Have we got it all wrong? Are cars too fast now?

[CABC]

RobM77 said:

Perhaps with more knowledge than me you could shed some light on this, but one aspect I look for in a car is linearity of response at all slip angles. I'll explain: I've noticed a tendency with many modern cars to be very darty to initial steering response, which gives an illusion of sportiness, but then once you start to build the speed up and lean on the car more, the dartiness completely vanishes and leaves you with oodles of understeer, often laughably so. I first noticed this when I had an Alfa 156 JTS for a few weeks many years ago back when they were new, but since I've noticed it on many more cars, many without sporting pretensions at all. The type of cars I like don't have this characteristic and remain linear throughout: my 3 series for example, or my single seater track car.

My question is: is the dartiness caused by initial toe out (that's what it feels like), which then shifts to toe-in with suspension deflection, whereas my 3 series keeps its geometry more stable across suspension deflection values? It's the only explanation I can think of, but the reason I ask the question is that my knowledge in this area is very limited.

thanks!

spot on Rob.
all this trickery is not for enthusiasts (wannabe experts!)
i want a commuter that's isolated and comfortable.
a sports car that's communicative, and pure and uncorrupted in that communication.
If we can now agree on what communicative is.... but you highlight a good point. the engineers know that initial dartiness feels sporty and so dial it in. whereas the underlying chassis can't maintain that sportiness, because it needs to deliver comfort to a 1.5tonne+ barge.

[RobM77]

CABC said:

RobM77 said:

Perhaps with more knowledge than me you could shed some light on this, but one aspect I look for in a car is linearity of response at all slip angles. I'll explain: I've noticed a tendency with many modern cars to be very darty to initial steering response, which gives an illusion of sportiness, but then once you start to build the speed up and lean on the car more, the dartiness completely vanishes and leaves you with oodles of understeer, often laughably so. I first noticed this when I had an Alfa 156 JTS for a few weeks many years ago back when they were new, but since I've noticed it on many more cars, many without sporting pretensions at all. The type of cars I like don't have this characteristic and remain linear throughout: my 3 series for example, or my single seater track car.

My question is: is the dartiness caused by initial toe out (that's what it feels like), which then shifts to toe-in with suspension deflection, whereas my 3 series keeps its geometry more stable across suspension deflection values? It's the only explanation I can think of, but the reason I ask the question is that my knowledge in this area is very limited.

thanks!

spot on Rob.
all this trickery is not for enthusiasts (wannabe experts!)
i want a commuter that's isolated and comfortable.
a sports car that's communicative, and pure and uncorrupted in that communication.
If we can now agree on what communicative is.... but you highlight a good point. the engineers know that initial dartiness feels sporty and so dial it in. whereas the underlying chassis can't maintain that sportiness, because it needs to deliver comfort to a 1.5tonne+ barge.

Interesting. I tend to want the same from a daily and a weekend/track car. For both cars I like linearity as described above, linearity of controls (I hate 'sports' mode throttles, brakes with loads of bite at the top etc), good feedback, low CofG, low weight, a nice cornering balance and good handling. Nothing there states that my daily will be a 1400kg saloon and my weekend car a 500kg single seater or Caterham, but that's generally what happens because of the elephant in the room that I haven't mentioned yet: I need my daily to carry boards on the roof, bikes inside and tow 1400kg, whereas I don't have that requirement for my second car. As such, I've normally had a 1300kg-1400kg FE/RWD daily driver and a lightweight RWD sports car as a second car. Before I had those demands from a daily I just had a touring spec Elise for both and it did the job really well.

[MKnight702]

Leins said:

For me, about 200bhp and not too much weight is the sweet-spot for UK/Irish road fun driving

You don't need that much power to have fun. My previous car was a Westfield XI with 100bhp from a 1275 A Series, I wish I hadn't sold it to get the 500bhp+ Ultima.

[TameRacingDriver]

MKnight702 said:

You don't need that much power to have fun. My previous car was a Westfield XI with 100bhp from a 1275 A Series, I wish I hadn't sold it to get the 500bhp+ Ultima.

To be fair, saying 200 bhp was pretty restrained for someone on here; to some, only 300+ bhp will do, allegedly. I think in reality, anything over about 120 bhp / tonne is going to offer plenty of poke to have fun with. That is essentially what you would get in a 106 GTI, Puma, MX5 and cars of that ilk. They aren't 'fast' but they aren't slow either. Heck even a Fabia vRS which people rave about on here are only 100 bhp / tonne, but I think some people forget that sometimes. People have become so used to 300 bhp hot hatches that they've forgotten what things used to be like beforehand.

[CABC]

RobM77 said:

Interesting. I tend to want the same from a daily and a weekend/track car. For both cars I like linearity as described above, linearity of controls (I hate 'sports' mode throttles, brakes with loads of bite at the top etc), good feedback, low CofG, low weight, a nice cornering balance and good handling. Nothing there states that my daily will be a 1400kg saloon and my weekend car a 500kg single seater or Caterham, but that's generally what happens because of the elephant in the room that I haven't mentioned yet: I need my daily to carry boards on the roof, bikes inside and tow 1400kg, whereas I don't have that requirement for my second car. As such, I've normally had a 1300kg-1400kg FE/RWD daily driver and a lightweight RWD sports car as a second car. Before I had those demands from a daily I just had a touring spec Elise for both and it did the job really well.

Nothing contentious there I agree.
I was too quick to abdicate all driver characteristics from the family barge!
However, there is a compromise. If you really want isolated comfort and long distance cruising ability things aren't going to be as responsive. And certainly not at a reasonable budget. In the 90s I think you'd describe BMWs as sporty saloons that were quite comfortable, whereas Mercs were uber comfortable and handled ok if pushed. You'd make a choice. Really comfortable cars do come with extra weight, size and not least wheelbase. Jags weren't ever sports cars but they covered the road serenely. I recall a well looked after XJS that I drove that demonstrated this very well.

[ginkent]

Bought a cerbera last year. At time of buying considered an M bmw or porker - but came to the conclusion that the latter 2 were too clinical and detached, and to get an adrenaline rush you’d need to go at a crazy pace.

The tvr is epic, a good reliable one I should add, and always loads of drama even at low speeds.

Tvr may not be the OPs thing, but the point here is that maybe what he’s missing is a more analog car

[RobM77]

MKnight702 said:

Leins said:

For me, about 200bhp and not too much weight is the sweet-spot for UK/Irish road fun driving

You don't need that much power to have fun. My previous car was a Westfield XI with 100bhp from a 1275 A Series, I wish I hadn't sold it to get the 500bhp+ Ultima.

I've owned a big variety of road cars with 115bhp/tonne right up to 380bhp/tonne. For all of them, the handling and feedback were the dominant features of driving enjoyment, rather than power. I've also experimented with lots of combinations in single cars (e.g. Caterhams with 115bhp and 160bhp, or BMW 3 series as a 320, 325, 328 or 330). In actual fact, power can be a bad thing, because it often brings more weight with it in the form of a bigger engine or forced induction, which obviously hurts handling; plus it brings a need for more traction, which means more grip. More grip means less fun at a given speed (crucial on the road, where we have other traffic going slowly and speed limits), and it also often means sharper less forgiving grip characteristics that discourage you from having fun. It sounds nuts, but I when I made a slightly odd swap from a Z4C to a 320d I enjoyed the 3 series more. Now that I own another identical E90 with fully uprated suspension (dampers, springs and ARBs) I enjoy it even more, and certainly more than my old 330. Yes, I miss the straight six sound and yes, I miss the performance, but the overall driving experience is better. Admittedly, for the track I have a slicks and wings single seater, but for that once you remove the practical needs of a daily driver and you have an ideal layout (longitudinal true mid engine, not rear engined liked a Lotus or front engined like a BMW), you can get away with more performance without it harming the handling, plus with no speed limits you can corner at whatever speed you want. Lastly, on track I like to be challenged, whereas on the road I want something more playful and benign.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 25th September 17:29

[Stickyfinger]

CABC said:

Really comfortable cars do come with extra weight, size and not least wheelbase.

Unless you drive a Hydropneumatic Citroen

[Kawasicki]

RobM77 said:

Perhaps with more knowledge than me you could shed some light on this, but one aspect I look for in a car is linearity of response at all slip angles. I'll explain: I've noticed a tendency with many modern cars to be very darty to initial steering response, which gives an illusion of sportiness, but then once you start to build the speed up and lean on the car more, the dartiness completely vanishes and leaves you with oodles of understeer, often laughably so. I first noticed this when I had an Alfa 156 JTS for a few weeks many years ago back when they were new, but since I've noticed it on many more cars, many without sporting pretensions at all. The type of cars I like don't have this characteristic and remain linear throughout: my 3 series for example, or my single seater track car.

My question is: is the dartiness caused by initial toe out (that's what it feels like), which then shifts to toe-in with suspension deflection, whereas my 3 series keeps its geometry more stable across suspension deflection values? It's the only explanation I can think of, but the reason I ask the question is that my knowledge in this area is very limited.

thanks!

I don't know it all, but here are some ideas for you

It is fairly easy to tune a car to be initially darty and then be resolutely nose heavy as cornering forces rise. In fact it is sometimes hard to get rid of this characteristic, and it can also help to keep the fully loaded version of the same car stable in extreme manoeuvres.

Car makers have been known to phase the joints in the steering column to effectively quicken the ratio on centre. Some engineers also tune the Ackermann steering characteristics for the same reason. There are loads of tricks/ideas used to increase this on centre "sportiness".

Early loading of the spring aids on the front axle causes a degressive steering response with increased cornering force.

A more balanced weight distribution often doesn't need the same tricks to be pointy yet stay stable at higher lateral forces.

Toe out would make the car less crisp on initial steer, as the outside front tyre would need time to reverse the load direction going though it.

[RobM77]

Kawasicki said:

RobM77 said:

Perhaps with more knowledge than me you could shed some light on this, but one aspect I look for in a car is linearity of response at all slip angles. I'll explain: I've noticed a tendency with many modern cars to be very darty to initial steering response, which gives an illusion of sportiness, but then once you start to build the speed up and lean on the car more, the dartiness completely vanishes and leaves you with oodles of understeer, often laughably so. I first noticed this when I had an Alfa 156 JTS for a few weeks many years ago back when they were new, but since I've noticed it on many more cars, many without sporting pretensions at all. The type of cars I like don't have this characteristic and remain linear throughout: my 3 series for example, or my single seater track car.

My question is: is the dartiness caused by initial toe out (that's what it feels like), which then shifts to toe-in with suspension deflection, whereas my 3 series keeps its geometry more stable across suspension deflection values? It's the only explanation I can think of, but the reason I ask the question is that my knowledge in this area is very limited.

thanks!

I don't know it all, but here are some ideas for you

It is fairly easy to tune a car to be initially darty and then be resolutely nose heavy as cornering forces rise. In fact it is sometimes hard to get rid of this characteristic, and it can also help to keep the fully loaded version of the same car stable in extreme manoeuvres.

Car makers have been known to phase the joints in the steering column to effectively quicken the ratio on centre. Some engineers also tune the Ackermann steering characteristics for the same reason. There are loads of tricks/ideas used to increase this on centre "sportiness".

Early loading of the spring aids on the front axle causes a degressive steering response with increased cornering force.

A more balanced weight distribution often doesn't need the same tricks to be pointy yet stay stable at higher lateral forces.

Toe out would make the car less crisp on initial steer, as the outside front tyre would need time to reverse the load direction going though it.

Thanks. What is meant by 'phasing' the steering column joints?

I've driven lots of hatchbacks over the years and not all do it - I've never noticed a VW Golf doing it for example, or anything from the 1980s. It's a recent characteristic - Alfas and Vauxhalls in particular. My wife's 2007 Civic Type R does it and is matched by a throttle that does a lot more in the first inch than the subsequent three inches, and a brake that's similar. The combination of these things make the car very hard to drive smoothly.

[cerb4.5lee]

ginkent said:

Bought a cerbera last year. At time of buying considered an M bmw or porker - but came to the conclusion that the latter 2 were too clinical and detached,

I agree and I had a Z4M Roadster and a E92 M3 after my Cerbera, and I found the beemers just too heavy and quiet and not very exciting at all unless you drove them like a complete muppet, what I loved so much about the Cerbera was that it was almost as much fun to drive slow as it was to drive fast, such a lovely engaging car to drive.

[Kawasicki]

RobM77 said:

Thanks. What is meant by 'phasing' the steering column joints?

I've driven lots of hatchbacks over the years and not all do it - I've never noticed a VW Golf doing it for example, or anything from the 1980s. It's a recent characteristic - Alfas and Vauxhalls in particular. My wife's 2007 Civic Type R does it and is matched by a throttle that does a lot more in the first inch than the subsequent three inches, and a brake that's similar. The combination of these things make the car very hard to drive smoothly.

There are two universal joints between the steering wheel and the steering rack. The geometry of the steering system means the joints and the steering wheel/steering rack are not in alignment. That means as you turn the steering wheel say through 1 degree per second, the rack sometimes turns faster, say 1.1 degree per second, and obviously an equal amount of time slower, at 0.9 degrees per second. You have a sine wave of output speed. Now you can set your steering system up so that on center the rack is effectively 10% quicker, with a tendency to get slower as you apply lock.....great for that sporty feeling. Or if you have a car that is already too twitchy on center, you can set it up to be 10% slower on center. Or if you are oblivious to this characteristic you can set your joint phasing up to give you the tendency to get quicker in one direction and slower in the other direction.

[Eyersey1234]

myvision said:

S100HP said:

Jumpingjackflash said:

The police are hiding everywhere because motorists are easy targets which helps the police with their targets (I have inside knowledge).

:Laugh:

Can't recall the last time I saw a police car, let alone a speed trap.

Plenty of them around my way.

I see quite a few camera vans round my way

[culpz]

MKnight702 said:

Leins said:

For me, about 200bhp and not too much weight is the sweet-spot for UK/Irish road fun driving

You don't need that much power to have fun. My previous car was a Westfield XI with 100bhp from a 1275 A Series, I wish I hadn't sold it to get the 500bhp+ Ultima.

Maybe YOU don't, but HE does. He also wrote "For me", to highlight that.

I'd actually agree with him too. Around 200 bhp with not a silly amount of weight. I'd say the B segment hot-hatches, both old and new, are perfect for me. Decent size and extractable performance. Fast and fun.

It will also be my next car of choice, funnily enough. Most likely a Renaultsport Clio.

[RobM77]

Kawasicki said:

RobM77 said:

Thanks. What is meant by 'phasing' the steering column joints?

I've driven lots of hatchbacks over the years and not all do it - I've never noticed a VW Golf doing it for example, or anything from the 1980s. It's a recent characteristic - Alfas and Vauxhalls in particular. My wife's 2007 Civic Type R does it and is matched by a throttle that does a lot more in the first inch than the subsequent three inches, and a brake that's similar. The combination of these things make the car very hard to drive smoothly.

There are two universal joints between the steering wheel and the steering rack. The geometry of the steering system means the joints and the steering wheel/steering rack are not in alignment. That means as you turn the steering wheel say through 1 degree per second, the rack sometimes turns faster, say 1.1 degree per second, and obviously an equal amount of time slower, at 0.9 degrees per second. You have a sine wave of output speed. Now you can set your steering system up so that on center the rack is effectively 10% quicker, with a tendency to get slower as you apply lock.....great for that sporty feeling. Or if you have a car that is already too twitchy on center, you can set it up to be 10% slower on center. Or if you are oblivious to this characteristic you can set your joint phasing up to give you the tendency to get quicker in one direction and slower in the other direction.

That's interesting, I never knew that. Thanks. I'm not sure if that gives the responses that I described (and hate!) - I'd have to drive another car like that with the above in mind. I'm hesitant to say that's it, because I'm sure this artificial 'sportiness' doesn't occur at high loadings, even without much lock on, but that might be a difficult situation to replicate.

[TameRacingDriver]

culpz said:

Maybe YOU don't, but HE does. He also wrote "For me", to highlight that.

I'd actually agree with him too. Around 200 bhp with not a silly amount of weight. I'd say the B segment hot-hatches, both old and new, are perfect for me. Decent size and extractable performance. Fast and fun.

It will also be my next car of choice, funnily enough. Most likely a Renaultsport Clio.

I'd say it was far more important whether a car *feels* fast than what numbers it can actually generate. I've driven plenty of 200 bhp cars that felt utterly boring (even when they don't weigh a 'silly' amount), yet my slow turd MR2 feels like you're really motoring without even going fast - which is a bit of a pain when the OH is in the car as its almost like she is constantly on edge.

I think people get far too hung up on figures. But for me, given 2 cars with similar power to weight ratios, give me less power and weight, as in all likelihood, it will provide more thrills and similar outright acceleration.

[culpz]

TameRacingDriver said:

I'd say it was far more important whether a car *feels* fast than what numbers it can actually generate. I've driven plenty of 200 bhp cars that felt utterly boring (even when they don't weigh a 'silly' amount), yet my slow turd MR2 feels like you're really motoring without even going fast - which is a bit of a pain when the OH is in the car as its almost like she is constantly on edge.

I think people get far too hung up on figures. But for me, given 2 cars with similar power to weight ratios, give me less power and weight, as in all likelihood, it will provide more thrills and similar outright acceleration.

I see where you're coming from. There's also the opposite of what you're saying with the likes of forced-induction, which may have less power but more low-down torque that makes makes it feel quicker.

I'd just like to have both really. A decent amount of oomph while being compact and fun to drive. Around 200 bhp is just that sweet-spot of fast and fun for me but i depends on the formula aswell.

This is where all arrows point me towards a Clio 172/182.

[TameRacingDriver]

culpz said:

This is where all arrows point me towards a Clio 172/182.

If I were to go down that route again, it'd have to be a 172 Cup for me - near as dammit 1000 kg, thinner glass, lighter wheels, has to be more raw and less to go wrong... in some ways I'd rather have that than the Trophy.

[culpz]

TameRacingDriver said:

If I were to go down that route again, it'd have to be a 172 Cup for me - near as dammit 1000 kg, thinner glass, lighter wheels, has to be more raw and less to go wrong... in some ways I'd rather have that than the Trophy.

I'm tempted myself. Cheap ones are few and far between though and i hate those basic seats. I can imagine they are a hoot to drive but i'd be more than happy with a standard 172 with all the toys.

The lack of ABS and all the standard equipment you end up missing does put me off but i suppose there's less to go wrong and will be a much more raw experience, like you said.

[TameRacingDriver]

Rip out the cheap seats and stick some buckets in there. Job jobbed