RE: Fast should mean scary: Tell Me I'm Wrong

[iloveboost]

Kolbenkopp said:

+1!

This exists and is good value IMO [1]:



But a 108 Rallye (perhaps they could even sneak some lift off oversteer past the ESP?) along the lines you were thinking would be just the ticket at the value end of the market. Or a warm version of the Mazda 2 (that's nicely light weight from start). Not sure people are ready for this, though. One gets laughed at here when suggesting a Swift Sport in a "hot hatch" thread. And the 133 PS Twingo did not do that well either commercially...

Thinking a bit more about the original question, I believe cars have reached such a level of perfection that it is time to dismiss stats as a way of defining what is "good" or "bad", "sporty" or "bland". Just look at the numbers of the new Macan. Why buy a base spec Cayman or anything else fastish, for that matter? Nokia makes a phone with 41 MP, why spend thousands on a Nikon Df? Clock yourself on the next longer drive in something quick. How many minutes did you gain in comparison to say an entry level Fiesta?

[1] http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...

That new Caterham is a good idea but the Caterham isn't an everyday car and they never seem to depreciate to a price that I could afford! I also agree with you that a supercar is pointless on the road versus a sportscar in terms of time. Blimey years ago there was a guy running a 120hp rented Ford MONDEO keping up with supercars on the cannonball run! He drove like a complete idiot but he still kept up. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxwMyiDJRy0
Also the main advantage of DSLR cameras over camera phones isn't megapixels, it's the bigger light sensors have less noise. This is not needed for anybody just taking little photos for twitter only professional photographers. I agree that with you that it's not worth buying something you can't use to it's full potential, however the idea of a 108 rallye both scares and amuses me!

[dkfinkbone]

I had very simliar feelings when i was running a 997 GT3. Having previously owned a Fiat Coupe Turbo, MX5 and Lotus Exige, all of which amused me greatly in their own special ways, i found myself 200 miles into my Porsche ownership experience wondering why i had just forked out £70k on a car which felt astonishingly fast and precise and yet rather uninvolving in the dry, a little too involving in the wet, and bigger than I like with so much tail wagging on tap on every single bend you pitch into.

Then i took it around the GT circuit at Bedford where it was mind blowingly fantastic and made perfect sense and i think therein lies the "point" of owning a GT3 - its built for the track and should only be judged on its abilities on the track. A bog standard 911 will is every bit as " thrilling" to drive fast on the road more of the time. A GT3's limits on the road are very narrow so you have to choose your moments to really push on.

All that said, if you havent owned one and you have the means to do so i recommend that you get one immediately....and then go immediately to an airfield and learn its ways before it TEACHES you!

[iloveboost]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From what I've read that engine has a deliberately heavy and unbalanced flywheel/pulley to balance out the vibrations of the three cylinder instead of using a balancer shaft. It also has widely spaced and long gear ratios. This must make it slow to respond and slow to rev then both in theory and practice. I'm thinking more like a modern Daihatsu Charade Gtti engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zOg6b5DgY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icqfo72A8Ms
The three cylinder turbo in that sounds good.
I guess it would be too expensive to develop a new RWD chassis. A swift sport is 14K the Fiesta ST is 17K ish and this would cost that and be the same performance as the Swift on paper. I guess no one would buy it. At least you can still get a little hot hatch if you want one.

[s m]

Alex said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Really interesting. Thanks for posting!

Subaru famously fitted the BRZ with Michelin Primacy tyres, but mine still feels very grippy. Only just starting to play around with it at the limit.

Not surprising, it can pull 0.99 g lateral grip on those 215s so it is pretty grippy

[Crippo]

I firmly believe the road makes the most difference. A great road especially early in the morning with no traffic allows you to carry speed and drive fluidly which hives the best thrill. The slower the car the more you can Max it out, which the best bit.

[Kolbenkopp]

iloveboost said:

I agree that with you that it's not worth buying something you can't use to it's full potential, however the idea of a 108 rallye both scares and amuses me!

Thanks for the link to the crazy guys in the Mondeo, can't say I agree with some of the driving, but gets the point across that you can be fast (as in stopwatch) in most anything modernish. My ramblings about digicams, etc -- find this difficult to put in words, but I certainly agree the pixel count does not matter (after a certain point). 6MP is probably more than enough for 95% of users (even Pros).

Basically I'm tired with the number obsession, and I get the feeling that by having to deliver better stats every model cycle, products don't get better but just make "more" of something, mostly of some pretty arbitrary number. But marketing and lazy people want a simple to understand benchmark, so that's what we get.

[rogerhudson]

I've read some motoring bks in my time but that was prize manure.
Firstly: distinguish between FAST and QUICK
Then consider: too fast for this car on this road/surface in these conditions.
I noticed a Bugatti Veyron was only 5 seconds faster up the Prescott hill climb than a pre-war Bugatti type 55. Big fat slob Veyron.
Go to a VSCC race meeting or classic Goodwood to see 'fast' driving.
Then try to get from St.Peters church Brighton to London Bridge in 45 minutes to see what quick and 'scary fast' together feel like.

[iloveboost]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's confusing. That poster that I was responding to was talking about the FORD demo Caterham with the ECOBOOST three cylinder. The production Caterham has a three cylinder remapped SUZUKI Cappuccino engine. The Suzuki rev limit is 8500rpm and it's a tiny 660cc engine so it should respond well. Obviously the lighter the car the more turbo lag all else being equal.
A modern 1L-ish version with higher compression/direct injection I think the throttle response would be fanatastic. BMW are soon bringing out a 1.5 turbo three cylinder engine and all the previews of that engine are positive. The most powerful version makes about 180hp and it will be used in the Mini as well as BMWs. I've only driven lightly boosted turbo petrol engines like the 1.8T/2.0TFSI VAG and 1.8T/2.0T SAAB engines. They were all fine to me just a slight delay. Especially the 2.0T engines no complaints from me other than no nice noise.

[V8RX7]

rogerhudson said:

I noticed a Bugatti Veyron was only 5 seconds faster up the Prescott hill climb

ONLY 5 SECONDS

When the difference between first and third can be measured in hundredths of a second, 5 seconds is a VERY LONG time.

[flatso]

Leins said:

Nope, they "shrink" around you, so you really don't notice the size or weight. And the older M5s are nearly worth it just for the engine in them alone, possibly one of the best I've ever experienced

Saying that, if it was just one car then it'd be an E30 M3 for me I think. It's true that you'll be doing well to out-run and out-brake the latest breed of TDis, but you'll out-smile them all

Its meant to be a fun car with some sort of practicality and possibly some cruising capabilities. I think the e34 etate is the best looking BMW estate ever. As an M5 or possibly a 540i it could be a real good alternative.

[iloveboost]

Kolbenkopp said:

Thanks for the link to the crazy guys in the Mondeo, can't say I agree with some of the driving, but gets the point across that you can be fast (as in stopwatch) in most anything modernish. My ramblings about digicams, etc -- find this difficult to put in words, but I certainly agree the pixel count does not matter (after a certain point). 6MP is probably more than enough for 95% of users (even Pros).

Basically I'm tired with the number obsession, and I get the feeling that by having to deliver better stats every model cycle, products don't get better but just make "more" of something, mostly of some pretty arbitrary number. But marketing and lazy people want a simple to understand benchmark, so that's what we get.

I agree.
One of the ways new products are sold is new features and better numbers. This is a sign of progress and is generally a good thing. The problem comes when we look at that theory and assume that translates into more enjoyment and better real world performance. That's where many reviewers and enthusiasts realise we sometimes make a mistake. The feeling something gives you when you look at it, feel it and hear it are important qualities that are subjective. They are hard to market and measure. I may sound like a Buddhist monk but in a good car on an empty road there is a point at which you feel like you are one with the car. Outside you there is noise and chaos but inside you everything flows peacefully and smoothly. That feeling doesn't come from 10% more of a number, or being scared out of your mind.

[iloveboost]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Fair enough. I like all the modern turbo petrol engines I've driven they are frugal and torquey with throttle response that's good enough for me. Naturally aspirated have a slightly better sound/throttle response like for like but they are thirstier and need revving right out to make good progress. Everyone's different!

[Leins]

flatso said:

Leins said:

Nope, they "shrink" around you, so you really don't notice the size or weight. And the older M5s are nearly worth it just for the engine in them alone, possibly one of the best I've ever experienced

Saying that, if it was just one car then it'd be an E30 M3 for me I think. It's true that you'll be doing well to out-run and out-brake the latest breed of TDis, but you'll out-smile them all

Its meant to be a fun car with some sort of practicality and possibly some cruising capabilities. I think the e34 etate is the best looking BMW estate ever. As an M5 or possibly a 540i it could be a real good alternative.

Don't discount an Alpina E34 either then. They're getting a bit pricey, but a B10 BiTurbo is a weapon of a car, and then the run-out ones came with either a 4.0L or 4.6L V8, and in estate form too. Having had a spin in a E34 4.6 Touring a while back it seemed as quick, if not marginally quicker, than my 3.8

They're all way more fun that you'd possibly expect from an exec barge

[havoc]

iloveboost said:

Fair enough. I like all the modern turbo petrol engines I've driven they are frugal and torquey with throttle response that's good enough for me. Naturally aspirated have a slightly better sound/throttle response like for like but they are thirstier and need revving right out to make good progress. Everyone's different!

Hmmm...Becs runs a MkV Golf GTi - 197bhp 2.0 turbo-petrol. I run an FD2 Civic Type-R - 222bhp 2.0 n/a petrol.

Guess which of us gets better daily mpg and better long-run mpg?!? Yep...the n/a engine with the more power!!!

[MC Bodge]

iloveboost said:

I agree.
One of the ways new products are sold is new features and better numbers. This is a sign of progress and is generally a good thing. The problem comes when we look at that theory and assume that translates into more enjoyment and better real world performance.

What people also tend to forget is that there's a difference between buying something and using something.

-Buying something with a lot of potential doesn't always translate into getting the most (or even anywhere near the most) from it.

In the case of cars on the road: he who cares least for the law and for the safety of himself and others will be quickest.

For many the pleasure may be in owning something that others can't, though. ie. Symbol of status.

Edited by MC Bodge on Monday 18th November 08:23

[MC Bodge]

V8RX7 said:

rogerhudson said:

I noticed a Bugatti Veyron was only 5 seconds faster up the Prescott hill climb

ONLY 5 SECONDS

When the difference between first and third can be measured in hundredths of a second, 5 seconds is a VERY LONG time.

Scary and fun? -I would really like to have a drive in something like that.

[zeppelin101]

TWPC said:

This is slightly off topic but why do car companies fit cars with electric power steering?

The excuse given is emissions & economy. We all know that the benefits are infinitesimal & would only benefit an owner who drove the car about 300,000 miles.

Is the real reason that it is more profitable for them?

Just asking.

Powering the hydraulic pump off the engine saps power and engine economy. It's of the order of a few % measured at the engine (not in a vehicle). Given that every car company in the world is chasing fuel economy and emissions and anything that inhibits these appears to be the fault of the Powertrain (experience talking) then manufacturers have to do everything in their ability to make sure that the engine uses the least amount of fuel possible. EPAS just draws some alternator current when required.

It's probably also easier to package. Which from a diesel point of view is probably a good thing since they now have the equivalent of a chemistry lab cleaning up the emissions.

Of course, a lot of these issues could be alleviated through less barn-door styling on bigger cars lower kerb weights and less stupid tyre footprints (rolling resistance) but there we go...

Edited by zeppelin101 on Monday 18th November 09:08

[flatso]

MC Bodge said:

What people also tend to forget is that there's a difference between buying something and using something.

-Buying something with a lot of potential doesn't always translate into getting the most (or even anywhere near the most) from it.

In the case of cars on the road: he who cares least for the law and for the safety of himself and others will be quickest.

For many the pleasure may be in owning something that others can't, though. ie. Symbol of status.

Edited by MC Bodge on Monday 18th November 08:23

To the point, perfectly expressed. Full stop!

[toppstuff]

MC Bodge said:

V8RX7 said:

rogerhudson said:

I noticed a Bugatti Veyron was only 5 seconds faster up the Prescott hill climb

ONLY 5 SECONDS

When the difference between first and third can be measured in hundredths of a second, 5 seconds is a VERY LONG time.

Scary and fun? -I would really like to have a drive in something like that.

Totally agree.

The average PH'er has simply no comprehension of how exciting pre-war cars can be. And how they can be utterly terrifying. Going at speed in a Veyron is like sitting in first class in a Boeing 747. Going at speed in a Bugatti T35 ( or a Bentley Speed Six, or an ERA, or an Alta ) is like sitting in a bi-plane with nothing but hope and fear for company.

[oop north]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks for that - most interesting (and not too surprising, really). I have long through that the obsession with ever larger alloys and lower profile tyres makes so many cars that are wholly unsuitable for the road - for me, the feel of a car is so much more important, not that the current steed is anything to go by - but hopefully the next will be