RE: New 380hp Radical coupe revealed
Discussion
pthelazyjourno said:
There are a number of LMP1 cars in my post on the previous page. Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but proportionally these things are a damn sight better.
And the fact most racing cars these days are ugly is certainly nothing to do with chasing outright speed and the most efficient aero; it's because governing bodies keep playing with regulations. See the f
k-off big boards on the back of Le Mans prototypes that were a knee-jerk reaction to cars getting airborne. They make the cars a lot uglier, but serve no purpose in terms of speed or handling. Or the broken noses on current F1 cars, again introduced by regulations and engineers attempting to find the most effective way round the rules.
Blimey, you REALLY don't get it do you?And the fact most racing cars these days are ugly is certainly nothing to do with chasing outright speed and the most efficient aero; it's because governing bodies keep playing with regulations. See the f
k-off big boards on the back of Le Mans prototypes that were a knee-jerk reaction to cars getting airborne. They make the cars a lot uglier, but serve no purpose in terms of speed or handling. Or the broken noses on current F1 cars, again introduced by regulations and engineers attempting to find the most effective way round the rules. 1, the image you're criticising is a CAD model. There's probably no perspective on it, so it's distorted in ways you never see in real life. So any judjement you make on proportion is null & void.
2, Aesthetics. Can you honestly see Lewis Hamilton saying "yeah I came second, but that's OK, my car was prettier" Unlikely.
3/ Roofline. Extra hieght = greater frontal area = more drag. Do you REALLY think that roof is any higher than it absolutely NEEDS to be?
4/ Aerodynamics makes things look better in an absolute sense, so a Spitfire looks better than a Gloster Gladiator. BUT as soon as you use aerodynamics to hold something to the ground, aerodynmics in it's pure sense is corrupted, as are the shapes it generates. Having the fastest car in the gravel trap is of little value.
5/ Your examples. The Lotus is hideous, the other LMP cars are within 5% as ugly as the Radical & for the same reason. The other three arn't race cars, they are road cars adapted for racing & so get thier shape from the aesthetic driven premium sportscar market that spawned them. They would be faster if they looked like the Radical.
Pay attention. All engineering is a compromise. On the race track particularly. make the car 1in. wider, you gain a little stability (in theory) but you also gain 20 - 30Sq in frontal area & more surface drag. So that change works for bendy tracks, but is worse for straighter ones. If you want to win races (& Radical do) there is NO aspect of the car that can be compromised for aesthetics - or you lose - simple.
Having the prettyest car that never won a race is not a recipe for sales success in the market Radical are in.
Hope this helps.
I shared the track with one of these yesterday and in the hands of a chap on one of his first track days it was circa 20% quicker than anything there including a 458, 430, 997 C4S, and a full on time attack car. It had been driven 250 miles there that day too.
My full on track car has the same bhp/tonne as the RXC, same quality of brakes, slightly stickier tyres but was in a different league to the radical entirely.
I've had the pleasure of a fast passenger rides in the old Palmer LMP2 style car at Bedford and big downforce is king, brutal, other worldly. I guess it's like sex you just have to experience it to get what it's really all about 😀
In the flesh the radical was significantly wider and lower than the CAD rendering, very malevolent, in its own way the best looking car that day. Certainly the most eye catching.
You'll notice the fuel cell is inboard of the space frame/cage, which in itself looks way stronger than that of an Ultima whose tanks are not. (Love the GTR and still contemplating one) but some of the crashes radical drivers have survived are huge. I guess that if the engineers have envisioned less of a traditional door aperture, 6 point harness and HANS devices from the start of the design process they can put more strength into the driver cell than on a car like the Ultima. I believe that despite 1000 plus radicals out there, most of them being raced or absolutely canned ther have been no fatalities or big life changing injuries.
Cracking car, makes me proud to be British. If any of the new owners are on here, I,d love to hear what they think of their new steeds.
My full on track car has the same bhp/tonne as the RXC, same quality of brakes, slightly stickier tyres but was in a different league to the radical entirely.
I've had the pleasure of a fast passenger rides in the old Palmer LMP2 style car at Bedford and big downforce is king, brutal, other worldly. I guess it's like sex you just have to experience it to get what it's really all about 😀
In the flesh the radical was significantly wider and lower than the CAD rendering, very malevolent, in its own way the best looking car that day. Certainly the most eye catching.
You'll notice the fuel cell is inboard of the space frame/cage, which in itself looks way stronger than that of an Ultima whose tanks are not. (Love the GTR and still contemplating one) but some of the crashes radical drivers have survived are huge. I guess that if the engineers have envisioned less of a traditional door aperture, 6 point harness and HANS devices from the start of the design process they can put more strength into the driver cell than on a car like the Ultima. I believe that despite 1000 plus radicals out there, most of them being raced or absolutely canned ther have been no fatalities or big life changing injuries.
Cracking car, makes me proud to be British. If any of the new owners are on here, I,d love to hear what they think of their new steeds.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff