hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (02/21/85)
In the US vs Japan debate, you have to consider that the Japanese cars are just about the ugliest cars made anywhere (with the possible exception of Hondas). A great deal of this is not their fault. There are laws in Japan governing an automobiles dimensions (hence Japanese cars are all tall and skinny whereas US cars may be low and wide). The Japanese also seem to feel that the ultimate car looks and operates like a Transformer and build their cars accordingly. I would, however, buy a Japanese car over a German car. Random note: I seem to remember in one of Porsche's technical reports that they put in Car&Driver or R&T, that they mention that the 944 has a "high polar moment, making it resistant to crosswinds". My physics isn't what it used to be, but doesn't a high polar moment imply the car will not be suited to lane changing and slaloms, all the things a sportscar is supposed to do? The car will be very stable, like a Caddy, but will slalom about as well as one too. R&T mentioned that the Porsche 944 engine was set forward to gain legroom for the driver and front seat passenger. If i am not mistaken, it also has a transaxle. This means that most of the mess of the car is over both axles. By contradiction, the 1963-1982 Corvette has its engine set back behind the front axle, the transmission between the driver and passenger. The admittedly greater mass of the Vette is nevertheless better distributed. Why the Vette is low technology and the Porsche is high is beyond me. I think a lot of automotive reporting is b.s. I remember in 1978 R&T was saying a lot of great things about the Porsche 924, but now, in 1985, they admit what we knew all along: that the 924 was "rather mediocre." Rei Shinozuka ihnp4!cmcl2!acf4!hkr4627 p.s. Why did Chevy break tradition and call the newset Vette a 1984? Corvettes have normally been updated every 5 years from 1953: 1953 1st year 1958 New "big-car" look Quad headlamps 1963 Stingray body style, new suspension 1968 Mako Shark body style 1973 Soft bumpers 1978 Bubble Rear window 1983 (should have been) New body, new suspension
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (02/28/85)
In article <330004@acf4.UUCP> hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka) writes: >In the US vs Japan debate, you have to consider that the Japanese cars are >just about the ugliest cars made anywhere (with the possible exception of >Hondas). A great deal of this is not their fault. There are laws in Japan >governing an automobiles dimensions (hence Japanese cars are all tall and >skinny whereas US cars may be low and wide). The Japanese also seem to feel >that the ultimate car looks and operates like a Transformer and build their >cars accordingly. I would, however, buy a Japanese car over a German car. The laws do not dictate putting in all those busy details that wreck the lines of, say, the Supra and the new mid-engine MR2 (wrong number?) It's said that the japanese like to look at cars from a close distance (since there's no room to move far away) so they appreciate the details more than the overall clean lines. Does your comment mean you don't like German styling? Or is it just general bias against German cars? >R&T mentioned that the Porsche 944 engine was set forward to gain legroom for >the driver and front seat passenger. If i am not mistaken, it also has a >transaxle. This means that most of the mess of the car is over both axles. >By contradiction, the 1963-1982 Corvette has its engine set back behind >the front axle, the transmission between the driver and passenger. >The admittedly greater mass of the Vette is nevertheless better distributed. Such factual information! ( :-( ) The 944 has its transmission placed over its rear wheels, resulting in a weight ditribution of about 51/49. I'd love to know what the Corvette's weight distribution is --- could someone look it up in an old Road&Track? >Why the Vette is low technology and the Porsche is high is beyond me. I could make a REALLY nasty personal remark here but I won't. :-) >I think a lot of automotive reporting is b.s. I remember in 1978 R&T was >saying a lot of great things about the Porsche 924, but now, in 1985, they >admit what we knew all along: that the 924 was "rather mediocre." They don't say it's mediocre as such; the 924 was merely mediocre as far as Porsces go. As the title of one of the most respected Porsche publications says, "Excellence Was Expected". \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (02/28/85)
>they put in Car&Driver or R&T, that they mention that the 944 has a "high >polar moment, making it resistant to crosswinds". My physics isn't what it >used to be, but doesn't a high polar moment imply the car will not be suited >to lane changing and slaloms, all the things a sportscar is supposed to do? >The car will be very stable, like a Caddy, but will slalom about as well as >one too. > >R&T mentioned that the Porsche 944 engine was set forward to gain legroom for >the driver and front seat passenger. If i am not mistaken, it also has a >transaxle. This means that most of the mess of the car is over both axles. >By contradiction, the 1963-1982 Corvette has its engine set back behind >the front axle, the transmission between the driver and passenger. >The admittedly greater mass of the Vette is nevertheless better distributed. >Why the >Vette is low technology and the Porsche is high is beyond me. Greater mass ? Better Distributed ? 1) high polar moment of inerita = high resistance to spinning (when compared to a lower polar moment of inertia), actually the polar moment of inertia is an area property, the second polar moment is a volume property but I digress. What this means is that the car will require more force (friction force exerted at the tire/road interface) to change the relationship between the direction the car is pointed and the direction its momentum is traveling. This is often known as the slip angle. A fast driver (ok, a good fast driver) minimizes the slip angle by rarely turning the steering wheel faster than his momentum will change, this is because all energy that creates the slip angle is lost. So what does this all mean? A 944 should resist spinning more than the average car at a small sacrifice in ease of turning. (yes this sacrifice *might* be measurable on a skidpad if you could figure out how to). To get an idea what the opposite effect is (low polar moment of inertia) have you ever driven a 914 (or maybe even an X1/9) ? These cars can be driven very fast around corners but once they spin they really spin, like a top. They don't have the weight out at the ends to slow them down. I'll admit I'm a bit prejudiced because my Alfetta uses a transaxle. Also, it might be of interest that it is much easier to attain a 50/50 weight distribution with the use of a transaxle, an analogy is a high wire act - notice they use long poles for easy balance. 2) Better Distributed? Why is clumping the mass up in the middle better distribution than hanging it out on the ends? Not enough data here to make any claims about distribution. 3) I have always thought that 'Vettes in general were low tech mostly in terms outdated construction methods. True racing cars have long ago proven the wisdom of uni-body construction but the 'Vette didn't go to it. I realize that J. Buchanon's '66 rat motored missile has got more horsepower than I would be comfortable with but I'm not sure you could call it high tech. Rather that motor represents doing what has long been known to improve performance but because of sheer volume being able to do more of it. I guess I'm argueing the meaning of high tech. To me high tech is turbos and anti-skid brakes, not 427 cu. in. and power assisted drums. Do not think that I can't appreciate 'Vettes, I'm not selling US auto engineers short, I just like to be objective. Abolish 55, Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
adm@cbneb.UUCP (03/06/85)
Pure Rumor BUT....... I have been told that the vette was labled an 84 to take advantage of relaxed emission standards. Manufacturing problems were going to delay production anyway so they just held off a little longer and got better performance with the more lenient standards.
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (03/11/85)
Re response 1: PHYSICS: I think comparing a car with its weight hung out over the ends to a high-wire act is my point. After all, the high-wire walker cannot subject himself to any highly transient motion. Furthermore, stating that a mid-engine car can really spin may be true, but with the lower polar moment of inertia, it should STOP spinning before one whose mass is concentrated at the ends. Putting the weight on the ends of a car is the typical problem of big old American sedans, with their big engines in front and huge, over hanging trunk in rear. And beleive me, those things spin out. BRAKES: Corvettes have been endowed with four wheel disc brakes as standard since 1966. They also have had a fully independent rear suspension since 1963, something which Alfa still lacks :-) (DeDoin is not considered independent) Re response 2: Weight distributions of Corvettes: March 1969 Road & Track: 50/50 weight distribution 435HP 427 Corvette (Big Block) January 1968 Road & Track 49/51 (fr/rear) 350 HP 350 Corvette (Small Block) Setting the engine back and the independent rear allowed the nearly perfect weight distribution.
phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (03/12/85)
(Just a few comments on weight distribution, weight bias, and four- wheel disc brakes.) The reason big old American sedans spin out is because (essentially) all their weight is over the front wheels while they drive with the rear. That "huge, overhanging trunk" doesn't weigh anything. That's the problem: there's not enough weight over the back wheels to keep them planted on slippery pavement. So it's too easy to lose traction at the back, and when you do, because of the severe front weight bias, the back end "comes around". (Can you say "fishtail"? Sure.) Front wheel drive cars have a similar weight bias, but because they drive with the front wheels, they aren't prone to fishtailing. The bias does mean that they handle differently from rear-wheel-drive cars, though - I know a lot of people besides myself who don't par- ticularly like them for this reason (I guess we're just old and get- ting crotchety or something). 4-Wheel Disc Brakes I'm not entirely sure that four-wheel disc brakes aren't overkill. If you're racing at LeMans in the 24 Heures, well, of course you have to have them to last more than a lap, but on most cars they're definitely unnecessary. Most cars on the road today are either small front-wheel-drive jobbies or older dinosaur-type vehicles. These cars all have a severe front weight bias. Now consider braking. Most hard braking is done while the car is traveling forward, right? Well, have you ever noticed how when you're moving forward and you hit the brakes, there seems to be a force pushing you forward that makes the back end rise up and the front end dive? You have? Good. You all pass the pop quiz. Anyway, the net effect of this "force" (which is not really a force any more than "centrifugal force" is a force - it's really inertia) is that the weight bias of the car shifts farther forward, greatly reducing the loading on the rear tires. Now, any time the load on a tire decreases under braking, you're going to have to watch out for lockup. Also, the amount of braking the wheel in question can actually do decreases because of the decreased "lockup threshold". In most cars this effect is not insignificant. (See early GM X-body cars for a good example.) So little braking is actually done by the rear wheels that there is no point in putting discs back there; drums are just fine, and cheaper at the factories, which is why there aren't a lot of 4-wheel-disc cars around. Cars with a more reasonable weight distribution, by the way, will benefit from discs on the back wheels, as will cars with a rearward weight bias (e.g. Porsche 911s, VW Beetles, Pontiac Fieros, etc.). The Vette is in this class. Weight Distribution Proper weight distribution is something I've always appreciated in a sports car. It improves both the handling and the stability of the car. As far as Corvettes are concerned, I won't argue with you on the figures. But think about this: the front-mid engine/rear drive con- figuration was around for quite a long time before Chevy "thought" of it. Look at pictures of cars from the teens, 20s, 30s, even the 40s. My first car was a lowly MGB, not the sort of vehicle that will regu- larly blow Vettes away at stoplights, but it had a nearly ideal weight distribution. So did my second car, a Triumph GT6. Neither of these cars was what I would call "state of the art" in terms of engineering or performance, but they _felt_great_ on twisty roads. I have driven several cars which supposedly could blow my GT6 away canyon racing, but I just plain didn't like their handling. I'll take balance over raw power any old day. BTW - I'd be interested to know what the weight distribution was on the '63 Stingray. Do you have the numbers? Phil Kos Still Looking for a Good Car in Baltimore of course, I could be wrong... :-)
jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (03/12/85)
> > I have been told that the vette was labled an 84 to take > advantage of relaxed emission standards. Manufacturing problems > were going to delay production anyway so they just held > off a little longer and got better performance with the > more lenient standards. > Relaxed emission standards? I must have missed that one. 1984 had relaxed BUMPER standards (2 1/2 mph instead of 5). Is that what is being referred to or have the emission standards really come down? -- Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (03/15/85)
>PHYSICS: > >I think comparing a car with its weight hung out over the ends to >a high-wire act is my point. After all, the high-wire walker cannot >subject himself to any highly transient motion. > >Furthermore, stating that a mid-engine car can really spin may be true, >but with the lower polar moment of inertia, it should STOP spinning >before one whose mass is concentrated at the ends. > I disagree - when an ice skater wants to STOP spinning what do s/he do? Extend their arms of course. What makes a car stop spinning is a bit different perhaps, I'm quite certain it is depedent on the friction force at the tires. Let's see now, dynamic friction has an inverse relationship with velocity so the slower spinning car should stop spinning first, but you are right about more inertia so maybe it will be a draw. Anyway, after (or during) a spin is a little late to be worrying about this, I'd rather not spin. >Putting the weight on the ends of a car is the typical problem of big >old American sedans, with their big engines in front and huge, over >hanging trunk in rear. And beleive me, those things spin out. > Come now, "big old American sedans" have a myriad of bigger challenges to their handling than weight distribution - and I would be surprised if very many of them had "50/50" distribution anyway. Let's keep the discussion relevant. >BRAKES: >Corvettes have been endowed with four wheel disc brakes as standard since >1966. They also have had a fully independent rear suspension since 1963, >something which Alfa still lacks :-) (DeDoin is not considered independent) > Hmm...my Alfetta has a transaxle with two rear axles, each one of which has a universal joint. It also has "inboard" rear disks. Gosh, isn't this independent rear suspension? My reply mentioned the meaning (especially to me) of "high-tech". I think things like transaxles and inboard brakes are "high-tech", I didn't say they work better. In another realm a comparison might be between possible types of data displays - active matrix LCD displays are about to hit the market and will be an alternative to CRTs for 24 line by 80 character displays. They won't be quite as good for viewing, will be more expensive, will be in a smaller package, and will definitely be "high-tech". Do we need to harp on about "my car is better than yours is", or do we want to discuss issues common to all car lovers and aficiondos? Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (03/21/85)
To Mister Kos: The weight distribution of a 1964 Stingray with driver is 48/52 according to Road & Track (March 1964) (Sorry, no data on the '63 but I suspect it would be similar save for that little strip of fiberglass on the split window.) To Mr Barbee: Your car may indeed have independent suspension, but I don't think so. Universal joints, half axles and inboard brakes do not an independent suspension make. Independent suspension means that each wheel may travel without disturbing the opposite wheel. A Dedion type axle is not independent because each side is tied with a beam to the opposite side. The Dedion does, however, save the differential and optionally the brakes as unsprung weight. But who really cares, so long as it works, and works well! If it makes its driver happy, that's a good handling car. (Of course that makes my Dad's 69 Rambler Wagon a good handling car, but what the hell! Let's be generous!)