New TVR still under wraps!

[Testarossa]

Looks very nice in the vids.

C'mon TVR, decide on some colours and wheels, so I can imagine the car and sort that spoiler out - either have it retractable, integrated like a bmw csl or a fixed curved wing over the rear haunches e.g. GT2 - ignore Gordon who will bang on about how it will not help with top speed/downforce - nobody cares, we want the rear to look even better - or have no spoiler, I'm easy either way just don't want what we have now.

And that front........COME ON, yes it's not a deal breaker but COME ON, listen to the public - WE WANT DRAMA.

COME ON.

I need to have a sit down and a glass of water.

As I was saying, looked nice in the vids and even showed up the sag (a car I love).

SORT OUT THAT FRONT!

[BJWoods]

m4tti said:

Wow I never realised

I guess if what you say is true about braking and cornering with a light weight car, then all the owners of 500 bhp/ton shed built kit cars on Pistonheads, should be lapping the Nurburgring faster than a mclaren P1....

LOL

good thing TVR got Gordon Murray to design the chassis then.. now you are just being silly.

[m4tti]

Not really. You’re just being obtuse to the fact that weight is no longer the limiting factor of modern performance cars and super cars that it once was, as technology has balanced previous disadvantages.

Which is exemplified by many metal super cars lol.


Perhaps what would be better than Les driving this thing to various places, revving it in a cringe worthy fashion whilst parking, would be to get it on dunsfold/top gear test track for a timed lap

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 15:51

[bullittmcqueen]

Another video:

https://de-de.facebook.com/tvrauto/videos/61395559...

[BJWoods]

m4tti said:

Not really. You’re just being obtuse to the fact that weight is no longer the limiting factor of modern performance cars and super cars that it once was, as technology has balanced previous disadvantages.

Which is exemplified by many metal super cars lol.


Perhaps what would be better than Les driving this thing to various places, revving it in a cringe worthy fashion whilst parking, would be to get it on dunsfold/top gear test track for a timed lap

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 15:51

of course weight is not a limiting factor, if you spend oodles of cash and have several hundre-1000 bhp..

but, like for like power, weight is a massive factor..

Evo has a group test, including the Vantage a Porsche (less powerful and lighter) , Audi and McLaren.. The Aston is last on all times, and also the heaviest.. the McLaren has only 25bhp more than the Aston, but is hundreds of kgs lighter.. and it destroys the Aston..

[m4tti]

BJWoods said:

of course weight is not a limiting factor, if you spend oodles of cash and have several hundre-1000 bhp..

but, like for like power, weight is a massive factor..

Evo has a group test, including the Vantage a Porsche (less powerful and lighter) , Audi and McLaren.. The Aston is last on all times, and also the heaviest.. the McLaren has only 25bhp more than the Aston, but is hundreds of kgs lighter.. and it destroys the Aston..

All of those cars are approximately 1500kg.. the Nissan is 1700kg and it has similar power to the Aston And is immensely quick. So no .. not 1000’s of hp ohhh and heavier. How can it be.. this isn’t large hadron collider stuff.

What kind of candy floss peanut gallery magazine pits a gt car like the Aston against the mclaren and Audi any way. Mid engines cars are completely different physics.

Magazines are great for pub talk.

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 21:36

[BJWoods]

m4tti said:

All of those cars are approximately 1500kg.. the Nissan is 1700kg and it has similar power to the Aston And is immensely quick. So no .. not 1000’s of hp ohhh and heavier. How can it be.. this isn’t large hadron collider stuff.

What kind of candy floss peanut gallery magazine pits a gt car like the Aston against the mclaren and Audi any way. Mid engines cars are completely different physics.

Magazines are great for pub talk.

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 21:36

the Nissan.. what Nissan? when did I mention a Nissan?

Which Nissan are you thinking of.. what are it's performance figures.

[m4tti]

BJWoods said:

the Nissan.. what Nissan? when did I mention a Nissan?

Which Nissan are you thinking of.. what are it's performance figures.

I’m giving you examples of modern performance cars where they shoot above their power to weight ratio due to the technology applied. If youre not bright enough to work out which Nissan I’m afraid I can’t help you. I’ll give you a clue it’s not the micra

[BJWoods]

If you are thinking of Nissan GT-R it has ~70bhp more than the Aston..

And as the weight is the just about the same, the Nissan has a higher power to weight ratio, for the same weight. and is significantly quicker than the Aston..

I'm going to sign off with. I think 2 cars.. same power to weight ratio.. the lighter car (and we are talking half a tonne difference) is going to be better, around corners, braking, less hard on tires, less hard on brakes,, etc,etc..

and let us assume both cars have competent car designers. Not "men in sheds" (nice distraction though)

Edited by BJWoods on Friday 15th June 22:29

[m4tti]

Uhh what. Hold on.. Tell me kerb weight of the Aston from the evo test. And then tell me the gtr kerb weight. You’ll find it’s 200kg heavier.

Stop talking utter nonsense...

I’d get into weight and inertia and how it works to your advantage on rough back roads but it might blow your mind.

You really need to drive the cars you mention...

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 22:30

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 22:33

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 22:34

[BJWoods]

m4tti said:

Uhh what. Hold on.. Tell me kerb weight of the Aston from the eco test. And then tell me the gtr kerb weight. You’ll find it’s 200kg heavier.

Stop talking utter nonsense...

the nonsense is yours.. (and I note you added a new un-mentioned factor/proviso, rough back roads, keep changing the goal posts?)

Nope, the Nissan is not 200kg heavier.

kerb weight Evo test for the Aston 1736kg as tested -
quick google of Nissan GT-R shows ~1725-1750kg?

hence the Evo editorial complaining about manufactures giving out dry weight (Aston 1530Kg dry) - saying what is the point, you can't actually drive a car dry, with no fluids in it..

as tested - the Aston weighed 1736KG...

and it's performance is significantly worse than a GT-r - over a second more to 60, couple of seconds (or more from memory) to a 100.

Edited by BJWoods on Friday 15th June 22:39

Edited by BJWoods on Friday 15th June 22:48

[m4tti]

BJWoods said:

the nonsense is yours.. (and I note you added a new un-mentioned factor/proviso, rough back roads, keep changing the goal posts?)

Nope, the Nissan is not 200kg heavier.

kerb weight Evo test for the Aston 1736kg as tested -
quick google of Nissan GT-R shows ~1725-1750kg?

hence the Evo editorial complaining about manufactures giving out dry weight (Aston 1530Kg dry) - saying what is the point, you can't actually drive a car dry, with no fluids in it..

as tested - the Aston weighed 1736KG...

and it's performance is significantly worse than a GT-r - over a second more to 60, couple of seconds (or more from memory) to a 100.

Edited by BJWoods on Friday 15th June 22:39

Edited by BJWoods on Friday 15th June 22:44

Do you think it was that odd 50 hp BJ or could it be something else.... I wonder what it could be.. almost a second to 60 faster. With 50hp... Better call nasa.

I said I wasn’t going into weight and inertia so no not changing goal posts.

Anyway thanks for reading the magazines, I’ll stick to doing the driving. And have a wry chuckle when I hear pub knowledge in the back ground

[BJWoods]

m4tti said:

Do you think it was that odd 50 hp BJ or could it be something else.... I wonder what it could be.. almost a second to 60 faster. With 50hp... Better call nasa.

I said I wasn’t going into weight and inertia so no not changing goal posts.

Anyway thanks for reading the magazines, I’ll stick to doing the driving. And have a wry chuckle when I hear pub knowledge in the back ground

in this case it would be 4- wheel drive, as a big factor - to 60, and launch..

yeah sure - pub knowledge.. snide insults, are pistonheads forte..

you were the one arguing in complete armchair/pub ignorance of the Astons weight.. wrong by 200kgs.. LOL

[plfrench]

m4tti said:

BJWoods said:

of course weight is not a limiting factor, if you spend oodles of cash and have several hundre-1000 bhp..

but, like for like power, weight is a massive factor..

Evo has a group test, including the Vantage a Porsche (less powerful and lighter) , Audi and McLaren.. The Aston is last on all times, and also the heaviest.. the McLaren has only 25bhp more than the Aston, but is hundreds of kgs lighter.. and it destroys the Aston..

All of those cars are approximately 1500kg.. the Nissan is 1700kg and it has similar power to the Aston And is immensely quick. So no .. not 1000’s of hp ohhh and heavier. How can it be.. this isn’t large hadron collider stuff.

What kind of candy floss peanut gallery magazine pits a gt car like the Aston against the mclaren and Audi any way. Mid engines cars are completely different physics.

Magazines are great for pub talk.

Edited by m4tti on Friday 15th June 21:36

I think the point being missed in this discussion is the difference between forced and N/A power curves... it's all about the area under the torque and power curves and not just the peak power which is what is being discussed.

An N/A car such as the Griffith will be making its peak power and more importantly torque at just that... a peak. A few hundred rpm either side of this will see a significant reduction in figures. Turbo charged cars will have a much flatter plateau on both power and torque curves meaning simply that more performance is available more of the time.

This is how two cars with the same peak power can have significantly different real world performance and also goes some way to explaining why simple power (peak)-to-weight figures are no longer as useful an indicator of acceleration which naturally occurs across a range of engine speeds even with a very close ratio gearbox.

[m4tti]

BJWoods said:

in this case it would be 4- wheel drive, as a big factor - to 60, and launch..

yeah sure - pub knowledge.. snide insults, are pistonheads forte..

you were the one arguing in complete armchair/pub ignorance of the Astons weight.. wrong by 200kgs.. LOL

Well if it was just 4wd every 4wd car in the history of motoring would have been quicker. Ohhh wait they weren’t.

I think there could be an algorithm or two in a controller or three involved. I’ll give up with you... I’m guessing your of a slightly older generation and I won’t offend the elderly, it’s bad karma

[m4tti]

plfrench said:

I think the point being missed in this discussion is the difference between forced and N/A power curves... it's all about the area under the torque and power curves and not just the peak power which is what is being discussed.

An N/A car such as the Griffith will be making its peak power and more importantly torque at just that... a peak. A few hundred rpm either side of this will see a significant reduction in figures. Turbo charged cars will have a much flatter plateau on both power and torque curves meaning simply that more performance is available more of the time.

This is how two cars with the same peak power can have significantly different real world performance and also goes some way to explaining why simple power (peak)-to-weight figures are no longer as useful an indicator of acceleration which naturally occurs across a range of engine speeds even with a very close ratio gearbox.

This is an interesting point. To an extent though Audi have brought that linear torque to things like the q7 with the motorised turbo concept

Porsche say the torque of the turbo is fairly linear from 2250 rpm. So that torque is available early all the way through.

[Testarossa]

So...

Err...

Hmm...

Any more videos?

Also anybody any good at photoshopping? It would be nice to get some colours again

Pearl White
Matt Grey
Reflex charcoal

or maybe just repost the images that were done before, I'm easy!

[plfrench]

m4tti said:

This is an interesting point. To an extent though Audi have brought that linear torque to things like the q7 with the motorised turbo concept

Porsche say the torque of the turbo is fairly linear from 2250 rpm. So that torque is available early all the way through.

Exactly, it's early rising, flat torque curves of modern turbo engines that is the reason they perform so strongly and why, particularly in road driving, that peak power to weight comparisons are not telling the whole story.

Having said all of this, I know which car i'd prefer, and it's not the Aston. Those vids from Le Mans and seeing the way the new Griffith moved with such pent-up aggression at Burghley a couple of months ago makes me want one so much

[bullittmcqueen]

Testarossa said:

So...

Err...

Hmm...

Any more videos?

Also anybody any good at photoshopping? It would be nice to get some colours again

Pearl White
Matt Grey
Reflex charcoal

or maybe just repost the images that were done before, I'm easy!

A few pics on the TVRCC FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/jamesaggerautosport/photo...

Plus a Video here:

https://www.facebook.com/paul.wallis.3532/videos/2...

[DonkeyApple]

It’s NA so won’t have anywhere near the overall torque delivery through its range. This will make it slower.

It’s 2wd so will have less grip off the line. This will make it slower.

It won’t have the most amazing computers out there to manage, control and optimise everything. This will make it slower.

It has a manual gearbox. This will make it slower.

The engine isn’t over the driven wheels. This will make it slower.

To many people being slower is a terrible thing. How could you walk out in public? The shame is unbearable.

To others it’s how it drives and how it makes you feel that is important.

All of our TVRs can be beaten by modern supercars,,by many modern sports cars and some hatchbacks, SUVs and saloons. The power that they have is applied far more efficiently than we can ever apply in our cars. But does that make us want to go and buy a 4 pot Boxster, a Nissan GTR or a 458? Not really. My wife doesn’t want a convertible sports car, I don’t live on a council estate and I’m not a smarmy shyster.

I’m sure the majority of consumers will find these metrics very important but I look at my own industry where every firm uses social media to attract clients, where everyone talks about the old ways of doing business being dead and that everything has to be done through social media or your business will die. I can’t afford to spend tens of million GBP per year on social media to attract new clients. I do so the old fashioned way of talking to people and meeting people. There are people who like to put a face to the person who would be responsible for some of their hard earned money. I have the highest conversion rates in the industry by a mile, the highest deposit rates and strongest retention rates. I won’t ever be able to grow my business to global heights but even with a product that can’t better the multinationals’ products I have a good business.