RE: Honda NSX: Review
Discussion
Jodyone said:
Dan Trent said:
Right! Found the page in the handout of the tech presentation. Apologies for the quality of the scan but hopefully it shows what I mean.
Cheers!
Dan
So it's roughly a Victorian speaking tubeCheers!
Dan
so the staff below can speak to "them upstairs"
This is the kind of new tech we need.
greenarrow said:
Chris Harris was never an original NSX fan and we all know he loves his Porsches so when he raves about what a great car the new NSX is, I think people need to take notice
Edited by Derek Chevalier on Thursday 14th July 14:17
dobly said:
Why stay still, when there is always progress (not merely change) to be made?
But progress in what way?Performance? Frankly the original NSX arguably has plenty of performance for real-world road driving unless you plan to regularly risk your licence, and anything >400bhp really is limiting your returns...
Handling? Weight is ALWAYS the enemy here - the motors are great at that initial turn moment*, creating controlled yaw, but after that those extra kgs hurt the handling.
Feedback? Erm, I'd argue most automotive 'progress' has been backwards here. I'm not proposing a return to unassisted steering and unservo'd brakes, but every step forwards from them has been retrograde for feedback. As has ALL of the NVH control that modern engineers get so bothered about...
Involvement? As for feedback, really - modern super-trick gearboxes isolate drivers from another aspect of controlling the car, super-trick ESP systems take the hassle out of having to 'learn' a car, and also mean manufacturers can be lazier in chassis set-up, turbocharged engines add throttle lag (yes, they do) and almost always mean a less involving exhaust note. Etc. etc. etc.
I'm not a luddite...but whenever I hear talk about "progress" as applied to drivers' cars I do get p'd off, as it's all quantitative progress, NOT qualitative progress! Not sure whether to blame the (target-fixated) engineers, or the Marketing teams...
* As in the physics term
havoc said:
But progress in what way?
Performance? Frankly the original NSX arguably has plenty of performance for real-world road driving unless you plan to regularly risk your licence, and anything >400bhp really is limiting your returns...
Handling? Weight is ALWAYS the enemy here - the motors are great at that initial turn moment*, creating controlled yaw, but after that those extra kgs hurt the handling.
Feedback? Erm, I'd argue most automotive 'progress' has been backwards here. I'm not proposing a return to unassisted steering and unservo'd brakes, but every step forwards from them has been retrograde for feedback. As has ALL of the NVH control that modern engineers get so bothered about...
Involvement? As for feedback, really - modern super-trick gearboxes isolate drivers from another aspect of controlling the car, super-trick ESP systems take the hassle out of having to 'learn' a car, and also mean manufacturers can be lazier in chassis set-up, turbocharged engines add throttle lag (yes, they do) and almost always mean a less involving exhaust note. Etc. etc. etc.
I'm not a luddite...but whenever I hear talk about "progress" as applied to drivers' cars I do get p'd off, as it's all quantitative progress, NOT qualitative progress! Not sure whether to blame the (target-fixated) engineers, or the Marketing teams...
* As in the physics term
Martin,Performance? Frankly the original NSX arguably has plenty of performance for real-world road driving unless you plan to regularly risk your licence, and anything >400bhp really is limiting your returns...
Handling? Weight is ALWAYS the enemy here - the motors are great at that initial turn moment*, creating controlled yaw, but after that those extra kgs hurt the handling.
Feedback? Erm, I'd argue most automotive 'progress' has been backwards here. I'm not proposing a return to unassisted steering and unservo'd brakes, but every step forwards from them has been retrograde for feedback. As has ALL of the NVH control that modern engineers get so bothered about...
Involvement? As for feedback, really - modern super-trick gearboxes isolate drivers from another aspect of controlling the car, super-trick ESP systems take the hassle out of having to 'learn' a car, and also mean manufacturers can be lazier in chassis set-up, turbocharged engines add throttle lag (yes, they do) and almost always mean a less involving exhaust note. Etc. etc. etc.
I'm not a luddite...but whenever I hear talk about "progress" as applied to drivers' cars I do get p'd off, as it's all quantitative progress, NOT qualitative progress! Not sure whether to blame the (target-fixated) engineers, or the Marketing teams...
* As in the physics term
I'm with you in most respects, but for Honda to release a car with less than 400BHP would have been commercial suicide.
As for the other points, all I'm saying is that it could have been a whole lot worse had the engineers not tried so hard to mitigate the effects of legislation etc. , from all accounts.
Derek Chevalier said:
greenarrow said:
Chris Harris was never an original NSX fan and we all know he loves his Porsches so when he raves about what a great car the new NSX is, I think people need to take notice
With a lot of these rare or expensive cars though, 99% of people on here will never have driven a factory fresh example (and of that 1% that have maybe not to the edges of what it is capable of ) and most likely not in the presence of major automotive rivals at the time
jason61c said:
Just like this thread and a few others, does it only matter what chris harris thinks now, or are we allowed to listen to other journo's?
i read ALL the opinions personally - until I drive one that's the only driver feedback I'll have(posted the article precis for interest , not as a definitive view, as it was mentioned previously - feel free to disregard if it doesn't 'fit' )
Edited by s m on Thursday 14th July 10:08
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff