RE: Ford Focus RS at the 'ring: Time For Coffee
Discussion
rich85uk said:
Not wanting to add fuel to the fire, but i thought the new Type R did it in 7 minutes 43 seconds?
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-ho...
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/hot-hatch/the-hon...
A development car https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-ho...
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/hot-hatch/the-hon...
Everyone needs to get back to basics with cars too many these days are trying to hard either with fake exhaust notes or slow gearboxes, get into a Peugeot 205 gti any engine even better an mi16 one and you won't want another car to DRIVE!! All these unnecessary driver aids and systems take away the pure fun out of driving mainly to help the leaser blessed idiots from crashing ! Or to massage their egos due to them wasting £40k + on a hatchback !
thedog13 said:
Everyone needs to get back to basics with cars too many these days are trying to hard either with fake exhaust notes or slow gearboxes, get into a Peugeot 205 gti any engine even better an mi16 one and you won't want another car to DRIVE!! All these unnecessary driver aids and systems take away the pure fun out of driving mainly to help the leaser blessed idiots from crashing ! Or to massage their egos due to them wasting £40k + on a hatchback !
That's right. You super hero!"Leaser blessed idiots" : brilliant.
I can't wait for your 3rd post !
blade7 said:
A development car
It was a production car with a floating rollcage (not affecting structural rigidity) and road-legal tyres (although not the standard supplied Continentals, I don't think). Some things were removed to compensate for the weight of the cage.This is the problem with 'Ring lap records. There is no standard.
Alex said:
blade7 said:
A development car
It was a production car with a floating rollcage (not affecting structural rigidity) and road-legal tyres (although not the standard supplied Continentals, I don't think). Some things were removed to compensate for the weight of the cage.This is the problem with 'Ring lap records. There is no standard.
Everyone cheats, some more than others. In the same independent testing, the last civic managed an 8min 18sec lap I believe.
RacerMike said:
Alex said:
blade7 said:
A development car
It was a production car with a floating rollcage (not affecting structural rigidity) and road-legal tyres (although not the standard supplied Continentals, I don't think). Some things were removed to compensate for the weight of the cage.This is the problem with 'Ring lap records. There is no standard.
Everyone cheats, some more than others. In the same independent testing, the last civic managed an 8min 18sec lap I believe.
Driver101 said:
A second?
I don't even want to go into a long debate on this as it really is clear cut. I know as a Focus owner you will defend your car to the hilt, but just look at proven times.
The A45 and the old model RS3 are 9 seconds for 100mph. The new RS3 might even get into the high 7s. The M140i makes 100mph in around 10 seconds with RWD. Even the Golf R with a manual box is setting better times.
All of the above cars will be doing 112-113mph at the end of the quarter mile other than the Golf at 105mph.
The Focus is nowhere near that. 12-13 seconds for 100mph and very few get 104mph on the quarter mile. There's a number of cars flapping around at under 100mph. Even cars with significant modifications are only managing the times and speeds of the standard hyper hatches.
Very pedantic on the tyre front. Michelin's first line on the sales spiel is the tyres are designed for track use. They are road legal, but designed for track performance. I'm sure most people would refer to them as track tyres. The performance gains they claim are huge.
It's fine comparing the times to other cars using the similar tyres. That wasn't the comparison earlier in the thread. Compairing the Focus doing a 8.06 and the Civic doing a 7.43 on the same tyres is fine. I don't think it's so fair to compare Cup 2 tyres v standard road tyres.
haven't got as far as page 8 yet but to pick you up, terminal speed on the 1/4 mile is an indicator of power, not ultimate top speed, if you have more traction you will have a lower terminalI don't even want to go into a long debate on this as it really is clear cut. I know as a Focus owner you will defend your car to the hilt, but just look at proven times.
The A45 and the old model RS3 are 9 seconds for 100mph. The new RS3 might even get into the high 7s. The M140i makes 100mph in around 10 seconds with RWD. Even the Golf R with a manual box is setting better times.
All of the above cars will be doing 112-113mph at the end of the quarter mile other than the Golf at 105mph.
The Focus is nowhere near that. 12-13 seconds for 100mph and very few get 104mph on the quarter mile. There's a number of cars flapping around at under 100mph. Even cars with significant modifications are only managing the times and speeds of the standard hyper hatches.
Very pedantic on the tyre front. Michelin's first line on the sales spiel is the tyres are designed for track use. They are road legal, but designed for track performance. I'm sure most people would refer to them as track tyres. The performance gains they claim are huge.
It's fine comparing the times to other cars using the similar tyres. That wasn't the comparison earlier in the thread. Compairing the Focus doing a 8.06 and the Civic doing a 7.43 on the same tyres is fine. I don't think it's so fair to compare Cup 2 tyres v standard road tyres.
To get an idea of power and traction you need to have the 0-60ft time, the terminal speed and the overall time.
Comparing Terminal speeds is meaningless playground stuff. Also the billiard smooth drag strip is NO measure of a cars point to point performance in the REAL world
Edited by M-SportMatt on Wednesday 26th July 14:22
M-SportMatt said:
haven't got as far as page 8 yet but to pick you up, terminal speed on the 1/4 mile is an indicator of power, not ultimate top speed, if you have more traction you will have a lower terminal
To get an idea of power and traction you need to have the 0-60ft time, the terminal speed and the overall time.
Comparing Terminal speeds is meaningless playground stuff. Also the billiard smooth drag strip is NO measure of a cars point to point performance in the REAL world
I really don't want to go over this again. It was done and dusted days ago. To get an idea of power and traction you need to have the 0-60ft time, the terminal speed and the overall time.
Comparing Terminal speeds is meaningless playground stuff. Also the billiard smooth drag strip is NO measure of a cars point to point performance in the REAL world
Edited by M-SportMatt on Wednesday 26th July 14:22
The terminal speed on a quarter mile isn't purely down to power. You're ignoring a lot of factors.
The Focus neither records a good terminal speed or set times that reflect the initial good traction. It's really not a challenge to drive a 300-350bhp car in a straight line on nearly all roads.
This thread is done and dusted. Let it die.
Kawasicki said:
WCZ said:
evo's have never set great ring times either but on the road they are one of if not the fastest cars around
How does that work then?
k all on track but are very useful on roads.The drag coefficient is poor as is the drivetrain loss, this makes them pretty slow on the ring due to its high speed nature.
f
k I really need to get another Evo.Edit: With regards to the Focus a friend of mine traded his new Impreza STI in for one a couple months ago and completely regrets it. He says he feels like a fwd car without understeer, it feels fine from the passenger seat to be honest but he's adamant that it is pretty terrible!
Edited by StottyGTR on Wednesday 26th July 17:37
Driver101 said:
M-SportMatt said:
haven't got as far as page 8 yet but to pick you up, terminal speed on the 1/4 mile is an indicator of power, not ultimate top speed, if you have more traction you will have a lower terminal
To get an idea of power and traction you need to have the 0-60ft time, the terminal speed and the overall time.
Comparing Terminal speeds is meaningless playground stuff. Also the billiard smooth drag strip is NO measure of a cars point to point performance in the REAL world
I really don't want to go over this again. It was done and dusted days ago. To get an idea of power and traction you need to have the 0-60ft time, the terminal speed and the overall time.
Comparing Terminal speeds is meaningless playground stuff. Also the billiard smooth drag strip is NO measure of a cars point to point performance in the REAL world
Edited by M-SportMatt on Wednesday 26th July 14:22
The terminal speed on a quarter mile isn't purely down to power. You're ignoring a lot of factors.
The Focus neither records a good terminal speed or set times that reflect the initial good traction. It's really not a challenge to drive a 300-350bhp car in a straight line on nearly all roads.
This thread is done and dusted. Let it die.
Those are other factors that make your idiot quotes of terminal times relevant....without them they are meaningless.
M-SportMatt said:
No im not YOU are. You keep quoting terminal times in isolation without 60ft times and 1/4 times.
Those are other factors that make your idiot quotes of terminal times relevant....without them they are meaningless.
Ignoring your abuse, that post makes no sense. Those are other factors that make your idiot quotes of terminal times relevant....without them they are meaningless.
I know what the 60ft times, 1/8mile time and speed, 1/4mile times and terminal speeds are of numerous cars that have run. That's how I offer my opinion that they lack pace for their power. I'm not missing any factor out when offering my opinion.
I don't think you understand drag times.
Driver101 said:
Ignoring your abuse, that post makes no sense.
I know what the 60ft times, 1/8mile time and speed, 1/4mile times and terminal speeds are of numerous cars that have run. That's how I offer my opinion that they lack pace for their power. I'm not missing any factor out when offering my opinion.
I don't think you understand drag times.
I do perfectly, but unless you quote the other information rather than JUST quoting terminals in isolation then it's utterly meaningless to anyone else. I wasn't offering opinion of the FRS because IMO quoting 1/4 mile info is pointless tosh anyway for this car but i was pointing out quoting terminals in isolation is not very helpful, particularly as there will be those who just think a faster terminal is better.....
I know what the 60ft times, 1/8mile time and speed, 1/4mile times and terminal speeds are of numerous cars that have run. That's how I offer my opinion that they lack pace for their power. I'm not missing any factor out when offering my opinion.
I don't think you understand drag times.
I do perfectly, but unless you quote the other information rather than JUST quoting terminals in isolation then it's utterly meaningless to anyone else. I wasn't offering opinion of the FRS because IMO quoting 1/4 mile info is pointless tosh anyway for this car but i was pointing out quoting terminals in isolation is not very helpful, particularly as there will be those who just think a faster terminal is better.....
M-SportMatt said:
I do perfectly, but unless you quote the other information rather than JUST quoting terminals in isolation then it's utterly meaningless to anyone else. I wasn't offering opinion of the FRS because IMO quoting 1/4 mile info is pointless tosh anyway for this car but i was pointing out quoting terminals in isolation is not very helpful, particularly as there will be those who just think a faster terminal is better.....
When would a faster terminal speed and a quicker time not be better? M-SportMatt said:
Driver101 said:
When would a faster terminal speed and a quicker time not be better?
I can't see where I have said it wouldn't? I quoted your post where you quote terminals with no 1/4 time and no 60ft time hence my comment Edited by M-SportMatt on Wednesday 26th July 21:27
You're just going back over stuff that was already covered.
The TLDR for you is the Focus is recording far lower terminal speeds at far slower times than similarly powered hatchbacks.
Except its not but there you go.
As if straightline speed is the be all and end all anyway.
https://youtu.be/rgxq0_2byYA
https://youtu.be/US63FbxydQ4
https://youtu.be/1fP-LTBbXIw
https://youtu.be/aFfSqjuphH8
Yes the dual clutch autos are quicker and especially the a45 and RS3 with more power and torque too but as far as manuals go the RS is at the top of the hot hatch pile and as a drivers car to have fun in is in another league.
Look, funnily enough the auto Golf R beats the WRX STi too (funny that): https://youtu.be/Y4r6D8GMqyU
The RS is not meant to be a drag car but it does perfectly well against its MANUAL gearboxed peers.
As if straightline speed is the be all and end all anyway.
https://youtu.be/rgxq0_2byYA
https://youtu.be/US63FbxydQ4
https://youtu.be/1fP-LTBbXIw
https://youtu.be/aFfSqjuphH8
Yes the dual clutch autos are quicker and especially the a45 and RS3 with more power and torque too but as far as manuals go the RS is at the top of the hot hatch pile and as a drivers car to have fun in is in another league.
Look, funnily enough the auto Golf R beats the WRX STi too (funny that): https://youtu.be/Y4r6D8GMqyU
The RS is not meant to be a drag car but it does perfectly well against its MANUAL gearboxed peers.
Edited by Ahbefive on Wednesday 26th July 22:23
Driver101 said:
I wrongly assumed that you would have read the thread. You're just picking out one post and missing out the rest.
Nope I quoted your first post to mention terminals, no mention of 1/4 times there or 60ft times.As said I'm not arguing for or against the FRS although I will say standing 1/4 performance is not a great assessment of a fast road car unless in a dick swinging contest. It has little or no bearing on point to point speed on a B road or enjoyment
Ahbefive said:
Except its not but there you go.
As if straightline speed is the be all and end all anyway.
https://youtu.be/rgxq0_2byYA
https://youtu.be/US63FbxydQ4
https://youtu.be/aFfSqjuphH8
Yes the dual clutch autos are quicker but as far as manuals go it is at the top of the hot hatch pile.
The first one was won on the great start. 6.4sec is laughably bad for a Golf R. Notice the Golf R is faster from 60-100mph. As if straightline speed is the be all and end all anyway.
https://youtu.be/rgxq0_2byYA
https://youtu.be/US63FbxydQ4
https://youtu.be/aFfSqjuphH8
Yes the dual clutch autos are quicker but as far as manuals go it is at the top of the hot hatch pile.
The second video looks to be the same. Focus great start and losses its speed advatage.
I can't hear well with all the noise here, but doesn't the guy conclude there wasn't the gap he anticipated?
That's my point. The Focus just lacks oomph for a 50bhp power hike.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff