A sportscar shouldn’t have...
Discussion
nickfrog said:
I reckon motorsport is a form of sport. I don't think many people can argue with that.
No I don't think they would, but to me at least the term "sports car" has nothing to do with motorsport and hasn't for decades. Languages evolve. Besides, just about any car can be used for motorsport. People race Citroen 2CVs and Reliant Robins!
Edited by kambites on Thursday 28th November 16:50
Autonomy said:
Cotty said:
Autonomy said:
An engine at the back. Or front.
It would be a bit slow if it did not have an engine.You knew what I meant. Mid-engined.
t in the driver's seat. All too often the case.marksx said:
Mort7 said:
Lane departure warning, auto wipers, auto headlights.
How does any of that stuff detract from a sports car experience?
2Btoo said:
CrossMember said:
...a strict definition. 
Controversial. LJKS maintained that a 'Sports Car' is one that you could buy and use competitively in a racing series straight from the showroom; the only modifications being those for safety as necessitated by the series scrutes.
Does that qualify as a strict definition?
Plus its a bit of a dated idea as generally race cars and road cars have moved much further apart than when LJKS was writing. I can't think of a single modern road car that would hold its own in an open race series for cars with similar engine size etc, unless you look at a road registered Radical or similar but they are really race cars with a number plate, not road cars with a harness
blueg33 said:
Silly definition, there are one type racing series for road cars..............
Plus its a bit of a dated idea as generally race cars and road cars have moved much further apart than when LJKS was writing. I can't think of a single modern road car that would hold its own in an open race series for cars with similar engine size etc, unless you look at a road registered Radical or similar but they are really race cars with a number plate, not road cars with a harness
I'm not disagreeing BTW ,but LJKS had an early Honda CRX and their race series in the late 80s was very competitivePlus its a bit of a dated idea as generally race cars and road cars have moved much further apart than when LJKS was writing. I can't think of a single modern road car that would hold its own in an open race series for cars with similar engine size etc, unless you look at a road registered Radical or similar but they are really race cars with a number plate, not road cars with a harness
with many of the top club racers of the time taking up the best seats.
Cotty said:
Autonomy said:
Cotty said:
Autonomy said:
An engine at the back. Or front.
It would be a bit slow if it did not have an engine.You knew what I meant. Mid-engined.
MikeyC said:
An expensive hi-fi system ?
You bought the car because it's a 'sports' car, to drive and experience it's handling/performance and, most importantly the sound of the engine
Just seems a waste of money plus extra weight.
Sure have a standard one, but more than that, I've never really seen the point ....
JMHO
About 16 years ago I spent just over £1200 on an awesome sound system with tweeters etc for my TVR Chimaera.. I think you can guess whether that was money well spent or not, at least when the engine was on and/or the roof off......You bought the car because it's a 'sports' car, to drive and experience it's handling/performance and, most importantly the sound of the engine
Just seems a waste of money plus extra weight.
Sure have a standard one, but more than that, I've never really seen the point ....
JMHO
I used to have a strict list of requirements for a 'sports car'. RWD, 2 seater or 2 plus 2.
But it's gotten more and more complicated, nowadays I have one rule:
Needs to be purpose built as a sports car on a sports car platform.
If it's sharing a platform with a FWD shopping trolley then it's not a sports car.
But it's gotten more and more complicated, nowadays I have one rule:
Needs to be purpose built as a sports car on a sports car platform.
If it's sharing a platform with a FWD shopping trolley then it's not a sports car.
kambites said:
marksx said:
Mort7 said:
Lane departure warning, auto wipers, auto headlights.
How does any of that stuff detract from a sports car experience?Caterham - no gadgetry at all. Not even ABS. Pure driving, by the seat of your pants. Totally involving, but can be a bit wearing.
MX5 - has ABS, and traction control (switchable). I tend to leave the traction control switched on most of the time - no problem with either as they enhance safety and don't generally detract from the on-road driving experience. I don't particularly want to be drifting around roundabouts in the rain in my daily drive.
I have a completely different attitude to lane departure warning (you should know where you're placed on the road at all times), auto wipers (if it's raining turn the wipers on at the appropriate speed) or auto headlights (bloody dangerous to abdicate responsibility to the car, particularly in fog).
Operation of all the controls is a part of the driving experience, which is surely the whole point of sports car - a bit more involvement.
I accept that your point of view may differ from mine. Each to their own, and I won't be arguing the toss because it's clearly down to individual preference. This is mine.
kambites said:
Yeah I've never understood the aversion to drive aids which can be switched off and add no weight to the car or inherent interference to the controls.
OP here - I think these driver aids are bad because they add weight because they need cameras and other sensors - not just a software option. I take the view that anyone who needs lane departure warning shouldn’t be driving. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff