Chris B <lord_waymaster (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

I've been doing some comparisons of my own recently.

My latest Alfa (the 155) is 200kgs heavier than it's predecessor in the
range (my 75). And I was wondering why the 155 felt so slow after
jumping out of one and into the other.

More shockingly, the later versions of the 155 are even heavier, since
they switched to the Fiat-based cast iron block from the all-alloy Alfa
twin-cam.

The 75 2lt actually has the same power:weight ratio as a 156 V6, ffs!

Cars have got fat and bloaty these days :-(

--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300
VW Golf GL Cabrio - Alfa 75 TS - Alfa 155 TS Lusso - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

"SteveH" <steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk> wrote

Yup, and they keep getting heavier! It wouldn't seem to be the economical
solution, would it?
It's all these modern toys.. ABS, traction control, airbags, who needs that
eh?

Seriously though, along with the weight, engines have got a *lot* more
efficient these days but it does seem to be much harder to find a
lightweight, seat-of-your-pants driving machine brand new that doubles as
everyday transport. You don't get that same sort of response from driving,
say, a modern Golf GTi as opposed to a Mk1 or Mk2. It's like you're
disconnected from the road.

Chris.

"MeatballTurbo" <carl.robson (AT) bouncing-czechs (DOT) com> wrote

How about something a bit bigger and inline?

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

It looks like you get some really tiny people with it to put it all together
for you as well

"Chris B" <lord_waymaster (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Aero downforce only makes sense if you're going to be driving in the right
conditions to make it work though.

Now, ground effect, that's a better idea, but also bloody impracticle to
implement to any serious degree as you need to try and seal the sides of the
car to prevent air getting pulled in. Doesn't have the drag factor of wings
though, which is good. All you need in basic terms is to make the air go
quicker as it goes under the car, so reuslting in a drop in pressure,
therefore the car is sucked/ pressed (depending on your view of physics I
think there's a difference) onto the ground without having nasty great bits
of crap sticking into the airflow over the top of the car as you find with
wings.

I've never prepped a car for the track in my life, but talked to people who
have, and read up on all sorts of things I'll never remember because I'm a
sad bastard who likes that kind of thing
Plus I'm still contemplating the idea of smoothing the underbody of one of
my cars as much as possible, and creating a couple of channels to give me a
very mild ground effect. More than likely just lowering the front and
raising the rea enough to create a definate angle of attack would be
quicker, easier, cheaper, and more effective.

And none of it will ever happen anyway!
My daily transport is Michelloti Well, a facelifted one anyway. My other
daily driver is the original version, but that still needs me to get off my
arse and do the brakes.

Sorry - Traction Control. When you've bitched on an F1 group for long
enough, you start to get used to the abbreviations and not think!

"Stuffed" <merde (AT) theworld (DOT) com> wrote

Whoo, yeah ground effect sounds like fun. There's something I know a tiny
bit about, I think the car is effectively pressed against the ground, rather
than sucked. Mind you, I'm a bit more familiar with ground effect going the
other way - ever heard of them Russian things, think they were called
'Ekranoplan' or something.. basically almost an aircraft, almost a boat,
designed to hover just above the water after getting up to speed. Quite fuel
efficient.

Sounds interesting, but like a wing, wouldn't you need quite considerable
speed to actually feel anything?

Ahhh right. On the subject of F1, what about having a big fan to suck the
car to the ground? Was it Lotus or Tyrrell that had that? I seem to recall
there was something about using exhaust gasses for a similar reason, maybe
getting the exhaust exit straight upwards to give a bit more 'push' down.
And yeah. I don't post in an F1 group but I sure as hell bitch about it down
the pub!


Chris.

"Chris B" <lord_waymaster (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Well, ground effect is caused by accelerating the air under the car in a way
to produce low pressure, with high pressure on top. So to my mind, it's
sucking, but from a physics point of view it's pushing. Like when you suck
through a straw what you're doing is lowering the pressure inside the straw
so the drink is pushed up it into your mouth, or something like that. Always
thought that for most things simply saying they suck suffices though

What happened to the plane/ boat things? They seemed to be very promising,
but I haven't heard much about them for ages, other than a website I read a
year or so ago about an amateur one in Australia or someplace.
Pretty much. If you look at alot of cars they are higher at the back already
though. I'd love to build a couple of tunnels and have a nice diffuser on
the Triumph, but apart from it costing shedloads and being complicated to
design, it would do absolutely sod all at legal speeds, pretty much like
anything else, other than maybe a proper ground effect system. But somehow I
don't think the local plod would be too happy with me having a sliding ally
skirt on either side of the car chewing up any bumps it went over!
A fan takes too much power away from the engine though. I seem to recall it
was the infamous "Brabham" fan car. Did incredibly well the very few (2?)
times it was allowed to run, but only because it was run on tracks where
ultimate grip counted more than power. On a track like Monza it would've
been dead last, probably lapped on a qually lap!

There was talk of why the exhausts were being mounted differently on the
recent F1 cars, claims being it was anything from extra thrust to downforce
through clearing the path of air to the rear wing. I only know the basics of
aerodynamics, so haven't a clue what it's really all about, but I've always
thoguht there's more could be done with exhausts that just sticking a blower
at the top end.

You could of course look at making the whole car create downforce, that's
what the group C Le Mans cars used to do (don't know about now, stopped
following it so much). They actually had far more grip than an F1 car IIRC,
thanks to the airflow being easier to control over the surfaces with closed
wheels.

Bitching on a newsgroup is cheaper, and I can do it from the comfort of my
own home
Also no doubt safer when you call someone a total wanker...

"Stuffed" <merde (AT) theworld (DOT) com> wrote

Yeah, just using the word 'suck' is easier although as you say in physics
terms it's being pushed. The water in a straw is forced into your mouth as
the air pressure is higher on the surrounding fluid than it is in the
straw - the extra air pressure is pushing down on the liquid and forcing it
up the straw. So on a point of pedantry, it's pushing. But, on an even more
pedantic thought, you could of course say that since the action used is to
suck the air out (creating the lower air pressure), it is actually sucking
after all. Who started this?!?

That's the same thing I heard. Not much else. I just thought that massive
(was it ten-engined?) Russian monster they made rocked. Wasn't it nicknamed
the Caspian sea monster or something?

And I don't think your sliding ally skirt would much like chewing on the
bumps either!

Ah yes, that was it. It looked pretty mental. I seem to recall that they hid
it the fan with a dustbin lid whilst it was in the pits.

Interesting thought. Any idea how they compare on the track?

That's true, but I find it's easier to win an argument after a few beers. Or
at least, *think* you've won an argument. Doesn't even matter if you didn't,
because you'd have forgotten all about it in the morning and there wouldn't
be some stupid record of your drunken ramblings on Google groups

God, I just imagined a world where you could play back the moments of your
life that you'd thought you'd forgotten, with all the clarity of actually
being there - and everyone else in the world could have a look too. How
depressing.

Chris.

In article <fugkc.733$De6.8015988 (AT) news-text (DOT) cableinet.net>,
lord_waymaster (AT) yahoo (DOT) com spouted forth into uk.rec.cars.modifications...
--
Carl Robson
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

I'm not convinced. My S60 is bigger than a BMW 3 series and yet weighs
less - I think it's poor design and the addition of weight in order to get
crash safety - Volvo are doing it clever, others just seem to add more
steel. Traction control doesn't add weight to a car with ABS.

Chris B wrote:
Not even in the same ballpark !

My Rover 620TI with cast-iron engine only weighs 1300Kg !

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...secondgen.html says it
weighs 2,625 lbs which is about 1250Kg.