RE: Light cars are not the answer: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
You are wrong.
Lightness benefits EVERYTHING (braking, cornering, handling, ride, acceleration, feel) in performance terms when done right. Mass is the enemy of everything so as a consequence everything is numbed more and more and hidden with electronics and big engines.
I can't think of a modern car, a new car that is, that I'd actually go out and buy right now. Everything I'm currently looking at was built in the early '90's at the very latest.
Lightness benefits EVERYTHING (braking, cornering, handling, ride, acceleration, feel) in performance terms when done right. Mass is the enemy of everything so as a consequence everything is numbed more and more and hidden with electronics and big engines.
I can't think of a modern car, a new car that is, that I'd actually go out and buy right now. Everything I'm currently looking at was built in the early '90's at the very latest.
Not very PH, but performance in an accident is also potentially important. Think this is a big driver of weight in modern cars.
Generally speaking, the heavier the vehicle you are in, the better (for you). But that starts an arms race that means we all end up driving barges.
You can engineer a light car that performs well in an accident (look at most racing cars), but you have some compromises (cost, interior space, need for head protection) that most punters aren't prepared to make (GT3 and R26r owners aside).
Generally speaking, the heavier the vehicle you are in, the better (for you). But that starts an arms race that means we all end up driving barges.
You can engineer a light car that performs well in an accident (look at most racing cars), but you have some compromises (cost, interior space, need for head protection) that most punters aren't prepared to make (GT3 and R26r owners aside).
juansolo said:
You are wrong.
Lightness benefits EVERYTHING (braking, cornering, handling, ride, acceleration, feel) in performance terms when done right. Mass is the enemy of everything so as a consequence everything is numbed more and more and hidden with electronics and big engines.
I can't think of a modern car, a new car that is, that I'd actually go out and buy right now. Everything I'm currently looking at was built in the early '90's at the very latest.
Actually weight can benefit ride. For starters the ratio between sprung and unsprung mass is greater. And it's easier to produce a quality feel in the cabin by using forests of teak and herds of tanned hide than it is with flimsy paperweight materials.Lightness benefits EVERYTHING (braking, cornering, handling, ride, acceleration, feel) in performance terms when done right. Mass is the enemy of everything so as a consequence everything is numbed more and more and hidden with electronics and big engines.
I can't think of a modern car, a new car that is, that I'd actually go out and buy right now. Everything I'm currently looking at was built in the early '90's at the very latest.
I have two cars, one weighs ~350Kg. Handling and acceleration are superb, but it's too tiring for my 100 mile round trip commute. The other, a tin top is a heavy diesel, it's not sporty but it is comfortable, quiet and a pleasnant place to spend 2 hours a day.
The author needs to tell us what the question is if he wants to know whether his answer is wrong.
flyingscot68 said:
I think you are correct.
The writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
Adding 1000kg of weight to a car will not only push it down and add more grip, it will increase the lateral g's therefore reducing that grip and increasing the power required to accelerate or stop the car.
Totally agree with this.. jumped out at me as soon as I read the article.. what a load of Nissan PR sThe writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
Adding 1000kg of weight to a car will not only push it down and add more grip, it will increase the lateral g's therefore reducing that grip and increasing the power required to accelerate or stop the car.
t to say weight is the same as downforce!!jackpe said:
flyingscot68 said:
I think you are correct.
The writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
Adding 1000kg of weight to a car will not only push it down and add more grip, it will increase the lateral g's therefore reducing that grip and increasing the power required to accelerate or stop the car.
Totally agree with this.. jumped out at me as soon as I read the article.. what a load of Nissan PR sThe writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
Adding 1000kg of weight to a car will not only push it down and add more grip, it will increase the lateral g's therefore reducing that grip and increasing the power required to accelerate or stop the car.
t to say weight is the same as downforce!!(This problem is compounded by the non-linear relationship between tyre vertical load and horizontal force, and by weight transfer during lateral & longitudinal acceleration)
TL;DR: more weight = more bad.
nickfrog said:
No it's simply down to gear ratios which are not optimised for straights. They hit a barn door at 120mph.
It's not just gear ratios, it's lack of outright power. Stellar power to weight ratios mean a lot less than outright power when drag becomes more limiting than weight. It's the same with motorbikes...their high speed performance is relatively poor.
My kitcar is extremely quick to 60 and very quick to 100 but from 100 to 130 I reckon it'd struggle against a good turbo diesel. At low speeds it feels like a 300bhp/tonne car, at high speeds it feels like a 150bhp car!
flyingscot68 said:
I think you are correct.
The writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
Please note: Adding aerodynamic downforce increases aerodynamic drag. It therefore makes the car harder to accelerate, particularly at higher speeds. The writer has got confused about downforce and weight being the same thing.
Downforce only pushes the car in one direction - down, that 1000kg of downforce he talks about does not cause any lateral g or create added weight to braking and acceleration.
F1 fans will recognise that cars corner best with the DRS flap closed (for greater downforce) but go fastest with it open (for lower drag and therefore higher speed).
Claudia Skies said:
...... that's not really the point. Back in the day 3-series was the "smallest BMW". A much better comparison is a modern 1-series with an old 3-series, modern 3-series with old 5-series etc. Same in the VW, Merc and Audi ranges.
I've always wondered why they called it the 3-series if it was the smallest. Were they leaving room so in 25 years time they could introduce a smaller one?Evo 6 TME - drove to the track, used LOADS of fuel, LOADS of tyres (18" x 235) and LOADS of (expensive) brakes to have a good day bashing round as fast as possible.
Lotus Elise - drove to the track, drove fast as I could lap after lap, had no visible wear on the (much smaller cheaper) tyres, or the (cheap small) brakes and only used one tank of fuel.
Weight, whilst possible to engineer around, allowing you to have fun, still requires bigger forces to stop turn and accelerate and as such requires more expensive consumables.
This is a simplified example but it is one on the same track in the same conditions.
Steven_RW
Lotus Elise - drove to the track, drove fast as I could lap after lap, had no visible wear on the (much smaller cheaper) tyres, or the (cheap small) brakes and only used one tank of fuel.
Weight, whilst possible to engineer around, allowing you to have fun, still requires bigger forces to stop turn and accelerate and as such requires more expensive consumables.
This is a simplified example but it is one on the same track in the same conditions.
Steven_RW
Claudia Skies said:
...... that's not really the point. Back in the day 3-series was the "smallest BMW". A much better comparison is a modern 1-series with an old 3-series, modern 3-series with old 5-series etc. Same in the VW, Merc and Audi ranges.
Using your logic we have to compare the modern BMW 1 series against this, which was the 'smallest BMW' back in the day. Your logic shows cars are getting much larger.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff