Top Gear - M135i test
Discussion
Orangecurry said:
jamieduff1981 said:
The point I'm trying to make is that RWD and unlimited wet performance would be rather underpowered overall. That doesn't make it a flawed car, and it's just part of a car that requires the driver to actually participate in the driving.
Typo?If you are very old-fashioned, then I'm surprised at you. For example an MG Midget has almost no power, but is enormous fun at low speed due to being lightweight and having the 'correct' amount of grip on skinny tyres.
A Midget is just the same as an M135 but
on a much smaller scale and exhibits the same characteristics but at much lower speeds. It has much less power, but still doesn't tolerate hamfistedness in very wet conditions.
The only real difference is that the M135 has driver aids to offset the higher speeds. You can't drive a Midget at 12/10ths in the wet and you can't drive an M135 at 12/10ths in the wet either apparently. I'm stunned that this is such a shock to so many people.
I'm not even an M135 fan - it's an ugly little blighter but I do take exception to constant suggestions that our weather is especially adverse and that RWD cars are not sensible in the UK. It's nonsense. They're only unsuitable for plonkers who lack the presence of mind to reign it in slightly on the occassions we do get bad weather, which makes dry weather ability fresh and enjoyable when that happens too.
selym said:
I might be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the Golf would have been as quick as the 135i if the lap had been carried out in the rain (or the BMW as slow as the Golf, take your pick).
I'm sorry, but i still think the BM would have been significantly quicker.The advantage in traction that a car with the engine over it's drive wheels (advantage) is negated by the fact the car is FWD (disadvantage) As such, the harder you accelerate, the less traction you have.
At low speed and hence low gears (high tractive effort) the FWD will have a traction advantage, but as soon as an acceleration of around 0.25g is reached, that advantage moves to the rwd car. This effect occurs in both the wet and dry, only that the speed at which full power can be transmitted to the road is reduced in the wet.
The BMW has a rolling traction advantage over the Golf, and a huge power and torque advantage. Notice how in the TG drag race, which was wet, the 135 simply drives off into the distance from the Gti, even from 0mph! (helped of course by it'd modern auto very smoothly transmitting all that torque to the rear wheels as the weight transfers backwards.
Max_Torque said:
selym said:
I might be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the Golf would have been as quick as the 135i if the lap had been carried out in the rain (or the BMW as slow as the Golf, take your pick).
I'm sorry, but i still think the BM would have been significantly quicker.The advantage in traction that a car with the engine over it's drive wheels (advantage) is negated by the fact the car is FWD (disadvantage) As such, the harder you accelerate, the less traction you have.
At low speed and hence low gears (high tractive effort) the FWD will have a traction advantage, but as soon as an acceleration of around 0.25g is reached, that advantage moves to the rwd car. This effect occurs in both the wet and dry, only that the speed at which full power can be transmitted to the road is reduced in the wet.
The BMW has a rolling traction advantage over the Golf, and a huge power and torque advantage. Notice how in the TG drag race, which was wet, the 135 simply drives off into the distance from the Gti, even from 0mph! (helped of course by it'd modern auto very smoothly transmitting all that torque to the rear wheels as the weight transfers backwards.
MGJohn said:
XJ Flyer said:
There's a difference between losing contact at the front wheels through aquaplaning or loss of grip as opposed to losing contact at the rear wheels depending on which wheels are driven.It seems obvious that the BM lost contact at the rear wheels which being the driven wheels also resulted in loss of traction.The fact that,in the BM's case,it was obviously putting a lot more power into it's driven wheels, than it's opponent,then needs to be factored in together with the fact that it's a short wheelbase car that will obviously snap sideways rather than slide relatively slower in that situation.
In this case it was the perfect storm of trying to run at a stupid unrealistic speed with a power input to match in bad conditions together with the predictable results of losing contact at the driven wheels.If the Golf was being driven in the same way with the equivalent power input it probably would have done something similar if/when it lost traction at the front.IE the driven wheels of an fwd car can't pull it straight at all if they aren't in contact with the road for whatever reason the fact is there just won't be any directional control at all,unlike a rwd car that loses contact at the driven wheels which is just a case of reduce the power gradually.Which is why both the French and the Germans have the sense to impose a relatively lower speed limit on their motorways in wet conditions.In this case the lesson was don't try to drive a quick car quickly in the wet and there is a limit on the amount of power that it's wise to put into a short wheelbase car and the BM,probably, might arguably,be a case of too much.
I do not see it that way. The FRONT wheels hit the standing water first and lift off aquaplaning results whilst the BMW's rear wheels are still powering the thing big time! In that split second it's all it takes and even a current or former F1 WDC's reaction time would not cope with that instantaneous loss of control. In this case it was the perfect storm of trying to run at a stupid unrealistic speed with a power input to match in bad conditions together with the predictable results of losing contact at the driven wheels.If the Golf was being driven in the same way with the equivalent power input it probably would have done something similar if/when it lost traction at the front.IE the driven wheels of an fwd car can't pull it straight at all if they aren't in contact with the road for whatever reason the fact is there just won't be any directional control at all,unlike a rwd car that loses contact at the driven wheels which is just a case of reduce the power gradually.Which is why both the French and the Germans have the sense to impose a relatively lower speed limit on their motorways in wet conditions.In this case the lesson was don't try to drive a quick car quickly in the wet and there is a limit on the amount of power that it's wise to put into a short wheelbase car and the BM,probably, might arguably,be a case of too much.
For several reasons, the DRIVEN wheels in the golf would have more penetrating effect when reaching and plunging into the standing water FIRST thus reducing the chance of aquaplaning or at least delaying or raising the threshold of it.
It is a shame he didn't roll it (at low speed obviously, causing no injury, but a wake up call), then the prat might learn how to drive properly.
Makes me laugh that he even brings up any sort of commonality between his own off and Hammonds (which was a mechanical failure at 300+ and almost killed the bloke/made him a veggy).
I'm really starting to dislike JC these days - kind of reminds me of the school playground mentality which you grow out of at 16 (well, most people).
Makes me laugh that he even brings up any sort of commonality between his own off and Hammonds (which was a mechanical failure at 300+ and almost killed the bloke/made him a veggy).
I'm really starting to dislike JC these days - kind of reminds me of the school playground mentality which you grow out of at 16 (well, most people).
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
selym said:
I might be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the Golf would have been as quick as the 135i if the lap had been carried out in the rain (or the BMW as slow as the Golf, take your pick).
I'm sorry, but i still think the BM would have been significantly quicker.The advantage in traction that a car with the engine over it's drive wheels (advantage) is negated by the fact the car is FWD (disadvantage) As such, the harder you accelerate, the less traction you have.
At low speed and hence low gears (high tractive effort) the FWD will have a traction advantage, but as soon as an acceleration of around 0.25g is reached, that advantage moves to the rwd car. This effect occurs in both the wet and dry, only that the speed at which full power can be transmitted to the road is reduced in the wet.
The BMW has a rolling traction advantage over the Golf, and a huge power and torque advantage. Notice how in the TG drag race, which was wet, the 135 simply drives off into the distance from the Gti, even from 0mph! (helped of course by it'd modern auto very smoothly transmitting all that torque to the rear wheels as the weight transfers backwards.
J4CKO said:
Surely, if driving at 120 mph in the wet, all bets are off regardless of the driven wheels, a spin is a distinct possibility in any car as it wont actually be in contac with the road at that speed ?
^ This while adding more power into the equation just increases the odds in that case. Max_Torque said:
If we put some bends in, then it simply becomes the difference in max lateral G between the cars. For ALL cars (except aero ones) that then would be very close. Something like a hot hatch will pull say on average 1G (in the dry) but even a Daweo Matiz can probably pull 0.9g In that case, both cars are equally effected by the rain (and hence the lower Mu)
Which is where the trick diff would come into its own. Drag races are pointless.Max_Torque said:
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
selym said:
I might be stating the bleeding obvious here, but the Golf would have been as quick as the 135i if the lap had been carried out in the rain (or the BMW as slow as the Golf, take your pick).
I'm sorry, but i still think the BM would have been significantly quicker.The advantage in traction that a car with the engine over it's drive wheels (advantage) is negated by the fact the car is FWD (disadvantage) As such, the harder you accelerate, the less traction you have.
At low speed and hence low gears (high tractive effort) the FWD will have a traction advantage, but as soon as an acceleration of around 0.25g is reached, that advantage moves to the rwd car. This effect occurs in both the wet and dry, only that the speed at which full power can be transmitted to the road is reduced in the wet.
The BMW has a rolling traction advantage over the Golf, and a huge power and torque advantage. Notice how in the TG drag race, which was wet, the 135 simply drives off into the distance from the Gti, even from 0mph! (helped of course by it'd modern auto very smoothly transmitting all that torque to the rear wheels as the weight transfers backwards.
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
If we put some bends in, then it simply becomes the difference in max lateral G between the cars. For ALL cars (except aero ones) that then would be very close. Something like a hot hatch will pull say on average 1G (in the dry) but even a Daweo Matiz can probably pull 0.9g In that case, both cars are equally effected by the rain (and hence the lower Mu)
Which is where the trick diff would come into its own. Drag races are pointless.The bottom line -- clearly shown by Top Gear's M135i spin at 120mph (assuming it was not faked) -- is that RWD cars are dangerous in greasy, damp or wet road conditions (which is about 50% of the time in rainy Britain). No amount of chest-thumping by anyone can disguise that harsh fact.
lamboman100 said:
The bottom line -- clearly shown by Top Gear's M135i spin at 120mph (assuming it was not faked) -- is that RWD cars are dangerous in greasy, damp or wet road conditions (which is about 50% of the time in rainy Britain). No amount of chest-thumping by anyone can disguise that harsh fact.
At WOT, and 120mph in heavy rain, ANY car will be dangerous! 007 VXR said:
lamboman100 said:
The bottom line -- clearly shown by Top Gear's M135i spin at 120mph (assuming it was not faked) -- is that RWD cars are dangerous in greasy, damp or wet road conditions (which is about 50% of the time in rainy Britain). No amount of chest-thumping by anyone can disguise that harsh fact.
At WOT, and 120mph in heavy rain, ANY car will be dangerous! 007 VXR said:
lamboman100 said:
The bottom line -- clearly shown by Top Gear's M135i spin at 120mph (assuming it was not faked) -- is that RWD cars are dangerous in greasy, damp or wet road conditions (which is about 50% of the time in rainy Britain). No amount of chest-thumping by anyone can disguise that harsh fact.
At WOT, and 120mph in heavy rain, ANY car will be dangerous! There are varying levels of danger for cars. A RWD car in the wet is considerably more dangerous than a 4WD OR FWD car in the wet.
lamboman100 said:
007 VXR said:
lamboman100 said:
The bottom line -- clearly shown by Top Gear's M135i spin at 120mph (assuming it was not faked) -- is that RWD cars are dangerous in greasy, damp or wet road conditions (which is about 50% of the time in rainy Britain). No amount of chest-thumping by anyone can disguise that harsh fact.
At WOT, and 120mph in heavy rain, ANY car will be dangerous! There are varying levels of danger for cars. A RWD car in the wet is considerably more dangerous than a 4WD OR FWD car in the wet.
lamboman100 said:
Of course. It goes without saying. No vehicle is 100% risk-free.
There are varying levels of danger for cars. A RWD car in the wet is considerably more dangerous than a 4WD OR FWD car in the wet.
Do insurance records show that RWD cars are crashed more often than fwd ones? I suspect not, and that the driver is massively the decisive factor. A badly driven rwd car is no more or less dangerous than a badly driven fwd one. In fact, you could argue, that often, the false sense of security created at low speeds by fwd cars can actually lead to complacency and more crashes!There are varying levels of danger for cars. A RWD car in the wet is considerably more dangerous than a 4WD OR FWD car in the wet.
Anyway, that's getting OT somewhat. Just watched the TG repeat on BBC2, and if you look at JC's handwheel inputs they are very late and very slow, and completely out of phase with the cars yaw rate. These are exactly the reasons modern cars have DSC fitted..........
stuttgartmetal said:
From circa 1987. " The Golf GTI will be off up the road before the capri is off opposite lock"
I didn't care about that in 1987 and I still don't today..... there is no racing on the public highway, so why should it matter, and the Capri driver will be having more fun.In 1983 my Golf GTi owning ex-school mate kept banging on about this sort of thing as I owned a RS2000 at the time.
Did I care - did I f
k, I was having much more fun.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff