The New/Prototype/Concept Car Topic

[steelsnake00]

but since its mid engine wouldn't it get good traction

Better than if it was front engined. But road tyres + nearly 1000bhp + lightweight car + rear wheel drive = lots of wheelspin, zero grip.

[Jopuma]

viper! Stop forgetting your grammar rules.

You missed some punctuation marks and ignored some common capitalization rules.

[xHaZxMaTx]

Jop, stop mini-modding. :B Or at least include some on-topic-ness in your mini-mod posts.

...That's actually not even mini-modding, that's just being arrogant.

Anywho, I'm gonna have to agree with Zero266 - That is one ugly Porsche. Doesn't really seem like much of a Porsche being built to 'excel' in a single field, as opposed to be well-rounded, performing well in all aspects of driving...

[Carcrazy]

Yeah dude, that thing's ugly as hell...

(911 Turbo FTW)

[Zero260]

viper! Stop forgetting your grammar rules.

You missed some punctuation marks and ignored some common capitalization rules.

Does he ever remember? I've seen him use punctuation and capitalization about twice...

Guess I'll throw some on-topicness in. This Audi R8 TDI Le Mans is freakin' gorgeous:
http://seriouswheels.com/cars/2008/top- ... e-Mans.htm

And I'm sure a lot of you have seen this, but Rinspeed built a scuba diving Lotus:
http://seriouswheels.com/cars/2008/top- ... -sQuba.htm

[Koenigsegg_Rox]

Yes but then again Rinspeed do everything kooky.

[viper16]

Off Topic: Zero he can bash me all he wants about grammer cause i dont care. grammer is stupid plus i failed a year of english so what

On Topic: that audi is nice that lotus is stupid

[boganbusman]

You try getting traction with one in gears 1-3 and see if you can beat 4.2 seconds. It's RWD, ya'know?

A Caparo T1 does 0-60mph in less than 2.5 seconds, with a 470kg curb weight and 1045bhp per tonne. Not sure if that was on street tyres or not, but 4.2 seconds is terrible.

[Koenigsegg_Rox]

And most supercars can get in at least the mid-high 3s. And not to mention that the Veyron, 1800kg mass and all can get 2.5 secs. So yes. 4.2 is slow.

[boganbusman]

And most supercars can get in at least the mid-high 3s. And not to mention that the Veyron, 1800kg mass and all can get 2.5 secs. So yes. 4.2 is slow.

Steelsnake is saying that the GT9 can't get traction because it is light, not because it is heavy. Which is bollocks, of course.
Not to mention that it's not even light at all! 1300kg+

[Striker94]

do you think that anybody will ever make a road-legal car that uses carbon fibre just about everywhere? I mean, the whole chassis, the roof, etc. How light do you think the veyron would be with that kinda outfit?

[xHaZxMaTx]

I don't think that's very uncommon. I'm pretty sure the Carrera GT has an entirely carbon fibre body/chassis, as well as some other cars like the Koenigsegg CCx.

[Koenigsegg_Rox]

I'm pretty sure the CCXR Edition has that sort of thing done.

[Striker94]

yeah, from the limited amount of pictures available, it sure looks like it's carbon fibre cake all right...

umm, any other ones? and that koenigsegg is nice!

[Danyutz]

A Caparo T1 does 0-60mph in less than 2.5 seconds, with a 470kg curb weight and 1045bhp per tonne. Not sure if that was on street tyres or not, but 4.2 seconds is terrible.

That is a killer, one of the fastest[if not the fastest] car on the road.

[steelsnake00]

Better than if it was front engined. But road tyres + nearly 1000bhp + lightweight car + rear wheel drive = lots of wheelspin, zero grip.

This is the clincher. The car's light compared to a Veyron, or for that matter a standard 911. The Caparo has a much faster 0-60, yes, but it's an uncompromising F1 car for the road, and as much as Caparo tout it as being road legal it would be nigh-on impossible to use one on the road. Very little downforce below 100mph means either lots of understeer, lots of spins or lots of speeding fines.

[boganbusman]

This is the clincher. The car's light compared to a Veyron, or for that matter a standard 911. The Caparo has a much faster 0-60, yes, but it's an uncompromising F1 car for the road, and as much as Caparo tout it as being road legal it would be nigh-on impossible to use one on the road. Very little downforce below 100mph means either lots of understeer, lots of spins or lots of speeding fines.

Rubbish.
If you drive the car at normal speeds, it won't go understeering off at every corner. You are talking about track conditions.
The car is perfectly usable on the street, and it can even clear speed bumps. It just depends on how much discomfort you can put up with.

And the GT9 still has no excuse for being slow off the line.

[steelsnake00]

Rubbish.
If you drive the car at normal speeds, it won't go understeering off at every corner. You are talking about track conditions.
The car is perfectly usable on the street, and it can even clear speed bumps. It just depends on how much discomfort you can put up with.

And the GT9 still has no excuse for being slow off the line.

Ha. Next you'll be telling me a Caterham makes a good car for commuting

The T1 is built to be driven at track speeds. It's not designed to potter along in traffic at 30mph. It breaks more than any road car has a right to. It creates next to no downforce at roadgoing speeds, as can be seen in road test videos of it, as well as revies in magazines. Around a track it's a devestating weapon but how many of the few sold do you think ever see road use?

It's the same with Radicals. They're race cars with numberplates, and will do fantastically on a track, but despite being road-legal aren't road usable.



As for the GT9, imaging taking a Zonda, which is the same engine layout, and shoving nearly 400 more BHP through the rear wheels whilst using the same tyres. Tell me that's going to be faster 0-60 than a standard one.

[Striker94]

well, since you guys put it that way...

I guess i'll just listen and take note of what you're saying!

Ok, IMHO i think that the T1 would me quite shocking for commuting, but is a 'devastating' track weapon as demonstrated by it's light weight and downforce at high speed-HOWEVER, i wouldn't pick one over a Veyron or a SSC Ultimate Aero, or even a Zonda for that matter, because it is like a slightly modernised caterham. THE END

[boganbusman]

Ha. Next you'll be telling me a Caterham makes a good car for commuting

I never said that any of these cars were good for commuting, I'm just saying that they do work on the street.

It's not designed to potter along in traffic at 30mph.

But it is capable of doing so.

It breaks more than any road car has a right to.

That has nothing to do with this. And as a hater of Japanese cars, you are in no position to discuss reliability.

It creates next to no downforce at roadgoing speeds

Can you name a car that does? No.

Around a track it's a devestating weapon but how many of the few sold do you think ever see road use?

Not that it matters, but since it can be done I'm that sure some people will try. Even if it's just for sh*ts and giggles.

As for the GT9, imaging taking a Zonda, which is the same engine layout, and shoving nearly 400 more BHP through the rear wheels whilst using the same tyres. Tell me that's going to be faster 0-60 than a standard one.

I don't really see where you are going with this. It would not make the Zonda any faster, but it's already quicker than a GT9.
With less power.
Which just makes the GT9 look even worse.

[steelsnake00]

but is a 'devastating' track weapon as demonstrated by it's light weight and downforce at high speed

Oh, absolutely. I'd chop off my own left testicle to spend a day on a fast track with one, but when it comes to everyday usability as a road car, I'd rather have a Fiat Panda.

I never said that any of these cars were good for commuting, I'm just saying that they do work on the street.

I never said it didn't work as a car. It's got 4 wheels, 2 seats and an engine, so yes it's a car. It's got a number plate, a tax disc holder and road legal tyres, so you can drive it on the road. Yes, it will drive down a street at 30 miles per hour, but it will be no better at it, perhaps worse, than a stripped out track racer. Why do you think supercar manufacturers spend so many billions developing cars which are devestatingly quick, and yet usable on a daily basis? That kind of performance cannot be replicated by a few blokes with a wind tunnel, some carbon fibre sheet and CAD/CAM software and still retain usability.

Street drivable? Legally, yes. Street usable? Definately not.

That has nothing to do with this. And as a hater of Japanese cars, you are in no position to discuss reliability.

Hater of Japanese cars? I don't think so. I respect the better designed and built of Japanese cars, even though I personally do not find them particularly involving to drive. I have little time for JDM obsessives or those who think VTEC is the best think since sliced bread. Though I do have a soft spot for a few very particulary Japanese cars, some of which are rather unexpected .

I can discuss reliability as much as I wish. It might make me a hypocrite, but every nation builds both reliable and unreliable cars. Nissan 300ZX anyone?

Regardless. It does have plenty to do with this. My point was the Caparo T1 cannot be fairly compared to roadgoing production cars because it's ability to perform on a track infringes on it's usability as a road car. Like I said before, road drivable, buy hardly road usable. And reliability plays a big role in this.

Can you name a car that does? No.

No, but I can't think of another road-going car that actually needs to.

It would not make the Zonda any faster, but it's already quicker than a GT9.
With less power.
Which just makes the GT9 look even worse.

Quicker up to 60, yes. Slower up to 100, 150, 200, and everywhere beyond, as well as slower 30-70, 30-150, 50-150 and 0-100-0, slower round a track and with a lower top speed.

What I'm trying to say is that trying to push that sheer amount of power through road legal rear tyres and you will start to have traction problems. Which explain the comparatively poor 0-60 time. It's far from a slow car, just watch the videos I posted earlier.

[Striker94]

here's a few tips for the GT9-get a AWD system, borrow the tyres from the Veyron, add a lot more downfore (aka spoiler+wing)

[TheStig]

You can add a AWD system but it's alot heavier then a Mid engine RWD combo.
As for downforce spoilers don't give you any extra traction off the line it only works from 60 mph and up, so no matter how many spoilers you add to the car it won't have better grip from 0-60 and it will most likely go slower because of the wind resistance and drag that the spoilers add. and by adding spoilers it will not reach as high topspeeds because downforce lowers your topspeed.

[Striker94]

You can add a AWD system but it's alot heavier then a Mid engine RWD combo.
As for downforce spoilers don't give you any extra traction off the line it only works from 60 mph and up, so no matter how many spoilers you add to the car it won't have better grip from 0-60 and it will most likely go slower because of the wind resistance and drag that the spoilers add. and by adding spoilers it will not reach as high topspeeds because downforce lowers your topspeed.

so, in conclusion...

awd=heavier but faster off line...

spoiler/wing=more downforce but lower topspeed

spoiler+wing+awd=great handling car with lower top speed!

right?

[steelsnake00]

awd=heavier but faster off line...

spoiler/wing=more downforce but lower topspeed

spoiler+wing+awd=great handling car with lower top speed!

right?

1- Not nessesarily true. AWD's tend to bog down off the line more than RWD cars with a similar power output, but at big power RWD wil put it down better.

2- Usually true, though it depends on the setup of the spoiler.

3- Depends on the setup of the AWD system. If the engine is very far forward, like in early Quattros and the like, they have a tendancy to understeer. It also depends on the power split, suspention setup and many other factors.