I go to bed every night I kneel and pray to God hoping that Red Bull would go and confirm the theory that an F1 Car going at a high level of speed can earn enough down force to be able to drive upside down in a tunnel.
@@campkira they always say something along the lines of, "In a long, rounded tunnel, you could drive up the wall to and drive upside down on the ceiling then come back down before the end of the tunnel." As in you're travelling at the optimum speed for downforce as you enter the tunnel.
It would be very expensive and difficult to pull it off though. I mean the physical conditions need to be basically perfect or someone dies. Also the engine might not survive upside-down for long enough, and if that stops working then someone dies.
@@mavvh1054 so I shouldn't ever say that my motorbike can reach 250+ km/h on a public road because I'm not going to do it? It's a marketing thing dude, showing the insane amount of downforce it has that it could theoretically drive upside-down. If it's got that much downforce imagine how good it is at a track, that kind of thing
Mind you, it does that without forced induction. These days everything is going small engine + turbo, SRT be like, nah... I respect it. Old school push-rod, big cylinders, big engine, big noise.
From a benchmark standpoint, it's not much to talk about. For most people however, that's about double what their daily driver makes, so it's more impressive.
@@OzwalR : Point still stands though. 600HP sounds like nothing if you compare it to the latest hypercar engines that are pushing 1600+, but like you said most people aren't driving cars anywhere near what the Viper puts out.
@@nicksokolis6343 Yes indeed. But perhaps even on the track, he doesn't need to care about lap times, because usually for Gordon Murray the lap times are shorter than anyone else's.
Oh yea! Twice the track length with one simple 180 degree twist of the track... It would take some pretty amazing engineering, but it would be oh so entertaining to watch a race on a track like that. Also, the drivers are already very impressive athletes or they wouldn't be able to drive these monsters that corners measuring multiple G at every corner, but on a Möbius race track they would also spend half the time inverted...
See if you can do an interview with Gordon Murray and talk about the t.50 with him, that would be great to watch, and I'm sure you would have a lot of fun
How about having a 'baloon' in the tank hold the fuel, and the space around it is presurized. Pump picks up in the baloon. No air in the baloon = no starvation issues.
id love to see a video about motorcycle engines and what makes them special compared to car engines. 180hp from 1 liter is nothing special in the motorcycle world
Really light cars can use em. I think the issue, though im unsure if you could overcome that with a strong clutch or something, is the low power in really low revs( at least with motorcycle engines revving to 8500-1500 rpm= most, even bread n butter bikes like a 1996 500cc 58hp cb500, 9500rpm-ish twin). That is bad with something really heavy. Maybe cars being. Well. Cars just are more boring utility oriented mostly. Bikes not. So. Maybe that's how bikes almost all went the high rev low life route, cars not. Now the low life aint really an issue anymore, a 100hp 600cc bike is amongst the best in the 50 000km test of german motorrad and the engine doesn't seem anywhere close to death.
@@gur262 imagine in a few years : "well gentlemen, our latest car engines didn't pan out. We thought turbos would revolutionize the industry." "I have an idea. See instead of abusing our engines with turbos...what if they made twice the power without!? Now imagine the sound of a swarm of mosquitoes. Hanging in the air. Everywhere. All the time. 16,000 rpms. Surgical earplug installation with every new model sold!" "You're fired, Tom."
For once, I was able to check the maths without spending hours to convert some weird units. Got really messed up in the Porsche Taycan vs. Tesla Model S video with the "pound force". No wonder unit conversion have destroyed things like mars orbiters and other cheap things.
@@akkual Can't you just use a converter tho.. I mean I use metric but it's not exactly difficult.. All the calculations are done for you. You just need to key in the figures.
Well, the fan may always be on but there are flaps that can close in the regular T.50 that will essentially just suck air along and streamlining the aero. The difference is whether flaps are open in the defuser or the engine cover bit.
You also need to make sure your grip allows you to put down enough power to maintain speed while upside down. Not huge but worth including. Your definitely right about needing a very smooth road surface. Would probably have to custom tune your suspension to avoid lifting the nose when hitting small bumps. And then there's the special turn signal to indicate that you'll be going upside down. That'll probably put the cost over the edge.
@@EngineeringExplained it's still used mostly on roads, hence the mph, but it's officially metric. Even Gordon Murray measures ALL his cars in KG, check the museum.
@Jeroen Haveman For sure, the newton is the proper force unit to use. Gear heads in metric nations are familiar with torque measured in newton-meters. That being said, most North Americans who toss "pounds" around think of it as an amount of material (nails, produce, people), i.e. "mass" NOT the force usually experienced by said material or object at earth's surface. How many would have even heard of the term "slug" let alone know what it means? Not many I'd suggest. I'll confess I had to look up the metric equivalent, as the definition (1 slug is the amount of matter that will accelerate at 1 ft/s^2 if a force of 1 pound is exerted on it) is not very intuitive to me. But the metric equivalent makes a whole lot more sense: 1 slug of "stuff" equals approx. 14.6 Kg - that's clearly one chunky unit!
7:30 The faster entry speed for corners after a long straight depends on how tight the corner is, as shown in F1 racing. The downforce is proportional to the speed squared, so the effect is small/none for F1 cars entering tight corners at low speed. But for moderate corners, they can stay at full throttle with no braking ... impossible for most race cars.
Yes the entry speed is always based around how tight the corner is, but I think your missing the fact that this is a FAN CAR so a good portion of its down force isn't reliant on speed. You are partly right, it will of course still increase at higher speed, but the fan creates a low pressure zone under the car regardless of speed, so even tighter slower corners, will have higher corner entry and carrying speeds. I didn't hear specifics on how much the fan system makes at a standstill, but I'd assume its higher than that of the road car, as the underbody could be able to take full advantage of the fan system, at least i would think. The 2j and brabham certainly did, I'm really interested to see more, and to see it break some lap records, and I'd love to find it in some sim style racing games, since I'll never ever get to actually drive or likely even see one for real.
@@mattwells1036 Great point! I read the fan runs on a separate 48V battery. I'm sure Murray knows what the fan DF is, and I agree it must be significant. Perhaps there's some info from the Brabham (sp) F1 car, but comparisons to the T50 road car seems like a bit of a stretch.
@@kevink2315 I believe in engineering explained's first video on the road car he does say what that version makes, and from what I remember it wasnt too much and was more so used to decrease drag, its possible the fan part only adds a few hundred lbs or kilos, but with the track only aspect, that the underbody would be lower, and be better designed to create a larger downforce. He did list the total in this video, which is pretty high at 1500kg, but we dont know as of yet how much is from the fan system. I'd guess most is from the areo. Itd be cool to see, if the amount of downforce is enough to take a low speed cornering from say 1g to 1.3 itd be a nice increase, but what I've been hoping for ever since learning about fan cars from the chaparral 2j in gt 4, and the red bull in gt5, I was hoping for something that has some serious gains, say 1 whole g on top of what itd do without at lower speeds would be crazy and awesome. It is only running on a 48v electric system so who knows if itll be as crazy as I hope lol.
So IF you would really drive upside down: - the fuel pump(s) would run dry, because there's no fuel anymore on the bottom except it's some kind of balloon system - oil pressure would drop, even if it's a dry sump system, because the oil would move to the cylinder heads/pistons and - oil would flow out of the crankcase ventilation system - coolant and brake fluid circuits would suck in air - feel free to continue
Except you treated downforce as static, which it is not as it relates to speed. You didn’t even mention at what speed those quoted downforce numbers were for, which is important since manufacturers often quote downforce at different speeds and then to make comparisons you need to normalize downforce to a speed?
What I kind of love/hate about this car is the styling simplicity. It looks like any other ordinary bog standard superstar, but I feel like they left a lot on the table in terms of visual impact.
Most cars, what they do matters more than how they look. Moreso for this, because a) the track clock doesn't care, and b) went by too fast to see it well anyway :)
@@THESLlCK It's big because it's benchmarked against the best headlights of any supercar out there which includes the latest Porsches and the Bugatti Chiron. Also they've hidden the ducts and cooling in that long headlight casing. The T33 has a much smaller set of headlamps though.
It's weird to calculate downforce as a constant weight, doesn't make much sense as it works only for one velocity value. The T.50 does not work like a "regular" fan car as the fan just improves the diffusor, so downforce is still very much speed dependant.
Jason is the total downforce not directly proportional to the speed which really makes the cornering calculation extremely simplified and really not practical?
This is all very interesting and relevant. But what I really want to know is what happens if you drive it upside down and the tunnel ends? Will it just crash on it's roof after flying upside down steadily a short distance? Or will it start doing somersaults because there is still downforce but no more surface to push down on?
I guess the answer is, 'it depends' 😉 A lot of the downforce on this car comes from ground effect (ceiling effect when upside down), that will be gone. What is left probably isn't enough to keep the car in the air. The next important thing is the distribution of the remaining forces, if they are perfectly balanced it will land on its roof but that seems highly unlikely. Any imbalance will cause the car to rotate (probably causing it to lose more upforce), so somersaults are the most likely outcome I guess.
DTM cars according to wikipedia make 3000+ kg of downforce. Mental. They are the fastest GT spec cars out there and they only make about 600 HP. Of course, they use some massive slicks. You should tell us about DTM. This car is remarkable for its size, but given the specs and tires it wouldn't be racing in a professional race unless GM gets a series organized. But I think it should beat a GT3 handily on racing slicks.
DTM isn't GT spec at all. It's a silouette series with near zero technology in common with roadcars. The T.50s is probably faster than FIA GT3 even on road legal tires, considering how much lighter and more powerful it is.
Haha, maybe so! Also depends on what the aero force is. If it doesn't have enough grip to put down the force required to accelerate (bc "no downforce") then it might have a lower top speed!
I find it funny how in a previous video he mentions that the fan cars down force is underwhelming and now he’s in cited on how overwhelmingly good it is
There is no way that fan helps get that amount of down force. A vehicle body produces a small amount of lift due to its overall shape, this technique reduces that lift and reduced drag. So the resulting vertical forces will have relatively more forces in downward direction than it would have without that fan. No matter what, the vehicle body needs few components that produce negative vertical forces.
The driving upside down idea is flawed on a different much more obvious way: You only have the huge amount of down-force when the suspension is loaded and the ground clearance is small so that you have maximum ground effect. Driving upside down would increase ground clearance and reduce ground effect, this would in turn increase ground clearance even more... and so on... until the car completely releases from the driving surface.
Is 1 G of grip enough? Pulling "force" is 720/1.36*1000/(210*1.61/3.6)/9.81 = 575 kg, quite a bit less than the car's mass. Yes, 1 G is enough. Assuming full power at top speed, which is realistic. I'm too lazy however to try to calculate what happens when the center of downforce is behind the center of mass, which it surely is. Because a high downforce car should oversteer at low speeds, but understeer at high speeds. *EDIT:* OMG it's two wheel drive. You probably can't produce 575 kg of force with an estimated 450 kg of rear axle load because of wheelspin. And zero lateral traction. So my answer is: The T50.1 can't drive upside down!
Odd that T50S would have only one mode. To simplify operations and suspension? Be eligible in some sort of racing series? I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to co-design an electric racing car that's a mix of the 919 Evo, T50 and say that Randy Pobst Pikes Peak Model 3 drivetrain, but taken to the next level. I feel it would lap like an LMP1 car, F2 car when Formula E only laps like an F3 car and only in quali mode. The new car would do it for 25 minutes or so. Swappable batteries would allow longer races, even racing at F2 level for full race lengths, even 24 hour races. Shorter pit stops vs safe tanking would help. Who's with me?
Bugatti Chiron has 1500 HP, but that thing weights 2 tons. The most important parameter to determine if a car is fast around a track is power to weight-ratio. The Chiron has a PTWR of 0.75 PS/kg. A formula 1 car (the-fastest-lap-machine) has a PTWR of 1.0 - 1.5 PS/kg. The T.50S has a PTWR of 0.82 PS/kg. So not taking aerodynamics into account, the T50 already laps faster than the Chiron, because it can accelerate faster, break faster and it can go faster through corners. And since it's naturally aspirated, it is much more controllable, which saves you time too.
IVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION PLEASE HELP . So I have an infiniti q50 and i am wanting to figure out what's more aerodynamic can you help ? Whats more aerodynamic when recirculate on the climate control is closed or open ? When my windows are cracked and I turn ON the recirculate the wind rushes in the windows hard and loud . When i turn recirculate Off to suck air from outside threw the vents the air rush is quieter and doesn't rush in the cabin as much . So what setting makes the car more aerodynamic ?? I feel like its slippery threw the air when closed or on that's why wind rushes faster and louder past the windows? Can you help
GMA T50S Niki Lauda is not close to 852 kg and Mr. Murray himself said that by the time the car does come out it will be close to 840+ kg. Soo yeah 840+ kg + 1500+ kg of downforce wich they can take it to 2300 kg if the want to . This could be one of the fastest cars to lap ever .
Message to Engineering Explained: Do you adhere /agree with the benefits of a curved downwards undertray beneath the engine/front wheelbase, versus a flat undertray from the very front to the diffusers.
My guess is it's a clearance thing, you can go lower in between the wheels than your minimum clearance. If so, a flat tray would have to sit higher than the lowest point of the curved surface. Just a guess though.
This can maybe drive upside down, but it'd be marginal. The lift devices these cars use have typical L/D of about 3-4, so that 1500 kgf downforce will be producing something like 400 kgf of drag, which would need at least 400 kgf of normal force to supply the needed traction. You have 610 kg of maximum normal force and your engine is already close to max power counteracting drag, so you'd have about 400 kgf in either direction worth of lateral acceleration, which corresponds to a maximum steering angle deviationof about 0.11 degrees.
180PS/L is NA rotary territory. RX-8’s Renesis is a 1.3l with 231PS. Of course the T50 engine is MUCH more fuel efficient... but that’s another argument.
1. That power output per liter doesn't seem out of line for motorcycle engines; 2. When inverted, with 3 G of aerodynamic downforce, the car should have 2 G of normal force on the tires, shouldn't it? I think you said 1 G. The driver would, of course, feel negative 1 G. 3. Somebody with enough money could build a turn with banking to 180° and this could be tried incrementally...
The Czinger 21c claim a better Hp per litre at 244Hp , it's a 2.88L v8 twin turbo that rev at 11 000Rpm and do 950Hp for the one that want to know So yeah claiming your are the best when your not out make the door open to all the other claim but the 21c is twin turbo and the 2 are mind blowing in their own right, i just want to point the 21c out Btw Czinger already put a massive MASSIVE some of money into their tech (3d printing) so it's not a little start up that claim 5000Hp out of nowhere without showing anything
Simplified discussion about lateral grip. Lateral weight transfer in corners and tires working together by judicious use of spring rates and sway bars allow my Subaru to regularly pull, according to my datalogger, 1.5 gees peak in corners with no aero, on Bridgestone RE71Rs while autocrossing. I'm looking forward to trying the Yokohama A052 tires next season.
You have to make significant assumptions and simplifications to get produce your times round a circle. I accept that. However you are ignoring one signifcant factor. Downforce increases with the square of speed. So because the T50 is going (much) faster round the bend its downforce advantage will significantly greater than your figures show. The "Viper" probably will have less than its (assumed) 1.5g.
Ahh....maths+physics.....and the people are fixated on sex.....!!! If you know Sir Gordon Murray , he is that good...because he is all analog.... He calculates on paper and pen....!!! Can you believe that!!!
Great now I'm thinking of Gordon Murray going, oh the Gumpert Appolo can drive up side down Eh?!, Well TAKE THIS! and mine doesnt look like an ugly lego blocks kit either!
It annoys me to no end that people insist on measuring forces (usually downforce) in kilograms. A kilogram is not a unit of force. It's mass. Mass is a universal constant based on the amount of matter in an object. A 68 kg item on earth will be 68 kg everywhere in the universe, but a 150 pound person on earth would weigh 351 pounds on Jupiter, but you'd still be 68 kg. On earth, there is a constant relationship between mass and weight (which is a force) because of gravity, but it's still wrong. I am really glad that you addressed that because no one else does.
Thought it was circa 970kilos (sorry, don't know what that is in American money)? If American cars are literally twice that mass, I don't think those tyres (which Gordon Murray described as narrow) would offer quite the same performance?
"One thing you cannot change are the laws of physics, no matter how clever you are. You'll never get transient handling with heavy car that feels like a light car" - Gordon Murray "Is light weight important? No, we have better tyres and suspensions nowadays" - Engineering Explained on the T.50 I don't know why I trust the legend more than you.
A model radio controlled car should be able to drive upside down faster a the track would be cheaper to build. Less risk obviously as well. The mass to to lift ratio on smaller vehicles is better. That's part of the reason why ostriches don't fly and albatros and even ducks and geese need a bit of a run to take off. It takes a lot for a heavy item to fly. Now that sim racing is so mature, an existing tunnel could be prepared with on-ramp and off-ramp. Optionally netting for predictable failed attempt. As long as the tunnel has a decent ceiling, and it could be drag prepped, it would not be all that hard. Superkarts make the speed needed and could be tweaked to get the downforce. Without a driver on board getting in the way, aero could be made quite extreme, especially with a good full size T50 fan at full tilt. Total mass 100-150 kg, 300 kg downforce at manageable speeds? Should be achievable. And a sim driver drives it remotely with VR goggles.
I go to bed every night I kneel and pray to God
hoping that Red Bull would go and confirm the theory that
an F1 Car going at a high level of speed can earn enough
down force to be able to drive upside down in a tunnel.
Amen.
I mean they did a zero G pit stop because they could
@@larssonk22 They've taken an F1 car down a ski slope because they could.
Upside-down in a tunnel seems a small step.
Go Max!
@@peterthomas5792 not seen that one, I check it out
You are not alone brother
So, it can drive in australia
Well Gordon Murray is South African so it makes sense that he decided to be the guy to finally make a supercar for us southern hemisphere people
Colin Griffin it’s just a joke dude....
@@EFABES93 ... so was colin's comment bud...
Pretty much.
@Pandacat 666 not a problem. This car is middle-hand drive.
"My car can drive upside down!"- Car Manufacturers/engineers.
"Ok... so do it."- Me
loop not full upside down since how the hell you going slow down?
@@campkira they always say something along the lines of, "In a long, rounded tunnel, you could drive up the wall to and drive upside down on the ceiling then come back down before the end of the tunnel." As in you're travelling at the optimum speed for downforce as you enter the tunnel.
It would be very expensive and difficult to pull it off though. I mean the physical conditions need to be basically perfect or someone dies.
Also the engine might not survive upside-down for long enough, and if that stops working then someone dies.
@@HartyBiker very true, but I'm of the mindset of, "Don't say something is possible if you're not going to do it."
@@mavvh1054 so I shouldn't ever say that my motorbike can reach 250+ km/h on a public road because I'm not going to do it? It's a marketing thing dude, showing the insane amount of downforce it has that it could theoretically drive upside-down. If it's got that much downforce imagine how good it is at a track, that kind of thing
Dodge Viper ACR "only has about 600 sumn' horsepower so there's nothing crazy"
- Jason 2020
Mind you, it does that without forced induction. These days everything is going small engine + turbo, SRT be like, nah... I respect it. Old school push-rod, big cylinders, big engine, big noise.
From a benchmark standpoint, it's not much to talk about. For most people however, that's about double what their daily driver makes, so it's more impressive.
@@natalyasparrow6748 double? I'd say a big % of the population drives something under 200hp, so I would say at least 3x the hp
@Hyi Vittu a viper angine at 3000rpm makes more power than my car at redline
@@OzwalR : Point still stands though. 600HP sounds like nothing if you compare it to the latest hypercar engines that are pushing 1600+, but like you said most people aren't driving cars anywhere near what the Viper puts out.
Gordon Murray - I don't care about top speed or lap times
Also Gordon Murray - I'm just going to leave this here, oh it's the T50S, no biggy
He doesn't care about lap times, top speed etc on a road car. A track car is another matter altogether. He was designing F1 cars after all.
@@nicksokolis6343 I know, just making a joke
@@nicksokolis6343 Yes indeed. But perhaps even on the track, he doesn't need to care about lap times, because usually for Gordon Murray the lap times are shorter than anyone else's.
The F1 also had the F1 LM
@@Appletank8 McLaren decided to make it. Gordon didn't have any influence over that. Gordon did have an influence over the F1 GTR programme.
My mom's honda accord can drive upside down too
Just not for long
XD
I bet my dad's ford taurus can go longer!
Engineering Explained do I see an episode coming on?
Don't want to ask how you found that out...
The early Mercedes A-Class was famous for it, too
well that would be an impressive demonstration, we need mobius race-strip!
That would be downright amazing, 200%
Oh yea! Twice the track length with one simple 180 degree twist of the track...
It would take some pretty amazing engineering, but it would be oh so entertaining to watch a race on a track like that. Also, the drivers are already very impressive athletes or they wouldn't be able to drive these monsters that corners measuring multiple G at every corner, but on a Möbius race track they would also spend half the time inverted...
It would need to be a tunnel under the ground but with big diameter
Appears to be a rear tire 😂 I'm dead.
"The jury is still out on what brand it is"
😂😂
The Men in Black were able to drive a Ford LTD upside in the tunnel to Queens. I can’t understand why nobody else has done it.
Didn't Top Gear do it? Not sustained, just a loop inside a tube? I'm sure I saw that.
He pushed the red button...
@@peterthomas5792 Yep. It was the Renault Twingo in a sewer tunnel under Belfast
@@Dan-fk7vg Ah, that well-known high-downforce race machine....
It was jet powered, not many of those lying around.
See if you can do an interview with Gordon Murray and talk about the t.50 with him, that would be great to watch, and I'm sure you would have a lot of fun
Lol, the sarcasm is thick at certain points
Lmaoo.. Jury's still out on what brand they are 😂
“So we’re going around this circle, so what’s happening is your car is turning” -EE 2020
*So........ Its the perfect car for Hammond.?* 🤔
Yeah
Yes!
Awwww to soon!!!
"The only road legal N/A engine has 164 hp/L"
What about all these 200+ hp LITREbikes?
or you know... the 250cc bikes from the 80s that were limited to 45hp. Thats 180hp/l
in the 80s
20k rev range my boys
At least someone mentions how performant motorcycle engines are. I'd like Jason to do some videos on bikes.
@@michaelvandeborne9382 same
OMG. You did NOT under-deliver on this. Awesome car, awesome engineering, awesome video!
I'd like to see T.50s racing on LeMans24
It could happen. The P1 class is being replaced with a hypercar class so cars like the Senna etc “should” be endurance racers from next year.
it not lemans class...
It would be absolutely brilliant to see the GMA T.50S racing in the Hypercar class against Koenigsegg, Toyota, Peugeot and Aston Martin
I'd imagine a variant of Le Mans track with several spirals and loop-de-loops on it lol😂
not gonna happen, because the FIA doesn't like moveable aerodynamic devices
Now we wait for the T50 LM - the road version of the track version of the road version.
@amarjit singh Lanzante could do this job.
Fuel tank and dry sump oil on a rotational gimbal for driving upside down?
Adds weight. Gordon Murray would not approve. 😂
How about having a 'baloon' in the tank hold the fuel, and the space around it is presurized. Pump picks up in the baloon. No air in the baloon = no starvation issues.
The beginning was hilarious
"Hello everyone and welcome"
"Hi guys!"
"THISSSSS"
The holy trinity of I'm going to learn something that I'm never going to use
Until you buy new tires. Then, oh then.
Honestly I watch “thissss” because is a funny guy, but, there are better out there
@@joseacuna3239 production value wise, yeah. There's CarWow for stock cars, what else do you watch for stock cars?
Kiraro The Kitsune I love the Savagegeese productions, beyond the reviews, production quality is over the top.
I read it as Gordan Ramsey and realised this 10 seconds later😂
Does Gordon Ramsey like fast cars? Perhaps this car could be bundled with a dinner at one of his restaurants.
@@xidarian WHERE'S THE ENGINE OIL
At least in 2020: we have Cars drive upside down
We missed out on the hoverboards in 2015, but we made a comeback with upside down driving cars.
Saleen also claimed that S7 can ride upside down....
@@MuhammadWaqas-hi5nr It will in theory but not reality due to fuel , oil etc...
All the cars in Australia have been able to drive upside down for years
@@jaimer6354 XD
id love to see a video about motorcycle engines and what makes them special compared to car engines. 180hp from 1 liter is nothing special in the motorcycle world
Jason doesn't recognize their existence. But if he did, that whiteboard would be on fire
@Eat Jat I'm guessing that when you can push 10,000+rpm, peak torque is ages ago on the tach
@Eat Jat interesting! do you own a white board by chance?
Really light cars can use em. I think the issue, though im unsure if you could overcome that with a strong clutch or something, is the low power in really low revs( at least with motorcycle engines revving to 8500-1500 rpm= most, even bread n butter bikes like a 1996 500cc 58hp cb500, 9500rpm-ish twin). That is bad with something really heavy. Maybe cars being. Well. Cars just are more boring utility oriented mostly. Bikes not. So. Maybe that's how bikes almost all went the high rev low life route, cars not. Now the low life aint really an issue anymore, a 100hp 600cc bike is amongst the best in the 50 000km test of german motorrad and the engine doesn't seem anywhere close to death.
@@gur262 imagine in a few years : "well gentlemen, our latest car engines didn't pan out. We thought turbos would revolutionize the industry."
"I have an idea. See instead of abusing our engines with turbos...what if they made twice the power without!?
Now imagine the sound of a swarm of mosquitoes. Hanging in the air. Everywhere. All the time.
16,000 rpms. Surgical earplug installation with every new model sold!"
"You're fired, Tom."
I like that he's using the metric system.
It so doesn't matter, lol
For once, I was able to check the maths without spending hours to convert some weird units. Got really messed up in the Porsche Taycan vs. Tesla Model S video with the "pound force". No wonder unit conversion have destroyed things like mars orbiters and other cheap things.
What about the Saleen s7
@@akkual Can't you just use a converter tho.. I mean I use metric but it's not exactly difficult.. All the calculations are done for you. You just need to key in the figures.
@TreyMusah use freedom units!!!!!!
The fan hopefully doesn't just get the full downforce mode, it's such a great chance for super efficient DRS
Well, the fan may always be on but there are flaps that can close in the regular T.50 that will essentially just suck air along and streamlining the aero. The difference is whether flaps are open in the defuser or the engine cover bit.
"did this video in metric for all the metric folks out there"
*the rest of the world* 'bout time. Thank you.
In Canada, our speed limits are set in kms on the mile roads.
Am I the only one that wanted to see this in action?
We all do!
*ah yes, the perfect car suitable for both australia and the americas.*
They’re definitely Pirelli’s.
Says Michelin
John Figueiredo whoosh!
I have Twheels on my malibu...
@@thechumpsbeendumped.7797 lol
A friend of mine drove his mom's Escalade upside down. I think he forgot to turn on the downforce though.
hm, downforce acting up... is it still a DOWNforce? :)
Thank you for the metric units.
You also need to make sure your grip allows you to put down enough power to maintain speed while upside down. Not huge but worth including. Your definitely right about needing a very smooth road surface. Would probably have to custom tune your suspension to avoid lifting the nose when hitting small bumps. And then there's the special turn signal to indicate that you'll be going upside down. That'll probably put the cost over the edge.
"all the metric guys" meaning THE WHOLE WORLD, only one country out.
@@skokos And filled with people that choose orange clowns as presidents.
The country this car originates from uses MPH. 🤷♂️And it's not the US.
@@EngineeringExplained it's still used mostly on roads, hence the mph, but it's officially metric. Even Gordon Murray measures ALL his cars in KG, check the museum.
@@skokos How is my comment retarded? I'm only pointing out a fact.
Please please make a video on t50 glorious v12 engine
he already did
Congrats, you just found the *only* instance where pounds are better than kilos.
Respect
Only for slugs.
@Jeroen Haveman For sure, the newton is the proper force unit to use. Gear heads in metric nations are familiar with torque measured in newton-meters. That being said, most North Americans who toss "pounds" around think of it as an amount of material (nails, produce, people), i.e. "mass" NOT the force usually experienced by said material or object at earth's surface. How many would have even heard of the term "slug" let alone know what it means? Not many I'd suggest. I'll confess I had to look up the metric equivalent, as the definition (1 slug is the amount of matter that will accelerate at 1 ft/s^2 if a force of 1 pound is exerted on it) is not very intuitive to me. But the metric equivalent makes a whole lot more sense: 1 slug of "stuff" equals approx. 14.6 Kg - that's clearly one chunky unit!
7:30 The faster entry speed for corners after a long straight depends on how tight the corner is, as shown in F1 racing. The downforce is proportional to the speed squared, so the effect is small/none for F1 cars entering tight corners at low speed. But for moderate corners, they can stay at full throttle with no braking ... impossible for most race cars.
👏🏻 e.g. 2020 Silverstone GP
Yes the entry speed is always based around how tight the corner is, but I think your missing the fact that this is a FAN CAR so a good portion of its down force isn't reliant on speed. You are partly right, it will of course still increase at higher speed, but the fan creates a low pressure zone under the car regardless of speed, so even tighter slower corners, will have higher corner entry and carrying speeds. I didn't hear specifics on how much the fan system makes at a standstill, but I'd assume its higher than that of the road car, as the underbody could be able to take full advantage of the fan system, at least i would think. The 2j and brabham certainly did, I'm really interested to see more, and to see it break some lap records, and I'd love to find it in some sim style racing games, since I'll never ever get to actually drive or likely even see one for real.
@@mattwells1036 Great point! I read the fan runs on a separate 48V battery. I'm sure Murray knows what the fan DF is, and I agree it must be significant. Perhaps there's some info from the Brabham (sp) F1 car, but comparisons to the T50 road car seems like a bit of a stretch.
@@kevink2315 I believe in engineering explained's first video on the road car he does say what that version makes, and from what I remember it wasnt too much and was more so used to decrease drag, its possible the fan part only adds a few hundred lbs or kilos, but with the track only aspect, that the underbody would be lower, and be better designed to create a larger downforce. He did list the total in this video, which is pretty high at 1500kg, but we dont know as of yet how much is from the fan system. I'd guess most is from the areo. Itd be cool to see, if the amount of downforce is enough to take a low speed cornering from say 1g to 1.3 itd be a nice increase, but what I've been hoping for ever since learning about fan cars from the chaparral 2j in gt 4, and the red bull in gt5, I was hoping for something that has some serious gains, say 1 whole g on top of what itd do without at lower speeds would be crazy and awesome. It is only running on a 48v electric system so who knows if itll be as crazy as I hope lol.
Absolutely beautiful machine but my 330ci was bought in Australia for 3500 and it was a blast to drive upside down
So IF you would really drive upside down:
- the fuel pump(s) would run dry, because there's no fuel anymore on the bottom except it's some kind of balloon system
- oil pressure would drop, even if it's a dry sump system, because the oil would move to the cylinder heads/pistons and
- oil would flow out of the crankcase ventilation system
- coolant and brake fluid circuits would suck in air
- feel free to continue
Yeah, that's the thing of thinking.😟😟
Speculating about that sorta stuff is pretty cool, but I'd rather see some lap times being smashed!
How does it produce so much downforce?
I dont see any crazy Aero parts. Like 1500kg is a lot
Please, Jason, inform the world about the new Maserati and its Nettuno engine 🙏🏻
Except you treated downforce as static, which it is not as it relates to speed. You didn’t even mention at what speed those quoted downforce numbers were for, which is important since manufacturers often quote downforce at different speeds and then to make comparisons you need to normalize downforce to a speed?
Just felt like saying I appreciate the metric conversion on all the vids 🙌🏻
What I kind of love/hate about this car is the styling simplicity. It looks like any other ordinary bog standard superstar, but I feel like they left a lot on the table in terms of visual impact.
Most cars, what they do matters more than how they look. Moreso for this, because a) the track clock doesn't care, and b) went by too fast to see it well anyway :)
the only complaint is the headlights
@@THESLlCK It's big because it's benchmarked against the best headlights of any supercar out there which includes the latest Porsches and the Bugatti Chiron. Also they've hidden the ducts and cooling in that long headlight casing. The T33 has a much smaller set of headlamps though.
It's weird to calculate downforce as a constant weight, doesn't make much sense as it works only for one velocity value.
The T.50 does not work like a "regular" fan car as the fan just improves the diffusor, so downforce is still very much speed dependant.
Jason is the total downforce not directly proportional to the speed which really makes the cornering calculation extremely simplified and really not practical?
So one can"t slipstream behind the T50s in racing.. it will blow you away
Do you write the answers on your hand or you calculate on the fly?? 😂
If you follow me on Instagram I expose the fraud that I am! 😂
Link: instagram.com/p/B5sVJrlhpho/
LOOOOL
This is all very interesting and relevant.
But what I really want to know is what happens if you drive it upside down and the tunnel ends?
Will it just crash on it's roof after flying upside down steadily a short distance?
Or will it start doing somersaults because there is still downforce but no more surface to push down on?
I guess the answer is, 'it depends' 😉
A lot of the downforce on this car comes from ground effect (ceiling effect when upside down), that will be gone. What is left probably isn't enough to keep the car in the air. The next important thing is the distribution of the remaining forces, if they are perfectly balanced it will land on its roof but that seems highly unlikely. Any imbalance will cause the car to rotate (probably causing it to lose more upforce), so somersaults are the most likely outcome I guess.
Thanks for using metric system..lol..😂
Imagine this thing on slicks?
I appreciate the humor as you were looking at the drawing of the car
DTM cars according to wikipedia make 3000+ kg of downforce. Mental. They are the fastest GT spec cars out there and they only make about 600 HP. Of course, they use some massive slicks. You should tell us about DTM.
This car is remarkable for its size, but given the specs and tires it wouldn't be racing in a professional race unless GM gets a series organized. But I think it should beat a GT3 handily on racing slicks.
DTM isn't GT spec at all. It's a silouette series with near zero technology in common with roadcars.
The T.50s is probably faster than FIA GT3 even on road legal tires, considering how much lighter and more powerful it is.
That's literally the amg one, there's no t.50s this is ridiculous
Hey Jason, there's a bmw logo on your car
Top speed would be higher than 210 mph inverted because of lower rolling resistance. No car weight going through the tires ;-)
Haha, maybe so! Also depends on what the aero force is. If it doesn't have enough grip to put down the force required to accelerate (bc "no downforce") then it might have a lower top speed!
I feel super nerdy now. I had the same downforce in kg rant in my head right before Jason started his.
I laughed so much during "the rant" hahaahahah you're a legend
The rant has practical implications: this math won't work outside Earth
the definition of Awesomeness Unobtainium
Thanks, great info and thanks for the metric conversion 👍🏻 👍🏻
I find it funny how in a previous video he mentions that the fan cars down force is underwhelming and now he’s in cited on how overwhelmingly good it is
There is no way that fan helps get that amount of down force.
A vehicle body produces a small amount of lift due to its overall shape, this technique reduces that lift and reduced drag. So the resulting vertical forces will have relatively more forces in downward direction than it would have without that fan.
No matter what, the vehicle body needs few components that produce negative vertical forces.
What happens if you put them on top of one another wheels to wheels?
Is there a button i can press to never have to hear about this car again?
do a video on the vacuum chapparal, that is HELLA COOL
Big deal, holden's drive upside-down all the time
Damn I love your videos. Thank you 🙏
Well done. I thoroughly enjoy how relatable you explain the physics.
going around busting everyone's dream of a car that can actually drive upside down
highest road legal na motor is inn my knowlege the Ducati Panigale V4 Speciale with 998ccm and 226 hp XDD INSANE
Wild!!! I suppose the record I'm discussing applies to road legal production cars. :)
1.15hp/kg, crazy power to weight ratio
@@EngineeringExplained yea but still wild numbers^^
The driving upside down idea is flawed on a different much more obvious way: You only have the huge amount of down-force when the suspension is loaded and the ground clearance is small so that you have maximum ground effect. Driving upside down would increase ground clearance and reduce ground effect, this would in turn increase ground clearance even more... and so on... until the car completely releases from the driving surface.
Damn. We were so close!
If you think about it....... Every car in Australia is driving upside-down
Need more of these type videos. Math and cars are fun.
Cover the Mercedes AMG ONE (World's 1st Truly F1 Production Hyper Car) Customers receiving them early next year
It's official. The T50s is a bit lighter than the Ferrari F50 GT. Makes me wonder if the F50 GT had enough downforce to pull the same trick.
instant like, i love your videos so much
Thank you, I appreciate you watching! :)
So this car could possibly do a loopty loop like my match box cars did when I was a kid.
Is 1 G of grip enough? Pulling "force" is 720/1.36*1000/(210*1.61/3.6)/9.81 = 575 kg, quite a bit less than the car's mass. Yes, 1 G is enough. Assuming full power at top speed, which is realistic. I'm too lazy however to try to calculate what happens when the center of downforce is behind the center of mass, which it surely is. Because a high downforce car should oversteer at low speeds, but understeer at high speeds.
*EDIT:* OMG it's two wheel drive. You probably can't produce 575 kg of force with an estimated 450 kg of rear axle load because of wheelspin. And zero lateral traction. So my answer is: The T50.1 can't drive upside down!
Odd that T50S would have only one mode. To simplify operations and suspension? Be eligible in some sort of racing series?
I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to co-design an electric racing car that's a mix of the 919 Evo, T50 and say that Randy Pobst Pikes Peak Model 3 drivetrain, but taken to the next level. I feel it would lap like an LMP1 car, F2 car when Formula E only laps like an F3 car and only in quali mode. The new car would do it for 25 minutes or so. Swappable batteries would allow longer races, even racing at F2 level for full race lengths, even 24 hour races. Shorter pit stops vs safe tanking would help.
Who's with me?
Now I need a youtuber to try to make an rc car that can drive upside down. Would it be possible?
Bugatti Chiron has 1500 HP, but that thing weights 2 tons. The most important parameter to determine if a car is fast around a track is power to weight-ratio. The Chiron has a PTWR of 0.75 PS/kg. A formula 1 car (the-fastest-lap-machine) has a PTWR of 1.0 - 1.5 PS/kg. The T.50S has a PTWR of 0.82 PS/kg. So not taking aerodynamics into account, the T50 already laps faster than the Chiron, because it can accelerate faster, break faster and it can go faster through corners. And since it's naturally aspirated, it is much more controllable, which saves you time too.
IVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION PLEASE HELP . So I have an infiniti q50 and i am wanting to figure out what's more aerodynamic can you help ? Whats more aerodynamic when recirculate on the climate control is closed or open ? When my windows are cracked and I turn ON the recirculate the wind rushes in the windows hard and loud . When i turn recirculate Off to suck air from outside threw the vents the air rush is quieter and doesn't rush in the cabin as much . So what setting makes the car more aerodynamic ?? I feel like its slippery threw the air when closed or on that's why wind rushes faster and louder past the windows? Can you help
I hear that until they have it driving in a Hot Wheels style loop I don't have to be impressed with their marketing.
jaguar have done it with their f pace, so i am sure this ca easily do that as well.
GMA T50S Niki Lauda is not close to 852 kg and Mr. Murray himself said that by the time the car does come out it will be close to 840+ kg. Soo yeah 840+ kg + 1500+ kg of downforce wich they can take it to 2300 kg if the want to . This could be one of the fastest cars to lap ever .
Message to Engineering Explained: Do you adhere /agree with the benefits of a curved downwards undertray beneath the engine/front wheelbase, versus a flat undertray from the very front to the diffusers.
diff trend to slow the car down... it oppsite of a plane....
My guess is it's a clearance thing, you can go lower in between the wheels than your minimum clearance. If so, a flat tray would have to sit higher than the lowest point of the curved surface. Just a guess though.
This can maybe drive upside down, but it'd be marginal. The lift devices these cars use have typical L/D of about 3-4, so that 1500 kgf downforce will be producing something like 400 kgf of drag, which would need at least 400 kgf of normal force to supply the needed traction. You have 610 kg of maximum normal force and your engine is already close to max power counteracting drag, so you'd have about 400 kgf in either direction worth of lateral acceleration, which corresponds to a maximum steering angle deviationof about 0.11 degrees.
180PS/L is NA rotary territory. RX-8’s Renesis is a 1.3l with 231PS. Of course the T50 engine is MUCH more fuel efficient... but that’s another argument.
1. That power output per liter doesn't seem out of line for motorcycle engines; 2. When inverted, with 3 G of aerodynamic downforce, the car should have 2 G of normal force on the tires, shouldn't it? I think you said 1 G. The driver would, of course, feel negative 1 G. 3. Somebody with enough money could build a turn with banking to 180° and this could be tried incrementally...
The Czinger 21c claim a better Hp per litre at 244Hp , it's a 2.88L v8 twin turbo that rev at 11 000Rpm and do 950Hp for the one that want to know
So yeah claiming your are the best when your not out make the door open to all the other claim
but the 21c is twin turbo and the 2 are mind blowing in their own right, i just want to point the 21c out
Btw Czinger already put a massive MASSIVE some of money into their tech (3d printing) so it's not a little start up that claim 5000Hp out of nowhere without showing anything
Simplified discussion about lateral grip. Lateral weight transfer in corners and tires working together by judicious use of spring rates and sway bars allow my Subaru to regularly pull, according to my datalogger, 1.5 gees peak in corners with no aero, on Bridgestone RE71Rs while autocrossing. I'm looking forward to trying the Yokohama A052 tires next season.
You have to make significant assumptions and simplifications to get produce your times round a circle. I accept that. However you are ignoring one signifcant factor. Downforce increases with the square of speed. So because the T50 is going (much) faster round the bend its downforce advantage will significantly greater than your figures show. The "Viper" probably will have less than its (assumed) 1.5g.
2021 SuzukiGSXR1000 999cc. 197hp. Easy math says it's making more hp/liter....
Ahh....maths+physics.....and the people are fixated on sex.....!!! If you know Sir Gordon Murray , he is that good...because he is all analog.... He calculates on paper and pen....!!! Can you believe that!!!
Great now I'm thinking of Gordon Murray going, oh the Gumpert Appolo can drive up side down Eh?!, Well TAKE THIS! and mine doesnt look like an ugly lego blocks kit either!
It annoys me to no end that people insist on measuring forces (usually downforce) in kilograms. A kilogram is not a unit of force. It's mass. Mass is a universal constant based on the amount of matter in an object. A 68 kg item on earth will be 68 kg everywhere in the universe, but a 150 pound person on earth would weigh 351 pounds on Jupiter, but you'd still be 68 kg. On earth, there is a constant relationship between mass and weight (which is a force) because of gravity, but it's still wrong. I am really glad that you addressed that because no one else does.
Thought it was circa 970kilos (sorry, don't know what that is in American money)?
If American cars are literally twice that mass, I don't think those tyres (which Gordon Murray described as narrow) would offer quite the same performance?
Gordon Murray simply schools hyped youtuber cars like the McLaren Senna, Aventador SVJ and whatever ugly edgy thing comes across with his T.50.
"One thing you cannot change are the laws of physics, no matter how clever you are. You'll never get transient handling with heavy car that feels like a light car" - Gordon Murray
"Is light weight important? No, we have better tyres and suspensions nowadays" - Engineering Explained on the T.50
I don't know why I trust the legend more than you.
A model radio controlled car should be able to drive upside down faster a the track would be cheaper to build. Less risk obviously as well. The mass to to lift ratio on smaller vehicles is better. That's part of the reason why ostriches don't fly and albatros and even ducks and geese need a bit of a run to take off. It takes a lot for a heavy item to fly.
Now that sim racing is so mature, an existing tunnel could be prepared with on-ramp and off-ramp. Optionally netting for predictable failed attempt. As long as the tunnel has a decent ceiling, and it could be drag prepped, it would not be all that hard.
Superkarts make the speed needed and could be tweaked to get the downforce. Without a driver on board getting in the way, aero could be made quite extreme, especially with a good full size T50 fan at full tilt. Total mass 100-150 kg, 300 kg downforce at manageable speeds? Should be achievable. And a sim driver drives it remotely with VR goggles.
Perfect video. Just enough whiteboard exposition, bonkers subject, satisfying learning. Superb!