Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningStrong
A 500 kg car, with weaker, low-assistance brakes and a smaller contact patch would probably struggle to match a modern 1000 kg car.
|
Quote:
Handling and braking
While slightly heavier than other Caterhams the CSR still upholds Colin Chapman's philosophy of "add lightness."[2] Weighing only 575 kg (1,268 lb), the CSR has excellent handling, making it extremely agile. On the skidpad, the Caterham outperforms many supercars. Its 1.05 lateral g-force beats the 2007 Porsche 997 Turbo's 0.94 G, the Ferrari F50's 1.03 G, and the Ferrari Enzo's 1.01 G.
In braking tests, the CSR performs well. From 70 mph (110 km/h) to a complete stop, the CSR took 140 feet (43 m). The 997 Turbo, stopping from 60 mph took 99 feet (30 m).[3] The Ferrari F50 performed well, stopping from 60 mph (97 km/h) in 119 feet (36 m).[4] For comparison, an average 2011 road car (2011 Chevrolet Cruze LS) takes 167 feet (51 m) to completely stop from 70 mph (110 km/h)
|
Caterham 7 CSR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keeping in mind the Caterham is something an average DIY mechanic can build from scratch and doesn't have ABS, EBD, brake assist etc, that the others do. Porsches have always stopped quickly because the rear weight bias controls weight transfer under heavy braking.
Think about it this way, you're out on a drive and for whatever reason you need to stop suddenly (you happen to have 43m to do it), the dangerous light weight car stops without a scratch, while the safety ladden Cruze sends you to the hospital and probably the morgue.
There are of course some unavoidable accidents, but in general good handling/ braking cars could reduce accident severity at least as much as passive systems.
I wonder what would happen to the road toll if governments gave manufacturers the option to build actively safe cars in return for lower crash requirements. It seems like safer cars don't translate with any significant meaning to reduced death and injury statistics.