RE: Light cars are not the answer: Tell Me I'm Wrong

[Robert Elise]

shipoftheseus said:

Can't remember where I read it, but a recent interview with one of the Porsche boffs (think it was Andreas Preuninger) when questioned about the "controversial" new GT3 (after he'd finally managed to get the journo off the subject of pdk and epas...yawn!) admitted that inevitably cars had got heavier as they had become more tech laden and to conform with crash legislation. His view was that despite this the driving dynamics were maintained or even improved by improvements in engine and chassis technology, and that lightness was still important for efficiency but it was no longer the holy grail of performance. This much has been proven by the latest and fastest GT3, the 918, GTR, Veyron etc. While the Veyron is obviously very heavy, which undoubtedly blunts it's track performance, it was never designed as a track car. And few that have been fortunate enough to experience it seem to have found it wanting...again,except perhaps the Stig.
I'm no lover of profligacy of the order of some of the bloated high performance machinery as we have seen over the years, and we all love a lightweight that responds like a gnat, but if you want to have daily use from it, sometimes a compromise is necessary, and should not always be detrimental.
I suppose if you compare two similarly equipped supercars: the 991 turbo s and the GTR, they are both similar in performance, power output and accommodation, while taking different approaches in terms of layout. What is surprising is how close they both are considering their weight difference. Maybe that benchmark is proof enough. And while the GTR appears to be the comparitive bargain, which the fans love to use to batter the 911 with, I suspect it makes Nissan less profit than the Turbo does for Porsche.
My main concern with the weight of modern cars is that a lot of the tech that ads weight is often there to increase the model's appeal ie optional extras or to satisfy health and safety/emissions legislation, much of which offsets the greater mechanical efficiency tech designed to make cars more frugal, not helped at all by the official fuel consumption test, which is about as trustworthy as a politician's expenses claim form.

Edited by shipoftheseus on Monday 26th January 04:37

And if you enjoy spirited driving how do heavier cars feel?

[RobM77]

Robert Elise said:

shipoftheseus said:

Can't remember where I read it, but a recent interview with one of the Porsche boffs (think it was Andreas Preuninger) when questioned about the "controversial" new GT3 (after he'd finally managed to get the journo off the subject of pdk and epas...yawn!) admitted that inevitably cars had got heavier as they had become more tech laden and to conform with crash legislation. His view was that despite this the driving dynamics were maintained or even improved by improvements in engine and chassis technology, and that lightness was still important for efficiency but it was no longer the holy grail of performance. This much has been proven by the latest and fastest GT3, the 918, GTR, Veyron etc. While the Veyron is obviously very heavy, which undoubtedly blunts it's track performance, it was never designed as a track car. And few that have been fortunate enough to experience it seem to have found it wanting...again,except perhaps the Stig.
I'm no lover of profligacy of the order of some of the bloated high performance machinery as we have seen over the years, and we all love a lightweight that responds like a gnat, but if you want to have daily use from it, sometimes a compromise is necessary, and should not always be detrimental.
I suppose if you compare two similarly equipped supercars: the 991 turbo s and the GTR, they are both similar in performance, power output and accommodation, while taking different approaches in terms of layout. What is surprising is how close they both are considering their weight difference. Maybe that benchmark is proof enough. And while the GTR appears to be the comparitive bargain, which the fans love to use to batter the 911 with, I suspect it makes Nissan less profit than the Turbo does for Porsche.
My main concern with the weight of modern cars is that a lot of the tech that ads weight is often there to increase the model's appeal ie optional extras or to satisfy health and safety/emissions legislation, much of which offsets the greater mechanical efficiency tech designed to make cars more frugal, not helped at all by the official fuel consumption test, which is about as trustworthy as a politician's expenses claim form.

Edited by shipoftheseus on Monday 26th January 04:37

And if you enjoy spirited driving how do heavier cars feel?

You beat me to it. Road cars are not about numbers, they're about feel. Every time you change direction or speed in a car, weight acts against you, both in terms of response time and outright capability. Whether a 1.7 tonne GTR can produce a higher lateral g figure than a 1.4 tonne Boxster or a 0.8 tonne Elise is not really of interest to me on the public road, it's the responses of a car that matter for enjoyment in a non-competitive environment.

[kambites]

A Porsche spokesman defending Porsche's latest car. What a shock.

It does sort of confirm what I'd assumed about the new GT3, though - Porsche appear to now appear to have gone further down the path of focusing on "fast" as opposed to "fun".

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

You beat me to it. Road cars are not about numbers

Well, you say that, but can you imagine the furore if say BMW release the "New M3" and it was slower than the outgoing model? Just the PH thread alone would probably run to 400 pages of people shouting that "BMW HAVE LOST IT"......... ;-)

[RobM77]

Max_Torque said:

RobM77 said:

You beat me to it. Road cars are not about numbers

Well, you say that, but can you imagine the furore if say BMW release the "New M3" and it was slower than the outgoing model? Just the PH thread alone would probably run to 400 pages of people shouting that "BMW HAVE LOST IT"......... ;-)

Guilty as charged. I should have phrased that differently.

RobM77 should have said:

You beat me to it. Road cars are not about numbers for me.

I'd take a lower powered car with better responses every time over a faster car without good response. My car history shows that very well in fact; I've twice been suckered in to buying a car because it sounded nice and went quickly, only to get pissed off with its lack of throttle response and sell it.

I'm sure you're right though for the PH masses and Jeremy Clarkson - they always seem to value straight line performance over driveability.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 26th January 10:46

[shoestring7]

kambites said:

A Porsche spokesman defending Porsche's latest car. What a shock.

It does sort of confirm what I'd assumed about the new GT3, though - Porsche appear to now appear to have gone further down the path of focusing on "fast" as opposed to "fun".

Porsche building cars that their (real) customers want to buy shock - just under 200,000p.a. at the last count.

It seems a bit strange to criticise Porsche for their performance car product strategy. The GT3 variants consistently win independent magazine group tests, there is enormous demand for the GT cars in the used market, the race derivatives win in international competition, and yet they are still affordable compared to the 2x cost of the nearest completion. Its difficult to make a case for them not being amongst the most desirable performance cars on the planet.

And its not as if 911s have got enormously heavy over the years; even a 2.7RS was 1100kgs in its most common Touring form, and this has less than half the power of a GT3, few of the safety systems and little of the refinement demanded by today's buyers. The vanilla 911s are even closer in weight, a 964C4 weighs a good 1450kgs, a 993 was about the same, the 996/997 cars a little less and a manual 991 3.4 the same. And that's still an all-steel car that's a size bigger than the ur-911s.

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

SS7

[RobM77]

shoestring7 said:

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

And imagine the praise they'd get if they released a 1050kg 250bhp normally aspirated Cayman I wouldn't think twice about which one I wanted.

[robinessex]

BritishRacinGrin said:

Horses for courses, obviously. This is Pistonheads, it's barge for daily and lightweight sportscar for the weekend.

Having said that, Lotus suspension is fantastically compliant considering how well they handle, this is a trick many manufacturers can't pull off.

That's because Mr. C. Chapman understood suspension design. It's quite simple, springs as soft as you can, again, over to Mr C. Chapman, who observed you don't have any cornering grip if your wheels are off the ground! Design the car to have about a 1.25Hz resonant frequency (sports cars) on it's springs, and you aren't far out. Then, the damping. Impecable is the criteria. Job done.

[RobM77]

robinessex said:

BritishRacinGrin said:

Horses for courses, obviously. This is Pistonheads, it's barge for daily and lightweight sportscar for the weekend.

Having said that, Lotus suspension is fantastically compliant considering how well they handle, this is a trick many manufacturers can't pull off.

That's because Mr. C. Chapman understood suspension design. It's quite simple, springs as soft as you can, again, over to Mr C. Chapman, who observed you don't have any cornering grip if your wheels are off the ground! Design the car to have about a 1.25Hz resonant frequency (sports cars) on it's springs, and you aren't far out. Then, the damping. Impecable is the criteria. Job done.

It's clearly not that simple though, because most people agree that Lotuses ride better than most other cars and handle better too, but Lotuses are developed with a lower budget than most other cars. The new Lotus Exige V6 is almost spooky when you drive one because the ride is just so good in a straight line, but you come to a bend and turn the wheel and the roll for a given lateral g is extremely low; it's almost magic. Given the weight distribution, both fore/aft and height, no Lotus has any right to ride or handle better than a Cayman, let alone both together, yet the Cayman has vastly more money thrown at it. Suspension set up seems to be a black art that Lotus have clearly perfected, and are getting better at all the time, but other manufacturers still struggle with.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 26th January 12:17

[900T-R]

Note how, by all accounts, Fiat Group seems to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the Alfa 4C...

[shoestring7]

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

And imagine the praise they'd get if they released a 1050kg 250bhp normally aspirated Cayman I wouldn't think twice about which one I wanted.

Only from you, and you're not buying.

SS7

[RobM77]

shoestring7 said:

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

And imagine the praise they'd get if they released a 1050kg 250bhp normally aspirated Cayman I wouldn't think twice about which one I wanted.

Only from you, and you're not buying.

SS7

I would be if I liked it though. The issue is that my tastes are in a minority.

[kambites]

shoestring7 said:

Porsche building cars that their (real) customers want to buy shock - just under 200,000p.a. at the last count.

I didn't say it was the wrong thing to do and I wasn't criticising them for it. It was absolutely the right decision, as is swapping the next generation Boxster/Cayman (and probably ultimately the 911 at some point beyond that) to a turbocharged four-pot. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Edited by kambites on Monday 26th January 13:28

[shoestring7]

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

And imagine the praise they'd get if they released a 1050kg 250bhp normally aspirated Cayman I wouldn't think twice about which one I wanted.

Only from you, and you're not buying.

SS7

I would be if I liked it though. The issue is that my tastes are in a minority.

Your new car has just arrived: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...

SS7

[RobM77]

shoestring7 said:

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

RobM77 said:

shoestring7 said:

I guess the good news is that the EU's 95g/km CO2 targets mean that weights have to be reduced, and will demand different materials and engineering solutions. But just wait for the grief they'll get on these forums at the launch of a 1100kg 4cylinder 350bhp twin turbo Cayman in 2016.

And imagine the praise they'd get if they released a 1050kg 250bhp normally aspirated Cayman I wouldn't think twice about which one I wanted.

Only from you, and you're not buying.

SS7

I would be if I liked it though. The issue is that my tastes are in a minority.

Your new car has just arrived: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...

SS7

That'll be far too raw for my tastes; I like my road cars quiet and refined. I'd happily rally that though, it'd be great!

My point above is one of principle. I personally rate controls and handling above power and grip in road cars - that's all I was trying to say.

[Slow M]

"But I want to enjoy driving the car on all roads, not just the increasingly elusive empty, snaking ones."

This comment about sums up the article. It's not unlike saying "I want to enjoy being flabby." Well, enjoy your lard, be it personal, or vehicular.

The inclusion of reliable professionals' names is only used to attempt to validate points that are, well, wrong. Jean Mark Gales, for instance, was recently quoted as saying that Lotus is seeing customers defecting from Porsche, because that manufacturer's offerings have become "too soft."

"While highly skilled professional drivers can deal with the sudden grip breakaways that bedevil lightweight cars, the rest of us can't so easily." I'd rather focus on improving my skill level. That sudden grip breakaway issue doesn't affect only lightweight vehicles, but all those with a high ratio of power to weight. Adding weight simply adds more inertial mass. Will that help stability? Sure. Will it help grip? Ask any race car manufacturer why they work so hard to stay near minimums.

Best regards,
Bernard.

P.S I would have rated this article zero, had it been an option.

[RobM77]

Slow M said:

"While highly skilled professional drivers can deal with the sudden grip breakaways that bedevil lightweight cars, the rest of us can't so easily." I'd rather focus on improving my skill level. That sudden grip breakaway issue doesn't affect only lightweight vehicles, but all those with a high ratio of power to weight. Adding weight simply adds more inertial mass. Will that help stability? Sure. Will it help grip? Ask any race car manufacturer why they work so hard to stay near minimums.

Plus that additional inertial mass makes grip harder to recover once it's dropped off. I've oversteered big saloons and tiny Caterhams, and whilst the tiny Caterhams flick their tail out more easily, they also come back more easily, so in effect the two things cancel out.

For me at least, there's nothing about heavier cars that's better than lighter ones, except perhaps the greater refinement that often comes with more weight, but lots of things come with excess weight, including bad engineering! It's odd to equate the two. Besides, if you added loads of sound deadening to an Exige it'd still be a light car relative to, for example, a Cayman.

[havoc]

Further points:-
- Heavier cars need bigger brakes which forces bigger wheels and smaller sidewalls = less notice / sharper breakaway.
- Poor suspension design and geometry limitations lead to sharper breakaway. How many cars still have double-wishbone suspension? How many have any adjustability other than toe*?!?
- Greater reliance on electronics to control a car's undesirable behaviours lead to (a) most drivers relying on the electronics; and (b) the car losing control at significantly higher speed when it finally does let go.
- Oh, and the industry-wide NVH obsession is removing drivers more and more from what's actually going on...not just PAS-then-EPAS, but the ability to remove some of the messages the chassis is trying to tell you through the seat and the tyres through your ears. If you're relying solely on your bum-dyno, you're reacting to what the car's doing not predicting it...


So yes, in case anyone's wondering, the answer IS an MX-5!



* I turned an S2000 from something that steady-state understeered / snap-oversteered into something which was throttle-steerable, actually moderately progressive AND more communicative (still no Elise though). And all this solely by reducing rear camber, reducing caster (double-effect of lower dynamic camber and less 'leaden' steering), reducing rear toe-in and fitting some extra chassis bracing.
All of which is completely contrary to a professional driver achieving a quick lap time / N'ring time, but it made the car so much more engaging for an amateur like me who spent far more time at 7-8/10ths than 10/10ths.

[RobM77]

[BrewsterBear]

RobM77 said:

What he said.

This obsession with 'ring times has taken away from driver involvement. I have driven 911s of various vintages for nearly 10 years. I am, however, not and never will be a racing driver. I can provoke and control oversteer to my heart's content, but I never go out on public roads to "set a time" and I don't want to go to a track day either. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy exploring the limits of a car within reason.

What I want from a car is controllability, feedback, real feeling. 20" wheels and a geometry setup designed to go around corners 5mph faster than the same car with 16" wheels with a forgiving setup does not make for a happy driver surely? Unless you just want to wave your cock around in the pub with your mates.