"Chris@Carlypso" (chriscarlypso)
04/26/2015 at 01:27 • Filed to: None
2
4|
"Chris@Carlypso" (chriscarlypso)
04/26/2015 at 01:27 • Filed to: None | 2
| 4 |
“Nothing handles like a Porsche 911” - said a new found friend.
Technically, he’s correct. But I could also say ”Nothing handles like a 1993 Ford Taurus”, or “Nothing handles like an Abrams Tank”. Because each of these cars/tanks are unique, of course they don’t handle like each other.
Nonetheless, he was trying to make a point about handling so I decided to continue listening (even though I often pretend to listen by nodding my head and making the “mmmm” noise). As we progressed, he kept asking me if I thought a particular model of car was “good at handling”.
The McLaren 12C - of course
The Dodge Viper - yes, with all the normal caveats about personal safety (it tries to kill you occasionally, but corners well)
The E39 M5 - yes (great steering feel and turn-in for a big car) ... and no at the same time (lots of understeer at the limit).
The Fiat 500 electric I just purchased - no, well maybe actually yes (it always understeers when driven hard, but I can park it anywhere, and its got nice steering for an electric car)
Then I decided “good handling” is crap. Its a rubbish term for a composition of attributes - steering feel, cornering limits, damping effectiveness, slalom speeds, cornering G, turning radius, likelihood to kill, etc. Furthermore, everyone prioritizes these attributes entirely differently to where the term becomes meaningless.
To the car enthusiast? Cornering velocity, steering feel, and the likelihood to kill are probably the most important items in “handling”
To the average driver? Maneuverability (tight turning), and steering feel dominate.
To the modern BMW driver? How stiffly the car is sprung/damped directly correlates to how good handling his/her 3 series is.
Talking about handling across an audiences is useless - so why do we insist on lumping all of these terms together? I can’t answer if a car is “good handling” because you and I may be talking about different things!
But strangely ... I can answer if a given car is “bad handling”. This means it has no endearing quality about any way it changes direction. I owned a 1998 Ford F150.
Steering feel? Nope, it simply didn’t have it. I wasn’t even convinced the front wheels were connected to the steering wheel. Which is part of why I drove it into a completely stationary pillar at 5 mph on accident.
Cornering velocity? Just no
Damping effectiveness? This was primarily controlled by how much crap was in the rear bed
Spring stiffness? Incredibly stiff, BMW drivers would love this
Likelihood to kill? High. Its like having Stevie Wonder at the wheel.
So, I’ve decided that when anyone asks me if a vehicle “handles good” (should be “handles well” for proper grammar) - I just reply “It doesn’t have bad handling”.
MINISQL
> Chris@Carlypso
04/26/2015 at 02:14 |
|
Yeah, but an Abrams tank? Su weeet! Like those hippo ballerinas in Fantasia...
gergey - Wishes vette was Datsun
> Chris@Carlypso
04/26/2015 at 10:08 |
|
Just gonna leave this here...
Hot Takes Salesman
> Chris@Carlypso
04/26/2015 at 13:20 |
|
Thing is, the handling of an Abrams tank depends on how many T-72’s are in your way.
LongbowMkII
> Chris@Carlypso
06/20/2015 at 08:27 |
|
Grand Marquis- Bad Handling.