RE: TVR's return - new details
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Anyone who says "modern cars are too heavy because the manufacturers are lazy" is an idiot frankly. Modern cars weigh what they weight because of the huge capability that now resides in them. Be that performance, economy, crash protection, feature content etc etc.
Ballcocks. Does a Jaguar F-Type really have to weigh 1.7 tons to perform its intended function as a 2-seat sports/GT car? Of course not. The rub lies in two things: a) achieving the above at the lowest possible cost - hence a high degree of parts and systems commonality meaning that many will be over-specified for the task, and a very reluctant take up of advanced composite materials (for instance) and b) lack of focus and/or will to get away from well-trodden paths, putting one solution for a problem on top of another rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper, leading to needlessly complicated engineering - take any 'premium' German-brand car apart for proof - and content that no one really asked for in a sports car application (relying on the marketing department to retrospectively make it appear that we did).
Basing a V6 engine on the same castings you use for a V8 is lazy. Making it 20 percent larger in every direction than it needs to be so it's less hassle to fit it to your saloon platform, is lazy.
Putting armchairs that weigh 30 kg each in a sports car is lazy.
Saddling your sporting a-wheel-at-each-corner hatchback with a massive front overhang (and drawing oversize rear lights in a bid to visually balance it out
) to achieve pedestrian protection regulation compliance instead of reversing the orientation of your transverse drivetrain a la Toyota IQ, is lazy.Relying on engine management strategies to get favourable fuel efficiency results in tests (but not real-world efficiency) instead of abandoning your steel monocoques for advanced composite construction to save significant weight, is a cost-driven solution, not an engineering-driven one. Especially when you do use the composite construction for your electric car becasue it's more cost-effective than loading it further with batteries...
Et cetera, et cetera.
The long and short of it is that major car manufacturers make cars for legislators, fleetowners and rich folks with unsophisticated tastes in second world countries nowadays, and not for European consumers (can't blame them given the current set of conditions...).
octane83 said:
Let's face it the German competition have got the sportscar technical recipe pretty much bang on (so much so that they've been able to create a family of sportscars in the 911, Boxster and Cayman using the same basic philosophies and techniques albeit in differing quantities depending on market segment).
They have the mass produced, mass market recipe bang on. The question is whether there are enough people with more esoteric tastes to support a small car company doing something different. 900T-R said:
Ballcocks. Does a Jaguar F-Type really have to weigh 1.7 tons to perform its intended function as a 2-seat sports/GT car? Of course not.
A 2 seat Sports/GT car doesn't but to suggest that Jaguar got to that point due to being 'lazy' is really short-sighted. Engineering is another word for compromise, like it or not. Good engineering is finding the right balance of all the required characteristics keeping in mind the constraints the engineer is presented with.
Jaguar have had to engineer the F-Type to be the best it can be given the engineering constraints they had, hence why it has been given a healthy dose of 'character' and is being marketed on those attributes.
Its not laziness.
otolith said:
They have the mass produced, mass market recipe bang on. The question is whether there are enough people with more esoteric tastes to support a small car company doing something different.
And I would argue we have at least a preliminary answer to that in the number of people who have signed on the dotted line so far. 
900T-R said:
otolith said:
They have the mass produced, mass market recipe bang on. The question is whether there are enough people with more esoteric tastes to support a small car company doing something different.
And I would argue we have at least a preliminary answer to that in the number of people who have signed on the dotted line so far. octane83 said:
900T-R said:
Ballcocks. Does a Jaguar F-Type really have to weigh 1.7 tons to perform its intended function as a 2-seat sports/GT car? Of course not.
A 2 seat Sports/GT car doesn't but to suggest that Jaguar got to that point due to being 'lazy' is really short-sighted. Engineering is another word for compromise, like it or not. Good engineering is finding the right balance of all the required characteristics keeping in mind the constraints the engineer is presented with.
Jaguar have had to engineer the F-Type to be the best it can be given the engineering constraints they had, hence why it has been given a healthy dose of 'character' and is being marketed on those attributes.
Its not laziness.
900T-R said:
Ballcocks. Does a Jaguar F-Type really have to weigh 1.7 tons to perform its intended function as a 2-seat sports/GT car? Of course not.
The rub lies in two things: a) achieving the above at the lowest possible cost - hence a high degree of parts and systems commonality meaning that many will be over-specified for the task, and a very reluctant take up of advanced composite materials (for instance) and b) lack of focus and/or will to get away from well-trodden paths, putting one solution for a problem on top of another rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper, leading to needlessly complicated engineering - take any 'premium' German-brand car apart for proof - and content that no one really asked for in a sports car application (relying on the marketing department to retrospectively make it appear that we did).
Basing a V6 engine on the same castings you use for a V8 is lazy. Making it 20 percent larger in every direction than it needs to be so it's less hassle to fit it to your saloon platform, is lazy.
Putting armchairs that weigh 30 kg each in a sports car is lazy.
Saddling your sporting a-wheel-at-each-corner hatchback with a massive front overhang (and drawing oversize rear lights in a bid to visually balance it out ) to achieve pedestrian protection regulation compliance instead of reversing the orientation of your transverse drivetrain a la Toyota IQ, is lazy.
Relying on engine management strategies to get favourable fuel efficiency results in tests (but not real-world efficiency) instead of abandoning your steel monocoques for advanced composite construction to save significant weight, is a cost-driven solution, not an engineering-driven one. Especially when you do use the composite construction for your electric car becasue it's more cost-effective than loading it further with batteries...
Et cetera, et cetera.
The long and short of it is that major car manufacturers make cars for legislators, fleetowners and rich folks with unsophisticated tastes in second world countries nowadays, and not for European consumers (can't blame them given the current set of conditions...).
I'm going to suggest that you have no idea of how the car industry, or in fact any industry that needs to stay profitable to survive operates?The rub lies in two things: a) achieving the above at the lowest possible cost - hence a high degree of parts and systems commonality meaning that many will be over-specified for the task, and a very reluctant take up of advanced composite materials (for instance) and b) lack of focus and/or will to get away from well-trodden paths, putting one solution for a problem on top of another rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper, leading to needlessly complicated engineering - take any 'premium' German-brand car apart for proof - and content that no one really asked for in a sports car application (relying on the marketing department to retrospectively make it appear that we did).
Basing a V6 engine on the same castings you use for a V8 is lazy. Making it 20 percent larger in every direction than it needs to be so it's less hassle to fit it to your saloon platform, is lazy.
Putting armchairs that weigh 30 kg each in a sports car is lazy.
Saddling your sporting a-wheel-at-each-corner hatchback with a massive front overhang (and drawing oversize rear lights in a bid to visually balance it out
) to achieve pedestrian protection regulation compliance instead of reversing the orientation of your transverse drivetrain a la Toyota IQ, is lazy.Relying on engine management strategies to get favourable fuel efficiency results in tests (but not real-world efficiency) instead of abandoning your steel monocoques for advanced composite construction to save significant weight, is a cost-driven solution, not an engineering-driven one. Especially when you do use the composite construction for your electric car becasue it's more cost-effective than loading it further with batteries...
Et cetera, et cetera.
The long and short of it is that major car manufacturers make cars for legislators, fleetowners and rich folks with unsophisticated tastes in second world countries nowadays, and not for European consumers (can't blame them given the current set of conditions...).
JLR made the F type as it is because that was the compromise necessary in order to do so!
They could have made the entire car from carbon fibre and saved 200kg. Except there would ne no buisness case in the world to support that approach (so luckily they didn't)
How many for F types would be sold if it weighed 1500kg instead of 1700kg? I'm going with something like 2 per year extra. In that segment, mass is frankly pretty irrelevant.
And ultimate Fuel economy is not directly linked to mass. This is because the mass of the car stores energy at speed which is 100% returned when the car slows down again! Reducing the F types mass from 1700kg to 1500kg, but leaving the drag (aero/rolling) and parastic loses the same would only increase economy by around 3%. No one is buying a £70k super charged V8 sports car to save 3% in fuel.
Or your IQ, example> You say to make it better looking, toyota should have completely re-engineed the entire powertrain, at a cost of around £100M, or altenatively, compromised on pedestrian impact protection? Are you MAD? If they had done either of those things you suggest, the IQ would never have been made. HINT: people who buy an IQ really don't care that the lights look a bit funny or the front overhang is 2" too long or what ever.
Finally "Advance composite construction" is the bull you hear time and time again, usually from Ex Motorsports people hoping to make a buck or two in the passenger car market. So far, the only company that has made a sucessfull (ish) volume go of it are BMW with their "i" cars. Please go to you-tube, and watch the BMW i3 production process videos, then get back to me with an estimate of how much you think that cost. (and then you'll of course have a solution for the critical re-cycling issue with composites! (the fact you can't.......)
The other thing you hear all the time is "without compromise"! Any one who says this should be shot imo. Nothing, i mean NOTHING is "without compromise" I don't care if you're building an F1 car, a fighter jet, a posh watch, or the next space shuttle, managing compromise is at the heart of engineering, not matter what Marketing might say about it
Max_Torque said:
This is a car that the new TVR should be looking very very closely at indeed, imo:
A car that is probably more than the sum of it's parts, but that has really come of age with this latest iteration (and it's styling has finally, imo hit the spot)
Compare that to this:
As the equivalent in TVRs heyday! Quite some difference, and the mark of how far sports cars have come in the last 15 years or so (particularly in terms of Surfacing rather than just Styling)
I'd suggest that a RHD 'vette is very close to what TVR were about, and yet Chevrolet can't even make the numbers add up for the relatively cheap handwheel side to side swap.........
God no, couldn't think of anything worse,A car that is probably more than the sum of it's parts, but that has really come of age with this latest iteration (and it's styling has finally, imo hit the spot)
Compare that to this:
As the equivalent in TVRs heyday! Quite some difference, and the mark of how far sports cars have come in the last 15 years or so (particularly in terms of Surfacing rather than just Styling)
I'd suggest that a RHD 'vette is very close to what TVR were about, and yet Chevrolet can't even make the numbers add up for the relatively cheap handwheel side to side swap.........
Yes thought of something worse, Nissan GT-R.
I'm hoping it has some Sagaris Dna splashed with a V8 and a GT3 RS busting chassis.
KTF said:
GetCarter said:
Welcome to Pistonheads - where we all encourage new British sports cars.
There is a long list of 'been there, done that' failures so you cant help but be a bit cynical about these things now.It's SO easy to find fault, put down, take the piss, look at the negative, imagine the worst, put the boot in...
But if these people don't do it, nobody will. Certainly not many from here, who sit on the sidelines sneering, yet do nothing.
Give 'em a chance I say.
For me this is my TVR wish list
Needs to have:
V8 with character - Coyote is therefore great
Some wow factor in the interior - previous TVR's had that soft leather all over, very nice and aluminium switch gear, very special
Small - please please keep it narrow and short, no fat arse please, we already have that in all the mass manufacturers, just make it small enough for European roads and can fit in garage and open the door in garage
Mechanical door handles - don't complicate this, keep it cheap,simple, robust and reliable (better places to spend the development money)
Water tight - no leaks please
Air con and efficient engine cooling
Doesn't need:
Fancy electrics - no electric seats, no sat nav (come on people use your phones or tom tom), no directional headlights, no parking assist, no lane warning, no auto dim lights, no bings and bongs. Save all that money and focus on engine and chassis tuning please.
Needs to have:
V8 with character - Coyote is therefore great
Some wow factor in the interior - previous TVR's had that soft leather all over, very nice and aluminium switch gear, very special
Small - please please keep it narrow and short, no fat arse please, we already have that in all the mass manufacturers, just make it small enough for European roads and can fit in garage and open the door in garage
Mechanical door handles - don't complicate this, keep it cheap,simple, robust and reliable (better places to spend the development money)
Water tight - no leaks please
Air con and efficient engine cooling
Doesn't need:
Fancy electrics - no electric seats, no sat nav (come on people use your phones or tom tom), no directional headlights, no parking assist, no lane warning, no auto dim lights, no bings and bongs. Save all that money and focus on engine and chassis tuning please.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff