The "Slacker" theory

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by nolinkage, Nov 20, 2002.

  1. Take the Honda S2000 and the Audi TT. Both were introduced sometime in the last couple of years, following the burst of popularity of the 2 seat roadsters. I think that both of these cars were designed with minimal time and money spent on research and development.

    Specifically, take each of these car's engines. Audi needed something with a bit of pop so they took any old 4 banger and stuck a supercharger on it. Voila - 2 seat roadster. Charge a comparable price to the SLK or Z3 and laugh all the way to the bank!

    The S2000 is a little more interesting. Same story - they needed something quick to get the car on the market. So instead of developing something they dipped into their motorcycle line. How else would you explain an engine that revs to 9000 and has zero low end torque? So they dropped a motorcycle engine into the S2000 and voila - 2 seat roadster. Charge a comparable price to the SLK or Z3 and laugh all the way to the bank!

    That's it - my slacker theory. I think Honda and Audi slacked off and put bullshit engines into the cars just so they could steal some sales from Benz and BMW sooner than if they took the time to develop a real engine.
     
  2. Re: The

    u sir, are an idiot

    first of all if its making Audi and Honda rich, whats the problem?...if the cars are critically acclaimed (which they r) whats the problem?

    Audi didnt take "any old engine and supercharge it" they took probably one of the best small engines there is and TURBOcharged it, with nice effects, cant complain about 225hp/206lbft...they spent an awful long time on the design and the interior - to this day one of the best interiors ive ever seen, and the handling - one of the best Audis in 15years. Honda on the otherhand, "a motorcycle engine"...what the hell r u on about? i suppose the 3.2-litre NSX is a motorcycle engine aswell, 8000rpm and not much low-down torque?...Honda have been making high-revving CAR engines for well over a decade, Toyota do it aswell (Altezza RS200) and they dont make bike engines.

    And you're defending the Z3!! which is the worst part - they took an old 3-series compact floorpan and put a nice body on it, clap clap, no money spent on chassis mods, the critics said it was the worst BMW for quite some time, even the M3 engine couldnt make it a great car. As for normal engines, the 140hp 1.9 was a real stormer wasnt it?...taken straight out of a 318i, again clap clap clap.

    and the SLK?...once again a car that didnt live upto its looks. Nice styling, poor engines (other than AMG) and not too brilliant handling

    u dont seem to understand the concept of these cars, which is to MAKE MONEY. Roadsters sell because they look nice and men buy them for their wives and then borrow them at the weekend. They arent supercars, they were never meant to be, and its fairly stupid singling out Audi and Honda when EVERYONE does it, except Porsche, who tried really hard (and succeded) in making the Boxster a junior 911.

    i call this post "the dumbass theory"
     
  3. Re: The

    I'll call your response to my theory "the dumbass response."

    I did not defend the Z3 or the SLK. I stated that they came out before the S2000 and TT. So all of your slandering of those cars is misplaced. I happen to agree though, the Z3 sucks. I never liked it.

    My post illustrated a theory of how Audi and Honda produced cars to make money, did it not? That would suggest I know why these companies make the cars - to make the money. (hence the "laugh all the way to the bank" comments - seems obvious that I know about the making money principle)

    All your response did was back up my theory by pointing out that BMW did it first. (By "it" I mean throw a car together without much R&D)

    Anyways, now that I have attracted your attention sir, I'll remind you that I'm still waiting for your response as to what DOES influence a car's top speed. You've stated that a car's horsepower and weight DON'T influence top speed. hahaha.....I think they do. I imagine that every member of this forum besides you thinks they do. So let's have it......what influences top speed?
     
  4. Re: The

    waiting for my response?...do u have the right person here? ive never spoken to you before

    when did i say hp had no effect on top speed?
     
  5. Re: The

    in the Isdera commendatore thread about top speed....you carved up a guy named nolinkage stating that horsepower to weight ratio doesn't influence top speed and that he should study physics before posting. give me a break, if power/weight DOESN'T influence top speed then what the hell DOES?
     
  6. Re: The

    oh right, ok...

    power/weight *RATIO* is 100% irrelevant in top speed, that does not mean that power on its own is irrelevant. If my car had 100hp per inch of headroom, it would be irrelevant, coz its a ratio, c what i mean?

    weight on its own is irrelevant because it acts in the wrong plane, i.e. perpendicular to the cars motion

    power on its own (no ratios) is defining

    the scientific factors affecting top speed (if the car is "over-geared", as most cars are) are:

    1) rear wheel horsepower (or front wheel etc)
    2) co-efficient of drag with respect to a vertical circular plate
    3) frontal area of vehicle
    4) density of medium through which the vehicle is travelling (usually air, but varies with weather/elevation)

    and NOTHING else, i hope that clears up any confusion, any other questions?
     
  7. Re: The

    yes, just one question. And I'm really looking forward to hearing your answer.

    Since you've noted that nothing except your 4 factors affect top speed, my question is this:

    Let's create a hypothetical situation.

    Assume that a car was taken on a top speed run. Since we're speaking hypothetically, let's say the car has 400 bhp and the top speed attained was 212 mph (snicker.)

    Now assume that the identical conditions were re-created for another top speed run for the car, except for one difference: seventy weightlifting plates weighing 45 lbs each were loaded into the car. (in the trunk, the back seats, passenger seat, whatever.)Just to save us all from you pointing out that the drag would change since the car would be sitting different, we'll assume the car has no suspension to flex down on and therefore the coefficient of drag doesn't change.

    Then the car was taken for another top speed run.

    I'll remind you that SINCE WE'RE SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY, WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THE IDENTICAL CONDITIONS EXIST, ASIDE FROM THE WEIGHT INCLUSION. Please don't reply in pointing out flaws with my hypothetical experiment here. That would be a waste of time.

    (now finally the question part)

    Would the car again reach 212 mph, despite the inclusion of the 3150 lbs of plates?

    As I mentioned, I'm really looking forward to your answer.
     
  8. Re: The

    Now that I've posted my question I'll just add another post here pointing out how ridiculous the idea is that weight has no bearing on how fast a car is. According to the professor here, weight has no bearing on a car's top speed since it doesn't act upon the correct plane. If that is true, then weight would have no bearing on a car's acceleration either. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA And if that were true, a car's weight would have no bearing on it's fuel efficiency. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    If all of that is true Mr. Professor, then perhaps you can explain for us why it is that there's such a craze in making cars light? All those folks who spend all that time and money working to lighten up their race cars.....are they all crazy??????

    Have fun explaining your way out of this mess. Or, just admit that you're wrong. Hmmmm you'd have to be a man to do that so maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

     
  9. Re: The

    "weight on its own is irrelevant because it acts in the wrong plane, i.e. perpendicular to the cars motion"


    you heard it here first folks - weight doesn't influence a car's performance. who would have thought!!!! I know what I'm doing next chance I get.....putting 1-inch thick titanium plating on my car. It'll never rust or dent! I'll be home free. And to think my car's performance and gas mileage won't be affected....incredible!!!

    This thread doesn't have to be a back and forth affair between me and the professor....why don't we have more posts from other folks, either about the slacker theory or about this lesson in top speed?
     
  10. Re: The

    OK, the S2000's engine is not from a motorcycle engine. Honda has been famous for making reliable high revving engines for years. The S2000 has 0 torque? No i dun't think so, sure, it's not a lot, but enough to get the car go faster than a Boxster, even for top gear acceleration, well, not exactly faster; but according to car and driver, they have the same time for top gear acceleration. IN the wored of racing, there's more than just torque, for example, gearing is very important.

    DOn't even say the S2000's engine sucks, if it does suck, how come it has been awarded as the "best 2.0 to 2.5L engine" for 3 years?
     
  11. Re: The

    Bruno, hold the phone

    i said weight was irrelevant in terms of TOP SPEED

    weight GREATLY affects acceleration A = F/M

    now, your hypothetical situation

    a 5-ton car that is the same size and shape as a 1-ton car will reach the same top speed if it has the same BHP

    this is SCIENCE, weight has NO affect on top speed, trust me

    p = 1/2CdAdv^3

    REMEMBER this formula, it comes in very handy, it is an adaption of Bernoullis equation, a famous scientist concerned with fluid mechanics

    p = power (watts)
    Cd = co-efficient of drag (no units)
    A = frontal area (square metres)
    d = density of air (kilograms per cubic metre)
    v = speed (metres per second)

    ok?....would u like an example?

    McLaren F1, 627 flywheel horsepower, Cd=0.30, A=1.62m^2, d = 1.226kg/m^3 (density of air at sea level, check it out)....wonder what its top speed will be?

    627 x 81% efficient gearbox (taken from an automotive engineering data book) = 508RWHP. 508RWHP x 0.7457 = 378,700 watts

    378700 = 0.5 x 0.3 x 1.62 x 1.226 x V^3

    rearrange to get V^3 = 1,271,155
    cube root both sides to get V = 108.3 metres per second

    108.3 * 3600 seconds = 390km/h

    BANG!! there u go

    no matter WHAT the car weighs, its top speed does NOT change
     
  12. Re: The

    Yep, that's true, but a car with more weight takes longer to reach the top speed.
     
  13. Re: The

    very true, but its eventual top speed will remain the same
     
  14. Re: The

    Urm, Honda has been making sports convertibles since DAY 1 (that is, their first car, the Honda S200 [I can't remember if this is the correct name] was exactly that).

    And why punish a car manufactorer for making a car that will (hopefully) make them some money. THAT'S WHAT ALL CARS ARE!!
    Mass market manufactorers don't just throw out any old thing because they like making cars, THEY WANT YOUR (the consumers) MONEY!!!!

    This will in turn give them more money to make better, more appealing models so they can have even more of your money, so they can make EVEN BETTER models for EVEN MORE OF YOUR MONEY etc. etc.

    That's how a comercial market works!!

    Otherwise we would still be diving model T ford's or some other vehice of such ilk.

    P.S. THe BMW Z3 was origionaly intended as a competitor to the hugely successfull and coveted Mazda MX5. (people didn't take too well to the weazy four cylinder models however, so BMW persisted to push if further upmarket with bigger engined and more expensive model variants).
     
  15. last post on top speed

    Ok, sorry I've been away.

    Now with respect to this insistence that a car's weight can't influence top speed, I'll say this:

    remember my other example of the car that was loaded with weightlifting plates. Stretch that example and you'll see what I was getting at. Don't ask me how, but say the car's weight was increased to two hundred billion pounds. Not only would the car not still reach the same top speed as before, but it wouldn't even drive.

    We're duly impressed with the fancy physics equations dude, but all we really need is common sense.

    Just for kicks, why don't you run through the acceleration equation using 5 bhp and mass of 200,000,000,000 pounds? Seems obvious to me that an engine would overheat and a transmission would give out if you tried driving a 200 billion pound car with 5 bhp. common sense. So you see, weight does influence top speed after all. Unless you intend to disagree and claim that a 5 bhp engine will be able to move 200 billion pounds. As before, I look forward to your reply.

    Oh, one last thing. Say you're right and the 5 bhp car would reach the same top speed regardless of weight, and the car wasn't going to break down. The 200 billion pound car would be accelerating so slowly that the car would run out of gas before it reached top speed. haha, even then weight influences top speed. You just can't get around it. forget the physics and step into the practical world; that's my advice to you.
     
  16. Re: The

    Actually...I was thinking on this whole issue of theory vs. practice.

    I understand where Chic is coming from....however, when you take into account increased inertia, the car is going to require more power to accelerate the car to it's top speed as the acceleration has to counteract the increased inertia in conjuction with increased drag (although no more drag than the lighter model). I think practically, increasing the weight of a car will reduce it's top speed, but unfortunately, unless someone tests this particular theory, we can't know for sure...........
     
  17. Re: The

    Bruno, a practical world???...a world in which people drive around in 2,000,000,000lb cars with 5hp?...which planet are u from?

    that formula is as practical as it gets, scientific proof what weight has no effect on top speed - i get that drilled into my head from aerodynamic professors at university.

    Your 1000 gigaton car with 5hp wouldnt move because there is too much friction, NOT too much mass. If u treble the weight of a car, the speed will be absolutely identical, if u times the weight by 100, the car will barely move but give it a 1000mile long straight it will slowly but surely build up to the same speed.

    In the sensible world of cars where most are between 500 and 2500kg, mass is IRRELEVANT in terms of top speed
     
  18. Re: The

    Huh. I guess I've gotta say at this point that you've convinced me. Well done! So dude, what does the top speed of the 405 BHP Corvette Z06 come out to using the equation? You demonstrated that the equation works for the Mclaren so I want to see what the 'vette comes out to. Do you mind indulging me?
     
  19. Re: The

    i dont know what the co-eff of drag and the frontal area are im afraid, tell me and i'll do it
     
  20. Re: The

    Weight does matter in top speed. The top speed of any vehicle depends on RPM, wheel radius & the top gear ratio. Weight creates downward force which presses down on the wheels. Also wind resistance & friction. The vehicle must have enough torque to overcome this resistance with the gear ratio it has in order to move.
     
  21. Re: The

    In the real world, mass does affect the top speed. Like people above have said, there's friction, and we all know that Ff = u X m X g. That means, the larger the mass is, the more Ff (force of friction) there is. And friction does slow down cars. And this is why car makers always want to make cars with less friction. A great example would be NSX-R. Though it only has 280hp, and its mass is not really light, it can still acheieve 170mph top speed. It's because engineers have spent so much time to make every single "turnable" part as smooth and as balance as possible.
     
  22. Re: The

    I just have to say, I agree with everything you say, I'm not arguing your physics at all, I already know all this stuff from my paintball days. (you wouldn't believe how many people would swear up and down that one gun could shoot further than another when both guns were shooting identical paint at the same velocity, and these were guns that didn't add backspin to the ball)

    But I have to point out your once comment about toyota not making motorcycle engines... toyota owns a rather large chunk of yamaha, in fact yamaha even built the head on the 3S-GTE.
     

Share This Page