Czinger Czinger 21C - production spec


Czinger Vehicles Inc., commonly known as Czinger is an American automobile manufacturer of hybrid sports cars based in Los Angeles, California, operating since 2019. Official website: Czinger
They're Americans, they're the best at taking existing technology and marketing the shit out of it (jk).

It's funny how Bugatti are the client, when they're the ones who did the first 3D printed brake caliper couple of years back. And it had computer optimized topology as well.
1721067461475.webp


1721067472210.webp
Well, exactly. And this was a year before Czinger was even founded.

That said, as it has never reached the market, clearly there were some problems with it. Perhaps it was just the cost, or maybe it was actually the design. Just from my very layman's point of view, I am not sure that titanium is the right material for a brake caliper. Titanium has terrible heat conductivity, so you'll end up with a bunch of heat spots, that might be bad for the rubber piston seals, or the brake fluid. It might even compromise the structure of the caliper itself. In any case, nobody is using titanium calipers anywhere - which is usually a good indication that it's not the way to go.

If we are talking about calipers, then the ultimate material would be beryllium, especially the beryllium-aluminium composites. 3D printing beryllium is something of a novelty, but apparently things are moving on - with Materion (that's the same supplier that provides the Alu MMC for T.50's pistons, or the that made the beryllium mirrors for the James Webb Space Telescope incidentally) recently getting awarded a contract to research just that.
 
Seeing how Czinger used the old, outdated downforce claim in this recent report about Czinger's intent of chasing records, I think it's time to do a follow up on my calculation of maximum vehicle mass at speed, posted a while back in this thread. All the more so, considering we now have more accurate weight figure.
"Mr. Czinger tells us that the production lap record set at the Circuit of the Americas with driver Phil Miller saw 5,600 lbs of downforce generated at 200 mph,".

FYI, there has been two downforce claims for the track focused version of 21C. What the above quote is referring to, is the bigger, outdated claim.

This time, let's look at the load index rating of their tires.
21C uses the same Michelin tires that Porsche developed for the 991 GT2 RS. It's nothing out of ordinary for other manufacturers to be using Porsche spec tires. There's also Koenigsegg Jesko, AM Valkyrie and more.

Czinger downforce bullshit calculation
=========================
  • tires:
    265/35 R20 - 325/30 R21 (Michelin Cup 2 R N0)

  • tire load index rating:
    95Y..........690 kg per front tire
    108Y.....1000 kg per rear tire

  • max tire loads:
    1380 kg - front axle
    2000 kg - rear axle
    3380 kg - total (41% / 59%, but I will be ignoring weight distribution to keep it simple)

  • 21C weight:
    1450 kg - dry
    1500 kg - wet
    1550 kg - curb
    1700 kg - w/ 2x75 kg occupants (0 luggage)

  • 21C top speed claim:
    218 mph / 350 kph (not on their current website, but confirmed by MT)

  • theoretical max df within allowed tire load:
    3380 - 1700 = 1680 kg
    1680 kg @ 350 kph = 857 kg @ 250 kph <<<<<<<<<
    (reminder that they have fixed aero)
Now, compare this to Czinger's own df claims:
  • 638 kg @ 100 mph = 1538 kg @ 250 kph (old website)
  • 650 kg @ 100 mph = 1567 kg @ 250 kph (Top Gear test)
    2500 kg @ 200 mph = 1507 kg @ 250 kph
  • 2000 kg @ 190 mph = 1335 kg @ 250 kph (current website)
  • 5600 lb @ 200 mph = 1531 kg @ 250 kph (Kevin Czinger's COTA lap claim, by CarBuzz)
Crazy difference, huh? You tell me, what the most likely explanation is. Is it false claims or utter lack of safety concerns?


Let's also look at those other cars using the exact same model of tire:

Jesko Attack
========
1420 - wet
1473 - curb
1623 - w/ 2x75 kg occupants
1720 - gross vehicle weight

theoretical max df within allowed tire load:
3380 - 1720 = 1660 kg

official df claims:
700 kg @ 250 kph
1000 kg @ 290 kph
1400 kg peak (should be about 340 kph)

safety margin:
1660 - 1000 = 660 kg
or
1660 - 1400 = 260 kg
(it's hard to tell which is it, since we don't know how the active wing operates)


Aston Martin Valkyrie
=============
1355 - wet
1392 - curb
1542 - w/ 2x75 kg occupants (0 luggage)
1545 - gross vehicle weight (according to user manual)

top speed:
limited to 355 kph

theoretical max df within allowed tire load:
3380 - 1545 = 1835 kg

official df claims:
1100 kg up to 220 kph = 1420 kg @ 250 kph (braking in track mode)
750 kg up to 220 kph = 968 kg @ 250 kph (cornering in track mode)

safety margin:
1835 - 1100 = 735 kg

Here's Motor Trend addressing tire limit:
Fun fact: The Valkyrie is capable of generating up to two tons of downforce, but the standard tires start popping over 2,500 pounds (1,134 kg). No, really.
(seems they were a bit conservative still, with 700 more kg to work with within the tire limit)


911 GT2 RS MR (Manthey Racing package increasing downforce)
==========================================
1540 - curb
1830 - gross vehicle weight

top speed:
limited to 340 kph

theoretical max df within allowed tire load:
3380 - 1830 = 1550 kg

official df claim:
270 kg @ 200 kph = 780 kg @ 340 kph

safety margin:
1550 - 780 = 770 kg

Here's Porsche saying that the top speed is limited to protect tires:
The GT2 RS is electronically limited to 211 mph because of the tires. It will go quicker—220 mph—but Preuninger says a tire homologated to cope with that speed would have resulted in too hard a compound for track use.


Seems like the average safety margin before the tire load limit is reached is about 700 kg.
Wonder what 21C's downforce would look like if it had that same safety margin applied?

1680 - 700 = 980 kg
980 kg @ 350 kph = 500 kg @ 250 kph 😁
 
And it's not really about just safety either. Even if the 21C had the claimed 1500kg+ of DF, they wouldn't be getting the expected benefits from it anyway, because at those loads the tires would have lost all grip.

So really, they should be hoping that their own DF numbers are wrong even if they are right. Because if they are right, then that means they are just destroying the tires for no benefit and are left with a car that's unnecessarily heavy because it had to have been designed to carry all those extra loads.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
I knew this was coming as soon as I saw this IG story the other day.
I gotta say though, I was expecting much greater difference to Jesko's lap. -0.11s is nothing! Koenigsegg is the moral victor here, as their car didn't have racing harness, was on default suspension settings and wasn't running on full E85 (they said it was more like E60).

1725031371923.webp
 
Here's a comparison between couple of cars on Laguna Seca.
Some notes first:
  • Jesko didn't have telemetry, so I wrote down its speedo readouts and then adjusted to arbitrary 95% to get approximation of true speed. It might be more or less, but I can't be asked to get it more accurate than this.
  • The 750S data is from Speed Phenom's video. His telemetry didn't show exact g-force, so I eye-balled the visual indicator. I do think it's a bit optimistic.
  • 918 data is from MotorTrend's 918 vs P1 track test. This is old pavement!
  • I think Czinger's g-meter is pure bullshit, lmao.
1725039769558.jpg
 
I think Czinger's g-meter is pure bullshit, lmao.
The most shocking reveal of 2024 so far.

Corners slower than a GT3RS, driven by a random guy on PZero Corsas, despite having 2-2000x more downforce.

Also, still no clue how close that "record" car is to a production version, since we still haven't seen any production cars in the hands of customers. And wasn't Czinger teasing some kind of big announcement, like the first customer car being delivered, or at least the real production starting? I must have missed that.

That said, with the track now being 2-3s faster with the new pavement, and them only improving by 0.7s, does that mean that their car is now slower? So maybe it actually is close(r) to what the customers will be getting... possibly.
 
The most shocking reveal of 2024 so far.

Corners slower than a GT3RS, driven by a random guy on PZero Corsas, despite having 2-2000x more downforce.

Also, still no clue how close that "record" car is to a production version, since we still haven't seen any production cars in the hands of customers. And wasn't Czinger teasing some kind of big announcement, like the first customer car being delivered, or at least the real production starting? I must have missed that.

That said, with the track now being 2-3s faster with the new pavement, and them only improving by 0.7s, does that mean that their car is now slower? So maybe it actually is close(r) to what the customers will be getting... possibly.

Not sure what the big announcement was about. I did register it, but they never followed up on it. At least not publicly.

Yep, it's definitely slower than the prototype. I feel bad for Czinger fans, who see this lap record as some huge win. After Czinger declared how they intend to go breaking and defending records, -0.11s is the best you can do against a casual (accidental almost) previous lap record by Koenigsegg? On your home track no less? Guys, this is pathetic.
If McLaren are seeing this right now, they are probably thinking they could beat them with Senna.

All I want now is for Car and Driver to test the car. Let's see how much that wonder of "4th industrial revolution" really weighs.
 
I went for a deep dive into Czinger's onboards.
This is the 21C prototype they used to set 2:11:33 at COTA in 2021.
The interior is of the old type, with racing steering wheel and one big red button added to it. Strangely, this button never gets pressed on video, so I have no idea what it does.
1725297665033.webp


However, the button right bellow it does get used a lot. It's labeled E-boost and driver uses it to manually deploy electric boost on straights. Here you can see him boosting his tits out:
1725297730342.webp


Strange thing happened at the back straight, where instead of upshifting to another gear, the car just sits at the limiter for full six seconds! Without overlay, it's hard to say for certain what gear he's in and what speed he's doing, but if you compare it with Venom F5 in this split screen video (where the Hennessey is clearly traveling at a higher rate of speed), the 21C has to be doing way bellow 290 kph, or even as low as 280 kph, and possibly only using up to 5th gear (there's two upshifts and I assume that he starts with 3rd gear on the entry).

Why is this in any way relevant to current car, closer to production version?
Well, we never got to see the onboard video from when they revisited COTA in 2024, setting 2:10.7 lap time. I think they are hiding something from us. Was the car capped to a much lower top speed again? Or did it run out of battery? It's one thing to show to public strange behavior from prototype stage, but to display some of that in a pre-production car would obviously make them look bad.

Now let's talk Laguna Seca.
1725300637167.webp
I downloaded their most recent onboard video in 4K, so that I could read the dashboard, and here's some unusual stuff that I saw:
- The ESC/TC off warning light comes on in turn 6 and stays on for the remainder of the lap.
- Gear indicator momentarily glitches out and gets stuck on "5" before turn 5, then resets itself in turn 10, only to miss the next gearshift, and finally get back on track until the finish line.

This is the state of charge:
1725298785893.webp

The car starts the lap with 67% crossing the line, but it drops to 31% before the Corkscrew. From there, it never really recovers and he practically doesn't use any boost at all coming out of the last two corners. Why he doesn't want to dip bellow 30%, I have no idea.
So despite Czinger boasting about high C-rate battery type (lithium-titanium-oxide), the regen is not all that impressive.

You tell me if you think he run out of battery at COTA, which is 5.5 km vs 3.6 km of Laguna Seca. Do you see now why there isn't full onboard?

The difference between boost and no boost is significant:
(crossing the finish line)
start of the lap: 188 kph @ 67% Soc
end of the lap: 219 kph @ 31% SoC

BTW, if you think they used this red button to deploy boost, that's probably not the case, as there is a short clip from 2024 COTA run, where the button is on camera (not being pressed) as the SoC drops. The car has to have some sort of automatic e-boost deployment strategy.
1725300698286.webp


1725298562780.webp


Also, it's pretty wild how they use the car in some sort of developer mode with bunch of incomprehensible flags on screen:
screen developer mode.webp


For completion's sake, this is the screen they used for their Goodwood hillclimb run:
Much more user friendly.
1725300157493.webp
 
Would rather have the Czinger Koenigsegg or Hennessey?🙂

Me? Of those three... the Koenigsegg.
It's not quite - all the power all of the time, because E85's limited availability. But it's way better than Czinger's combination of (I'm guessing) ~770 PS on pump gas when you don't have M100/E85/race_fuel AND running out of charge within single lap on top of that :D
But ideally I'd have Bohema. You could probably do several consecutive laps and each of them faster than a single hotlap in those two.
 
Me? Of those three... the Koenigsegg.
It's not quite - all the power all of the time, because E85's limited availability. But it's way better than Czinger's combination of (I'm guessing) ~770 PS on pump gas when you don't have M100/E85/race_fuel AND running out of charge within single lap on top of that :D
But ideally I'd have Bohema. You could probably do several consecutive laps and each of them faster than a single hotlap in those two.

Fair enough.

I'm intrigued by the Aurora. Guess time will tell.🙂
 

Thread statistics

Created
StartYourEngines,
Last reply from
Revvd,
Replies
141
Views
12,417

Trending content


Back
Top