Making Drivers Cars?

I'm trying to understand the whole concept of making a drivers car in the modern day system, I kinda figure that a fast responsive car that feels like a dream to drive must be almost impossible in the current economic climate.

I'll begin to list why i think this in a moment, but this has all come about after reading an article on the Ford Focus and how much of a pleasure this car is to drive, "a real drivers car", now that I agree that when i was looking at new cars i really didn't want a focus, its a ford for a start, and its boring run of the mill and loads of them about. It said nothing about me as a person.

But the ST170's i test drove where very very nice, quick and very responsive, although the clutch was stiff as hell, which was why i didn't buy it.

But is it really a dream to drive, well i don't think so, and i quite frankly think that no main stream manufacturer can produce a drivers car.

Mainly due to the following
"SAFETY" - NCAP tests etc, so many things that people need to meet nowadays or get slated, all drivers cars are probably designed to just have 2 models if that.

Economics - you cut of huge swathes of market just making a drivers car, which is why i feel MG rover are doomed with there branding.

Speed concious drive - speed will become as socially unacceptable as drink driving given a few more years (decades possibly)

The other factor is that people seem to split into two groups, making things like the caterham 7 which is stunning, but its unpratical as hell.

So can anyone really make a drivers car nowadays?,

Personally I don't think so?. Views??

TiG

It's a VERY limited market, and not one that you can make swaths of money in.

A drivers car these days is a track car - As you say, it's socially unacceptable to be seen to be having "fun" whilst driving.

What's practical in a road car, is added weight in a track car.
What's complient suspension in a road car is soggy on a track.

The Elise was the nearest recent thing - Yet even that, when put on the track, fell sort of being a true track car.

To me a driver's car doesn't have to be light, or fast, or even RWD (although that is preferable;)). What it does have to do is communicate to you what it is doing. I learnt to drive in a 2CV; but I had a few lessons in a Corsa to polish up for the test. The Corsa was faster, smoother, more comforatble and much much safer, but it was also utterly tedious to drive, whereas a 2CV is a total hoot on the right roads. My second car was an old Nissan Praerie, which by virtue of it's knackered suspension, had a rock hard ride, very little body roll, and excellent feedback. One time a git in a 318i compact tried to overtake me going into a roundabout on the A31 in Hampshire. Both of us were doing 60. He was assuming that I'd slow down and let him round the roundabout first, so he must have had the fright of his life when I kept it pinned*, bombed round the outside lane of the roundabout alongside him without lifting off, and proceeded on my merry way. I was on the limit but I was confident doing it because I knew exactly what the car was going to do.

The problem as I see it is that in the 80s (and earlier) power steering (and weight adding extras like air-con) were luxuries that you wouldn't expect to find on an average car, so most people did without them and as a consequence most cars felt reasonably direct to drive. Nowadays so many people expect to get all the trimming on even the most basic car that most cars have the response of a soggy sponge. I worry that today's teenagers will grow up thinking that driving is only about sitting there and working a few controls:(.

Rich :¬)

*it was safe to do that; you had a great view of the other roads feeding the roundabout, so if no-one was coming there was no need to lift off. I used to drive the road a lot.

oooooooooooooooooooooh good thread :)

First thing we MUST do...is SHED A FEW POUNDS IN WEIGHT!

Even if we get safety from Kevlaror Carbon fibre...the weight MUST drop.

Then we need AGILITY.....not handling......cos anycar with competition tyres goes round corners fast...we want AGILITY.....even if it slides like a bugger SO LONG AS YOU KNOW ITS GONNA DO IT>....HAPPY :)

Next...brakes....that you can apply mid corner and use the above AGILITY to tweak it....to adjust it.....

and for that to work....the weight must GO

I'm gonna kill Jiffs ideas before he types them...it does NOT need to be RWD!

RWD depends on power!!

FWD not bad, but once you go above 200 BHP it's all getting a bit too much.

Light weight yes; The Cappo weighs around 15 kilos more than a MK1 elise and manages quite nicely with a paltry 63BHP. Even like this it'll embarress the majority of hot hatches around the twisty stuff.

Power is nothing without control.

Next.....no equipment....none.

No central locking, no electric windows, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak33

SHED A FEW POUNDS IN WEIGHT... Kevlaror Carbon fibre...the weight MUST drop.
Breaks and AGILITY to tweak it....to adjust it....and for that to work....the weight must GO

---

Well this is what I don't understand then, as people view cars like the original Mk1 Golfs as great drivers cars right?, They were affordable, as soon as you do things like Carbon Fibre into cars the price goes through the roof.

So was the MK1 golf miles lighter than current cars (rhetorical)

So we now all drive lardy arse heavy cars that are just big fat and heavy. If i was to ask a Car manufacturer to build a Mk1 Golf in todays world, they would laugh at me?, probably wouldn't meet any of the regulations, but if they took that principle and just fixed what was necessary would you get a decent drivers car?.

One other thing though, IS a Drivers car much more mechanical than all this electronically driven stuff we drive these days?.

TiG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiG

So was the MK1 golf miles lighter than current cars (rhetorical)

---

yes....muchos

actually, appart from abs the mk1 would be sellable new - hense how katarams/morgans get thru..

rwd is imo essential for over 150bhp, well that or 4wd. otherwise you spend your time trying not to ruin your front tyres pulling away from lights

zak - interesting point with leccy windows - are you sure they actually weigh any more than a manual setup? i mean the lectrics could surely be fitted into a lighter weight package than a winder etc..

my volvo's got horrible handleing - it'd loose to nearly everything on a modern twisty road, yet i believe i could argue its more of a drivers car - you can feel exactly what is going on, theres NO understeer EVER (hehe) and it feels like your going much quicker than you are (due to bodyroll), the only downside is that the steering could be more responsive, i believe the GLTs sorted that.. compare it to my dad's 440 - which was not really a drivers car i know - but has lots more power, and its on a more modern fwd chassis with minimal body roll - its faarrrr more fun to drive..

oh another thing, a long bonnet. theres something about seeing a bonnet stretch out in front of you when you drive along - my car does it but most modern cars - particularly higher fake mpv tat - fail dismally. trying to be too compact, long bonnets rule..

why oh why does everybody have to have rear wheel drive? You dont need it....its not essential.

OK with over 200 bhp....yeah....it works better....but even then.....with in excess of 300 it can be made to work....

I LOVE RWD....it makes me smile.....but then so does a 106 GTi :D

Electric windows dont weigh more......its the principle ;) besides, this "dream fun car" would have such ickle side windows its not important :)

Hey....lets talk wheels.

I'm all for small rims, maybe 15" max.....smaller if possible.

Lets get unsprung weight right down.....14" rims with sensible tyres (maybe 185 width)

Now we're talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5lab

oh another thing, a long bonnet. ..

---

True..but works best with RWD again....its a "sit on the rear axle " thing....you wanna feel every moment (I'm talking principle of moments as well as "moments" here) so when the rear axle moves sideways.....the front is still, and the sterring changes..and you're slung right out back.

But thats not FWD.....

Wanna know the finest fwd car of the 90's?

http://www.ferrario.com/exotic/lotus...ront_small.jpg

Elan :)

1.6 Turbo FWD.

Over 150bhp needs rwd my arse, just learn to feed the power in properly :lol:

/\ he knows...and so did John Cleland

but if car x is rwd and car y is fwd then car x can accelerate faster off a line.

If they both were the same car apart from 1 being FWD and the other being RWD the FWD car would win off the line due to transmission losses....

The RWD Cav GSi touring cars werent as good as the FWD ones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [GSV]Trig

Over 150bhp needs rwd my arse, just learn to feed the power in properly :lol:

---

Let's just say I know how to feed the power in eh? ;)

But its not about feeding the power in, its about avoiding torque steer.
Equal length drive shafts will go some way to this, But ultimatly you've got to look at adding an LSD to put the power down equally through both wheels, or you'll spin the lightest wheel (Same with RWD).
And theres the problem.

RWD the front wheels steer, the back puts the power down.
FWD the fronts are doing the lot - Heck you could lose a real wheel, as it's only purpose is to stop the ar$e scraping along the ground.

Add a diff to a FWD and suddenly you're fighting with steering rather than working with it. It's all a case of balance.

Mk1 golf was a hoot because it was light and therefore didn't need as much power - It left the factory with 110 bhp. It tipped the scales at around 910kg.

The 106 GTi - Again a hoot to drive, weighs under 1000kg - there's the key.

Look at the 205 GTi's - the 1.6 is the better drivers car - The 1.9's extra power make it much more of a handful on the road.

Hmm, I find my Clio weighing ~800kg with 157ish bhp is perfectly driveable. Doesn't scrabble off the line too much really. Just got to be sensible with the juice pedal - hence why I think a few more ponies won't hurt. :)

But getting back to drivers cars, there's little about these days and as you've all said it comes down to safety. People demand safe cars, and this does come at the cost of weight. :(

Saftely VS weight is a sobering subject for me. I know if I crash or get hit by something there's a very, very good chance I won't be walking away from it at best. I drive with a 6th sense, rarely take a real risk which often ends up with passengers being disappointed that I don't drive on the limit so much. Bit like a biker I guess.

the rwd to fwd "putting power down" is sortable.

But the VITAL ingredient is that...

A: you only pull away once per few miles, BUT you corner ever second of every journey.

B: To be able to adjust the cars attitude with the front wheels with both POWER and STEERING is a balance that most punters will find easier long term

C: to confidently drift a rwd car at anything over 30 mph is terrifying for 95% of the worlds drivers, and for that reason is WRONG....but I could teach most anyone to do it in a fwd car on a big roundabout with a dab of brake pedal

D: Sudden weight transfer is the reason RWD cars get up and go so damn quickly, but driver and suspension engineer between them can balance it on fwd to acceptable levels....and from the 3rd gear and up.....forget it. RWD has it all wrong. Lets PULL the car, not push it.


Less essential but most fun for 1 day per year:

E: I'd like to be able to drive my car in the snow...thanks very much if its all the same to you, without having 6 bags of coal in the boot, to try to increase my chances of getting up a hill of more than 1:10 :D ;)

summit lese exceptional to this thread...

no one mentions 4x4

it all goes back to TiG's first post. what IS a drivers car? for some people it will be car that revs forever and you could happily cruise down the motorway at 160 with thousands of revs to spare, steering would be simple and the car would be comfortable. for others, they wouldnt care about top speed, just how fast it goes off the lights, how fast you can corner and how little body roll could b e acheived.

as the famous quote go's

"you can please most people some of the time, some people most of the time, but never everyone"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5lab

but if car x is rwd and car y is fwd then car x can accelerate faster off a line.

---

prove it.

i can easily match any list of rwd cars with a fwd list of 0-60 - 0-100 times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

it all goes back to TiG's first post. what IS a drivers car? for some people it will be car that revs forever and you could happily cruise down the motorway at 160 with thousands of revs to spare, steering would be simple and the car would be comfortable. for others, they wouldnt care about top speed, just how fast it goes off the lights, how fast you can corner and how little body roll could b e acheived.

as the famous quote go's

"you can please most people some of the time, some people most of the time, but never everyone"

---

Indeed, think you've hit the nail on the head. A drivers car is a car that the driver feels at home in.

The FWD/RWD argument is something we could spend many thread debating. I've done both to the extreme - From the "dog against a lampost" FWD to the tail sliding looking out of the passenger window RWD. It boils down to what you feel more comfortable with.

Tail sliding in RWD is not the most efficient or fastest way to drive either - It's simply show boating :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiff Lemon

Tail sliding in RWD is not the most efficient or fastest way to drive either - It's simply show boating :)

---

Yeah but it looks great :D

Hence why I want a 200SX :p :D

I can't help but think "Clio172/182/Cup" etc when reading this thread.

It's FWD, It's "fairly" light, ok so the 172/182 have toys like ABS,leccy stuff etc but it seems to line up with the majority of comments here.

They are also a car that have tuning goodies abound, so if you're not happy with the "toned down" marketing approach, you can take it a little further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowe

Yeah but it looks great :D

Hence why I want a 200SX :p :D

---

:hugegrin:

should be getting my LSD fitted soon :)

then its time to fit some budget nankyangs and doooooooooorifto !! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CocoPops

I can't help but think "Clio172/182/Cup" etc when reading this thread.

It's FWD, It's "fairly" light, ok so the 172/182 have toys like ABS,leccy stuff etc but it seems to line up with the majority of comments here.

They are also a car that have tuning goodies abound, so if you're not happy with the "toned down" marketing approach, you can take it a little further.

---

But compare with the orginal.

Clio 16v - 137bhp
Clio williams - 150bhp

Now the Sporty clio needs the extra pony's cos it's having to drag more weight about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zak33

E: I'd like to be able to drive my car in the snow...thanks very much if its all the same to you, without having 6 bags of coal in the boot, to try to increase my chances of getting up a hill of more than 1:10 :D ;)

---

There's an easy solution to that problem: put the engine behind the driver:). Or, for even more traction, behind the rear axle; an approach favoured by one of the finest driver's cars ever:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4313/racingrapid.jpg

The Skoda Rapid:D

Rich :¬)

i mentioned 4wd

incidentally, my car was the only one (out of about 60 or 70) that made it out of a muddy field filled with students a couple of weeks ago. because its rwd and everything else was fwd. that and it was loaded with heavy kit, and the rear tyres were flat. hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

prove it.

i can easily match any list of rwd cars with a fwd list of 0-60 - 0-100 times

---

Ferrari 2004 f1 car proves you wrong straight off im afraid dude, the main reason being not that it ain;t possible to have a very quick fwd just that mid-engined rwd cars are the easier to make quicker while keeping decent handling, 4wd is imo the way forward for driving safely at the limit, ever seen russ swift in an evo? its perfectly recoverable from damn near anything he does with it, technology and 4wd makes that car what it is, a 300bhp, 4 door, fwd car wouldn't work nearly aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxville

Ferrari 2004 f1 car proves you wrong straight off im afraid dude, the main reason being not that it ain;t possible to have a very quick fwd just that mid-engined rwd cars are the easier to make quicker while keeping decent handling, 4wd is imo the way forward for driving safely at the limit, ever seen russ swift in an evo? its perfectly recoverable from damn near anything he does with it, technology and 4wd makes that car what it is, a 300bhp, 4 door, fwd car wouldn't work nearly aswell.

---

I disagree with most of that,F1 cars have about 850bhp which would be far too much for fwd,300-330bhp is about the limit for a very well sorted fwd

4wd is safer yes but not faster,take touring cars for instance,they have 300-330bhp and what cars are the fastest?fwd followed by rwd and then 4wd, and from personal experience i know that my fwd car with about 270bhp is as quick if not quicker than a 22b with 300bhp and wipes the floor with an s3 with similar power to mine.but having said that in the wet would be a very different story......

the 22b is heavier than your car though, nad as you said in the wet where traction is harder to come by it would be a different story. There is one fwd car i know that can match the power of the f1 car though, it can be done its just highly un-usable on british or indeed most roads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxville

Ferrari 2004 f1 car proves you wrong straight off im afraid dude, the main reason being not that it ain;t possible to have a very quick fwd just that mid-engined rwd cars are the easier to make quicker while keeping decent handling, 4wd is imo the way forward for driving safely at the limit, ever seen russ swift in an evo? its perfectly recoverable from damn near anything he does with it, technology and 4wd makes that car what it is, a 300bhp, 4 door, fwd car wouldn't work nearly aswell.

---

4wd IS amazing, and your right, it would does stick to the road even when itin the red. but my argument was, theres alot of FWD cars thatare faster and more fun to drive than most rwd cars.

and you cant use F! know :p unless i can find a V10 900break feather light fwd to tell you about :p

To go off at a slight tangent, when the skyline was first introduced to these shores, an MP started a campaign to have them banned. "Sucks ass!" I hear you cry, however, his reasoning behind it went like this:

With Blistering power, 4WD, active diffs and the electronic gismos the skyline came laden with, the car quite virtually take the laws of physics and hide the book; It could out-corner anything on the road and at silly speeds too. Thanks to the electronic gismos, it would take the most Noob of drivers and help them drive like a god.

However, reasoned our man, there is a point where physics will have to take over and all the gadjets in the world won't save your ass. At this point, it was likely that some small village would get wiped off the map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5lab

actually, appart from abs the mk1 would be sellable new - hense how katarams/morgans get thru..

---

Actually Caterhams go through SVA, not type approval, which means they don't have to conform to the safety rules like more mass produced cars.

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schrickvr6

4wd is safer yes but not faster,take touring cars for instance,they have 300-330bhp and what cars are the fastest?fwd followed by rwd and then 4wd,

---

They have different weight limits for different drive layouts. fwd are lightest, then rwd, then 4wd. When Audi fielded their quattros 10 years ago they wiped the floor with everyone until they were made heavier to compensate.

Rich :¬)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

They have different weight limits for different drive layouts. fwd are lightest, then rwd, then 4wd. When Audi fielded their quattros 10 years ago they wiped the floor with everyone until they were made heavier to compensate.

Rich :¬)

---

Damn right there Rich, My uncle sponsored a Formula vauxhall junior team in those days, so i was lucky enough to get into the pits for two race days with them, the best one being at silverstone being increadibly close the the touring cars in the pits.

Those where the days where touring cars was superb, talking 10 different manufacturers, with audi winning the lot with a superbly sorted a4 with 4wd. The only other thing was the bit of volvo 850 i got after one of them decided to wipe it out ;)

TiG

Sorted:). Racecars (and bikes) rule, every component on them reeks of quality engineering and manufacturing. I should have got on my knees and begged Prodrive for a job at the end of my work experience with them:(.

Rich :¬)

ah touring cars..... Everything was going peachy until Alfa turned up.....

You can't really compare FWD/RWD/4WD drive racecars as they don't really work with the same rule book as a road car.

racecars are not drivers cars anyways, a drivers car should have reasonably soft suspension so that drifts are easy to 'feel' and control, wheras a race car will have very stiff suspension which will result in a faster drive but more dificult to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5lab

racecars are not drivers cars anyways, a drivers car should have reasonably soft suspension so that drifts are easy to 'feel' and control, wheras a race car will have very stiff suspension which will result in a faster drive but more dificult to control.

---

Yeah? I find the soft suspension on most road cars is a menace, and makes it difficult to feel what the car is doing. It has a tendency to unload and make the car wobble about. A racecar will generally run the softest suspension setup it can without causing too much body roll or wallowing, softer suspension keeps the tyres in contact with the track better over bumps.

Rich :¬)

soft compared to a race car i meant, stiff for a road car is still well soft for a racecar..

Not necessarily, it depends how bumpy the track is. Anyway, I disagree; a race driver will go fastest if they're driving their car at the limit. If they can't feel where the limit is, then they'll either drive below it, or go beyond it and spin/crash. No feel= no win.

Rich :¬)

yeah but my point is that a racing driver is more skilled than a normal driver, so can feel the limit better. thus can cope with harder suspension which is less forgiving than slightly softer stuff..

whats the point in drivers cars for people who can't drive(very well)?

so they can enjoy driving. i doubt very much that anyone in here could handle a formula 1 car very well. a drivers car should imo be easy to control and forgiving, rather than something that is very quick but once you loose it youve had it

Hugely interesting read this thread. Some pennies of my own:

While I agree it could be difficult to define a drivers car I believe the way we term it here is not as simple as "I feel comfortable driving it". It's far beyond that and which wheels are driven is largely irrelevant.
A drivers car is one with which the driver can become 'one' with. The car is an extension of the driver, the driver of the car, the fact both exist is little matter as together they operate as a single entity.

What makes a drivers car?
Steering that gives the nth level of feedback without kick-back, finely honed suspension that reads the road and communicates through the seats ever nuiance of the surface and situation without crashing, banging and jarring the driver, throwing the car off course. The subtle balance between spring and damper rates makes all the difference between the car screaming at you and it subtly transmitting the vital information through the seat of your pants to your spine where you can react subconciously.
Massive wheels and rubber-band tyres are a waste on B-roads unless the stiffness and body-control of the structure helps to prevent tramlining and ridge-chasing.
Of course any drivers car must be able to transmit the drivers inputs back to the road faithfully, accurately and without corruption. Some cars feel detached and remote despite all the information they provide leading to a one-way conversation where the driver is left just dropping hints as to the direction and attitude of travel.

Zak mentions agility and indeed that is the key but crucially weight is less important than attaining that crucial balance. A 911 is north of 1.5tons these days but it is still agile.

My ingredients for a great drivers ROAD-car are:

• Delicately balanced spring & damper rates.
  Low-as-you-can-go centre-of-gravity (the lower, the heavier the car can be without sacrificing agility)
  Tyres with some sidewall.
  Delicately balanced steering, fast from lock-to-lock but not overly aggressive and unforgiving. (Hyperactive steering is hugely tiring when simply crusing badly surfaced A-roads)
  Super-stiff bodyshell to allow all the other components to work at their best.
  The 'right' seat and seating position for you as a driver to give you access to all the controls while being in full command of the vehicle.

There are bound to be others but I view these as basic elements without which a great road-car cannot be built. To top it off you need a innate understanding of how to achieve the aim. An Elise is a great car because it's low-weight could easily equal harsh-bouncy ride through firm suspension and yet the balance is right, the tub is rigid, the suspension is finely tuned to stick like a limpet and yet it's not going send you for back-surgery.
Read a magasine review of a TVR. Doesn't do well on the track and yet it's an awesome road car. Why? Softer rear suspension to cope with A and B-roads nasties and get the best traction on uneven surfaces.

There are massive lists of drivers cars that strike the balance better than the rest. Their weight, driven wheels, even engine location and type vary widely and just go to show that given the right ingredients and some decent know-how a real drivers car can be just about anything:

BMW M5 (F/R N/A + pick any version);
VW Corrado (F/F N/A or S/C);
Toyota MR2 MK1 (M/R N/A);
Honda NSX (M/R N/A);
Porsche 911 (R/R N/R or T);
Mitsubishi EVO VI (F/4 T);

P.s.
My own Civic is not a drivers car, not quite anyway. The engine character is spot-on, the grip and bump-absorbtion are great to the point where less-sorted cars are backing off through the bumpy twisties as I dissappear over the horizon.
However body control isn't great, 80k+ miles has softened her too much and the c-of-g is way to high so body roll is controlled but still a problem. I find myself setting her up for corners to counter the body-movement, waiting mid-corner for her to settle before panting the loud pedal where other cars have no need as they stay balanced and flat regardless of speed and corner angle.
I do love drive her though, she's a lovely mota :)

drivers car? one word...

Mazda. As in MX-5/Roadster. Perfect weigh/power/grip/steering balance, completely involving but predictable, drive one and BELIEVE!!!!!!!

Oh, and mine's for sale btw

;)