TeamRX8

iTrader: (25)

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

mike1324a

OH NICE! Ill take 2!

RX8PDX

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

Clavius

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.

Ciao

I adore the car

It has the Ferrari 599 Fiorano look at the front ,and a TVR *** 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 *** 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 .Wanna know what that sounds like ?

Prepare to wet one self

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ApX...elated&search=

Thats my opinion

Ciao

Dave

rotorocks

Me, Me, Me!!!

Ciao

Updates?????

Tudor

Updates? ..... Working hard
Cheers
Ted

rotarygod

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.

SlideWayz

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!!!

peterisurhero

all i have to say is, NICEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Tudor

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

Tudor

I think it's better to keep it all in one thread
Working on engine bay packaging as I mentioned in other thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-major-horsepower-upgrades-93/need-help-packaging-turbo-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

Hybridesque

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.

Aero8

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



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

GROUP BUY!

flomulgator

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.

Tudor

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

Tudor

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

rotarygod

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

Tudor

Thanks Fred,
Can't wait to see it!

Cheers
Ted

Tudor

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

flomulgator

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 (https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-aftermarket-performance-modifications-23/throttle-body-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!

rotarygod

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

flomulgator

thx.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/installing-dry-sump-renesis-61631/

Tudor

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