Horsepower wars coming to a close, weight wars begin. BMW fires first salvo

[AM150]

Originally Posted by gobrigavitch

It's very frustrating what the US government has done to cars. I can't remember the quote or who said it, but I once heard that the US is the only government that is hell bent on protecting people from themselves. It's evidenced by all the rules that are designed to protect drivers and passengers that don't wear their seat belts. It's really frustrating here in Canada, because we basically get no say. Since we are a smaller market and live right next door, we basically get all the same safety equipment as the US. It would be really interesting to see a figure that shows how much weight is added by the various safety regulations. Even better if it also documented just how much safer it makes the cars, and the total cost of that safety improvement in extra manufacturing costs and extra energy expenditure. I think the results would be eye-popping.

The most annoying thing about that is that they still allow motorcycles and push bikes on the road. If I am allowed to accept the risk to my safety when on 2 wheels, why not on 4 wheels?

[FStop7]

They kind of have to come to an end. I mean for $100k you can buy a ZR1 monster, for $65k you can buy a Z06. The Aventador is rated at 700hp. How much more power can a street car make while staying controllable?

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3

BMW never believed in front wheel drive vehicles... BMWi will be manufacturing front wheel drive vehicles.

OT, but just FYI, there are no FWD i vehicles planned. i8 and i3 are RWD, and future i vehicles will be too.

But yes, BMW does plan to sell some vehicles branded as 1 series, based on the next generation "UKL" chassis shared with mini.

[Polarcharger]

Recall when the e9x M3 arrived BMW told us "The new V8 is lighter than the outgoing six!" Somehow they never addressed that the total vehicle weighed 100 kilos more than the E46 M3.

I expect "BMW lightweight technology" won't have made it into the F10 M5. Maybe not the next M3 either.

[skier]

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

Same weight and more horsepower would make it go faster

Ja, in a straight line.

[shay2nak]

I will always pick the lighter car. It's just way more fun to drive.

I'm way ahead of you guys. I took this formula, and as someone already posted: made it even more powerful and even lighter. Something I'm going to carry over to the M3. I figure you should be able to lose about 300 lbs from this car without getting too crazy. Although I haven't had a chance to fully research all the available parts that would help the car lose weight.

CF hood, CF trunk, CF roof, Li-ion battery, front seats, wheels, exhaust, brakes(?), suspension(?), headers(?)

[duk]

well this is why we have efficient dynamics, why bmw invested so much in a CF/composite plant

they may be the first mass produced car company to have a CF body shell in 5 years or so

[mkoesel]

Oh man, you'd have to pull kicking and screaming from that Exige. Getting married, planning for kids?

Originally Posted by shay2nak

I will always pick the lighter car. It's just way more fun to drive.

I'm way ahead of you guys. I took this formula, and as someone already posted: made it even more powerful and even lighter. Something I'm going to carry over to the M3. I figure you should be able to lose about 300 lbs from this car without getting too crazy. Although I haven't had a chance to fully research all the available parts that would help the car lose weight.

CF hood, CF trunk, CF roof, Li-ion battery, front seats, wheels, exhaust, brakes(?), suspension(?), headers(?)

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

...Yes as the Chinese say ... May you live in "Interesting Times" and we sure are

Pretty much a nit, but that is a very famous Chinese curse. "Interesting times" meant war, famine, disease, pestilence, drought, etc.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Mahzari

More horsepower only helps acceleration. Less weight helps acceleration, braking, cornering and gas mileage.

Another nit, but horsepower also directly affects top speed.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Scoobe

I don't disagree with past trends, but something has got to give somewhere. High Strength Steel, Carbon Fiber and Carbon Plastics will become mainstream materials sooner or later. They have the potential to shave 300-700lbs off of current cars. It has always been a cost issue.

You bring up a good point though. How long before the government, who's demands already account for significant weight in cars, adds even more requirements that weigh down cars. We may just see cars maintain their weight instead of lose weight as these materials are introduced.

Their doesn't seem to be any way to get to the newly introduced U.S. mileage requirements without dropping a bunch of weight. If you're a high-performance fan, this is nothing but good.

However, these new standards will definitely lead to significantly more deaths on the road - just as they did the last time manufacturers were hell bent on reducing weight, starting back in the eighties.

The problem is not with hitting a tree or wall at 40 mph (or a head on with identical cars going 40, which is the same severity as the tree or wall hit). It's when the Smart Car does a head on with a Chevy Suburban. The soccer mom in the Suburban is going to stop the phone conversation long enough to say "What was that?" or somesuch, while the Smart Car's occupants will have to be hosed out of the vehicle.

There is no way NHTSA or your local congress idiot will admit to this, but it's just physics. Heavy vehicle and light vehicle tangle, light vehicle loses.

Trust me. There will be a lot of folks hanging on to their heavy machinery as these mileage standards come into play, so be careful out there in your newest M (or AMG, or whatever) made of unobtanium.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by RevFreak14

I hope they don't plan on shedding weight by using the same materials as on the Vette. The Vette is made of paper. I wouldn't want to be in an accident in one of them.

Wasn't aware of this. Do you have any data?

Bruce

[swamp2]

Although there is likely a trend here the OP has identified, it will not impact M cars in the next generation. Both the new M5 and M3 will have significantly more power than the existing cars.

The topic as to whether the US Government (what ever that vague term means) is directly responsible for things like engine choice, vehicle weight and hence fuel efficiency of M cars is open to debate. My analysis indicates it is much more about saving money than the forceful hand of Uncle Sam (or other Governments). See my post here and following discussion here.

As to safety of near future BMW cars: I don't think there will be any significant enough weight nor structural changes (see F10 M5 weight - higher than E60, also note size of new F3X 3 er - about the same as current) and thus no significant safety changes. The cars will no go to an aluminum frame any time soon and will not be using appreciably more composites outside of the existing locations (bumpers, fenders) for primary structure. Thus no significant changes in safety. Of course I do not disagree with the basic "weight wins" in a safety competition, which is basic physics.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Wasn't aware of this. Do you have any data?

Bruce

He probably meant the balsa wood cores of the composite floor, which I think was introduced in 1997. A very non traditional and high tech approach. It is things like this and leaf springs that get the Vette so much completely unwarranted criticism from folks who know nothing about engineering...

Numerous other man-made composite cores were tried as balsa could have long term degration problems but none of the other cores matched the stiffness, weight and NVH benefits of balsa.

[Mahzari]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Another nit, but horsepower also directly affects top speed.

I agree but seeing how German cars are limited to 155 or 186mph, top speed is pretty much irrelevant

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Wasn't aware of this. Do you have any data?

The torsional rigidity of the Corvette C5 is 9,100 Nm/deg, compare that to the 18,000 Nm/deg for a BMW E46 sedan.

Here's a whole list: http://www.**************.com/test-d...-rigidity.html

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Mahzari

The torsional rigidity of the Corvette C5 is 9,100 Nm/deg, compare that to the 18,000 Nm/deg for a BMW E46 sedan.

damn, even an E46 convertible is stiffer than a corvette!

"Lamborghini Countach 2,600 Nm/deg"
that's like my sons electric jeep

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

He probably meant the balsa wood cores of the composite floor, which I think was introduced in 1997. A very non traditional and high tech approach. It is things like this and leaf springs that get the Vette so much completely unwarranted criticism from folks who know nothing about engineering...

Numerous other man-made composite cores were tried as balsa could have long term degration problems but none of the other cores matched the stiffness, weight and NVH benefits of balsa.

I'm guessing that RevFreak14 has no concept of any of this, else he'd know about the increased stiffness along with light weight, and no effect on crashworthiness.

Speaking of light weight, the BMW M group could take some serious lessons from the Corvette guys in that regard. My '93 weighed 3340 pounds, which is just about what the latest Grand Sport and ZR-1s weigh, in spite of more equipment, bigger engines with more torque (you know where that leads), plus they meet more more stringent safety rules.

The current Z06 is even lighter than its brethren.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Mahzari

I agree but seeing how German cars are limited to 155 or 186mph, top speed is pretty much irrelevant...

So? More power equals more speed, in addition to more acceleration. Some folks know this, some don't. Now all readers of this string do.

Originally Posted by Mahzari

The torsional rigidity of the Corvette C5 is 9,100 Nm/deg, compare that to the 18,000 Nm/deg for a BMW E46 sedan...

The M cars (and BMWs in general) tend to be structurally very rigid. That's one of the reasons they weigh so much.

In what way is this a safety issue? Be specific, please.

Bruce

PS - As a by the way, my '85 Vette had a torsional rigidity of approximately 1 Nm/deg.

Minus one if you took the top off.

PPS - Still met all crash regs, front and side. The beams in the doors looked like they came out of a tank.

[1BMW4fun]

Originally Posted by the-moss

The most annoying thing about that is that they still allow motorcycles and push bikes on the road. If I am allowed to accept the risk to my safety when on 2 wheels, why not on 4 wheels?

Dont understand your logic in this. Your safety, what about others? How many can you kill on a 2 wheels vs a 4 wheels?

[1BMW4fun]

Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3

Currently, if there is anything BMW is known for it's inconsistency in past ideas and beliefs, breaking tradition, and change. Big change.

BMW condemned Audi for using Turbos... they now depend on turbos.

BMW condemned Benz for putting the same engine in lot of performance cars... we will soon see BMW do the same. Maybe not exact engines but variations.

BMW M believed and preached in all-natural, high-revving engines in M cars... 80% of current M cars on the market are twin turbos with average redlines. When the F3X M3 comes out, 100% of M cars will be forced induction.

BMW never believed in front wheel drive vehicles... BMWi will be manufacturing front wheel drive vehicles.

BMW preached hydrogen technology while everyone was working out hybrids/electrics... now BMWi will make hybrid/electric vehicles instead of hydrogen which they wasted years on developing.

They have reason for doing everything they have done, but it does blur the lines of what we know about BMW and M.



If there is anything you can depend on, it is that you can not rely on BMWs tradition or past trends to predict anything they will do. Shaving weight off of future vehicles is no different. Just because the weight has done nothing but go up, does not mean it will always do so and not reverse and start going down.

I dont know this for sure of course, but I do know we can not rely on BMWs past or traditions to determine the direction of the current BMW. So if something seems logical, with enough supported evidence, I will believe in that before I believe in tradition, past values, and past trends.

+1

We are all thinking in term of performance. In the gov. eye, safety will outweigh performance gain unless its in MPG.

[AM150]

Originally Posted by 1BMW4fun

Dont understand your logic in this. Your safety, what about others? How many can you kill on a 2 wheels vs a 4 wheels?

Very little of the weight adding safety features are there to protect the people I hit. It's all airbags, roof stiffening, side impact protection.

If the govt was concerned with protecting others it would be illegal to drive around with brush guards, snow plows, and massive suspension lifts on trucks. All those things massively endanger people you hit with your truck.

[Mahzari]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

In what way is this a safety issue? Be specific, please.

I don't want to get into an argument with you because you do have some good points.... But...

If you have two identical accidents, the car with a higher torsional rigidity will receive "less" damage. The BMW Z3 convertible has a torsional rigidity of 5,600Nm/deg and the Bugatti Veyron has one of 60,000Nm/deg. Which would rather be a passenger in if they both hit a tree head on at 50mph? Another way to look at it is to imagine an egg and an aluminum tube being thrown at a brick wall, the egg will get smashed while the aluminum might get dented.

Now, I think the only thing stopping cars from becoming lighter is the price of light materials. Also, just because something is light does not mean in cannot be strong. Carbon fiber is five times stronger than steel but the only reason a Kia Rio does not come with a carbon fiber chassis is because it is very expensive.