|
|
|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-18-2011, 06:08 AM | #45 |
Brigadier General
435
Rep 3,888
Posts |
M3 E30: 200 PS
M3 E36: 286 PS (+86 PS) M3 E46: 343 PS (+57 PS) M3 E92: 420 PS (+77 PS) M3 F32: 450 PS (+30 PS) BMW M3 EVOIII E30: 238 PS BMW M3-R E36: 326 PS (+88 PS) BMW M3 CSL E46: 360 PS (+34 PS) BMW M3 GTS E92: 450 PS (+80 PS) BMW M3 CSL E92: (not known yet) BMW M3 "CSL" F32: 480 PS (+30 PS) When you look at the power incread compared to the previous, the M3 F32 is going to get the lowest HP increase ever in M3 history. But as I already said before many time, the M3 F32, unlike the M5 and M6 F1X, is going to be the first successor to be lighter than its predecessor. The M3 F32 sould weight under 1600 kg, that would be 55/75 kg lighter than the M3 E92. In fact it could end up being even lighter than the M3 E46, this means 1550 kg (EU). Of course the figured weight would be of the standard M3, so with 6MT if it still stays available, and without to many technolgy/comfort features such as head-up-display and so, and if S55/S53 is lighter, or at least not any heavier than S65. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 10:14 AM | #47 | |
3rd wait as she's in storage for the winter
16
Rep 282
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
Quote:
A bigger, heavier car requires much higher rigidity than a smaller, lighter car in order to maintain the same deflection through the real world exercise. Secondly a highly rigid structure is not necessarily beneficial in a crash like you are describing (I'm not sure a head on collision would have a whole lot to do with torsional rigidity anyway), sure a highly stiff structure would suffer less damage than a less stiff one (all else being equal) but it would also more likely injure or kill the occupants than a less stiff one. A safe car's goal in a crash is to dissipate energy over as long a period of time as possible and direct the forces around the passenger cabin, not to withstand an impact intact.
__________________
2011 E92 M3, 2009 Jaguar XJ8, 2008 S2000 CR, 2008 Evo X MR
Last edited by AM150; 08-18-2011 at 10:21 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 10:56 AM | #48 | |
Colonel
87
Rep 2,464
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2011 MINI Cooper S
previous cars: E92 M3, Z4MC, Z4 Roadster, E36 328 Sedan |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 11:19 AM | #49 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
In my opinion, BMWs tend to have the best ride/handling compromise, model by model, partly because they are rigid. However, all this said, there is no direct correlation between torsional rigidity and crashworthiness. None. The absolute best you can say is that a vehicle with a very good torsional rigidity probably needs a fair amount of material to make it so, therefore intrusion into the cabin in a particular accident may possibly be less likely. In addition, the extra weight is never a disadvantage in a collision, and will often be an advantage, as previously mentiond. However, you could also say that a vehicle with very good torsional rigidity might in fact be naturally more dangerous to its occupants, assuming more material in its construction, because you need a bunch of "crush" in order to ease the G load on driver and passengers. Quote:
Imagine the Bugatti is infinitely rigid, and the only thing that happens when you hit a tree is that the paint gets blemished. In that case, the occupants would almost surely die because of the massive G-force spike they would undergo. Ideally, the Bugatti would crush right back to the firewall in that collision, meaning it stops from 50 in, say, four or five feet. This is infinitely better than it coming to a halt in zero feet. Capiche? In the Z3, BMW has designed it such that in a 50 mph tree hit, the front end would crush (including any subframe materials), the engine would drop down (so it wouldn't smash back into the cabin), and the car would shorten itself up back almost to the firewall. This is how you maximize occupant safety. In effect, you weaken everything up except the passanger nacelle - and torsional rigidity is pretty much a non-issue in this circumstance. Quote:
Quote:
If the Smart Car were infinitely rigid, the results would be even worse for the occupants, because crush zones mitigate peak Gs, as is obvious and and has already been mentioned. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 12:17 PM | #50 |
Captain
58
Rep 747
Posts |
I admit that I do not know enough about crash physics and realize now that a head on collision was not the best choice, however, I never said infinite stiffness because that wouldn't absorb or deflect any of the force. The car still has crumple zones and that is where the impact is absorbed, the chassis stays rigid which is exactly what you want.
Robert Kubica Crash - Canada 2007 If the actual chassis of this car was any less stiff it would have not been able to keep up to the force of the a) nearly head on impact, b) roll, or c) skid Mark Webber Crash - Valencia 2010 What about here? |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 04:10 PM | #51 |
Brigadier General
435
Rep 3,888
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 05:54 PM | #53 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
42
Rep 1,756
Posts |
I did not read the whole thing but that's why america is loaded with useless suvs and many other retarded cars while the rest of the world have all the good cars. Bigger does not mean safer. Also it's way cheap to slap a bigger and then using lightweight materials.IMO all the weight is added by sensors, hard drives, wiring, bigger wheels, thicker glass for NVH.
Anyhow I've always been told either the car takes the hit or you take it and to think about driving does involves a risk like anything in life.
__________________
Originally Posted by corneredbeast
An engine from a Z06 Corvette. A differential from a Vespa. Damn Quote:
Last edited by mtla4; 08-18-2011 at 06:00 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 05:54 PM | #54 |
Zooombie attaaack!!
136
Rep 1,179
Posts |
The current M3 with about 500lbs shaved off of it would still need nearly 414hp to achieve the same top speed. Above 120 mph or so, weight becomes almost negligible as the aerodynamics of the car start to be the biggest factor is top speed. Obviously, lighter weight helps a ton with acceleration under 100mph and cornering/braking at any speed. My point is, give me a few hundred pound lighter car, but keep the same HP!
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 05:55 PM | #55 | |
1M advocate
214
Rep 878
Posts |
Quote:
Also that BMW CF plant (it's actually SGL group) hasn't been built yet and other manufacturers have bought into SGL lately as well, so it isn't solely a bmw operation.
__________________
2012 BMW S1000RR
2011 BMW M3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 05:55 PM | #56 |
Colonel
83
Rep 2,291
Posts |
I want to believe this but BMW has made cars heavier and heavier... I would definitely want the future to bring lighter cars but I just don't see this happening in this segment.
__________________
2jZ + RB26 + 4G63 + LS9 + N54 =
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 05:56 PM | #57 | |
Ignorance is Bliss?
101
Rep 484
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 06:45 PM | #59 |
Lieutenant
57
Rep 550
Posts |
I hear angels singing in my head now - This is what we all wanted to hear forever!!
__________________
A BMW can be described in one simple, yet true statement, "From the outside you don't understand, from the inside you can't explain." How true is THAT?!
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 06:46 PM | #60 |
Major General
5311
Rep 5,824
Posts |
There is something people are overlooking with the i3 and i8 is that their respective weights are actually significant because they are individually developed models for a purpose.
Now with other manufacturers adapting electrified powertrains to current models their weight goes up and it is not a minimal increase. What is signifcant for BMW is that they started the CFRP process very early so they took the initial expense hit early now that is in production of a reasonable volume for the M3 and forthcoming M6 Coupe's. BMW M can actually fit the CFRP cost-effectively now to these models. If Audi or Mercedes-Benz had to do so on the RS5 and C63 respectively they would be more expensive. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 06:46 PM | #61 |
.
810
Rep 3,974
Posts |
Power to weight ratio is important...but you need all out horsepower if you are looking at ultra triple digit speeds. Aerodynamics is such a big factor at higher speeds. Hence a Lotus can be very quick down low, but runs out of steam at upper speeds. A heavy Bently might not be very quick down low due to the heavy weight hurting the power to weight ratio..but can still top out at close to 200mph.
__________________
2011 Alpine 335d M-Sport 12.34 @ 110.48mph
2019 i3s Terra, 2008 Black 335i Sedan. 11.11@ 129.47 mph 2008 Monaco Blue JB3 2.0 335i Coupe. 11.33 @ 132.77 mph, 60-130mph: 6.95 seconds 2023 i4 M50 11.48 @ 121.56mph, 3.43 0-60 (dragy) |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 06:49 PM | #62 |
Major General
5311
Rep 5,824
Posts |
FYI - The new 3er will NOT BE @ FRANKFURT
It will launch in the Autumn in preperation for a Geneva premiere coinciding with the European on-sale date. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 07:02 PM | #63 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
In an F1 car, priorities are different. The reason the entire chassis is very rigid is that you are trying to deform the hell out of it with four plus Gs in the turns, and you need max stability in order for the suspension to be stable and work properly under those conditions. Quote:
Quote:
Voila. Crush zones. Quote:
And by the way - none of this directly relates to torsional rigidity as an important part of occupant safety, because it is of little consequence in that regard. More torsional rigidity is a good thing, but it's not a safety issue. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 07:28 PM | #64 |
Colonel
336
Rep 2,940
Posts |
Has anybody thought about just going back to smaller cars. The 1M is larger than the E30 M3. Look at how big the 5 and 7 series have gotten. If you combine new efficient engine technology with new lighter materials technology AND make cars smaller like they used to be, just imagine what you could accomplish in terms of fuel economy, emissions, and all aspects of performance. I still don't fully understand why manufacturers continue to make cars bigger and bigger. I thought the e39 M5, for instance, was very nicely sized. Why did it have to get so much bigger?
__________________
Audi S6 * Audi S3 * Porsche Cayman GTS
--Former BMW M3 owner |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 07:44 PM | #65 | |
Colonel
87
Rep 2,464
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2011 MINI Cooper S
previous cars: E92 M3, Z4MC, Z4 Roadster, E36 328 Sedan |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2011, 07:45 PM | #66 | |
Colonel
87
Rep 2,464
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2011 MINI Cooper S
previous cars: E92 M3, Z4MC, Z4 Roadster, E36 328 Sedan |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|