View Poll Results: what do you think?
really clean, nice looking Vette....
174
31.46%
a very different Vette but we'll sure as hell take it.
165
29.84%
i'll be ordering one soon.......
98
17.72%
No thank you
116
20.98%
Voters: 553. You may not vote on this poll
Thoughts on the new corvette?
07-31-2019, 07:38 PM
#2041
Rennlist Member
To the extent that one has to wonder if the solution might not be found at a pharmacy rather than at a car dealership.
Yes, because suspension damping, chassis resonant frequency and Q factors, which is what you actually feel when you drive a car, just make people's eyes glaze over.
There’s a reason car manufacturers use torsional rigidity as the sole barometer to tout their cars material construction and solidity, but also largely safety.
The following users liked this post:
bertram928 (07-31-2019)
08-01-2019, 12:12 AM
#2042
Originally Posted by timlot
That angle makes it appear misaligned, but the stitching continues around the edge. That looks to be clip from Donut Media. If you look around the 7:45 mark you can see its a straight continuation. Slowing the video down helps.
https://youtu.be/U-JiQZPiIXU?t=465
https://youtu.be/U-JiQZPiIXU?t=465
Check the fit on this cup holder door
Even with these details I'm still considering one. Although I need to carefully think about how much these details will bother me.
Lastly - in fairness "pre-production" hopefully they are working out these bugs
08-01-2019, 08:18 AM
#2046
We are starting to figure out where your extra 40k goes when you buy a 718
https://youtu.be/vSa6k_YO_SU
Check the fit on this cup holder door
Attachment 1306999
Even with these details I'm still considering one. Although I need to carefully think about how much these details will bother me.
Lastly - in fairness "pre-production" hopefully they are working out these bugs
https://youtu.be/vSa6k_YO_SU
Check the fit on this cup holder door
Attachment 1306999
Even with these details I'm still considering one. Although I need to carefully think about how much these details will bother me.
Lastly - in fairness "pre-production" hopefully they are working out these bugs
I'm enjoying watching this so much....
The following users liked this post:
porschedood5000 (08-01-2019)
08-01-2019, 08:21 AM
#2047
Race Director
Originally Posted by timlot
https://www.motor1.com/news/362837/c...owerful-audio/
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-ne...-ar186087.html
https://carbuzz.com/news/can-the-c8-...che-911-buyers
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...ngine-opinion/
In other news ....
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...a-photos-info/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...e-911-carrera/
Last edited by STG; 08-01-2019 at 08:48 AM.
08-01-2019, 09:22 AM
#2048
To the extent that one has to wonder if the solution might not be found at a pharmacy rather than at a car dealership.
Yes, because suspension damping, chassis resonant frequency and Q factors, which is what you actually feel when you drive a car, just make people's eyes glaze over.
Yes, because suspension damping, chassis resonant frequency and Q factors, which is what you actually feel when you drive a car, just make people's eyes glaze over.
But sure, guy on internet makes statement undermining why car manufacturers use torsional rigidity figures to tout the material and construction advancements of their cars so he can feel better about assuming C8 arrives at said price point due to pixie dust and not underlying compromises GM is famous for. Makes more sense.
Or maybe a tracked car whose meager 15K torsional rigidity loosened up some of those chassis bolts.
There is no saber rattling for brands going on in here. It's just one guy that irrationally hates a brand. If you go through this thread, that same guy threw out many, many reasons to hate the new C8, but each reason was soundly batted down. Then he latched on to the one thing no one could argue, torsional rigidity.
Even after multiple people showed stats of other comparable cars that are CURRENTLY being sold having lower torsional figures (including current porsches), those points were ignored. If you really look, its pages and pages of the same stuff. And that is a shame.
I have learned a lot from this thread, there were multiple people giving input, advice, and opinions that were useful. But I'm not sure the conversation has progressed much since "torsional rigidity". And that's a shame too.
This quote is all you need to know about what he is trying to do. And this quote was from pages ago.
To wake up the next morning and see pages and pages about the same thing, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. What's the point? You don't like the car, move on, its not for you. But for some reason people think they have an ax to grind because of bailouts, or bad recalls, or whatever goes on in their head.
I'm glad to see many people here understand that it is not about brand loyalty. Its about celebrating a car that probably shouldn't exist, giving us more option in the marketplace, and may ripple out to other manufacturers to bring us better cars and better priced options as well.
And don't forget, this argument is over a BASE car. We have no idea what the track focused, or ultra high performance options will give us. In the end this argument seems ridiculous.
Don't feed the troll.
Even after multiple people showed stats of other comparable cars that are CURRENTLY being sold having lower torsional figures (including current porsches), those points were ignored. If you really look, its pages and pages of the same stuff. And that is a shame.
I have learned a lot from this thread, there were multiple people giving input, advice, and opinions that were useful. But I'm not sure the conversation has progressed much since "torsional rigidity". And that's a shame too.
This quote is all you need to know about what he is trying to do. And this quote was from pages ago.
To wake up the next morning and see pages and pages about the same thing, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. What's the point? You don't like the car, move on, its not for you. But for some reason people think they have an ax to grind because of bailouts, or bad recalls, or whatever goes on in their head.
I'm glad to see many people here understand that it is not about brand loyalty. Its about celebrating a car that probably shouldn't exist, giving us more option in the marketplace, and may ripple out to other manufacturers to bring us better cars and better priced options as well.
And don't forget, this argument is over a BASE car. We have no idea what the track focused, or ultra high performance options will give us. In the end this argument seems ridiculous.
Don't feed the troll.
And yeah, I helped pay for "Government Motors" bailout, for one, I can criticize as I please. And 2: In your quest to absolve GM of all wrongdoing to paint the C8 with a pristine brush, you think the ignition fiasco which claimed 130 lives is "a long time ago?" Really? A few years ago is a "long time ago?" It's the same company today as it was then. Except that they got caught therefore barely restructured at a few exec positions. Same players still playing. The entire executive team who had any knowledge of that (many of them) should be in prison. Consider that an "agenda" by me, sure, it's an "agenda," to hold people accountable. Apologies if that rains on a fanboy parade.
I'm a car enthusiast, but even if I bought the Vette, I won't treat 130 people dead due to their purposeful negligence as a gloss-over because I want to feel warm and fuzzy about my purchase. That's a massive tell as to what kind of company they are, and what they do and don't prioritize.
And if the C8 proves to be a great car, I'll probably still get one. I just prefer not to believe everything a corporation tells me and will call them on their sh.
I'm not re-writing anything. Physical reality is what it is whatever you think. If a car's first mode is >10x over its sprung mass natural frequency, it is more than "stiff enough" for performance considerations. As for strength...
Torsional stiffness is NOT a figure to determine how *strong* or how "well-built" a chassis is.
Strength is NOT stiffness, and neither is "build quality". You can build a very stiff car that will start to rattle and fall apart and fail catastrophically under lowish crash loads.
No they do not. Show me where they do.
Safety is not deterlmined by chassis torsional stiffness measurement. Having deformable structures is critical to occupant safety. Chassis torsional stiffness is (correctly) measured at suspension mounts, while stiffness of the passenger compartment is what is related to safety. And for safety, infinitely stiff isn't necessarily "better" anyway. It's going to be a huge compromise between absorbing as much of the impact as possible while keeping occupant accelerations low while also trying to protect against higher-energy impacts.
Of course it has compromises! Every car design does. Compromises to every aspect of design. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including your favorite car ever. Setting and meeting *appropriate* requirements while balancing all the inherent compromises is the art of design. Some do this better than others. And for sure different approaches to these compromises are appreciated by different people.
FWIW I don't "want to feel good" about the C8. I do want it to be a good design and to succeed, but I'll likely never own one for a number of reasons.
Indeed they have a VERY long way to go to get to the ideal of *infinitely stiff*. Compared to this ideal, 15,000 n-m/deg and 40,000 n-m/deg are equally far away...
In designing and analyzing road vehicles, I set a goal of a 1st mode of 10x the suspension frequencies to ensure good handling characteristics over the extremes of usage profiles. Maximum allowable stresses under a variety of static and dynamic load cases = whole 'nother set of requirements. Progressive failure modes for vehicle and passenger survivability, another set of requirements. Designing attachments of secondary non-structural parts to ensure durability yet another aspect of design and requirements. And of course the whole thing has to be validated for multiple vehicle lifetimes with test rig and durability-course testing.
Yeah, chassis stiffness is important, but it's only a part of the whole puzzle.
IMO, greater than 10x suspension frequency for 1st mode is fine but not strictly necessary. The C5 achieved 23 Hz at 9100 N-m/deg. Fine IMO for stock suspension and stiffer street/track springs but probably not enough for a serious race or track car. For reference, most "serious" sports cars will have suspension frequencies of 1.5 Hz and greater. For me, 2 Hz is a good street/track compromise...
Once more, that's a different thing. Durability is NOT the same as stiffness either. *IF* a car loses stiffness over time, that's bad of course, but you haven't shown evidence of this anyway. AND starting out stiffer does NOT mean you won't lose stiffness or structural integrity faster.
Yet another issue is non-structural parts coming loose and rattling around, which is of course annoying but not as serious. Again, this can happen whether the torsional rigidity is low or high. I don't have direct evidence of this but I woudn't be surprised at all if a C5 or C6 Corvette vs. a much less stiff same-year S2000 developed more rattles than the Honda over a 240k mile lifetime.
But I would be surprised if the C6 Z06/ZR1 or C7 aluminum primary structures lost any significant stiffness over 99th percentile usage over 200k miles.
One of the reasons aluminum structures don't give as much weight savings as you might think is that aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit. That means that however low the applied cyclic stresses are, eventually the material will begin to crack, and then it's just a matter of time until failure. So they have to be designed a bit on the beefy side. If C6 and C7 aluminum frames had any issues in this regard we would know about it by now.
Torsional stiffness is NOT a figure to determine how *strong* or how "well-built" a chassis is.
Strength is NOT stiffness, and neither is "build quality". You can build a very stiff car that will start to rattle and fall apart and fail catastrophically under lowish crash loads.
No they do not. Show me where they do.
Safety is not deterlmined by chassis torsional stiffness measurement. Having deformable structures is critical to occupant safety. Chassis torsional stiffness is (correctly) measured at suspension mounts, while stiffness of the passenger compartment is what is related to safety. And for safety, infinitely stiff isn't necessarily "better" anyway. It's going to be a huge compromise between absorbing as much of the impact as possible while keeping occupant accelerations low while also trying to protect against higher-energy impacts.
Of course it has compromises! Every car design does. Compromises to every aspect of design. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including your favorite car ever. Setting and meeting *appropriate* requirements while balancing all the inherent compromises is the art of design. Some do this better than others. And for sure different approaches to these compromises are appreciated by different people.
FWIW I don't "want to feel good" about the C8. I do want it to be a good design and to succeed, but I'll likely never own one for a number of reasons.
Indeed they have a VERY long way to go to get to the ideal of *infinitely stiff*. Compared to this ideal, 15,000 n-m/deg and 40,000 n-m/deg are equally far away...
In designing and analyzing road vehicles, I set a goal of a 1st mode of 10x the suspension frequencies to ensure good handling characteristics over the extremes of usage profiles. Maximum allowable stresses under a variety of static and dynamic load cases = whole 'nother set of requirements. Progressive failure modes for vehicle and passenger survivability, another set of requirements. Designing attachments of secondary non-structural parts to ensure durability yet another aspect of design and requirements. And of course the whole thing has to be validated for multiple vehicle lifetimes with test rig and durability-course testing.
Yeah, chassis stiffness is important, but it's only a part of the whole puzzle.
IMO, greater than 10x suspension frequency for 1st mode is fine but not strictly necessary. The C5 achieved 23 Hz at 9100 N-m/deg. Fine IMO for stock suspension and stiffer street/track springs but probably not enough for a serious race or track car. For reference, most "serious" sports cars will have suspension frequencies of 1.5 Hz and greater. For me, 2 Hz is a good street/track compromise...
Once more, that's a different thing. Durability is NOT the same as stiffness either. *IF* a car loses stiffness over time, that's bad of course, but you haven't shown evidence of this anyway. AND starting out stiffer does NOT mean you won't lose stiffness or structural integrity faster.
Yet another issue is non-structural parts coming loose and rattling around, which is of course annoying but not as serious. Again, this can happen whether the torsional rigidity is low or high. I don't have direct evidence of this but I woudn't be surprised at all if a C5 or C6 Corvette vs. a much less stiff same-year S2000 developed more rattles than the Honda over a 240k mile lifetime.
But I would be surprised if the C6 Z06/ZR1 or C7 aluminum primary structures lost any significant stiffness over 99th percentile usage over 200k miles.
One of the reasons aluminum structures don't give as much weight savings as you might think is that aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit. That means that however low the applied cyclic stresses are, eventually the material will begin to crack, and then it's just a matter of time until failure. So they have to be designed a bit on the beefy side. If C6 and C7 aluminum frames had any issues in this regard we would know about it by now.
Again, automakers themselves use torsional rigidity to tout the overall stiffness of their cars. Nobody is saying torsional rigidity is the end all be all. A car can have a weak door beam, a pillar, etc. which by themselves can deform prematurely. But as a total "gauge," torsional rigidity is the touted figure, for a reason. If you gave me the option for two identical cars and said "one has a 40K rigidity figure, the other has a 15K rigidity figure, we're going to roll the car over with you in it, pick one." Which would you pick? If you say the 15K version, you'd be lying. I simply prefer to have as many bases covered.
Take it from Koenigsegg themselves, who, with all due respect, has more engineering cred than any fellow forum mates:
"The Koenigsegg carbonfibre tub chassis has 65,000 Nm per degree of torsional rigidity, more than any other vehicle in the world, current or past, which is astonishing as the car also is a roadster, with a detachable and stowable roof panel. What does such a measurement mean in the real world?
In simple terms, it means that the car is very, very resistant to twisting or flexing when under pressure (e.g. at 2g’s in a corner).
A stiff chassis allows for softer suspension and a more comfortable ride compared to a less stiff chassis. It gives you greater control because the suspension doesn’t have to be tuned to compensate for chassis flex. With a stiffer chassis, our suspension engineers can focus more on vehicle dynamics, controlling the ride and response of the car, and less on compensating for relatively poor chassis resonance."
https://www.koenigsegg.com/innovations/
I said:
Originally Posted by ZDan
YES, they're both *directly comparable* as targas! So what's with the deference to the Bugatti as being a "vert", all caps proclaiming the C8 is *not* a "vert", strongly suggesting that Bugatti OK and C8 garbage, then followed by parenthetically admitting it is indeed an apples-to-apples, targa-to-targa comparison?
It boggles the mind the mental and verbal gymnastics you'll do to validate expensive more "exotic" cars while putting down the Corvette....
And it's considerably heavier and more than 2x more powerful... Anyway its less stiff than my 3050 lb. 265hp Cayman. Does that mean it isn't *nearly* stiff enough, or does it mean that my Cayman is *way* stiffer than it needs to be? Something for you to ponder...
Originally Posted by ZDan
YES, they're both *directly comparable* as targas! So what's with the deference to the Bugatti as being a "vert", all caps proclaiming the C8 is *not* a "vert", strongly suggesting that Bugatti OK and C8 garbage, then followed by parenthetically admitting it is indeed an apples-to-apples, targa-to-targa comparison?
It boggles the mind the mental and verbal gymnastics you'll do to validate expensive more "exotic" cars while putting down the Corvette....
And it's considerably heavier and more than 2x more powerful... Anyway its less stiff than my 3050 lb. 265hp Cayman. Does that mean it isn't *nearly* stiff enough, or does it mean that my Cayman is *way* stiffer than it needs to be? Something for you to ponder...
I cant take you serious anymore. You clearly said at no time has a Vette ever beaten a 911's peak track time. I clearly showed you quite a few times in the very recent past where the Vette had indeed beaten the top dog 911's. Then you use "right now in this reality moment, the 911 is faster." statement to justify your false statement as a fact.
So the past few decades where the Vette was faster than top dog Porsches is not this reality? Lol. Your statement that a Vette has never had better peak track numbers over any top dog 911, is patently false in every way. Why cant you see that? There is no moving of the goal posts to acknowledge that. It did happen. It is reality. Your statement is not grounded in reality. They way you tout torsional rigidity as making P-cars vastly superior track cars than Vettes is rendered moot by history's results. Not attacking you but it seems like you are terminally close-minded on this topic. Is this for trolling or are you dead serious lolol...I can't believe you are seriously using these arguments thinking it supports your opinion..Anyway you are keeping this thread going hehe so mission accomplished if that is the goal.
So the past few decades where the Vette was faster than top dog Porsches is not this reality? Lol. Your statement that a Vette has never had better peak track numbers over any top dog 911, is patently false in every way. Why cant you see that? There is no moving of the goal posts to acknowledge that. It did happen. It is reality. Your statement is not grounded in reality. They way you tout torsional rigidity as making P-cars vastly superior track cars than Vettes is rendered moot by history's results. Not attacking you but it seems like you are terminally close-minded on this topic. Is this for trolling or are you dead serious lolol...I can't believe you are seriously using these arguments thinking it supports your opinion..Anyway you are keeping this thread going hehe so mission accomplished if that is the goal.
Find me a stock Vette that puts up better track times than a GT2 RS. I'm not talking about 2 years ago, or at a track my aunt saw her friends husband drive on, or next year, I'm talking about today. That's my simple point.
You're welcome. It'll help if I buy one, while at the same time cutting through the initial circle jerk where GM's historically paltry Vette rigidity figures were conveniently glossed over.
08-01-2019, 09:36 AM
#2049
Nah. Being assured I'm getting a state of the art chassis is simply something that factors into 100% of the time I'm behind the wheel of a car.
But sure, guy on internet makes statement undermining why car manufacturers use torsional rigidity figures to tout the material and construction advancements of their cars so he can feel better about assuming C8 arrives at said price point due to pixie dust and not underlying compromises GM is famous for. Makes more sense.
Oh, but how can this be! Must be a modified pic by Porsche to sabotage C8 pixie dust. GM famous for misaligned panels were reborn at the time the C8 was designed!
Or maybe a tracked car whose meager 15K torsional rigidity loosened up some of those chassis bolts.
Funny. When I entered this thread, seemed to be a sausage fest of a few guys irrationally hating Porsche. Which is humorous for me to say as I've been trashing Porsche's new 911's for the better part of 2 years now. I'm simply a realist. Those same people clearly have a problem accepting the C8 is only available with a substandard torsional rigidity figure. And choose to forget GM's history of weak structures and safety/build quality compromises that often went as far as being life threatening. Some people like to connect dots. Some choose not to. "Ignorance is bliss."
And yeah, I helped pay for "Government Motors" bailout, for one, I can criticize as I please. And 2: In your quest to absolve GM of all wrongdoing to paint the C8 with a pristine brush, you think the ignition fiasco which claimed 130 lives is "a long time ago?" Really? A few years ago is a "long time ago?" It's the same company today as it was then. Except that they got caught therefore barely restructured at a few exec positions. Same players still playing. The entire executive team who had any knowledge of that (many of them) should be in prison. Consider that an "agenda" by me, sure, it's an "agenda," to hold people accountable. Apologies if that rains on a fanboy parade.
I'm a car enthusiast, but even if I bought the Vette, I won't treat 130 people dead due to their purposeful negligence as a gloss-over because I want to feel warm and fuzzy about my purchase. That's a massive tell as to what kind of company they are, and what they do and don't prioritize.
And if the C8 proves to be a great car, I'll probably still get one. I just prefer not to believe everything a corporation tells me and will call them on their sh.
15K and 40K are *equally* far away? Really? This is how you're putting the C8's rigidity figure into a comfortable box in your mind? No, 15K and 40K aren't "equally" far away from the magical ideal number. 40K is vastly superior than 15K. This isn't an opinion, it's literally almost 3 times stiffer.
Again, automakers themselves use torsional rigidity to tout the overall stiffness of their cars. Nobody is saying torsional rigidity is the end all be all. A car can have a weak door beam, a pillar, etc. which by themselves can deform prematurely. But as a total "gauge," torsional rigidity is the touted figure, for a reason. If you gave me the option for two identical cars and said "one has a 40K rigidity figure, the other has a 15K rigidity figure, we're going to roll the car over with you in it, pick one." Which would you pick? If you say the 15K version, you'd be lying. I simply prefer to have as many bases covered.
Take it from Koenigsegg themselves, who, with all due respect, has more engineering cred than any fellow forum mates:
"The Koenigsegg carbonfibre tub chassis has 65,000 Nm per degree of torsional rigidity, more than any other vehicle in the world, current or past, which is astonishing as the car also is a roadster, with a detachable and stowable roof panel. What does such a measurement mean in the real world?
In simple terms, it means that the car is very, very resistant to twisting or flexing when under pressure (e.g. at 2g’s in a corner).
A stiff chassis allows for softer suspension and a more comfortable ride compared to a less stiff chassis. It gives you greater control because the suspension doesn’t have to be tuned to compensate for chassis flex. With a stiffer chassis, our suspension engineers can focus more on vehicle dynamics, controlling the ride and response of the car, and less on compensating for relatively poor chassis resonance."
https://www.koenigsegg.com/innovations/
I wouldn't want a Bugatti Targa for the same reason I never buy convertible: Soft structure compared to the coupes. I think 22,000 is substandard for a Bugatti. But it's still 50% stiffer than a Vette.
Is there a reading comprehension divide we're experiencing? I never said "no Vette has beaten a 911." I said TODAY, which is the only day that matters, there isn't a production Corvette that is faster than the fastest production 911. I don't even care about track times, but the subject was brought up. If the C8 invigorates me more than a 992 (probably not hard with the muted 9A2 turbo) then that's a factor I'd find more important in the real world.
Find me a stock Vette that puts up better track times than a GT2 RS. I'm not talking about 2 years ago, or at a track my aunt saw her friends husband drive on, or next year, I'm talking about today. That's my simple point.
You're welcome. It'll help if I buy one, while at the same time cutting through the initial circle jerk where GM's historically paltry Vette rigidity figures were conveniently glossed over.
But sure, guy on internet makes statement undermining why car manufacturers use torsional rigidity figures to tout the material and construction advancements of their cars so he can feel better about assuming C8 arrives at said price point due to pixie dust and not underlying compromises GM is famous for. Makes more sense.
Oh, but how can this be! Must be a modified pic by Porsche to sabotage C8 pixie dust. GM famous for misaligned panels were reborn at the time the C8 was designed!
Or maybe a tracked car whose meager 15K torsional rigidity loosened up some of those chassis bolts.
Funny. When I entered this thread, seemed to be a sausage fest of a few guys irrationally hating Porsche. Which is humorous for me to say as I've been trashing Porsche's new 911's for the better part of 2 years now. I'm simply a realist. Those same people clearly have a problem accepting the C8 is only available with a substandard torsional rigidity figure. And choose to forget GM's history of weak structures and safety/build quality compromises that often went as far as being life threatening. Some people like to connect dots. Some choose not to. "Ignorance is bliss."
And yeah, I helped pay for "Government Motors" bailout, for one, I can criticize as I please. And 2: In your quest to absolve GM of all wrongdoing to paint the C8 with a pristine brush, you think the ignition fiasco which claimed 130 lives is "a long time ago?" Really? A few years ago is a "long time ago?" It's the same company today as it was then. Except that they got caught therefore barely restructured at a few exec positions. Same players still playing. The entire executive team who had any knowledge of that (many of them) should be in prison. Consider that an "agenda" by me, sure, it's an "agenda," to hold people accountable. Apologies if that rains on a fanboy parade.
I'm a car enthusiast, but even if I bought the Vette, I won't treat 130 people dead due to their purposeful negligence as a gloss-over because I want to feel warm and fuzzy about my purchase. That's a massive tell as to what kind of company they are, and what they do and don't prioritize.
And if the C8 proves to be a great car, I'll probably still get one. I just prefer not to believe everything a corporation tells me and will call them on their sh.
15K and 40K are *equally* far away? Really? This is how you're putting the C8's rigidity figure into a comfortable box in your mind? No, 15K and 40K aren't "equally" far away from the magical ideal number. 40K is vastly superior than 15K. This isn't an opinion, it's literally almost 3 times stiffer.
Again, automakers themselves use torsional rigidity to tout the overall stiffness of their cars. Nobody is saying torsional rigidity is the end all be all. A car can have a weak door beam, a pillar, etc. which by themselves can deform prematurely. But as a total "gauge," torsional rigidity is the touted figure, for a reason. If you gave me the option for two identical cars and said "one has a 40K rigidity figure, the other has a 15K rigidity figure, we're going to roll the car over with you in it, pick one." Which would you pick? If you say the 15K version, you'd be lying. I simply prefer to have as many bases covered.
Take it from Koenigsegg themselves, who, with all due respect, has more engineering cred than any fellow forum mates:
"The Koenigsegg carbonfibre tub chassis has 65,000 Nm per degree of torsional rigidity, more than any other vehicle in the world, current or past, which is astonishing as the car also is a roadster, with a detachable and stowable roof panel. What does such a measurement mean in the real world?
In simple terms, it means that the car is very, very resistant to twisting or flexing when under pressure (e.g. at 2g’s in a corner).
A stiff chassis allows for softer suspension and a more comfortable ride compared to a less stiff chassis. It gives you greater control because the suspension doesn’t have to be tuned to compensate for chassis flex. With a stiffer chassis, our suspension engineers can focus more on vehicle dynamics, controlling the ride and response of the car, and less on compensating for relatively poor chassis resonance."
https://www.koenigsegg.com/innovations/
I wouldn't want a Bugatti Targa for the same reason I never buy convertible: Soft structure compared to the coupes. I think 22,000 is substandard for a Bugatti. But it's still 50% stiffer than a Vette.
Is there a reading comprehension divide we're experiencing? I never said "no Vette has beaten a 911." I said TODAY, which is the only day that matters, there isn't a production Corvette that is faster than the fastest production 911. I don't even care about track times, but the subject was brought up. If the C8 invigorates me more than a 992 (probably not hard with the muted 9A2 turbo) then that's a factor I'd find more important in the real world.
Find me a stock Vette that puts up better track times than a GT2 RS. I'm not talking about 2 years ago, or at a track my aunt saw her friends husband drive on, or next year, I'm talking about today. That's my simple point.
You're welcome. It'll help if I buy one, while at the same time cutting through the initial circle jerk where GM's historically paltry Vette rigidity figures were conveniently glossed over.
Yea but look at this carpet thread , down here ! You see it ! THAT is why I give the Germans my money !
Oh how the worm turns..when pretentious
The following users liked this post:
SoCal-NSX (08-01-2019)
The following users liked this post:
Craigy (08-05-2019)
08-01-2019, 09:39 AM
#2051
We get it, the C8 is not rigid enough. Can you talk about something else now instead of beating the same dead horse?
looking at the ordering guide it looks like a 2LT with Z51 gets you all of the features that matter right? Or a stripper build with 1LT, Z51, and competition buckets.
looking at the ordering guide it looks like a 2LT with Z51 gets you all of the features that matter right? Or a stripper build with 1LT, Z51, and competition buckets.
The following 3 users liked this post by STG:
08-01-2019, 09:54 AM
#2053
Instructor
Me: Indeed they have a VERY long way to go to get to the ideal of *infinitely stiff*. Compared to this ideal, 15,000 n-m/deg and 40,000 n-m/deg are equally far away...
The point, it would seem, has eluded you...
15K and 40K are *equally* far away? Really? This is how you're putting the C8's rigidity figure into a comfortable box in your mind? No, 15K and 40K aren't "equally" far away from the magical ideal number. 40K is vastly superior than 15K. This isn't an opinion, it's literally almost 3 times stiffer.
08-01-2019, 10:12 AM
#2054
We get it, the C8 is not rigid enough. Can you talk about something else now instead of beating the same dead horse?
looking at the ordering guide it looks like a 2LT with Z51 gets you all of the features that matter right? Or a stripper build with 1LT, Z51, and competition buckets.
looking at the ordering guide it looks like a 2LT with Z51 gets you all of the features that matter right? Or a stripper build with 1LT, Z51, and competition buckets.
That’s a good one.
I also want to point out that someone said the very literally murderous ignition switch fiasco happened “a long time ago” to justify fanboying for a vehicle.
It happened a whopping 5 years ago. I.e when the C8 started development. But that same person should go on about how “thou shant dareth question or critique underlying construction methods and materials choices for muh unicorn dust Corvette.”
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...-274-injuries/
08-01-2019, 10:31 AM
#2055
Instructor
But it’s really not a point. 15K and 40K are not equally far from a hypothetical ideal figure. 40K is literally 3 times closer. And is stiff enough to where almost no one save for pure Hypercars can reach it, nor does the 992 significantly improve on it (until new materials and bonding methods become financially feasible, it’ll be hard to, I’m sure).