Elise Dedicated Track Car?
06-15-2005, 09:15 PM
#76
Rennlist Member
I know you aren't talking about how much fun each car is, but here's my experience with a track Elise anyway:
I have a 1987 944 Turbo Cup car (never raced, bought new from Porsche Motorsport North American) that I use (occasionally) in track events, and in 1999 I bought a Lotus Elise Sport 190 (190 HP track version of the pre-Toyota, better-looking original Elise) to replace it.
But I didn't. The 944 is lots more fun, and I ended up selling the Elise.
Elise Sport 190
Turbo Cup car
I have a 1987 944 Turbo Cup car (never raced, bought new from Porsche Motorsport North American) that I use (occasionally) in track events, and in 1999 I bought a Lotus Elise Sport 190 (190 HP track version of the pre-Toyota, better-looking original Elise) to replace it.
But I didn't. The 944 is lots more fun, and I ended up selling the Elise.
Elise Sport 190
Turbo Cup car
06-15-2005, 09:50 PM
#77
Race Director
Originally Posted by Jack667
Good points George. This stuff has been covered before many times. I should have stayed more general, but just wanted to make the point that a significant investment in suspension gear would be required (to suit Tim's needs), but that it would be worthwhile.
06-15-2005, 10:18 PM
#78
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW My choice would be something like this here No connection. Looks ready to go. Still might be too fast for what you have in mind, but certainly not as quick as a 996 TT. Rugged, reliable and battle proven. Great machines.
06-15-2005, 10:46 PM
#79
Pro
Hey Jack, It was good to meet you this weekend dispite the somewhat damp conditions I had a great time. See you in August? my next DE is with BMWCCA in just a few weeks.
Now back to the regular scheduled thread.
Jeff
944 turbo - Red #376
Now back to the regular scheduled thread.
Jeff
944 turbo - Red #376
06-15-2005, 11:09 PM
#80
Rennlist Member
CC:
Call Karl at Racers edge. He did have a very highly prepared S2. The 968 is a great car as well just not as many around. It is a great blend of handling and decent power but not blazingly fast on the straights.
Mike
Call Karl at Racers edge. He did have a very highly prepared S2. The 968 is a great car as well just not as many around. It is a great blend of handling and decent power but not blazingly fast on the straights.
Mike
06-16-2005, 01:56 AM
#81
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the IIHS: "All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger vehicle that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and lighter."
Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars.
Size and weight are closely related. Large vehicles typically are heavy, and small ones are light. But these two characteristics don't influence crashworthiness the same way. Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm
Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars.
Size and weight are closely related. Large vehicles typically are heavy, and small ones are light. But these two characteristics don't influence crashworthiness the same way. Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm
06-16-2005, 02:11 AM
#82
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, I might be selling my 944 turbo very soon to get into a formula Mazda. Mine just got a ton of work done and is track prepped already. if you are interested, take it out for a spin at an upcoming track event I think you will enjoy it. Although it does have a healthy amount of HP to go along with the handling. I got your PM, I will call you tomorrow. We'll talk then.
06-16-2005, 05:03 PM
#83
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by ColorChange
Now, since the light weight does not help me, I will look at many other cars. Again, full race prep and all safety devices will be required. My current list is:
Miata (in the lead because it is highly reliable and almost expendable)
944
old 911
old M3
Miata (in the lead because it is highly reliable and almost expendable)
944
old 911
old M3
That physics formula is WAY oversimplified for a high school physics class and is, in fact, totally WRONG. The interaction between tire and concrete doesn't follow a simple friction formula by any means for several reasons.
The real formula is one that has a marginal decreasing function. You get more friction with more weight, but the incremental increase in friction is less than the pro rata increase in weight. This isn't it exactly, but think of it something like this, for the first 1000lbs of weight you get 900lbs of friction, for the second thousand pounds of weight, you get 800lbs of friction and for the 3rd thousand pounds, you get 700lbs of friction force. Make sense? Read Fred Puhn's book.
You were right the first time. On equal tires, a lighter car will stop much faster. This is why lighter cars corner better too. It also explains why downforce is such a wonderful thing. You are increasing the friction by pushing down on the tires without increasing the mass you have to stop...
-dc
06-16-2005, 05:36 PM
#84
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Derick, you are wrong. See my post. You will notice a much more accurate formula I show there.
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=209865&page=3
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=209865&page=3
06-16-2005, 07:02 PM
#85
Three Wheelin'
CC,
Nuh uhh. You are wrong. Pblhttttt. That wasn't a formula, but just a theoretical example with some hyperbole for effect.
I think I'll stick with the opinions of race car engineers (puhn, etc.) vs. your example of an elise and a taureg posted on an internet thread... Add 3000lbs to the elise and see if it stops in the same distance as a stock elise. The whole idea that the stopping distances would be equal is CRAZY.
The reason you aren't showing dramatic differences is because you aren't comparing apples to apples. Also, you are comparing stopping distances from 60 mph. Look at an elise going 100MPH and add 3000lbs, no formula will make that math work.
Cornering forces and stopping forces are exactly the same fuction of weight and friction. Why do you think race care engineers are completely obsessed with weight?
-dc
Nuh uhh. You are wrong. Pblhttttt.
That wasn't a formula, but just a theoretical example with some hyperbole for effect.I think I'll stick with the opinions of race car engineers (puhn, etc.) vs. your example of an elise and a taureg posted on an internet thread... Add 3000lbs to the elise and see if it stops in the same distance as a stock elise. The whole idea that the stopping distances would be equal is CRAZY.
The reason you aren't showing dramatic differences is because you aren't comparing apples to apples. Also, you are comparing stopping distances from 60 mph. Look at an elise going 100MPH and add 3000lbs, no formula will make that math work.
Cornering forces and stopping forces are exactly the same fuction of weight and friction. Why do you think race care engineers are completely obsessed with weight?
-dc
