RE: Light cars are not the answer: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
If manufacturers didn't put ridicules 18" wheels with a strip of rubber where a tyre should be, they wouldn't need so much weight to get a decent ride.
If the car is lighter they don't need 18" wheels to fit the brakes necessary to stop the things more than once an hour.
While byers are silly enough to follow styling fads that make it harder to design a decent car, we will keep getting these fool things, & we will deserve them.
If the car is lighter they don't need 18" wheels to fit the brakes necessary to stop the things more than once an hour.
While byers are silly enough to follow styling fads that make it harder to design a decent car, we will keep getting these fool things, & we will deserve them.
braddo said:
That reasonably light cars can't have an excellent ride is bulls
t. Primarily it's a question of suspension tuning. 2CV, hydropneumatic Citroens, Rover P6....
Mercedes found the sweet spot of weight, refinement and a good ride in 1984. Basic ones only weigh about 1200kg:
To be fair it does corner like a barge though. But then it wasn't designed for that t. Primarily it's a question of suspension tuning. 2CV, hydropneumatic Citroens, Rover P6.... Mercedes found the sweet spot of weight, refinement and a good ride in 1984. Basic ones only weigh about 1200kg:
I use my old Westfield as a good example. Decent shocks on it, 535kgs, 250/150lb springs. Even being live axle it out rode just about everything (a good thing seeing as it was fitted with bucket seats...) and could drive rings round just about everything too.
juansolo said:
braddo said:
That reasonably light cars can't have an excellent ride is bullst. Primarily it's a question of suspension tuning. 2CV, hydropneumatic Citroens, Rover P6....
Mercedes found the sweet spot of weight, refinement and a good ride in 1984. Basic ones only weigh about 1200kg:
To be fair it does corner like a barge though. But then it wasn't designed for that t. Primarily it's a question of suspension tuning. 2CV, hydropneumatic Citroens, Rover P6.... Mercedes found the sweet spot of weight, refinement and a good ride in 1984. Basic ones only weigh about 1200kg:
I use my old Westfield as a good example. Decent shocks on it, 535kgs, 250/150lb springs. Even being live axle it out rode just about everything (a good thing seeing as it was fitted with bucket seats...) and could drive rings round just about everything too.
A citroen berlingo first series is light but has exemplary ride and decent enough roadholding to hurtle the french trough alpine roads.
(The 190 must be the worst car I ever drove.)
Max_Torque said:
(Go drive a 911 GT3 and tell me you still want that old 205.....)
Um, and which car that is available for equivalent money now would you suggest to pitch against the 205 in terms of tactility and agility...? I mean, if we're talking money no object I see your GT3 with its flappy paddles and raise a McLaren F1. Hasbeen said:
If manufacturers didn't put ridicules 18" wheels with a strip of rubber where a tyre should be, they wouldn't need so much weight to get a decent ride.
If the car is lighter they don't need 18" wheels to fit the brakes necessary to stop the things more than once an hour.
While byers are silly enough to follow styling fads that make it harder to design a decent car, we will keep getting these fool things, & we will deserve them.
18's are old news, 20's these days.If the car is lighter they don't need 18" wheels to fit the brakes necessary to stop the things more than once an hour.
While byers are silly enough to follow styling fads that make it harder to design a decent car, we will keep getting these fool things, & we will deserve them.
My 350Z has 18s, they arent all that big, they look a bit lost in the arches and the tyres arent that low a profile.
Well, in terms of what is hot this week maybe. But sooner or later there will be a swing back to sensible size wheels instead of the cartoon nonsense we have now. The down the road graphic of a Range Rover Sport(or Cayenne, X5 etc) , with its stupidly fat wheels and pumped up stance is just so gratuitously aggressive that I wonder about the psychological appeal to the buyer- what promise are these things making ?
Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
coppice said:
Well, in terms of what is hot this week maybe. But sooner or later there will be a swing back to sensible size wheels instead of the cartoon nonsense we have now. The down the road graphic of a Range Rover Sport(or Cayenne, X5 etc) , with its stupidly fat wheels and pumped up stance is just so gratuitously aggressive that I wonder about the psychological appeal to the buyer- what promise are these things making ?
Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Quite agree, except you still need to fit brakes behind them. Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
coppice said:
Well, in terms of what is hot this week maybe. But sooner or later there will be a swing back to sensible size wheels instead of the cartoon nonsense we have now. The down the road graphic of a Range Rover Sport(or Cayenne, X5 etc) , with its stupidly fat wheels and pumped up stance is just so gratuitously aggressive that I wonder about the psychological appeal to the buyer- what promise are these things making ?
Even the BMW i cars have monster wheels as standard, 19" on the i3, 20" option! (admittedly with skinny tyres). I'm not so sure that smaller rims will ever become acceptable looking on the chunkier dimensioned cars we have these days?ETA: new mx-5 is a commendable exception in this regard, also in terms of size and weight, has there EVER been another car that is both smaller and lighter than it's predecessor?
Edited by danp on Sunday 11th January 09:17
In 1963 my Morgan +4 could stop all day, at the bottom of conrod straight, Bathurst, from 125 MPH, with callipers that were later fitted to minis, but it did only weigh 14 hundred weight, about 700Kg.
My Lotus 20 could do the same from a little over 140 MPH, braking at 130 yards with it's drum brakes. Of course they were Alfin drums so a little up market.
The Lotus was just over 900 pounds, so light weight was helping, as were the 4 inch wide front wheels. They weren't hidden away, out of the airflow inside those 20" diameter 10" wide wheels of todays overweight cars.
We spent decades learning that cars worked better with pneumatic tyres, & nice big balloon tyres were much better than solid rubber.
The old & light T model Fords could get through mud & snow that leave modern fat cars stranded. Why is it that we need to learn the same lessons over & over again?
My Lotus 20 could do the same from a little over 140 MPH, braking at 130 yards with it's drum brakes. Of course they were Alfin drums so a little up market.
The Lotus was just over 900 pounds, so light weight was helping, as were the 4 inch wide front wheels. They weren't hidden away, out of the airflow inside those 20" diameter 10" wide wheels of todays overweight cars.
We spent decades learning that cars worked better with pneumatic tyres, & nice big balloon tyres were much better than solid rubber.
The old & light T model Fords could get through mud & snow that leave modern fat cars stranded. Why is it that we need to learn the same lessons over & over again?
J4CKO said:
18's are old news, 20's these days.
My 350Z has 18s, they arent all that big, they look a bit lost in the arches and the tyres arent that low a profile.
I agree and it's because all cars are getting taller with every new generation, I think to make sure that leg room, occupants and pedestrian crash safety keeps improving. My 350Z has 18s, they arent all that big, they look a bit lost in the arches and the tyres arent that low a profile.
It's not really 'bad' as it brings benefits, but the side proportions of a modern car must be hard to get 'right'. 300ZX looks good with 18" wheels, but many modern cars look too tall. Red 300zx on gold 18" wheels:
http://www.aus300zx.com/forum/images/garage/attach...
Yum.
There are downsides of low profile tyres, but a bigger wheel and smaller tyre profile looks nicer to me.
If looks are the priority then big wheels are the way to go.
If function and performance is the priority then small wheels are the obvious choice, like in motorsport. I find big wheels look chavs and I love small wheels with a highish profile, looks like it comes straight from the tracks than straight from Halfords. But each to their own.
If function and performance is the priority then small wheels are the obvious choice, like in motorsport. I find big wheels look chavs and I love small wheels with a highish profile, looks like it comes straight from the tracks than straight from Halfords. But each to their own.
Max_Torque said:
claypole1360 said:
You are wrong, Peugeot 205, Light and relatively refined, excellent ride. It is possible to be light and have all the things you require from a heavy car without compromise. I have made trips to the south of France in a GTI in perfect comfort.
Clayps
^^^Absolute balls sorry!Clayps
Compare the cabin noise for say my 335d with your 205 at 80mph. Then lets crash them into each other (hint, i REALLY wouldn't want to be in the pug). Modern cars are heavy because they have massive capability, excellent safety, and frankly astonishing NVH. The fact we haven't payed a fuel economy or performance penalty is nice too (modern cars are both much faster than old ones, and much more efficient). What we "loose" in all this is response and feedback, but again, for the average car, that is market/purchasor driven and not a technical issue. (Go drive a 911 GT3 and tell me you still want that old 205.....)
However , I've made it to the South of France from Germany in a Mk2 Escort, and found it perfectly comfortable .
Then again, that was over 20 years ago , and the car wasn't even close to modern safety standards .
The 205 or Golf Mk1 GTI weren't such great cars either, with very poor implementation of FWD considering their weight/power ratio .
Lot less fun than an Escort I/II or a Kadett too .
But driver's cars nonetheless .
With today's technology, it should be possible to make a car at around 1 tonne, that still has a few airbags, 4-5 seats, a proper boot , unassisted steering, and an engine that goes like stink .
Think E30 or Escort Mk2, with modern suspension, engine and safety features, but without heated seats, driving aids and all the other stuff that makes 120mph feel just like 30mph .
PositronicRay said:
coppice said:
Well, in terms of what is hot this week maybe. But sooner or later there will be a swing back to sensible size wheels instead of the cartoon nonsense we have now. The down the road graphic of a Range Rover Sport(or Cayenne, X5 etc) , with its stupidly fat wheels and pumped up stance is just so gratuitously aggressive that I wonder about the psychological appeal to the buyer- what promise are these things making ?
Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Quite agree, except you still need to fit brakes behind them. Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Of course the rear discs were inboard, so what wheels were fitted at that end did not matter much.
From personal experience, there are convincing arguments for both light and heavier cars, with a slight bias towards lightweight stuff.
My first 2 RWD cars were mkiv Supras. I was never able to fully exploit those cars, as to the uninitiated RWD owner the size and weight put me off really grabbing the car by the scruff of the neck and chucking it around.
Sold the Supras and bought (2!) mk1 MX5s. They were a revelation, to be honest. Small, compact, lightweight cars which were easy and intuitive to throw around. The weight transfer was so much more predictable and easier to manage, as there was so much less mass to deal with.
Now that I have my eye in, Im sure that I could take a Supra and really exploit it properly, but I needed that small lightweight car first to learn the principles of RWD car control.
There generally is a compromise in going for a lightweight car, in that you lose comfort and refinement. Interior space is also a factor, particularly if your 6-foot plus. If I was going to track the thing, I would absolutely err on the side of lightness. If it was to be a DD, I'd have something bigger and heavier for comfort and refinement. In that sense, lightness perhaps is not the answer.
Subsequent cars like my E36 318is manual have provided a rather pleasant compromise. Chuckable and compact enough to inspire confidence, enough size and metal to allow comfortable, refined wafting.
I would also note that its difficult to find a big engine (straight six, V8 etc) in a small lightweight car. That's an issue for me, as I love 6 cylinder + engines.
Ultimately though, light cars are the answer, unless your primary requirements are space/ refinement.
My first 2 RWD cars were mkiv Supras. I was never able to fully exploit those cars, as to the uninitiated RWD owner the size and weight put me off really grabbing the car by the scruff of the neck and chucking it around.
Sold the Supras and bought (2!) mk1 MX5s. They were a revelation, to be honest. Small, compact, lightweight cars which were easy and intuitive to throw around. The weight transfer was so much more predictable and easier to manage, as there was so much less mass to deal with.
Now that I have my eye in, Im sure that I could take a Supra and really exploit it properly, but I needed that small lightweight car first to learn the principles of RWD car control.
There generally is a compromise in going for a lightweight car, in that you lose comfort and refinement. Interior space is also a factor, particularly if your 6-foot plus. If I was going to track the thing, I would absolutely err on the side of lightness. If it was to be a DD, I'd have something bigger and heavier for comfort and refinement. In that sense, lightness perhaps is not the answer.
Subsequent cars like my E36 318is manual have provided a rather pleasant compromise. Chuckable and compact enough to inspire confidence, enough size and metal to allow comfortable, refined wafting.
I would also note that its difficult to find a big engine (straight six, V8 etc) in a small lightweight car. That's an issue for me, as I love 6 cylinder + engines.
Ultimately though, light cars are the answer, unless your primary requirements are space/ refinement.
Hasbeen said:
PositronicRay said:
coppice said:
Well, in terms of what is hot this week maybe. But sooner or later there will be a swing back to sensible size wheels instead of the cartoon nonsense we have now. The down the road graphic of a Range Rover Sport(or Cayenne, X5 etc) , with its stupidly fat wheels and pumped up stance is just so gratuitously aggressive that I wonder about the psychological appeal to the buyer- what promise are these things making ?
Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Quite agree, except you still need to fit brakes behind them. Big wheels usually mean worse ride (certainly so in my limited experience) and more cost to buy tyres , which themselves are more vulnerable to damage because of their rubber band profile.
Look at a late 60 s Ferrari like a 275GTB or a 330GTC and although they may only be 14" or 15" wheels with 205s the high profile tyre fills the arch and nothing since has quite the grace that cars had from that era . Ditto 911s- look at a '69 911S and compare it to the pumped up parody of the latest iteration (don't ask me the model number- I'm sure '9' features somewhere).
Of course the rear discs were inboard, so what wheels were fitted at that end did not matter much.
Jaguar switched from inboard to outboard discs on the XJ back end under Ford ownership and everyone now agrees that there is no difference to ride or handling and that those are the brakes to go for.
The Capri was an old fashioned and fairly light car (just over a tonne???) with wheels nicked from a radio controlled car and doughnut tyres. Light weight, tiny wheels and no need for big brakes? Most people with Capri experience agrees that the miniscule discs squeezed under the 13" castors were very poor despite the light weight.
Whoever it was a few posts back bleating on about those awful wallowing Citreons and whatever other terrible French crap it was needs to acknowledge that those cars compromised absolutely everything for a soft ride. They don't go round corners very well and body control is woeful. Despite the ride being soft people could get sea sick driving one of those. Modern cars ride well enough, but they handle and grip far, far better than that old hydroelastic rubbish.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I did have a look for E30 > present, but couldn't find anything. I thought the E90 felt massive after the E46. I think I touched the front of it on walls 5 or 6 times in car parks during 10 months of ownership. Even the E36 to E46 is a big jump. The E36 looks tiny on our roads now. I miss those small cars.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff