I was wandering through the Yorkshire Dales yesterday and came across two Ferraris (what they were doing out in driving rain I do not know - I wouldn't) and came to realise that these modern beasts are incredibly wide; ridiculously so.
We also came across what I assume to be a Mazda MX-5 rally as there were several groups of them going in tandem at some speed and certainly far faster than the Ferraris.
What conclusion did I draw from this?
Well, why did Ferraris and their ilk become so wide? They only seat two people and their raison d'etre was a fast drive through a wide range of non-motorway roads. I imagine the opening sequence to The Italian Job as being the absolute pinnacle of Italian supercar driving, sweeping along a winding twisting road high above the Italian Riviera (excluding the JCB of course). You can't do this in a modern supercar. They are so bloated they cannot possibly fulfil their true purpose. An MX-5 is surely the true size of a modern supercar, if only it had a nice 3.0 V8. I suppose a 911 comes close as well, but I just don't get the supercar of today; a BMW M5/6 is simply better.
Apart from exclusivity, and they are getting more common near me, why would you buy a modern supercar?
|
|
Badly named but interesting, the Bristol Fighter is alleged to be very capable and is a normal size, without a lot of aerodynamic rubbish sticking out all over it.
|
|
|
|
When I see a supercar (eg. Ferrari) they almost seem to struggle in built up areas because of their size. On some big A-roads they're probably OK, but then A-roads are pretty straight and relatively slow (for a supercar). Supercars are probably great on tracks, but I don't think they're much fun on public roads. When I do see expensive supercars on the roads, they are usually driven very sensibly and within the speed limits, which is a real pleasure to see.
|
And they have very low ground clearance, with such front spoilers and overhangs that make getting over anything higher than matchstick a low speed exercise in care.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Buy a Golf Gti - you don't need anything else, oodles of acceleration and flingable (for a fwd) on the back roads..
|
|
Ever seen the width of a rear supercar tyre? 285 or 305 is a common size. Two to accommodate and an engine and gearbox between them. All in the name of keeping you on the track at 200mph.
|
|
|
To use a terrible bit of web 'slang' ROFLMAO.
I have a GTi amongst others and what it most certainly is not is a rival for a 'supercar'.
First of all, how many of you have driven a 'supercar'- I'll be almost nobody and that's as it should be.
Secondly other than the 911 none of them were ever narrow and even remotely practical (911 isn't narrow now either).
Thirdly their remit is to be stupid, impractical and nonsensical. That's why they are supercars.
PS I've driven an NSX amongst other supercars and that was nearest to a normal car I ever think they are going to come. One day I'll get behind the wheel of a Veyron I swear! (before you think that's a pipe dream I have driven an EB110 albeit for less than a couple of miles so there!)
|
A 911 is the only "supercar" I've driven (a Carrera 4 in the early 90s) and only for a short distance.
But as daily practical transport (with a decent turn of speed on "normal" roads) a Golf would knock spots off most things (especially if you need to go to Tescos!)
I've looked up your web speak thing and would happily pay to see that happen ! :-)
|
|
|
>First of all how many of you have driven a 'supercar'- I'll be almost nobody and that's as it should be.
I've owned a 911 GT3 and driven a Dodge Viper.
and you're right, I wouldn't want the commoners being allowed o drive supercars :-)
In real life, I reckon an Imprezza Turbo is quicker than the GT3 down a country lane, mostly because the GT3 with carbon fibre seats is less comfortable than being dragged behind it on a tow-rope.
Today someone I know who has a huge knowledge of supercars suggested that my next toy should be a Caterham 7 with a ford crossflow and a turbo bolted on top. I like the idea, even though it would make driving in the wet more sideways than a crab walking home from the pub.
It also emminantly more practical than anything that Ferrari or Lamborgini have ever produced. I'd guess it'd be easy enough to get it to 200bhp, and would end up weighing about 575kgs. That should be quick enough, shame about the aerodynamics!
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw a Lambo in a petrol station today. It was very low down but didn't strike me as particularly wide, although it wasn't thin either. I find the Ferrari's and Lambo's very attractive actually. I like the idea of driving a low down, fast yet spacious and roomy car. The wideness gives it presence.
|
|
Of course I've assumed that the car is spacious/roomy due to the width but I do not suppose they actually feel that way when you are in them. I wouldn't know.
|
RUF used to do a 200mph+ 911 (996) that was available in the standard "narrow" body. Now that is quite a small car - not much bigger than a Focus' footprint.
|
|
|
|
Went to find the Lamborghini UK website and realise there's only 4. That's only 1.5 miles from home so I must be in a good house area. Now for a test drive ;-) Theoretically if we went down a house size we could get one of these ;-) Wife would disagree.
|
|
Downsize wife and house and upsize car. Simple.
|
"Downsize wife and house and upsize car. Simple"
What about the cat
|
|
|
|
|
|
n MX-5 is surely the true size of a modern supercar, if only it had a nice 3.0 V8.
There are a few about. Been a couple on ebay recently. That Rover V8 fits in very neatly.
|
So the Gallardo for example:
- 4.3m long
- 1.9m wide
- 1.175m high
New Mondeo 5dr hatch:
- 4.78m long
- 2.08m wide with mirrors (1.94m folded mirrors)
- 1.5m high (no roof rails)
So perhaps the question should be "why can a supercar be smaller than a family hatchback"..
|
So the Gallardo for example: - 4.3m long - 1.9m wide - 1.175m high
Except the Gallardo isn't a proper Lamborghini with scissor doors, for that you need the Murciélago, which is 2.24m with mirrors unfolded, 2.06m without.
|
Surely the "purpose" of a supercar is for posing "status" and the chance to pull up at hotels etc so that people immediatley know you are "superior" and look after you and your car immediately.
But for practicality, a long leisurely drive through Europe is where 1 might be of use? Power, comfort, style, presence etc.
But then the comfort bit? Not all are!
Don't forget GT doesnt automaticaly mean extreme power, it literally means Grand Tourer, translate that as you like, but is usually meant as luxury touring.
|
"status" and the chance to pull up at hotels etc so that people immediatley know you are "superior" and look after you and your car immediately.
Don't know about you yorkiebar, but even as a poseur I would be reluctant to hand over my 11,000hp Ferrari with its fragile but expensive clutch to some monkey outside a hotel...
|
|
|
|
New Mondeo 5dr hatch: - 4.78m long - 2.08m wide with mirrors (1.94m folded mirrors) - 1.5m high (no roof rails)
To put those dimensions into perspective, that makes the new Mondeo 5cm wider and only 23cm shorter than the "Battlecruiser" Mercedes W140 S-Class from the mid 90s which at the time was massively criticised for being too big.
|
|
|
|
n MX-5 is surely the true size of a modern supercar if only it had a nice 3.0 V8. There are a few about. Been a couple on ebay recently. That Rover V8 fits in very neatly.
I'll have to keep an eye out for those.
I often think it would have been great if Mazda had done an MX-5 option with that 1.8 V6 from the MX-3 (and tuned it up a bit). I think they may have actually sold some of these in Australia?
Whenever I drive my g.f.'s MX-5 I think the handling is good but it would be so much more appealing with a big V8 in it like the Chimaera my mate got rid of recently. Imagine a Chimaera with Mazda build quality.
|
|
Interesting links Martin, cheers. I thought there was a lot of empty space in the MX-5 engine bay; I don't think my other half would be at all keen though!
|
Not sure you can call any TVR a supercar. I would rather have one than many supercars though.
I mention once again the Bristol Fighter which is supposed to be able to exceed 200mph, and which is quite compact and free from huge wings and so on, although not exactly discreet in appearance.
I have seen Ferraris that I wouldn't want to drive on the road at all, although other modern Ferraris look quite reasonable.
|
Why are supercars so wide?
Obvious innit?
Answer: cos the drivers have fat a.. sorry backsides...
madf
|
I waited till the last post to find you nicked my idea of the A..Bit........
MD
|
|
Well took the Gti out for a bur....sorry to get some milk after work. I stand by my post on this. A well sorted hot hatch is a far better bet than any Supercar. I know my cars and motorbikes, but along the rural mains and b roads I used to get the milk I doubt that in this real world that anything could realistically be much quicker or better handling or be more accessible......
|
I agree. There must be some driving pleasure from being behind the wheel of a supercar, but in most of the UK I can't quite see it. In major cities, congestion and poor visibility must make driving one a total pain. On the open road, I can see the point except speed cameras reduce the potential to shrink distances and on winding back roads, the width and lack of height must reduce spped potential.
As PU says, a hot hatch, or Evo or Imprezza or (take you pick) MX5, SLK, M5/6, even 911 must be able to get you from A to B faster, in more comfort and with more fun that a modern supercar.
Now, give me a nice 308 GTS/B/4 with carbs and no emmission control and I could change my mind.
|
As PU says a hot hatch or Evo or Imprezza or (take you pick) MX5 SLK M5/6 even 911 must be able to get you from A to B faster in more comfort and with more fun that a modern supercar.
If it was wet the EVO or Impreza might be quicker than a supercar. More comfortable? Have you ever driven an EVO or Impreza- comfort isn't one of their strong point.
The M5 might be more comfortable but you'll look like a rep or even worse and estate agent.
M6 a property developer
MX5- I have no idea why you are even mentioning it as you WILL NOT arrive quicker.
Hot Hatch won't be as fast unless the road is very narrow and winding
SLK is fine if you style hair.
I'll take a 360 or 430 Ferrari, an Audi R8 and beat any of the others.
|
|
I think the pont that has been missed here is that 'supercars' have nothing whatsoever to do with being quicker or better handling in the 'real world'.
That's why a Golf GTi or my RS4 for that matter will never be 'supercars'.............while we are on the subject neither is a boggo 911!!! The GT3 we heard mentioned earlier probably qualifies though...
|
The poor old 1.6 MX5 may not be a supercar, but with the sun out, roof down, cd player running, on the back B roads - it just feels fast. I much prefer attacking the twisties in/on bikes and car approaching the legal limit (hmm) than just absolute speed.
Just noticed, bikes and car in perfect harmony with rear wheel drive.
|
|
Well took the Gti out for a bur....sorry to get some milk after work.
I bet you only bought 1 pint - so you'll have to go out again tomorrow.... ;-)
|
I've driven a Caterham seven many many times on windy roads.
It's so low you can't see round bends, The lowest of verge vegetation is enough to substantially obscure the view and the ride so harsh that you're being shaken by typical road surfaces.
Most supercars are bought for the pose value.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
Keep your modern supercars, I'll stick to my '82 Porsche 928S.
Its rare enough to still get the looks; quick enough to the speed limit to frustrate newer sports cars (ie force them to break the limit in order to catch up! - always puts a smile on my face); narrow enough to make twisty B roads a pleasure rather than a pain; and practical enough to do the school run!
Try doing all that with a Veyron!
--
Colin-E
|
Why are supercars so wide?
so that they personify the drivers ed,..ego
ok im jealous
|
|
|
|
|
