RE: Light cars are not the answer: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
I don't think the problem has much to do with the weight of cars. I think modern tyres have got too good for most drivers to handle on the road, & the better the car, the less who will be able to handle it as they approach the limit.
I am not talking about slow autocross speeds, or city roundabouts, but at higher speeds, & when a loss of adhesion is unexpected, rather than provoked.
In the old days [60s] you could slide an MG, Simca, Mk2 Jag or a Mk7 Jag around the place, or have them go for a slide unasked, with impunity. The things were so easy to recover at the low limit of the cross ply tyres, only a dolt would have trouble catching them. Today, even an old 3.4L Mk2 Jag, with 8" alloys & modern tyres is an entirely different proposition. Get slack & even old faithful will bite you.
One of the great pleasures of driving a heavy XK140, compared to a Morgan +4, was that with twice the weight, you could take liberties at it's much lower limit, when the same liberties in the light Morgan would get your bum bitten all be it, at a somewhat higher speed.
I am not talking about slow autocross speeds, or city roundabouts, but at higher speeds, & when a loss of adhesion is unexpected, rather than provoked.
In the old days [60s] you could slide an MG, Simca, Mk2 Jag or a Mk7 Jag around the place, or have them go for a slide unasked, with impunity. The things were so easy to recover at the low limit of the cross ply tyres, only a dolt would have trouble catching them. Today, even an old 3.4L Mk2 Jag, with 8" alloys & modern tyres is an entirely different proposition. Get slack & even old faithful will bite you.
One of the great pleasures of driving a heavy XK140, compared to a Morgan +4, was that with twice the weight, you could take liberties at it's much lower limit, when the same liberties in the light Morgan would get your bum bitten all be it, at a somewhat higher speed.
Hasbeen said:
I don't think the problem has much to do with the weight of cars. I think modern tyres have got too good for most drivers to handle on the road, & the better the car, the less who will be able to handle it as they approach the limit.
True. But cars for most people are moving to failsafe appliances. Unfortunately much of the advancement is negated by a sense of isolation and invulnerability leading to multi-tasking while driving. So, more technology required....Driving, in the fully active, involving sense of the term, is becoming a voluntary pastime undertaken at weekends.
Robert Elise said:
Unfortunately much of the advancement is negated by a sense of isolation and invulnerability leading to multi-tasking while driving. So, more technology required....
Indeed. At some point we'll need to break the chain - as a society we're simply not rich enough (and very dependent on 'cheap' personal transport as well) to mandate automatised everything to facilitate the lazy and feckless. 'Make something idiot proof and all you'll be doing is creating a better class of idiot'.
You're wrong!
And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
This isn't politics. Your hair probably isn't orange. There is no reason to lose credibility for the sake of a provoking a response - it's as bad as click bait. You can do better.
And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
This isn't politics. Your hair probably isn't orange. There is no reason to lose credibility for the sake of a provoking a response - it's as bad as click bait. You can do better.
I can tell the difference in how well the car handles between a full and empty tank. Let alone with a passenger or two.
While somethings are acceptable to suffer the weight for in a "daily" (a/c, stereo, comfortable seats etc). Lighter is better. Quicker, better handling, less wear on brakes/tyres/suspension.
If I had my way I'd change VED to charge by vehicle mass rather than emissions.
While somethings are acceptable to suffer the weight for in a "daily" (a/c, stereo, comfortable seats etc). Lighter is better. Quicker, better handling, less wear on brakes/tyres/suspension.
If I had my way I'd change VED to charge by vehicle mass rather than emissions.
ShortBeardy said:
You're wrong!
And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
This isn't politics. Your hair probably isn't orange. There is no reason to lose credibility for the sake of a provoking a response - it's as bad as click bait. You can do better.
Over 7 years you have had your account and your 2nd post is to reply to a thread over 4 years old?? And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
This isn't politics. Your hair probably isn't orange. There is no reason to lose credibility for the sake of a provoking a response - it's as bad as click bait. You can do better.
snoopy25 said:
Over 7 years you have had your account and your 2nd post is to reply to a thread over 4 years old??
This topic must have touched a nerve that 7 years of other threads have not!He makes an interesting point i hadn’t considered, in that the 1000kg downforce is a speed dependent variable
ShortBeardy said:
You're wrong!
And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
I’m glad someone picked up on this, this point in the article irked me too.And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
Force is not the same as mass
deadtom said:
ShortBeardy said:
You're wrong!
And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
I’m glad someone picked up on this, this point in the article irked me too.And I know it had been pointed out already, and I know the idea of the article is to spawn a discussion, but if you are going to make a point and want to base it on physics then get it right.
The F1 car example is just wrong and misleading. A 600kg car with 1000kg of downforce is not equivalent to an equally powerful 1600kg car.
Force is not the same as mass
However, with a downforce car you do need stronger springs to cope with the extra downward force. In the above example, you'd need the springs of a 1600kg car to resist that 1600kg of downward force and still keep the wheels in suspension and not bottomed out. The trouble then is with traditional suspension you're then stuck with those springs at all speeds, even when the downforce isn't there. I've not driven a downforce car that gives anywhere near that amount of downforce, so can't comment on the effect that has on handling other than in theory. For milder levels of downforce, such as produced by my Formula Renault (sold a few months ago and owned for 4 years), it all feels quite natural and problems aren't apparent.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff