RE: Light IS Right: PH Blog
Discussion
Gandahar said:
Tickle said:
The tanker must be the best as it has more power.
I got mine remapped recently. The speed now I get up to 14 nautical miles per hour is truly astonishingImpasse said:
Gandahar said:
Tickle said:
The tanker must be the best as it has more power.
I got mine remapped recently. The speed now I get up to 14 nautical miles per hour is truly astonishingyonex said:
... We're talking about a two seater sports car that's barely any lighter than something designed in 1990! (NSX) With the advances in metals, composites and manufacturing processes it doesn't seem like a huge achievement. There would be a market, there always is, just a question of numbers.
But you also have to factor in the changes in expectations of the market. I'm sure if Porsche set out to design something which was no more comfortable or refined or safe than an NSX, they could get it under a tonne... but people don't want that. I think we, the supposed "driving enthusiasts", have to take the brunt of the blame for the current state of the market. There's not actually all that much difference in terms of comfort and NVH between an early NSX and a well specced current Exige (at least if you can get into the Exige in the first place), yet most PHers would think you were crazy for suggesting an Exige as a daily sportscar because it doesn't have a whole load of things that hadn't even been invented when the cars we supposedly revere were built... when even PHers wont buy a sports car if it doesn't have a cuddly dashboard, cup holders, and a 15 speaker sound system, why on earth would a manufacturer develop one?
Edited by kambites on Friday 29th April 21:01
Gandahar said:
So in summary which would you rather drive, sorry pilot?
or
It's all about the corners unless you are drag racing.
Drag racing brings up light weight again. Top Fuel weigh about 1000kg. So even here they are light.
In a straight line or through the twisties the world of motorsport wants lightness. They don't do it for sts and giggles.
If Nissan made the next update of the GT-R a lot smaller and 3/4 the weight and only 3/4 the power, people would love it. That would give you 400bhp in 1300kg. Which sounds fantastic.
But they cannot do it because the car is so huge.
Would they love it? or
It's all about the corners unless you are drag racing.
Drag racing brings up light weight again. Top Fuel weigh about 1000kg. So even here they are light.
In a straight line or through the twisties the world of motorsport wants lightness. They don't do it for sts and giggles.
If Nissan made the next update of the GT-R a lot smaller and 3/4 the weight and only 3/4 the power, people would love it. That would give you 400bhp in 1300kg. Which sounds fantastic.
But they cannot do it because the car is so huge.
It sells in good numbers now part of that will be because it's a decent sized 4 seater, the TT RS is near the number you quoting it's a 2+2 at best & judging by what's been said about that car it won't be selling at the rate the GT-R does.
I think if they could leave the power & size the same but lost around 100kgs I think they'd be on the money.
TheRocket said:
I think the thing with very Light cars (previous owner of LCC Rocket) are how easy it is to maintain momentum when properly sorted suspension (and this takes time...) is allowed to work with the road unlike heavier cars having to bludgeon the road into submission (so for the road a softer set up can be used than on a heavier car), but as another poster pointed out on motorways they can be a pain and cross winds can really have an effect so there are downsides too.
Tires can also be an issue as no one really makes a road tire for a lightweight car and sidewalls can be too stiff, it might be unfashionable but higher profile tires seem to work better.
Sadly with all the modern safety equipment I can't really see how cars can be properly light again, development costs vs. reward just isn't there for manufacturers.
I really don't understand why manufacturers aren't making a much cheaper composite tub using the much more efficient production processes of today. Tires can also be an issue as no one really makes a road tire for a lightweight car and sidewalls can be too stiff, it might be unfashionable but higher profile tires seem to work better.
Sadly with all the modern safety equipment I can't really see how cars can be properly light again, development costs vs. reward just isn't there for manufacturers.
I know fibreglass has a st reputation from the 70s horrors, but my GTM Libra has a tub that's 50% stiffer than an Elise, weighs 740kg, and with a clever crash box such as the mclarens would be bloody good in crash tests. That was designed in a shed. Pretty good on motorways and cross winds too, have run mine for 20k miles of mixed commute. Unfortunately going up for sale at the weekend, I know I'll miss it.
How good would a £50k, 800kg Mclaren be, with a small and simple fibreglass or better cheap composite chassis and a transverse n/a 4 pot based on one bank of the v8. It'd blow the boxster into the weeds...
I completely agree, lighter is better, all other things being equal. Obviously no one number can represent the entire experience of driving a car or tell you which car is best, but out of all the single numbers one could look at, it's the one I always look for in magazine articles.
The fact that almost every race series has a minimum weight limit is quite strong evidence that weight does matter.
I always enjoy reading about how Gordon Murray was influenced by Colin Chapman in this regard, leading to the LCC Rocket and the F1.
I also recall Steve Randle proudly showing me how they designed a suspension arm for the Rover 75, putting the transition from box-section to L-section part-way along the arm and thus using the transition itself to boost stiffness, and therefore undercutting all other bidders on weight, without being any more expensive.
There's an almost zen perfection to the art of working out the minimum possible amount of material and how to distribute it to achieve a given strength and stiffness; after removing all unnecessary material, the remaining shape is a perfect physical, three dimensional, tangible representation of the unseen forces involved in the piece doing its job.
kambites said:
But you also have to factor in the changes in expectations of the market. I'm sure if Porsche set out to design something which was no more comfortable or refined or safe than an NSX, they could get it under a tonne... but people don't want that.
I think we, the supposed "driving enthusiasts", have to take the brunt of the blame for the current state of the market. There's not actually all that much difference in terms of comfort and NVH between an early NSX and a well specced current Exige (at least if you can get into the Exige in the first place), yet most PHers would think you were crazy for suggesting an Exige as a daily sportscar because it doesn't have a whole load of things that hadn't even been invented when the cars we supposedly revere were built... when even PHers wont buy a sports car if it doesn't have a cuddly dashboard, cup holders, and a 15 speaker sound system, why on earth would a manufacturer develop one?
But the NSX was mega comfortable, refined and can cruise or play. I bought one and rated it very highly tbh. The fact it weighed about the same as a supposed flagship Cayman surprises me. It was full of niceties and so well put together. I stripped the suspension once and was taken aback at the sheer quality of the castings. Porsche have every advantage to build an open top spyder, carbon tub 2.9 F6, throttle bodies 300HP NA, manual, perhaps even lose the servo's? Imagine a Porsche 'MX5' if you will, not a flabby dull Boxster thing, really stripped back. Premium components from the motorsports bin, carbon panels, forget electric anything. That's my ideal really.I think we, the supposed "driving enthusiasts", have to take the brunt of the blame for the current state of the market. There's not actually all that much difference in terms of comfort and NVH between an early NSX and a well specced current Exige (at least if you can get into the Exige in the first place), yet most PHers would think you were crazy for suggesting an Exige as a daily sportscar because it doesn't have a whole load of things that hadn't even been invented when the cars we supposedly revere were built... when even PHers wont buy a sports car if it doesn't have a cuddly dashboard, cup holders, and a 15 speaker sound system, why on earth would a manufacturer develop one?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 29th April 21:01
yonex said:
But the NSX was mega comfortable, refined and can cruise or play. I bought one and rated it very highly tbh. The fact it weighed about the same as a supposed flagship Cayman surprises me. It was full of niceties and so well put together. I stripped the suspension once and was taken aback at the sheer quality of the castings. Porsche have every advantage to build an open top spyder, carbon tub 2.9 F6, throttle bodies 300HP NA, manual, perhaps even lose the servo's? Imagine a Porsche 'MX5' if you will, not a flabby dull Boxster thing, really stripped back. Premium components from the motorsports bin, carbon panels, forget electric anything. That's my ideal really.
I don't remember the NSX being particularly refined. For its time, it was reasonable (which means it was very good for a sports car) but when I test-drove one eight years ago I don't remember it being any more refined than the Corrado I was driving at the time and the current Exige is at least on a par with that; the Evora blows it into the weeds (but is obviously a lot heavier). I do agree on the engineering integrity thing, but Porsche haven't been in that league for 20 years if they ever were at all.
kambites said:
Because Clarkson would say it was plastic on Topgear (or whatever he's doing now) and no-one would buy it.
If it were done properly it'd be loads stiffer and lighter than the competition, and someone like Mclaren or Lotus could 'get away' with it with the press if they also added their particular expertise - if a Lotus they could achieve the absolute best steering feel knowing how good the current cars are, Mclaren the quality, design and prestige. Dan Trent said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
For the avoidance of doubt we absolutely agree on this - I love the M2 but I also wish they'd built something light and four-cylinder like that Series Tii concept they showed a while back. It is a pity BMW never have been interested in 'light weight specials' for the masses. They have all the ingredients available but just can't be arxed or don't see a market :-/.
Rose tinted specs on: if we are really lucky, the upcoming changes for the blasted driving cycles will mean more realistic acceleration profiles and perhaps therefore more focus on the weight of the cars?
kambites said:
I don't remember the NSX being particularly refined. For its time, it was reasonable (which means it was very good for a sports car) but when I test-drove one eight years ago I don't remember it being any more refined than the Corrado I was driving at the time and the current Exige is at least on a par with that; the Evora blows it into the weeds (but is obviously a lot heavier).
I do agree on the engineering integrity thing, but Porsche haven't been in that league for 20 years if they ever were at all.
You could drive the NSX cross continent and not worry. The seating position was 'so', only rear visibility made it anything other than totally normal. The 3.2 made around 300HP and it was enough to be honest. With it's physical size it was never going to be a backroad animal but that car could use all and every ounce of power, everything just worked. Underneath it was a marvel, there are many at 100K+, 150K+ actually in the US. I once had a thermostat changed at a main dealer, it was £27. The world has gone mad. Weight is the absolute enemy of performance and whilst it is easy to wind up the boost on any given car to make some headline figures that does absolutely sod all compared to losing 50kg. There is an indescribable fluency to a lightweight car, forget the individual characteristic, I mean in the transition between good and bad things happening. There is an inherent balance and feeling that you can take liberties with a lighter more playful car, it'll still bite but the transition is much more manageable. I do agree on the engineering integrity thing, but Porsche haven't been in that league for 20 years if they ever were at all.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Totally agree. It's always fun to watch the buyers of "stripped out" cars who then go on to specify air conditioning, big stereo, electric seats, big wheels etc etc from the options list. The end result puts the car's weight back pretty much where it started...ZX10R NIN said:
It sells in good numbers now part of that will be because it's a decent sized 4 seater, the TT RS is near the number you quoting it's a 2+2 at best & judging by what's been said about that car it won't be selling at the rate the GT-R does.
I think if they could leave the power & size the same but lost around 100kgs I think they'd be on the money.
100kg would be unnoticeable in a GTR - I can't feel a difference in the 1250kg 360bhp RX7 with a fat passenger or without.I think if they could leave the power & size the same but lost around 100kgs I think they'd be on the money.
I could in my MkII Escort which IIRC was 850kg and a mighty 65bhp.
I haven't really driven enough performance cars to really be able to judge handling objectively I don't think. But, I do know that lightening my own classic has made it massively more fun.
In reality, I think you could just say that many older cars are more fun to drive than new cars (very generally). I always refer to the 'fun at 50' test - which is basically the speed most of us are able to travel at these days with limits and traffic. You are more likely to have fun at legal speeds in a lighter car.
My Triumoh Toledo Sprint now weighs nearly 100kgs les than it did when I first bought it.
Fibreglass bonnet, front valance and wings. Polycarbonate side and rear window. Stripped sound deadening (including chipping off all of the old bitumen sound pads). Lightweight engine back plate, lightweight starter motor. Smaller, lighter battery. Front bucket seats, No rear seats, Alcantara wrapped foam sheets for carpets. door cards made from Correx trimmed in Alcantara. Lightweight front hubs. Aluminium radiator. Don't carry a spare wheel. No cigar lighter
In reality, I have also increased power during the lightening process, so difficult to pinpoint the effect of the reduced weight in its own. Damn it's fun though.
850kgs and 165bhp in a 44 year old saloon is a good combo. The small size, as others have said, really helps in terms of where I can enjoy the performance. It is narrow enough to thread around pot holes without straying across the white line. I feel like I have more options. I still drive a bit like a granny though compared to many on here I'm sure.
I would love to drop a K series in, as much for its weight advantage as the revs.
In reality, I think you could just say that many older cars are more fun to drive than new cars (very generally). I always refer to the 'fun at 50' test - which is basically the speed most of us are able to travel at these days with limits and traffic. You are more likely to have fun at legal speeds in a lighter car.
My Triumoh Toledo Sprint now weighs nearly 100kgs les than it did when I first bought it.
Fibreglass bonnet, front valance and wings. Polycarbonate side and rear window. Stripped sound deadening (including chipping off all of the old bitumen sound pads). Lightweight engine back plate, lightweight starter motor. Smaller, lighter battery. Front bucket seats, No rear seats, Alcantara wrapped foam sheets for carpets. door cards made from Correx trimmed in Alcantara. Lightweight front hubs. Aluminium radiator. Don't carry a spare wheel. No cigar lighter
In reality, I have also increased power during the lightening process, so difficult to pinpoint the effect of the reduced weight in its own. Damn it's fun though.
850kgs and 165bhp in a 44 year old saloon is a good combo. The small size, as others have said, really helps in terms of where I can enjoy the performance. It is narrow enough to thread around pot holes without straying across the white line. I feel like I have more options. I still drive a bit like a granny though compared to many on here I'm sure.
I would love to drop a K series in, as much for its weight advantage as the revs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff