Are Elises too slow?
Discussion
jondude said:
He was doing, as far as I could tell, high rev and drop the clutch starts - not very sympathetic or how we tend to blast from the lights. ( Do we??)
They were also in the cold, on a coldish engine (witness condensate coming from exhaust) and he was launching it way too hard, had a BUNCH of wheelspin... which is unsurprising on PZeros.
I'm really not sure why this is turning into a 0-60 discussion. No one doubts that the Elise/Exige is quick of the line - the point was more that the Elise, more significantly the 111R / Exige S2, are not as quick as they perhaps could have been in real world situations - so not 0-60 times, but rather in-gear acceleration etc.
If some driver x can make an Elise get to 0-60 in under 5 seconds - so what really? We don't know the conditions, we don't know the driver, we don't even know how much the clutch was abused to make it happen.
At the end of the day, it's all subjective really what is quick and what isn't. I personally think the top of the range 111R and Exige is rather slow in real world situations like in-gear acceleration, thanks to the lacking midrange torque. That may be my humble and subjective opinion, but if similar hot hatches with a worse power/weight ratio are just as quick, I'd come to expect a little more.
At the end of the day though - I still love the car to bits (well, even before the supercharger was fitted) for what it is: A brilliant handling car. Doesn't mean it's wrong to expect more though, right?
If some driver x can make an Elise get to 0-60 in under 5 seconds - so what really? We don't know the conditions, we don't know the driver, we don't even know how much the clutch was abused to make it happen.
At the end of the day, it's all subjective really what is quick and what isn't. I personally think the top of the range 111R and Exige is rather slow in real world situations like in-gear acceleration, thanks to the lacking midrange torque. That may be my humble and subjective opinion, but if similar hot hatches with a worse power/weight ratio are just as quick, I'd come to expect a little more.
At the end of the day though - I still love the car to bits (well, even before the supercharger was fitted) for what it is: A brilliant handling car. Doesn't mean it's wrong to expect more though, right?
Phil-Ch said:
I'm really not sure why this is turning into a 0-60 discussion. No one doubts that the Elise/Exige is quick of the line -
They did actually
Someone said that the Lotus figures for the Elise weren't repeatable. I wanted to prove that they were. I couldn't do a 0-60 (I'm not skilled enough and I don't want to hurt my car), so I tested the 30-70 time instead, which incidentally in most cars is normally very similar to the 0-60, but takes the variable of driver skill out of the equation. For the record, the reason that Lotus times aren't repeatable by magazines is that Lotus test one-up, whereas car magazines test two up for some ridiculous reason (they probably test top speed with the windows down
). I think BMW test with more than one passenger and some luggage on board - I did hear that somewhere! Their time for my 330i was 7.2 seconds, yet EVO managed 5.9 two up! Phil-Ch said:
the point was more that the Elise, more significantly the 111R / Exige S2, are not as quick as they perhaps could have been in real world situations - so not 0-60 times, but rather in-gear acceleration etc.
That's a good point - can anyone with a hot hatch do a 30-70 to see what they can do compared with my Elise time?
Phil-Ch said:
If some driver x can make an Elise get to 0-60 in under 5 seconds - so what really? We don't know the conditions, we don't know the driver, we don't even know how much the clutch was abused to make it happen.
It's a benchmark figure - it doesn't matter if it isn't real world, so long as the conditions are comparable. Usually all these variables that you mention are 'ultimate'. They use absolutely no mechanical sympathy whatsoever on a dry road and do it about 20 times until they get the lowest time. There usually isn't any way anyone can go quicker, thus the times usually compare well between magazines. Obviously, you won't do this in the real world, but the point is that such perfection of technique provides a flat benchmark with which to compare cars. It's a little like testing the strength of bolts - no-one is going to hang 2 tonnes off a bolt when they use it in an application, but a bolt that will take 2.3 tonnes is stronger than one that will take 2.1 tonnes.
I don't disagree Rob, just feel that the discussion is loosing its focus from the original point being made, who by the way drives a 111R and not an Elise with the torqier engine. 
BTW; 30-70mph comparable to 0-60? Is the similarity just in the Elise or across all cars? I'm not quite sure that's a very good way to messure it, as surely 30-70 mph can be done in one gear (2nd), where as a 0-60 time includes at least a shift from 1st into 2nd. Unless of course you start in 1st gear at 30mph, but then, in a 111R that would be quite to its advantage since it would already be in 2nd cam at that point, where as going from 0-60 it wouldn't. And 1st gear in a 111R isn't all great thanks to the lack of torque.
BTW; 30-70mph comparable to 0-60? Is the similarity just in the Elise or across all cars? I'm not quite sure that's a very good way to messure it, as surely 30-70 mph can be done in one gear (2nd), where as a 0-60 time includes at least a shift from 1st into 2nd. Unless of course you start in 1st gear at 30mph, but then, in a 111R that would be quite to its advantage since it would already be in 2nd cam at that point, where as going from 0-60 it wouldn't. And 1st gear in a 111R isn't all great thanks to the lack of torque.
Phil-Ch said:
I don't disagree Rob, just feel that the discussion is loosing its focus from the original point being made, who by the way drives a 111R and not an Elise with the torqier engine.
Yes, I agree
It has lost its focus somewhat, but then again I think it ran to its conclusion, and that's that there are three viewpoints on this: 1) I think most people on this forum agree that it wouldn't matter if the Elise did 0-60 in 10 seconds, it would still be an Elise and we'd still drive them because they're fantastic.
2) There is also a core of people (some of them are my friends) that wouldn't own an Elise purely because of the lack of straight line grunt.
3) Then there are people like myself, who love the Elise for what it is, but agree it could do with a bit more grunt.
Phil-Ch said:
BTW; 30-70mph comparable to 0-60? Is the similarity just in the Elise or across all cars? I'm not quite sure that's a very good way to messure it, as surely 30-70 mph can be done in one gear (2nd), where as a 0-60 time includes at least a shift from 1st into 2nd. Unless of course you start in 1st gear at 30mph, but then, in a 111R that would be quite to its advantage since it would already be in 2nd cam at that point, where as going from 0-60 it wouldn't. And 1st gear in a 111R isn't all great thanks to the lack of torque.
Firstly, I chose the 30-70 because it was a time I could compare with the times the experts get without being an expert myself. Secondly, yes, 30-70 is usually comparable to 0-60 to within a few tenths. Cars do vary depending on off the line grip etc. For instance, a FWD car is always going to have a slower 0-60 than 30-70 because they simply can't get the power down. Four wheel drive cars would be quicker etc. With the Elise you have a lot of grip available off the line (all that weight over the rear), which means that the 0-60 should be a few tenths faster than the 30-70. However, in my Elise the 30-70 is done in one gear (2nd), so this makes the difference back up, and you'll find that the 30-70 time is pretty much the same as the 0-60 (the 111R is 4.9 for both).
RobM77 said:
Phil-Ch said:
BTW; 30-70mph comparable to 0-60? Is the similarity just in the Elise or across all cars? I'm not quite sure that's a very good way to messure it, as surely 30-70 mph can be done in one gear (2nd), where as a 0-60 time includes at least a shift from 1st into 2nd. Unless of course you start in 1st gear at 30mph, but then, in a 111R that would be quite to its advantage since it would already be in 2nd cam at that point, where as going from 0-60 it wouldn't. And 1st gear in a 111R isn't all great thanks to the lack of torque.
Firstly, I chose the 30-70 because it was a time I could compare with the times the experts get without being an expert myself. Secondly, yes, 30-70 is usually comparable to 0-60 to within a few tenths. Cars do vary depending on off the line grip etc. For instance, a FWD car is always going to have a slower 0-60 than 30-70 because they simply can't get the power down. Four wheel drive cars would be quicker etc. With the Elise you have a lot of grip available off the line (all that weight over the rear), which means that the 0-60 should be a few tenths faster than the 30-70. However, in my Elise the 30-70 is done in one gear (2nd), so this makes the difference back up, and you'll find that the 30-70 time is pretty much the same as the 0-60 (the 111R is 4.9 for both).
I don't doubt that the similarities in achieved times is there - just not sure if I see it as a messure across different cars, even if the cars in question are different Elise variants. Is it more of a lucky coincidence or is it really a valid benchmark to conclude 0-60 (by experts) times? I think its the former, given its dependant on gear-ratio and engine characteristic. In the case of the 111R - if I'm not mistaken, with brand new tyres, you'll only get to around 68mph in 2nd gear - and that's when the car is already bouncing off the rev-limiter. I guess one could say it's close enough to take it as a 30-70 time though. Actually, with the bad gearbox of the R, it's technically not even possible to keep the car in 2nd cam going from 1st into 2nd gear. It is possible at the expense of a bit of clutch wear - certainly a fact that would hurt 0-60 times a bit, as dropping into the lower cam certainly costs a bit of time, even if it's just .3 of a second.
A benchmark I used to do (and could relate to) was accelerating in 2nd gear from 4000 to 8000 rpm. It's easy and doesn't require any gear shifts and keeps you just in around legal speeds (or at least without losing your licence). It doesn't present a way to compare it to different cars, but at least, it was an easy way to check the performance difference between night and day, cold and warm weather - or to the supercharged version that I now drive. In an 'R or Exige S2, 4000-8000 is going from 31mph to 62mph - or just around. Not quite 70mph, but at least, I've been able to achieve around 4.0 seconds at night and a bit slower during day (4.5). That would also mean if accelerating to the rev limiter, It would be more like 4.7s or just about so. Sadly, I didn't quite think my Exige at the time could do it, at least, not without causing serious damage to the clutch or tyres. And achieving a benchmark figure for a 0-60 times with a damaged clutch and amazing tyre wear isn't what I'm hoping to see in an Elise/Exige. At least not when similar cars of similar or worse power/weight can achieve close enough without abusing the car as much.
BTW: Just to add: If my NA Exige took between 4.5 and 5 seconds going from 30mph to 70mph, then my supercharged Exige does the same in 2.8 to 3.3 seconds now. I know for a fact it's very quick, but not that quick from 0-60mph. Even with two people in the car, it'll do 30 to 70 in less than 4 seconds. It just doesn't quite add up everywhere...
Edited by Phil-Ch on Wednesday 16th May 12:29
Yes, it's definitely a lucky coincidence, but it holds more or less true for most cars. However.. this fact is merely an interesting side point, my real point is that I could have chosen any increment - I just wanted to compare an official Lotus timed figure with one that an ordinary chap like myself could get on a Tuesday afternoon on a road near his house with a totally average and standard 20k mile run-in car. The original claim on this thread was that Lotus acceleration figures weren't repeatable by anyone other than Lotus, so I thought I'd find out if that was true. Admittedly, we don't yet know the Lotus 30-70 figure for my car, but I think a 5 second 30-70 run proves that the car isn't going to do 0-60 in 6 seconds like was suggested earlier on this thread - certainly not with RWD and a mid engined layout. I stand by the Lotus figures as accurate.
oh, and out of interest my Elise 111S was about 200rpm shy of the limiter when the speedo showed 70mph. We may have the same ratios, and my speedo is over-reading slightly, which is likely.
oh, and out of interest my Elise 111S was about 200rpm shy of the limiter when the speedo showed 70mph. We may have the same ratios, and my speedo is over-reading slightly, which is likely.
RobM77 said:
I think it's a shame they don't have more power and acceleration like a Caterham has
Sorry to jump in here, what do you mean more power and acceleration like a Caterham?
Compare like for like and the Elise is virtually identical, surely?
Any seven type car I have ever been in or driven isn't a great deal better than an Elise and the Elise is far superior in virtually every other respect as a road car and as a track car if it is driven to and from the circuit.
Only when it comes to trailered cars does the slight increase in weight (Approx 100 - 200kg) become an issue....
(Can't believe I have actually posted in this thread)
They should have stuck Honda CTR engines in the S2's then there wouldn't be anyone complaining about lack of performance.
I know people will say its not really the point of the car but they do lack some grunt against 'torquier' machinery that can lead to some potential embarassment against perceived slower cars on the road.
I know people will say its not really the point of the car but they do lack some grunt against 'torquier' machinery that can lead to some potential embarassment against perceived slower cars on the road.
Phil-Ch said:
BTW: Just to add: If my NA Exige took between 4.5 and 5 seconds going from 30mph to 70mph, then my supercharged Exige does the same in 2.8 to 3.3 seconds now. I know for a fact it's very quick, but not that quick from 0-60mph. Even with two people in the car, it'll do 30 to 70 in less than 4 seconds. It just doesn't quite add up everywhere...
Edited by Phil-Ch on Wednesday 16th May 12:29
Yes, once you get below 4 seconds the comparison isn't valid as grip off the line is the predominate factor (look at a graph of 0-60 vs power to weight to see what I mean - it tends exponentially to about 3 seconds). This coincidence is only really seen between 4.5 and 10 seconds (i.e. most cars).
Mark B said:
RobM77 said:
I think it's a shame they don't have more power and acceleration like a Caterham has
Sorry to jump in here, what do you mean more power and acceleration like a Caterham?
Compare like for like and the Elise is virtually identical, surely?
We must mis-understand each other surely. Caterhams are massively quicker accelerating than Elises/Exiges, as they run a similar engine range to the Elise/Exige (or did when they used the K series - 120, 160, 190 & 230bhp) yet weigh half as much (460-540kg against 800-930kg).
For example, the range topping Lotus is the Exige S with 230bhp, and the range topping Caterham from last year was the R500, also with 230bhp. The Exige S weighs 930kg, and the Caterham weighs 460kg, less than half the weight of the Exige. The power to weight ratio of the Caterham is therefore over double that of the Lotus. Even the most basic roadsport Caterhams have a better power to weight ratio than the Exige S.
As you can read above, I was purely comparing the acceleration and power to weight (I meant power to weight when I said power) of the two cars. Of course, the Elise and Exige are more useable everyday etc.
I suppose the point being is that the like for like cars are actually very very similar in performance figures... Go back to the time of a K series Caterham at 125hp (of developed K series) againt a standard Elise (with standard trim k series) of 118hp... Caterham @ 550kg, Elise @ 650kg, in real world and on track the Elise will be quicker, a lot quicker in most hands...
You mention the Exige S against Caterham R500.... I agree, when you get to this point of development the Caterham will be the quicker car on a dry day on a nice smooth circuit. Add a little of the UK weather conditions and real life road conditions and the Exige will run away with it almost everywhere... Don't even start to look at true running costs as the Caterham will cost an awful lot more to own and run...
As I mentioned, I wanted to stay away from commenting, because I truly believe the Elise was and still is ground breaking in what it achieves.... in all round performance.
You mention the Exige S against Caterham R500.... I agree, when you get to this point of development the Caterham will be the quicker car on a dry day on a nice smooth circuit. Add a little of the UK weather conditions and real life road conditions and the Exige will run away with it almost everywhere... Don't even start to look at true running costs as the Caterham will cost an awful lot more to own and run...
As I mentioned, I wanted to stay away from commenting, because I truly believe the Elise was and still is ground breaking in what it achieves.... in all round performance.
Mark B said:
I suppose the point being is that the like for like cars are actually very very similar in performance figures... Go back to the time of a K series Caterham at 125hp (of developed K series) againt a standard Elise (with standard trim k series) of 118hp... Caterham @ 550kg, Elise @ 650kg, in real world and on track the Elise will be quicker, a lot quicker in most hands...
You mention the Exige S against Caterham R500.... I agree, when you get to this point of development the Caterham will be the quicker car on a dry day on a nice smooth circuit. Add a little of the UK weather conditions and real life road conditions and the Exige will run away with it almost everywhere... Don't even start to look at true running costs as the Caterham will cost an awful lot more to own and run...
As I mentioned, I wanted to stay away from commenting, because I truly believe the Elise was and still is ground breaking in what it achieves.... in all round performance.
You mention the Exige S against Caterham R500.... I agree, when you get to this point of development the Caterham will be the quicker car on a dry day on a nice smooth circuit. Add a little of the UK weather conditions and real life road conditions and the Exige will run away with it almost everywhere... Don't even start to look at true running costs as the Caterham will cost an awful lot more to own and run...
As I mentioned, I wanted to stay away from commenting, because I truly believe the Elise was and still is ground breaking in what it achieves.... in all round performance.
According to the latest EVO magazine the S1 weighs 731kg and Autocar stated 723kg when the car was released in 1997. Where does 650kg come from? You're also comparing the heaviest Caterham with the lightest Elise. Elises have weighed between 730kg and about 900kg since conception, whereas Caterhams have weighed between 460kg and 540kg over the same period of time (or pretty much forever actually). Whichever way you look at it, the average Elise is nearly twice the weight of the average Caterham.
As for on the limit handling, the Caterham is much more forgiving as it is front engined rather than mid engined. I own and track both so I think I'm in a good position to say. Both my Caterhams have been more than happy to lark about on opposite lock like big go karts. Whereas the Elise is astonishingly forgiving and feelsome for a mid engined car, it isn't a match for the Caterhams on-limit friendliness.
As for performance, I have in front of me the September 1998 edition of Autocar magazine, where they took lots of cars to Silverstone National circuit and gave them to David Leslie to set lap times. The £23,000 190bhp Caterham Superlight R did a 1:06.26, and the the £33,500 190bhp Elise Sport 190 did a 1:12.68. The Caterham was quicker than everything on that day, including a 911, Ferrari 550 and an Esprit V8. The Elise was halfway down the lap board next to a Mercedes. Oh, and just for the record, my 120bhp Caterham can get round there in a high 1:08 on normal road tyres. As far as 'average' track day hands go - the novice first-timers at the back of the grid in the 120bhp roadsport Caterham class are still two seconds a lap quicker round Silverstone than David Leslie was in that £33k Elise 190 - and we're talking about a power circuit! Where would a standard 120bhp Elise have been? A 1:16-1:20 maybe?
The Elise is my perfect road car and I love it to bits, but to compare with a Caterham is stretching things a bit!
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 16th May 13:52
Na!! 1.12.6 is pathetically slow round silverstone national if we are talking about the very same circuit it is today. I'm certain a MK1 Exige 190 will go around there in 1.09 in my hands so what David Leslie was playing at I don't know? the 190 sport is a pretty quick track car in relative terms and should not be far off a match for a Caterham superlight R in 120hp guise.
kinetic said:
Na!! 1.12.6 is pathetically slow round silverstone national if we are talking about the very same circuit it is today. I'm certain a MK1 Exige 190 will go around there in 1.09 in my hands so what David Leslie was playing at I don't know? the 190 sport is a pretty quick track car in relative terms and should not be far off a match for a Caterham superlight R in 120hp guise.
The Superlight R has 190bhp (same engine as the 190 Exige), it was my roadsport that has 120bhp. I don't have figures, but I seriously doubt that an Exige with half the power to weight ratio of the SLR would get near the SLR's time. Consider that at the time, the SLR was the fastest road car in the world around the Nurburgring (7:50 I think?) - I'm sure Lotus would have done development work there and if the time it set was quick we'd know about it in Ring folklore. If it got under 8 minutes I'm sure we'd know about it in fact! In the Autocar test the only other road car to get under 1:10 was a Ferrari 550.
Some times here might help: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschl[/url]
[url]http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=476[/url]
The comparison at the end of the day is an easy one as Caterhams run the same engines, but weigh about half the amount. Twice the power to weight ratio - performance is in a different league.
As we've said before though, we all love our Lotuses, despite the fact that they don't have power to weight ratios of 3, 4 or 500 bhp/tonne (as Caterhams most popular three models have). As a typical Lotus owner, 200bhp/tonne is fine in my 111S for what I use it for (mostly road as my everyday transport and the odd track day). When I get into the Caterham on a race track though it's a totally different experience - mine is only 120bhp and it cuts round a track in a blur of shift lights and a way that the Elise can only dream about. Horses for courses. A Caterham's more fun on the road as well (in short bursts!), but there's just no way I'd want one for everyday use, which is why I own the Elise
[url]http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=476[/url]
The comparison at the end of the day is an easy one as Caterhams run the same engines, but weigh about half the amount. Twice the power to weight ratio - performance is in a different league.
As we've said before though, we all love our Lotuses, despite the fact that they don't have power to weight ratios of 3, 4 or 500 bhp/tonne (as Caterhams most popular three models have). As a typical Lotus owner, 200bhp/tonne is fine in my 111S for what I use it for (mostly road as my everyday transport and the odd track day). When I get into the Caterham on a race track though it's a totally different experience - mine is only 120bhp and it cuts round a track in a blur of shift lights and a way that the Elise can only dream about. Horses for courses. A Caterham's more fun on the road as well (in short bursts!), but there's just no way I'd want one for everyday use, which is why I own the Elise
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 16th May 16:03
I knew I shouldn't have posted...
What I was trying to get at was the original post of are Elises fast enough.. I seriously doubt the majority of like for like Caterhams and Elises are that different in pure power acceleration throughout the speed range...... Power to weight is one thing, out right acceleration with aero/gearing/traction being taken into account is very different..
What I was trying to get at was the original post of are Elises fast enough.. I seriously doubt the majority of like for like Caterhams and Elises are that different in pure power acceleration throughout the speed range...... Power to weight is one thing, out right acceleration with aero/gearing/traction being taken into account is very different..
Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff