supergripen
Club Guest
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,548
- Points
- 38
Maser Quattroporte kills M5 & B5
- Thread starter zagato
- Start date
-
Click here to become an Official Member of BMW Club Malaysia Download Form
The Necessary
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,989
- Points
- 0
E46f,
I do not quote any references because I can't be bothered to dig up "facts" to back up what should be instinctive to a person who knows how to drive.
For example, your little quote from "Speed Secrets";
"You goal is to drive in a way to keep the weight of the car as equally distributed over all four tires as possible. In other words, balance the car... (on pg 44: balance describes the cars weight is equally distributed on all four tires . When the car is balanced, you are maximizing the tires traction. The more traction the car has the more in control the car is and the faster you can drive around the track (btw he elaborates quite a bit on effects of weight transfers etc as well in this section of the book)"
Reads great to an armchair driver like yourself, who automatically assumes that the author is referring to how the vehicle is engineered, but to a person who acutally knows how to drive, he'll be asking himself; "how do I keep the car balanced in all situations (ie. when the car is moving, and not static)?", and will come to the inevitable conclusion that static 50:50 weight distribution on a front engined, rear wheel driven car, is not the way to achieve "balance".
I do not quote any references because I can't be bothered to dig up "facts" to back up what should be instinctive to a person who knows how to drive.
For example, your little quote from "Speed Secrets";
"You goal is to drive in a way to keep the weight of the car as equally distributed over all four tires as possible. In other words, balance the car... (on pg 44: balance describes the cars weight is equally distributed on all four tires . When the car is balanced, you are maximizing the tires traction. The more traction the car has the more in control the car is and the faster you can drive around the track (btw he elaborates quite a bit on effects of weight transfers etc as well in this section of the book)"
Reads great to an armchair driver like yourself, who automatically assumes that the author is referring to how the vehicle is engineered, but to a person who acutally knows how to drive, he'll be asking himself; "how do I keep the car balanced in all situations (ie. when the car is moving, and not static)?", and will come to the inevitable conclusion that static 50:50 weight distribution on a front engined, rear wheel driven car, is not the way to achieve "balance".
A
Alvin
Guest
E46Fanatic
Club Guest
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,893
- Points
- 0
If only you actually picked up the book and read it in greater totality before slamming the author... or people who have read it. You'd realize how foolish your statement was. There is a LOT more in the book like I indicated which addresses exactly what your concerns are..
The Necessary
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,989
- Points
- 0
Well, you better provide references and quotes then, else it's all speculation and hearsay?
Edit; I wasn't making any assumptions about the author, only yourself, E46f.
Edit; I wasn't making any assumptions about the author, only yourself, E46f.
The Necessary
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,989
- Points
- 0
interesting debate! i have a very important question to ask re 50:50 weight distribution:
if i slide my chair forward, will i upset the weight distribution? LOL! :rofl:
but im with the necc on this one. the magical 50:50 static weight distribution has no relevance in the real world other than to impress ppl to buy more cars.
redd
if i slide my chair forward, will i upset the weight distribution? LOL! :rofl:
but im with the necc on this one. the magical 50:50 static weight distribution has no relevance in the real world other than to impress ppl to buy more cars.
redd
OSFlanker
Club Guest
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,363
- Points
- 0
Of course sliding the seat forward will affect the CG - it's simple physics! The more so the heavier the driver
Sorry, can't help myself
I remember watching the WRC magazine programme, the WRC cars are designed with the engine & driver positioned further back than the equivalent road car, and notice how far back the co-driver sits - almost in line with the B-pillar (where there is one).
Balance is everything, though not necessarily 50/50 which is probably more of an academic exercise. The real world "perfect" balance is where the driver feels the most comfortable chucking the car into the corners! I suspect this is probably 45/55 or 40/60 to take into account weight tranfer during heavy braking, which is why the McLaren F1 has 41/59 weight distribution.
However, for real world driving, the 50/50 static may be the best compromise taking into account fuel load, driver's weight, etc, and most road drivers won't brake that hard to create massive weight transfer during braking anyway.
What am I babbling on about? dunno, it's Friday!
E46F, I also had that Ross Bentley book. Misplaced it but it was a good read
e46f, its a very good book you've recommended that dumbass to read but at least quote from it a section that will answer his static balance question.
necc, dont be a smart ass by holding on to the STATIC 50/50 weight distribution paradigm. And read the book. You are just a dumbass otherwise.
if you read bentley's book as recommended it will answer your question about static vs dynamic balance. i'll just re-type it here verbatim:
speed secret #11 (page 51)
Dynamic Balance
Getting back to balancing the car, there is also what i call "dynamic balacing" of the car. Very few cars have a perfect 50/50 weight distributionto begin with. Most purpose-built race cars are midengine with a weight distribution around 40 percent front and 60 percent rear, as this is close to ideal for a race car.
Production-based front-wheel-drive cars are usually closer to 65 percent front and 35 percent rear. Only production-looking tube frame race cars (trans-Am, NASCAR, etc.) are close to 50/50 weight distribution.
Realising this, a driver must compensate by controlling the weight transfer to balance the car into a neutral handling state (no understeer or oversteer). To do this the driver may have to control the weight transfer so that statically there would be more weight on the front or rear but dynamically the car is perfectly balanced.
bla-bla-bla.....
so the ideal weight dist to aim for is 50/50 DYNAMICALLY. maybe this is wat bmw means when they claim 50/50. And perhaps the closer to 50/50 when STATIC, the less you'll have to adjust or tune to achieve 50/50 DYNAMICALLY.
you guys are unbelievable. so many blind people leading even more blind people. I hope none of you ever get on the track. You people are dangerous.
The Necessary
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,989
- Points
- 0
Why, F.man, thanks for chipping in here, and agreeing with me. Too bad your oversized ego and undersized brain fail to see that.
Tool.
Tool.
I can't believe you guys, read my earlier postings. I started this thread . You Beemer drivers are bunch of sensitive pricks. I never said 50:50 is a bad thing. I said so much for bmw 50:50 claims and its technological superiority when Maser is faster in Bedford Autodrome despite being down on torque and hp and heavier. So what does imply, perhaps the M5 chassis, suspension set-up is not that great after all, notwithstanding to having close to optimal set up. It implies the Maser obviously got something right, because the maser was never intended to be an outright sportscar. M5 on the other hand is a pretender, that's what the bmw marketing wants you to believe. Geez, is it so difficult to understand. For those love to quote from the books, may you should drive sometime and feel the car like what the necc said. Theory is one thing practical is another.
wirelessjunkie
Club Guest
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,098
- Points
- 0
supergripen
Club Guest
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,548
- Points
- 38
i actually agree with u there..the maser must've done something right for lapping that particular circuit faster than the M5.the outcome wud be different of course on a different circuit depending on which car's setup suitability.that doesn't mean that 50/50 is a bad thing though.theory and practical are different but good theory leads to good practical results..
f.man, i read ur posting and it sounds like ur agreeing with the necc.
u also have a lot of perhaps and maybes in ur explanation about static vs dynamic weight distri. u certain of what u talking about or are u also speculating like u claim all of us are?
redd
all else being equal the weight distribution of a car will determine its attitude once it has taken a stance- a front heavy car will push wide whereas a mid engined or rear engined car will have the mass bias at the rear start pushing it into oversteer.
on a 50:50 car once you have settled in mid corner and the car has taken a set, you will find it a lot more neutral when you are neither accelerating nor decelerating in the forward direction.
which makes sense for 50:50 cars to enter it under moderate braking, holding a steady speed mid bend(so all traction is apportioned to lateral grip) and then accelerating towards the straight ahead (transferring freed grip from lateral forces into propelling forward).
anyways, the 911 is superior to some because of its lack of mass in front, thus making it very positive on turn it unlike a front engined carr necc. you will find that it is a lot more eager to steer into a bend than the m3.
and then coming out of bend it has so much more grip that front engined cars and thus the saying slow in fast out, which applies generally but especially so for the 911.
i suspect this is how people overcook the 911 by entering too fast. in most cars a degree of reluctance or understeer will prevent going into a rotational turn too soon whereas in the 911, the lack of mass makes it turn in far more responsively, and couple that to a lot of momentum at the rear results in the pendulum effect.
but used wisely the 911's setup essentially makes you brake harder going into a bend, but also allows power to be applied sooner and thus achieve a higher straightahead speed.
as for bmw's, i know for a fact the 318s with the lighter engine has the battery in the engine compartment whereas the heavier 325 and 328 has the battery in the rear seat. don't think the marketing man decided on that.
on a 50:50 car once you have settled in mid corner and the car has taken a set, you will find it a lot more neutral when you are neither accelerating nor decelerating in the forward direction.
which makes sense for 50:50 cars to enter it under moderate braking, holding a steady speed mid bend(so all traction is apportioned to lateral grip) and then accelerating towards the straight ahead (transferring freed grip from lateral forces into propelling forward).
anyways, the 911 is superior to some because of its lack of mass in front, thus making it very positive on turn it unlike a front engined carr necc. you will find that it is a lot more eager to steer into a bend than the m3.
and then coming out of bend it has so much more grip that front engined cars and thus the saying slow in fast out, which applies generally but especially so for the 911.
i suspect this is how people overcook the 911 by entering too fast. in most cars a degree of reluctance or understeer will prevent going into a rotational turn too soon whereas in the 911, the lack of mass makes it turn in far more responsively, and couple that to a lot of momentum at the rear results in the pendulum effect.
but used wisely the 911's setup essentially makes you brake harder going into a bend, but also allows power to be applied sooner and thus achieve a higher straightahead speed.
as for bmw's, i know for a fact the 318s with the lighter engine has the battery in the engine compartment whereas the heavier 325 and 328 has the battery in the rear seat. don't think the marketing man decided on that.
E46Fanatic
Club Guest
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,893
- Points
- 0
zagato,
You might want to read more reviews about the Maser to get a more balanced view of how it stacks up to the M5. I have already listed 2 other reviews, which really doesn't support Evo's results (neither does the manufacturer specs). Here's a 3rd one..
Its neither in the league of the M5 in raw power, handling or braking... Somewhat supporting the findings of the other tests and paper specs...
Suddenly the Evo tests seem like the oddball out...
"A bit more beef to the brakes would not go amiss. While they performed well on the test track, they feel far from reassuring or involving on the road and you find
yourself braking earlier for a corner than in the CLS or the M5. But even if the Quattroporte could outbrake the M5, it would be in vain for it could never get through a bend as cleanly or as quickly. It turns into corners crisply enough and more sharply than the CLS, but there's an immediacy to the over-sensitive, over-light steering that is cause for alarm. That initial 'on its toes' agility simply has no back-up - there's a lack of body control and not enough composure. While the Quattroporte can deal reasonably well with smooth, flowing tarmac and rides comfortably over most surfaces, throw it at too many bends and crests in rapid succession and it gets flustered.
"
3rd reference
beemaro
Club Guest
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Points
- 0
The M3 is a great car; had an E46 as a daily driver for the last four years and an E36 before it. The M3 is a great coupe/sedan, however I've always had a 911 as well. The 911 is a sports car; even the base model 997 has far superior steering, brakes, power/weight ratio, and lower center of gravity when compared to the E46 M3.
As was mentioned, the 911's rear weight bias makes grip a non-issue for street driving. The M3's stability/traction control is so intrusive that the LSD is pointless unless DSC is disabled. Combined with the ridiculously staggered front/rear wheels (for a car with 50/50 weight distribution) contributing to massive understeer, the M3's handling just isn't all that. Again, a good coupe/sedan, but it's no sports car.
As was mentioned, the 911's rear weight bias makes grip a non-issue for street driving. The M3's stability/traction control is so intrusive that the LSD is pointless unless DSC is disabled. Combined with the ridiculously staggered front/rear wheels (for a car with 50/50 weight distribution) contributing to massive understeer, the M3's handling just isn't all that. Again, a good coupe/sedan, but it's no sports car.
