RE: Ringside Seat: does the 'ring ruin road cars?

RE: Ringside Seat: does the 'ring ruin road cars?

Author
Discussion

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
5
havoc said:
You're either trolling or splitting hairs K - either way I can't be arsed to respond to your post.

Try addressing my points meaningfully and we'll have a conversation. Oh, and try not to contradict yourself too - helps with the credibility!
Standard response of those who can't think of a logical counter argument.

Wasn't your main point that compliance is required for road use, a certain amount of compliance usually is, but also a certain amount of control. A car set up for fast road (including the Ring) use is simply uncomfortable. Have you been in a tarmac rally car? The fastest car down a bumpy B road will not be acceptably comfortable for 99% of drivers. Anything more comfortable than a tarmac rally car will no longer be set up for ultimate speed, but a compromise between comfort and control. So car manufacturers have been setting some cars up biased more towards control rather than comfort, if you don't like these models there are more comfortable options available.

Also, lower profile tyres are not always a poor choice for comfort and road holding, there are no hard and fast rules in suspension design, no matter how many times a myth is repeated.

By the way I don't need your approval of my credibility, I'd be pretty sad if that was the case.

havoc

29,917 posts

234 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
A post I can agree with.

Your earlier post was leaning towards hyperbole, which was my issue with it, and your reply then seemed to go the other way when addressing my response.

My main issues are with cost-cutting in suspension design, as mentioned earlier, and with image-over-substance ultra-large alloys on 'mainstream' cars, inc. performance biased ones - cost-for-cost leading to increased unsprung weight and less compliance.

As for 'softer alternatives' - not powerful ones, not any more. And cars like my NSX, like most road-biased Lotuses, like the older hot-hatches - GTi-6, Clio 172, etc. show, as you say, that you can have body control without excessively stiff primary ride or crashy secondary ride.

So why are manufacturers pitching stuff like S-Line Audis, like my wife's MkV GTI, like the latest M-cars and even the Elise 111R at us? Either cost or marketing...including bloody N'ring lap times.

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
Standard response of those who can't think of a logical counter argument.

Wasn't your main point that compliance is required for road use, a certain amount of compliance usually is, but also a certain amount of control. A car set up for fast road (including the Ring) use is simply uncomfortable. Have you been in a tarmac rally car? The fastest car down a bumpy B road will not be acceptably comfortable for 99% of drivers. Anything more comfortable than a tarmac rally car will no longer be set up for ultimate speed, but a compromise between comfort and control. So car manufacturers have been setting some cars up biased more towards control rather than comfort, if you don't like these models there are more comfortable options available.

Also, lower profile tyres are not always a poor choice for comfort and road holding, there are no hard and fast rules in suspension design, no matter how many times a myth is repeated.

By the way I don't need your approval of my credibility, I'd be pretty sad if that was the case.
I ran an ex Tour of Cornwall winning Sunbeam Lotus, in full tarmac spec. as a daily road car for c.3 years (debatable idea!) and can confirm it definitely was not comfortable. But bloody quick and good fun. Loads of body control, fantastic and direct steering but crashy to the point where the light back end often felt like it was going to bounce us off the road on bumps.

FWIW, I reckon a 'softer' car with the same sort of power to weight would be quicker and safer, certainly less tiring to drive, on average roads for most drivers. All within legal speeds/visibility/traffic conditions etc. of course, 'not condoning mad driving on the public highway.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Lost_BMW said:
Kawasicki said:
Standard response of those who can't think of a logical counter argument.

Wasn't your main point that compliance is required for road use, a certain amount of compliance usually is, but also a certain amount of control. A car set up for fast road (including the Ring) use is simply uncomfortable. Have you been in a tarmac rally car? The fastest car down a bumpy B road will not be acceptably comfortable for 99% of drivers. Anything more comfortable than a tarmac rally car will no longer be set up for ultimate speed, but a compromise between comfort and control. So car manufacturers have been setting some cars up biased more towards control rather than comfort, if you don't like these models there are more comfortable options available.

Also, lower profile tyres are not always a poor choice for comfort and road holding, there are no hard and fast rules in suspension design, no matter how many times a myth is repeated.

By the way I don't need your approval of my credibility, I'd be pretty sad if that was the case.
I ran an ex Tour of Cornwall winning Sunbeam Lotus, in full tarmac spec. as a daily road car for c.3 years (debatable idea!) and can confirm it definitely was not comfortable. But bloody quick and good fun. Loads of body control, fantastic and direct steering but crashy to the point where the light back end often felt like it was going to bounce us off the road on bumps.

FWIW, I reckon a 'softer' car with the same sort of power to weight would be quicker and safer, certainly less tiring to drive, on average roads for most drivers. All within legal speeds/visibility/traffic conditions etc. of course, 'not condoning mad driving on the public highway.
What always surprises me is that completely over the top crashiness does not have to mean poor road holding or grip on rough roads, it very much depends on the vehicle. My old 944 Turbo with sport pack suspension was pretty harsh on bumpy b roads, but the grip was totally insensitive to the surface. A Seat Ibiza I drove was also harsh, but really struggled on bumps. It depends on the car.

I agree softer cars are more easily driven near their limits than harshest cars by the majority of drivers, saying that should sports cars be set up for the majority of drivers? I don't know the answer. I've been with journalists who were scared witless using 7/10ths the capability of a car, so maybe manufacturers are making cars that are tuned to an extreme level.

But crashiness does not equal poor road holding. Otherwise rally cars would be soft and compliant.