The Corvette - Sophistication in Simplicity

[wwgkd]

When I drive around my old man's 225 hp TL it's kinda a pain in the ass. It is way faster than anything else that I drive on a regular basis and even it with it's relatively meager power to weight ratio begs you to go faster when you are doing the speed limit on a city street.

It's tempting to lay the pedal down to the floor but things get extralegal and dangerous quick if you push it - I can't imagine how tempting it'd be to push a car like yours or a Z06 to the limit.

I don't want a car that has that much power that I can't use regularly - at least in your case there's a track nearby and you race it frequently. Here, were I to be in the situation to be able to do so financially, I'd have to drive a hour and a half southwest to drag race it (at Cayuga) or an hour north east to road race it (at Mosport). Even if I did have the money and desire to take my car to the track, doing it more than a few times a year would be costly, and take a very long period of time and a lot of dedication.

I have no hard limit or anything like that, but I think about the top end of power and weight I'd want in my car would potentially be something like 300
hp and 3000 pounds - keep in mind, I have not driven a car with that sort of power for any length of time so maybe this is too much power, or even to little (I doubt that).

A G37 or 370Z or Duratec 37 'Stang or 335i, or E46 M3 is about as much power as I can see myself wanting I think.

Also, I drive at very reasonable speeds now that I have grown a little older and wiser. There is still a thrill I get from driving a car hard, but I am wary of the police, and more importantly, I am wary of endangering myself and others when I do so. I despise drivers that put their own personal driving thrill in front of safe driving, and I am basically of the view - unlike some others here - that there are some speeds which are never really safe to drive at. You want to drive like Michael Schumacher or whoever Dale Earnhardt or whoever your racing hero is? Save it for your Playstation or better yet the track.

I basically drive pretty relaxed now and with the flow - or even sometimes slightly slower than the flow - of traffic. What the hell then is the point of me wanting a 550 or 700 hp Mustang like the one you've got? Even if it is easy to drive (something I take with a grain of salt - I might even consider temptation a factor in how easy a car is to drive) I can basically never fully exploit it's power on public roads. Sure I can hit highway cruising speeds easily, and on ramps would be enjoyable, but I'd be travelling at my desired speed within such a quick amount of time that it'd not even be worth it for me to have bought or built a 500+ or even 400+ hp car.

Ultimately, in my eyes, there is such a thing as too much power, just as there is such a thing as too little power. Surely there is such a thing as too fast and too slow, right? So why not what I mention above?

You're being reasonable. Sometimes reason and passion don't mix. I also drive slowly and carefully on public streets, but if I had a Z06 I'd find a way to get it on a track. Maybe AutoX or something. It would happen. It's like having an incredibly hot girlfriend. Yes, the dating process may seem like it would be frustrating, but the payoffs worth the wait (I'd imagine .)

I'd also get new seats, but at least now I know why they're less than stellar, thanks whoever pointed that out.

[Kitdy]

Because the limit is higher. We basically agree, but I ask you to consider the following.

In my experience it's when a car puts down more than 600-650 to the wheels that it becomes unusable. Much more than that and it simply cannot lay down the power on the street in any efficient manner. You spin tires left and right. Up until that point you are pretty safe, and most cars in that range will drive just as fine, and be as docile as many other daily drivers.

These high horsepower cars don't need to be pushed hard to reach any kind of speed limit. Subsequently you drive them completely different. Compared to your average family sedan you have so much more torque at a lower RPM that you can cruise along in a high gear. Because they hardly break a sweat, they never really beg you to push harder or to floor it. You never really feel the need to honestly. That's what I meant when I said the GT is the one I've driven the nicest. I beat the piss out of that old Golf GTI -- again, ask Chris. Of course, it also depends on how the motor builds torque but that's a separate discussion.

So, we basically agree. I'm just saying the HP limit is higher than what you might expect. Hell, it was higher than what I expected myself. Having all that power makes it easier to get out of a potentially dangerous situations, and throttle moderation comes automatically -- as it does with all cars. You do get used to it. You learn to respect it. And you do use it every time you drive the car.

Fair enough Ras, but then again who's to say that our power limits are different?

Then there's the old maxim - it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive fast car slow. Driving something with moderate power on public roads may be more fun as you could safely - legally even - stretch it's legs out.

I imagine that's not entirely the case with your car.

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.

It's like having an incredibly hot girlfriend. Yes, the dating process may seem like it would be frustrating, but the payoffs worth the wait (I'd imagine .)

The trick is to find a girl you are attracted to (maybe not blazing or anything, but what percentage of blazing girls are pleasant to talk to anyways?) who is not high maintenance and more fun to hang out with. Besides, just becuase a chick is hot doesn't mean she's any good in bed.

I'd also get new seats, but at least now I know why they're less than stellar, thanks whoever pointed that out.

That was culver. He seems to know everything about just about everything for modern GM vehicles and a lot in general about suspension design.

You really gotta speak up more around here culver - I learn a shitload from every one of yours posts.

[wwgkd]

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.

This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance.

The trick is to find a girl you are attracted to (maybe not blazing or anything, but what percentage of blazing girls are pleasant to talk to anyways?) who is not high maintenance and more fun to hang out with. Besides, just becuase a chick is hot doesn't mean she's any good in bed.

I take a simpler route. I just look for women willing to put up with me and then find out if they're too crazy to be worth it.

That was culver. He seems to know everything about just about everything for modern GM vehicles and a lot in general about suspension design.

You really gotta speak up more around here culver - I learn a shitload from every one of yours posts.

Right. I had a suspicion but there were a lot of long posts and I was too lazy to read through them all to find it again. Of course then I got bored and read through them to find it, but you beat me.

[Kitdy]

This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance.

Yeah - I think the GTA is about a 12 hour drive form NC, so feel free Ras.

Speaking of the 'Stang, do you have any pictures of the engine bay? How is the (potentially never-ending) build going?

I take a simpler route. I just look for women willing to put up with me and then find out if they're too crazy to be worth it.

That's a solid route. Maybe I should try that out.

[henk4]

Pneumatic springs were first used in the late 1800s. The first automotive uses were as I recall on buses prior to WW2. Cars used them starting I think in the mid 1950s.

BTW, don't think I'm discounting the Citroen system. It's more that just a spring and I could easily be convinced that it is more advanced in concept than any other auto system (waiting for the fully active systems).

I wasn't trying to defend the system in any way, just mentioned it as you said that all major suspension systems are at least a hundred years old.
for good order, here is description how it works

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropneumatic_suspension]Hydropneumatic suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

although I have feeling that Citroen may have contributed themselves to this section....

I am curious to know what pneumatic systems were used in the 1800s. I found the buses, on which GM apparently based their fheir first air suspension systems for the late fifties Cadillac.

[henk4]

The GREAT thing about (most) cars is that they don't need to be judged objectively.

so any post by you regarding the 1-series should start with: "I THINK...."

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra it's hard to reason with a person who thinks he's always right. I see validity in some of your points and you may even be right but your attitude of always being correct is very grating at times. I have acknowledged that I could be wrong... Have you?

EDIT: Sorry to lash out like this, but I've been biting my tongue many times when seeing you post in some threads and I wanted to get this out.

No hard feelings man, I just wanted to air this grievance with you.

"Better out than in".

I've been highlighting inconsistencies in comments and reviews.

I can't really be held up as that bing "my" bias .. can I ???

"right" is a very subjective thing in forums too.
It's too complicated to provide all the historical background adn rationale to an opinion, some based on facts, some on actual experience, some on second hand experience, some on "reading", sone om quoting other forums. So when I am saying things if I dont' preface it then it is direct first hand experience.

In that case, having lived it, experienced it then for me it IS the only "truth", the rest are subjective mental evaluations.

When putting these in black and white, we dont' have the delicacy of being in conversation, then it will ALWAYS sound "arrogant" or "grating".
But thems the way forums are .. the way any non-verbal, non-interactive communication is in reality.

But coming back to the FACTS.
I think they stand and so does the rationale behind them.
They may not sit well with the WHOLE picture - and thus why I will always say the Corvette is a great car. But it falls well short of being "GREAT". The thread seemed to be becoming a corvette-wank and shodl we leave errors in forum posts or do our best to explore the comment in both a positive and critique manner ?

I vote yes. But maybe I'm wrong

PS: and being a forum, I'm one who believes there is no point in putting in poinltess "yes" posts or "qft" every second post to show agreement. Again in conversation it woudl be a nod of the head to show agreement. Dont' ahve that hear and frankly woudl HATE to see a forum full of single word " agreed" posts. Is that what "grates" ? That the points in agreement dont' get praise lauded on them ? Understandable, but think of the unintended consequences if we had everyoen do that

[Matra et Alpine]

In my experience it's when a car puts down more than 600-650 to the wheels that it becomes unusable. Much more than that and it simply cannot lay down the power on the street in any efficient manner.

Agree, but for sake of compelteness then that is for cars of high mass.
You take the likes of a Lotus 7 (and copies) then half that has entered the world of "too difficult" away from track.

Having all that power makes it easier to get out of a potentially dangerous situations, and throttle moderation comes automatically -- as it does with all cars. You do get used to it. You learn to respect it. And you do use it every time you drive the car.

Another possible case of different circumstances ?
To have a car with lots of power get good traction then you up the tyre sizes. In areas where you get torrentail rain or where road state means you get puddling then those big fat tyres become a liability and nobody can control aqua-planing. When it happens you're a passenger hanging on hoping the wave breaks The heavier 'vette is helping that ?
So in that situation the things that make the power "usable" - ie good tyres and traction become a liability.
It's that vicious circle we enter when we increase power in any vehicle
In dry conditions there is nothing better than having a power/weight ratio near the 1 region. In wet however - on same tyres - it's suicidal.

NOT because of the power,. but because of all the things done to use/deliver that power.

With the RS200 you NEVER ran the tarmac setup if it was wet - even if it was a tarmac event and wet WIDE tyres were available. You went to a narrower tyre or it would leap in random directions on hitting standing water.

[Ferrer]

Regarding the question about power, it's not all about the speed. These days you can lose your license in pretty much anything. Even the cheapest of city car get to do 160km/h or more. So having more power is not about the speed. Or maybe it is parlty, but not all.

In my opinion the best thing about power is acceleration. And acceleration is not only fun and enjoyable but safe too. For instance if you have to overtake someone ina convetional road it's best to stay on the other lane as little time as possible. And you are certainly going to stay less time there in a 300bhp car than you will in 150bhp car. That's why passing someone in the Jag is so easy and safe, just foot down and you are done. In the BMW you've got to plan it much more carefully, and many times desist if you are not quite sure.

And then there's an added bonus. Power can sometimes give you the soundtrack as well. Let me bring up the Jag again. We were going to settle for the V6 model, and while that may have been lovely, I'm sure it doesn't have the same great noise that the V8 has. And that alone could be worth the extra expense, the extra carefulness with the throttle and everything really.

Finally, as Rasmus says, you get used to it. If you drive 150bhp car, one with twice the power may sound like a lot and unpractical to drive. But if you start driving one you'll get used to it. You'll know when it's time to drive relaxedly and carefully and when you can open the taps and enjoy fully the engine you've paid with your hard earned cash. I've always been against the idiotic power wars between manufacturers, but deep down I'm petrolhead. So yes, I like the power, I like the speed and I like the acceleration.

so any post by you regarding the 1-series should start with: "I THINK...."

All my posts actually start with an (invisible) "I THINK..."

[culver]

I wasn't trying to defend the system in any way, just mentioned it as you said that all major suspension systems are at least a hundred years old.
for good order, here is description how it works

Hydropneumatic suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

although I have feeling that Citroen may have contributed themselves to this section....

I am curious to know what pneumatic systems were used in the 1800s. I found the buses, on which GM apparently based their fheir first air suspension systems for the late fifties Cadillac.

When I was doing a side project on an air spring suspension for a truck I read up on air springs. The earliest attempts were from the late 1800s. I don't recall the application but I think it might have been rail cars.

[Rasmus]

Speaking of the 'Stang, do you have any pictures of the engine bay? How is the (potentially never-ending) build going?

Meh, I had a blower meltdown almost 2 months ago now. I shipped the unit over to Rotrex, and it's been sitting there since then. Thankfully it looks like I'm finally getting a new unit, but I don't know which one yet. They're talking about shipping me a new, not yet released version of the C38 for testing. Whatever I get, I've told them I'll be sticking the smallest pulley on there that I can find.

Next up the car is going down to Florida for the new Ford Racing manifold that's finally out.

Fair enough Ras, but then again who's to say that our power limits are different?

Then there's the old maxim - it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive fast car slow. Driving something with moderate power on public roads may be more fun as you could safely - legally even - stretch it's legs out.

I see your point, but I'm not too sure. I've gotten in trouble more times than I can count in slow to moderately fast cars.

I imagine that's not entirely the case with your car.

Keep in mind, I have yet to drive something like your car on the streets - maybe it is just as easy as you say. I'd certainly love to try.

This. I doubt many of us have. Ras, you really need to go on tour to give us all a chance.

Yeah - I think the GTA is about a 12 hour drive form NC, so feel free Ras.

Well if you guys come here, I can set up a comparison test between a stock GT, a bolt-on, mine, and probably a few other interesting builds that aren't Fords.

Agree, but for sake of compelteness then that is for cars of high mass.
You take the likes of a Lotus 7 (and copies) then half that has entered the world of "too difficult" away from track.

Another possible case of different circumstances ?
To have a car with lots of power get good traction then you up the tyre sizes. In areas where you get torrentail rain or where road state means you get puddling then those big fat tyres become a liability and nobody can control aqua-planing. When it happens you're a passenger hanging on hoping the wave breaks The heavier 'vette is helping that ?
So in that situation the things that make the power "usable" - ie good tyres and traction become a liability.
It's that vicious circle we enter when we increase power in any vehicle
In dry conditions there is nothing better than having a power/weight ratio near the 1 region. In wet however - on same tyres - it's suicidal.

NOT because of the power,. but because of all the things done to use/deliver that power.

With the RS200 you NEVER ran the tarmac setup if it was wet - even if it was a tarmac event and wet WIDE tyres were available. You went to a narrower tyre or it would leap in random directions on hitting standing water.

Trust you to be the lacking voice of reason. We agree, of course. It depends on power to weight -- and that was also part of my point, the amount of horsepower has to be effectively put down.

You'd have to be some kind of wonder muppet to go hit triple digit speeds in a fast car on the streets if it was pissing down.

I've always said I wouldn't want the GT if I lived in the UK, and probably would switch to a smaller car even in DK, but the new Vettes are not really that big. Surely they don't feel so big when you're driving them. The C6Z is about the same weight as a new VW GTI. The E60 M5 is sitting at over 1800kg, and the RS6 over 2000kg, yet both have more hp than the Z but both feel like luxury liners.

[Matra et Alpine]

Trust you to be the lacking voice of reason. We agree, of course. It depends on power to weight -- and that was also part of my point, the amount of horsepower has to be effectively put down.

Thanks for the positive response to what maight have been seen as criticism or "being right" (sic)

You'd have to be some kind of wonder muppet to go hit triple digit speeds in a fast car on the streets if it was pissing down.

How do you find it in the 70-80mph hitting flooded tramlines on freeway or standing water ? I've had many a car - including fully setup and booted rally cars - bring my heart rate up at low-ish speeds when on fat rubber

I've always said I wouldn't want the GT if I lived in the UK, and probably would switch to a smaller car even in DK, but the new Vettes are not really that big.

Mate runs his 'Vette doing passegner laps on the 'Ring and GP circuit. It's a big car. Probably doesn't look so big in the land of Fleet's Lincolns. All is relative

Surely they don't feel so big when you're driving them. The C6Z is about the same weight as a new VW GTI. The E60 M5 is sitting at over 1800kg, and the RS6 over 2000kg, yet both have more hp than the Z but both feel like luxury liners.

Agreed, you just wouldn't push either of those that hard on the best twisties roads in Europe. ( and not even some tracks. An M5 stripped for track was struggling at Knockhill and the driver is a known "good'un", so can't just opt for the "may have been a slow driver" ) Did have some possibly superb footage on my camera but the card's corrupted - DAMN Trying various recovery packages now in the hope of getting 'em back

Take for example Lotus Evora, 8 inches shorter, 4 inches narrower. Doesn't sound a lot and it's not MASSIVE, BUT the point is where the driver is in relation to all that space. A Z06, the drivers head is 2/3 from front, 1/3 from rear and worse 3/4 from front wheel and 1/4 from rear wheel. Evora is dead centre - pretty much. What that gives is a more control of the vehicle dynamics in twisties. When we talk about "big" for driving then I cetainly mean more about the relation of the driver mass to the vehicle mass and the tyre contact points as they are what makes the handling difference. The physical also comes in to it and even more so in a Viper or worse a Panoz.

Of course going from hillclimb one weekend in a Lotus 7 copy to rallying the next in a Mini then I find that shock even greater. And hence why I'll tend to add comments in these kind of discussions. Each has it's place and enjoyment ... NOTHING beats looking over a long bonnet on a nice sweeping road ( of course *I* am drooling over E-type memories ) unless it's looking past an apex on a twisty and sticking the car right in to it and throttling through.

Yes, can't do that in cities ... but that's why Scotland is God's country for driving enthusiasts - and bikers

[wwgkd]

How do you find it in the 70-80mph hitting flooded tramlines on freeway or standing water ? I've had many a car - including fully setup and booted rally cars - bring my heart rate up at low-ish speeds when on fat rubber

Wasn't directed at me but figured I'd jump in sime my daily driver is running 12.50s (315s). I haven't done any highspeed racing, but I've done quite a bit of stuff that shows you how bad things can go at even single digit speeds. If the road has any significant standing water on it I slow down to much lower than 70-80mph, even if I'm in a 75 zone.

I could see having to drive fast in the rain if you're racing (you possibly were in that scenario?) but otherwise there's no big hurry. May as well slow it down and get there in one piece. Enjoy the road on a better day, where the massive power and rubber comes back into it's own. Wouldn't really call that a knock against the fat rubber cars, just knowledge of it's limits. Same way I wouldn't take a Z06 offroading.

Edit: I think even if I were driving an elise with uber rain tires that I knew wouldn't hydroplane I would still slow down just because the people around me may not be in the same boat. Then again I tend to think the most danger on the road doesn't come from my own vehicle but from other peoples.

[henk4]

When I was doing a side project on an air spring suspension for a truck I read up on air springs. The earliest attempts were from the late 1800s. I don't recall the application but I think it might have been rail cars.

I just did some checking about the use of fiberglass, and apparently during the 1952 olympics, an american was the first to use a fiberglass pole vault. Pole vaults are now also made of carbon fiber.

[Matra et Alpine]

I could see having to drive fast in the rain if you're racing (you possibly were in that scenario?) but otherwise there's no big hurry.

Thankfully short circuit and hillclimbs you know where the cros track rivers are and puddling.
Rally on tarmac is another BIG problem with other visul clues to warn .. the most important one being GET ON TO NARROWER/WET tyres
My worst ones have been on British roads
SOME motorways have bad tramlines where heavy trucks have created dips that don't clear water. Other - espacilly newer ones - have areas where it doesn't shed water as quickly so the road can be clearish but suddenly hit an ince of water across the road.
Even in light rain this can be an issue. That was the case I guess I was referegin to.
As you say, the best way to stop aquaplaning is to reduce speed - and thus still a Q on the BIG 'vette rear rubber how is it. In this case how much slower do we need to drive to be "safe" from serious aqua planing.

May as well slow it down and get there in one piece. .... Wouldn't really call that a knock against the fat rubber cars, just knowledge of it's limits. ....Edit: I think even if I were driving an elise with uber rain tires that I knew wouldn't hydroplane I would still slow down

Trying to learn from experienced owners how big a drop that is on moern 'vette on modern rubber on ordinary roads.

Then again I tend to think the most danger on the road doesn't come from my own vehicle but from other peoples.

Have driven in Florida where I pulled it over and parked up rather than share space with grannies in tanks and big rigs durign a downpour