maybe honda is stalling till this is perfected https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...sPA507bI00X2vM-E4ki_B-w&bvm=bv.90237346,d.cWc
Anticipated Performance / Modability
- Thread starter Superfluous
- Start date
Nissan supposedly locked out modding on the gtr, as did bmw on the latest m4. It didn't last long.
I've heard before that the complexity of the drivetrain will prevent modding, I'm not put off one bit. My expectation is that it will be exactly the same up to its stock power level then simply continue with the same level of electric augmentation at any higher ice output.
The 918 has a similar (yet inferior) drivetrain and yet there have been extensive mods already made available.
i can't see this being rocket science especially with a decent hacker working the project. I will be delivering mine to ecutek asap as I'm pretty sure they are about the best suited company for cracking the ecu.
btw re the nismo, I'm pretty sure that my gtr costing less than 110k could lap the ring in under 7 mins given the right driver. It's amazing what fade free brakes, Litchfield suspension and 800bhp can do.
I've heard before that the complexity of the drivetrain will prevent modding, I'm not put off one bit. My expectation is that it will be exactly the same up to its stock power level then simply continue with the same level of electric augmentation at any higher ice output.
The 918 has a similar (yet inferior) drivetrain and yet there have been extensive mods already made available.
i can't see this being rocket science especially with a decent hacker working the project. I will be delivering mine to ecutek asap as I'm pretty sure they are about the best suited company for cracking the ecu.
btw re the nismo, I'm pretty sure that my gtr costing less than 110k could lap the ring in under 7 mins given the right driver. It's amazing what fade free brakes, Litchfield suspension and 800bhp can do.
fastaussie
Suspended
keep in mind fellas, the P1 and 918 probably make enough horsepower from their non-electric boosted engines to achieve those figures all by themselves. so who knows how many tenths of a second that electric torque is actually adding, if any? if I'm not mistaken the 918 is currently the fastest car from 0 to 60 mph with a 2.4 second clocking.
as previously stated, the 610 horsepower Huracan did a 0 to 60 mph launch in 2.5 seconds without any electric engine boost at all, just a big 5.2 litre V10.
a stock GTR can go 0 to 60 mph in 2.9 seconds, the 911 Turbo S in 2.7 seconds. both cars with 545 to 560 horsepower and AWD. the 918 has over 600 horsepower from it's naturally aspirated 4.6 litre V8 and also puts it through all 4 wheels. and Porsche better than anyone seems to know how to launch a car from a dead stop.
so all this talk of instant battery powered torque and stuff, it may actually only be worth a tenth or two at best. it's all about grip and gearing. more power may simply mean more smoking rubber and slower acceleration times...
as previously stated, the 610 horsepower Huracan did a 0 to 60 mph launch in 2.5 seconds without any electric engine boost at all, just a big 5.2 litre V10.
a stock GTR can go 0 to 60 mph in 2.9 seconds, the 911 Turbo S in 2.7 seconds. both cars with 545 to 560 horsepower and AWD. the 918 has over 600 horsepower from it's naturally aspirated 4.6 litre V8 and also puts it through all 4 wheels. and Porsche better than anyone seems to know how to launch a car from a dead stop.
so all this talk of instant battery powered torque and stuff, it may actually only be worth a tenth or two at best. it's all about grip and gearing. more power may simply mean more smoking rubber and slower acceleration times...
Last edited:
IMHO That was Nissan. (I also own a R35 GT-R), basically that system is 8 years old by today's standards in regards to ECU encryption. Most folks who mod their GT-R's also mod their TC/Transmission module programming, all that extra power without a proper way of regulating torque just results in excessive wheel spin during launches.
Porsche latest set of DME's (ECU's) have not been hacked after having been on the market for 4+ years. The 918 has a NA engine, so standard bolt-on mods like intake/header/exhaust will generate gains in the ICE without having the ECU needing to be modified. Unlike FI engines NA engines are not torque monsters down low in the RPM band, so launches are less likely to be affected by bolt on mods since the mods usually add HP in the higher RPM range.
Not convinced by that huracan time.
I could be wrong but I think we are all guessing a bit here - not that we should stop or anything. IWhat else are we to do until it comes out?
Regarding the constant loud exhaust to keep the batteries charged, I would guess that it does not take much to run a surplus of torque - could be as little as 200 rpms more than necessary. If it runs that all the time, I would guess the batteries would be at the ready without any lapses. Will 200 rpms more than necessary really grate on you?
There are many videos out there comparing the P1 to the 918 on the track. I don't recall how long these tracks were but I do know that they drove these cars at 10/10ths the whole time. In none of these videos do they suggest that these cars ran out of power half way through the course. Also, if the 918 ran out of charge on the Ring after 4 minutes, do you really think it could have finished the last 3 minutes with all that battery weight (and none of the benefits) and still set a production car record?
Every course is different, so it depends how long you will have limited battery power, but look at the various tests Motortrend has done on the 918. They mention this limitation in every test.
You seem to think energy is free, but look at it this way simplistically: If I use my 150HP electric motors for 10 seconds on battery power, logic dictates that it would require at least the same 150 HP to recharge the battery for the same 10 seconds - right? Do you think running the ICE an additional 200 RPMs is going to give you the 150 HP difference to effectively recharge the battery pack? Not if you are simultaneously on a track using the ICE for propulsion.
Don't get me wrong - I'm curious how the development group is going to address this balance of comfort and performance. It's similar to the Chevy Volt - You have the option of manually depressing a button if you know you are coming up to a "hill" where you may need the electric motor performance to supplement the weak ICE. That automatically forces the ICE to run at a higher demand to charge the batteries so they will be ready when needed. Now, that's fine on a Volt that whose ICE has been tuned to run as silently as possible. On the revving NSX 2.0 from the premier video... hmm, maybe they have a silent exhaust mode available too.
I like hybrids... I've owned a 2010 Prius for the past five years and have taken it on the racetrack occasionally when my fast cars are not ready. It is fun to drive a slow car fast as opposed to a fast car slow, and has surprised stock Miata and Mini Type S's. The OEM Bridgestone Eco rubbers melted my first track day, so I had to replace them with better tires, but the handling and brakes are great for an economy car. The electric motor is ineffective after about 5 miles, and you can really tell the difference exiting slow corners when it is gone. I've also stuck my Prius on a dyno, and know someone who has even turbocharged their Prius. I'm not new to hybrids, their powertrains, or even electric vehicles as I helped engineer, build, and drive a solar-powered vehicle in the college Solar Challenges.
Still curious what happened to the RLX hybrid? Anyone know?
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I don't think energy is free. But I do not believe that power needs during a time attack are binary either. You have more track experience than me for sure so correct me if I am wrong but when you are tracking a car, are there times when you are on the gas but not flooring it? Are these times significant or common? If you add periods of braking in, would you say that these periods represent the majority of time on a track? In other words, what percentage of track time would you say you are giving it the "full potatoes"? Is it the majority or minority of total time? If it represents 50% or less then wouldn't at least half the remaining time be an opportunity for regen?
Regarding the RLX Sport Hybrid, I have no idea but I did check and you are right. It has disappeared. Very odd and I must admit, a bit concerning unless Honda is about to relaunch it with game changing dynamics.
You also need to consider the energy density of the batteries and the development time since the prius was first released when comparing. I'm sure they've kept developing, but I'm also sure the battery tech in the NSX is a fair chunk more advanced.
Of course you can't expect to use 150bhp for 10 seconds and then not provide it back. It's worse than that as the conversion efficiency is not 100%, so 150bhp for 10 seconds probably costs you 180bhp for 10 seconds from the batteries. That again probably costs you 200bhp for 10 seconds worth of charging - we really should remove the units of power x time and just replace with kJoules!
Track use is especially tough for the hybrid car and I agree it's going to be a poor performer in that respect for the reasons stated. No you aren't going flat out all the time, and regen braking will help, but typically on track you are accelerating until you are braking and when you are braking it's very very hard for as little time as possible. The motors and batteries will have a maximum about of regen they can accommodate and the braking conditions on track will far exceed that.
In short I suspect the ring was doable because it's less a track and much more a road. I'd be interested to see the percentage time spent on the brakes compared with WOT.
None of this puts me off because I drive on the road 99.99999% of the time, and with the kind of power this car has (at least) there's no way I'll be able to deploy it long enough to deplete the batteries. If I venture on to a track, I'll drive up in the NSX and hire a caterham for 3 hours.
Now for all the above, I find myself questioning how they pulled it off in F1. There's no question that the cars are lapping just as fast as they were but are using 25% less fuel and managing that lap after lap for 2 hours. Even when their batteries are depleted they are carrying around the weight of the hybrid system and yet they remain fast. How is that?
- - - Updated - - -
You also need to consider the energy density of the batteries and the development time since the prius was first released when comparing. I'm sure they've kept developing, but I'm also sure the battery tech in the NSX is a fair chunk more advanced.
Of course you can't expect to use 150bhp for 10 seconds and then not provide it back. It's worse than that as the conversion efficiency is not 100%, so 150bhp for 10 seconds probably costs you 180bhp for 10 seconds from the batteries. That again probably costs you 200bhp for 10 seconds worth of charging - we really should remove the units of power x time and just replace with kJoules!
Track use is especially tough for the hybrid car and I agree it's going to be a poor performer in that respect for the reasons stated. No you aren't going flat out all the time, and regen braking will help, but typically on track you are accelerating until you are braking and when you are braking it's very very hard for as little time as possible. The motors and batteries will have a maximum about of regen they can accommodate and the braking conditions on track will far exceed that.
In short I suspect the ring was doable because it's less a track and much more a road. I'd be interested to see the percentage time spent on the brakes compared with WOT.
None of this puts me off because I drive on the road 99.99999% of the time, and with the kind of power this car has (at least) there's no way I'll be able to deploy it long enough to deplete the batteries. If I venture on to a track, I'll drive up in the NSX and hire a caterham for 3 hours.
Now for all the above, I find myself questioning how they pulled it off in F1. There's no question that the cars are lapping just as fast as they were but are using 25% less fuel and managing that lap after lap for 2 hours. Even when their batteries are depleted they are carrying around the weight of the hybrid system and yet they remain fast. How is that?
Then there's this thing - http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/new-era-for-toyota-racing-with-ts040-hybrid/ 100bhp, half of it from the motors, yet it manages to race for 24 hours. Is it supposed to be competitive for three laps then just NA for the remaining 23 hours and 50 minutes?
I'm guessing the track performance hybrid thing is more doable than some in this thread, including me, are acknowledging.
Of course you can't expect to use 150bhp for 10 seconds and then not provide it back. It's worse than that as the conversion efficiency is not 100%, so 150bhp for 10 seconds probably costs you 180bhp for 10 seconds from the batteries. That again probably costs you 200bhp for 10 seconds worth of charging - we really should remove the units of power x time and just replace with kJoules!
Track use is especially tough for the hybrid car and I agree it's going to be a poor performer in that respect for the reasons stated. No you aren't going flat out all the time, and regen braking will help, but typically on track you are accelerating until you are braking and when you are braking it's very very hard for as little time as possible. The motors and batteries will have a maximum about of regen they can accommodate and the braking conditions on track will far exceed that.
In short I suspect the ring was doable because it's less a track and much more a road. I'd be interested to see the percentage time spent on the brakes compared with WOT.
None of this puts me off because I drive on the road 99.99999% of the time, and with the kind of power this car has (at least) there's no way I'll be able to deploy it long enough to deplete the batteries. If I venture on to a track, I'll drive up in the NSX and hire a caterham for 3 hours.
Now for all the above, I find myself questioning how they pulled it off in F1. There's no question that the cars are lapping just as fast as they were but are using 25% less fuel and managing that lap after lap for 2 hours. Even when their batteries are depleted they are carrying around the weight of the hybrid system and yet they remain fast. How is that?
- - - Updated - - -
You also need to consider the energy density of the batteries and the development time since the prius was first released when comparing. I'm sure they've kept developing, but I'm also sure the battery tech in the NSX is a fair chunk more advanced.
Of course you can't expect to use 150bhp for 10 seconds and then not provide it back. It's worse than that as the conversion efficiency is not 100%, so 150bhp for 10 seconds probably costs you 180bhp for 10 seconds from the batteries. That again probably costs you 200bhp for 10 seconds worth of charging - we really should remove the units of power x time and just replace with kJoules!
Track use is especially tough for the hybrid car and I agree it's going to be a poor performer in that respect for the reasons stated. No you aren't going flat out all the time, and regen braking will help, but typically on track you are accelerating until you are braking and when you are braking it's very very hard for as little time as possible. The motors and batteries will have a maximum about of regen they can accommodate and the braking conditions on track will far exceed that.
In short I suspect the ring was doable because it's less a track and much more a road. I'd be interested to see the percentage time spent on the brakes compared with WOT.
None of this puts me off because I drive on the road 99.99999% of the time, and with the kind of power this car has (at least) there's no way I'll be able to deploy it long enough to deplete the batteries. If I venture on to a track, I'll drive up in the NSX and hire a caterham for 3 hours.
Now for all the above, I find myself questioning how they pulled it off in F1. There's no question that the cars are lapping just as fast as they were but are using 25% less fuel and managing that lap after lap for 2 hours. Even when their batteries are depleted they are carrying around the weight of the hybrid system and yet they remain fast. How is that?
Then there's this thing - http://www.toyotahybridracing.com/new-era-for-toyota-racing-with-ts040-hybrid/ 100bhp, half of it from the motors, yet it manages to race for 24 hours. Is it supposed to be competitive for three laps then just NA for the remaining 23 hours and 50 minutes?
I'm guessing the track performance hybrid thing is more doable than some in this thread, including me, are acknowledging.
It would seem that energy recovery depends highly on how fast one can put energy into the batteries. Braking involves a higher power level than acceleration, so if you can store rather than dissipate that energy, you are in good shape.
You guys have been discussing charging as something that raises the engine speed, but that shouldn't be the case. Since the transmission still connects the engine to the wheels without slip, what happens during nonbraking charging is that excess engine load is used to generate power. So your engine note will change somewhat because the load increases but the speed would remain as if you are not diverting power. In order to maximize car speed, this can happen any time the driver is not WOT. So during braking, the engine can remain at load, charging the batteries, along with kinetic energy of the car charging the batteries. At part throttle, excess engine load charges the batteries. With the capability for sufficient charging power, I don't see why this should result in net depletion of the storage element.
My understanding is that race cars have achieved very good results with a mechanical flywheel rather than battery and motors. I do not know how they minimize the gyroscopic effect of such a setup (perhaps counterrotating flywheels) but it is a simpler system than battery-motor, to achieve the same goal of energy storage and release. It obviously would not work very well for the torque vectoring and 4wd goals of the new NSX.
You guys have been discussing charging as something that raises the engine speed, but that shouldn't be the case. Since the transmission still connects the engine to the wheels without slip, what happens during nonbraking charging is that excess engine load is used to generate power. So your engine note will change somewhat because the load increases but the speed would remain as if you are not diverting power. In order to maximize car speed, this can happen any time the driver is not WOT. So during braking, the engine can remain at load, charging the batteries, along with kinetic energy of the car charging the batteries. At part throttle, excess engine load charges the batteries. With the capability for sufficient charging power, I don't see why this should result in net depletion of the storage element.
My understanding is that race cars have achieved very good results with a mechanical flywheel rather than battery and motors. I do not know how they minimize the gyroscopic effect of such a setup (perhaps counterrotating flywheels) but it is a simpler system than battery-motor, to achieve the same goal of energy storage and release. It obviously would not work very well for the torque vectoring and 4wd goals of the new NSX.
I agree and think that the new NSX is going to blow people away in terms of performance. I think it will be a similar reaction to when the GT-R first came out- "How in the hell did Acura do this for so little money?"
Ben is awesome and was recommended to me by many sources, including even Nissan lol. I just flashed his custom 2015 NISMO transmission tune and it is amazing. Much better logic in gear selection in Auto mode. We're looking at around 1.2 bar max boost in the midrange- maybe a bit more due to the altitude. Really nice. I'll probably stay on the stock turbos for a while.
Totally agree with this point but forgot to make it.
Re flywheels, I'm pretty sure they were dismissed sometime back because of packaging and safety constraints. The toyota that I linked to at least is most certainly an electric hybrid. Difference being it seems to use a large capacity capacitor rather than a battery. Not entirely sure that the road cars aren't doing the same thing in practice as capacitor electrochemistry makes much faster to charge. Tesla don't seem to be having too big a problem charging conventional batteries but then they still primarily brake using friction.
We're talking about different scenarios. Certainly you can increase the load on an ICE to some degree without requiring a shift to a different part of the powerband to compensate, but it all depends on the aggressiveness the engineers have programmed into the engine regeneration as well as the capabilities of the inverter... combined with the human aspect of elevated engine noise I spoke of earlier.
For a hybrid in a track scenario, the friction brakes dissipate MUCH more energy as waste heat than the regenerative braking system can recover, even coupled with the net-positive limited surplus energy from the ICE/generator/inverter/battery on the rest of the track.
For it to be a reliable system at this price point, I'm betting the electric capabilities of the NSX will be limited to the power I predicted previously... i.e. ~130kW compared to the 918's 210kW. Therefore, it is doubtful it will be able to recover any more energy than the 918 on a racetrack, and will certainly be depleted too after a few laps.
You make a good point that the power flow into the system is going to be no greater than the flow out. So even though there is energy to be recovered and even assuming one could store it without bound, the generator will be a limiting factor.
I'm curious, though, what your take is of the hybrid race cars that do not appear to deplete batteries. It would appear that they simply have enough power capacity to make use of the shorter-duration charging opportunities.
Last edited:
Similar threads
