|
Elan is tad better proportioned. It doesn't have the small awkward nose with giant headlamps and an enormous rear to go with, the front is bigger, the headlamps are smaller and the whole body has a similar level and a line. Overall this changes the perception of the whole car. Kia acknowledged their design flaw so KCV-III looks better than II 
Erulisse fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Jul 16, 2020 |
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:That username/post combo. You were right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
AntherUslessPoster posted:Kia acknowledged their design flaw so KCV-III looks better than II what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 14:08
|
|
|
TheFonz posted:what the gently caress Awful yet still better than ii At least this one is consistent in its awfulness
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
TheFonz posted:what the gently caress Dig Dug 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
The problem with the FWD Elan's looks is that it seems quite stubby from anything other than pretty much that press shot angle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
AntherUslessPoster posted:Elan is tad better proportioned. It doesn't have the small awkward nose with giant headlamps and an enormous rear to go with, the front is bigger, the headlamps are smaller and the whole body has a similar level and a line. Overall this changes the perception of the whole car. It's almost like a veyron with gigantic headlights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Minnesota Mixup posted:It's almost like a veyron with gigantic headlights. It's like a Veyron hosed a fourth gen Eclipse. And they were related before the marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
The headlights on the Kia gave me Nissan 300ZX/McLaren F1 vibes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
I still love the looks of that generation Elan. I remember looking them up on Ebay motors back when I was in high school.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Kia KMS ii :3
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
Secretly longing for the car industry to bring back tiny cars. https://twitter.com/theOlliePickard/status/1284890758810669057?s=19 I'd settle for a scaled replica like these K4GP cars tbh https://twitter.com/ohgodwhatdoiput/status/1193622924407783432?s=19 https://twitter.com/greatistheworld/status/1125517665882103809?s=19 Olympic Mathlete fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jul 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Secretly longing for the car industry to bring back tiny cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Secretly longing for the car industry to bring back tiny cars. Alibaba has you covered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Secretly longing for the car industry to bring back tiny cars. That gt0.4. Holy moly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Puddin posted:That gt0.4. Holy moly. The exact reaction I had 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:The exact reaction I had It looks like it's centre of gravity is below the actual road surface. The proportions are spot on and the roof is lower than the loving middle of the door of the Mira. I love how they had to put a bubble in the roof to fit the drivers helmet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Fun fact. When the center of gravity is below rotation axis drawn across wheels, you actually don't need an anti sway bar. In fact some race cars have the opposite. They have mechanisms to apply body roll to the chassis. This is to counteract the body antiroll induced by cars with these specific mass geometry conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
x-post from the OSHA thread:Platystemon posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
 That roll bar is....optimistic. Then again, I assume there is no possible way to flip these things over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Fun fact. When the center of gravity is below rotation axis drawn across wheels, you actually don't need an anti sway bar. In fact some race cars have the opposite. They have mechanisms to apply body roll to the chassis. This is to counteract the body antiroll induced by cars with these specific mass geometry conditions. Wait so instead of the car rolling outwards like I expect to see the weight pendulums outwards at ground level instead and the car looks like it's leaning in?  that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
The effect isn't as dramatic as positive body roll you see in most road cars since you can only put the center of mass so low before you hit the ground, but yeah, they lean into corners like boats do. It's not a desirable effect since it can cause havoc on handling predictability, hence the negative stabilizers. There's a strong chance for this to occur on any vehicle whose body height is lower than the tire diameter. Which is unsurprisingly not a lot of vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
tuo posted:
Never say never, there's always a way to flip a race car. That roll bar wouldn't pass rules for most if not all racing groups in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
I went googling for K4GP and found a video with english subtitles. The GT0.4 makes an appearance about 4 minutes in. It's powered by a Kawasaki 12F jet ski engine.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnn3b-lxTAY
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Fun fact. When the center of gravity is below rotation axis drawn across wheels, you actually don't need an anti sway bar. In fact some race cars have the opposite. They have mechanisms to apply body roll to the chassis. This is to counteract the body antiroll induced by cars with these specific mass geometry conditions. Got an example or keyword you'd recommend to search? This sounds really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
It's not a keyword more than it is a specific suspension geometry that gives it away.  Of course my doodle isn't exact, and there are an infinite number of solutions, but when the center of mass is below the roll center like depicted, a sway bar is merely a suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
Ahhhhhhhhh  https://twitter.com/douglassonders/status/1285617757199925250?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Oh hey, I literally studied this in school! Let's see if I remember anything!  I think um excuse me's sketch is 100% accurate, but if I remember: You can imagine your roll center as the point a car will pivot around (viewed from the front), and the center of mass as the point your lateral forces are applied. If your roll center is more or less on top of your center of mass, the distance between them is real short, so the force doesn't have a lot of lever arm to roll the body. Your springs resist this motion, often times enough that sway bars aren't strictly necessary. If your roll center is ABOVE your CoM (uncommon), your car will actuall bank like an airplane into turns, but there are other detrimental effects, such as your tires wanting to scrub sideways a relatively large amount for a given amount of body roll/vertical travel. In um excuse me's sketch, if the body moves up or down, the tires are going to want to move sideways which is somewhat comprimising for grip. Formula designers know what they're about, though, and their cars have miniscule body roll and vertical travel though, and they can tune for whatever dynamics they're looking for. If your roll center is BELOW your CoM (basically any road car), you get the behavior everyone's familiar with where the top of your car wants to roll towards the outside of a turn. If I remember, your roll center being at ground level has the effect of your tires scrubbing sideways not at all with body roll/travel. I feel like there's another effect I'm forgetting but I don't remember. There's tons of tradeoffs in suspension design, and there's different effects if your instant centers are closer or farther away from the car (ie, more parallel or less parallel a-arms trade off if your tire camber changes more with roll than with travel, or vice versa, respectively) and how long your a-arms are. Cars designed for very wide tires tend to try and keep their tires as vertically as possible, so for example you'd want nearly parallel A-arms (keep them vertical in travel), with stiff anti-roll bars, or have your roll center at your center of mass. Some really clever designs I've seen decouple the springs from the suspension roll, so in effect you have one set of springs that only resist vertical motion, and another spring (or antiroll bar) that only resists roll, extremely tunable. I don't know any reliable resources to look at offhand (other than probably wikipedia), but some good books are: Tune to Win and Design to Win by Carroll Smith - really really good reads if you're looking into racecar design, this guy designed race cars for decades and was a Formula SAE judge for many years. Written in more or less plain english, light on equations but heavy on diagrams and descriptions of what happens Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken - this is like a college-level textbook on suspension design Chassis Engineering by Herb Smith - this one's okay, is a much shorter book than the above stuff I think that's right, someone jump on me if I got something wrong. It's been about fifteen years since I thought about this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
The three spring pushrod/pullrod suspension set up is an example of isolating the higher spring rates for compression/rebound and a lower spring rate for turning, effectively doing the opposite of a sway bar. All the ones I've seen still have a sway bar, though. Instant center determines the dynamic camber rate in cornering relative to your spring rate. The further the instant center is from the center of the car, the less dynamic camber, the closer the instant center is, the more dynamic camber. You want a short instant center for cars with rougher racing surface to accommodate softer suspension and longer travel. Of course straight gravel or snow is the exception to the rule, since slip angles become a dominant handling feature. Dynamic camber is also determined by length of upper and lower suspension linkages, but this isn't a lecture so I'll leave it at that. um excuse me fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jul 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Awesome thanks! I'm used to working on just production street cars turned into race cars with super specific rules that basically amount to you can change springs, shocks, sway bars and bushings, adjusting things like mounting points and geometry are forbidden. Also we never had the tools to measure or simulate what was going on so it was 99% change one thing and look at the data logs, not engineer a plan from the outset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:Ahhhhhhhhh be still my beating heart
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
So it's a Desert Eagle then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
 Just sold for $250k on Bring A Trailer, with 8k miles on the clock
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
  Outside the local shop I brought the RS4 to today. They apparently also had a twin turbo R8 V10 in for a clutch job. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Memento posted:
I was gonna post that earlier, but I got distracted. That price is absolutely ridiculous in every way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
It’s red. I think it’s worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
Memento posted:
BaT really is having some stupidity level effect on the classic car market. But OTOH 250K for a utterly mint stock 1988 M3? I'd say that wasnt actually too far off base.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
Is the car a $250k experience or is it in the grasp of a collector at this point? I'd assume the latter, but I've never driven one so I can't say for sure. $250k can buy a shitload of car bliss, it would be a hard argument to the former.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Collector, definitely. The E30 M3 needs a track to be appreciated, and that one will never see one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
The cars as investments people are the worst but it smacks of Tulips where one day the only people turning up to auctions will be sellers as the bubble will have burst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 10:49
|
|
