The next rundown of rambling – concept cars, a lightweight Ford, tyres, another Ford, virtual reality, but first – something about endurance racing.
Le Mans 2014 lived to up every expectation of being a titanic battle between the three manufacturers, Toyota, Porsche, Audi. Toyota clearly had the pace, and should have won; it was a satisfying surprise to see a Porsche leading after the #7 Toyota retired, but then the unluckiest man in motorsport, Mr Webber himself, got into the car on Sunday morning, and it immediately broke. This left the rebuilt #1 Audi in the lead – who’d have believed it after Loic Duval’s frightening crash on the Wednesday. A shame it had to have the turbocharger replaced, demoting it to 2nd behind the #2 Audi. As ever, Audi not to be discounted – as if to emphasise the point, they won the Nürburgring 24 hours a week later. A great effort from Porsche on their return with a fairly unproven car. Toyota must be disappointed with a missed opportunity. Porsche will be stronger next year, and with Nissan are set to join the fray, it is not going to get easier.
Porsche seemingly made an error in sending out the car to limp around for the final lap, when it had to do two laps to be classified. It was in the photos behind the winning Audis so whether it was simply a press exercise or a genuine error we may never know. A thrilling race, and proof that energy formulas can work, generating close racing between very different power units – are you listening Formula 1? It was hugely gratifying for the ‘Dane train’ #95 Aston Martin to win its class; no better a tribute could exist to Allan Simonsen, who sadly perished whilst driving that car a year earlier. RIP.
Ford unleashed on the world its Lightweight Concept – a Fusion (which should become the seemingly ever-delayed Mondeo in Europe) that has had an impressive 300kg diet. It’s great to see a big OEM trying to push for weight-reduction. The virtuous cycle of reducing weight is not to be under-estimated, and unlike a lot of technologies and methods aimed at reducing fuel consumption and emissions, reducing weight benefits the driver too, albeit to a point. A lighter car will have better responses, and strain its brakes and tyres less. As the car gets lighter, there is however a challenge in terms of handling – obtaining an acceptable ratio between the sprung (body, drivetrain) and unsprung masses (wheels, brakes, hubs etc. – everything hanging off the body on a spring).
Simplifying somewhat, the bigger the ratio between the sprung bit and the unsprung, the better the wheel control, therefore the better the ride and handling. As the car is made lighter, more and more effort needs to go into reducing the weight of the unsprung parts to ensure the ratio doesn’t diminish. This issue was encountered by Gordon Murray with the revered McLaren F1. An article by Autocar on the F1 published back in 1994 stated the ratios for the F1 are 5.5:1 front, 5.8:1 rear; for comparison it quotes a typical hatchback of the time (Peugeot 306 1.8 XT) as being much greater, 9.8:1 and 7.3:1 respectively. Both weigh 1100kg. The bigger stopping power required for the F1 means bigger brakes, bigger wheels to clear them, bigger tyres, bigger suspension loads and therefore heavier unsprung parts, and lower ratios. Ford seem to have tackled this with an aluminium brake disc, carbon fibre wheels and narrower, lighter tyres, but it is an unknown how much thought they gave this issue.
Ford readily admit the technology used is not yet viable for mass production at a cost level that would be acceptable to the consumer. Carbon fibre wheels are also a bit of an unknown in terms of longevity, and I for one would be worried about a wheel de-laminating due to kerb damage, leading to a tyre failure. There is also the issue of sustainability. A lot of the composite materials used could be much more energy intensive to manufacture, and certainly will not be as easy to recycle. For example, the engine sump (oil pan) was cast in aluminium, which could be easily melted down at the end of the vehicles life. Not so the new composite version. The manufacturers will be much more concerned with meeting regulatory targets and selling a product today, than worrying about what the issues are outside of warranty for the nth owner. This sustainability argument is one of the great weaknesses of hybrids and EVs, which use a lot of scarce, exotic materials for their large battery packs. Should we take the longer view and accept more emissions now, in return for genuine long-term sustainability?
The skinny tyres on the Lightweight Concept drew a lot of comment, but I think two key points have to be considered that have been largely overlooked. First, the car is lighter, so it doesn’t need huge cross-section tyres as there is less mass to corner and stop. It would be better still if they reduced the rim size and provided more tyre sidewall for a more compliant ride, but sadly marketing tends to dictate larger wheels for those (in my opinion imbeciles) who choose aesthetics over function.
Secondly, when it comes to tyres, reducing the width for a fixed car mass doesn’t automatically mean less grip, especially for road tyres which do not depend on chemical bonding between the road surface and the rubber to generate grip (unlike sticky slicks for racing cars). For your average road tyre most of the grip is generated by friction and the mechanical interaction of the rubber with the tarmac, loosely akin to two gears meshing. A narrower tyre for the same mass of car means the rubber sees a higher pressure at the contact patch (pressure = force/area; smaller contact patch area, same force). The same mass acts through the tyre, so given F = mu.R, there is the same amount of grip available (assuming the cornering stiffness of the tyre remains the same). The end result is just a different shape of contact patch, which means a different trade-off between lateral (cornering) and longitudinal (acceleration, braking) grip, with the narrow tyre biased toward longitudinal. This means lower cornering limits (overlooking things like sidewalls rolling over), which is good news for the keen driver trying to stay within the law. This may also reduce the speed at which people leave the road when they run out of talent or luck. And finally, narrower tyres are an advantage in adverse conditions (e.g. snow).
MINI caught my attention with their sensational Superleggera Vision concept, shown at the annual Villa d’Este Concourso d’Eleganza. MINI should be applauded because for once there were no ‘leaks’ or teasers on the run-up to the event scattered far and wide across social media – here was a launch kept quiet until it was released to the world, and it was all the more a pleasant surprise as a result. It is also a great example of something Mark Ronson brought up in his fantastic TED presentation – the design manages to avoid being too pastiche because some fresh and different elements have been added. I do think the Union Jack rear lights are a touch too cheesy, and could be hilariously redundant if Scotland’s bid for independence is a success. The interior is exceptional, in my opinion – just what a MINI should be. Clean, minimal but stylish. It’s great to see another car escape the ubiquitous slab of black plastic, in this case for a single piece of brushed aluminium. The car is reportedly rear-wheel drive, a curious twist given that its latest platform (UKL-1) is being used to spin-off front wheel drive BMWs. However it is also an EV, so packaging the drivetrain is largely moot. It won’t see production sadly, according to official sources, but it would be great if MINI could draw some of the style and minimalism into their next roadster.
On the subject of car launches, this weekend is the Goodwood Festival of Speed, and Jaguar have been pushing their Project 7, a product of their ‘new’ Special Operations division (which has arguably been around quite some time), headed by ex-Evo magazine chief Harry Metcalfe. He has put his money where his mouth is by placing an order for one – now that’s confidence in your six-figure product. Now. whilst I am pleased to see JLR pushing their special operations, I just can’t shake the feeling this is another outlet of vulgarity for the wealthy. Of late there has been a lot of advertising of these types of outfit – Q by Aston Martin, MSO (McLaren), as well as the older, more established ones like Porsche Exclusive, BMW Individual, and going back further, Rolls Royce Bespoke, to name but a few. I’m all for one-offs and coachbuilt specials (e.g. Glickenhaus’ P4/5, Clapton’s SP12 EC, McLaren X-1, Aston Martin CC100), as they provide interesting stories and curio for the enthusiast, but we’re now arriving at the situation where everyone’s car is unique, just like everyone else’s…
Gran Turismo has been blurring the divide between virtual and reality with a flurry of its ‘Vision Gran Turismo’ concepts, a range of wild concepts and prototypes from the likes of Aston Martin (DP-100, revealed at Goodwood FoS), Mercedes, Volkswagen and more. These virtual car launches are becoming almost indistinct from those of real cars. With widely-published concerns about the rate young people are losing interest in cars, this is one way to maintain and generate interest to keep the industry going. Being able to ‘drive’ these fantasy vehicles brings them much closer to the public, rather than being locked away in museums, or only shown at obscure high-society gatherings (like the aforementioned Villa d’Este).
Ford have announced a diesel Focus ST – their answer to the Golf GTD. An obvious step for making money, I’m sure it will sell well. But now we have to face the loud, pumped-up visuals of the ST juxtaposed with heart-sinking diesel clatter. The original ST had a fabulous off-beat 5-cylinder soundtrack that really brought a touch of magic to the otherwise humdrum hatchback. That powerplant another a victim of downsizing, as I discussed in Three Point Oh. So here I think it is fitting to end with a quote from a very insightful member of the PistonHeads community:
The market just wants the most show for the lowest possible company car tax. Nobody gives a stuff about the go. This is because most drivers don’t actually drive anywhere: they merely commute to their offices on office parks and to the shops on retail parks, perhaps via that most important peacock ground of all, the school gate. They are not car enthusiasts: they are materialists.
RambleCar 