RE: Size matters: PH Blog

[InitialDave]

Who cares which is faster. Both will let you get down a road pretty quickly. Which is more fun?

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

Rawwr said:

skyrover said:

Have to disagree there

There is no way a clio is going to outrun something like a GTR, even on twisty little country roads.

Not a true comparison but you get the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0pB_jnLDtw

Wet grip of the Audi is vastly superior to the Nissan.

Driver of the Nissan hasn't a clue either.

Didn't they swap drivers - same result whichever driver, Audi was faster? Like to see what would have happened on a wet B road with autumn leaves everywhere and the GTR's huge width to contend with. Audi would be even further ahead (and the GTR in a hedge most probably).

[Kawasicki]

Andy20vt said:

Kawasicki said:

culpz said:

skyrover said:

Andy20vt said:

Modern performance machinery with it's sheer bulk + width and being hamstrung by poor visibility (yet despite on paper being lots, lots faster), wouldn't have stood a chance against the Clio that day.

Have to disagree there

There is no way a clio is going to outrun something like a GTR, even on twisty little country roads.

It most definitely will, so long as the driver is competent enough. The GTR is huge, especially on the UK's twisty B roads. The little Renault can use all of it's power with next-to-no braking and not worry about binning it. The Nissan, on the other hand, will be the complete opposite.

Give this a watch, if you haven't already. Funnily enough, he explains a very similar experience, as to the one we're discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTTI-aMKn60

In a world without other road users a Nissan GTR would be quite a lot quicker than a Clio 182, even on a typical narrow B road. The GTR is pretty easy to throw around, so no more binning worries than a hot Clio.

Haha and when did you ever get a road on without other road users? You mean on a track perhaps?

Seriously, on my local B road the GTR would never get into it's stride, whereas the Clio Trophy would dance from corner to corner, changing direction without loosing momentum. The width of the GTR, combined with it's poor (compared to the Clio) all round visibility would be even more of a hindrance in this situation, not giving you the confidence to push as you otherwise could. Similarly in town or in traffic the Clio (or other small fast car), would be light years ahead of a GTR because of it's diminished size and increased agility/visibility.

Yes the GTR would leave the Clio for dead on a race track, or on a wide, empty, open A road - but how often do you ever get that? And by then you're deep into license loosing territory anyway. Mmmmm a wide traffic free A road - can only dream eh?

As a side note, remember in the bad old days (irresponsibly) chasing a friends mildly souped up mini with a straight through exhaust (original mini), in an original Impreza turbo down some country lanes at dusk. Both of us were okay drivers and both of us knew the road. Impreza had well over twice the horsepower and 4WD and could I keep up with the mini - could I hell! That thing darted round corners like it was on rails.

Edited by Andy20vt on Thursday 30th November 15:35

We will probably have to agree to disagree. My experience is that the GTR is grippy, pretty good at fast direction changes on bumpy back roads, has great visibility, and it gets from 30 to 130 mph pretty quickly.

These discussions are plainly a bit daft. My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

The discussion about A to B speed is always the same...Which car is the fastest?... but, but, but...we need to take into consideration that we shouldn't push too hard, or break the speed limit by too much.

It's like asking a two boxers to compete, but they aren't allowed to punch too hard.

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

We will probably have to agree to disagree. My experience is that the GTR is grippy, pretty good at fast direction changes on bumpy back roads, has great visibility, and it gets from 30 to 130 mph pretty quickly.

Like to see you get to 130 on a B road

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft. My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

Nope it depends entirely on the circumstances - on a track then yes - in the real world then not, especially when a few tight corners and an imperfect road surface are thrown in.

Kawasicki said:

The discussion about A to B speed is always the same...Which car is the fastest?... but, but, but...we need to take into consideration that we shouldn't push too hard, or break the speed limit by too much.

Hence again your 30-130mph is irrelevant.

Kawasicki said:

It's like asking a two boxers to compete, but they aren't allowed to punch too hard.

Nope it's like asking a heavyweight boxer (GTR) to compete in a crowded bar where there's not much space, with a nimble Thai fighter. The heavyweight boxer wouldn't even get the chance or space to get a punch in whilst the Thai fighter would run rings around him.

[Kawasicki]

Andy20vt said:

Kawasicki said:

We will probably have to agree to disagree. My experience is that the GTR is grippy, pretty good at fast direction changes on bumpy back roads, has great visibility, and it gets from 30 to 130 mph pretty quickly.

Like to see you get to 130 on a B road

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft. My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

Nope it depends entirely on the circumstances - on a track then yes - in the real world then not, especially when a few tight corners and an imperfect road surface are thrown in.

Kawasicki said:

The discussion about A to B speed is always the same...Which car is the fastest?... but, but, but...we need to take into consideration that we shouldn't push too hard, or break the speed limit by too much.

Hence again your 30-130mph is irrelevant.

Kawasicki said:

It's like asking a two boxers to compete, but they aren't allowed to punch too hard.

Nope it's like asking a heavyweight boxer (GTR) to compete in a crowded bar where there's not much space, with a nimble Thai fighter. The heavyweight boxer wouldn't even get the chance or space to get a punch in whilst the Thai fighter would run rings around him.

130 on a B road is hardly unusual, when conditions allow, is it? Exit corner at 70 - 80 and hold full throttle for a few seconds, done - unless you are in something with a peaky torque curve and less than 500 bhp, in which case you would probably think it was a high speed.

I think your nimble Thai fighter vs heavyweight boxer in a confined pub is a superb analogy. The Thai fighter would run rings around the boxer...but it is a fight, not a running competition. The Thai fighter might underestimate how hard a heavyweight punches.
https://youtu.be/o7L0EnG0G_U

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

130 on a B road is hardly unusual, when conditions allow, is it? Exit corner at 70 - 80 and hold full throttle for a few seconds, done - unless you are in something with a peaky torque curve and less than 500 bhp, in which case you would probably think it was a high speed.

Haha good luck with that one

[skyrover]

Big offroad monster vs small lightweight car on a handling course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V8uSplGroo

Edited by skyrover on Thursday 30th November 21:18

[Thorburn]

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft. My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

The discussion about A to B speed is always the same...Which car is the fastest?... but, but, but...we need to take into consideration that we shouldn't push too hard, or break the speed limit by too much.

I know from my own personal experience, there are many roads near where I live I drive my 100bhp Fiesta along a lot faster than my 600bhp V12 Vantage S. Hell, there are plenty roads I wouldn't take the Aston down at all!

Two reasons. First of all, the Fiesta is a LOT narrower, so if I encounter a wide vehicle coming the other way I can drive through a gap at 40-50mph where in the Aston I'll be coming to a stop and easing past. Secondly, the Fiesta is worth maybe £2,000 and basically expendable, the Aston is worth ~£100,000 and has huge sentimental value so I'd be gutted if I pranged it.

And that's ignoring the fact that at the moment temperatures are around about -1 to 2c. The Aston has P-Zero Corsa tyres and in the cold and damp feels like it's trying to fire you off the road at the slightest provocation, even with traction control. The Fiesta has Uniroyal Rainsports and I'm pretty sure on a cold, damp road could probably handle higher cornering forces at the moment.

[Gliaviate]

Tesla are particularly guilty of manufacturing cars that are too wide for UK back roads. It is all very well not to produce any emissions at the exhaust but everyone else's is vastly increased as a result of having to stop/start when following one.

[Yipper]

Fatter people = fatter cars.

[skyrover]

Gliaviate said:

Tesla are particularly guilty of manufacturing cars that are too wide for UK back roads. It is all very well not to produce any emissions at the exhaust but everyone else's is vastly increased as a result of having to stop/start when following one.

I'm no fan of Tesla... but their cars are no wider than a British Jaguar F-type and the second part of your argument makes no sense.

[culpz]

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft.

But not quite as daft as someone introducing a completely made up scenario, in attempt to back up their point, only to make it even more invalid and pointless in the process

Kawasicki said:

My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

Don't get me wrong; GTR's are phenomenal for such big, heavy cars. The way they extract performance are like no other, but on certain roads and tracks, it's the small, nimble and light hot-hatches that can really show up much more powerful and expensive machinery.

Less really is more, in certain situations.

[Kawasicki]

culpz said:

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft.

But not quite as daft as someone introducing a completely made up scenario, in attempt to back up their point, only to make it even more invalid and pointless in the process

Kawasicki said:

My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

Don't get me wrong; GTR's are phenomenal for such big, heavy cars. The way they extract performance are like no other, but on certain roads and tracks, it's the small, nimble and light hot-hatches that can really show up much more powerful and expensive machinery.

Less really is more, in certain situations.

What is the scenario then? Nobody ever nails a scenario down in these discussions. I was under the impression that it was how quick is a car on a typical B road. A typical B road is not especially narrow, so vehicle width is important, but not the deciding factor. Two vehicles should pass each other comfortably. Are we talking about B road pace, with no regard for the law or other road users, or with perfect compliance with the law? If the law must be adhered to then the speed advantage of the GTR over a hot hatch is much less.

I understand less is more in certain situations. But I also believe there is a little bit of an exaggeration of the capabilities of a hot hatch on a typical B road, which usually has more straights than corners. The same discussion happens with supermotos versus superbikes. The 60bhp supermoto is nippy, agile, compliant round bends...but the less agile 200 bhp superbike is still very competent in the corners and just disappears on the straights. If the superbike was restricted to 50 or 60 mph then the difference would be very little, but again that is no longer about the actual capability of the bikes.

[wst]

Gliaviate said:

Tesla are particularly guilty of manufacturing cars that are too wide for UK back roads. It is all very well not to produce any emissions at the exhaust but everyone else's is vastly increased as a result of having to stop/start when following one.

Looks fine to me. If you're going to complain about a car because you don't like it, complain about real issues.

[InitialDave]

Kawasicki said:

What is the scenario then? Nobody ever nails a scenario down in these discussions.

The whole Top Trumps style spec-racing is silly, anyway. For something you're going to drive on the road, how fun it is should be the metric, as pretty much anything can be driven fast enough.

But you can't have an online argument about that as easily, because it's too tied up in personal taste rather than objective measurements.

[culpz]

Kawasicki said:

culpz said:

Kawasicki said:

These discussions are plainly a bit daft.

But not quite as daft as someone introducing a completely made up scenario, in attempt to back up their point, only to make it even more invalid and pointless in the process

Kawasicki said:

My experiences is that massively powerful cars with good traction, excellent brakes and sorted suspension are a lot faster than much less powerful performance cars.

Don't get me wrong; GTR's are phenomenal for such big, heavy cars. The way they extract performance are like no other, but on certain roads and tracks, it's the small, nimble and light hot-hatches that can really show up much more powerful and expensive machinery.

Less really is more, in certain situations.

What is the scenario then? Nobody ever nails a scenario down in these discussions. I was under the impression that it was how quick is a car on a typical B road. A typical B road is not especially narrow, so vehicle width is important, but not the deciding factor. Two vehicles should pass each other comfortably. Are we talking about B road pace, with no regard for the law or other road users, or with perfect compliance with the law? If the law must be adhered to then the speed advantage of the GTR over a hot hatch is much less.

I understand less is more in certain situations. But I also believe there is a little bit of an exaggeration of the capabilities of a hot hatch on a typical B road, which usually has more straights than corners. The same discussion happens with supermotos versus superbikes. The 60bhp supermoto is nippy, agile, compliant round bends...but the less agile 200 bhp superbike is still very competent in the corners and just disappears on the straights. If the superbike was restricted to 50 or 60 mph then the difference would be very little, but again that is no longer about the actual capability of the bikes.

Does there really need to be one? We're simply talking about a generic B-road; so no need for specifics. Just using commons sense here dictates the discussion. To quote yourself; "In a world without other road users a Nissan GTR would be quite a lot quicker than a Clio 182, even on a typical narrow B road". That's such a pointless statement to make and actually indicates that you do agree with the point i'm trying to make, in the real world.

B-roads are usually a combination of the two; some differ to others but they are generally regarded as "twisty". The lower-powered cars can use all of their power without hesitation and through the bends with minimal braking; sometimes even none at all. I disagree and think it's the other way round; many like yourself seem to indicate that power is everything. However, on a B-road, i'd say that mentality does not hold up, at the best of times.

[NRS]

culpz said:

The lower-powered cars can use all of their power without hesitation and through the bends with minimal braking; sometimes even none at all.

That makes little sense for the point your making. A faster car with more power may well be at the same or more power with only partial throttle compared to the smaller car. Same with braking - presumably the need to brake more is because the more powerful car is going faster?

It is more the narrowness of the smaller car, often the bigger financial worry of damage (more powerful would be more expensive generally) and perhaps wide tyres on cold days that would surely make a difference instead?

[Kawasicki]

culpz said:

Does there really need to be one? We're simply talking about a generic B-road; so no need for specifics. Just using commons sense here dictates the discussion. To quote yourself; "In a world without other road users a Nissan GTR would be quite a lot quicker than a Clio 182, even on a typical narrow B road". That's such a pointless statement to make and actually indicates that you do agree with the point i'm trying to make, in the real world.

B-roads are usually a combination of the two; some differ to others but they are generally regarded as "twisty". The lower-powered cars can use all of their power without hesitation and through the bends with minimal braking; sometimes even none at all. I disagree and think it's the other way round; many like yourself seem to indicate that power is everything. However, on a B-road, i'd say that mentality does not hold up, at the best of times.

Well my experiences of B roads show they are not very narrow, they have much more distance on the straights than in the corners, and on a road like that a Nissan GTR would be significantly faster than a Clio 182. Have you driven a GTR? Or a 182?

Power is not everything on a B road, but power combined with an agile/stable set-up with tons of lateral and longitudinal grip is sort of hard to beat.

You are deluded, but don't worry it is a common delusion, so you are not alone.

[Rawwr]

I'm sure the GTR would be quicker but I'm also fairly sure that the difference wouldn't be as big as you'd imagine. Ultimately, is all going to boil down to who has the larger penis, which in most cases is me. Seriously, it's like a Pringles tube stuffed with sausage meat.

[culpz]

Kawasicki said:

You are deluded, but don't worry it is a common delusion, so you are not alone.

This coming from the individual who is living in a dream world without other road users? You sir, are the deluded one