Are todays sports cars just too good??

[cpl_payne]

rhinochopig said:

Mine (for a drivers car) would be:

--snip--
Geared for acceleration - Top speed no more than 110 mph
--snip--

Why, because at that power to traction ratio you'd have a delightfully mobile rear which could be enjoyed at sensible speeds. It would also cost beans to run.

Wouldn't geared for acceleration mean sitting at something like 4000RPM in top gear on a motorway while doing 80 Mph? Other than that sounds perfect.

[ewenm]

cpl_payne said:

rhinochopig said:

Mine (for a drivers car) would be:

--snip--
Geared for acceleration - Top speed no more than 110 mph
--snip--

Why, because at that power to traction ratio you'd have a delightfully mobile rear which could be enjoyed at sensible speeds. It would also cost beans to run.

Wouldn't geared for acceleration mean sitting at something like 4000RPM in top gear on a motorway while doing 80 Mph? Other than that sounds perfect.

Maybe bring back the "overdrive" or just have a really long top gear for motorway work.

[rhinochopig]

ewenm said:

cpl_payne said:

rhinochopig said:

Mine (for a drivers car) would be:

--snip--
Geared for acceleration - Top speed no more than 110 mph
--snip--

Why, because at that power to traction ratio you'd have a delightfully mobile rear which could be enjoyed at sensible speeds. It would also cost beans to run.

Wouldn't geared for acceleration mean sitting at something like 4000RPM in top gear on a motorway while doing 80 Mph? Other than that sounds perfect.

Maybe bring back the "overdrive" or just have a really long top gear for motorway work.

But at the price I mention the car becomes a realistic proposition as a weekend toy. It's the spec for a drivers car after all. That said, my first car - an Mi16 - would be sat at 4k when doing 80. My last car was 6k at 80 - you just needed to wear earplugs

Compared to the previous spec, a 15k "toy" would leave you with 20k to spend on a nice commuter car.

[shoestring7]

Streetrod said:

In this weeks AutoCar Steve Sutcliffe has written an artical about his blueprint for the perfect drivers car and as ever its a good read from Steve.

Some of the hightlights are:
Price £35k
1000kg
VW V6 Turbo diesel (not sure about that)
6 speed DSG gearbox (not sure about that either)
Mid engine
245 BHP
0-60 4.5 sec
0-100 10 sec
147mph top speed
352 ft lb
Double wishbone suspension all round

Even the rendering looks interesting

Hmm. I think John Watson's old 911 from PH'd the other week was a much better point to start from: ~1000kgs, 210hp from a light engine that makes a lovely noise, and absolutely no driver aids (not even servoed brakes).

For me 0 - 100mph in 10seconds tells of a car where its not possible to enjoy full throttle+revs for more than a couple of seconds before you're doing illegal/stupid/dangerous speeds.

SS7

[otolith]

cpl_payne said:

Wouldn't geared for acceleration mean sitting at something like 4000RPM in top gear on a motorway while doing 80 Mph? Other than that sounds perfect.

Most of the cars I've ever had did about 20mph/1000rpm in top, it's no great hardship really and certainly not in a sports car.

I'd like something like an early S2 Elise with a 250bhp Japanese domestic market Mazda Renesis engine and a really nice six speed manual box, please. I don't give a damn about fuel economy in my perfect driver's car.

[snotrag]

cpl_payne said:

Wouldn't geared for acceleration mean sitting at something like 4000RPM in top gear on a motorway while doing 80 Mph? Other than that sounds perfect.

My car does about 4200rpm at 80. Not really a problem.

[cpl_payne]

Sitting at high RPM isn't a problem in itself, I suppose I just prefer the more laid-back nature of bigger engines. Since we're building imaginary cars I'll have mine in rhinochopig spec with a 3 l + I6 engine spec, please

[900T-R]

In the early 2000s, I'd be taking a detour past bookshops only to see if the new Evo issue had hit the shelves yet.
Now I'd sooner grab a copy of Octane.

I don't think the editorial quality of either mag has changed much over the past decade. Nor have I.

What did change, is the cars coming new to the market. More competent, more refined, more of everything - but less involvement and excitement in give or take 'everyday' road conditions.

I think I might stick with my 90s TVR now that I got it pretty much the way I want it.

[LuS1fer]

In my experience, the following apply:
(1) Massive advances in tyres have pushed grip beyond the limits of bravery and cars are now so powerful with such high limits that they are far harder to play with and enjoy without delving into dangerous driving or going on track.
(2) More power generally means beefed up components which lack precision, deftness and lightness. Bigger wheels mean more thumps and yet sturdier components to keep it all in check.
(3) The advent of electronics pushes limits higher but diminishes any sense of involvement.

The iconic nature of Elises and MX5s should tell manufacturers what is needed even further up the scale though maybe the Evora suggests there comes a point where people don't actually care.

[rhinochopig]

LuS1fer said:

In my experience, the following apply:
(1) Massive advances in tyres have pushed grip beyond the limits of bravery and cars are now so powerful with such high limits that they are far harder to play with and enjoy without delving into dangerous driving or going on track.
(2) More power generally means beefed up components which lack precision, deftness and lightness. Bigger wheels mean more thumps and yet sturdier components to keep it all in check.
(3) The advent of electronics pushes limits higher but diminishes any sense of involvement.

The iconic nature of Elises and MX5s should tell manufacturers what is needed even further up the scale though maybe the Evora suggests there comes a point where people don't actually care.

Completely agree, but the public at large like big fat tyres with huge wheels. And visit any final degree show from an automotive design degree and all you see is big wheels and rubber band tyres.

[ewenm]

LuS1fer said:

In my experience, the following apply:
(1) Massive advances in tyres have pushed grip beyond the limits of bravery and cars are now so powerful with such high limits that they are far harder to play with and enjoy without delving into dangerous driving or going on track.
(2) More power generally means beefed up components which lack precision, deftness and lightness. Bigger wheels mean more thumps and yet sturdier components to keep it all in check.
(3) The advent of electronics pushes limits higher but diminishes any sense of involvement.

The iconic nature of Elises and MX5s should tell manufacturers what is needed even further up the scale though maybe the Evora suggests there comes a point where people don't actually care.

But most people just don't care. It's only enthusiasts, and then only some enthusiasts, who prefer lighter, simple cars like the Elise, so unless mainstream manufacturers get over their obsession with "performance through power" and change to "performance through light weight" then the light, simple cars will always be the preserve of niche manufacturers. Of course, the CO2-wars might force mainstream manufacturers' hands here.

[900T-R]

LuS1fer said:

In my experience, the following apply:
(1) Massive advances in tyres have pushed grip beyond the limits of bravery and cars are now so powerful with such high limits that they are far harder to play with and enjoy without delving into dangerous driving or going on track.
(2) More power generally means beefed up components which lack precision, deftness and lightness. Bigger wheels mean more thumps and yet sturdier components to keep it all in check.
(3) The advent of electronics pushes limits higher but diminishes any sense of involvement.

In my experience, which includes hundreds of new cars driven between 1999-now, you're dead on in every respect

LuS1fer said:

The iconic nature of Elises and MX5s should tell manufacturers what is needed even further up the scale though maybe the Evora suggests there comes a point where people don't actually care.

Or maybe we're giving the public at large too much credit and it's 'just' a case of the Lotus badge being cool and aspirational for people spending £25-35K, and less so for those forking out £50-70K where the lure of having a Porsche on the drive gets too strong...

[900T-R]

rhinochopig said:

Completely agree, but the public at large like big fat tyres with huge wheels. And visit any final degree show from an automotive design degree and all you see is big wheels and rubber band tyres.

Look at the classifieds - see how many M3s have the optional 19" wheels rather than the std 18s, how many boggo MINI Coopers run on 17s with the run flats with their owners complainig about the ride, and marvel at how nearly all TVR T-cars come with the optional 18" Spider wheels (Peter Wheeler: "We set a car up to make it as good as possible to drive, and then people are paying us good money to ruin it" or words to that effect) even though it's well documented that they become almost docile if left on the std 16" wheels and tyres (they ended up doing a brake/wheel/hub conversion package for Griffs and Chims to clear their stocks from unwanted 16s).

To me it's clear that even at the specialist level, a huge chunk of sales is to 'image-conscious buyers' rather than drivers...

[Mr Will]

LuS1fer said:

The iconic nature of Elises and MX5s should tell manufacturers what is needed even further up the scale though maybe the Evora suggests there comes a point where people don't actually care.

The problem is, even if people were willing to spend £100k on it, how do you make something better at being an Elise than an Elise?

[rhinochopig]

900T-R said:

rhinochopig said:

Completely agree, but the public at large like big fat tyres with huge wheels. And visit any final degree show from an automotive design degree and all you see is big wheels and rubber band tyres.

Look at the classifieds - see how many M3s have the optional 19" wheels rather than the std 18s, how many boggo MINI Coopers run on 17s with the run flats with their owners complainig about the ride, and marvel at how nearly all TVR T-cars come with the optional 18" Spider wheels (Peter Wheeler: "We set a car up to make it as good as possible to drive, and then people are paying us good money to ruin it" or words to that effect) even though it's well documented that they become almost docile if left on the std 16" wheels and tyres (they ended up doing a brake/wheel/hub conversion package for Griffs and Chims to clear their stocks from unwanted 16s).

To me it's clear that even at the specialist level, a huge chunk of sales is to 'image-conscious buyers' rather than drivers...

This is the case for sevens too - where you'd think the owners would certainly know better - which are now generally bought with 15 or 16 inch wheels.

[MKnight702]

rhinochopig said:

Mine (for a drivers car) would be:

~ 800kg
Front engine RWD
100-120bhp from a 45mpg engine
185 width tyres max
Geared for acceleration - Top speed no more than 110 mph
Agree on the suspension design - set up for b roads though
Spartan interior, but a hardtop design.
£15k

Why, because at that power to traction ratio you'd have a delightfully mobile rear which could be enjoyed at sensible speeds. It would also cost beans to run.

That pretty sums up the XI with the exception of roof and mines a bit lighter.

Back in 2005 (IIRC) EVO had one in drivers car of the year and it did well, so well in fact that despite not winning (I guess because it lacked the all important bhp numbers) it did more track miles than any other contendor. Then a few months later EVO decided to build and run their own....

[RemainAllHoof]

This touches on my thinking of what is fun. Last week, someone asked us to recommend a fun hatchback. A lot of people recommended fast cars that handled well. I'd rather drive a car that had compromised handling (but not a death trap on wheels!) that required the driver to think.

[otolith]

900T-R said:

Or maybe we're giving the public at large too much credit and it's 'just' a case of the Lotus badge being cool and aspirational for people spending £25-35K, and less so for those forking out £50-70K where the lure of having a Porsche on the drive gets too strong...

I expect that even at 25-35k most of the public at large would run screaming from their Lotus test drive.

Good, no point casting pearls before swine.

[Dany Bahar]

Mr Will said:

The problem is, even if people were willing to spend £100k on it, how do you make something better at being an Elise than an Elise?

You make it heavier, more refined and more powerful, more like a Porsche.

[paranoid airbag]

rhinochopig said:

Mine (for a drivers car) would be:

~ 800kg
Front engine RWD
100-120bhp from a 45mpg engine
185 width tyres max
Geared for acceleration - Top speed no more than 110 mph
Agree on the suspension design - set up for b roads though
Spartan interior, but a hardtop design.
£15k

Why, because at that power to traction ratio you'd have a delightfully mobile rear which could be enjoyed at sensible speeds. It would also cost beans to run.

let me know when that goes into production.

Although, isn't that pretty close to caterham/locost spec? oops, just seen 'hardtop' bit.