RE: PH Footnote: Less is more
Discussion
D.no said:
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
I'm not buying or selling torque vectoring. I'm sure it's very good.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
The article says: "With all of that working for it, the A110 just doesn't need any of those extremely trick but spectacularly tedious new technologies that we're seeing throughout the performance car world these days. The little French sports car is better for being simple.
Those new gadgets - active anti-roll bars, adaptive dampers, three-chamber air springs, active torque vectoring and heaven knows what else - have all been developed in order to address inherent wrongnesses"
I just wanted to point out that the Alpine does, in fact, have torque vectoring, and by implication of the articles premise therefore has some inherent wrongness, which I'm sure is inherently wrong. Right?
ExPat2B said:
I think you are right about the wrongness. There is some inherent wrongness in shuffling power from the right to the left, and back to the right, it is wrong. The Author is therefore wrong about the rightness of the Alpine, however given how well the Alpine drives, could he also be wrong about the inherent wrongness of Torque vectoring, in fact it may be right that power can move to the right and left, in which case is he is wrong about both the inherent wrongness of this technology and the application thereof, but right about the Alpine being great to drive.
I can't be right about the wrongness, because it's wrong to say it was me who said it was inherently wrong. The wrongness and rightness was originally mentioned in the article (wrongly or rightly), and I just righted the wrong about the torque vectoring - which could be right, or left.Isn't torque vectoring just a fancy (fashionable) term for an electronically-controlled version what used to be delivered by an effective LSD operating on the rear axle?
Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something? Aside from the electronic control, what is different in result between "torque vectoring" and an old-fashioned ATB diff? Both direct more power to the outside rear when the merest hint of slip* is detected on the inside rear.
* Yes, I'm aware that with TV, power can potentially be re-attributed BEFORE slip is detected, if the engineers chose to programme it that way. But if there's no slip on the inside rear, then the car is within its dynamic limits, so the driver has the ability to tighten the line through use of the wheel as well as the throttle, so the 'pre-limit' part of TV becomes a gimmick not something that has any meaningful impact on the road.
Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something? Aside from the electronic control, what is different in result between "torque vectoring" and an old-fashioned ATB diff? Both direct more power to the outside rear when the merest hint of slip* is detected on the inside rear.
* Yes, I'm aware that with TV, power can potentially be re-attributed BEFORE slip is detected, if the engineers chose to programme it that way. But if there's no slip on the inside rear, then the car is within its dynamic limits, so the driver has the ability to tighten the line through use of the wheel as well as the throttle, so the 'pre-limit' part of TV becomes a gimmick not something that has any meaningful impact on the road.
Dafuq said:
Eh? Your comment doesn't make sense. Your point is?
My point is being an adenoidal, patronising bore correcting people on their slips, or lack of knowledge of development history of a vehicle they enjoy; is quite possibly as infuriating to them; as their shameless lack of knowledge is to you. Enthusiasm, even when a little misdirected, is not a crime. But I expect you speak only in engine numbers. 
Dale487 said:
Black S2K said:
Dale487 said:
I know that torque vectoring is added technology but is it added weight? The hardware is already there.
Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Not really - it's apparently brake-vectoring, not torque vectoring, which does add weight.Plus Alpine stated that they felt that the dual clutch gearbox was the lighter solution, due to loss of linkages, gear stick etc compared with a manual - sadly DCT looks like the only A110 gearbox option.
Quite a few cars do BV now.
Is the VAG XDS faux LSD brake vectoring?
So, the mass of an additional ECU (grams) in order to activate the appropriate rear (or front) ABS valve. Maybe a slightly heavier ABS module.
So it weighs buttons, really.
I believe the VAG thing is essentially just that. Also the Evora and modern Jaguars spring to mind.
The proper TV system in my Leg End involves three epicyclic overdrive units with clutch packs and is bloody heavy, by comparison. Probably why it never caught on.
havoc said:
Isn't torque vectoring just a fancy (fashionable) term for an electronically-controlled version what used to be delivered by an effective LSD operating on the rear axle?
Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something? Aside from the electronic control, what is different in result between "torque vectoring" and an old-fashioned ATB diff? Both direct more power to the outside rear when the merest hint of slip* is detected on the inside rear.
* Yes, I'm aware that with TV, power can potentially be re-attributed BEFORE slip is detected, if the engineers chose to programme it that way. But if there's no slip on the inside rear, then the car is within its dynamic limits, so the driver has the ability to tighten the line through use of the wheel as well as the throttle, so the 'pre-limit' part of TV becomes a gimmick not something that has any meaningful impact on the road.
You should be familiar with the Prelude with ATTS! Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something? Aside from the electronic control, what is different in result between "torque vectoring" and an old-fashioned ATB diff? Both direct more power to the outside rear when the merest hint of slip* is detected on the inside rear.
* Yes, I'm aware that with TV, power can potentially be re-attributed BEFORE slip is detected, if the engineers chose to programme it that way. But if there's no slip on the inside rear, then the car is within its dynamic limits, so the driver has the ability to tighten the line through use of the wheel as well as the throttle, so the 'pre-limit' part of TV becomes a gimmick not something that has any meaningful impact on the road.
Imagine the outside front wheel turning faster than the inside and how one might be dragged round a corner at an insane speed. One cannot do that with a simple LSD.
So long as you keep the power on...otherwise it all goes wobbly.
It works brilliantly on a big barge with an unfavourable transverse end-on layout, when applied to the rear wheels. On even an atrocious road, it can be persuaded to do a very good impersonation of a GT86, with impunity. What's black ice..?
I should imagine that on the Honda 5.0 V10 GT car with an optimal distribution of its masses, it would have been stunning.
Much as I love the incongruity of a relaxing big barge with such agility in all weathers, I must stress I prefer my 86s and S2000 with none of the above. They're for completely different purposes. For the same reason, the jury's out on the new NSX. Personally, I find it simply too much car, brilliant as it is. The ability to do negative-torque vectoring (a system borrowed from the current Leg End) means it can also vector when one runs out of bravado/skill, as does friction-brake vectoring on other cars.
Reminds me of this short film about the pleasures of driving an early 911:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvnJr82oULk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvnJr82oULk
I've been in the motor trade over 20 years and lucky enough to have driven lots of fast cars in that time. Some have impressed for the sheer accelerative and cornering forces they were able to generate, others by making the most beautiful sound. Last year I bought an '02 Boxster S manual for stock and it's just a fabulous thing to drive. It's not particularly quick but makes a lovely sound when wrung out and is so pure in every single response. I've recently driven some fast hot hatchbacks and they've not felt anywhere near as special despite the performance advantage
don logan said:
My biggest disappointment? My GTR which I sold and have never missed!
I tried a GTR - the salesman was rather disappointed when I said it was probably the most uninvolving car I'd ever driven. All very competent, blisteringly quick, but I wasn't entirely convinced I wasn't playing a video game.DevonPaul said:
I tried a GTR - the salesman was rather disappointed when I said it was probably the most uninvolving car I'd ever driven. All very competent, blisteringly quick, but I wasn't entirely convinced I wasn't playing a video game.
I hear this a lot, but it's quite a long way off my experiences. Perhaps living with one as a daily helps to build a more balanced perspective, or perhaps it makes one biased, who knows? For what it's worth I found the GT-R to be a hugely engaging driving machine. It felt like a piece of heavy engineering. The general levels of feedback were fantastic, and the steering feel was a highlight. The car felt wonderfully mechanical. Given it's extremely high capabilities I can understand how on brief encounters and without the opportunity to explore the upper reaches of the chassis and drivetrain performance it could seem a tad aloof, but the steering never stops communicating even at low speeds.
Ultimately for me it was exactly those extremely high capabilities (and/or it's mass), and the lack of manual gearbox that led me to seek an alternative. It was just too damned fast to really enjoy on the road, the speed and commitment required to bring the chassis alive meaning rewards were a guilty pleasure. Flappy paddles just stripped the car of something that would otherwise have been an any-speed-accessible interaction, another layer that could be enjoyed without ones hair on fire. It's not possible to work-at, or perfect a click of a paddle, nor can one glean any tactile information about the car through that gearbox interface (because it has no mechanical connection to the gearbox). On the track, the GT-R was great fun, and needed as much management and driver input as something like my CSL did, but in that environment mass was it's Achilles heel and therefore, for me at least, it was an unhappy compromise. I do miss it though at times.
A true driving enthusiast wants a car that:
1. Responds quickly and reliably to inputs to all controls and doesn't have an electronic nanny to spoil the fun
2. Remains controllable near the limit of adhesion and allows the driver to deliberately (or not!) exceed the limit with some chance of not crashing
3. Gives reliable feedback through the controls, that will help a good driver avoid crashing and enjoy the car more
4. Has ENOUGH power to exploit the grip level of the chassis and a manual gearbox to give complete control of when the car changes gear and test the driver's skill at rev matching and heel and toe.
99% of performance car buyers want a car that:
1. Has masses of power to brag about in the pub and scare their mates in a straight line
2. Has loads of grip and stability/drift control, so they can feel like a driving god, but won't enter a hedge backwards unless they've been really stupid
3. Doesn't give any annoying movement in the steering or pass on any information on the road surface, because that is tiring and ruins the cocooned and safe feeling they like.
4. Changes gear for them, so they don't have to bother, but does over the top rev matching to make it seem sporty
Older cars make a lot of sense, but I have to admire Toyota for making the GT86 ( I would love one, but it wouldn't match my Caterham for fun I suspect).
The Alpine is a lovely car, but the gearbox spoils it for me, I would much prefer a supercharged 1.8 Elise instead.
1. Responds quickly and reliably to inputs to all controls and doesn't have an electronic nanny to spoil the fun
2. Remains controllable near the limit of adhesion and allows the driver to deliberately (or not!) exceed the limit with some chance of not crashing
3. Gives reliable feedback through the controls, that will help a good driver avoid crashing and enjoy the car more
4. Has ENOUGH power to exploit the grip level of the chassis and a manual gearbox to give complete control of when the car changes gear and test the driver's skill at rev matching and heel and toe.
99% of performance car buyers want a car that:
1. Has masses of power to brag about in the pub and scare their mates in a straight line
2. Has loads of grip and stability/drift control, so they can feel like a driving god, but won't enter a hedge backwards unless they've been really stupid
3. Doesn't give any annoying movement in the steering or pass on any information on the road surface, because that is tiring and ruins the cocooned and safe feeling they like.
4. Changes gear for them, so they don't have to bother, but does over the top rev matching to make it seem sporty
Older cars make a lot of sense, but I have to admire Toyota for making the GT86 ( I would love one, but it wouldn't match my Caterham for fun I suspect).
The Alpine is a lovely car, but the gearbox spoils it for me, I would much prefer a supercharged 1.8 Elise instead.
Quite a few reports I have seen in the monthly car comics recently have bemoaned the many different options available for suspension, throttle response, gearbox speed and many more. One comment I have seen more than once said "Why don't they just set the car up as best they can for all the sorts of conditions the car is likely to encounter.
I remember when the E60 BMW M5 came out in 2004/05 (I think) - Clarkson tested it and sat in it prodding different buttons for all manner of different configurable options, and concluded that he didn't really know what they all did or what difference they would make.
In particular, a Merc C43 on long term test in EVO magazine - driver is complaining that he has to delve into several sub-menus in order to access all his favourite settings. If it's a car designed for track days, then fair enough, but the average Joe, and I would suspect, the average petrol-head hasn't got a clue what all these different gizmos actually do. If I had a car with all this stuff in it, I would probably experiment a bit on the first couple of days, then leave everything in default settings for the rest of the car's life with me.
I remember when the E60 BMW M5 came out in 2004/05 (I think) - Clarkson tested it and sat in it prodding different buttons for all manner of different configurable options, and concluded that he didn't really know what they all did or what difference they would make.
In particular, a Merc C43 on long term test in EVO magazine - driver is complaining that he has to delve into several sub-menus in order to access all his favourite settings. If it's a car designed for track days, then fair enough, but the average Joe, and I would suspect, the average petrol-head hasn't got a clue what all these different gizmos actually do. If I had a car with all this stuff in it, I would probably experiment a bit on the first couple of days, then leave everything in default settings for the rest of the car's life with me.
As the article says, it isn't just an absence of technology that's being sought - after all, a Capri is fairly simple. It's as much, if not more, about having the fundamentals of a sporting car be right:
1) Low c.g.
2) Balanced weight distribution (max 50% over front wheels)
3) Low moment of inertia (weight in the centre, avoiding a dumbbell distribution)
4) Light weight
5) Compact size
6) Double wishbones or multilink all round
7) RWD or 4WD
nail the above, add a reasonable power:weight ratio, and you're pretty much guaranteed a good time whether you've got a fully analogue classic or something stuffed with gadgetary.
But the problem is, it just isn't that simple commercially. The balance and low moment of inertia mean putting the engine inside the wheelbase; combined with compactness and light weight, interior space becomes "cosy". Most people don't want this cramped, impractical car, and hitting the fundamental package means it can't be derived from a family hatch. You end up having to engineer a low-volume car entirely bespoke; no wonder such cars rarely come along, and are so celebrated when they do. Porsche (& arguably Lotus) are almost the only people who make a habit of doing so at a vaguely affordable price point, which is why the motoring press is so repetitively Stuttgart-focused.
D.no said:
Yes I agree. If the A110 had a stirrer, I'd have a deposit placed and be on the waiting list. Unfortunately I just don't get on with any form of non-mechanical gearbox interface. I've tried, but without fail the process of changing gear with paddles leaves me stone cold.
Plus only being a 2-seater is no good for my car usage either .....meaning I'd need another car most of the time.....which would inevitably mean it left in the garage/on the drive.
3 seats would be enough to make it a possibility a la Matra/Mac F1
Simonium said:
Dafuq said:
Eh? Your comment doesn't make sense. Your point is?
My point is being an adenoidal, patronising bore correcting people on their slips, or lack of knowledge of development history of a vehicle they enjoy; is quite possibly as infuriating to them; as their shameless lack of knowledge is to you. Enthusiasm, even when a little misdirected, is not a crime. But I expect you speak only in engine numbers. Once again on here someone (you) has chosen to ignore a general view on life to launch a personal attack. You don't know me so not sure how you have the in depth knowledge of my personality to comment.
'Correcting people on their slips' How do you get that from my comment....,? Actually forget it, not to wanting to get into slanging match.
I would like to comment though that is a real shame that some on this site appear to be constantly spoiling for a fight. Ridiculous.
Black S2K said:
havoc said:
Isn't torque vectoring just a fancy (fashionable) term for an electronically-controlled version what used to be delivered by an effective LSD operating on the rear axle?
Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something?
...
You should be familiar with the Prelude with ATTS! Y'know...the sort of thing fitted to all manner of performance cars for decades.
Or am I missing something?
...
Imagine the outside front wheel turning faster than the inside and how one might be dragged round a corner at an insane speed. One cannot do that with a simple LSD.
ANY diff regulates a wheel-speed 'differential' across the axle...it's just how they go about it that 'differs'!
PS - done some googling - looks pretty close to my original assumption - TV works like a computer-controlled ATB diff. So this is more about marketing than any massive advance.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff