kind words. I really appreciate it.
I have to say that I'm more than serious about this project. Those who know how much work/time it takes to get to this stage of design process would not doubt about how serious I am :) .
Right now exterior shape design is about over. I’m not happy with front being a bit blunt but will fix it shortly. Than it’s time to produce class A surface model (where all surfaces are perfect and care taken that light, reflections and shadows look correct from every angle) than cut the model in form of actual body parts and than producing tooling (CNC machined plug and moulds taken from it). I have to say that I’m an engineer but not a car stylist. So what I have here is a compilation of what I loved about different beautiful cars from past and present.
On the chassis and suspension (which is my expertise) design. General chassis layout is very similar to that of Koenigsegg. Paul Martin helped great deal with carbon fiber monocoque design. (more than 20 years McLaren F1’s head of composites department. He designed and build monocoques that won numerous F1 championships. He also designed all the composite parts of MaLaren F1 road car). I added a picture of FEA analysis plot that shows stress distribution and (very low) value. Chassis stiffness in torsion came out over 20000Nm and monocoque itself is over 70000Nm. This is miles better than that of Noble and chassis stiffness is absolutely vital for handling. This is for a 57kg of weight (monocoque) and overall chassis weight is less than 100kg. Strength is extremely high. It also features impact absorbing structures – sides, front and rear.

With suspension two versions where designed– one which is more traditional and another is F1 style inboard suspension. This second layout allows to convert a streetable car into race car within 20min. All you needed is a jack and two wrenches. By changing push rod on bell crank mounting point motion ratio is changed from 0.8 to 1.1 that will give 2.06 times higher wheel rates, same goes for sway bars – all in all it is about relocating 8 bolts. All that is left - turning down spring perches prescribed amount of turns to lower ride height…. I know that most people will consider it PIA anyway. But this could be a very nice option for those who will like to take it on a race track.

To answer some of the questions:

Flomulgator - it is is not necessary to have convergence zone at the front splitter. It is a possibility thought. During current CFD study different solutions are tried – will see what works best. Car is designed as a street car but with FIA GT2 racing in mind so aerodynamics is area of primary attention. For those who want learn more about different solutions used in racing (sports prototypes particularly) I would highly recommend http://www.mulsannescorner.com/. Next step will be Katz’s book – easy to read and great introduction to race car aerodynamics.

Stickmantijuana – Renesis was the choice for multiple reasons… one of which it is available brand new from Mazdasport.

Shaunv74 – Price range should be similar to Nobles… It is not cheap by any means but on the other hand it is extremely cheap for carbon fiber chassis car.

Software being used:
SolidWorks for 3D modeling (switching to Catia atm.)
ICEM Surf for surface modeling
ANSYS and more recently MSC. Patran/Nastran for FEA analyses
Fluent, ICEM CFD, CFX for CFD analyses
Mitchells WinGeo3 and ADAMS/Car for suspension design



Soope – I’m all in rear/mid engine layout. But for economical reasons this one had to be front engined. So to be able to place the engine well with in wheelbase hood is long… well it’s not that long isn’t it? Also I needed place for front underbody diffuser.

Thank You
Ted

i thought you were using solid works.. the other programs are new to me..... man i can appreciate the amount of time that you have put into this from one engineer to another.... i can't wait to see the process take place it must be very exciting....

Thanks for the info Tudor! I will look into the aerodynamics. Underbody shenanigans have always seemed a bit black magic to my little brain so I look forward to gettin' some learnin. I hear that with the big engine change in F1 this year all the big race teams are pouring extra millions into their underbody design.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say Tudor For The Win! on your newest design shot. Also, With the tubular layout (as shown in stress field) I see a T-top as a possibility? I hear rich people like to feel the breeze in their hair.....

This is an amazing idea. Also, I like how you're thinking about putting a rotary in the car. Both the car and the engine are all about innovation! It sounds like you're thinking things out properly, and I wish you luck!

This is awesome, thanks for sharing. Look forward to seeing how it all gets put together.

Many thanks for your compliments guys.

Here's roadster version picture. Anyone wants to have one as next Christmas gift? :wink2:

Cheers
Ted

Many thanks for your compliments guys.

Here's roadster version picture. Anyone wants to have one as next Christmas gift? :wink2:

Cheers
Ted

Ummmmmm- Yes !

well we'll have to agree to disagree, because IMO where you're at now is the easy part

getting the actual product built correctly is IMO always the most difficult task, it's being able to finish that last 5% of any project that always separates the winners from the wannabes ...

in otherwords, I'll believe it when I see the real thing, there's no shortage of talk around here. I'm even guilty on both counts myself :hahano:

Many thanks for your compliments guys.

Here's roadster version picture. Anyone wants to have one as next Christmas gift? :wink2:

Cheers
Ted
OH NICE! Ill take 2!

If you are giving away as a gift, I will take 1 :D

I'll officaly sign over my first and second born (when they are born lol) to you for one of those cars... like holy shytnit they look awsome.. go work for Mazda like as of yesterday and produced that as the next gen Rx-8.. christ that is just awsome (can you tell I'm impressed yet?!). Please keep us all updated on this car's process even minor since alot of us like all the minor detail technical stuff.

I adore the car :ylsuper:

It has the Ferrari 599 Fiorano look at the front ,and a TVR ass end on it .

I share the sentiments that the front is too long for an engine that's only around 12 inches long

As your car is a first in many respects, I would suggest instead of going the turbo route , I would , as you have such a long bonnet ,I would build a 20B renesis .The engine would probably be lighter than Option 1 and would have a nicer exhaust note as well as having another unique notch on your belt .You can achieve similar power outputs whilst having a better handle on emissions .

As you have such a rigid chassis ,Why limit yourself to only 350 hp .20,000Nm/deg is good for at least 600hp?The Pagani Zonda has a world record 26,000Nm/deg rigidity and has a 600 hp engine .

I would have an entry level with the 350hp option and a kick ass 6-7-8-1000 hp option with a 3 or even 4 rotor twin turbo with ceramic brake upgrade etc .Try and keep up with that Ferrari ,Porsche Pagani etc etc ......

IMAGINE A FOUR ROTOR :ylsuper: :rock: .Wanna know what that sounds like ?

Prepare to wet one self

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ApXcVPA-0&mode=related&search=

Thats my opinion

Ciao

Dave

Many thanks for your compliments guys.

Here's roadster version picture. Anyone wants to have one as next Christmas gift? :wink2:

Cheers
Ted


Me, Me, Me!!! :icon_droo

Updates?????

Updates? ..... Working hard :)
Cheers
Ted

Well I spoke to Ted on the phone for a while today and I have to say he sure sounds serious and legit about this!!! Don't expect to see a car for over a year or more. When it comes though, it's going to be VERY nice! I'm running some engine and intake/exhaust/tubo ideas off of him right now and he seems to have talked to some very reputable and knowledgable rotary guys from down under too so he's well on his way to finding a nice rotary setup for this car.

well we'll have to agree to disagree, because IMO where you're at now is the easy part

getting the actual product built correctly is IMO always the most difficult task, it's being able to finish that last 5% of any project that always separates the winners from the wannabes ...

in otherwords, I'll believe it when I see the real thing, there's no shortage of talk around here. I'm even guilty on both counts myself :hahano:

I'll add another 'disagreement': the hardest part of all is turning it into a profitable, sustainable business.

BTW, total drool. Go for the lightweight rotors and rev to 10.5k...yeah!!!

all i have to say is, NICEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :naughty:

Fred, many thanks for kind words.

TeamRX8,
I agree that it's easy to fail in such a project. I disagree that this stage is easiest part - there no such thing in proper design/build process. I agree that if cash flow dissapears than project will stack and will be delayed till funds will arise. It happened once already. We did design/build from ground up two different composite tub formula cars. One is competing alongside Dallara's F3 (chassis manufacturer for F3, IRL, Infinity Pro etc.) and winning frequently in it first season. I was also involved in various stages of design of some other high level race cars. Mainly suspension and aerodynamics design. So this is not a first time attempt.

SlideWais,
I agree that designing/building a very good car is one thing and making it into a profitable, sustainable business is absolutely different story. I would not say one thing is easier than another. It's different.

Cheers
Ted

I think it's better to keep it all in one thread :)
Working on engine bay packaging as I mentioned in other thread: http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=108388

After talking to RotaryGod for a while I'm thinking to offer 2 different modifications.
One will use bone stock renesis and its intake. Relatively small turbo but fast spooling turbo. It should make 330hp at the crank. That will be seriously fast in such a light wight car.

Another option will use extensively (read expensively) strenghened renesis engine, slightly bigger turbo and some innovative stuff coming from RG (Thanks Fred!) This one will be good for 400+ hp at the crank.

Here on the pictures you can see 1st modification packaging. Very simple turbo manifold (easy to manufacture) and cold air intake.

Cheers
Ted

Just realised what this car design reminds me of: Marcos TSO.
A Car done by the British (always a good thing when it comes to the low-volume sports car) but with the Chevy LS1 engine (omg, pushrods?). Prodrive apparently helped with chassis setup on this car.

I'm very intrigued by your project and hope it turns out really well.

I thought the first pics looked awesome, but that roadster wins it all. Looks beautiful and sounds like it will be a great vehicle.

:score:

I do have one suggestion for when this is closer to completion...

GROUP BUY!

Tudor,
Thanks for the info. Its been a while but i finally had a chance to read up at Mulsanne's Corner. The book is next. One thing I gathered about that, reading about rake angles and such (and doing some chin tapping of my own) is that most underbody aerodynamics that generate downforce rely on very low ride heights. It seems that anything streetable would negate such potential. Is this why we see such extensive use of large wings (w/ endplates! something else i just learned about!) and air splitters on production model racing vehicles as these features don't need a low ride height to generate downforce?

If this is the case, and i know I could be way off, how do you intend to generate significant downforce on a car that can still clear driveways? Or is the goal to simply generate a zero-lift car?

Apologies for the severely disjointed writing.....It's been a very long day w/ far too much science and not nearly enough beer. :beerchug:

Hi Flomulgator,
Glad that you found time to read some aero articles. Take some times to read through GTP and Group C info. Those beasts where generating some insane numbers.

Ground proximity has great effect on flow around any object. This is what is commonly referenced as ground effect. In automotive applications ground effect is significant starting from 300mm or so from the ground. So as you can see it has effect even on my gramma's pickup. As closer to ground (up to a point where viscous effects will actually block the flow) the higher downforce can be produced by aero device be it a wing, underbody diffuser etc.
How ever you don’t have to be THAT close to the ground to produce significant downforce. For example F1 and F3 run “stepped” floor due to tech. regulations. It means that there’s 50mm gap between tub bottom “reference” plane and rest of the floor. With rear ride height say 30mm it will place diffuser throat at 80mm above ground and trust me it does work!
While downforce is great thing we don’t really want very much of it on the street. Nothing comes without some “side effects”. To support additional vertical loads we’ll need much stiffer suspension – not very pleasant on the public road.
In “street form” Murena has 5” of ground clearance. At this ride height underbody tunnels don’t do very much – still good enough for about 400lbs of overal negative lift at top speed. This still makes a very stable vehicle at higher speeds. This is without rear wing. I have to admit that there’s nothing really special in this numbers while 99% of cars produce lift, many Ferraris and some others produce similar downforce levels at street ride height.
As one arrives on the track and relocates 8 bolts on suspension members. He’s now at 60 mm ride height, twice stiffer than was on the street. And also good amount of neg. camber is added.
Now underbody starts to really work allowing for some very serious cornering speeds.
Did I understand you right that you’re making a front “lip” for your car? You might find interesting results. I remember there was a study on generic car body (was it nascar body?) to see the effects of front airdam effect. Up to certain height it was decreasing lift on front axle and DECREASING drag! Rare thing to happen. After that point lift was further reduced but drag started to increase.

Cheers
Ted

Here's first variant of exhoust routing. I agree that one can not call it "a straight" tube but I tryed my best to keep bends not too sharp (no less 90 deg.) and radius is no less than 4". This is 3" pipe used.

I'd like to ask for experts opinion about how much all this bends will hurt the power on turbo'ed Renesis.

Thank You
Ted

I still need to get you a picture of my design. It should make piping a lot simple than that.

Thanks Fred, :)
Can't wait to see it!

Cheers
Ted

Please help me find out the distance from e shaft axis to engine bottom when mazdaspeed (or any other) dry sump is being used. Does anybody know?

Thank You
Ted

First a half-assed response to your most recent question: In an effort to be helpful, I scoured the internet for this information. I simply don't think it is on the internet; it is up to a knowledgable person in these things (Star Mazda mechanic?). Here is a link to another forum explaining ride height of wet sump (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=91927), but I imagine you are using dry sump for insane track day G-forces. Sorry and good luck.

As to your other question, no I am not building a front air dam. I was just very curious about all this as it was a natural extension of some academic-type stuff I did. Also I think a true splitter would/does look ridiculous on an RX-8.

And finally, it seems that all my thinkings about underbody aerodynamics were right. I tend to think about things in pressures but your numbers matched up w/ my hypothesis. It makes sense that lower ride heights increase ground effect. I had checked out the C section numbers w/ cars putting out 4,000lbs+ of negative lift. Crazy! I'm also very impressed that your car can drop its ride height in half whilst boosting negative camber!

Speaking of your car it looks like you let slip a name for it. The MURANE. Mean something? Mythological rotary god? (not you RG).

Sorry I don't give questions instead of answers....I'm a scientist, not an engineer!

That thread doesn't talk about a wet sump. It talks about throttlebodies.

thx.
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=61631

Flomulgator,
In fact almost any car be it double wishbone or Mcpherson strut suspension will gain negative camber in bump. Problem is that usually with such huge ride hight change it will also change your static and dynamic toe setting considerably. Also usually if you adjust camber you also have to reset toe. To eliminate first problem one just has to design a suspension with both ride heights in mind. It will most probably be a compromise.
Adjusting camber without readjusting toe is done by attaching both tie rod and upper control arm to separate steering arm that is bolted to upright. Than using shims it is easy to adjust camber in less than 1 min. It's used on 80% of formula cars and LM proto's.

Cheers
Ted

I was thinking about using SC and also different intercooling solutions. As I said before I don't want to use FMIC. Two main reasons added weight aft front axle and also there's only enough space for properly sized radiator - no intercooler. UMIC usually suffer from unfavorable air flow – it’s easy to direct air to them but close to impossible to drain that air out of them properly.
Liquid/air IC could be better solution.
I added a couple of pictures of initial Opcon supercharger packaging. One little 3300AX is seating on top of engine. Don’t really like that is so high. On the other side mounting it on the left side of the engine may make overall CGH a bit lower but will add weight of front left corner – already heaviest because of driver. I’ll have to think to find a best compromise. I will run performance simulations to see how different CG locations (resultant of S/C placement) influence on track performance and lap time.
On top of S/C there’s CF airbox with integrated intercooler. It’s a patented Opcon’s Laminova dual core system http://www.opcon.se/index.asp?sPage=1&langID=2&cID=15. I really like possibility to integrate IC with inlet manifold. It has separate cooling circuit with own small radiator and water pump. It could also be integrated with aircon circuit for even higher efficiency.
Air to S/C is fed from under windshield – there’s a high pressure zone. NASCAR guys us this zone for years.
I have some questions – Hey Fred where are you? Still waiting for an email from you. :worship:

Throttle body. First and probably best solution is to have 3 of those for each port pare. Individual throttle works great on piston engines – how does it work on Rotary? Also this is usually a NA solution and becomes somewhat irrelevant. It is also expensive.
I also have a wild question – is it possible to place throttle body BEFORE S/C??? :eek:

Main question – what length should be intake pipes (designated with red arrow on one of the pics.) coming from airbox to engine? Or may be I should say length from throttle body to engine?

BTW this intercooler system seem to suit turbo version as well – I’ll have to model and see how it packages.

Thank You
Ted

Sorry I haven't gotten around to sending you an e-mail. I will.

Individual throttlebody setups have advantages on naturally aspirated cars. For forced induction, they aren't neccessary. On a supercharger like that, you do place the throttlebody in front of it.

As far as the length of the intake runners, with a blower you've always got air traveling to the engine through the blower. Short is good. On a turbo setup you still rely on the engine to do some breathing work when the turbo is not under boost. Long works here. For this setup, I'd be very simplistic about it. Make them as long as they need to be to fit. After the ar gets running, then you can check the powerband and go make changes to them later. It is a prototype at this point after all.

What about using an air to water intercooler on a turbo setup. That could solve your space issue while being able to use a turbo.

Mike,
I mentioned just that in last lines of my previous post. :) Later I'll p[ost some initial turbo packaging with Laminova core liquid/air intercooler.

Cheers
Ted

Or you could go with Richard Paul's design and omit the intercooler all together...

Here's a couple of pictures of turbo setup using Laminova intercooler cores integrated in carbon fiber airbox. It makes for very neat compact package.

Fred, does it look OK to you? That square blue thingy is representing htrottle body.

I need some input on ingectors placement and number and shape of intake manifold pipes.

Cheers
Ted

Shaunv74,

Problem is that I don't know nothing about Richards S/C. There's hundreds of pages and no actual data - how much will it make? cost?
We do know fairly well what turbos can do. We have an idea what twin screw can do. So I'm going to try both options. If Richard comes out with dicent product superior to others in some major areas than I would gladly try it as well.


Cheers
Ted

I'm no expert but I think a turbo would be better for a race application because of sustained high rpm operation, and the renny loves to be revved. Packaging a water/air intercooler would be interesting.
But I love this car. Crazy lightweight and with 350-bhp you will have a better power to weight ratio than a Porsche Carerra GT that has 550-bhp! No to mention it's rigid as all shit.
I can't wait to see this. And given your suspension engineering background, it's going to handle like stink. I love the outboard idea.
I think the styling is spot-on too. A unique look all it's own. Stunning and functional.
You have to keep us updated on this regulary.
Oh, I had one other quesiton- I assume you're going to sell this car as a full turn-key deal, ready to roll and go? I know with the Noble you get less engine and transaxle. Will you make this avaliable less engine/trans so the customer can put in their own engine? Oh yeah, are you going to use the 6-spd manual from the RX-8 as well?
Thanks, I know it's a lot of quesitons. I envy you- I wish I could do your job!

Dave

Oh im sorry. I missed it when i read your post. Very nice looking.

Chickenwafer,
Thanks a lot for kind words. I like turbo myself... I don't mind keeping the revs high. I think that with right combination of components lug could be kept at a minimum. It's also lighter and cheaper.
I'm planning two turbo versions - one with around 300rwhp it will use mostly stock renesis and will be cheaper. Another option will use a bigger turbo good for 350rwhp. It will use substancially strengthened renesis (ceramic apex seals, dowel pins etc.)

SC could find it's way in a less track oriented and more civilized version.

First turbo version will use stock tranny. More powerful version will use rear mounted transaxle.

It is close to impossible to import a turn key car in US without spending gazzillion of dollars. So Murena will be imported as Noble - fully assembled car in one crate and powertrain in separate crate. Than authorized dealer/engine builder will install the engine for client. It's a bit of a pain.

Cheers
Ted

Shaunv74,

Problem is that I don't know nothing about Richards S/C. There's hundreds of pages and no actual data - how much will it make? cost?
We do know fairly well what turbos can do. We have an idea what twin screw can do. So I'm going to try both options. If Richard comes out with dicent product superior to others in some major areas than I would gladly try it as well.


Cheers
Ted

Yep completely understand. You would definitely want proven technology that you're already familiar with in something you're going to put your name and reputation on.

Are you planning on using the stock ignition system? Mazsport has seen the limiting factor at 338 RWHP on their turbo car to be the stock ignition system and the spark blowing out.

I'll use stock in less powerful version and aftermarket ignition on 350rwhp version.

Cheers
Ted

Wow Tudor, how did I not see this thread sooner?! GREAT job so far, can't wait to see this project come to life.

I just started a savings account for it.

Nice project and hope you'll succeed.

Oh, btw:
i like the shape, but why the long hood.. with such a short motor? you could have lots of fun with the front..
If the engine is in the front, you always need a long hood even with a short motor, otherwise 50/50 is difficult to achieve (unless the car was wide enough such that the driver could place his feet next to the engine or the gearbox was placed in the rear).

Ted,
Do you have any conceptual images of the inside? Also as with most any car these days, will it have any safety features; airbags, abs, traction control and the like? Also will it have any trunk?

Thank you,
Kevin

Who needs any of that crap?!?

WaitingforFI,
Safety is of primary concern. How ever I see it a bit different.

ABS: its main purpose is to prevent wheel locking. Best braking performance is achieved when 5 – 15% (depending on particular tire) slip is present i.e. when tire is rotating slightly slower than if it will freely rolling. When wheels are locked braking performance is reduce by 30% roughly. Worse than that car is becoming uncontrollable. Also if rear wheels are locked than car will spin at slightest provocation (100% of grip potential is used for braking and nothing is left to produce any cornering force). So ABS must be great feature? Well in theory it is but in reality it’s not true. Have you ever tried braking hard (with ABS) on bumpy surface? To make it short current ABS systems are far from perfect and skilled driver is still able to yield max braking performance without ABS assistance. What is necessary is firm braking pedal (close to zero travel) and good front/rear balance.

Air bags: I don’t really believe in them… How often you see people die in cars equipped with multiple airbags in a crash that in racing world will be considered as errr… “nothing major”?
What I believe in is chassis strength and FIA approved safety harness. Carbon fiber monocoque and integrated FEA spec. roll cage are miles safer than any amount of airbags. Also impact absorbing structures – front/rear/sides should take care that human body doesn’t see G loads higher than it can sustain.

Traction control – the way it is implemented in majority of street cars is simply unacceptable. Instead of making the car faster it makes it slower. How ever, when implemented properly it does help a great deal. It is also extremely hard to do right … It will be offered as an option at a later stage.

Murena will have trunk. Not a huge one thought.

All in all Murena is not intended for high volume production. It’s a “driver’s car” and it is designed with reasonably skilled driver in mind. There’s no point buying a car like that if one doesn’t care to learn to drive properly.

Cheers
Ted

Who needs any of that crap?!?
The reason I ask is: cars such as the Spyker C8 have abs as do other higher end exotics. I know the however Noble does not. I was just wondering how far he was willing to cater to the mainstream crowd. Those items are not crap. Crap is the average driver on the road. I have been forced to use ABS twice since I have moved to Houston, and I’ve only been here 6 months.
As for the traction control is this going to be more of a launch control, like on some Ferrari’s as opposed to the typical cut fuel and turn on the ABS like most manufactures tend to follow these days?
Ted, thank you for your time in answering all of my questions.

I was joking.

Although I agree such a small series doesn't need any of the aids mentioned.
However, traction control as well as ABS is sometimes utilized in racing (where it is allowed). But it's also tuned more agressively than in an everyday car.

Btw this concept also somewhat reminds of this car (small series but no carbon chassis): http://www.wiesmann-mf.com/egtstart.html

looks like Mr. Incredible's car.
http://i14.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/e3/7e/d9_1_b.JPG

Bump!
Any new news to speak of?

Some major changes going on lately. There will be some updates in about 3 weeks time.

Thank You
Ted

Thank you

Here's first variant of exhoust routing. I agree that one can not call it "a straight" tube but I tryed my best to keep bends not too sharp (no less 90 deg.) and radius is no less than 4". This is 3" pipe used.

I'd like to ask for experts opinion about how much all this bends will hurt the power on turbo'ed Renesis.

Thank You
Ted


Would not a side exhaust like that make that side of the car dirty or subject the passenger/driver to exhaust fumes???

http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=93530

have you read the purpose of this car?

beers :beer:

Just noticed that in one of the first pictures you have exhaust on both driver's and passenger's side and in later designs you show it only on passenger side. Just wondering which you're going with.

Wow this looks like I really sweet project. I do not know what a car like this even goes for... 30k, 60k... either way, looks great and im sure this thing will HAUL.

I have a feeling prices will be in the low 60's starting....

beautiful stunning and a racer all in one package.

I have a feeling prices will be in the low 60's starting....

If you're meaning in GBP I think you're right.

If you're meaning in GBP I think you're right.

you assume correct

Bump... So, What's the good word?

yeah, I am wondering about this as well

wow almost forgot about this lol