Allow me to disagree.

Place your bets.

[www.youtube.com]

"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."

Although at its inception, the Boxster was regarded as somewhat anemic, that has really changed over the years.

Quote
Roger987
Although at its inception, the Boxster was regarded as somewhat anemic, that has really changed over the years.

That's very true. From the original 986 to the current 981S, the power has gone up by roughly 60%. It certainly has a lot more get up and go.

I think the biggest point they're making with this video (at least what I took from it) is that you can't just look at the numbers on paper to compare the performance of cars.

What do most people look at first when reading a car test performance comparison? My guess would be 0 - 60 mph time and/or HP.

Theoretically, the car with the highest power to weight ratio should be the quickest. The point here is it's only part of the whole equation of which is the better performing car.

Wonder what the drag coeficient is for the Caterham 7 Roadsport 140? Something tells me it's pretty high as it looks as though it was designed by a hot rod loving teenager, not conceived from clay models and wind tunnels like Porsches. The Boxster has a surprising low coeficient for a car, let alone for a convertible. So, drag is most likely the biggest culprit in the 140 not doing so well, not power to weight ratios.

If you are not familar w/ the evolution (or lack thereof) of the Caterham 7's, you need to turn in your "Sportscar Guy" card. Once you have completed the courses British Sportscars of the 50's and Adding Lightness by Coiln Chapman your card will be reinstated.

This is an attempt at humor, but seriously, no one was using a wind tunnel (for cars like these) in the early 50's. There is the Lotus 11 which is much more streamlined, but I think it was done mostly by intuition/guesswork.

Quote
SRG
...no one was using a wind tunnel (for cars like these) in the early 50's. There is the Lotus 11 which is much more streamlined, but I think it was done mostly by intuition/guesswork.

The cars that brought us the current standing world record re: speeds on a public road set these records before the second world war and aerodynamics were very much a consideration in the process. Otherwise, they would have gone flying off the track, etc. given the crummy tires and/or crude suspensions the guys were enjoying back then. That Caterham decided to ignore the lessons from their collective forebears re: slippery car shapes was a design / appearance choice (i.e. marketing-driven).

My intuition is that the folk who designed Caterhams worked to make the cars as much fun as possible to fling around winding UK roads as possible, where speeds are low enough not to make their egregious CV values an issue. Put such a car on the track where top speed is important and you learn an important lesson, i.e. you get to study the tailpipes of the guy with the more slippery car.

The Caterham is an idiosyncratic car, not to my taste but I understand why some people would be drawn to its retro appearance. Other cars in the same line of design choices include the Ariel Atom, which posts insane initial acceleration but lackluster top speeds due to excessive CV drag. As with Caterham, it's a conscious choice / tradeoff the designers of the Ariel Atom made, not intuition and/or guesswork.

The McLaren F1 doesn't have the most powerful engine in the world, but the CV is good enough and its weight is low enough to still be considered a very powerful and capable car today. In BBC Top Gear testing it cleaned the clock of a Veyron for the first 200kmH, before the massive HP difference between the two cars led to an inevitable loss. So, small, light, comparatively "underpowered" cars can in fact be very competitive. But note how different a Mclaren F1 looks from a Caterham or Ariel Atom.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2014 06:35PM by Constantin. (view changes)

Also note how the even more underpowered Atom thumps the Mclaren and the Bugatti w/ the Stig driving them at the fairly open Top Gear track - ugly areo and all. Small, light and quick is always better than big, fat and fast. Lotus and Porsche have been perfect examples of this in the past. I like the "gaint killer" aspect of them both.