Bugatti EB 110

Overview

Bugatti EB 110

manufacturer	Bugatti Automobili S.p.A.
production	1991–1995
assembly	Italy: Modena, Campogalliano (Bugatti Automobili Campogalliano)
designer	Marcello Gandini (prototype styling) Giampaolo Benedini (production styling and interior) Paolo Stanzani, Tecnostile (prototype Chief Engineering) Nicola Materazzi (Production Chief Engineer)
class	Sports car (S)
body style	2-door coupé
layout	Rear mid-engine, four-wheel drive
powerout	GT: 412 kW Super Sport: 450 kW
related	B Engineering Edonis Bugatti EB 112
engine	3.5 L Bugatti B.110.11 quad-turbocharged V12
transmission	6-speed manual
wheelbase	2550 mm
length	4400 mm
width	1940 mm
height	1114-1125 mm
weight	1620 kg Super Sport: 1418 kg‡R1R‡
predecessor	Bugatti ID90
successor	Bugatti Veyron
doors	Scissor
sp	uk

The Bugatti EB 110 is a mid-engine sports car initially conceived by Paolo Stanzani in the mid 1980s and produced by Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. from 1991 until 1995, when the company was liquidated. The model restarted the brand's presence in the automobile industry after a hiatus of nearly 40 years (since 1952).

In the period from 1992 to 1995, the EB 110 competed against cars such as the Lamborghini Diablo, Jaguar XJ220, Ferrari F40, Ferrari F50, and the McLaren F1.

139 examples were built, plus a small number of post-production cars which were completed after the bankruptcy. The last one was built by Dauer Sportwagen in 2002 and one additional unfinished example was completed in 2019. It was the only production model made by Romano Artioli's Italian incarnation of Bugatti.

History

Restyling

Bugatti's President was not happy with Gandini's angular design language incorporating a shovel nose and flared rear wheel arches. According to Gandini, Trucco and Stanzani, Artioli did not formally state his rejection of the original styling because he had in fact approved the 1:1 scale model.[11] Later interviews with Giampaolo Benedini revealed more detail on the fact that Artioli had asked him to propose some alternative design ideas for the car to go into production. [12]

Artioli did not favour the aluminium honeycomb chassis proposed by Stanzani. Stanzani defended the choice of the aluminium-aluminium honeycomb chassis on the basis of being sufficiently stiff (in torsion and bending) while being cost-effective and repairable. Artioli pushed for a carbon-aluminium chassis on the basis of his concern with safety and due to the likely popularity of carbon composite in cutting edge supercars of the future.[13]

Gandini made a second iteration of the design with softer lines, revised front and rear lights, and subtly different proportions for the rear wheel arches – styling cues also visible in the Maserati Chubasco of 1990. The second Gandini design replaced the network of cooling ducts on the bonnet with ducts in the front bumper and at the outer flanks of the two large fixed headlamps which replaced the early prototype's pop-up units. The scissor doors, the large windshield, and the side window design were retained. This design was only possible for a Bugatti once Maserati had decided not to construct a supercar and therefore declined to take on the Chubasco proposal. The first Gandini prototype styling and the restyling were separated by approximately 2 years. Artioli, however, still was not fully convinced of the exterior design and wanted further detail design changes which Gandini refused to make because they would alter its DNA: for example the shape of the front intake and the placement of the Bugatti 'shoe-horse'. Artioli thus tasked Gianpaolo Benedini (who had designed the "Blue Factory") to make the requested changes. Benedini made small changes by placing a very small 'shoe-horse' at the front air intake and took responsibility of the interior design together with Laurens van den Acker of Design System.

Change of chassis material

Artioli had from the beginning been against the use of the aluminium and aluminium honeycomb chassis material. He based his decision on the fact that racing drivers had lost their life with such a chassis (for example Gilles Villeneuve, where the seat belt mounts had torn off the chassis); he was also concerned that the material was soft and the skins and honeycomb would separate on slow speed impacts of the chassis against kerbs and other road objects. [14]

Stanzani asked quotes from Aerospatiale for the supply of carbon-composite material to understand the benefits versus costs. He discussed at length with Aerospatiale the technical details and critical aspects of the chassis. The French company presented proposals (quotes) for aluminium skins with aluminium honeycomb core and an alternative with carbon-fibre skins and honeycomb core. Stanzani viewed the carbon-aluminium quote as financially not viable for Bugatti Automobili and reported this to Artioli. After Stanzani's departure, further meetings were held between Dario Trucco (consulting on the overall delivery of the bodywork) and Oliviero Pedrazzi and the staff from Aerospatiale (Jean-Jacques Bodu, Georges Teyssier, Roland Bignolais) in the period of 4-5 September 1990, where Aerospatiale discussed the usage of the composite material in aircraft and certain details pertaining to manufacturing and crash impact resistance. [15]

At a later stage tests were done on the torsional stiffness of the chassis in their two respective materials (both tests conducted without the upper steel roof tubular structure, so just the 'tub'). The composite material proved stiffer but according to Trucco and Pedrazzi also heavier and significantly more expensive.

The carbon fibre chassis kept the same dimensions and panel split lines as designed by Pedrazzi in the original aluminium and aluminium honeycomb design, giving the car improved stiffness which allowed it to better achieve its targets of ride and handling. The chassis consisted of separate panels that were bonded and riveted together to remove the need for very large autoclaves. [16]

Departure of Stanzani and arrival of Materazzi

Conflicts of opinion on the company direction between Stanzani and Artioli led to the respective departure of Gandini and Stanzani from the project. Stanzani's original vehicle concept was technologically advanced (4WD, turbo, short wheelbase) and relatively light in terms of interior features. Artioli on the other hand wanted the car to represent the Bugatti brand and therefore include well appointed soft seats and electrical switches, which would add several hundred kilograms to the final kerb weight of the EB 110.

Artioli had increased the capital in the venture, thereby diluting Stanzani's share, and had started to take more involvement in vehicle development compared to previously.

The role of technical director was filled by Nicola Materazzi, who had experience of working with Lancia, Abarth, Osella, Ferrari, Cagiva (and later Laverda),[17] and had been Chief Engineer for the Lancia Stratos GR5, Ferrari 288 GTO Evoluzione, Ferrari F40 and Cagiva C589.

Materazzi had primarily a racing car background and a reputation for making minimalist performance cars, as evidenced by the 288 GTO Evoluzione and F40. His view of performance cars was evidently different from that of Romano Artioli and this would eventually lead to similar conflict as Artioli had had with Stanzani. [18]

One of the first tasks for Materazzi was that of following the work at Aerospatiale with the simulation and physical torsional stiffness tests of the composite chassis.[19]

Materazzi brought his engines experience (on Ferrari Testarossa, Ferrari 328 Turbo, Ferrari 288 GTO and Ferrari F40) to solve the problem which was affecting the engine's durability on the dynamometer: excessive friction between titanium con-rods in contact. He then moved on to re-calculating the vehicle front to rear torque distribution. Test drivers Jean-Philippe Vittecoq and Loris Bicocchi stated that the cars were understeering too much so Materazzi altered the torque distribution from 40:60 to 27:73 and the drivers were satisfied with the handling improvement. The initial torque distribution had been calculated based on the static weight distribution of the vehicle and in similar way to rally vehicles of the 1980s (such as the Audi Quattro). The updated torque distribution was calculated based on the dynamic load distribution under acceleration, which takes into account of load transfer (vehicle mass * acceleration * centre of gravity height / wheelbase). [20][21]

Materazzi attended aerodynamic testing at the Pininfarina wind tunnel and instructed changes to the front air intake (to the radiators) and its outlet to allow the radiator to function effectively, a detail which had been neglected by the Gandini/Benedini style.

The car was released with many innovative technologies that were scarcely used by the automotive industry at the time, such as a carbon fibre monocoque chassis, active aerodynamics, quad turbocharging (two per cylinder bank) and an all-wheel-drive system for safer handling (especially on wet roads). In particular the 4WD system had been a cornerstone of the Stanzani design that Ferrari was unable to productionise successfully (Forghieri had only built a prototype of the 408 4RM) and that Lamborghini would introduce only in 1993 with the Diablo VT ('Viscous Transmission').

The design elements of the car paid homage to the distinctive Bugatti automobiles of the past. The name EB 110 is an abbreviation for the company's founder, Ettore Bugatti and his 110th birthday (born 15 Sep 1881).[22]

Bugatti EB 110

History

Initial development

Engine and chassis

Styling and early prototype testing

Restyling

Change of chassis material

Departure of Stanzani and arrival of Materazzi

Unveiling

Departure of Materazzi and arrival of Forghieri

Company financial difficulties

Specifications

Performance

Records

EB 110 continuation cars

Dauer EB 110

Cars based on the EB 110

B Engineering Edonis

Aftermarket modifications

Brabus EB 110

Motorsport

See also

External links

References