Quote:
Originally posted by kaisen
Race tracks are controlled environments. The stresses a car sees are fairly predictable and replicateable. Tracks are mostly smooth, grades are mild, and temperatures limited. The specific stresses, while great, are very focused, and specific to the type of racing.
The 'real world' puts a car through many different types of stresses. Doors slamming, potholes, speed bumps, washboards, 30 below zero temps, full throttle at cold temps, etc.
Dynos and hot laps can help a manufacturer pinpoint a weak link. But if racing were the only 'proof' of a good car, then it would be the only 'proving grounds' a car manufacturer needed. We've all seen the robotic torture devices implemented by just about every manufacturer and oem. THEY can really test the durability of a car. Mercedes-Benz used to be the best, but their focus on R&D has elapsed over the last decade or more.
E
|
It seems, though, that so many cars are built with track-in-mind engineering. Selling point? Sure. Two cars I know of that campaigned this thought are the Cadillac CTS (partly engineered, supposedly, off laps done at Nurburing (sp?)), and the Honda S2000.
I drove a CTS, and the car, for all its inherent non-sport-like feel, had a very good amount of punch above 4,000 RPM to 6,500 RPM. The engine at least
acted somewhat racy.
The S2000 I haven't driven - only heard testimonies from others that it's truly all race car - which makes it near unbearable in city driving.