|
Handling is everything to the enjoyment of your car. It is no fun trying to keep a poor handling car straight on a reasonable bend on some motorways at the 70 limit Also many dual carriageways are a lot more twisty and undulating and have poor cambers
|
|
|
|
Simple fact of the matter is that by far the majority of 'performance cars' have such high abilities, you can't enjoy them on normal roads at legal (or at least not too illegal) speeds. Most of these cars can only be enjoyed on a track day, but how many folk are going to blow £50k plus on a new M3 or whatever and take in on track?.
Also, with regards to tyre widths, it is much too simplistic a view to suggest that a wide tyre is going to behave better and offer you more control in an emergancy situation. There is so much more to it than that, such as balance, stability, centre of gravity, not to mention tha factor which most seem to forget about, the clutz behind the wheel!. A car with narrower (but good quality) tyres, and inherently good handling and balance, is going to be more enjoyable and interactive at lower speeds. That same car on wide tyres, is going to have higher ultimate limits, but when it does break away, it is going to do so much more abruptly, and at a much higher speed. So in order to catch it, you are going to require much more skill and much quicker reactions.
|
|
Car reviews seem obsessed with how cars handle, even everyday mundane models, but with today’s overcrowded camera ridden highways, how relevant is a cars handling around twisting country roads, ?, so you’ve just spent thousands on your shiny new car, are you really going to push it to its limits around twisty A/B roads, risking putting it in a ditch..?, I’m sure that there will be people who have exceptionally good driving skills and can handle this type or road with a reasonably quick car, but it’s the other person they meet who hasn’t, that will cause the problems...
|
|
Cars that don't handle well at the limit won't handle well at normal speeds or in an emergency manoeuvre either.
I personally moderate handling against ride, not that I expect F1 handling from a SUV with high CoG - but I still want it to handle respectably on twisty country roads.
Whilst I don't need a "drift" car, I won't tolerate an understeering car either.
|
|
If my own experiences are anything to go by, an alarming number of performance cars are driven by people who have not the faintest idea of what they are capable of. So many times in the past i have been driving something decidely non-sporting, and found myself being passed by something like a fancy BMW 3 series on a straight bit of road, only to catch right back up to it once into a twisty section. And when i say driving something non-sporty, that also includes buses!. As has been mentioned, motoring magazines seem to place an enormous importance on the handling of a car, things like how fast it will go round the 'ring. But as i said earlier, a lot of these cars have capabilities so high, while you may be able to go from one point to another in a short time, because you are driving so far short of the car's abilities, there isn't much enjoyment to be had other than the odd short burst of acceleration to get past dawdling traffic.
Some members seem to be making much about the safety aspect, but with modern cars being smothered with all manner of systems like traction control, stabiltiy control, brake force distribution, emergency braking, etc, any advantage a 'good handling' car may have is going to be null and void. I have i have read plenty motoring magazine tests complaining about a performance car where you can't turn off these systems (or at least not entirely), meaning you can't exploit or utilise the advantage of a great handling car.
To my mind, the best solution would be to have one car for your normal every day driving, but have something else, not too expensive, but reasonably fast and with great handling, to take on track days. Maybe even a motorbike, as in terms of thrills and 'bang for buck', they'd be hard to beat.
|
car for your normal every day driving, but have something else, not too expensive, but reasonably fast and with great handling, to take on track days. Maybe even a motorbike, as in terms of thrills and 'bang for buck', they'd be hard to beat.
This is what I do. I had a company car and a motorbike for a few years, but then switched to my own 4x4 and an MX-5.
The MX-5 is great fun on the back roads to work.
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that roads are increasingly camera-ridden and overcrowded, and that cars are getting significantly more powerful, makes handling more and more of a differentiator.
Of course, big performance cars are set up to handle well far beyond legal limits on public roads.
But amongst the run-of-the-mill compact and subconpact cars most people own and drive, there are definitely models which feel involving and "alive", where you can feel where the car is on the road, where the weight and forces are shifting, even when you're nowhere near the car's true handling limits.
Other models feel pretty "dead" and lifeless driving in the same conditions.
In the last 10 years, Mazdas have often fallen into the first catagory and Toyotas into the second.
Whether this matters to you doesn't depend on whether you are going to drive irresponsibly, but more on whether you notice the difference in the first place, and whether you prefer a more relatively more communicative, involving experience or a relatively more isolated one.
Having said all of that, it's true that motoring reviewers probably obsess over these characteristics much more than the average car buyer. But give them a break - when every car has adequate power, safety, quality, the same me-too design language - what else are they going to talk about?
|
|
I have some sympathy with the OP. I have had my share of sports/gt cars. GT Cortina, Dolomite Sprint, TR5, Porsche 911. They are great fun to drive and usually handle better than the their 'cooking' saloon stable mates. Then of course most of us got married, raise children etc and the dynamic changes and the needs the car has to fulfil, change too. I do get sometimes confused between handling and ride. They must be synonymous to travel in comfort and without the need to accommodate children regurgitating their meals!! For many years I had the usual array of family saloons. Sierra, Montego,Cavalier, Mondeo, Vectra, Peugeot, Renault, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda and Skoda. All were good cars at what they did; ergo carry me and often my family on many journeys without incident or problem. I used to despair at reading the reviews by the motoring press which universally described these cars as 'bland', 'non-responsive', poor handling and ride etc etc. In truth this was not the case. I used the vehicles for their intended purpose which was to transport my family around in safety and comfort. Not to thrash around the countryside smoking the tyres and cornering 'on the edge'. These people did little to extol the virtues of such useful vehicles by treating them in their 'boy racer' style. You will never see a statue raised to a motoring journalist!!!
Cheers Concrete
|
|
I used to like it when we could just 'go for a drive', often on the weekend. Very seldom nowadays do I get the chance or that there's enough empty road to enjoy doing so (and yes, at legal speeds).
Occasionally whilst on holiday in the West Country (outside of the school holidays [very important]) I have the luxury of choosing a nice route to somewhere where I can make a reasonable use of the car's handling capabilities without needing to break the speed limit.
We tend to now get cars that are either geared for performance and handling or comfort, at least for cars most of us could afford to buy and run. Some have come close, but for me, one of the sticking points has been of late that all of these (of my choices) all had the less reliable dual clutch gearboxes or were very expensive.
Many also cannot come on sensible wheels and tyres, which spoils the comfort far more than it helps the handling. I think many makes now use that to mask the otherwise very average inate handling if standar wheels and tyres are used and without all the electronic driver aids.
|
|
Some interesting replies and the gist of it is that most modern cars handle quite well enough to make the difference between regular cars and sports cars appear minimal at Highway Code speeds. The advance in electronics has aided the handling of today's hatchback compared to that from 30 years ago so as to make driving safer by means of more predictable handling.
The very fact I needed to ask this question is evidence that the motoring press goes to extremes to emphasise the 'fact' that good handling is critical and only available on sports cars. I agree with those who say that normal roads are no place to test the ability of a car.
|
|
I find handling is largely irrelevant on our camera infested and choked up roads, but the difference between a well sorted chassis and a poor one can manifest itself in normal driving.
A case in point, a few years back I had to misfortune of driving a Toyota Corolla which was the washing machine of cars - driving home in the heavy slush that night was terrifying as the car 'crabbed' and never seemed to respond consistently. I got home and jumped into my wifes Fiesta and drove the the reverse journey, and wow what a difference, I wasn't going any faster due to the conditions but I felt like I was in control and could sense the conditions way better than in the toyota.
So I view handling a bit like ABS these days, something you might need at some time.
|
I find handling is largely irrelevant on our camera infested and choked up roads, but the difference between a well sorted chassis and a poor one can manifest itself in normal driving.
A case in point, a few years back I had to misfortune of driving a Toyota Corolla which was the washing machine of cars - driving home in the heavy slush that night was terrifying as the car 'crabbed' and never seemed to respond consistently. I got home and jumped into my wifes Fiesta and drove the the reverse journey, and wow what a difference, I wasn't going any faster due to the conditions but I felt like I was in control and could sense the conditions way better than in the toyota.
So I view handling a bit like ABS these days, something you might need at some time.
Not sure that is a good means of comparing the handling of two cars. Was the tyres on the Corolla wider than the Fiesta?, were they more worn?, were they correctly inflated?, were they of a decent quality?. Then there are other factors, such as other traffic could have washed away more of the slush when you did the return journey.
|
I find handling is largely irrelevant on our camera infested and choked up roads, but the difference between a well sorted chassis and a poor one can manifest itself in normal driving.
A case in point, a few years back I had to misfortune of driving a Toyota Corolla which was the washing machine of cars - driving home in the heavy slush that night was terrifying as the car 'crabbed' and never seemed to respond consistently. I got home and jumped into my wifes Fiesta and drove the the reverse journey, and wow what a difference, I wasn't going any faster due to the conditions but I felt like I was in control and could sense the conditions way better than in the toyota.
So I view handling a bit like ABS these days, something you might need at some time.
Not sure that is a good means of comparing the handling of two cars. Was the tyres on the Corolla wider than the Fiesta?, were they more worn?, were they correctly inflated?, were they of a decent quality?. Then there are other factors, such as other traffic could have washed away more of the slush when you did the return journey.
I can vouch for the tyre making a huge difference - my OEM Bridgestones on my Mazda3 had become hard after 6 years - fine for the dry (if noisy), but terrible in the wet and I changed them when I had two very hairy incidents within a few days of eachother that I'd never experienced before - the back end broke away going around roundabouts at normal speeds
Fitted new tyres (which were also far better), no problems, and even when they reached the same age last year - I changed them because of their age and for other reasons (explained on another thread). Old and/or poor tyres can make even good handling cars look bad, especially in poor weather/road conditions.
Saying that, the standard Corolla was never really a 'dynamic' car in terms of handling.
|
|
I mentioned this because the two cars were roughly the same size, with very similar tyres sizes (tyres in good condition)
Obviously its not a scientific comparison but the corollas crappy handling made the journey more nerve racking than the one in the fiesta.
|
|
|
Some interesting replies and the gist of it is that most modern cars handle quite well enough to make the difference between regular cars and sports cars appear minimal at Highway Code speeds. The advance in electronics has aided the handling of today's hatchback compared to that from 30 years ago so as to make driving safer by means of more predictable handling.
The very fact I needed to ask this question is evidence that the motoring press goes to extremes to emphasise the 'fact' that good handling is critical and only available on sports cars. I agree with those who say that normal roads are no place to test the ability of a car.
Good summary TQ. The first and foremost criteria is to transport you and family in safety and comfort. If you require anything else from a car then have a second 'hot' car to thrash around in. I sometimes wonder what colour sun is on the planet that some motoring journalists inhabit!!! Cheers Concrete
|
I sometimes wonder what colour sun is on the planet that some motoring journalists inhabit!!!
Last year i read an interesting article in Autocar magazine, where a Porsche 911 turbo was pitted against a Smart ForTwo in a 'race' the length of Wales from the Severn Bridge to the Menai Bridge (190 miles). Sounds ludicrous doesn't it?, but the interesting bit was that neither driver was allowed to flout the speed limits. There was only a fairly small section of motorway, with the rest of the journey being on single carriageway roads.
Results?, the Porsche won (obviously), but by a much smaller margin that you might expect, 3 hours and 49 minutes vs 3 hours and 58 minutes!
|
|
I like it when a flashy sports car has to tippy-toe over speed humps to avoid getting grounded (and from damaging all the underside/sump etc) which all the normie cars drive over at much higher speeds. I suspect if they did a similar journey from one side of London to the other that the Smart would win, especially as it would be better in the traffic and getting through little gaps/better truning circle.
I remember being driven to a factory visit by a colleague in his late 90s Renault Clio Williams - man, that car could both shift and handle, almost as good as his motorbike!
|
I like it when a flashy sports car has to tippy-toe over speed humps to avoid getting grounded (and from damaging all the underside/sump etc) which all the normie cars drive over at much higher speeds. I suspect if they did a similar journey from one side of London to the other that the Smart would win, especially as it would be better in the traffic and getting through little gaps/better truning circle.
I remember being driven to a factory visit by a colleague in his late 90s Renault Clio Williams - man, that car could both shift and handle, almost as good as his motorbike!
I must be getting old as when I see a high end sports car I think why? It’s hard to get in and out, it has trouble with speed bumps, it’s wide so hard to drive on narrow roads, and long so hard to park. It makes a racket, probably lacks AirPlay, and probably has a firm ride. Costs a oacket to run and insure. Etc.
|
I sometimes wonder what colour sun is on the planet that some motoring journalists inhabit!!!
Last year i read an interesting article in Autocar magazine, where a Porsche 911 turbo was pitted against a Smart ForTwo in a 'race' the length of Wales from the Severn Bridge to the Menai Bridge (190 miles). Sounds ludicrous doesn't it?, but the interesting bit was that neither driver was allowed to flout the speed limits. There was only a fairly small section of motorway, with the rest of the journey being on single carriageway roads.
Results?, the Porsche won (obviously), but by a much smaller margin that you might expect, 3 hours and 49 minutes vs 3 hours and 58 minutes!
Quite right bbd. When I worked in Inverness regularly for a while it was a sobering lesson that upon reaching the first set of traffic light on the outskirts of Inverness the rear view mirror view was full of vehicles I had passed on the dual carriageway back near Perth!! It paid off just to relax and listen to music and avoid the stress.
Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
