RE: 2015 Honda Civic Type R: the engineers talk

[HighwayStar]

kambites said:

HighwayStar said:

What wrong with some people, do you just pick up on/ remember the bits you don't like? Here, in the same article!!!

"All this talk about the 'ring is beginning to make the B-road in our soul a little nervous, though. But Hasshi and Yamamoto are quick to acknowledge the UK is the biggest market for Type R in Europe; it will be built here, at Swindon, and as a consequence it will also be tested here. This is a relief."

So, why would it not result in a good UK road car????

Because by the sounds of it they're sticking with what it known to be a rubbish rear suspension configuration?

That would be the same rubbish rear suspension, torsion bar, that Renault have no trouble exploiting and their car produce the goods time and time again...???
Multi link rear is ultimately more sophisticated but ads £££££s then everyone screams nice but should be £14k... Yes I exaggerated but that is the way on here.

[otolith]

I would imagine a WRC car would ride a hell of a lot more comfortably down a bumpy B-road than a BTCC one - and would do a better job of keeping its wheels in contact with the ground.

My RX-8 was quicker down some local roads than my EP3, because it didn't make you wince over some of the crappy surfaces, and you could use more of the width of the road where in the Civic you avoided the crumbling edges of the tarmac. The Elise both rides and handles better than the 350Z.

Renault seem good at making torsion beam setups work - from the evidence of the last gen Civic (not the one I had), Honda don't.

[kambites]

HighwayStar said:

That would be the same rubbish rear suspension, torsion bar, that Renault have no trouble exploiting and their car produce the goods time and time again...???
Multi link rear is ultimately more sophisticated but ads £££££s then everyone screams nice but should be £14k... Yes I exaggerated but that is the way on here.

Again you've missed the point (which is probably my fault). I'm not particularly saying that the system they're talking about is unusable, as doogz points out it's been used extremely effectively in the past, but that the interviewee said they were keeping it rather than switching to a multi-link setup "because it doesn't matter on the ring". If he'd said "we think it's just as good on the road", I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[ant leigh]

thiscocks said:

^ totally agree. It's actually getting pretty pathetic and childish all the manufacturers going for laptimes around one track and trying to beat one another.

The reason for the interest in one particular track is the nature of the track.
Its so long with so many corners that its far more difficult to set up the car specifically for any type of corner. Therefore manufacturers need a car with a wider range of performance ability to get fast times (including brakes). This should in theory result in a set up better suited to varied fast, safe road driving.

[HighwayStar]

kambites said:

You completely miss my point - even if the 'ring was identical to a typical UK road, I don't want my road car to be fast, I want it to be fun! The two things are at best largely unrelated, at worse mutually contradictory past a certain point (although I doubt they'll go that far).

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 11th December 11:15

Exactly this! Perfect. I won't even add to it...

[kambites]

ant leigh said:

thiscocks said:

^ totally agree. It's actually getting pretty pathetic and childish all the manufacturers going for laptimes around one track and trying to beat one another.

The reason for the interest in one particular track is the nature of the track.
Its so long with so many corners that its far more difficult to set up the car specifically for any type of corner. Therefore manufacturers need a car with a wider range of performance ability to get fast times (including brakes). This should in theory result in a set up better suited to varied fast, safe road driving.

I think using the 'ring to set up a road car's suspension is probably valid enough; however the aim shouldn't be to produce the fastest lap time possible but rather to produce the car that "feels best" (subjective, obviously, but many elements of what makes a good car are) around the ring.

[k-ink]

Manufacturers could easily offer two spring/damper options to the customer: track spec, or a slightly softer fast road spec.

[Guvernator]

kambites said:

ant leigh said:

thiscocks said:

^ totally agree. It's actually getting pretty pathetic and childish all the manufacturers going for laptimes around one track and trying to beat one another.

The reason for the interest in one particular track is the nature of the track.
Its so long with so many corners that its far more difficult to set up the car specifically for any type of corner. Therefore manufacturers need a car with a wider range of performance ability to get fast times (including brakes). This should in theory result in a set up better suited to varied fast, safe road driving.

I think using the 'ring to set up a road car's suspension is probably valid enough; however the aim shouldn't be to produce the fastest lap time possible but rather to produce the car that "feels best" (subjective, obviously, but many elements of what makes a good car are) around the ring.

The problem is that "this car feels the best round the Ring" isn't very marketable whereas "This car has just done 8 min 5 seconds round the ring" is infinitely more so which is why cars developed at the ring suffer as most manufacturers either don't know how, can't be bothered or it costs too much to produce a car which both handles well at speed and is compliant or fun at normal road speeds.

[HighwayStar]

k-ink said:

Manufacturers could easily offer two spring/damper options to the customer: track spec, or a slightly softer fast road spec.

As Renault do with their standard and Cup Chassis options.
I think this whole thing with Honda and the 'Ring is more they've been away for a while and want to make a big splash. Show they mean business. Trust me.... The marketing of the new Type R has already begun!

Those saying the Megane is too hardcore and why it's out sold by the Golf and Focus... I think it's more about the 'it's French, must be rubbish' brigade. If Ford or VW built it I'm sure it would be on more drive ways.

[kambites]

Guvernator said:

The problem is that "this car feels the best round the Ring" isn't very marketable whereas "This car has just done 8 min 5 seconds round the ring" is infinitely more so which is why cars developed at the ring suffer as most manufacturers either don't know how, can't be bothered or it costs too much to produce a car which both handles well at speed and is compliant or fun at normal road speeds.

Yup, I fully understand why they do it. I'd just rather they didn't.

[collateral]

Remember when the Focus RS was coming with 300hp and everyone was saying the sky would fall? Now no-one bats an eye.

I can't help thinking we need the hot hatch equivalent of a GT 86 instead - less power, less grip and fun to chuck about

[PowerfullyBuilt]

kambites said:

PowerfullyBuilt said:

A Type-R without VTECH is like sex without orgasm.

Well since no Type-R has ever had something called "VTECH", that's a bit of a shame.

To be fair, I am more interested in the kiddies' laptops than most current Honda offerings.

[thiscocks]

Guvernator said:

kambites said:

ant leigh said:

thiscocks said:

^ totally agree. It's actually getting pretty pathetic and childish all the manufacturers going for laptimes around one track and trying to beat one another.

The reason for the interest in one particular track is the nature of the track.
Its so long with so many corners that its far more difficult to set up the car specifically for any type of corner. Therefore manufacturers need a car with a wider range of performance ability to get fast times (including brakes). This should in theory result in a set up better suited to varied fast, safe road driving.

I think using the 'ring to set up a road car's suspension is probably valid enough; however the aim shouldn't be to produce the fastest lap time possible but rather to produce the car that "feels best" (subjective, obviously, but many elements of what makes a good car are) around the ring.

The problem is that "this car feels the best round the Ring" isn't very marketable whereas "This car has just done 8 min 5 seconds round the ring" is infinitely more so which is why cars developed at the ring suffer as most manufacturers either don't know how, can't be bothered or it costs too much to produce a car which both handles well at speed and is compliant or fun at normal road speeds.

Exactly. It's not too hard to get a car to work around a particular track to set a good time, but alot harder to get one to ride well, be fun on the road AND to be capable on a track. From what I've read cars such as the Cayman R and Elise are impressive for managing both. I imagine neither spent much time being set up at the nurburgring.

[havoc]

rossub said:

Mastodon2 said:

It saddens me to hear that they are so interested in dumping as much torque as they can in there, I'm sure diesel-esque power delivery is something every Honda fan has been wishing for. I'm struggling to see why this car deserves a Type R badge, it might be a quick Honda, it will without doubt be their quickest FWD car ever, but without a proper VTEC engine I think it will struggle to win the hearts and minds of those familiar with the engines that put Honda at the top of the field for hot hatch fun in the past.

I know it's not Honda's fault they had to pull the NA VTEC engines, and the Type R badge is really being trotted out here as a marketing excercise, but imo I'd rather take 200bhp, proper VTEC surge towards the redline, the pin-sharp throttle response and the truly incredible noises of the older engines, than have 300bhp and a shedload of torque from a quiet, flat, low revving turbo. Honda certainly have their work cut out to make a turbo engine that does not fall into the pitfalls of many turbo engines on the hot hatch scene.

How do you know it will be low-revving? If Subaru were able to make the flat 4 turbo rev to 8k from the mid nineties onwards, perhaps Honda will do the same now?

2 reasons:-

1) Emissions - current emissions regs favour engines which produce peak torque low in the rev range...think of the latest VAG turbo-petrols which are fading-off after ~5,500rpm*, or even stuff like the recent Focus turbo engines.

2) The Honda engineer's statement about "torque being more important than power"...which suggests much the same thing. It's also a very keen insight into how "chasing numbers" can really destroy the emotional involvement in a car - think about it, no matter how GOOD a big-power diesel engine is, does it stir the same feelings in the driver as a n/asp petrol kicking out the same approx. performance???



I think Guvernator hits the nail square-on in his post above - ALL modern performance cars are being strangulated by regulations and by the incessant march of Marketing 'chasing statistics'. Oh, and let's not forget the bean counters - they get the blame for everything else!


I'd like to see Honda stop chasing volume with this car and instead choose to make it a true halo-model (or better still, offer both - the full-fat (extra-skinny?) Type R and this dumbed-down "GT" model), with a n/asp 2.4l engine instead of the 1.6T, proper weight-saving (not the half-arsed attempts of the EP and FN series), hydraulic PAS, torsen-type LSD and (unlikely but I can wish) proper IRS, then the true enthusiasts will buy the proper car and the fanboys/wannabe's can buy the PlayStation-generation GT model.

[kambites]

collateral said:

I can't help thinking we need the hot hatch equivalent of a GT 86 instead - less power, less grip and fun to chuck about

I think you can still get this to an extent from the next size of car down.

[LuS1fer]

If the car was light, they wouldn't need all that power (Colin Chapman)

[TWPC]

"Where the Nurburging's concerned, they tell us, it's actually torque that's key."

Nooo.

We have a huge variety of torque monsters already. Give us the opportunity to buy something that revs like a bike: more choice please.

[otolith]

TWPC said:

"Where the Nurburging's concerned, they tell us, it's actually torque that's key."

Nooo.

We have a huge variety of torque monsters already. Give us the opportunity to buy something that revs like a bike: more choice please.

They've got to follow the lead of that low revving torque monster in the Radical SR8 that holds the lap record.

[Guvernator]

Yes, a lot of the comments in the article really don't fill me with a lot of confidence tbh, in fact the more I read it, the more worried I get. Honda, please do not give us another watered down, diesel-alike, me-too hatch back, you are capable of so much more than yet another VAG clone!

[Prof Prolapse]

TWPC said:

We have a huge variety of torque monsters already. Give us the opportunity to buy something that revs like a bike: more choice please.

I'm pretty sure Honda make several vehicles which rev like bikes.