Facinating find: Renault Clio Cup vs Audi R8 V10
Discussion
martin elaman said:
would disagree about road use as the WRC car they compared to the exotics a while back was found to be great in all road conditions. Maybe that's the four wheel drive helping but I think this Clio could easily be engineered to be fine for road use and yes still blow the lids off the new generation uber cars we read too much about. martin
Not whilst remaining reliable for more than a couple of hundred miles at a time it wouldn't.There's a difference between being fine, in terms of not falling off or breaking all your bones, for road use, and being actually usable, on the road, with any kind of regularity.
jackmontandon said:
What gets me more is that the last section is a massive straight where the Hot hatch wouldn't have a chance. Which in turn means the hot hatch must have got round the corners a fair bit quicker than the lamborghini, and it was more of a case that the LP640 managed to "catch up" on the last straight
But a stripped £1k mx5 with trick coilovers and slick racing tyres will corner quicker than a standard Lamborghini. It's just basic physics, not witchcraft...martin elaman said:
Anyone read the new evo this month where they compare the Renault racing Clio Cup to the Audi R8 v10? The Renault really dominates it. I did and it's very interesting. Not unlike a test in evo a few years back where they pitting an older Impreza WRC car against the latest crop of mid-engine wonder-cars only to see them lose to the WRC car easily.
I really don't think enough is said about the inherent supercar crushing ability of very well modded hatches or similar small front engine sedans. There is a myth perpetuated by the magazines and on-line that a mid-engine car is so much better, but really they can often be worse. I think there is a need to romance the mid-rear engine cars because they are usually very pretty and sleek and low and unique to look at. I'd prefer a small q-car Clio Cup any day of the decade. martin
It does not surprise me at all. Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum. There are so many factors that play into whether a car is fast on the track that generalization regarding chassis/drive config., etc., really doesn't amt. to much.I really don't think enough is said about the inherent supercar crushing ability of very well modded hatches or similar small front engine sedans. There is a myth perpetuated by the magazines and on-line that a mid-engine car is so much better, but really they can often be worse. I think there is a need to romance the mid-rear engine cars because they are usually very pretty and sleek and low and unique to look at. I'd prefer a small q-car Clio Cup any day of the decade. martin
On the same subject, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 24th July 17:17
scherzkeks said:
It does not surprise me at all. Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum. There are so many factors that play into whether a car is fast on the track that generalization regarding chassis/drive config., etc., really doesn't amt. to much.
On the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Well said. I know there was recently a thread about people's issues with Auto magazine journalism over the years, and I would have to say that top of my list would be what we speak here about...As you (Scherzkeks) point out.."Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum."..this is as well hugely omitted from the press. To the point I would argue that we have been sold a bill of goods that while hot hatches are great if you have money and really want the best its got to be the big name "supercars" or nothing. One day it may be possible to for more people with some decent money to spend that they can get something at least as good and possibly better by building their cars with rally and other motorsport professionals who really know there stuff. martinOn the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
martin elaman said:
Well said. I know there was recently a thread about people's issues with Auto magazine journalism over the years, and I would have to say that top of my list would be what we speak here about...
I know what thread you are referring to. Auto journalism these days seems to cater to the face-tweet crowd. martin elaman said:
scherzkeks said:
It does not surprise me at all. Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum. There are so many factors that play into whether a car is fast on the track that generalization regarding chassis/drive config., etc., really doesn't amt. to much.
On the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Well said. I know there was recently a thread about people's issues with Auto magazine journalism over the years, and I would have to say that top of my list would be what we speak here about...As you (Scherzkeks) point out.."Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum."..this is as well hugely omitted from the press. To the point I would argue that we have been sold a bill of goods that while hot hatches are great if you have money and really want the best its got to be the big name "supercars" or nothing. One day it may be possible to for more people with some decent money to spend that they can get something at least as good and possibly better by building their cars with rally and other motorsport professionals who really know there stuff. martinOn the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
ORD said:
I don't think people who buy supercar care that a race prepared hatch is faster around a given track. Buying a Ferrari isn't about being the fastest car on a track.
If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
I would much much rather drive one of these impreza's (as driven here by Harris http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/planetevovideos/251596... ) than ANY audi. I'd just have it painted a normal color and put a radio in- ultimate q car. Why cooler and way more exciting to drive IMHO. martin If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
martin elaman said:
ORD said:
I don't think people who buy supercar care that a race prepared hatch is faster around a given track. Buying a Ferrari isn't about being the fastest car on a track.
If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
I would much much rather drive one of these impreza's (as driven here by Harris http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/planetevovideos/251596... ) than ANY audi.If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
I have trouble believing that anyone, given the choice between a Clio and a 6-figure sports car, would plump for the Clio.
Have been in one of the new Clio cup cars as a passenger, the speed they carry around a corner is somewhat mind bending (or caving when my head hit the cage at the first corner, lucky I had a helmet) for a hatchback.
Video was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
Video was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
GrumpyTwig said:
Have been in one of the new Clio cup cars as a passenger, the speed they carry around a corner is somewhat mind bending (or caving when my head hit the cage at the first corner, lucky I had a helmet) for a hatchback.
Video was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
Just to be clear the video was of Harris driving a 97' WRC spec Impreza. martinVideo was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
scherzkeks said:
I'm having trouble believing that you believe that that was the point of the comparison.
Sorry, what point did I miss when I said I didn't believe anyone would pick a Clio over a Ferrari/Lambo/Mclaren? I never said they weren't great cars capable of beating much pricier machinery albeit in slightly modified form did I?martin elaman said:
GrumpyTwig said:
Have been in one of the new Clio cup cars as a passenger, the speed they carry around a corner is somewhat mind bending (or caving when my head hit the cage at the first corner, lucky I had a helmet) for a hatchback.
Video was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
Just to be clear the video was of Harris driving a 97' WRC spec Impreza. martinVideo was a good watch but given the choice I'd go for a drive in the Clio over the R8.
The article has an accompanying video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJkPqGooZKA
scherzkeks said:
It does not surprise me at all. Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum. There are so many factors that play into whether a car is fast on the track that generalization regarding chassis/drive config., etc., really doesn't amt. to much.
On the same subject, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Here he is ! What would you know about track cars ? ;-) Or the Ring for that matter ? On the same subject, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Still driving at 6/10ths ?I can't believe anyone can even think that a Clio Cup race car has anything to do with a road car. They belong to a totally different universe. They're made in Dieppe using tig welding, straight cut boxes (or at least they used to), serious camber and kinematics etc etc
We ran them for a few years at PalmerSport and they were quicker than a 430 Scud around West at Bedford. But that was no big surprise to anyone remotely involved in Motorsport. Having done 50 laps or so in one, I have to say it was brilliant but needless to say it would have been totally and utterly unusable on the road, obviously.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 25th July 20:20
GrumpyTwig said:
Huh? If I scroll up the topic title is "Facinating find: Renault Clio Cup vs Audi R8 V10" or am I in a different dimension?
The article has an accompanying video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJkPqGooZKA
I am equating all small front engine cars that are Hatch size, so just to put another example into the mix I showed an older video of evo magazines then writer Harris driving another supercar hatch/sedan the 97' WRC Impreza. My point is that many of these small front engine cars, with and without 4WD when upgraded (the for example Porsche upgrades their cars) can become better than the "supercars" we constantly hear about in the press. martinThe article has an accompanying video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJkPqGooZKA
ORD said:
martin elaman said:
scherzkeks said:
It does not surprise me at all. Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum. There are so many factors that play into whether a car is fast on the track that generalization regarding chassis/drive config., etc., really doesn't amt. to much.
On the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
Well said. I know there was recently a thread about people's issues with Auto magazine journalism over the years, and I would have to say that top of my list would be what we speak here about...As you (Scherzkeks) point out.."Engineering compromise is a topic that is largely overlooked/disregarded on this forum."..this is as well hugely omitted from the press. To the point I would argue that we have been sold a bill of goods that while hot hatches are great if you have money and really want the best its got to be the big name "supercars" or nothing. One day it may be possible to for more people with some decent money to spend that they can get something at least as good and possibly better by building their cars with rally and other motorsport professionals who really know there stuff. martinOn the same subject but stretching into the racing realm, take a look at the TTRS "race car" -- a tuned TTRS running in FWD mode (380 hp). In the dry, the car comes within 6 seconds of the 570 hp V10 R8 LMS Ultra race car on the 15.2-mile extended VLN 'Ring circuit, and in the wet it is faster than the R8. It is also much more stable and predictable in the handling dept. If the cars were more equally balanced for weight and power, the results would be even more interesting.
If you gave me £100k to buy the fastest possible car, of course I'd go nowhere near a supercar, but I'd much rather have a V10 R8 than any TT!
An Impreza, for example, but lets be honest even a road going Clio, is a completely s
t car to sit inside. It may be fun for B-roads or whatever but it's just a tinny rattly little box full of cheap plastic compared to what you sit in and touch in a Ferrari or Lamborghini.Supercars are all-rounders. Just awesome all-rounders. They have to be, because people who are able to spend that amount expect them.to be luxurious and well mannered. They need to be quicker than pretty much everything else they'll encounter on real roads. Beyond that, they're competing with each other for brochure figures to win customers.
Absolutely nobody with a Lamborghini, ever, sat in his sea of leather and aluminium and thought "I wish I had an old plasticy Subaru WRC instead".
Sounds snobby maybe, but to question why anyone would want a supercar when a race prepped hatchback can go faster seems to fail to understand what supercars are all about.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Thursday 24th July 23:02
DanielSan said:
I think the Clio/R8 test shows one very simple fact to be honest. Exactly how much gripper slicks are than road tyres and how big a difference they make to lap times.
Cars like the Impreza WRC don't use slicks. And as Evo showed when they took this Impreza to wales for a road test comparison with all the usual suspects, it blew them all out of the water in every parameter save the ugly cabin and ugly bits to look at....so back to my point...makers can produce even supercars that are front engine and small and more upright, easier to see out of and just a more useable package than mid-engine ones. I think these sorts of cars would be a hit with the rich as long as they were built well, looked really nice and had interiors made of nice materials. This is the over all point I was trying to make. martinEdited by martin elaman on Thursday 24th July 23:32
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff