I was eating and thinking bread.
Apparently for you it's unacceptable to type a mistake though. Not everyone has a silver spoon in their draw.
I was eating and thinking bread.
Apparently for you it's unacceptable to type a mistake though. Not everyone has a silver spoon in their draw.
Maybe, but 1980's era is how I like my race cars.
I don't care about the spelling mistake; I'm talking about the definition. Taking a road car (i.e. a production car designed for use on the roads) and turning it into a racing car will never produce a thoroughbred racing car. A thoroughbred is something designed solely for one purpose (e.g. a thoroughbred racehorse is bred to race). An example of a thoroughbred racing car would be something like Formula 1 or GP2. They are designed, from the start to the end, to be racing cars. Even if the racing car only has a small crossover in parts when compared to the road car (e.g. floorpan, engine block) it cannot, by definition, be a thoroughbred.
Well if you take a thoroughbred race car like McLaren F1 for example, it was made as both road and track excursions, to be honest, any race car is a thouroughbred in a one dimensional sense, in it's road form it's just a foal and during the building process is 'bred' to be a race-car.
In terms of cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche to name a few, they are pretty much race cars for the road anyway but it's a tough subject to classify as alot of race cars had to be built as road specials aswell to conform to regulations. Such as Group B.
I don't think you understand the word thoroughbred, "thorough" means everything on the car is there for one purpose, so it is in nature one dimensional. a thoroughbred has pure racing DNA, the Mclaren F1 isn't one because there are excess that isn't needed from the get go.
the moment it is compromised with comfort and traffic laws it ain't a thoroughbred.
the moment it is compromised with comfort and traffic laws it ain't a thoroughbred.
I do understand the word, but applying it to motorsport is something different.
(Töki (HUN))
DELETED
by Töki (HUN) : nvm, cba
No...just no. Put the shovel down and back away.
There is a lot of room for interpretation. What a race car needs or does not need to go racing is not always based on whether that piece of equipment or design choise is required for the car do better. It is usually required to meet the rules of a series. A gt car has certain requirements like air conditioning among others (being based on a road car, restricted engines) that don't make it any faster. With lemans prototypes certain technical designs are encouraged and made faster by rules. Diesels versus petrol. Pure petrol/diesel versus hybrids. It is restricted in its thoroughbred ability to race. Does it matter if a race car is slower because of comfort, traffic laws or rules of the racing series?
Every race car has a certain starting point. That starting point is not usually a design goal of being just fast but being in accordance to a set of rules. Do those kind of rules make a race car less thoroughbred? In the most purest sense yes of course but then where do you draw the line? If the only thing that makes a car a thoroughbred race car is its ability and purpose to race then even the most basic daily road car with a roll cage and a sweaty swearing englishman inside it is a thoroughbred race car right? Does it become more thoroughbred if you remove the rollcage and replace the englishman by a flying finn it it?
There is a distinction between being a thoroughbred race car and thoroughbred fast car.
Every race car needs to fulfill all the rules of a racing series in order to be allowed to race. In that sense you could argue that race cars are mostly product of the rules and less about being thoroughbred race cars. On the other hand those cars are still designed to do only one thing: to race. After all a thoroughbred race car is for racing. Not just hotlapping. It's purpose is to race, right?
What is the most thoroughbred race car? Is it a dragster with most hardcore approach to its design goal or is it a gt4 race car? Both are still as thoroughbred race cars as the rules allow. Is the most thoroughbred race car racing in a series where there are least amount of rules even if they don't have the budgets to maximise that freedom? Is the "thoroughbredness" of the race car more about what it tries to achieve than what it is?
Every race car has a certain starting point. That starting point is not usually a design goal of being just fast but being in accordance to a set of rules. Do those kind of rules make a race car less thoroughbred? In the most purest sense yes of course but then where do you draw the line? If the only thing that makes a car a thoroughbred race car is its ability and purpose to race then even the most basic daily road car with a roll cage and a sweaty swearing englishman inside it is a thoroughbred race car right? Does it become more thoroughbred if you remove the rollcage and replace the englishman by a flying finn it it?
There is a distinction between being a thoroughbred race car and thoroughbred fast car.
Every race car needs to fulfill all the rules of a racing series in order to be allowed to race. In that sense you could argue that race cars are mostly product of the rules and less about being thoroughbred race cars. On the other hand those cars are still designed to do only one thing: to race. After all a thoroughbred race car is for racing. Not just hotlapping. It's purpose is to race, right?
What is the most thoroughbred race car? Is it a dragster with most hardcore approach to its design goal or is it a gt4 race car? Both are still as thoroughbred race cars as the rules allow. Is the most thoroughbred race car racing in a series where there are least amount of rules even if they don't have the budgets to maximise that freedom? Is the "thoroughbredness" of the race car more about what it tries to achieve than what it is?
With respect to the term "thoroughbred" I disagree. A racing car either is a thoroughbred or it isn't. If it's comprised of parts designed purely for racing (i.e. it does not have crossover or common parts with a road car) it's a thoroughbred. As soon as you introduce a common part (e.g. an engine block or floorpan from a road car) it isn't a thoroughbred.
Yes, most racing cars are required to meet the rules and restrictions for the series they're intended to compete in. However, this compliance does not necessarily mean the cars cannot be thoroughbred. If the rules only aspects such as permitted dimensions, minimum masses of components, permitted materials and other restrictions of the kind they still allow a thoroughbred racing car to be designed to meet those rules. A current F1 car, for example, must use a 2.4 litre V8 engine and must have a usable reverse gear. It is still a thoroughbred racing car. If, however, the F1 rules were changed such that the engine block had to come from a road car of the engine supplier the overall car (using the road-based engine) would no longer be a thoroughbred.
If there is such a thing as a thoroughbred road car it would have to be a thoroughbred with respect to being a road car. The two (i.e. thoroughbred with respect to racing and thoroughbred with respect to road use) are not the same. This is the same reason why a thoroughbred racing horse is not the same as a thoroughbred showjumping horse.
As I said before, something either is or isn't a thoroughbred; there aren't degrees. You could debate the purity of certain racing cars (e.g. GT1 car is more pure than a V8 Supercar but neither are thoroughbred racing cars) though.
I don't think it really matters at all where the part came from or what it does. It's more about it's purpose and ability to do its job. An engine block from a road car can do its job really well in a race car. There are countless of examples of that in racing cars. A part being taken from a road car does not necessarily make a race car less thoroughbred.
A race car is built on tech specs. Not some ideology. All that ideology adds is limitations and restrictions. To not have an engine block from road car is an ideological choice. Not an engineering one. A thoroughbred race car is definitely based on good engineering and not on ideology. After all thoroughbred in one sense means being pure for its purpose without compromise.
Race car is complex entity that consists of many parts. Just like road cars are. In the end it is just a sum of its parts. Some parts can be thoroughbred race equipment like shocks, steering wheels and seats. Taking thoroughbred racing equipment from race car to road car does not make the road car a thoroughbred race car just like taking thoroughbred racing equipment from road car to race car does not make the race car any less thoroughbred. Not unless every part of the race car needs to be made for itself and for itself only for it to be thoroughbred race car. In which case there probably isn't single race car that can fulfill that requirement.
But I said thoroughbred fast car. There is this difference I was trying to point out. I never meant road cars. A thoroughbred racing car is for racing. A thoroughbred fast car is for going fast. Racing is more than just about going fast. A thoroughbred race car is not thoroughbred fast car because it is compromised by its own design to be able to race somewhere because of rules requirements.
I think your argument would make a lot more sense if you were trying to say something about thoroughbred fast cars because saying that does instantly give the thoroughbred fast car much more freedom to achieve that goal of being fast. Being a thoroughbred race car is always a complex compromise. Racing is always compromise about speed and everything else. With all kinds of rules and requirements having a huge effect on the result. A race car can only be as thoroughbred as the rules allow. In one sense within those rules the race car is always a pure thoroughbred race car while in larger context it never is.
I definitely say there are degrees and also room for interpretation. I see the thoroughbred as an adjective to fulfill it's potential and reach its goal without compromising for other values that go against its main goal.
Within the set of rules a race car car is always thoroughbred race car. A v8 supercar is as thoroughbred as it gets within its rules. Just like F1 is just as thoroughbred as it gets within its rules. But a thoroughbred race car is always a prisoner of its rules and thus can never be thoroughbred fast car.
Stretching the point a car like the redbull X1 can never be a thoroughbred race car. There is no place for it to race. It is a thoroughbred fast car.
This is where we have a fundamentally different definition of the word thoroughbred and why no amount of debate will resolve it. Unless you want to re-define thoroughbred I don't think any of your arguments are really valid. If we don't have the common ground of the definition of the word we're arguing over what point is there in even trying to?
Goes both ways.
Probably not much. I could agree with blueflame just for kicks if you really want to write a long post
Well, my arguments don't need a re-definition of the word "thoroughbred"
Yuah but you were talking about horses in a thread that is about best car sounds
.Speaking of the LFA...
24 Hours of Nurburgring 2010 full lap onboard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJi-Cz8AOFQ
Funny commentary around 7:00, as the driver is boxed by a Porsche and a slow hatchback.
Another moment at 8:05 with a Beamer./spannerinworks 1
Well if you think about it, the engine is the most critical and important thing in any car, and most racecars have a thoroughbred engine that was made (or has been made previous) specifically for a racecar and only for that.
@samjh It looked like an S2000 to me.
Well if you think about it, the engine is the most critical and important thing in any car, and most racecars have a thoroughbred engine that was made (or has been made previous) specifically for a racecar and only for that.
@samjh It looked like an S2000 to me.
Nope. The engine hasn't been the most important aspect of the car in F1 for a long time now. Aerodynamics play a MUCH bigger role in overall car performance than engine performance does. Ask a team whether they'd rather have a 1% increase in downforce at 200kph (with no extra drag) or a 1% increase in peak power (with no extra mass) and they'd bite your hand off for the downforce. Of course, there have been times in F1 where the engine was probably the most important aspect (especially before the introduction of wings and other downforce generating parts and during the turbo power with fuel restrictions period). Tyres (in an era of multiple tyre suppliers) also play a larger part in overall performance than the engine.
If you don't have an engine, you ain't racing. If the car ran without aero it would still be able to go around a circuit.
The only thing as important as the engine, are the wheels. Without these it's not a motorcar.
Interms of performance you'd be correct in regards to F1, other open-spec disciplines engine is more important than aero, infact, in most other disciplines.
Just because an engine is necessary doesn't mean it's the "most critical and important thing in any car". If that logic were true there would be several things which were the "most critical and important thing in any car".
For example?
If something is necessary then it's most definately one of the most important things in the design.
Example would be touring car series for one, NASCAR to a small degree.
GT1 and GT2 classes also. And even in P1 and P2, if your engine brakes you won't finish the race regardless of performance, knock of some aero winglets and you're still in the game.
Yes, I agree. But it isn't necessarily the "most critical and important thing in any car". Do you understand the distinction here?
I agree, to an extent. However, when Alfa started putting bigger and bigger aero kits on their BTCC cars in the '90s they dominated and forced everyone to follow suit. If that isn't a clear example of aero being the critical factor in touring cars (when other aspects are less open to exploitation) I don't know what could convince you.
Perhaps in the past, but with the regulations so closed now (COT aero, for example) there aren't many aspects of car design open for exploitation, so it's a bit of a moot point.
GT1 has artificial balancing performed on the cars to equalise performance across makes. With GT2 the wide variance in car layouts (e.g. MR for the Ferraris and RR for the Porsches) makes isolation and comparison of engines difficult. For example, the extra traction inherent in an RR solution might appear to make the Porsche engine better than the Ferrari engine in low speed driveability.
Again, this ignores the distinction between a necessary component and the "most critical and important thing in any car".
If actually turning the wheels isn't critically important to a racecar in your eyes then have fun sitting in your bathtub making engine noises with your mouth. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeXfthnIzd8
(the music will go away)
Me likes. The mustang sounds neat
(the music will go away)
Me likes. The mustang sounds neat
Wakisaka is a Toyota works driver. I don't think he would represent Honda.
The best race car and roadcar sounds thread
(416 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG