RE: Focus RS stop-gap is here
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
On the public roads you might well keep up, but that's more likely due to driver, visibility, and sanity.
Maybe your mate was just going easy on you... or something else was a foot.
I'm not denying the RS isn't fast, but the performance difference is massive. Google says the 360CS should be doing the 1/4 mile in 12.8@118mph while the RS is more like 13.9 - 14.1 @ 103-104mph (some of these where for a 350hp RS500 example).
That is a HUGE HUGE difference. The trap speed is an indication of the vehicles in gear performance rather than grip off the line. And 104mph vs 118mph over that distance is probably bus lengths faster.
I'm not wanting to knock your car, but the figures just don't add up. Therefore logic would suggest:
-they were not giving it everything
-they were in the wrong gear
-The 360 isn't a CS or is missing a few of it's Italian ponies.
Look, I've made the offer for you to come and experience this first hand, if you don't want to that's your call, but please don't patronise me. When I say we drive together a lot, I mean thousands of miles a yr and over the yrs in a number of different cars, over give & take roads and into Europe.Maybe your mate was just going easy on you... or something else was a foot.
I'm not denying the RS isn't fast, but the performance difference is massive. Google says the 360CS should be doing the 1/4 mile in 12.8@118mph while the RS is more like 13.9 - 14.1 @ 103-104mph (some of these where for a 350hp RS500 example).
That is a HUGE HUGE difference. The trap speed is an indication of the vehicles in gear performance rather than grip off the line. And 104mph vs 118mph over that distance is probably bus lengths faster.
I'm not wanting to knock your car, but the figures just don't add up. Therefore logic would suggest:
-they were not giving it everything
-they were in the wrong gear
-The 360 isn't a CS or is missing a few of it's Italian ponies.
You keep insisting on quoting 0-60 & 1/4 mile times which I've never, ever argued with, but what I'm trying to make you realise (and this is back to the point made by someone a few pages ago now!!) is that in the real world, the Mountuned RS does have the ability to mix it with the big boys, thanks to an ability to deploy a very large slab of mid-range torque.
If you're only interested in track figures and 0-200leptons in a straight line, you're never going to be interested in a Fast Ford and it's not the car for that job. If you do any kind of fast road driving (sorry, safe fast road at legal speeds, if that makes sense), where you need to accelerate from 30mph past slower traffic, negotiate corners, use the brakes and accelerator, then by dismissing these cars, is to ignore their inherent capabilities.
currybum said:
Pistonwot said:
Some drivers have natural ability and talent.
Others learn these skills through practice.
Skill is what enables these drivers to explore a thing called vehicle dynamics, and suddenly weight is important.
When you have the ability required to 1st notice inertia exists and then develop the skill to manipulate a vehicle that has less of it you too may care about weight..
Pistonwot said:
Cars should be lighter!
Manufacturers are squandering huge advances in metalurgy and composite materials to produce s
t cars like these and it is disgracefull! ..
Would you be happy to pay an extra £5k for an aluminium Focus, or increased insurance premiums due to the high cost of repair? Just so that your family hatch is 150kg’s lighter?Manufacturers are squandering huge advances in metalurgy and composite materials to produce s
t cars like these and it is disgracefull! ..Pistonwot said:
I would applaud better MPG and less frequent costly weight induced damage from potholes, speed bumps, etc. Easily acheived by the removal of the poor quality "electronics" which do nothing good anyway. ..
What has the quality of the electronics got to do with their weight or usefulness?If it was that easy do you not think manufactures would have done that already…or maybe that already have, and it has partially offset the weight increase that comes from the safety / fuel economy upgrades?
Pistonwot said:
1 excellent example of this nonsense approach is Audi who use lots of Alloys to create 1.5+tonne vehicles.
HOW can they make Alloy cars weigh so much?
Alloy is lighter than steel but it still has weight, look at it this way, you are buying a car that should be 1700kg that is only 1500kg through the use of alloys…and only costs £5k more!HOW can they make Alloy cars weigh so much?
Pistonwot said:
Modern cars are so heavy its inexcusable and the "but safety weighs" angle is utter tosh. (a couple of airbags are 500+kg?)
Think it through, its impossible!
Assuming that modern cars have increased in weight as much as you suggest, there is also much more to the safety of a car than “a couple of airbags ”Think it through, its impossible!
As a hint it takes more than 2 air bags to turn this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gDfXHvCl4
In to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoeV266fbv4
But of course it’s worth suffering a painful death for that extra smidge of vehicle dynamics that 200kg takes away from you.
Edited to add:
IF more people paid attention to LEARNING how to drive and paid less attention to their own selfish expectations that even this should be done for them,
well,
the result would be fewer accidents.
This thankfully would also mean less imbecilic arguments explaining why ignorance of causation and the addition of a couple of pillows is "the way forward" in an accident.
Short version.
Learn how to fecking drive properly if you want to avoid accidents.
Half measures do seem to appease the expectant imbeciles!
Edited by Pistonwot on Wednesday 21st November 16:57
356Speedster said:
Look, I've made the offer for you to come and experience this first hand, if you don't want to that's your call, but please don't patronise me. When I say we drive together a lot, I mean thousands of miles a yr and over the yrs in a number of different cars, over give & take roads and into Europe.
You keep insisting on quoting 0-60 & 1/4 mile times which I've never, ever argued with, but what I'm trying to make you realise (and this is back to the point made by someone a few pages ago now!!) is that in the real world, the Mountuned RS does have the ability to mix it with the big boys, thanks to an ability to deploy a very large slab of mid-range torque.
If you're only interested in track figures and 0-200leptons in a straight line, you're never going to be interested in a Fast Ford and it's not the car for that job. If you do any kind of fast road driving (sorry, safe fast road at legal speeds, if that makes sense), where you need to accelerate from 30mph past slower traffic, negotiate corners, use the brakes and accelerator, then by dismissing these cars, is to ignore their inherent capabilities.
Honestly I'd love a ride if there's an offer. Very much appreciated in fact.You keep insisting on quoting 0-60 & 1/4 mile times which I've never, ever argued with, but what I'm trying to make you realise (and this is back to the point made by someone a few pages ago now!!) is that in the real world, the Mountuned RS does have the ability to mix it with the big boys, thanks to an ability to deploy a very large slab of mid-range torque.
If you're only interested in track figures and 0-200leptons in a straight line, you're never going to be interested in a Fast Ford and it's not the car for that job. If you do any kind of fast road driving (sorry, safe fast road at legal speeds, if that makes sense), where you need to accelerate from 30mph past slower traffic, negotiate corners, use the brakes and accelerator, then by dismissing these cars, is to ignore their inherent capabilities.
But surely what you are saying is still about being in the wrong gear or not. I do understand on the road it's hard to keep some cars in their PEAK power band and you'd end up revving the nuts off them all the while. But that doesn't deny the fact that using lower revs to make these things better reduces that cars performance.
For instance you claim that the RS has "an ability to deploy a very large slab of mid-range torque". If the Ferrari is also using it's mid range torque, then it is clearly in the wrong gear to extract it's full performance potential, while the RS on the other hand due to it's turbo fed motor and the fact it's not a revver is able to deploy a larger percentage of it's potential performance.
In part this is the same debate as the lazy large displacement vs high tuned low displacement engines. Both can make good power, but there is a sacrifice in the highly tuned one in where it makes it.
For instance in one of the myriad GT86 threads there was a magazine editor moaning the GT86 wasn't quick enough to overtake a diesel Vectra out of hairpin bends. It transpired that they where using 2nd gear at low rpms, rather than 1st gear. So it was no wonder they couldn't get past.
Just as an example:
Afraid I don't know the gear ratio's on the F360, but lets assume you could be at say 6000rpm in 1st or something like 3500rpm in 2nd for the same road speed, give or take.
According to this chart in 1st gear at this speed you'd have 290hp under your right foot. But if you were in 2nd gear you'd only have 150hp. That is a HUGE difference and will seriously affect how the car accelerates. And yes chances are if you where at mid to lowish rpms in the RS for the same road speed, then you would be making more HP and would be as quick or quicker initially - but all because the Ferrari is in the wrong gear.
Pistonwot said:
Go back to sleep!
That's extremely uncharitable. Looking at the comments of weight / safety, etc, I'm sure many of us would agree that it'd be great to see more nimble, chuckable sub-1000kgs car out there, but for that to land in the mainstream, I think we've all got a fair bit to wait.The mass car buying public (i.e. those wanting transport, not us wanting more fun cars) are the ones who are demanding the gadgets, gizmos and space, then the legislators are demanding safety through crash structures (not just airbags) and then the manufacturers have to try to build all of that into a nice package and somehow, make a profit.
More mainstream use of lightweight metals and composites is getting there, but pure cost both in the manufacturing process and then to the consumer for repair & insurance, will be a limiting factor.
Using the ST that's sparked this debate as an example shows that the car now has the size / space of a Sierra and is only 50kgs heavier (and more powerful) than a last of the line Sierra Cossie. By anyone's standards, you have to say that's fairly commendable for a car costing £21K, with all that kit and safety guff onboard.
Unfortunately, our voices mean nothing. The manufacturers listen to Joe Public who just needs a mode of transport, as that's where their profit margins are. We get a nod with cars like the ST, RS (Ford & Renault there), GTI, etc, but they'll never be quite the machines we'd really want them to be if we all had a blank sheet of paper and big pot of cash.
300bhp/ton said:
According to this chart in 1st gear at this speed you'd have 290hp under your right foot. But if you were in 2nd gear you'd only have 150hp. That is a HUGE difference and will seriously affect how the car accelerates. And yes chances are if you where at mid to lowish rpms in the RS for the same road speed, then you would be making more HP and would be as quick or quicker initially - but all because the Ferrari is in the wrong gear.
Apologies for cutting up your post.. just saving room on the screen 
Let me know next time you're in the Midlands 
Gearing is exactly the point I'm making. As cars accelerate from xxmph to yymph, they have to use their gears. As revs go up, power / torque changes, then once max rpm is reached and you change gear, again, you're into a different part of the power band. Therefore, unless you've got a CVT gearbox (manual in the RS, F1 in the 360CS), you are always dropping in and out of max power & torque bands.
As per your chart, the Fez's torque peeks mid-range and it's only over 7K rpm that the power picks up. In fact, at 7K rpm, your chart shows about 320bhp.... vs the RS, max torque of 360lb/ft from approx 2,500 rpm and holding to about 5,800 and then 360bhp in the low 6Ks (sorry I can't recall the exact rpm points and need to find the graph!), what you can see is that the RS can keep itself on the boil a lot easier than the Fez, which after a gear change has to build up to max grunt again. Remembering there's only 145kgs'ish between them shows how power & torque to weight matters.
One thing I've always maintained about any performance car is that on the road, differences are always smaller. I wish magazines / web sites would do more in-gear figuring and TED (time exposed to danger) tests, as that's what we all see / use every day.
0-whatever tests have limited value and represent only a tiny aspect of any cars performance. And I say that as an ex-Ariel Atom 3 owner and a current owner of a 500bhp 920kg Ultima
356Speedster said:
Pistonwot said:
Go back to sleep!
That's extremely uncharitable. Looking at the comments of weight / safety, etc, I'm sure many of us would agree that it'd be great to see more nimble, chuckable sub-1000kgs car out there, but for that to land in the mainstream, I think we've all got a fair bit to wait.The mass car buying public (i.e. those wanting transport, not us wanting more fun cars) are the ones who are demanding the gadgets, gizmos and space, then the legislators are demanding safety through crash structures (not just airbags) and then the manufacturers have to try to build all of that into a nice package and somehow, make a profit.
More mainstream use of lightweight metals and composites is getting there, but pure cost both in the manufacturing process and then to the consumer for repair & insurance, will be a limiting factor.
Using the ST that's sparked this debate as an example shows that the car now has the size / space of a Sierra and is only 50kgs heavier (and more powerful) than a last of the line Sierra Cossie. By anyone's standards, you have to say that's fairly commendable for a car costing £21K, with all that kit and safety guff onboard.
Unfortunately, our voices mean nothing. The manufacturers listen to Joe Public who just needs a mode of transport, as that's where their profit margins are. We get a nod with cars like the ST, RS (Ford & Renault there), GTI, etc, but they'll never be quite the machines we'd really want them to be if we all had a blank sheet of paper and big pot of cash.
In my defence I meant it light-heartedly but writing doesnt always come across how its intended.
Honestly though.
What is the point of calling this site PH and everyone pretending its aimed at enthusiasts? It is questionable how the ethos is constantly rearranged to allow marketing departments to regurgitate as much false information and empty accolades as they can whilst praising absolute banality whilst loudly applauding mediocrity as a great thing?
True PH'ers need to man up and be heard before its too late.
The comparison to the Sierra is one of apples to oranges.
This RS is supposed to be a hot hatch the Escort Mk3 is therefore comparible as it is a hot hatch as well.
The Sierra you mention is in fact a large family car akin to the Mondeo I suppose.
2 completely different things.
RS Turbo weighed 1080 kg.
Doesnt look so good comparatively and I do think that is a lot of money for such vehicle.
I realise youre right about the manufacturers, of course, but it doesnt mean I have to become as stupid as they treat us and obviously believe we are.
I used to really admire Ford when it made focussed (not a pun) sporting cars (MK2 RS2000,RS500, RS200 etc) they do not anymore.
Thats why Ford can sell their current lack-lustre produce to someone else and it is also why I dont like it.
I will buy Ford again when they sort their cars out.
Edited by Pistonwot on Wednesday 21st November 18:10
Edited by Pistonwot on Wednesday 21st November 18:18
Pistonwot said:
Yes, it was a bit childish I suppose.
In my defence I meant it light-heartedly but writing doesnt always come across how its intended.
Honestly though.
What is the point of calling this site PH and everyone pretending its aimed at enthusiasts? It is questionable how the ethos is constantly rearranged to allow marketing departments to regurgitate as much false information and empty accolades as they can whilst praising absolute banality whilst loudly applauding mediocrity as a great thing?
True PH'ers need to man up and be heard before its too late.
The comparison to the Sierra is one of apples to oranges.
This RS is supposed to be a hot hatch the Escort Mk3 is therefore comparible as it is a hot hatch as well.
The Sierra you mention is in fact a large family car akin to the Mondeo I suppose.
2 completely different things.
RS Turbo weighed 1080 kg.
Doesnt look so good comparatively and I do think that is a lot of money for such vehicle.
I realise youre right about the manufacturers, of course, but it doesnt mean I have to become as stupid as they treat us and obviously believe we are.
I used to really admire Ford when it made focussed (not a pun) sporting cars (MK2 RS2000,RS500, RS200 etc) they do not anymore.
Thats why Ford can sell their current lack-lustre produce to someone else and it is also why I dont like it.
I will buy Ford again when they sort their cars out.
No harm, no foul In my defence I meant it light-heartedly but writing doesnt always come across how its intended.
Honestly though.
What is the point of calling this site PH and everyone pretending its aimed at enthusiasts? It is questionable how the ethos is constantly rearranged to allow marketing departments to regurgitate as much false information and empty accolades as they can whilst praising absolute banality whilst loudly applauding mediocrity as a great thing?
True PH'ers need to man up and be heard before its too late.
The comparison to the Sierra is one of apples to oranges.
This RS is supposed to be a hot hatch the Escort Mk3 is therefore comparible as it is a hot hatch as well.
The Sierra you mention is in fact a large family car akin to the Mondeo I suppose.
2 completely different things.
RS Turbo weighed 1080 kg.
Doesnt look so good comparatively and I do think that is a lot of money for such vehicle.
I realise youre right about the manufacturers, of course, but it doesnt mean I have to become as stupid as they treat us and obviously believe we are.
I used to really admire Ford when it made focussed (not a pun) sporting cars (MK2 RS2000,RS500, RS200 etc) they do not anymore.
Thats why Ford can sell their current lack-lustre produce to someone else and it is also why I dont like it.
I will buy Ford again when they sort their cars out.
I completely agree with a lot of what you say and yes, PH can be an odd place at times! I will always fight for fun and lightness where appropriate, but we have to be realistic and realise that hotted up versions of normal cars will always be a compromise, due to the fact they're based on mainstream models. In the climate we live, that does mean the additional weight and size issues, etc.
Now, the cars that extol the true PH values are the more extreme machines. I am saddened by the way manual 'boxes are disappearing from our sports cars, just because autos can now be made to produce a faster gearchange. I like, cars with no electronic safety aids or airbags. I like silly power to weight ratios.... but I know we can't have everything.
I used Sierra vs Focus as the comparator because over time the market segments have moved and they are the same size. A Mk3 Escort is more akin to a Fiesta these days, LOL!
Back in the day my mom had an XR3i, friends had RS turbos and Cossies and along the way I also had a G60 Golf. I also got to play with R5 turbos, 205 GTIs and a few other hot hatches, as well as a late Integrale turbo. As much as I'd admit they were fun, that was a lot of yrs ago. I can honestly say that at no point did I expect to like the ST, but 6yrs later, I still have my ST-2 (albeit with 270bhp now) and the RS staggers me with is capabilities daily. It's a keeper. I'd urge you to give a modern fast Ford a try (properly, over a few days, not just on a 2min test drive with a salesman) and then see whether you like it or not. I was surprised 6yrs ago and I still am now!
s m said:
A good video and well done on the std engine spec ST for the result... now the Mountune car really ought to be very good indeed then!356Speedster said:
Apologies for cutting up your post.. just saving room on the screen Let me know next time you're in the Midlands
Gearing is exactly the point I'm making. As cars accelerate from xxmph to yymph, they have to use their gears. As revs go up, power / torque changes, then once max rpm is reached and you change gear, again, you're into a different part of the power band. Therefore, unless you've got a CVT gearbox (manual in the RS, F1 in the 360CS), you are always dropping in and out of max power & torque bands.
As per your chart, the Fez's torque peeks mid-range and it's only over 7K rpm that the power picks up. In fact, at 7K rpm, your chart shows about 320bhp.... vs the RS, max torque of 360lb/ft from approx 2,500 rpm and holding to about 5,800 and then 360bhp in the low 6Ks (sorry I can't recall the exact rpm points and need to find the graph!), what you can see is that the RS can keep itself on the boil a lot easier than the Fez, which after a gear change has to build up to max grunt again. Remembering there's only 145kgs'ish between them shows how power & torque to weight matters.
One thing I've always maintained about any performance car is that on the road, differences are always smaller. I wish magazines / web sites would do more in-gear figuring and TED (time exposed to danger) tests, as that's what we all see / use every day.
0-whatever tests have limited value and represent only a tiny aspect of any cars performance. And I say that as an ex-Ariel Atom 3 owner and a current owner of a 500bhp 920kg Ultima
I think it's Motor Trend or Car & Driver who sometimes do 5-60mph tests as well as 0-60mph test to demonstrate an engines flexibility. Let me know next time you're in the Midlands Gearing is exactly the point I'm making. As cars accelerate from xxmph to yymph, they have to use their gears. As revs go up, power / torque changes, then once max rpm is reached and you change gear, again, you're into a different part of the power band. Therefore, unless you've got a CVT gearbox (manual in the RS, F1 in the 360CS), you are always dropping in and out of max power & torque bands.
As per your chart, the Fez's torque peeks mid-range and it's only over 7K rpm that the power picks up. In fact, at 7K rpm, your chart shows about 320bhp.... vs the RS, max torque of 360lb/ft from approx 2,500 rpm and holding to about 5,800 and then 360bhp in the low 6Ks (sorry I can't recall the exact rpm points and need to find the graph!), what you can see is that the RS can keep itself on the boil a lot easier than the Fez, which after a gear change has to build up to max grunt again. Remembering there's only 145kgs'ish between them shows how power & torque to weight matters.
One thing I've always maintained about any performance car is that on the road, differences are always smaller. I wish magazines / web sites would do more in-gear figuring and TED (time exposed to danger) tests, as that's what we all see / use every day.
0-whatever tests have limited value and represent only a tiny aspect of any cars performance. And I say that as an ex-Ariel Atom 3 owner and a current owner of a 500bhp 920kg Ultima
300bhp/ton said:
I think it's Motor Trend or Car & Driver who sometimes do 5-60mph tests as well as 0-60mph test to demonstrate an engines flexibility.
Most of these tests - with the exception of the acceleration in the wrong gear tests - come out in order of power to weight ratio. If you measure it from 5, you eliminate the effect of differences in traction, if you extend it to 100 you start to see more aerodynamic effects, etc, but mostly it's just power and weight.What I would really like to see magazines print are cascade charts for torque at the wheels @ speed in each gear, adjusted for vehicle mass. Torque-to-weight is totally meaningless when you use the flywheel figure without reference to gearing, but becomes useful if it's at the wheels at a given roadspeed.
otolith said:
Most of these tests - with the exception of the acceleration in the wrong gear tests - come out in order of power to weight ratio. If you measure it from 5, you eliminate the effect of differences in traction, if you extend it to 100 you start to see more aerodynamic effects, etc, but mostly it's just power and weight.
What I would really like to see magazines print are cascade charts for torque at the wheels @ speed in each gear, adjusted for vehicle mass. Torque-to-weight is totally meaningless when you use the flywheel figure without reference to gearing, but becomes useful if it's at the wheels at a given roadspeed.
Aye... it's a shame that we don't see more of this kind of in-depth testing. I remember in the days-of-yore we used to get such figures and I always felt it was a better representation of how cars would perform on the road. Unfortunately, these are the type of "Stato" figures that most car buyers find boring and they fall back to the easy to interpret track based 0-60 & top speed figures which have almost no meaning in the real world. Hey-ho.What I would really like to see magazines print are cascade charts for torque at the wheels @ speed in each gear, adjusted for vehicle mass. Torque-to-weight is totally meaningless when you use the flywheel figure without reference to gearing, but becomes useful if it's at the wheels at a given roadspeed.
otolith said:
300bhp/ton said:
I think it's Motor Trend or Car & Driver who sometimes do 5-60mph tests as well as 0-60mph test to demonstrate an engines flexibility.
Most of these tests - with the exception of the acceleration in the wrong gear tests - come out in order of power to weight ratio. If you measure it from 5, you eliminate the effect of differences in traction, if you extend it to 100 you start to see more aerodynamic effects, etc, but mostly it's just power and weight.What I would really like to see magazines print are cascade charts for torque at the wheels @ speed in each gear, adjusted for vehicle mass. Torque-to-weight is totally meaningless when you use the flywheel figure without reference to gearing, but becomes useful if it's at the wheels at a given roadspeed.
The RX-8 they actually managed a 0-60mph sprint of 5.9 sec, but they said to achieve this was very brutal and required all the revs. The 5-60mph time was massively slower as you ended up using all those low torque/hp revs the wankel has.
The Mustang Cobra on the other hand with it's DOHC supercharged V8 had a much smaller variance in it's 0-60 and 5-60 times.
I think what is was trying to show here was not a straight comparison between cars in terms of 5-60mph, but comparing a single cars 0-60 to its own 5-60 time. A car with a smaller variance in it's times is likely to have a more deployable powerband.
otolith said:
The little variations do make a difference, and in a group test of three fairly evenly matched cars a tenth here or there can completely change the order of the results, but in the bigger picture it's still mostly power and weight.
I agree, but that's not my point.What the test shows is, under certain conditions one car is very quick, while under others it isn't. Compared to another car which is quick under most conditions.
Power to weight obviously plays a part in the actual numbers, but it doesn't affect the difference between the two sets of numbers or the delta.
For example, I suspect a Ferrari F458 and a Corvette Z06 are pretty close 0-60mph, but due to the lower revving and much higher torque output of the Vette (and especially at lower rpms), I would expect the Vette to perform significantly better 5-60mph than the Ferrari would.
300bhp/ton said:
otolith said:
The little variations do make a difference, and in a group test of three fairly evenly matched cars a tenth here or there can completely change the order of the results, but in the bigger picture it's still mostly power and weight.
I agree, but that's not my point.What the test shows is, under certain conditions one car is very quick, while under others it isn't. Compared to another car which is quick under most conditions.
Power to weight obviously plays a part in the actual numbers, but it doesn't affect the difference between the two sets of numbers or the delta.
For example, I suspect a Ferrari F458 and a Corvette Z06 are pretty close 0-60mph, but due to the lower revving and much higher torque output of the Vette (and especially at lower rpms), I would expect the Vette to perform significantly better 5-60mph than the Ferrari would.
, it's good to see folks discussing the difference between the usual basic headline stats and those which actually impact the way a car will perform on the road.0-60, 1/4 mile, top speed stats have limited value outside the race track or a pub discussion. I've met a few folks who have been quite peeved that their wonderful 0-60 in 4sec sports car is being hassled by much cheaper metal once they're up & rolling on A/B roads, or down dual carriageways. As I say, bring back the TED & in-gear tests!!
I don't know about 458 / C06 stats, but what you say does make sense to me.
I know what you mean, though I would point more to things like 911s, Elises, Imprezas and Evos as the losers from a 5mph start, in that they lose their big traction advantages. Depending how you actually measure it, you might also penalise cars which rely on clutch or wheel slip to stay in the powerband and cars which have lag going from closed to WOT.
These things might make a difference of tenths of a second, which could drop a car from first place to third place for that metric in a group test - but in practice, a few tenths don't really mean anything. Even fairly big disparities in performance don't, once you get much above warm hatch levels of performance. Five seconds a lap is an eternity on a mile and a half racetrack - it's the difference between a GT86 and an M135i - but it's nothing on the road, and with peak speeds limited by fear of plod and cornering speeds limited by visibility you would never gain that much anyway.
These things might make a difference of tenths of a second, which could drop a car from first place to third place for that metric in a group test - but in practice, a few tenths don't really mean anything. Even fairly big disparities in performance don't, once you get much above warm hatch levels of performance. Five seconds a lap is an eternity on a mile and a half racetrack - it's the difference between a GT86 and an M135i - but it's nothing on the road, and with peak speeds limited by fear of plod and cornering speeds limited by visibility you would never gain that much anyway.
otolith said:
I know what you mean, though I would point more to things like 911s, Elises, Imprezas and Evos as the losers from a 5mph start, in that they lose their big traction advantages. Depending how you actually measure it, you might also penalise cars which rely on clutch or wheel slip to stay in the powerband and cars which have lag going from closed to WOT.
These things might make a difference of tenths of a second, which could drop a car from first place to third place for that metric in a group test - but in practice, a few tenths don't really mean anything. Even fairly big disparities in performance don't, once you get much above warm hatch levels of performance. Five seconds a lap is an eternity on a mile and a half racetrack - it's the difference between a GT86 and an M135i - but it's nothing on the road, and with peak speeds limited by fear of plod and cornering speeds limited by visibility you would never gain that much anyway.
Some good points there. Although I think that's quite the crux of it. Cars like an Elise or an Impreza largely rely on their off the line traction for some of their stats. Once rolling they are nowhere near as fast.These things might make a difference of tenths of a second, which could drop a car from first place to third place for that metric in a group test - but in practice, a few tenths don't really mean anything. Even fairly big disparities in performance don't, once you get much above warm hatch levels of performance. Five seconds a lap is an eternity on a mile and a half racetrack - it's the difference between a GT86 and an M135i - but it's nothing on the road, and with peak speeds limited by fear of plod and cornering speeds limited by visibility you would never gain that much anyway.
I once had a blast against an Elise 135 while in my z28. On paper the Elise should have been pretty close to my 0-60 and 0-100 times, so "should" have been able to hang with me. The reality was it wasn't even close. 20-80mph or 20-100mph just wasn't a comparison. All of their traction advantage negated and I could pull 3-4 bus lengths on them with relative ease. Was quite an eye opener.
Similar effect with Impreza Turbo 2000 vs Civic Type-R - take away the off-the-line traction advantage and the Honda is quicker.
With Elises, as well as the traction issue there is also the effect of a low power, low weight car with aerodynamics aimed more at avoiding lift that reducing drag. The early Elises are barely any slower to 60 than the later, heavier, more powerful cars, but much slower to 100. Still, as speeds get higher, on the public road the performance at those speeds becomes less and less relevant.
With Elises, as well as the traction issue there is also the effect of a low power, low weight car with aerodynamics aimed more at avoiding lift that reducing drag. The early Elises are barely any slower to 60 than the later, heavier, more powerful cars, but much slower to 100. Still, as speeds get higher, on the public road the performance at those speeds becomes less and less relevant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff