What if we just need a new sense of scale?

"Bryan doesn't drive a 1M" (bryantakespictures) 11/15/2019 at 11:00 • Filed to: None

1

21

Some things that are happening:

Cars are getting heavier

Cars are getting taller

Wheels are getting bigger

Cars are getting quieter

But at the same time:

Power is increasing

Tires are getting better

Traction control is getting better (including allowing some shenanigans)

Brakes are getting bigger

In EV’s, center of gravity is very low

Dynamic suspension settings are more common

Car noise is fake anyway , so you can set the volume to whatever you want

What if we just need to adjust our sense of scale for what a car is? If a tall, heavy crossover with 22 inch wheels is faster around a track than an M3, then how exactly is the M3 more fun? The latest M3 sounds like ass and has electric power steering anyway.

What if the 2022 Miata is electric, requiring it to weigh 1000 lbs more? Triple the power, scale up the brakes, widen the tires and what’s the difference, really? If you can’t tell how much the car weighs, does it matter?

I’m mostly playing devil’s advocate here, because the only good thing about my Neon is its light weight (and that stick in the middle) and that is truly enough to make the car incredibly fun and affordable to drive.

I am actually wondering if we will need to make a mental adjustment in 5-10 years to the idea of whether a 4000 lb car on 22 inch wheels can be “playful.”

CB > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:02

2

When the boomers are gone, we will be free of nostalgia for things that sucked.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:03

9

You can always tell how much a car weighs in the corners.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 11/15/2019 at 11:05

3

Yeah, 1000lbs extra on a Miata is OK until you chuck it hard into a corner and the Laws of Physics teach you a lesson

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 11/15/2019 at 11:07

1

Will all the additional weight in the floor, however...

Seems like Teslas handle pretty well in that regard.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 11/15/2019 at 11:11

2

The Tesla trailed its sports-sedan rivals by only a small increment on the skidpad, delivering a strong 0.95 g of lateral grip against the Alfa at 0.99, the M3 at 0.98, and the Mercedes-AMG C63 S at 0.97. The Audi RS5 two-door coupe matched the Tesla’s 0.95 g. Our test car exhibited moderate understeer during the exercise, and the Model 3 isn’t as eager to dive into a corner as most sports sedans, although there’s a Sport steering mode that ups effort levels. The low-mounted mass of the battery helps the Tesla maintain a flat cornering attitude that’s effective on a track and even more impressive on our favorite stretches of country road , but overall suspension refinement on rippled pavement lags a little, perhaps because there’s so much mass to cope with and the wheels are big.

Bryan doesn't drive a 1M > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 11/15/2019 at 11:17

3

All things being equal, sure. But if the extra weight is in the floor and the car is on wider, stickier tires, I’m not confident the difference would be so obvious. Once grip is lost, of course, momentum is going to do it s thing.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > CB 11/15/2019 at 11:17

8

We’ll still be nostalgic for things that suck, they’ll just be different things.

Mercedes Streeter > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:18

4

If a tall, heavy crossover with 22 inch wheels is faster around a track than an M3, then how exactly is the M3 more fun?

This question assumes speed is the only measure of fun. Even back in the day there were a lot of small and light sporty cars that were slow around a track, but more “fun” than a faster vehicle.

I think the perfect example of this is Jeremy Clarkson’s Top Gear review of the smart roadster. It was slow, it had an annoying transmission, and it wasn’t winning any races. However, the car just had that  stupid ability to make you smile like a child.

A tall 4000 pound car on 22s can definitely be playful (I have loads of fun with chunky vehicles) , but that experience will always be different than a lighter, smaller car.

Bryan doesn't drive a 1M > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 11/15/2019 at 11:19

1

That’s what I’m wondering. The weight distribution of EV’s is so different than what we’re used to.

Dakotahound > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:20

1

My Fiat 850 Spider was still the most fun to drive of any car that I have owned (except for the Boxster, which is in an entirely different class). It was my first car - bought with money earned caddying at a local golf club.

CobraJoe > CB 11/15/2019 at 11:24

3

When the boomers are gone, we will be free of nostalgia for things that sucked.

Things that are objectively worse are not always subjectively worse. Manual transmissions are objectively worse than a new automatic, but I find them very fun to drive.

/not-a-boomer

Bryan doesn't drive a 1M > Mercedes Streeter 11/15/2019 at 11:26

0

Like I said, devil’s advocate, so I agree with you. I’m wondering more about the future where the lightest car you can buy new is 4000 lbs and everything has to scale up accordingly.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dakotahound 11/15/2019 at 11:37

2

If I’m perfectly honest, I probably had more fun on a regular basis in my ‘05 Mazda 3s hatch than I did/d0 in my ‘08 M3 (“1000 lbs heavier, nearly 3x more powerful). “Chuckability ” is a very valuable trait in a car meant for enjoyment.

Censored > CB 11/15/2019 at 11:42

0

Nostalgia is by definition “things that suck”. Just like all the 35-45yr olds buying in droves the NES, SNES, Sega ..... classic game consoles. Or me buying a hand held copy of “Oregon Trail”, they suck when compared to today’s standard, but we like them because they remind us of yesteryear. I’m 36 and can already see these things happening to my generation. You flat out can’t afford a S upra, DSM cars are nearly untouchable, even 90's era Camaros and Firebirds (the pinnacle of crap GM, yet I still want a WS6 ) are pretty pricey if clean. By todays standard, these cars suck, but they are valuable and copied because brands are smart and play to nostalgia.

Dakotahound > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 11/15/2019 at 11:47

0

Yes, I know what you mean. S peed and power do not necessarily equate to fun . The Fiat had only 51 HP, but it was so light that you could throw it around (it was only 1620 lbs.) . The rear engine also made it enjoyable to drive.

Ash78, voting early and often > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:52

1

I totally agree with you, and then one day I’m at the tire store and realize that a set of tires for an everyday car is $1,200 and suddenly I disagree again.

Honestly, I think that’s a lot of people’s inner monologues. If we all replaced tires once a year, there would be a backlash. But since it’s every 3-4 years for most people, we just forget about it and then suck it up.

There are definitely practical reasons to keep things reasonable and affordable, in cars and in life .

CobraJoe > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 11:54

0

Like I said, devil’s advocate, so I agree with you. I’m wondering more about the future where the lightest car you can buy ne w is 4000 lbs and everything has to scale up accordingly.

To continue on Miss Mercedes’s point, If speed or power or weight are not exclusive measures of what makes a car fun, what is?

I posit the following: Responsiveness. The ability to know that the vehicle is reacting quickly to what the driver is demanding.

I have owned heavy and slow cars that are heaps of fun, and I have owned a few cars that are fast and yet rather boring, and I think the biggest thing in common with the fun cars is how quickly they respond to the driver’s inputs.

The car reacting to the driver quickly makes it feel like it’s in on the fun. A car that dulls down the reactions or delays the response makes it feel like it’s second guessing the driver. If you hit the gas, and it takes a while for the turbo to spool up or the transmission to downshift or even the computer to readjust it’s fuel map and throttle position, it kind of spoils the fun. The same goes for a poor handling car.

Most of the positives we admire in a performance vehicle also improve the car’s responsiveness. More power often comes with quicker throttle response. Better handling comes with sharper steering. Better brakes provide quicker stopping. Lighter weight can help make velocity changes quicker. And what’s more, dulling the sensory response of the inputs also seems to dull the fun of the car.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dakotahound 11/15/2019 at 12:05

1

Ha! Over 1000 lbs lighter than my Mazda!!

atfsgeoff > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/15/2019 at 12:08

1

If you can’t tell how much the car weighs, does it matter?

No, but someone who can’t feel the mass of a car during spirited driving, is not the target demographic of any sports car.

Bryan doesn't drive a 1M > Ash78, voting early and often 11/15/2019 at 13:24

0

Cost is definitely the biggest hit from all this. I’m not saying it’s a good thing to scale everything up, just that we (car enthusiasts) may have to. We pretty much already have since we don’t complain (often) about 17 or 18 inch wheels and 3000 lb cars are considered light.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Bryan doesn't drive a 1M 11/21/2019 at 14:59

1

Depends on your idea of fun. If carving corners as fast as possible is your goal, then it doesn’t matter how you get there. Personally, I find my truck far more enjoyable than the Golf R. The Golf is an impressive beast, to be sure, but it als o just bored the pants off me. No drama whatsoever, it just went where it was pointed. On a track, no doubt it could be pushed hard enough to be interesting... not on the road, at least IMO. My truck on the other hand is tall(ish) , narrow and on dark ages rear axle tech. It was never meant to handle well. It rolls a lot. It handles well enough, but not well. The transmission is adequate most of the time , but being a 4 speed slushbox it’s far from a sporty unit. The only thing it really has going for it is the engine. Yet the combination of all these things add up to a vehicle that can do enough when pushed, but communicates very clearly to you that you’re on the edge. And that adrenaline hit, fra nkly, is closer to my idea of fun than “go fast”.

Or to summarize, to find a fun car, don’t look for speed - identify your “ unforgivable feature” and find something with the exact opposite characteristic. If you can’t stand slow, fast will be fun. I can’t stand boring. The vehicle must have character... which usually means big flaws. But such is my life.