Have we reached the pinnacle of performance?

Note 1995 McLaren F1 weighs in at 2500 pounds with a V12.

Done the same way the F458 would come in around 2350 pounds as the engine, transmission and drive line can all be lighter.

 

Yep, they are all great cars. But I think you don't understand my point. However, it is late. I'm tired, and I suspect the world will continue despite what I think.

Dale

 

You have engines making OVER 2 hp per cubic inch of motor displacement & you are "Underwhelmed"?! and comparing that to a "Model T", you sir are delusional.....Mark

 

The pinnacle? Highly doubtful as I was achieving greater performance in '98 with my '92 MR2T than 99% of the uber expensive exotic's we have now yet I guess one's opinion is subjective as to what they deem as performance.

 

Yes sir it is rather subjective and I meant no disrespect in my reply.

 

Actually, its not hard to make litre bike motors reach 2 HP/litre and I've seen a few up in the 225 HP range on pump gas. These are streetable bike motors, if just.

F1 motors are in the 3.0-3.1 HP/litre range.

 

Lotus Elise/Exige is <2000 lbs, in showrooms in 2011.

You're right about diminishing returns in 0-60 times. Back in the mid '80s, 5.0 sec 0-60 was scorching -- you needed a 911 Turbo, Aston Martin Vantage or similar to get that. Now you can beat 5.0 sec to 60 that in a 4 cylinder, $50K Lotus and most if not all of the 911 line, or in a big BMW or Benz sedan, etc.

But t depends on how you define performance. IMHO, 0-60 isn't a well-rounded measure. Arguably, Nurburgring laps are a better measure, because they account for power, braking, handling and airflow management. Better efficiency means less fuel required means less weight means faster lap times, etc. Coupled with recent huge advances in vehicle dynamics -- i.e., control of body motion in turns, under acceleration and braking -- and I would say there is still a lot of room for improvement.

That's why F1 is fascinating and drag racing is dull.

 

We are making much more powerful descendants of the Model T: more powerful versions of the internal combustion engine, bigger brake pads, better brake materials, more gears and more convenient gearchanges, different throttle controls regulating the amount of gasoline fed to the cylinders, thicker manually operating steering wheels, better suspensions, radial tires since the '60s, etc. But overall, there's nothing on the road today that my late grandfather wouldn't have immediately recognized and understood, other than iPhone and sat nav integration.

I think Porsche has some promising ideas in the 918 Spyder that may trickle down, but broadly speaking road cars are just refinements of the same old model, with styling updates to generate buyer enthusiasm. When someone stops refining and really does something innovative, we may find 2011 Nurburgring records to be as much of a joke as the 10 sec 0-60 times of the '50s.

 

It's easy to lust after greater accelleration. I for one am at my limit as a driver with the car that I own. From that standpoint, we've indeed reached a pinnacle for me personally. What I'd wish in future models is greater safety and crashworthiness.

 

We first need to define what we mean by "performance." When I wrote that "we have reached a point of diminishing returns", I was specifically referring to 0-60(2) times, top-speed and so on of passenger cars. However, if we define performance as power-to-weight, fuel economy and so on, we have a LONG way to go before we reach the point of diminishing returns.

Case in point is the new DeltaWing car that was developed for the Garage 56 prototype program at Le Mans. It is a completely unconventional car that developers claim is capable of delivering a similar level of performance as that of fastest traditional-class cars, but from a measly 4-cylinder turbo-charged engine. How do they claim to achieve this? Extreme weight savings and a radically redefined needle-nose body that looks more like an aeroplane than a race car. You can read more about it here: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/01/radical-american-racing-car-unveiled/?test=faces.

 

The engine compartment on the Nissan GT-R is impressively tiny.

 

Right.

Which is why I've written in the past that, in terms of technology, one can argue that the "lowly" Nissan is considerably more advanced than is a 458. The engine and drive train, specifically.

 

I agree with Infidel's earlier statement regarding diminishing returns. Performance envelopes (regardless of how they are defined) will continue to be expanded, but the incremental improvements will get smaller and smaller. At some point we will likely reach a physical law limit, but we're not yet there.

CW

 

+1 to all.

However, I think we'll reach physical *driver* limitations before we reach the limit of "performance" or "grip" etc - Technically, active suspension and aero can keep it all at the optimum and provide levels of grip that exceed human capabilities (short of G suits).

I think our descendants will see many highways converted to "computer control" - You get on, engage the autopilot, sit back and go as fast as your car (or the nanny state ) allows - This is already being discussed (planned?) for the Superbus (~200mph) in Dubai.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I believe we are very much at a point of diminishing returns in certain areas of performance for vehicles built for the street. Consider, for instance, that a current F1 car accelerates from 0-60 in @2 seconds and the fastest supercars built for the street will accelerate from 0-60 in @3 seconds. That leaves only one second or so as room for improvement (and underscores just how incredible is the relative performance of today's supercars.)

However, we are certainly a long way away from reaching the physical limits of either man or machine. Dragsters launch from naught to 100 in less than 1 second (not a typo) and cover a quarter-mile in about 4 seconds or so and reach a top speed well above 300MPH. Drivers are subjected to about 4Gs+ in the process.

 

Incidentally, it won't be long before the fastest cars are powered by electric motors, not internal combustion engines.

Electric motors have the advantage of instantaneously providing 100% of their available torque, which is the key to acceleration. They also have the advantage of being far more efficient at providing torque so a smaller motor is required to provide a given level of torque. The problem with electric motors is the question of the power source.

 

Actually, that notion that the cars are "going faster" is incorrect. At Le Mans, before the addition of the chicanes on the Mulsanne straight, some cars would routinely hit top speeds of @250MPH. Today, F1 cars reach top speeds nearly @50MPH less thanks to the incredible amounts of down-force that limit the top end, their principal objectives being acceleration and handling rather than terminal velocity.

And it wasn't so much that the cars were "more than the drivers could handle" as it was that the cars simply were not designed with any kind of driver safety in mind. Consider that, in the case of the Porsche 917, the car that it is widely regarded as the finest, most dominant race car ever built, the driver's legs were positioned in FRONT of the front axle thereby virtually assuring serious injury or death of the driver in even relatively minor accidents. In fact, the first time the 917 raced at Le Mans, it wrecked on the first lap, killing the owner/driver.

One more point: When raced organizers at Le Mans unceremoniously reduced the displacement limits of its engines, they did so not with safety in mind, but to "regulate away" the brutish American Fords who, with their massive, bullet-proof 7-liter naturally aspirated engines, had chased off Enzo and his Ferraris and were dominating the remaining Europeans. But race organizers (purposefully or unknowingly?) left a loop-hole that Porsche wasted no time in exploiting: power-adders.

 

The early 917's were undrivable. (Brian Redman and "A French Kiss With Death") They were also widow makers as you've pointed out even after they were made drivable.

The most dominant race car as measured by Le Mans wins is the Audi R8 and in addition to being very drivable it's also very safe as evidenced by the incredible survived crashes at Last Le Mans.

Street cars are a lot safer and electronics enable even non expert drivers to go very quickly without crashing on the road but there are those who feel that these aids reduce real performance.

We are just starting. Active aero, rear wheel steering, traction control, etc, etc. will change and "improve" cars as we know them. Ferrari has built in so much computer control that manual gearboxes can no longer be offered as they interfere with these systems.

Some of the new systems aren't the prettiest either. (Shark fins and roof air inlets for example).

KERS will also change these cars a lot. We're testing KERS in P 4/5 C Modificato. 60 BHP push to pass, extended range (one more lap per stint or more mph on the road). This same system is being considered by Ferrari and others as per the 918 P Supercar.

IMO cars will continue to become faster and safer but the non PC of sports cars may come to haunt and that's why I think KERS will be become standard in supercars.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Nail on the head here.

At the end of the day there is only one type of material connecting your car to the road, and the technology behind it is decidedly limited. Electronic suspension innovation and aerodynamic car control are genius, no doubt; but they still deliver their perceived effects through four measly rubber contact points.

Rubber technology is limited by one thing and one thing only: DOT compliance.

Consider the Veyron: In order to make its performance figures road legal, Michelin developed a special set of tires for it that, depending on your source, cost anywhere from $15-25K a set. It's not that these tires were necessary for the performance figures themselves--slicks could have delivered them without a problem. The problem was the Veyron's weight combined with the need for water grooves, etc.

My point is that not only is automotive performance governed by basic rubber technology, but that it's governed even more by regulations and the need to provide a range of performance factors necessitated by different driving conditions.

It would be very easy to achieve Funny Car levels of acceleration and F1 levels of grip on a public road; you just can't you can't put road tires on either one.

Well, you could...you just wouldn't go anywhere.

 

Part of the Veyron tire issue is the mega weight of that car. On a lighter car high speed DOT tires are less of a problem and cost. The Veyron's tire system is run flat which also adds a lot to the cost.

 

Jim, you get at what I think will become a dividing line in the next few years among sports/super cars.

Manufacturers will recognize the lack of real world application for the performance levels that cars like the 458 are now capable of. Some will make the decision to save weight and reduce power (no doubt this will also be motivated by the green movement) while going back to a very simple but dynamic suspension (no active aero, no adaptive damping) system that greatly increases driver involvement, or, as you referred to it, "real performance."

Others will follow the path that Ferrari and its contemporaries are now paving. I'm not saying that either is good or bad, just that there may be a larger distinction between technology assisted driving and simple, tech free driving in the future (a la F40 or previous gen Exige/Elise).

I love what the 458 can do. I'm sure if I drove P4/5 or P4/5C-M I would love them as well. But I would be just as satisfied on the road with a 355 or, on the right day with the right road, a 328 or Miata.

It would be nice to see manufacturers in large number focus on giving us three things in very basic measure: dynamic chassis, sticky tires, and seat of the pants thrills.