A true lightweight sportscar - Supasse V

Here's finally a new sportscar that actually is truly lightweight, the Supasse V, just recently announced by the vendor at the Tokyo motor show and going on sale in 2010.
It weighs roughly 850 kg and is powered by the Mazda 3 MPS engine with 265 HP. This should guarantee good performance and fun on the road. The price is supposed to be similar than the Lotus Exige, so below 90'000 USD. We'll give it a warm welcome despite the somewhat suboptimal design. And I am sure we can still do better, what about 800 kg and 300 HP? This should be possible, even with a small KERS module on board to add torque and lower fuel consumption. Try harder!

60 years of car testing history and stories - what a wealth of information

What a wealth of information, what great stories! I just received my copy of the "Chronik des Automobils". It basically is a collection of articles (or mostly pieces of them) from Auto Motor und Sport (German car magazine) since 1946 in six books, each covering 10 years. I love old car magazine articles. I have a collection of magazines covering now 30 years on my own. But having the best articles summarized in six books is absolutely fabulous. Examples?
In 1951 the Dyna Veritas had 32 HP, was 116 km/h fast and had to be fed with 7.4 liter per 100 km. The DKW Monza of 1958 was faster with 135 km/h, accelerated in 21.9 s from 0-100 km/h and could be driven with 10 liters per 100 km. Only 20 years later the Porsche Turbo 3.3 took 5.4 s to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h, reached 261 km/h, but took 23 liters from the gas station for every 100 km driven. And another 20 years later the BMW M5 was pretty much as fast as the Porsche 20 years earlier, but could seat 5 people and "only" drank 14.8 liters per 100 km. And in 1994 AMS tested the awesome McLaren F1 with 3.4 s for 0-100 km/, 370 km/h top speed and 18.6 liters fuel consumption for 100 km. People say the internet will replace magazines, newspapers and books. I believe there's a good argument having compilations like these six books in print.
For people interested, it's on amazon.de.

Challenging the tire dimensions found at today's cars - shouldn't we go back?

One thing that has changed a lot over the last years when you look at supercars are the tire dimensions. As an example I take the Ferrari 512 BB that featured a fat Michelin 215/70 VR 15 tire. Now compare it to the tires that are mounted to the rear wheels of a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, P305/35R20. What a difference. And even regular street cars today are equipped with these huge and "flat" tires! It's not even so clear whether this really helps the balance of the car that much. Certainly, if the tire doesn't "walk" that much then the driveability improves. But at the same time the comfort decreases and the wheels get heavier because you compensate air with aluminum. There's no return to more "normal" tire dimensions though as people think these wide wheels are cool. But we pay the price, be it in destroyed rims when parking to close or when we have to replace these wide wheels as they cost a fortune.
Now one additional thought: look at the formula one cars or other race cars. Do they have tires with similar dimensions as modern cars? No, they haven't. From a ratio width/height they actually look much more like the tires from the 512 BB, designed 25-30 years ago. Interesting, isn't it?

How about a little bit more creativity when engineering your next supercar?

Looking at the recent announcements of new supercars arriving (i.e. Ferrari 458, McLaren MP4 12C, etc.) I wonder whether their designers and engineers do not lack a bit of creativity. Of course they add power and improve handling and overall performance with each new car, but compared to what is happening in the compact and economy car segment, these are baby steps. Look at the Nissan Land Glider for example, isn't this impressive? I would really appreciate if Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati or Aston Martin would come up with a truly creative approach on how to combine performance, handling, usability and economy in a next generation supercar.

Are modern cars really better than what we had many years ago?

When you read test reports in car magazines it seems clear that every new car model is better than the car it replaces. The new Golf VI is much better than the V and of course much much better than the Golf I to IV. Same with sportscars. But is really everything better? Of course modern cars are safer, consume less gasoline (most of the time), offer more driving assistance and make using a car more convenient. But aren't there a couple of things that got worse, not better? Yes, there are!
Visibility is one of them. You barely can see out of a modern car these days, it seems. You even need park distance control systems to not damage your car. And it's much easier to damage your bumpers because they are painted and there's nothing to really protect THEM. Usability also got worse due to all the stuff they put into modern cars. But that's probably fair, giving all the convenience you get with it. But one more thing I think got worse - gear change precision. Many modern cars use complex mechanics to connect the transmission with the gear change lever while some cars we had in the past actually had the transmission between the seats and the lever directly operated the transmission. Look at the Alfa-Romeo Giulia or the Fastback Spider. I rarely have enjoyed so much precision changing gears. And now compare it with modern front wheel drive cars, especially when they are a bit more worn. What a difference. I am sure there are many many more things that actually haven't been improved over times. And yes, that's why some of us love to drive old cars ....

The Apline-Renault A110 1600S - a true lightweight car

The Alpine-Renault A110 1600S is one of the most famous rallye cars in history, winning the Monte-Carlo Rallye and the Rallye World Championship twice. The A110 was built between 1961 and 1976 and it is what I would call a truly light car.
The specification of the 1600 S reads:

Engine
Engine: Renault (R16), 1565 ccm, with 138 hp SAE (103 kW) gross (125 PS DIN (93 kW)) power output
Transmission
5-Speed Manual
Chassis/Body
Chassis: Steel backbone with fiberglass body panels

Dimensions and Weight
Weight: 620 kg
Length: 4.04 m
Width:1.50 m

The result is impressive. More than 210 km/h top speed (assuming the right gearing) and 0-100 km/h in less than 7 seconds.
Alpines were very successful in all kinds of events, including hillclimbs and slaloms, but also on the track. But most rememberable of course was their track record in rallyies. Rear wheel drive and an engine mounted in the back meant good traction and the low weight made it almost unbeatable in winter conditions.
Mine was an original Group 3 car with all the right bits and pieces. I probably shouldn't have sold it after all.
And, if you have read my blogpost on the Mazda MX5 Superlight, well, the Alpine A110 is what I would call a true lightweight car.

The Mazda MX 5 Superlight - lightweight?

Mazda has built a lightweight version of the MX5 to indicate how much sportscar is in each MX5. They took off the windscreen, lightened many bits and pieces and added quite a number of racing and tuning accessories. The result is the Mazda MX-5 Superlight version. It's a prototype, production isn't impossible though. The result: 980 kg, 0-100 km/h in less than 9 seconds and a truly open and sporty feel when you drive the car, I reckon. So far so good. I am disappointed though. What this experiment shows is that you can't take a modern car and make it REALLY light. 980 kg for a small simple car is still heavy. Let me compare it with some other small simple cars from the past, what about the Lotus Elite with less than 550 kg, Lotus Elan with roughly 650 kg, Austin-Healey Sprite Mark II with 696 kg, Fiat 850 Spider with 720 kg, Alfa-Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA with 845 kg, or even the more luxurious cars like the Fiat 124 Spider with 907 kg, Porsche 356 S90 with 920 kg or VW Porsche 914 with 940 kg? They all were lighter than the Superlight MX5. Now, of course modern safety regulations and crash tests impact the weight, but by that much? I strongly believe to be able to build a lightweight car you need to engineer and construct it to be one, not to take stuff away off from an existing (heavy) car. And the Mazda MX-5 Superlight version is a clear proof for this.

Picture of the week - Aston Martin DB3S

Old race cars with "patina" are some of the best objects to take pictures from. Here's an Aston Martin DB3S and it proudly shows the traces of many years of racing. It's so much better to look at a car like this than to watch over-restored race cars with barely any part having remained. This picture makes a great desktop background also ....

Would you put an engine in your living room?

Some people actually do buy car engines to exhibit them in there living room. Certainly they don't take modern engines to do this, but engines from classic cars as these engines have more to show.
The engine pictured here usually powers the Ferrari 308 GTB /GTS. It's an 8 cylinder engine with multiple carburetors. Yes, actually, it's quite nice to look at, but in all honesty, I prefer to have the engine in a car and listen to the sound it produces.

Confusion around Winter Tyres

Every year I wonder when to mount the Winter Tyres to my everyday car. There are confusing messages out there and even experts seem not to agree on all the aspects. Rarely when ever can you see full comparisons of capabilities of summer and winter tyres under different conditions. What I have seen so far would indicate the following:
(a) In dry conditions even at low temperatures summer tyres outperform winter tyres (i.e. breaking, acceleration), despite the softer compound of the winter tyres.
(b) in wet conditions there's a temperature threshold at around 7 to 10 degrees celsius where winter tyres become superior to summer tyres.
c) if it's snowing or frozen then winter tyres always win

So, that would tell me that if I never drive under wet or snow conditions I could stick with the summer tyres. As you can't predict the weather this is not really an option. But for all my cars that I only drive in dry and salt free conditions I can drive them during summer and winter without needing winter tyres. If anybody has something to add to this assessment, please don't hesitate as I am eager to learn.

20 years of Mazda MX-5 Miata - what an impressive track record!

A couple of days ago, Mazda celebrated the 20ies birthday of the Mazda MX-5 / Miata. When it was presented in 1989 it was an instant sensation. It was quite a good amalgam of Lotus Elan roots and 90ies car engineering practices. And it was a pretty simple car with almost no electronic gismo. First only available in the US and Japan it came 1990 to Switzerland. Mine was one of the first ones sold here, it was red with a black interior and I loved it a lot.
I can well remember the trips I did with it, chasing Alfa-Romeo Spiders, and being quicker thanks to the very efficient convertible top mechanism, giving me an edge when it started to rain.
When it appeared it was basically the only car of its kind, but later Fiat and other makes copied the concept. It was clearly a success, with roughly 900'000 cars built it is clearly more than the fashion of a summer. Mazda did a very good job in keeping the car updated, I especially like the latest versions while I wasn't too keen on the ones between the MK1 and the current cars.
The MX-5/Miata has all it takes to become a classic and it only takes another 10 years until the first examples turn into the "oldtimer" age. Today it's a "youngtimer" and it's a "classic" I could well imagine giving my son one of these as a present when he turns 18. I wonder whether my "own" MX-5 has survived ....
(more information for example on wikipedia)

Do we see a decrease in commonality in car control?

You may wonder what the aircraft picture to the left has to do with this car centric blog. Well, here's the point. When you are a civil aircraft pilot at an airline you are typically certified for one aircraft type, for example the B747 (Jumbo Jet). As knowing your aircraft is crucial for safety, the same pilot cannot fly a B747 on one day and let's say a B737 the next day. Because the pilot training and certification process is expensive and the aircraft type orientation reduces flexibility, aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus started to build "commonality" into their aircraft and created groups of aircraft where the same certification applies. So, the same pilot now can fly the Airbus A319, 320 and 321 without being retrained. And even the large A380 follows the same control principles and retraining can be substantially reduced. Aircraft type certification is supposed to make flying more safe because if there's an incident then the pilot knows exactly what to do and doesn't have to think about how a certain procedure works in the specific airplane he is currently steering.
Over 100 years of car manufacturing the commonality between different cars has greatly increased. While some cars had the throttle pedal in the middle in the past, some on the right, today you can take it for granted that the throttle pedal sits on the right, the brake pedal in the middle and the clutch pedal, if there's one, on the left. That's good, as it makes traffic a lot safer. Few people also may remember that Peugeots had the indicator switch on the right side of the steering wheel (LHD car) in the 70ies (and 80ies?) while most other cars had it on the left side. The knob to turn on the lights usually is on the left side of the steering wheel (LHD) for most cars and heating and air control sits in the center console. And the handbrake sits in the middle of the car in the center console usually. At least that was the case in the 80ies and 90ies. There were some exceptions of course, as for example the Porsche had the ignition key on the left side of the steering wheel (LHD) and Saab had it in the center console behind the gear lever. Mercedes didn't use a "handbrake" but rather a foot operated version. But mostly you wouldn't have to read a manual to operate somebody else's car. Now, lately things have changed. Electronic handbrakes, starter buttons and controls in the steering wheel have reduced commonality between different car makes in my eyes. Some of these differences do not affect safety, but some do. It's a step into the wrong direction. Usability has something to do with learning transfer. The smaller the difference to what people are used to the better the usability.

Honda NSX - did Honda succeed in building a supercar?

When Honda introduced the NSX in 1989/1991 this was their first attempt to compete with the performance car and supercar league. Direct competitors were the Ferrari 348 and the Porsche 911 (964). From a pricepoint it probably was in between these rivals. The NSX had an all-alluminium chassis, suspension and body. The engine was a 3.0 liter V6 VTEC, delivering roughly 270 HP. What Honda tried to achieve was to find the perfect compromise between usability, driveability and performance. So they even had to change the design to fit a bigger boot (on the cost of the design/shape) and to allow so for more luggage space. Compared to other supercars it was quite easy to enter the car and the interior was quite spacious. The performance was comparable to the NSX peers, but to drive fast the engine needed to be revved. The handling was very good for a mid-engined car, also thanks to the contributions of Ayrton Senna. The car was built for durability, maintenance costs were low compared to its competitors. So, basically what had been produced was a supercar with the low maintenance characteristics of a Honda Civic - well almost at least. The interior was a bit "plush" and instruments and dashboard maybe were not really up to the standard. But it clearly was a good car. Honda sold about 18'000 of them and they also made some appearances in racing, for example in the 24 hours race on the Nurburgring. It could have been even more successful if the economical conditions at the time of the launch would have been better.
I actually owned two NSX, a black and a red one, both built 1991. The black wasn't as good as I had hoped, but this was more because of the specific vehicle than the car as such. The second one proved to be very good, but finally I sold it because better and more beautiful cars came along. But I still consider this car as one of the best 90ies compromises between convenience and performance.

Why on earth would you need more than one car?

Modern cars are more versatile than ever. With an Audi RS 6 Avant you buy performance, space and usability. The engine comes from the Lamborghini Gallardo and therefore the performance is almost in the supercar league. And as it's still a station wagon you can transport a family with luggage and pull a trailer. Or if you need more air, why not buy a Volkswagen EOS that offers a good compromise between a solid convertible top, four seats and a trunk big enough to bring the luggage of all the passengers? Again performance is sufficient if you pick the right engine. So, all your needs are fulfilled, why owning a second car?
Well, at least for myself, driving different cars is more than just fulfilling different needs. Cars do have a personality of some sort. A Mercedes SL breathes German perfection, an English roadster like a TVR transports British tradition and is admirable just because it's not perfect at all. And so on. Different cars for different moods and different experiences. That's what it's all about. Modern cars can be quite versatile but they have to be a compromise and will never be able to give the final experience. The engine from the RS6 may be the one from the Gallardo, but the car still feels like an Audi and misses all the Italian extra points.
By the way, the two pictures were created with BeFunky.com, quite an entertaining site to convert pictures to canvas or comicbook like illustrations. Try it yourself!

Picture of the week - Aston Martin DB 7

There are cars that are bought because they are fast, show unmatched performance or are just well engineered. And there are cars that are being bought purely for the sake of their design. One of the latter group was the Aston Martin DB7. It was a really gorgeous car and so much nicer to look at then its predecessors. It looked good from every angle and the details, such as the air intake on the side (see picture) were beautifully crafted. Technically it wasn't that exciting with its Jaguar based chassis/floor unit and the compressor supported Jaguar V6 that sounded more like a tram than a car. It wasn't even that great to drive, especially if you are more than 1.8 m tall. But to have one standing in your driveway made you feel really good. The car was improved over its long life by adding the V12 and improving many parts, the design gladly was left pretty much untouched.