At what age did you realize that heavier cars are better than lighter ones?

At what age did you realize that heavier cars are better than lighter ones?

>more grip at low speeds
>safer in a crash
>better sound insulation

Idiots are always like

>b-but you need less power if it weighs less!

Sure, but a heavier car will always have a higher top speed with the same 0-60 time. For example a Lotus Elise is 900kg and has 130bhp, it will do 0-60 as fast as a medium-fast German barge, but a German barge will do 170mph and an Elise tops out at 125mph.

>y-you don't need to go 170mph!!!

That's not the point you retard. Above 60mph it will be slow as shit, holy fuck.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs
euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/8805/euroncap_smart_fortwo_2007_4stars.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>heavier cars are better than light ones
wrong

But which is more fun around the track. The one that feels like a go kart, or the one that feels like your mom's neutered sedan?
How often will you get to 170 mph? Shit even on closed courses it'll be unnecessary.

>more grip at low speeds
wrong
>safer in a crash
wrong
>better sound insulation
not related in any way

Weight has nothing to do with top speed you moron. It has to do with acceleration and inertia. There are merits to ultralight cars and moderately heavy cars for performance, all depends on what the design goal is.

>>more grip at low speeds
>>safer in a crash
>>better sound insulation

none of these things have any direct correlation with weight

You kids are so dumb.

If a car weighs more it will be slowed down less by an impact, meaning less force is transmitted to the driver as a result of a change in speed. Obviously the only exemption is if you crash into something which cant move, like a tree or some shit.

Go back to school.

Apparently they don't teach physics in school anymore. They did when I went though, which is how I know you are a complete moron.

im gunna have a go at this

lighter cars are cheaper to buy and cheaper to work on. easier to work on and cheaper to maintain

Are you saying a truck with an empty bed has more grip than a truck with sandbags over the axle?

No they don't
Thats why I came out of school thinking a Morris minor can handle a head on collision better than a 70s eldorado

At low speeds as OP suggested, yes. With less weight to accelerate less available traction is required. In the case of cornering, which OP is obviously talking about, a heavier car wants to continue in a straight line to a higher degree than a lighter car, so same result, less available traction required. I get that they don't even teach Newtons laws anymore and are probably spending that time in your generation's public schools to teach you about transgender acceptance, but have some common sense. Do you see go kart racers adding ballast to their karts?

I'm sorry that you are so angry about light weight vehicles.
I mean even though they are way better in every way.

Complete pleb.

Say you're driving a Mercedes S-Class and you rear end a Fiat Punto. Obviously you're going to demolish the Punto either way, but if you have a bunch of bricks tied down on the rear passenger seats and in the boot, you're going to obliterate it. Because you slow down less you're going to feel less of the impact.

Like, I said, go back to school.

>He actually thinks the no sandbag trick will have more grip
Roflmao typical retarded tripcucm

An Eldorado has a 6 foot long sheet metal box that will deform in front the firewall, the Minor doesn't. Has nothing to do with weight. Even if all collisions were head on a lighter car is better because it has less energy to disperse. Why don't you fill your trunk with sandbags like the last guy suggested? Think how much safer it will be in a head on collision. Maybe you just just take all the 45lb plates from your local Golds Gym and put them in the backseat too, you'll be practically invincible.

Yea an eldorado doesn't have a 7l engine and gearbox in front of the firewall
and a Morris minor will always come out ahead against an 1800kg Volvo suv in a head on collision according to your minimum wage grease monkey knowledge :^)

Yeah, nah. Fuck you, OP.

How much weight do you have added to your current car? How much better has it gotten since you added 1000lbs+ of ballast?

Went from undrivable in rain or on loose surface to fine

is that why race cars are stripped out and use the lightest materials possible?

There's definitely tons of cars out there that will just spin out if the road is wet because they are so light. That's how traction works of course. You're lucky your car just hasn't floated away into the atmosphere. Hopefully one day all the massive OEMs with tens of thousands of engineers can become as smart as one Veeky Forums poster, then they will figure out that they can just add lead shot to the car to make it do better in crash tests and handling comparos

Huur duur adding 1000kg to a lotus won't make it better!!!
Of course not
That doesn't change the fact that my truck has waay more grip when there's weight over the rear wheels

>cars without aero

>You're lucky your car just hasn't floated away into the atmosphere.

that's not funny dude, my friend in his miata flew away into the stratosphere when he took a corner at 25 mph (it was rated for 15).

Except your brake distance increases and your cornering gets worse.

Sure sand bags will stop you from spinning your tires leaving from a stop, but that's the only benefit.

What a fucking retard.

You probably live in Florida and have never seen snow you dirty nigger. Rain is a low friction surface much as snow is, have you ever wondered why people load their cars up with sandbags when it snows? Ever wondered why manufacturers use downforce? You sure are fucking stupid.

I'm enjoying the lite life

This may be too complicated to you, but I'm going to help you out just because it seems like you're having a lot of trouble operating your normal motor vehicle. Take a look at your wheels, somewhere on them is a stem, which will have a threaded cap on it. Remove the cap and push the little pin in behind it. This will let some of the air out of your tires, increasing your contact patch in the same way as putting weight in the bed.

My cornering increases because my ass isn't skipping along the road

See>ever wondered why manufacturers use downforce
They rarely do on vehicles such as trucks and economy cars, and those vehicles with them rarely go fast enough around turns to benefit from the downforce.
Spoilers are more about aesthetic on road cars.

Really? Because from my winter experience adding weight to the box makes oversteer more dramatic.

Letting air out of my 185s won't have same effect as 200kg of weight
Literally stop posting you worthless grease monkey

>Spoilers are more about aesthetic on road cars.
And gas mileage, and they help keep the rear window clean on hatchbacks/wagons/SUVs/crossovers.

>increased load over driven axle
increases the contact pressure between the tire and road, which leads to a different contact patch for tractive force transmission
>downforce, weight, high speed
cars will lift at high speeds, this lifting force is resisted more by a heavier car
>dynamics of wet surfaces and grip
don't even bother, tribology is already a heavily empirical science and adding fluids to the mix makes it even harder to wrap your head around

>more grip at low speeds
Friction is based on normal force, without down force barges have a higher normal force
>safer in crash
barges are likely to decelerate more slowly in car on car collisions due to increased momentum. safer
>better sound insulation
yeah you're right

15, but i started liking real cars when i hit 22

>gas mileage
I'll say "whatever" to that.
>help keep rear window clean
Aesthetic?

What the fuck is that

It's the exact same concept you turd. Putting 500kg of bricks in your car is exactly the same as using downforce, the difference is the bricks will work from 0mph and the downforce wont.

Obviously the bricks will hurt your stopping distances and acceleration where as the downforce wont, no one is arguing otherwise.

No, they can actually help keep dirt off the rear window by reducing turbulence (and with it dirt deposits).
It's kinda neat.

Because they're built for speed, less weight less power same speed. They do however need downforce to compensate not being thicc enough.

Gee I don't know user sure looks like a truck without the body panels and box

I think you may have spent too long in your shop huffing fumes because what you just said sure is stupid.

jesus, the bait here gets more retarded every day

Yes, it will

Did you really raid the thesaurus to post that and still not understand even rudimentary physics at the same time? When do you need traction? When trying to accelerate or turn. When do you need more traction? When your car is heavier. This is some super advance shit that only someone with 5 PHDs can understand, but I'll share it with you, maybe if you stare at it for an hour it will get through

-An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force

>Because they're built for speed, less weight less power same speed.

you mean, less weight, same power, more speed right?

Please stop posting you are embarrassing yourself.

m8 have you even been through a dynamics class?

>If a car weighs more it will be slowed down less by an impact, meaning less force is transmitted to the driver as a result of a change in speed.
Holy shit you're stupid.

Fnet = ma, nigger. It's slowed less because the same force causes less acceleration.

Heavier cars might have more safety features or a stronger frame, but adding weight in random places has no impact of passenger safety. If anything it makes you less safe because it means the vehicle has more kinetic energy at speed.

Not only do I have no idea what I'm talking about, the same goes for every single race team in every series on earth, both on and off road. The only benefit of light weight is top speed of course, has nothing to do with grip. But for some strange reason the only place people racing deliberately add weight is for top speed runs on the salt. Isn't it weird that everyone that actually knows what they are doing with cars does everything wrong, while an uneducated Veeky Forums poster casually thinking about something with no grasp on physics figures it all out instantly? Strange world we live in.

So you're saying if you had to be hit in the face by an object travelling 40mph you wouldn't care if it were a brick or a box of tissues?

At 60 mph a heavier car will have more kinetic energy, and more force in a crash as a result

Such a fucking moron. The damage to the body of the driver is a direct result of the change in speed following the crash.

Take crumple zones out of the equation entirely. If you hit a stationary 500kg object with a 1500kg moving object, the 1500kg object will slow down quite a bit, but a 3000kg one wouldn't slow down as much.

Nigger it's not the KE of the car that matters, it's the impulse of your body's deceleration. As long as that weight isn't hitting you it doesn't fucking matter.
Ever considered that you're the uneducated one?

>take everything that matters out of the equation entirely, and then assume that the crash is the type that constitutes maybe 1% of all auto accidents, and then maybe I may be right sometimes!
Does it hurt when you think? Everything you are saying is not just easily dismissed by actual physics and results of all crash testing statistics, but common sense.

So? Impulse involves acceleration, not velocity. Heavier = momentum.

You do realize the aim of crumple zones is to slow the rate of deceleration in an impact, right?

You do realize making a car heavier does this exact thing...

right?

Kid has brain damage I think, go back to fitting FRAM filters kiddo.

Want me to write out the equations for you you dumb fucking nigger? It isn't easily dismissed by physics, it's fucking supported.

to put it in terms you'd understand, when the fat footballer runs into you (social outcast malnourished faggot) you get rekt and he doesnt.

Go watch smart car crash videos and tell me the lighter car is safer.


Kys too.

This thread made me realize how little everyone here actually knows

The force has to go somewhere though, and if your heavier car doesn't have better crumple zones to compensate for its weight, it's going to get torn apart and you're going to get fucked up.

Acceleration on the driver is only critical in accidents involving stationary objects that aren't going to move when you hit them, like trees and walls - cases where being heavier doesn't change anything.

itt OP is a troll

Veeky Forums goes crazy

>The force has to go somewhere though
Yeah, straight into the dumbass I rear ended.

>If you hit a stationary 500kg object with a 1500kg moving object, the 1500kg object will slow down quite a bit, but a 3000kg one wouldn't slow down as much.
This depends entirely on whether or not the stationary object will move when struck - ie how much force it is capable of exerting on the car. If you hit a 500kg tree it doesn't matter whether or not your in the 1500kg car or the 3000kg one - you're gonna get wrapped around it.

Why don't we just do a simple high school example so you can understand it. I'll even use your head on crash with an El Dorado as an example

Crash A: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. Their engines and transmissions have been removed and their weight per car is 3500lbs.
Crash B: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. They are in stock condition and their weight is 5000lbs.
Crash C: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. They are in stock condition, but there is 10,000 lbs of ballast added in the trunk. The total weight of each car is 15,000lbs.

Which car is safest to be in?

I feel like this is relevant.
youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

Ye I should have said the 500kg object is movable, a Fiat 500 sat at some traffic lights, for example.

>Which car is safest to be in?
Stupid example because you're dead in any case, you aren't surviving a 60mph head on collision with another car no matter what you're driving.

The El Dorado example wasn't mine, and I was talking about rear ending someone/hitting something that will move.

Way to move the goal posts, gutter sucker.

Change it to whatever speed you want. Change the car on the right to whatever car you want, it can weight 200lbs. There is no situation in which having more force in the car you are in to disperse will help you in the case of a crash assuming the construction and characteristics of the structure is the same.

>Yeah, straight into the dumbass I rear ended.
When two objects collide they exert normal forces on each other. The exact force you apply to his bumper will also be applied to the front of your car. Your car is heavier, so it will accelerate his to match velocity, pushing it forward into the intersection. That takes a lot of force, force that could be pushing the engine of your landyacht into your lap.

checkmate tripfag

>assuming it's a perfectly inelastic collision

Top speed is more gearing and aero rather than acceleration and intertia.
Sure, acceleration helps you get to top speed faster which is always nice, but I'm not sure what inertia has to do with it.

>doing more work than you have to for someone who already doesn't understand it

not in any universe. bikes weigh less than a car and no car has acceraion rate of a bike unless stuck bike motor in a car so i call bullshit on your theory dingus. old equasion: lots of power no weight = go fast

according to your BS a F1 car weighs as much as a bus

In what universe does a bike have as much power as a car?

Dumbass.

busa universe, nigga..

...

Your bait is shit, sempai. Might I recommend mackerel or squid next time.

F=delta(mv)/t
whilst the car slows down less and thus has a smaller change in velocity, its mass is greater proportionally so the change in momentum is the same you fucking mongoloid

>Weight has nothing to do with top speed
Not true, a heaver car produces more normal force into the tyres, this creates additional frictional and hysteresis losses. These values are repetitively static and compared to aero have a negligible impact but not nothing.

On the other hand the change in momentum for the occupants is less as they have decelerated by a smaller amount and there mass is the same regardless of the mass of the vehicle surrounding them. Look at what happens when a train hits a car. Both vehicles experience the same change in momentum and the car almost always has a better safety structure but guess who walks away.

What a shitty piece of bait, the occupants aren't part of the car, fucktard.

>but guess who walks away.
The train *will* be damaged, but locomotives are so big that no part the car hits is really important.

In the example where you add ballast to a car as a safety measure in car-car collisions that is not the case.

Basically, while added weight will help you "win" a crash with another car, having actual safety features is still more important. Being heavy does not make cars safe on its own, but it can be a factor.

t. clueless armchair physicist

The smart is very safe for it's driver and passenger you dumb fuck.
euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/8805/euroncap_smart_fortwo_2007_4stars.pdf

Sure just because some Jewish agency says it's safe you're going to pack your kids in there? Good goy.

>>>more grip at low speeds
yes and also more weight to move, which cancel it out. Fucking retards, take a physics course.

Way to make the dumbest post of the year, in what way does more grip cancel itself out? Fucking virgin.

So you're saying that those 2000hp racing trucks are actually handling gods and no one knew?

Damn son Formula 1 see yourself out.

Way to miss the point entirely.

The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight. Ever see those 2000bhp Vette drag cars? There's a reason they dump a bunch of sandbags in the interior.

>The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight.

No it wouldn't and I'd like to see you prove that it would. Unless you shed the weight by removing the prop shaft, rear diff and drive shafts.

>The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight.

More momentum means more force is required to move the car in a turn. The force required to move all that mass is the same as the benefit of extra mass Pulling down on your car

Force of static friction = Force in turning your car around a turn.

>go over pothole in heavy car
>kill car and make pothole larger
meanwhile
>go over pothole in light car
>nothing happens
gee I wonder which is better

>lighter cars are always safer because they have less energy to disperse
t. tripfag

>posts a full size two seater hypercar

kepp shifting those goalposts

Fuck i wish i had a golden lel for you