IW STi Forum banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This has probably been discussed many times, but I would like to start a little debate thread about it here anyways. As we all know, cars over time gets "better and better", but that is ofcourse an opinion. What is better? Does the car feel faster? Has the car gotten more exciting to drive? Are lap times being beaten?

There are MANY examples. Take BMW's sports cars. The E30s had so much thrill and it was one of the fastest cars in that time, but now look at the E92s. With all the refinement electronics, most of that thrill is gone, transforming them into more GT-like for fast lap times. BMW has their philosophy altered over the years, but in a sense it lost some of their pure sporting heritage through it. The cars got more comfortable and reliable, but it got bigger and heavier, and BMW compensates this with more power and complicated electronics. Is this better?

Our STIs, along with many other car manufacturers, too went through this change. The GRs compared to the GD, the GD compared to the GC. Some knows this as the "raw"ness. The GRs are getting faster lap times than the GD assuming all factors the same. Is this better?

What do you guys think about this topic? Do you feel that today's sports cars are going in the right direction? What do you prefer if you had to choose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
If each subsequent generation ignored newer tech - these cars would be highly criticized, so tech/price creep is something we can't ever change. That being said, some of the faster speeds/lap times etc are derived from the driver being able to drive more and bounce around less. Raw is cool, but raw doesn't necessary equal faster, IMO.

GR series STI vs GD's is a great case in point, as is the E92 M3 vs the E46. Both generations of each are 'drivers' cars, but the newer ones allow more driver achievement, not just driver 'experience'.

It's why I'm eagerly awaiting the next gen STi. They always seem to better the previous one.

The Porsche 911 Turbo is likely the greatest example of refinement and technology taking a hardcore 'drivers' car and making it much more capable/usable/liveable, and frankly - much much better. Without all the tech that car has - many more deaths and fewer records would be achieved. I recall many road tests where editors left that car feeling scared or like they just skirted death. That's not driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
If each subsequent generation ignored newer tech - these cars would be highly criticized, so tech/price creep is something we can't ever change. That being said, some of the faster speeds/lap times etc are derived from the driver being able to drive more and bounce around less. Raw is cool, but raw doesn't necessary equal faster, IMO.

GR series STI vs GD's is a great case in point, as is the E92 M3 vs the E46. Both generations of each are 'drivers' cars, but the newer ones allow more driver achievement, not just driver 'experience'.

It's why I'm eagerly awaiting the next gen STi. They always seem to better the previous one.

The Porsche 911 Turbo is likely the greatest example of refinement and technology taking a hardcore 'drivers' car and making it much more capable/usable/liveable, and frankly - much much better. Without all the tech that car has - many more deaths and fewer records would be achieved. I recall many road tests where editors left that car feeling scared or like they just skirted death. That's not driving.

Great Points and I tend to agree with all of them.

In addition, another factor is vehicle weight. There can still be technology in light(er)-weight cars. Safety requirements have affected vehicle weight, but not to the extent of these grossly obese vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
Great Points and I tend to agree with all of them.

In addition, another factor is vehicle weight. There can still be technology in light(er)-weight cars. Safety requirements have affected vehicle weight, but not to the extent of these grossly obese vehicles.
Hopefully wider use (and subsequently lower costs) of CF and other lightweight materials continues to migrate their way into mainstream auto production - this will help lighten the load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
Personally, I like a car that requires more of the driver in order to be fast. An unstable car is a faster car in the hands of a capable driver, ceteris parabus.

On the extreme end, all professional cars are extremely unstable, F1, Rally, even NASCRAP. Stability is slowness.

I'd take a car that is difficult to drive very fast over a car that anybody can drive pretty fast any day of the week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
It's all in the demand of the market. Are most sports car buyers hardcore motorsports guys? Nope. I would assume most are just people that want to get out and enjoy their car every once in a while and not have to take professional driving lessons just to get it down the road.

As technology improves and makes cars easier for your average driver to handle and still be somewhat competitive is what it's all about to me. Take the GTR for instance with all the tech that car has, it is a great driver's car. With cars getting easier to drive, the motorsports scene in general will thrive more and more as people that wouldn't normally push their previous cars will get out and have some fun with it, and be competitive.

my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
My .02, I wouldn't consider a GTR a "driver's" car. Sure, you may make inputs, but the computers are literally doing all of the work for you.

I call the GTR a very fast computer on wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
My .02, I wouldn't consider a GTR a "driver's" car. Sure, you may make inputs, but the computers are literally doing all of the work for you.

I call the GTR a very fast computer on wheels.

LOL...:rofl:

All jokes aside, I think that this is a great debate brought together by OP. Not to draw things too far off topic but how would you define a "drivers," and would you provide a few examples?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
I consider a driver's car one which will bite you in the ass if you drive it improperly. Ideally, no computers at all, but I could make a concession for an ECU, but certainly nothing in the drive line. That includes ABS.

My best example:
1978 Porsche 930

Sure, you can drive it on the street without much problem, but if you try to push it, and you either aren't experienced enough, or make a mistake, then you are basically assured that you're going to go backwards, probably into the trees.

Driver's cars, to me at least, are unforgiving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
My .02, I wouldn't consider a GTR a "driver's" car. Sure, you may make inputs, but the computers are literally doing all of the work for you.

I call the GTR a very fast computer on wheels.
Have you ever driven one? I have, and they're freaking amazing cars. If people tried the same thing in lesser cars, there would be a deathtoll. It's a driver's car, just a different variety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
Older cars are more fun and have better 'feel.' That is all.
The current Porsche 911 Turbo has arguably the best 'road feel' of any car ever made. You can feel the actual difference in road surface, as if pebble by pebble, yet remain fully capable of commanding the car to a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds and near 200mph. Or - you can place it into full auto - and let your mild mannered aunt take it to the grocery store.

That's progress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
883 Posts
Drivers car = no computers, no electronics.

All on you.
By the same logic, you would then state that a vintage WW2 fighter plane pilot is superior in skills to an F35 or F22 pilot?

All are pilots, remember.

Any car requiring a driver, is a driver's car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,906 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
LOL...:rofl:

All jokes aside, I think that this is a great debate brought together by OP. Not to draw things too far off topic but how would you define a "drivers," and would you provide a few examples?
The "driver" is what defines the car, not the other way around.

Imagine one (or a few) track day(s) at the Nurburgring where all of us have the same exact car with the same exact setup and we are to go one at a time, no distractions, track conditions the same, same good/bad weather. By the time the last person finishes his/her time trial, we look at the time board. The times will range from half a second to over at least a minute or two apart in our times. Why is that? Because each driver is different.

Anyone can drive a car fast with computers correcting/minimizing their mistakes. Proof? Play Forza or GT and drive the same car with full assist and no assist :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
By the same logic, you would then state that a vintage WW2 fighter plane pilot is superior in skills to an F35 or F22 pilot?

All are pilots, remember.

Any car requiring a driver, is a driver's car.
Yeah, I would make that statement. I'd say that a modern pilot in a ww2 fighter will have his ass handed to him by somebody who trained and flew them originally.

No, the GTR is a neat car-shaped computer, and it's pretty fast, but it ain't no driver's car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
The more computers you have to make decisions for the driver, the less of a driver's car it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
I consider a driver's car one which will bite you in the ass if you drive it improperly. Ideally, no computers at all, but I could make a concession for an ECU, but certainly nothing in the drive line. That includes ABS.

My best example:
1978 Porsche 930

Sure, you can drive it on the street without much problem, but if you try to push it, and you either aren't experienced enough, or make a mistake, then you are basically assured that you're going to go backwards, probably into the trees.

Driver's cars, to me at least, are unforgiving.

Well said, I think I'll have to agree with you as I've always believed that a drivers car was a car that relied primarily on the ability of the driver. I also really think that the line is very fine between a car that is made to be a seller and a car that has been engineered with the best that modern technology has to offer. I don't dislike the GTR from an engineering stand point (it really is a fine machine), but from a driving stand point I dislike what it represents....a car that was made simply to break records.
Technology is great but some of the things that they would like to put in cars are downright scary....
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top