Weight - yes a big problem with modern cars. All those gadgets make for a heavy car. Weight is mainly an issue for acceleration.
I'd say weight is an issue for almost everything. Acceleration, braking, cornering and lots of the other components too. If a car is light it doesn't need such big tyres so you get more room inside, the brakes don't need to be so big, the forces on the suspension aren't so great so the chassis structure can be less stiff, the engine can be smaller therefore the drivetrain can be too.... all marvelous stuff.
|
|
|
Crash regulations are responsible for as much of the weight gain as gadgetry.
I often wonder what sort of performance and economy we would be getting from cars with 80's kerbweights, but bang up to date engine technology.
Weight is bad for everything - acceleration, fuel economy, handling, road surface wear.... It astonishes me that it's not given greater attention.
Cheers
DP
|
Re-arrange the following words to make a meaningful phrase or sentence;
`Luxury bloat` small cars, to efficiency priority
|
If your having a go at me Cliff for the thread title, you might wish to consider the time and effort it takes me to keep writing threads, that I assumed were a contribution to the forum.
I can easily just leave it at this and spend my time doing something else.
|
I can't even begin to understand peoples priorities when buying a car. I like a smooth comfy ride which seems at odds with the general want for rock hard suspension, low profile tyres and vast amounts of power.
My old 405 TD was a great car so I thought, however it got a slating from some for being flimsy.
Steve.
|
When petrol hits £10 per litre 95% of the population will take efficiency as the top priority over gadgets and style.>>
But in the meantime.....
I'd sacrifice gadgets as soon as you like. The more electric motors in the car, the more things to go wrong. I'd want to retain a quality stereo, though.
I do like comfort, so decent seats are vital and enough space not to feel cramped. I don't want vast amounts of power but want enough to get a decent drive and have the occasional bit of fun.
Low noise level is important as is good handling.
I suppose a lot depends on what you want the car for. If it's all urban, you could have a city type car. If you do motorway miles I'd want something a little more motorway style so you don't arrive feeling tired and stressed.
|
|
|
Weight and drag. The original mini, if i remember correctly was in the ragion of 1300 pounds, call it 640 kilograms. Lightest Ford Ka 887 kilograms. Increase about 36%.
I would imagine that as reagards the drag coefficient there would be room for much improvement in a practical car but keeping down the frontal area will of course yield an improvement. (As regards the drag coefficient I seem to rember taht the Cd of a Mk 2 Cortina was in fact slightly worse than that of the then current Transit van.)
Keeping down the weight will also keep down rolling resitance.
On the engine front I wonder if the current trends in legistlation will kill off affordable small diesel cars ? I suspect that the 2 cylinder engine I see discused in this forum may also be a dead end as the only potential advantage I can see is the possible reduction in frictional losses, althoght I supose that it should be cheaper to produce.
Things like electric windows, electric mirrors or air conditioning are simply not necessary. Again if the weight is kept down we enter a virteous circle, no need for power steering, servoed brakes, big tyres etc.
|
|
|
|
|
like cutting the grass ;) (sorry that should have appeared further up)
Edited by oilrag on 30/04/2008 at 19:10
|
Agree, weigh is the issue, but how far do fuel prices have to rise before its commercially viable to produce a much lighter stripped down car?
I also wonder whether its just `The Elderly` (LOL) such as myself that would buy them. Having been brought up in cars where heaters (even) were optional.
I could return to austerity 50s style comforts, ( with the heater) but could or would you? To save fuel by weight reduction.
Opinions?
Edited by oilrag on 30/04/2008 at 19:21
|
I think its a joke (a bad joke) how much weight cars have piled on in the last 15 years. And I guess its a lot more down to EuroNCAP crash tests than addition of electric gadgets, so you may do without luxury devices but your car will still be a relative porker due to the necessary stiffer chassis and side impact bars, etc.
I wonder how Gordon Murray is getting on? Minimising weight is something he is passionate about..
He joined Caparo and was heading up a team to research using lightweight composites in ordinary road cars. They are apparently working with several major manufacturers, or at least they were in late 2006, I can't find any more recent info: snipurl.com/26hrp [www_edmunds_com]
Also his own Gordon Murray Design company are supposedly developing a new ultra-lightweight city car (the target was/is a 500kg car for £5000), but the last info I can find on that dates from mid 2007.
snipurl.com/26ht2 [www_gordonmurraydesign_com]
|
|
|
I often grumble about what oilrag pleasingly calls 'luxury bloat', although some of it may be crash-test-ranking bloat. Even so electric windows, air conditioning and airbags take up a lot of space and weigh a lot, and we don't really need most of these things most of the time.
I have to say though that power steering, especially for front-drive cars and cars with heavy engines, is a positive development, although I think fondly of the Skoda Estelle which really didn't need it. However I remember my Peugeot 205 diesel which did need it, and didn't have it.
Light weight is the key to performance anyway, and that's why I favour it. As for aerodynamics, they hardly count below 50mph. At higher speeds though they count for a lot. Perhaps urban runabout and inter-city express really are different species.
Good thoughtful thread oilrag.
|
>>Perhaps urban runabout and inter-city express really are different species.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
>>Good thoughtful thread oilrag.
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Thanks Lud & NC ;)
Edited by oilrag on 30/04/2008 at 19:40
|
|
|
|
Oh Oilrag, i'd love to return to the 50's for many reasons.
And i wouldn't mind the loss of so many blessed electronics.
But i'd probably only want to return to those times if we could have cars that were as simple and user maintainable, and i can't ever see those days returning...unless things get so bad that we end up scouring round to build ourselves some really old school diesels that we can then run on chip shop fat / anything flammable.
Bet you're refining your slip streaming skills again as we see the daily fuel increases.
Don't please make your thread titles any less ingenious, or even off the wall, keeps the simple souls like me on our toes trying in vain to decipher them
All the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry oilrag. I value your posts, it's just that it took me a long time to work out what this title meant. :)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that until fuel gets really expensive people will just keep on paying and ignore the issues. People generally like big cars and will justify their reasons why - safety children luggage or sometimes just for the the fun of it. At some point we will have no choice and be forced to drive efficient cars.
It always stuns me as to why with the huge petrol prices we have now, people still buy some of these 4 litre plus gas guzzlers you see around so much. Its almost like a statement of defiance to fuel prices !
My wife and I are fairly well off by a lot of peoples standards, and I like a quality car, but I still dont see why you would want to waste so much money on something like your car fuel bill no matter how rich you were !
|
|
as people have mentioned EU law is changing the way cars are made. I think that the biggest change in design is to incorporate pedestrian safety. I believe (and I am sure someone will put me right) that the bonnet has to be a certain distance above the engine block so that if you mow down a pedestrian and they crack their head on the bonnet, that there is some give in the bonnet lid (ie the gap between that and the engine). To me the manufacturer that this is most noticeable in is Peugeot.
|
|
|
Ignoring the issues of environment, pollution, energy security and resources - I'm more than happy for people to buy and drive big gas guzzlers as I benefit from it.
Every time they fill up with fuel they pay a load of cash to the government, meaning that income tax can be kept low, meaning I pay less.
PS - by low income tax I really mean the government don't increase taxation as much as they would have to otherwise.
|
Put a flat engine under the back seat, no problem with clearence between bonnet and engine and no need to even think about power steering. Added bonuses good weight distribution meaning no need for big fron brakes and so wheel diameter can be kept down and potential for good handeling. Issigonis said that when he developed the mini that if the fwd concept had failed he could probably have used some sort of fron engine rear drive setup like the A35 or Minor 1000 but the small wheels were absolutly necessary to the small 10 inch overall package.
Agreed with the person who said we don't want to go back as far as when the heater was an optional extra. I can still remember my mothers first car, an old A40 with no heater. Not a lot of fun in the Nort West of Ireland.
|
Put a flat engine under the back seat no problem with clearence between bonnet and engine and no need to even think about power steering.
The VW EA266 prototype was like this. In 1966!
Edited by Garethj on 01/05/2008 at 14:22
|
|
|
|
|
|
