I don’t think it’s anything to do with anyone being against the pioneering spirit. It’s the continual patronising narcissism that taints it and I feel is incompatible with exiges.com…
Umm… 
Please… please… educate me… !
The world is flat? Someone better tell Boothy 
I really don’t think that anyone is being negative to be honest, just questioning what is being done. Not just the how, but the why. Everyone of us, one way or another, has had the pain of a car broken, waiting for x, y or z to turn up, while others are whizzing around a track having a blast. Why do you suppose there are a number of Caterham owners on here right now?
Pioneering is one thing, denial of what others have experienced is another. Coupled with blunt ‘I’m doing it this way because I’m an engineer and therefore know better than you’ responses, and selective answering to genuine questions, gets peoples backs up. I’m not particularly bothered either way, as it sure as hell isn’t my money/time/lack of use of the car that’s being used. I see Exiges it as somewhere to have a read, have a laugh - both for the good and bad - try to help out and ask some questions. If you would rather I didn’t, all you have to do is say so, and I shall sit and watch from the sidelines.
The Quaife gearbox is pretty neat, but needs some TLC to make it work properly, but I’m guessing you already know all the little gotchas with it?
As for the 747 being designed on a computer comment, if you really think that’s what I said, read it again. All a computer is, is a really fast counting machine. Just because a computer doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that you or I can’t add 2 and 2 and come up with the right answer. It just takes a really loooooonnnnnng time to do it millions of times. Or are you still saying that Boeing guessed, made a model, put it in a wind tunnel, guessed again, made another model x as many times as it needed to be done, then hoped that it scaled up to full size? As for computers in the 60’s, have a look for IBM 700’s. Predates the 747 by a decade or more.
Don’t panic Dave, it’s not the dark ages again. Computers still exist, 2+2 still equals 4.
Anyway, it’s not round. Not even close to being round. Oblate spheroid is where it’s at!!
Say that really fast ten times after a few Stella’s 
Is that like when you repeat Beetlejuice or Candyman?
Who appears??? Is it an anti Lotus??? Who is he?!?!?!
Err YES !!
In a nutshell that’s how it was designed… It was 30 years AFTER the first flight of the 747 that Boeing used a computer to fully design a plane.
And I quote below from Boeing themselves …
n April 1994, Boeing introduced the most modern commercial jet aircraft at the time, the twin-engine 777, with a seating capacity of approximately 300 to 370 passengers in a typical three-class layout, in between the 767 and the 747. The longest range twin-engined aircraft in the world, the 777 was the first Boeing airliner to feature a “fly-by-wire” system and was conceived partly in response to the inroads being made by the European Airbus into Boeing’s traditional market. This aircraft reached an important milestone by being the first airliner to be designed entirely by using computer-aided design (CAD) techniques.
…
So you’re as wrong now as you were wrong back when you originally posted your claim… By some 30 years !!
Maybe cut this guy some slack and just let him enjoy his project , if he makes mistakes I doubt he’ll be blaming people on here for em and who knows we might just learn something.
Well spotted !
Typo error 
Well spotted !
If you
Blimey. Interesting thread drift. First off, if you could point me to where I said that Boeing used a computer to design the 747, that would be great. A direct cut and paste of the entire post would do.
So you are saying that there were no calculations in the design of the 747 at all? Everyone just came up with a model that looked good, suited the brief, made it, flew it in the wind tunnel, moved onto the next model and someone got lucky straight off the paper? Holy shit, we could all have worked at Boeing and designed planes!! No one had come up with a probable engineered solution, then they flew it, measured some stuff, tweaked it based on some really old - like pre 1900 old - equations, flew it, measured it, tweaked it and repeated it until it worked? As I said in the previous thread, I think we’re coming at it from different extremes, and somewhere in the middle is the correct answer. Probably!
The 777 is surely a bit of red herring, as it was the first to be designed entirely by CAD. Or did Boeing not use computers at all up to this point, and purely rely on the previously mentioned school of design?
Weirdly, 5 minutes on Google, and you find this little nugget on the wiki page for CFD “The first lifting Panel Code (A230) was described in a paper written by Paul Rubbert and Gary Saaris of Boeing Aircraft in 1968” I wasn’t there, wasn’t even born and haven’t looked into aero stuff for a looooong time, but seems to suggest that Boeing, and others, were all playing with CFD from the early 60’s onwards. And yes I know a pinch of salt needs to be taken with wiki entries, but can’t see someone bothering to spoof a CFD page for a laugh!!
As I said before, happy to bow out and leave the thread and owner to itself - apologies I have no idea what your real name is!! He has stated he would prefer a quality, heated debate rather than talk about the weather. The downside is that people may question what you’re doing, ask for justification/clarification and ultimately not agree with what your saying or doing. You can’t really have it both ways. I learn new stuff every day, the world moves on ridiculously quickly, even in the car industry, so would be more than happy to learn new stuff that I’m actually really interested in, and be the first to congratulate him on a reliable, working Exige.
Last post as I’d prefer to read the authors build-opic than keep up the drift !
To cut a long story short John we were debating aero on our little cars (irrelevant really cos they’re not fast enough)
You were in the digital corner , I was in the analogue corner…
I’m older than you and probably am biased towards old school trial and error rather than computer predictions that are only as good as the operator .
I personally know 3 World Champions in the gliding world who have and still do design gliders away from computers.
Simple reason=evolution and trying new things .
If they stuck to accepted wisdom they wouldn’t have designed world beating aircraft .
Every year
Been toying with venting my rear arches. Wanted to cool the rear CVs and thought (opinions welcome) that venting the arch would be more useful than trying to force cold air into the assembly with scoops
I doubt that the rear arches are a particularly high pressure area to see any significant cooling benefit from venting. Cosmetic rather than practical?
I think I’d go the opposite way and start by forcing more cold air into the area of the CVs.
I found this idea on the Airbus Engineering website - "GoPro and string … "
The theory is the string will follow the airflow and the GoPro will film it so you can see whats going on … The A380 was designed this way and while there were a few unreported incidents it seems to work quite well. Of course the string used was a carbon composite with special flexible characteristics, however a Hero 3 was deemed good enough.
Airbus wasn’t
Enter the turbulator …
Never seen any on a car however , maybe because the cars inherent engine power negates lower speed gains in cleaner airflow across its surfaces ?
Re. My earlier post :
What I mean is…
Aero isn’t the exiges forte as even a well sorted car will only pull 1.2G lateral load.
Wasn’t there some fitted to an Evo 7/8? One of the FQ… series of cars? Think Clarkson called it Sonic the Hedgehog. Strangely missing everything else though. Is it a case of not needed due to speeds? Not needed due to better design? Not needed due to cosmetics/ergonomics? Not needed due to it doesn’t actually do anything? No idea, to be honest!!
1.2g constant is easily beatable in an Exige, with the right tyres - not slicks - setup, driver, etc. Without wishing to start another argument, on track aero helps as well. 