SDB

The problem with the ring is that even an experienced driver could lap the ring 3 times and without much of a difference in drving post quite astonishingly different times.

I would be interested if it was a average of 10 laps maybe.

The ring is so long and has so many turns that 5 degrees of tyre temperature could make for quite a few seconds alone. You could take 10% of the corners much better than you did on the previous and make up 10 -15 seconds easily, and of course the opposite applies.

Similar problems arise in other track tests. If we all had the benefit of the wrolds best set-up technicians, we would be able to dramatically improve out lap times by letting them alter things based on out comments. But if you and I both started out with the same car, we would have very different set-ups by the end of our day. For this reason, one drivers time on one lap in one car is not really relevant. Especially as we don't drive around on race tracks.

The thing I found from Sunday was that in the wet on a twisty handling circuit, the M was far superior to the Lotus S4s. It is fairly difficult to draw conclusions about the dry handling form this though. Although I must admit, I would have my money on the V8. I also don't think my S4s would be that far behind. Who knows.... hopefully we'll find out!!

Cheers

Simon

SDB

PS...

I also found out that not all BMW owners are plonkers!!!

Cheers

Simon

jamieo

I'll go with EVO...

One thing that does bug me about EVO is that they can be quite contradictory - one issue they're raving about say the Boxster S and the next they're saying it's not so good at 10/10ths (I've just made this example up by the way). Also when they give cars 5* there doesn't seem to be much sense, some will get 4* because of some seemingly minor issue they have, while others get 5*. It's just a gripe I have with an otherwise great mag.

What we really need is write ups by people like Simon from MIRA days for different cars, and then from someone else at a certain track say. One car may be great at MIRA, but crap on the track, or great point-to-point on real roads but not so great at MIRA.

jamieo

Simon - Well if we meet up at a track day you can have a go in the M...

Maybe at Mirabelle? (sp?) Do they have dry testing facilities there?

SDB

Thanks Jamie you mad fool!!

I'm not sure about dry handling there, I'm not as good in the dry, but owuld love another go in the M now I know I didn't need to be such a girl in it! (No offence to your wife!). The facility sounds breathtaking though. Apparently an alpine proper race track which has been converted to a wet handling facility. WOW!!

Sounds like my kind of place.

c-ya

Simon

PS.. If anyone else is up for the one off event in the south of France at the Goodyear? wet handling faclity (best in the world apparently). It will be a one week affair, meant as a holiday with half day sessions including training from Don Palmer. It won't be cheep but god will it be worth it. Drop Don an email @ don@drivingdevelopment.co.uk

ChrisB

If you twisted my arm, I suppose I could put the BM.... or a Esprit ...

Just to divert the a little, has anyone here ever had the pleasure (or horror!) of driving the Racing Dynamics V12 BMW Compact?

Always wanted one since I first saw the beast - something like a V12 6 litre engine shoe-horned into a hatchback. Not cheap at around £75k new!!!!!

Chris.



[This message has been edited by ChrisB (edited 14-02-2000).]

Stef

Simon.

"As far as sports cars are concerend, RWD is and probably always will be king".

What, like the Diablo SV (?) and the greatest of them all.....the 911 Turbo you mean????

Stef.
PS I was kidding.

SDB

Settle Pettle!! I know you were only kidding, don't think my reply was a personal attack... I just disagree

Why are Formula 1 cars RWD, there are very few tarmac based sports car series which are AWD.

AWD only comes into it's own in adverse conditions, like snow, gravel, wet, etc...

These are rally cars, or derivatives of, not sports cars.

Diablo... Great car, not my cup of tea though.. and bear in mind they spent millions developing a system which allows the car to handle like a RWD car and then bring in the front wheels when traction is lost.. I wonder why?

Porka, well having driven maybe 15 of them, I would go for the S2 every time, being RWD.

Maybe it's personal preferance, but if you asked every motorsport participant in the world which they prefer I would expect to see an overwhelming preference for RWD.

AWD is great, but nowhere near as much fun a RWD for the skilled experienced driver. This is why we spend so much time taking about removing understeer. This is to try to get the handling towards a more sporty oversteer characteristic... the characteristics of RWD.

regards

Simon

[This message has been edited by Simon de Banke (edited 15-02-2000).]

Jules

jamieo

Interesting re your comments about Royal Ascott BMW garage & the sales guys there.
Who did you deal with ??
I only ask cos my brother is quite senior in the sales dept there.

Cheers.

Jules.

jamieo

jules - it was Joe Reeves (?) who I dealt with at Royal Ascot. When I originally turned up all the sales staff were busy so I think it was the owner of the garage who showed me round the cars. But he couldn't answer any of my questions so he went and got Joe. He was very helpful, could pretty much answer all the questions I asked and was all round a pretty nice chap.

I'd been to other BMW dealers and all I'd got from the staff there were - M Coupe eh? Ooh, this is a serious motor car you know, very specialist, high performance... i.e. they knew nothing. Asking them about suspension differences between an M3 and an M drew very blank faces and more babble of "high performance".

At least Joe seemed to know things like the 6 speed M3 gearbox wouldn't fit in 'cos of the length and the rear suspension is off the old M3, etc.

Stef

Saw a new M5 in Cannes at the weekend.....absolutely stunning.
Give it AWD.

Stef.

Jules

jamieo - Joe is the sales manager there - top bloke by all accounts (ie not into all that "BMW = god" status crap)
Believe me though, I am not surprised at the dealers attitude in general.
My brother says within 6 months the sales guys become brainwashed into the BMW way !!

stef - have to agree - saw an M5 a few months ago parked-up - stunning.
& I have to say the new M3 looks gooooood too!!

Jules.

SDB

Who woke you up Stef!!

IMHO, the M5 is (if it's possible) getting close to the pinnacle of motoring, in terms of an all round brilliant car.

For the size of car, the performace is stunning, and it is pretty luxurious as well. Looks great, reliable, blah, blah.

One thing I do dissagree with though...
If they made it AWD it would be one of the worst mistakes they ould possibly make. It would turn a fabulously handling car into a vehicle with the handling of a farm vehicle.

Scoobies are great in AWD but not many cars are... As far as sports cars are concerned, RWD is and probably always will be king.. but somehow, the package all comes together nicely with the Scoob.

AlexM

Sorry Simon,

Isn't the reason that 4WD is banned in circuit racing is that it often causes severe problems for the competing 2WD teams?.

A 4WD F1 car would absolutely murder everything else in terms of traction out of corners, and nothing would probably ever be able to overtake it (in the context of modern F1). Audi completely humiliated all of the BTCC teams running 2WD in their first year, and were still cleaning up with a 100kg weight penalty the next year, so guess what - it was banned.

In F1, it hasn't been attempted by anyone for years, but that isn't to say that the technology isn't sufficiently effective, light, strong, and efficient for racing applications. Innovations which give teams too much of an unfair advantage, or would result in lap speeds that would be dangerously high are usually eliminated pretty quickly e.g. Williams six wheeler, Brabham 'fan car' etc.

I know you were talking about handling quality as opposed to lap times etc, but it doesn't automatically follow that 2WD is used just because it would be faster on a circuit car - it is just not commonly used because it is difficult technically, expensive, and banned in most circuit-based series regulations.

Cheers,

Alex

SDB

Good point Alex

Maybe my point about F1 cars etc was a bad one.

But, as you said, I was really talking about handling characteristics, rather than the competence of a car.

In many of my posts I have described cars as being too competent, Skyline is a great example. Incredibly quick car point to point, but completely uninvolving. The M5 still feels like a drivers car, you know you are in control.

I have been fortunate enough to drive on the absolute limit more cars than most people will ever sit in. The majority of these have been performance cars. I can honestly say (as will almost any skilled experienced performance driver) that in terms of enjoyment and driving satisfaction the pecking order is RWD, AWD, FWD (from best to worst).

On an F1 car, I really don't know which would be best. It is not as clear cut as the touring car scenario...

In touring cars, a major factor is the lack of grip. Cars are travelling at serious speeds and having to slow down lots for the corners. In F1, the use of downforce means you don't need to brake as hard, therefore you don't need to regain as much speed.

AWD definately slows straight line speed down, we would all agree with that. It also creates lots of handling issues.

When AWD first hit rallying, they won everything.. this was only because they had so much traction in a straight line. If you watch the eary early Quattro's they drive up to the corner, pottle round them and then launch off down the straight.. Things have obviously moved on, but the underlying problems remain...

If you have drive to any wheel, you are taking an amount of its lateral grip and turning it into linear grip. A tyre will only grip so much. Going into a corner, if the front wheels (after braking has finished) are allowed to concentrate on turning the car (total lateral grip) the effect will be greater than if they have to contend with accelerating or decelerating forces (linear grip) enforced by the engine.

This all adds up to mean turn is far better in RWD. If F1 Cars had AWD, they would have to loose some of the benefits they have from downforce due to the limitations of AWD.

Who knows..

Regards

Simon

PS.. Alex.. I hear you're booked up for MIRA? Look forward to meeting you.

NickM

Jamieo

My last manager had a 968 (not a sport though) and although it was a nice car it doesn't grab me.

I love 911's but at the end of the day I prefer the Supra. Except of course for the 996 twin turbo but that's a little out of my budget..!!!

Nope, the Lotus was the contended but it lost.

There's a Le Mans Elise at Bell&Covil. Worth a look, crazy looking car.

jamieo

(Other than not being part of the rules) I expect AWD is not used in F1 mainly because of packaging - how can you put together the car in such a way as to get drive to the front wheels. As downforce and aerodynamic efficiency is king in F1, the gains of AWD would probably be lost due to how you would have to "package" the car. There's also the problem of weight, although I expect they'd use materials which were very light - it would still be increasing the center of g.

If AWD was used in F1, I expect it would just kick in coming out of slow/mid speed corners and then the car would revert to RWD for most of the time.

As to which is "best", well it's like arguing which is the "best" car - some are better for some things than others. I still love driving my FWD Honda Integra Type-R, it's amazingly sharp to drive

NickM

Simon&Nightmare,

Going back waaaaay up this thread to the dicussion about the interior of the Lotus (I'm a bit late but sod it)...

The car I drove had the older style interior which I thought was terrible, not only in quality but also appearance.

I sat in a newer GT with the revised interior and whilst it provided a great driving position, all controls within easy reach, pleasent to look at, chest high centre console! etc it was still VERY poor quality wise.

After a test drive I can honestly say that it's the most enjoyable car I have every driven. The steering is razor sharp compared to the MKIV Supra and everything just felt, well, superb. Every gearchange was a shear pleasure and it went ok as well

Problem is though I can't spend around £40K on a car that I know in around 10K miles will start to rattle, squeek rust and generally fall apart.

Like I said to the salesman. Love the car, hate the quality (espically the interior).

I'm after another MKIV Twin turbo....

DavidRB

Perhaps the most important point here is the concept of "driver involvement".

RWD is harder to drive quickly than 4WD, but is more satisfying when you get it right. It also gives the skilled driver more control over the back of the car.

4WD gives you more grip accelerating out of the corners, so you can (within limits!) just plant your right foot and go. That's why all the top rally cars are 4WD. After all, 4WD is really just a form of mechanical traction control.

Accelerating out of a corner faster than another car gives you a speed advantage down the whole straight, so anything that improves this will make a big difference to laptimes. (Conversely braking really late into a corner doesn't make that much difference to laptimes because the time under braking is so short).

A common thread you see about Skylines is that most drivers find them uninvolving & not very exciting to drive, but nothing can keep up with them on anything less than a perfect surface.

F1 cars don't need 4WD because (as pointed out) they generate huge amounts of aerodynamic grip and the extra traction provided by 4WD would not overcome the extra weight, transmission drag & aerodynamic inefficiencies caused by the FWD components. Remember, 4WD was banned from F1 (& Indycars) fairly soon after it was introduced, so teams had little time to develop it.

RWD is definitely more fun and most likely quicker in the hands of an expert on a good quality road, but I bet that the average driver on an average road would be quicker in a 4WD car than in a RWD one.

SDB

If you manage to get one to rust, I'll be VERY impressed!!

I know what you mean though..

I personally love the interior...

Rattles and the like... yeah I agree, but the driving pleasure is sooo great that you know they didn't cut corners, they just didn't see the rattles as important??

Cheers

Simon

NickM

Simon,

Just read your comments on the "let me back thread" and I fully agree with what you're saying. I'm not after a car full of pointless toys like electric&heated seats, cruise control, A/C and all that crap BUT I do want a car that's solid!!

That's what I'm getting at.

As for the rust that wasn't on the bodywork itself but on the windscreen wipers and indicator retaining screws.

I suppose some people can live with the poor quality for the performance but whilst I'm very tempted because it really was a superb car to drive I just can't.

jamieo

NickM,

Why don't you go for something like a Porsche 968 Club Sport? I've not driven one, but a friend said it's a fantastic drive and if you aren't too bothered about interior refinements - it's even got wind up windows (what a novelty!) I hear many get to do quite a few track days, so it may be hard to find a great one, but they're pretty cheap.

Or even an older 911 - can pick up a LHD 911 RS for mid 20K.

Only suggesting a porker as they are pretty solid cars and can take a hammering.

AlexM

Hi All,

I agree with Simon - a transendental driving experience allows you to forgive a lot of faults in a car.

OK don't laugh I'm about to make an 'apples and oranges comparison'. I used to have a 150bhp R5 GT Turbo which was possibly the most unreliable vehicle you could imagine, but on the rare occasions it was working perfectly and I found myself on the right roads I could forgive it for it's foibles and just enjoy the experience.

I hated it the other 85% of the time though because there was always some niggling problem with it . Personally I found it inhibiting because I was always worried about it going expensively wrong again and again if I drove it hard - this sort of negated the point of owning that type of car IMHO.

Cheers,

Alex

Nightmare

I understand your reservations Nick, and dont think anyone should go into owning something like that with their eyes shut...but I personally think that the pros outweigh the cons. The windscren wiper set-up has been completely changed for the new interiored model, cos the old one is utter toss!

You wont buy a supercar which doesnt rattle and sqeak. I'd love someone to prove me wrong, but I dont think they will. Its all part of 'extreme' ownership I guess....

Stef...what point are you making about the diablo SV out of interest? That is isnt a great car to drive? I would disagree...and have at least 18k miles of experience to disagree with ....It is a bitch to drive at first though...and like the interior quesiotn, Im glad my mates can't just get in it and throw it around. For me, the learning, compromising and generally getting to know bits of extreme cars is what sets them apart from something 'normal' with a big engine.....

just wot I rekkon though guv

Night

GCollier

If you want a supercar which doesn't rattle or squeak, then porsche is your marque. Unless you don't count 993's as supercars. In fact no porsche I've been in has ever rattled at all, even 10 year old ones, and I think I've been in/driven about 8 in total.

Nick A

Have just bought a WRX to replace my 91 M5 and whilst from 80MPH above the M5 is quicker, the smile factor below that is great. With a Scoobie you just get launched off the line, fantastic.

PS anyone want a nice M5 ???

NickM

Nightmare

I think I've inadvertently come across as being a bit of a tart that doesn't want a fantastic sports car because the interior rattles!! I left the dealer feeling rather deflated because I'd expect alot more but ONLY in the overall build quality. The car was fantastic to drive and bloody difficult, espically as I hadn't driven for 6 months and was wearing Cat boots (not the best choice..). I loved that though. I loved the ultra short shift, the razor sharp handling and the instant response from the twin turbo'd V8 slung behind my head. Like you say it's great when you first get into a car and think "christ this is going to take some getting used to".

Problem is though, I'm a picky ******* and all these little niggles would drive me crazy.


Nick

SDB

Hi All

Nick M
How much?

Nick A / Nightmare
In fareness, if build quality and that warm feeling you get from the solid sound of a mercedes door shutting is important to you, then the Lotus Esprit is definately not for you. It's horses for courses in the end.. If sleek styling and head turning sex appeal is important to you, a scooby is not for you either.. The scooby is my cup of tea because smile factor is more imprtant to me than the sex appeal (ask the wife!!) factor. The Lotus appeals to me because it's a true super car. I can easily forgive it the rattles and noises... In fact in a weird kind of way I sort of love it more for them.

Every time I drive it, I am stunned at how solid, precise and perfectly designed all of the aspects important to the actual driving are, that the rattles and noises caused by apprent lower quality items, simply don't bother me. The contrast between the two levels of quality simply confirms my beleif that the car was built to be driven, and who cares about anything else.

kind regards

Simon

NickM

Simon,

Around £10K.


Nightmare,

Just out of interest, what's the running costs on your Diablo like? Although I could probably stretch to a early model I'm buggered if I could afford to run it!!!
Just interested....

Nightmare

Nick,

Tart!! hahaha

running costs are pretty horrid, but I dont exactly run it all over the place

Gets about 12mpg max, and I reckon I throw few hundred quid in a month
Tyres are P-Zeros - about £320 each
Service....anywhere between £600 and 3K
Insurance...er Id rather not say! but as Im 26, it isnt exactly cheap

Depreciation is obviously a joke - though like Lotus et al the curve will flatten out - dont buy a new one Im sure is the trick!

What else counts as running costs??

Night