And the Sti and Evo are supercars? Far from it.
Cheap, rally, racing cars that perform well for the buck. Yes.
And the Sti and Evo are supercars? Far from it.
Cheap, rally, racing cars that perform well for the buck. Yes.
To say an f1 driver is just steering is extremely ignorant of the skill it takes to race an F! car around the track...
Another n00b poser who parrots the "if it ain't old school I don't like it"
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
yeah let's go back to hand crank starting too to make it really challenging worm gear steering.
Paddle shifting and traction control have actually made a lot of racing faster and less accident prone.
In drag racing where consistancy is key, it's rare to see anything but automatics. Not to mention not having the risk of an exploding clutch.
I like manuals, but if I were choosing a top supercar where paddle shifting was the only option; I don't think I'd feel as if I lost performance. Modern shiftable automatics behave almost exactly like manuals for what 90% of the drivers would be doing.
FWIW paddle shifters on F1 cars are NOT shiftable automatics.
IMHO all cars worth driving have clutches. Most of those clutches are controlled by a pedal on the floor, but sometimes a computer does it instead. If it has a torque converter, it's not for me.
Generally when you tune a car, you're increasing top-end HP, and don't care much about what happens to the low end (after all, if you're performance driving that far from the redline, you're not doing it right). As applies to a turbocharged car, that often means you're putting in a larger turbo to move more air at higher RPMs, but the tradeoff is usually that it takes longer to spin up. Since gas engines rev up faster than diesel, what would be a barely noticeable lag on a diesel is very evident on gas. It almost feels like someone magically swapped your engine for a bigger one halfway up the tach.
SVT - Did you even read my post? "Some would say" does NOT mean "IMHO"
I'm a pretty major F1 fan. I think Schumacher is the best that ever was, in any form of motorsport. I think the fact that F1 cars of the 2000s are the quickest the series has ever seen makes them also the best, and the fact that their 3.0l v10s and now 2.4l v8 are quicker than the 1500hp turbo motors from the 80s is an amazing testament to F1s status as the pinnacle of motorsport. I have zero desire to see paddle-shifters go away.
All that said, it is a legitimate view (though one I do not hold - and one you mistakenly attributed to me) to claim that while modern changes have made the cars quicker (and no doubt unless the FIA further mandates performance cutting rule changes, the v8 cars will soon be taking lap records from the '04 v10s) and kept the racing exciting (anyone who says there isn't enough overtaking needs to take a look at the first third of the British Gran Prix last week - would the racing have been more exciting if Kimi had just passed Hamilton on track? I doubt it.), they have not NECESSARILY made it harder on the drivers.
It's the same argument some offer about safety - on one hand, no one wants to loose another Senna. On the other, circuits like Monza can loose some of their appeal if all of the dangerous segments are removed. So where is the balance? Can we live with ourselves if we ever willingly endanger drivers? On the other hand, if we focus on safety too much, is it really racing?
Ok - the EXACT SAME type of argument can be made regarding tech. Paddle shifters, traction control, even the little pieces of plastic the drivers have on their helmets they can remove at pit stops to clean up their vision - all of those things let them do their job of driving quickly better. On the other hand, they all remove some element of driver skills from the equation - even if the same amount of skill can now be reapplied in another direction. Hell, if all driver aids were automatically good, and anyone who questioned them didn't get the sport, then why no launch control? Why no active aero?
The point is it is a legitimate argument. I happen to NOT hold the view that Schumacher's paddles made him have an easier time. But to even bring up that view (and proscribe it to someone other than myself) made you SVT immediately jump on me as a n00b and defender of the old school.
Please try again.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
Guess you haven't taken a good look at an Evo, or know anything about them.
There is no hood scoop. On some models there is a vent of sorts in the hood for the intercooler. Purely functional.
The wing: purely functional.
The wheels: far from garish.
Other aerodynamics (roof, body kit, etc): purely functional.
You want a great handling turbo I-4 that will be stable well into triple digits, you need all that good stuff.
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
Evo's are amazing... remember, that's just stock, imagine how much different it would be with modifications.
My favorite part is launching it: Shift into first, bring RPM's to 2k, release clutch, and all 4 wheels instantly grab the road, you slam the throttle and once you hit 3k rpm, you take off like none other.
Arkaign: Everything there is functional, how much benefit a spoiler like that adds, idk, but it has a functional basis.
The car is amazing to drive and I hope to have one someday.
My favorite part is launching it: Shift into first, bring RPM's to 2k, release clutch, and all 4 wheels instantly grab the road, you slam the throttle and once you hit 3k rpm, you take off like none other.
Arkaign: Everything there is functional, how much benefit a spoiler like that adds, idk, but it has a functional basis.
The car is amazing to drive and I hope to have one someday.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
For drag racing this may be true. In a lot of race categories you are not running at redline constantly.
I agree. Though to an extent adding pure power to a turbocharged setup through a larger turbo will be faster in most situations, you quickly reach a point where there is so much turbo-lag, so little usable power, and the power arrives so abruptly (by by traction) that the cars become "dyno-queens" and not something ever effective on the street, or even a racetrack.
It's a matter of striking a balance, and some people do just want to be able to stab the gas at 100 and surge to 150....and for those folks a huge turbo might be ideal. But all in all the top hp cars in the import scene normally won't be effective under average conditions and with street tires.
GullyFoyle
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2000
- 4,362
- 11
- 81
I came across this video after reading this thread. Very entertaining. I haven't compared the specs of the british EVO and he current US model. I'm just slightly reminicent about the 91 Eagle Talon Tsi I owned. Top Gear - Mitsubishi Evo 8 Vs Lamborghini Murcielago Video
Originally posted by: Sunrise089
Originally posted by: alkemyst
For drag racing this may be true. In a lot of race categories you are not running at redline constantly.
I agree. Though to an extent adding pure power to a turbocharged setup through a larger turbo will be faster in most situations, you quickly reach a point where there is so much turbo-lag, so little usable power, and the power arrives so abruptly (by by traction) that the cars become "dyno-queens" and not something ever effective on the street, or even a racetrack.
It's a matter of striking a balance, and some people do just want to be able to stab the gas at 100 and surge to 150....and for those folks a huge turbo might be ideal. But all in all the top hp cars in the import scene normally won't be effective under average conditions and with street tires.
which is exactly why you put a larger turbo, but a more responsive compressor in the turbo, to reduce spool up times. I would think you would/could do the same thing, and that the spoolup would matter LESS in a gas engine, where you have some much room between start and redline. Try spooling a large turbo not once, not twice, but 6 times as you start out in a truck, and you can see why spoolup DOES matter. Perhaps in a small car you can hammer gear shifts fast enough to keep your turbo at least partially spooled up, but a large 3/4 ton pickup with 10K of payload off the hitch doesn't happen that way. Of course, if you switch to an auto, this all goes away, as you have only one spoolup.
"Most of all though, the Evo excels because of how confidence inspiring AWD can make a car. I doubt there is ANY production car a total noob could take to a tight technical course and run faster than an Evo, even if dozens of cars would be faster when driven by skilled drivers. "
sorry, but that doesnt make me feel comfortable at all, knowing there is some 18yr old that his parents(its always a he.) bought him the car that he's always wanted for highschool graduation and he's only had his licence a month or two, and he's doing 140 on the highway, because he thinks awd is going to save him no matter what. lets get this straight, awd, is great for acceleration, thats about it, in turning if you floor it, you will understeer, power going to the front wheels overloads them and causes them to understeer. sorry, awd is great for acceleration, thats about it, i've seen more awd/4wd trucks stuck in the snow, than i've seen of any other car, because they get arrogant thinking they can get out of anything because of awd.
"Generally when you tune a car, you're increasing top-end HP, and don't care much about what happens to the low end (after all, if you're performance driving that far from the redline, you're not doing it right). As applies to a turbocharged car, that often means you're putting in a larger turbo to move more air at higher RPMs, but the tradeoff is usually that it takes longer to spin up. Since gas engines rev up faster than diesel, what would be a barely noticeable lag on a diesel is very evident on gas. It almost feels like someone magically swapped your engine for a bigger one halfway up the tach. "
this is also WRONG. its not because your revving faster, its because diesels have LARGE displacement, look at how big the engines they have are in trucks, 5 liter roughly. how is a turbocharger powered? Exhaust. so why does a turbo spool faster on a diesel? lots of exhaust gases on a well sized turbo for the application and power requests. Go to a gasoline powered car, and you have a much smaller engine with less exhaust gas. Get some kid who doesnt know how to size a turbo right, and what do you get? lots of lag. And im sorry, when i swap my motor to a turbo 2 motor, im not going for top end power, because if you tune for just top end power, you leave nothing elsewhere and no torque. Look at the porsches and audi's, look at the torque powerbands they have, start early, and end at redline, thats how a turbocharged car is supposed to work. im around diesels all the time(LMTV's MTV's HEMMIT's, with turbos the size of my friggin head)
superchargers/turbochargers are there to theoretically increase displacement through compression. atmospheric pressure(doing a swag here) is 14psi, you get your turbo running 14psi over AMBIENT pressure, makes it 28psi(but they dont work at 100% efficiency and then there's heat because of compression so its less than 28psi, thats why you dont see a 100% increase in power when boosting.), therefore increasing the intake charge by 100%(and you dont get 100% of that air when the intake cycle is occuring, you get maybe 90% of it at best). thats why turbochargers are best for high altitude applications, because even at higher altitude when superchargers only increase pressure at sea level, a turbocharger will retain pressure up to a certain level because of the wastegate/blowoff valve wont open untill pressure is achived.
addition: i figured someone might not know what swag is, its scientific wild ass guess.
sorry, but that doesnt make me feel comfortable at all, knowing there is some 18yr old that his parents(its always a he.) bought him the car that he's always wanted for highschool graduation and he's only had his licence a month or two, and he's doing 140 on the highway, because he thinks awd is going to save him no matter what. lets get this straight, awd, is great for acceleration, thats about it, in turning if you floor it, you will understeer, power going to the front wheels overloads them and causes them to understeer. sorry, awd is great for acceleration, thats about it, i've seen more awd/4wd trucks stuck in the snow, than i've seen of any other car, because they get arrogant thinking they can get out of anything because of awd.
"Generally when you tune a car, you're increasing top-end HP, and don't care much about what happens to the low end (after all, if you're performance driving that far from the redline, you're not doing it right). As applies to a turbocharged car, that often means you're putting in a larger turbo to move more air at higher RPMs, but the tradeoff is usually that it takes longer to spin up. Since gas engines rev up faster than diesel, what would be a barely noticeable lag on a diesel is very evident on gas. It almost feels like someone magically swapped your engine for a bigger one halfway up the tach. "
this is also WRONG. its not because your revving faster, its because diesels have LARGE displacement, look at how big the engines they have are in trucks, 5 liter roughly. how is a turbocharger powered? Exhaust. so why does a turbo spool faster on a diesel? lots of exhaust gases on a well sized turbo for the application and power requests. Go to a gasoline powered car, and you have a much smaller engine with less exhaust gas. Get some kid who doesnt know how to size a turbo right, and what do you get? lots of lag. And im sorry, when i swap my motor to a turbo 2 motor, im not going for top end power, because if you tune for just top end power, you leave nothing elsewhere and no torque. Look at the porsches and audi's, look at the torque powerbands they have, start early, and end at redline, thats how a turbocharged car is supposed to work. im around diesels all the time(LMTV's MTV's HEMMIT's, with turbos the size of my friggin head)
superchargers/turbochargers are there to theoretically increase displacement through compression. atmospheric pressure(doing a swag here) is 14psi, you get your turbo running 14psi over AMBIENT pressure, makes it 28psi(but they dont work at 100% efficiency and then there's heat because of compression so its less than 28psi, thats why you dont see a 100% increase in power when boosting.), therefore increasing the intake charge by 100%(and you dont get 100% of that air when the intake cycle is occuring, you get maybe 90% of it at best). thats why turbochargers are best for high altitude applications, because even at higher altitude when superchargers only increase pressure at sea level, a turbocharger will retain pressure up to a certain level because of the wastegate/blowoff valve wont open untill pressure is achived.
addition: i figured someone might not know what swag is, its scientific wild ass guess.
Not sure if the noob poser is directed at me, but DSG on an F1 car vs a street car is pretty silly. Yes, it makes sense on a car with 7+ gears that stays in each gear for about 1 second if that, but on the street, or even in auto-x with a street car I would prefer a stick.
It's the tactile satisfaction that I get from actually changing gears, I don't care if DSG is .0005 seconds faster per shift. I'll do my own rev matching rather than waiting for the computer to do it, nothing noob about that.
well when im talking to people who only know of 1.8-2.6liter and occasionally larger displacement vehicles, 5liters and larger, is very big for them. im used to seeing it. the HMWWV(High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle) has a 3.6liter(i think, i'd have to look again) engine on the large side, the LMTV(light/medium tactical vehicle) has around a 5liter, and the hemmit wreckers/fuelers, have in excess of 7liters with a supercharger and turbocharger. im used to seeing larger displacement engines. there are also the military front end loaders with i dont know what displacement. and how long have you lived in the northern areas? i've been in em my life. all but this year where im in the desert. and i HAVE seen more awd cars/trucks in the snow than fwd and rwd cars combined. why? because they think they can handle it, you may think its incorrect, but drive up here for a year or two, and its true. along with abs and tcs, everyone thinks it helps, my car doesnt have either of these, and i've driven on sheer ice before, and i still havent gotten in an accident.
At fort drum where we get heavy lake effect snow, you can see nothing one day, and overnight you will have 2+feet of snow easily. iamwiz82, proove me wrong on that thread then.
I'm finnaly getting hits on displacement size on dodge trucks(full size) and they are roughly 6 liter's.
edit: and i did try to look it up on google before posting, just couldnt find any.(iraq internet is SLOW)
AWD/4WD DOES cause overconfidence in drivers. It might help get you out of sticky situations, but the one thing that a LOT of people don't realize is that OMG!!1! it doesn't help you stop/slow down. Truenofan has that part right, I live in Utah, where we get some nasty storms, and learning to drive right > good snow car any day of the week. My wife was raised in rural Idaho (20 miles to the mailbox) and learned to drive well. When we were dating, I remember pushing snow with the bumper of her Geo Metro and getting strange looks from the SUV/Trucks (there were no cars out) while we drove around several mornings.
and 6.7 Liter (current gen CTD) is a pretty damn big displacement engine, especially in reference to the OP. The evo probably isn't even half that, I would guess. It makes sense that it takes much longer to spool with 1.8L V6 then my 6.0L (think that's what my 93 has) I6. I generate more exhaust per piston/per stroke by a magnitude of probably 2.
and 6.7 Liter (current gen CTD) is a pretty damn big displacement engine, especially in reference to the OP. The evo probably isn't even half that, I would guess. It makes sense that it takes much longer to spool with 1.8L V6 then my 6.0L (think that's what my 93 has) I6. I generate more exhaust per piston/per stroke by a magnitude of probably 2.
@Truenofan - Dude, it's hard to reply to you when you post a large block of text without properly quoting people. One thing I will say however is your blanket statement about diesels and displacement is total BS. At any displacement level the diesel has more very-low-end power. It has nothing to do with being large-displacement, and therefore mating up to a larger turbo. Think Ram 3500 diesel vs Hemi V8, 3 series 328i vs Euro 330d, and New Beetle 1.8 (or whatever small gas engine VW is using these days) vs TDI.
I can understand using a regular manual because it's more fun. But one of these days you're going to have to face the fact that a DSG transmission can shift much faster and more reliably than any human, and it's not by just .0005 seconds either.
While you're taking your foot off the gas, pressing in the clutch, moving the lever to another gear, matching revs, releasing the clutch, I'm sorry, but the DSG just did all of that instantly and seamlessly, You've just lost the race.
It's a matter of technological progress. Nobody denies that the old way can be a lot of fun, but the new way is a lot of fun too, just in a different way, and it is clearly going to take over.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Evos are great to drive, but I swear that, except for the front seats, they have the absolute worst interior in the world. And as someone who actually likes "primitive" sports cars, this wouldn't bother me so much except for that hideous dash and ridiculous instrument cluster. It's like Mitsu purposefully designed the speedo to be unreadable.
Now, you want a REAL driving experience? I took out my buddy's built 10 second street legal 67 Camaro this weekend. 550 hp 396 and a 4 speed Muncie with all the goodies to go with it. It can barely stop and it can't turn, it reeks of gas fumes so bad it'll make your eyes burn and tear, and it's so goddamned loud that putting a stereo in it would be pointless, but holy shiat can it go in a straight line. Broke the tires loose grabbing 3rd more than once.
Now, you want a REAL driving experience? I took out my buddy's built 10 second street legal 67 Camaro this weekend. 550 hp 396 and a 4 speed Muncie with all the goodies to go with it. It can barely stop and it can't turn, it reeks of gas fumes so bad it'll make your eyes burn and tear, and it's so goddamned loud that putting a stereo in it would be pointless, but holy shiat can it go in a straight line. Broke the tires loose grabbing 3rd more than once.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter