Top Gear - M135i test

[Nors]

Can't see anything on here about last night's group test of the M135i v Golf Gti V A45, so I thought I'd ask a couple of questions.

I'm not exactly a big fan of TG any more (I record it now and skip through all the nonsense) and I'm never entirely sure how much of the Tests are genuine and how much is for 'effect'.

However, the M135i last night aquaplaned in a straight line at 120mph and it looked a bit scary. The Golf didn't, but is this down to the Tyres alone on the BMW or is it something else? I don't think JC deliberately provoked it, he looked quite scared whilst it was spinning round.

Obviously, I can't imagine anyone driving on a real road in those conditions at that speed, but could it happen at much lower speeds too I wonder?

The speed it appeared to snap out at the back.....yikes!!

Oh, and we didn't even get a sniff of what the Merc was like as he dismissed it immediatley on price alone. The example they had there was £47k

[bqf]

It's hard to tell what happened, but I believe he saw the surface water and lifted off, which isn't a good idea

[Mastodon2]

It can happen at much lower speeds, there is a good clip from Mythbusters where they demonstrate quite how easily, using a fire truck to wet some asphalt and then aquaplaning a Boxster across it.

[BritishRacinGrin]

There's a possibility the Golf was aquaplaning too, but simply didn't spin in dramatic fashion because it is front wheel drive and so long as the driver keeps his foot down the front axle will pull the car straight and keep it there.
A rear wheel drive car is a different kettle of fish because once the car is aquaplaning, if the power is kept on, it's only a matter of moments before one of the rear tyres re-grips and turns straight line aquaplaning into a spin.
Another consideration is that if the Golf had narrower tyres fitted it would've had less of a tendency to aquaplane, or as you say potentially more tread depth than the BMW... or maybe the fact that the Golf has more weight on the front tyres reduces the risk of aquaplaning, or a combination of these factors...

A mere mortal in a real world aquaplaning situation would back off the power (slowly and gently, if they have any sense). As far as I can tell, Clarkson kept his foot in it until the car spun.

[bullitinhead]

Mastodon2 said:

It can happen at much lower speeds, there is a good clip from Mythbusters where they demonstrate quite how easily, using a fire truck to wet some asphalt and then aquaplaning a Boxster across it.

There was a mythbusters that was mything the convertible in the rain thing(not getting wet)(using a boxster), that stepped out on a run at speed ,causing a spin and crash.

Bullit

[bqf]

BritishRacinGrin said:

A mere mortal in a real world aquaplaning situation would back off the power (slowly and gently, if they have any sense). As far as I can tell, Clarkson kept his foot in it until the car spun.

MMM. Lots of ways to induce oversteer in a RWD car, but I think he lifted off abruptly when he saw the water, and thats why the rears lost grip. Might be wrong though.

[mikal83]

How TF does anyone know IF he lifted off or not.
Also runways arent flat, so "maybe" there was a pool of water on one spot and it acquaplained there.

[nails1979]

It was also traveling faster than the golf at that time too. Lots of standing water on their track also.
If I was on a normal road in those conditions I wouldn't be doing those speeds and then it wouldnt of happened. Bit of a big deal over nothing imo.

[Nors]

BritishRacinGrin said:

because it is front wheel drive and so long as the driver keeps his foot down the front axle will pull the car straight and keep it there.

I always thought (regardless of driven wheels)the best policy if hitting standing water, was to just lift off and steer through it?

[Chris_H]

The current series of Top Gear's thread is here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[stuart-b]

He also had the DSC off, on his lap. Any money you like he had it off at that time too.

[Nors]

nails1979 said:

It was also traveling faster than the golf at that time too. Lots of standing water on their track also.
If I was on a normal road in those conditions I wouldn't be doing those speeds and then it wouldnt of happened. Bit of a big deal over nothing imo.

You wouldn't perhaps, (nor me) but how many times on the Motorway in really wet conditions do you see some numpty hooning it up the outside lanes at 80+?

Big deal over nothing? Not so sure, especially if I see one in those conditions come flying up along side me......and take me out!

[BritishRacinGrin]

bqf said:

BritishRacinGrin said:

A mere mortal in a real world aquaplaning situation would back off the power (slowly and gently, if they have any sense). As far as I can tell, Clarkson kept his foot in it until the car spun.

MMM. Lots of ways to induce oversteer in a RWD car, but I think he lifted off abruptly when he saw the water, and thats why the rears lost grip. Might be wrong though.

Yup, either one of us could be. The only reason I think Clarkson would've kept his foot in it is simply that I wouldn't put it past him i.e. It wouldn't be the first time he's driven like a ham-fisted oaf in order to make his point, witness his segments on 'terminally understeering Vauxhalls'...

I'm also sure that he'd have been aware of the aquaplaning risk and aware of what to do should the car start to aquaplane.

Whether the spin was caused by keeping his foot down or getting out of the throttle and suddenly unloading the rear, the fact that the car aquaplaned is more of a reflection on the conditions, speed and tyres than it is on the car itself.

[Nors]

Chris_H said:

The current series of Top Gear's thread is here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[jon-]

Lets not forget the m135i runs Michelin Pilot Super Sports as stock, which aren't the strongest tyres when it comes to aquaplaning.

But it's also important to remember Top Gear is an entertainment show, so there's a chance it was staged using some deep standing water on purpose.

The lap time however is worth discussing. 1.25.1 puts it ahead of some big cars...

[BritishRacinGrin]

Nors said:

BritishRacinGrin said:

because it is front wheel drive and so long as the driver keeps his foot down the front axle will pull the car straight and keep it there.

I always thought (regardless of driven wheels)the best policy if hitting standing water, was to just lift off and steer through it?

In a rear wheel drive car, simply lifting off will unload the rear axle and can induce oversteer all on it's own.

The best defense against aquaplaning is driving at an appropriate speed, and if you do find yourself aquaplaning you should indeed ease off ('ease' off, as oppose to 'lift' off, so as to minimise the effect of unloading the rear axle and causing it to try to overtake the front).

[EricE]

The M135i probably had the Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires on, not exactly the number one choice for a 120 mph run on a runway with standing water in relatively cold weather.



and in addition to that the ESP was clearly disabled (screenshot taken 2 seconds before the actual spin happens)

[cheese]

Disappointing test.

TG provided no real information or context about the BMW aquaplaning other than to say it was on the same track as the GTI. We all know that TG isn't a car review programme anymore but up to this point (nearly) when they actually did a proper test they respected their craft and produced a good, informative review. What happened last night seemed to stray away from that and was just pointless and partial.

Starting with the Merc, they gave no real information about the car or how AMG have moved into this segment with a technically very impressive car (surely this is at least something worth noting)that has, to an extent redefined what's expected at the top end of the hot hatch market.

So the AMG was dismissed (fine, but please explain why other than cost as people are choosing to buy them) and we are down to two cars. The BMW is then seemingly written off as it aqua planned at 120mph. Was this real or not, I guess we won't truly ever know, but let's assume it was? Any car can aqua plane if it's given the right provocation, so is this a genuine issue with the BMW and large amounts of standing water at high speed or was it just an inevitable result of extreme provocation? This is really all I would want to know as it seems important, within this context, not compared to something like world peace or the eradication of diseases for example.

These three cars have been covered exhaustively on here and in the wider motoring press, and we all know a lot about them. It would have been nice to see their opinion on them top add to our knowledge and entertain us. What's the point in TG if it no longer does proper tests in the rare moments it seemingly sets out to do so?

I don't own a BMW 135i or any other BMW. At the moment I have a MK6 Golf GTI, which is alright really, nothing special but a good solid car (with a small remap as it's a bit slow otherwise).

[Nors]

Would the S3 not have been more appropriate to test alongside these 2 other than the Golf. Given price and power outputs?

[Nors]

BritishRacinGrin said:

Nors said:

BritishRacinGrin said:

because it is front wheel drive and so long as the driver keeps his foot down the front axle will pull the car straight and keep it there.

I always thought (regardless of driven wheels)the best policy if hitting standing water, was to just lift off and steer through it?

In a rear wheel drive car, simply lifting off will unload the rear axle and can induce oversteer all on it's own.

The best defense against aquaplaning is driving at an appropriate speed, and if you do find yourself aquaplaning you should indeed ease off ('ease' off, as oppose to 'lift' off, so as to minimise the effect of unloading the rear axle and causing it to try to overtake the front).

See your point!