McLaren Life banner
1901 - 1920 of 1927 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
This is getting a bit technical, but I don't think they could get to 900kg with the changes you suggested. The luggage space on the T.50 is basically free, it's an empty space that they introduced an opening to, and so the only added weight there is pretty much the rubber seals around the opening. Making it a two seater would shrink the canopy a bit, but that might net a few kg at best. In fact, making it a two seater might actually make the car heavier because you would have to increase the wheelbase so that there is enough space for the pedals without introducing offsets (which is what happened on the T.33). You could move the water radiators from the front and put them to where the luggage space is and that would cut a few kg, but only that because you are just talking some piping. The T.50 is already pretty cut to the bone so finding any weight would be pretty hard. I think that the most you could save would probably be on the interior and sound proofing and then on exterior panels if you made them a lot thinner. That's basically what they did on the T.50S which is supposed to be 852kg.

In any case I kinda lost track of what's really being discussed here. Yeah, maybe you could make a 900kg T.50, but although that might have a comparable ergonomics to the Valkyrie, nothing else would be comparable, so you still can't really say that it should be possible for the Valkyrie to be much lighter. I already gave an example with the more powerful engine making the car much heavier, but it's other stuff as well. For example, the highest weight with all the downforce the T.50 experiences is 1046+75+322=1443kg. For the Valkyrie it's 1392+75+1400=2867kg. So, now the wheels, the hubs, the bearings, the upright, the connecting arms, the spring and the damper all have to be twice as strong! Because of how geometry works out that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be twice as heavy, but still, significantly heavier! Another problem is that the Valkyrie is very stiffly sprung and your chassis stiffness needs to match that. So where the T.50 can get away with "just" 27000Nm/mm, the Valkyrie might have to be 2-3x as stiff! Which, again, means the chassis needs to be made much heavier. And, also, the wheelbase is longer, so the distance between front and rear suspension pick up points is longer, so you need to make the chassis heavier still to get to that increased stiffness number! And this just goes on and on. Power, downforce, size, all big enemies of light weight!
I think that if Aston would have used the same lightweight materials (adjusted for the strength needed for the higher downforce of course) that T50 uses the Valkyrie would be a decent chunk lighter.
the brilliance of the t50 is the fans ability to reduce downforce at high speeds.
And didnt aston claim that the lack of a reverse gear counters the weight from the hybrid system ;)
So the Senna with a heavy 3.8l turbo engine (turbos are heavy), a heavy double clutch gearbox vs a single clutch no reverse gearbox, bigger wings, a bigger car in general, decent amount of downfoce, fairly regular rims compared to the GBP48k magnesium rims on the Valkyrie is still lighter than the Valkyrie.
yes i know the 6.5l V12 is heavier but still
and the weight we are comparing, actual customer weights of a Senna vs Astons claimed weight of the Valkyrie,
there is a clear weight/cost tradeoff for parts (titanium anyone), and Aston has mostly chosen pig iron wherever they can ;)
i will put my Senna and Valkyrie on the scales later thisyear...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I think that if Aston would have used the same lightweight materials (adjusted for the strength needed for the higher downforce of course) that T50 uses the Valkyrie would be a decent chunk lighter.
the brilliance of the t50 is the fans ability to reduce downforce at high speeds.
And didnt aston claim that the lack of a reverse gear counters the weight from the hybrid system ;)
So the Senna with a heavy 3.8l turbo engine (turbos are heavy), a heavy double clutch gearbox vs a single clutch no reverse gearbox, bigger wings, a bigger car in general, decent amount of downfoce, fairly regular rims compared to the GBP48k magnesium rims on the Valkyrie is still lighter than the Valkyrie.
yes i know the 6.5l V12 is heavier but still
and the weight we are comparing, actual customer weights of a Senna vs Astons claimed weight of the Valkyrie,
there is a clear weight/cost tradeoff for parts (titanium anyone), and Aston has mostly chosen pig iron wherever they can ;)
i will put my Senna and Valkyrie on the scales later thisyear...
I think the Cosworth 6.5l V12 is actually lighter than the fully dressed M838. 206kg vs 210kg I believe. Not sure if the figure Cosworth quotes is fully dressed but I’m guessing that the intake and wiring is minimal.
Also do you know if the gearbox is like the current F1 seamless shifters or a conventional single clutch? I would be cool to get a technical breakdown of the car at some point for us mere mortals.

I think a good parallel would be the weights Mclaren and Ferrari have achieved vs Maserati. Even though it has a carbon tub, the MC20 is still 250kg heavier than the Artura. Even the compared to the aluminum 296 the MC20 is still 150kg50kg heavier. That difference comes a different level of engineers with a different level of optimization. Both Mclaren and Ferrari have a history of racing and lightweight while the MC20 engineers were probably contracted from Dallara or from the larger Fiat group. In a Mclaren one part may be responsible for multiple systems , such as the hydraulic pump that powers the steering and suspension. In the MC20 it is less efficient. For example the suspension wishbones on all four corners are shared to conserve costs (I believe Lotus does the same on the Evora/Emira). One (unoptimized) part is used multiple times for different purposes.

RB had the racing mindset while Aston had the regular OEM, or most likely, none at all.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I think the Cosworth 6.5l V12 is actually lighter than the fully dressed M838. 206kg vs 210kg I believe. Not sure if the figure Cosworth quotes is fully dressed but I’m guessing that the intake and wiring is minimal.
Also do you know if the gearbox is like the current F1 seamless shifters or a conventional single clutch? I would be cool to get a technical breakdown of the car at some point for us mere mortals.

I think a good parallel would be the weights Mclaren and Ferrari have achieved vs Maserati. Even though it has a carbon tub, the MC20 is still 250kg heavier than the Artura. Even the compared to the aluminum 296 the MC20 is still 150kg50kg heavier. That difference comes a different level of engineers with a different level of optimization. Both Mclaren and Ferrari have a history of racing and lightweight while the MC20 engineers were probably contracted from Dallara or from the larger Fiat group. In a Mclaren one part may be responsible for multiple systems , such as the hydraulic pump that powers the steering and suspension. In the MC20 it is less efficient. For example the suspension wishbones on all four corners are shared to conserve costs (I believe Lotus does the same on the Evora/Emira). One (unoptimized) part is used multiple times for different purposes.

RB had the racing mindset while Aston had the regular OEM, or most likely, none at all.
interesting on the engine weight
think it is closer to the seamless shifter, but not sure or cant remember
i think one reason for the heavy MC20 is that the tub is built to accomodate the weight of an EV version. i.e. Maserati is doing the same tub in all versions of the car.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
interesting on the engine weight
think it is closer to the seamless shifter, but not sure or cant remember
i think one reason for the heavy MC20 is that the tub is built to accomodate the weight of an EV version. i.e. Maserati is doing the same tub in all versions of the car.
that's a really good point, I hadn't thought about that and I've not heard anyone bring that up in discussions surrounding it
 

· Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I think that if Aston would have used the same lightweight materials (adjusted for the strength needed for the higher downforce of course) that T50 uses the Valkyrie would be a decent chunk lighter.
the brilliance of the t50 is the fans ability to reduce downforce at high speeds.
And didnt aston claim that the lack of a reverse gear counters the weight from the hybrid system ;)
So the Senna with a heavy 3.8l turbo engine (turbos are heavy), a heavy double clutch gearbox vs a single clutch no reverse gearbox, bigger wings, a bigger car in general, decent amount of downfoce, fairly regular rims compared to the GBP48k magnesium rims on the Valkyrie is still lighter than the Valkyrie.
yes i know the 6.5l V12 is heavier but still
and the weight we are comparing, actual customer weights of a Senna vs Astons claimed weight of the Valkyrie,
there is a clear weight/cost tradeoff for parts (titanium anyone), and Aston has mostly chosen pig iron wherever they can ;)
i will put my Senna and Valkyrie on the scales later thisyear...
I really don't think that something as trivial as materials is the main cause. I don't know that for a fact, of course, after all it's AM wonderland where things that would normally be impossible are made possible, but still. Well, in a roundabout way it might be materials, but the main cause would be engineering team inexperience. That, in my experience, is almost always the reason why things end up being worse and especially heavier. An engineer that has already designed a part X a few times in the past, will be able to make a similar part X for the new car and will be able to push the design as far as it will go, because he now knows exactly where the limits lie. An engineer that has never designed a part X, or has only ever done so to a much lower spec without pushing the limits, will have to play it safe and make the part X stronger than it needs to be and heavier - because they won't have unlimited time and budget for testing and he doesn't have the experience from the past projects to be confident in a lighter design. That's basically the gist of it and now apply that to every part of the car. Even if it meant that every part would have to be only 10% heavier, that still means the car would be 120kg heavier. So if 1250kg was the limit, that would result in a 1370kg car. And then maybe 30kg from lower spec materials... But, even if they ended up using lower spec materials, I suspect it would still be more for the convenience of the engineering team which would be more familiar with them and would be able to get more out of them than from whichever high spec materials. That would mean that the weight difference between those two options might be minimal and therefore the investment in the high spec materials wouldn't be worth it. Using low spec materials solely because of their slightly cheaper (in the grand scheme of things) unit price just doesn't make much sense to begin with.

Some minor comments (which don't change the overall point):

A lack of a reverse gear for sure does counter the weight of the hybrid system - the question is by how much? How much is a pair of reverse gears? 3-5kg probably. Meanwhile, how much is the hybrid system on the Valkyrie? 1.7kWh battery - probably around 60-70kg (the new P1 battery is 1.3kWh and weighs around 50kg with similar power density) The "160hp" electric motor - probably around 20kg. And that also brings up another point - don't forget that the P1 (which is much close conceptually to the Valkyrie it being a hybrid) is 1550kg, or 1500kg with the new battery.

The Mclaren 4l TT engine is probably a fair bit heavier than the Valkyrie engine. Mclaren says 198kg dry - and that's almost certainly without intercoolers and piping. Newey said at one point that the NA V12 was about the same as a TT V6 would be.

I am not surprised that the rims on the Senna would be lighter, but that's mainly because of the wheel size. 245/19 and 315/20 vs 265/20 and 325/21. And again, maybe the Valkyrie rims are heavier because they had to play it safe - although I would assume they sub-contracted some rim company to make those, so that might not be the case.

Lastly, material properties are often misunderstood I feel. Pig iron (I assume this being a code word for any basic cheap steel as pig iron is an intermediary product used in making steel and not ever really being used for structural purposes) is not that worse than aluminium or titanium. In fact, if you look at the specific stiffness of top aluminium, titanium and iron alloys, they are pretty much equal at about 26GPa.
Rectangle Font Parallel Number Pattern

Steels might get a bad rep, but they are often still the best solution in many applications. The main reason you are often able to get a lighter part with aluminium or titanium is because the steel part will have a smaller cross section and will be more susceptible to buckling - so it needs to be made thicker than it would have to be otherwise. It's not a safe bet to always assume that steel is worse. For example, interestingly, the user manual mentions that Valkyrie's wishbones are steel, while on most sportscars, even fairly cheap ones like an MX-5 or whatever, they are aluminium. So is the story here that on the Valkyrie they weren't able to afford aluminium wishbones, while on the MX-5 which is literally 100x cheaper, they were? Or have they used steel here because steel would have smaller cross-section and therefore they would be able to fit smaller CF covers over and the whole package would have better aerodynamic properties as a result?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I think the pig iron term is referring to both material and processes. If forged parts were swapped out with cast or machined parts that could very well be 10% per part. Now add that to swapping fancy alloys or carbon layups with cheap slapdash solutions and you have the 300kg weight differential.
If we compare to Senna
160-80kg = 80kg for gearbox (guess)
70kg for turbo and plumbing (guess)
94-75kg = 19kg for chassis
Already down 179kg compared to Senna.
Dont know enough to make educated guesses on other parts of the car but I’m guessing AN/RB got to their 1000kg thinking LMPs weight around 850-900kg, plus 100kg of hybrid equals 1000kg
 

· Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
interesting on the engine weight
think it is closer to the seamless shifter, but not sure or cant remember
i think one reason for the heavy MC20 is that the tub is built to accomodate the weight of an EV version. i.e. Maserati is doing the same tub in all versions of the car.
Did you read that on Evo too? I saw that and smelled bs smoke and mirrors. In all versions they have very similar load and crash cases. For example they need to protect is the same location no matter if it is a battery or fuel tank so the geometry between the two should not be wildly different. I asked and they are using the same shape for all 3 versions but different layups to adjust for the different safety standards. The main difference I see between the MC20 chassis and the most other types is that the front wishbones are not bolted onto the chassis but onto a separate cast subframe bolted onto the firewall. Im guessing it was to save costs as you don’t have to embed as many inserts into the chassis.
Bumper Motor vehicle Automotive tire Vehicle Automotive exterior

Automotive lighting Bumper Rim Automotive exhaust Automotive tire
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I really don't think that something as trivial as materials is the main cause. I don't know that for a fact, of course, after all it's AM wonderland where things that would normally be impossible are made possible, but still. Well, in a roundabout way it might be materials, but the main cause would be engineering team inexperience. That, in my experience, is almost always the reason why things end up being worse and especially heavier. An engineer that has already designed a part X a few times in the past, will be able to make a similar part X for the new car and will be able to push the design as far as it will go, because he now knows exactly where the limits lie. An engineer that has never designed a part X, or has only ever done so to a much lower spec without pushing the limits, will have to play it safe and make the part X stronger than it needs to be and heavier - because they won't have unlimited time and budget for testing and he doesn't have the experience from the past projects to be confident in a lighter design. That's basically the gist of it and now apply that to every part of the car. Even if it meant that every part would have to be only 10% heavier, that still means the car would be 120kg heavier. So if 1250kg was the limit, that would result in a 1370kg car. And then maybe 30kg from lower spec materials... But, even if they ended up using lower spec materials, I suspect it would still be more for the convenience of the engineering team which would be more familiar with them and would be able to get more out of them than from whichever high spec materials. That would mean that the weight difference between those two options might be minimal and therefore the investment in the high spec materials wouldn't be worth it. Using low spec materials solely because of their slightly cheaper (in the grand scheme of things) unit price just doesn't make much sense to begin with.

Some minor comments (which don't change the overall point):

A lack of a reverse gear for sure does counter the weight of the hybrid system - the question is by how much? How much is a pair of reverse gears? 3-5kg probably. Meanwhile, how much is the hybrid system on the Valkyrie? 1.7kWh battery - probably around 60-70kg (the new P1 battery is 1.3kWh and weighs around 50kg with similar power density) The "160hp" electric motor - probably around 20kg. And that also brings up another point - don't forget that the P1 (which is much close conceptually to the Valkyrie it being a hybrid) is 1550kg, or 1500kg with the new battery.

The Mclaren 4l TT engine is probably a fair bit heavier than the Valkyrie engine. Mclaren says 198kg dry - and that's almost certainly without intercoolers and piping. Newey said at one point that the NA V12 was about the same as a TT V6 would be.

I am not surprised that the rims on the Senna would be lighter, but that's mainly because of the wheel size. 245/19 and 315/20 vs 265/20 and 325/21. And again, maybe the Valkyrie rims are heavier because they had to play it safe - although I would assume they sub-contracted some rim company to make those, so that might not be the case.

Lastly, material properties are often misunderstood I feel. Pig iron (I assume this being a code word for any basic cheap steel as pig iron is an intermediary product used in making steel and not ever really being used for structural purposes) is not that worse than aluminium or titanium. In fact, if you look at the specific stiffness of top aluminium, titanium and iron alloys, they are pretty much equal at about 26GPa.
View attachment 227654
Steels might get a bad rep, but they are often still the best solution in many applications. The main reason you are often able to get a lighter part with aluminium or titanium is because the steel part will have a smaller cross section and will be more susceptible to buckling - so it needs to be made thicker than it would have to be otherwise. It's not a safe bet to always assume that steel is worse. For example, interestingly, the user manual mentions that Valkyrie's wishbones are steel, while on most sportscars, even fairly cheap ones like an MX-5 or whatever, they are aluminium. So is the story here that on the Valkyrie they weren't able to afford aluminium wishbones, while on the MX-5 which is literally 100x cheaper, they were? Or have they used steel here because steel would have smaller cross-section and therefore they would be able to fit smaller CF covers over and the whole package would have better aerodynamic properties as a result?
all good points but me thinks you give way too much credit to the AM people, both designers and finance...
and prig iron was indeed a code word ;)
oh and i think the Magnesium rims on the Valkyrie should be lighter than what i have on the P1.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
592 Posts
I often wonder why only a few manufacturers offer magnesium wheels if the benefit of lightweight is so great (as used on Formula 1 cars). Ferrari or Mclaren have yet offered magnesium wheels on their hypercars 🤷🏻‍♂️

all good points but me thinks you give way too much credit to the AM people, both designers and finance...
and prig iron was indeed a code word ;)
oh and i think the Magnesium rims on the Valkyrie should be lighter than what i have on the P1.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I often wonder why only a few manufacturers offer magnesium wheels if the benefit of lightweight is so great (as used on Formula 1 cars). Ferrari or Mclaren have yet offered magnesium wheels on their hypercars 🤷🏻‍♂️
The F50 and the LaFerrari have mag wheels, not sure about the Enzo. Regardless, the problem with mag wheels has always been corrosion. You can nick it, not notice it for a few days, drive it in a rain and the wheel is ruined. Painting over it no longer helps, it's too late. Also magnesium alloys are softer so it's easier to nick the wheel to begin with. Additionally the supply of magnesium blanks is pretty low and that might be a factor in some cases as well. So it's logical that you would mainly see them on limited edition cars where the expectation is that you won't drive them that much anyway.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,656 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
5,656 Posts
Even with the whine (which to my ear makes it sound like a jet engine), the lack of headroom, the rest of the cramped quarters, the unreliability, etc, etc, I'd still sell my kids if it meant I could have one sitting in my garage. It's the only non-McLaren car I have any desire to own.
 
1901 - 1920 of 1927 Posts
Top