Are modern cars really faster than old ones?
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Here are two lists:
List 1. The things that make a modern car potentially faster:
1) More power
2) Better brakes
3) Better suspension (roll control, kinematics, damping, Stiffness etc etc)
4) More gears and much faster shifting
5) Stiffer bodyshell
6) Chassis Electronic Feature Content (ABS, DSC, brake steer, E diffs etc)
7) Much wider power band (high torque at low engine speed)
8) Better aerodynamics (less drag, lower lift)
9) Easier / less physical to drive (powersteer etc)
10) Significantly wider tyres which develop high grip through modern Silica enhanced compounds
11) Improved durability at high load (ie engines don't go "bang" like they used too etc
List 2. The things that make a modern car potentially slower:
1) Bit heavier.
This. And the "bit heavier" is often marginal. Cars tend to get much bigger and only a little bit heavier, at least for the last 10 years or so.List 1. The things that make a modern car potentially faster:
1) More power
2) Better brakes
3) Better suspension (roll control, kinematics, damping, Stiffness etc etc)
4) More gears and much faster shifting
5) Stiffer bodyshell
6) Chassis Electronic Feature Content (ABS, DSC, brake steer, E diffs etc)
7) Much wider power band (high torque at low engine speed)
8) Better aerodynamics (less drag, lower lift)
9) Easier / less physical to drive (powersteer etc)
10) Significantly wider tyres which develop high grip through modern Silica enhanced compounds
11) Improved durability at high load (ie engines don't go "bang" like they used too etc
List 2. The things that make a modern car potentially slower:
1) Bit heavier.
amusingduck said:
Some Gump said:
Surface Temperature of the sun, T=5,800K
Radius of the sun, R=6.995×108m
Stefan's constant,s=5.670×10-8Wm-2K-4
The equation for the thermal energy per second radiated is:
Power = 4pR2sT4.
So, power of the Sun is 3.95×10^26 Watts.
Power of a lion: Difficult to know, but lets assume for short periods they could put out the same power as a horse (which is actually about 1.5bhp)
Power of 1 trillion lions = 1.12 x 10^15 watts
So the Sun is, roughly, 3.53 x 10^11 times more powerful that a Trillion lions. Which even Jeremy Clarkson would have to admit is a LOT!
;-)
doingthehardsciencesoyoudon'thavetoo
Max_Torque said:
It is, but as far as i'm aware, just having loads of something doesn't make it fireproof.......
Surface Temperature of the sun, T=5,800K
Radius of the sun, R=6.995×108m
Stefan's constant,s=5.670×10-8Wm-2K-4
The equation for the thermal energy per second radiated is:
Power = 4pR2sT4.
So, power of the Sun is 3.95×10^26 Watts.
Power of a lion: Difficult to know, but lets assume for short periods they could put out the same power as a horse (which is actually about 1.5bhp)
Power of 1 trillion lions = 1.12 x 10^15 watts
So the Sun is, roughly, 3.53 x 10^11 times more powerful that a Trillion lions. Which even Jeremy Clarkson would have to admit is a LOT!
;-)
doingthehardsciencesoyoudon'thavetoo
What does that have to do with an eating competition? Did I not mention that in my original question? Oh well it was an eating question. Clearly 1 trillion cats should win, I can't believe you're too smallminded to see that.Surface Temperature of the sun, T=5,800K
Radius of the sun, R=6.995×108m
Stefan's constant,s=5.670×10-8Wm-2K-4
The equation for the thermal energy per second radiated is:
Power = 4pR2sT4.
So, power of the Sun is 3.95×10^26 Watts.
Power of a lion: Difficult to know, but lets assume for short periods they could put out the same power as a horse (which is actually about 1.5bhp)
Power of 1 trillion lions = 1.12 x 10^15 watts
So the Sun is, roughly, 3.53 x 10^11 times more powerful that a Trillion lions. Which even Jeremy Clarkson would have to admit is a LOT!
;-)
doingthehardsciencesoyoudon'thavetoo
Max_Torque said:
amusingduck said:
Some Gump said:
Surface Temperature of the sun, T=5,800K
Radius of the sun, R=6.995×108m
Stefan's constant,s=5.670×10-8Wm-2K-4
The equation for the thermal energy per second radiated is:
Power = 4pR2sT4.
So, power of the Sun is 3.95×10^26 Watts.
Power of a lion: Difficult to know, but lets assume for short periods they could put out the same power as a horse (which is actually about 1.5bhp)
Power of 1 trillion lions = 1.12 x 10^15 watts
So the Sun is, roughly, 3.53 x 10^11 times more powerful that a Trillion lions. Which even Jeremy Clarkson would have to admit is a LOT!
;-)
doingthehardsciencesoyoudon'thavetoo
sc0tt said:
Max_Torque said:
amusingduck said:
Some Gump said:
Surface Temperature of the sun, T=5,800K
Radius of the sun, R=6.995×108m
Stefan's constant,s=5.670×10-8Wm-2K-4
The equation for the thermal energy per second radiated is:
Power = 4pR2sT4.
So, power of the Sun is 3.95×10^26 Watts.
Power of a lion: Difficult to know, but lets assume for short periods they could put out the same power as a horse (which is actually about 1.5bhp)
Power of 1 trillion lions = 1.12 x 10^15 watts
So the Sun is, roughly, 3.53 x 10^11 times more powerful that a Trillion lions. Which even Jeremy Clarkson would have to admit is a LOT!
;-)
doingthehardsciencesoyoudon'thavetoo
MC Bodge said:
Isn't original question,
"As I can't afford a new car, can it somehow be argued that old ones are faster?"
Older ones might be more tricky / involving / fun, but even modern, 'normal' cars have very impressive road performance compared to those of 20-30 years ago.
This is it, entirely. Fifth Gear IIRC ran this test with an Integrale and E30 M3. As a machine to drive there is no comparison to some of the modern boring cars but pure speed, newer is quicker. "As I can't afford a new car, can it somehow be argued that old ones are faster?"
Older ones might be more tricky / involving / fun, but even modern, 'normal' cars have very impressive road performance compared to those of 20-30 years ago.
Anyway...... Are these lions all African or a mixture?
sc0tt said:
If the lions all roared at once they would just blow the sun out.
+ 1The Sun isnt as tough as it makes out. A single pissed up northerner would have a good chance of giving it a hiding, which is probably why it runs off and hides before kicking out time.
It was much faster and tougher back in the 80s, though.
ORD said:
SidewaysSi said:
I can understand what the OP is asking, it isn't that difficult.
Have improvements in chassis etc. performance created faster cars? Not sure there have been any real improvements over the past 20 years once you take away electronic developments.
What I do know though is that cars in general are a lot less fun.
No real improvements? Even ignoring tyre technology, cars have infinitely better brakes and lighter but stronger (and more rigid) chassis components. Have improvements in chassis etc. performance created faster cars? Not sure there have been any real improvements over the past 20 years once you take away electronic developments.
What I do know though is that cars in general are a lot less fun.
I would say with such niceties such as EPAS and DBW throttles as well as increased mass, we have in fact gone backwards, albeit as a result of increased legislation.
Last 10 minutes of my life went like this....
Can we stop feeding him please?
ETA: The "Lions Vs Sun" has made up for it, faith in PH restored.
- See thread title, think "could be good"
- Open thread
- Get half way through opening post and think
- Scroll back to top and check poster name.
- Yep should have known
- Stick with it, maybe this one will be different.....
- Once again thread doesn't go the way OP wants so the question is changed repeatedly. It doesn't work.
- Get bored by the end of page 2.
- Skip to end and see I didn't miss much.
Can we stop feeding him please?
ETA: The "Lions Vs Sun" has made up for it, faith in PH restored.
Edited by JordanTurbo on Thursday 3rd September 16:55
Max_Torque said:
It is, but as far as i'm aware, just having loads of something doesn't make it fireproof.......
Challenge accepted. http://bfy.tw/1cKX
SonicShadow said:
sc0tt said:
yonex said:
Anyway...... Are these lions all African or a mixture?
Good point. Can someone please confirm?SonicShadow said:
They must be all African. Asiatic Lions are much rarer and therefore more expensive than the African Lion, so they are disqualified from this comparison.
How much space would 1 trillion lions take up.....and how much is the sun worth?It's no good starting these things without completing the process
luckystrike said:
sc0tt said:
Are older asiatic lions faster than new african ones?
Of course. I mean, you'd compare one of the new African lions that was slower than one of the older Asiatic ones obviously - if you used a faster newer one you'd clearly just be missing the point.The problem with the Asiatic Lion is finding a good one, because of the inbreeding.
Feline humour aside, of course modern cars are faster. This is a thread awash with arbitrary limits for no particular reason, but playing along for a second improvements in chassis tech, generally stiffer and more controlled body structures, wider rubber (even if compound's been normalised for the purpose of this exercise), generally increased numbers of gears able to make use of better-spread power bands, aerodynamic and mechanical efficiency improvements... these add up to faster cars. You can cut the cake any way you like; if you normalise, new stuff is faster.
Now, if we take the logical step that many have and call b
ks on the arbitrary limits appearing at various points in the thread, comparing equivalent cars is the only logical option. M3s are faster generation to generation, as are Porsche 911s, as are Golf GTIs, as are Focus mid-spec diesels, as are any other number of cars you'd care to compare. Cost plays no factor beyond inflation-adjusted purchase price in relation to inflation-adjusted wage. If 30 years ago someone on an average wage bought an average car that had 80bhp and pulled 0.4g on a skid pan, they might now be buying a 150bhp pulling 0.7g on a skid pan, again fitting all the average criteria (I'm making figures up to illustrate a point before anyone calls me on these numbers).
Saying 'you can't compare an M3 to an M3 because blah blah' is like saying when comparing computer progress you can only compare supercomputers from the early 80s to current mobile phones. Yes, they might have similar performance, but the usage is so skewed it's patently not any kind of useful comparison.
The very fact that you're complaining about people comparing cars which are most obviously directly equivalent to each other proves emphatically that yes, modern cars are faster.
Now, if we take the logical step that many have and call b
ks on the arbitrary limits appearing at various points in the thread, comparing equivalent cars is the only logical option. M3s are faster generation to generation, as are Porsche 911s, as are Golf GTIs, as are Focus mid-spec diesels, as are any other number of cars you'd care to compare. Cost plays no factor beyond inflation-adjusted purchase price in relation to inflation-adjusted wage. If 30 years ago someone on an average wage bought an average car that had 80bhp and pulled 0.4g on a skid pan, they might now be buying a 150bhp pulling 0.7g on a skid pan, again fitting all the average criteria (I'm making figures up to illustrate a point before anyone calls me on these numbers).Saying 'you can't compare an M3 to an M3 because blah blah' is like saying when comparing computer progress you can only compare supercomputers from the early 80s to current mobile phones. Yes, they might have similar performance, but the usage is so skewed it's patently not any kind of useful comparison.
The very fact that you're complaining about people comparing cars which are most obviously directly equivalent to each other proves emphatically that yes, modern cars are faster.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff