# Weight reduction to power?



## Will225 (Apr 15, 2016)

Not sure if anybody has worked this out but the old conversation of weight saving vs more power. If there calculated equivalent? for example 10kg off equals the same performance gain as 15bhp? (made up figures)


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

No really, lighter = faster, that's about all that can be figured!

The advantage over increasing power is you can turn faster and brake later... much more advantageous! 8)


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

hmmm....

http://www.tuneruniversity.com/blog/201 ... ght-ratio/


----------



## Will225 (Apr 15, 2016)

Thanks for that little bit of reading.


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

NickG said:


> No really, lighter = faster, that's about all that can be figured!
> 
> The advantage over increasing power is you can turn faster and brake later... much more advantageous! 8)


In Gran Turimo 4 yes.

IRL:
If you remove weight from the right places, you also gain an improvement in weight distribution.

However, a heavier car with the same bhp/kg as a lighter car may have an advantage on high speed circuits due to bhp vs drag.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

:? So your saying losing 200kg from this car won't make it a) corner better and b) stop sooner?

By that logic a Veyron should hold the production car lap record for high speed circuits such as the Nurburgring and Spa.... C'mon dude, lets not be argumentative for the sake of it.

EDIT: And also weight is removed from where you can find it... mainly at the rear of these cars, but that doesn't mean you don't take it out to keep a balance, you just corner weight the car correctly.


----------



## Will225 (Apr 15, 2016)

It's a rather complex subject


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

NickG said:


> :? So your saying losing 200kg from this car won't make it a) corner better and b) stop sooner?
> 
> By that logic a Veyron should hold the production car lap record for high speed circuits such as the Nurburgring and Spa.... C'mon dude, lets not be argumentative for the sake of it.
> 
> EDIT: And also weight is removed from where you can find it... mainly at the rear of these cars, but that doesn't mean you don't take it out to keep a balance, you just corner weight the car correctly.


It's not being argumentative, it's being accurate.

A Veyron isn't designed nor built for circuit lap records, it's built to be a comfortable long distance playboy £1000000 Audi TT/R8 with lots of Borsh power and big rubber to keep a moron from dying too quickly. A car's optimal laptime is more than the sum of it's fact sheet, something a playstation game won't account for. A Veyron will not do many sprint laps before everything melts, but while it hasn't yet melted, the balance of the car together with it's clever power distribution will allow the car to corner correctly, as long as the driver isn't too busy swearing at the shit steering.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"EDIT: And also weight is removed from where you can find it... mainly at the rear of these cars, but that doesn't mean you don't take it out to keep a balance, you just corner weight the car correctly."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Most" of the interesting cars have their weight towards the rear... where, (unless It's a Cayman... or a NSX.... Can you think of anymore?), the mass can't be removed or relocated when needed)

To really really simplify cornering in a performance situation, one shifts weight towards the steering wheels in the front by a lift or a brake, one then carries the ability to continue to rotate towards the apex, one then releases the ability to carry on the rotation when throttling out of the corner towards an exit.

You can't throttle like a crab, without clever cheaty electronic 4wd things, you can only thottle towards where the car is pointing, so therefore you must have the car rotated atleast towards the direction of intended travel, nevermind how nose heavy a TT is to begin with, removing mass from the rear of a TT leaves a massive bulk of inertia towards the front end and therefore would leave a user unable to optimally exit a corner without positive steering while the nose heavy balance of the car continue to prefer an exit towards the far side of the corner.

By asking for an even worse nose heavy imbalance, you're asking the nose of the car to do even MORE work than the rear, the only way to address this would be to deliberately remove the extra workload by compromising the drive even more. I.E. pretend to be a front drive muscle car and treat the circuit as a series of straight drags while just riding the bends? Just about anyone can push an accelerator and go as fast as a car can go in a straightline? What's the point? (simplified) As a pair of tyres can only do a maximum of something at a time, ideally you want those wheels to work on exiting with positive acceleration instead of accelerating while steering.

Over the lifetime of a set of tyres , a balanced car(with a slight rear bias) will run a proper circuit faster than the same imbalanced car with a bit less mass because it is preferable to have 4 tyres do the same job as 2. Unless the so-called circuit is a high speed bowl with silly banking.

The more days you put under the belt, the more you'll encounter assholes who map a car, strip a car, wear R888s, dead fast in the straight, holds people up in corners once their fronts have started to melt, only to justify the previous action by once again being fast in the straight, repeat repeat until they would submit (to the slower car behind getting increasingly close or a massive Blue LED board or flag or if they end up earing a barrier because they wouldn't submit,,, on a trackday.).

A wet Cadwell is a really good place to see evidence of this, about 79 cars on an MSV day, some of them nose heavy, some of them almost bareshell in the rear, get a coffee drive onto the grass and watch how many understeer a mile into Mansfield(or have to dramatically slow to nothing).


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

^^^ Whiskey is a powerful thing!

I would love to hear another round of rambling explaining how other front heavy production AWD platforms have had so much success around traditional circuits. Let's take the Mitsubishi Evo for example, how does it go about defying your logic? It's front heavy with terrible balance, yet poops all over the rear biased cars in its class or price range around a racetrack. Is it voodoo, or have we all forgotten how superior AWD cars are at the track? Last I checked, the fastest production car win streak in the World Time Attack (fastest time around a track without traffic) is the mighty CT9a EVO platform, and the "well balanced" cars have all tried.

PS: I'll leave this little memory refreshment here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLGhWg ... 10m0Jdk8tc


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Whisky is entirely correct on balance and such, but power isn't a measure of how well a car performs, just power. Obviously there is no increase in power, but there is an increase on power-to-weight ratio, or bhp/ton which, for the sake of pub-talk raw numbers, is comparable against any other lawn mower.

If you had a 300hp car that weight 1.5t that's 200bhp per ton.

If you were to _add_ (as the maths is easier for me) 100kg of weight then that's 188.5 hp/ton. Multiply that against the original weight of 1.5t and subtract the difference, you have an entirely useless number of 18.75hp effective loss to 100kg on a 300hp car. Jiggle the maths either way to get what you want to show


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

Madmax199 said:


> ^^^ Whisky is a powerful thing!
> 
> I would love to hear another round of rambling explaining how other front heavy production AWD platforms have had so much success around traditional circuits. Let's take the Mitsubishi Evo for example, how does it go about defying your logic? It's front heavy with terrible balance, yet poops all over the rear biased cars in its class or price range around a racetrack. Is it voodoo, or have we all forgotten how superior AWD cars are at the track? Last I checked, the fastest production car win streak in the World Time Attack (fastest time around a track without traffic) is the mighty CT9a EVO platform, and the "well balanced" cars have all tried.
> 
> ...


As mentioned, The wording is said ignoring electronics and diffs.

TA Evos have cheaty elecronics and diffs. Which a Mk1,2,3 TT don't, not even an RS has a factory LSD.

And most (50%) of the time TA Evos spends their time not really running/ changing tyres/driver forgot to bring his licence. Or his phone for that matter... he was a nice guy to chat to however. This is last year's class winner btw.

IIRC, that car is more rear drive than FWD or AWD... evidence by massive diff in the rear + the need to cool it.

How much of that "EVO" is still "EVO" or whether it is a purposeful car in the shape of an EVO is up to you to decide.

To put things into a practial example, if a GTR suddenly went open diff and 1960s analogue. Do you personally think Nissan would sell many?

Do you believe "quattro" in a mk 1,2,3 TT to be remotely as capable as a competition product? afaik, Quattro in TTs unless otherwise fitted with an over ride is a haldex diff that gets carried around for not much reason. -Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

To answer the question: Is it VOODOO?

With electronics and clever diffs giving the car the ability to give the user exactly what he wants by way data from yaw sensors + steering angle + throttle position/brake position and deploying torque(or brake) vectoring. Who's driving the car? The pilot or the motorsport electronic unit? When the answer is more the diffs and electronic unit, the answer to your question is yes it is more VOODOO than normal car.

The EVO that won btw, you'll find to have a better than imagined balance (AT SPEED) due to ridiculous big rear end aero. So much aero in fact the car would find hard to enter into anything else but TA. Can you think of a series that would accept it?


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

Dash said:


> Whisky is entirely correct on balance and such, but power isn't a measure of how well a car performs, just power. Obviously there is no increase in power, but there is an increase on power-to-weight ratio, or bhp/ton which, for the sake of pub-talk raw numbers, is comparable against any other lawn mower.
> 
> If you had a 300hp car that weight 1.5t that's 200bhp per ton.
> 
> If you were to _add_ (as the maths is easier for me) 100kg of weight then that's 188.5 hp/ton. Multiply that against the original weight of 1.5t and subtract the difference, you have an entirely useless number of 18.75hp effective loss to 100kg on a 300hp car. Jiggle the maths either way to get what you want to show


∴ In the world of someone with a TT, one could extract 100% more output from the motor before losing 50% mass from ideal areas on the car, i.e. can't lose very much anywhere but the rear.

And in the case of a TT, for anything with corners, such as a circuit, the last thing you'll want to do is make the rear stable before having a really reall good front end to turn in.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Of course, not everybody wants track handling. I'd imagine the balancing is a lot less relevant for drag.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Whisky said:


> As mentioned, The wording is said ignoring electronics and diffs.
> 
> TA Evos have cheaty elecronics and diffs. Which a Mk1,2,3 TT don't, not even an RS has a factory LSD.
> 
> ...


If I didn't build both platforms to similar specs for SCCA competition, I would think that your points were factual and based on experience or knowledge on the matter. Cheaty electronics? What in the world is that about? That's like a carburated car owner saying an ECU is "cheaty", or the usual "turbo is cheating" from the No-replacement-for-displacement dinosaur lovers. What's next, direct port injection is cheating too? It's called technology, the steering wheel, throttle, and brakes still need to be operated to move cars around a track.

Maybe news to you but many Mitsu Evolution chassis only came with rear LSD (except for special edition RS and Tommi Makinen models). Even in later CT9a chassis (the last omologation worthy evo) was an open front diff up until 2005 when the active center differential (ACD) was also introduced. The TT has its bag of trickery too, Electronic differential lock (EDL) and an intelligent AWD capable of adapting to changing conditions based on sensor inputs (and the car is traction control capable due to being an electronically driven AWD). The reason the Haldex-based Quattros get a bad rep with purists and people without knowledge of the system potential, is due to the stock mapping in the Haldex controller (heavily watered down in reaction to inputs).

Do I believe "quattro" in a Mk1 is remotely capable as a competition product? If I didn't believe so, I wouldn't be building and running one. Since you asked to be corrected if wrong, the answer is NO, the Haldex isn't just something carried around for not much reasons. It's a very capable system that's a few mods away from being as competent as any other AWD system. FYI, the evos don't come ready either from the factory, they all need work. A front LSD is needed (if not equipped), the factory rear needs to be upgraded, and the ACD equipped cars need a performance remapping to bring those cars to full potential -- and that's beside the front transfer case that seems to be made out of glass once past the 350 WHP mark (I grenaded more T-cases in my days than I replaced coilpacks in the TT, so you can tell how common it must be).

To come back to the original argument about balance, I would take an unbalanced car with superior traction any day around a racetrack (it's all about maximizing traction at the limit after all). Any experienced track drivers would .... if winning is the ultimate goal. The perfectly balanced cars are nice and all, but still at a standstill if two more traction wheels are against them -- why do you think AWD platforms always get handicapped in open racing classes? It's not just because the 50/50 distributed RWD sportcars owners bitch and moan about their lunch being stolen, but also because there is a clear performance advantage. Besides adding LSD (which seems to be increasingly needed in the back of my car, there is nothing I envy from any other AWD system. Anything they can do, I can do just as well (I have full traction by gear, boost, speed capability with my AEM standalone ECU, and I even had a need to tap into that yet).

The TT is no slouch, but it has to be in the right hands to bring out its potential. A true beast in disguise, and it's sad that even TT owners building the car for track action, fail to realize what the car is capable of doing. From getting off the line, to negotiating corners, the MK1 TT is still amazing me (RX7, CRX, DSM, WRX, Evo, all in my list of previous track cars). :roll:


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)




----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

:lol:


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

I know this went off track, but what's everyone Weight/BHP ratio on their track/race TT?


----------



## brushwood69 (Dec 17, 2012)

With rear cage in and most trim except the carpets and rear seats (running in road class and I tell them I have a QS  )

around 1290kg with 330bhp/350ftlbs torque so 255bhp per tonne

Chevrolet SS 6.2 V8 - [2014]255.8 bhp per tonne
BMW 3 Series M3 GTR E46 - [2001]255.5 bhp per tonne
Audi R8 4.2 V8 S-Tronic FSI Quattro - [2012]255.4 bhp per tonne
Lexus RC -F 5.0 V8 - [2014]255.4 bhp per tonne
Bentley Continental GT Speed 2d Auto - [2007]255.3 bhp per tonne
Ford Mustang FR 500 - [1999]255.0 bhp per tonne

http://www.autosnout.com/Cars-Bhp-Per-Ton-List.php


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Ok, so let's make it a simply calculated and nice round figure. Weight/BHP which shows how many Kg each BHP have to carry.

Stock TT : 1465/225 = 6.51
Brushwood69: 1290/330 = 3.90 
Madmax199: 1130/483 = 2.33
1781cc : 1240/260 = 4.76
NickG : 1260/300 = 4.2

PS: I use this calculator to guesstimate my WHP to BHP. USA users should use it too to keep things semi standard 
http://www.mk5cortinaestate.co.uk/calculator4.php


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

Edit, I'm an idiot...

She weighed 1240kg last time, so:

260bhp / 1240kg = 0.209bhp per kg, so 209.67bhp/ton

4.76kg per bhp for me :-(


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

1781cc said:


> Edit, I'm an idiot...
> 
> She weighed 1240kg last time, so:
> 
> ...


Edited my list to reflect your specs!


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

I'll go prudent and say 300bhp and currently 1260kg (very soon be much lighter!)

1260/300 = 4.2kg for me!

Hope to be 4kg dead soon enough!


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

Ooh - I look forward to playing this game soon


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

NickG said:


> I'll go prudent and say 300bhp and currently 1260kg (very soon be much lighter!)
> 
> 1260/300 = 4.2kg for me!
> 
> Hope to be 4kg dead soon enough!


Added you to the list Nick! 8)


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Matt B said:


> Ooh - I look forward to playing this game soon


Play now Matt, it can always be edited later as things evolve. I have my eyes set on a nice 2.0 ultimate goal, so don't be shy.


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

VT - where you at?


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

> If I didn't build both platforms to similar specs for SCCA competition, I would think that your points were factual and based on experience or knowledge on the matter. Cheaty electronics? What in the world is that about? That's like a carburated car owner saying an ECU is "cheaty", or the usual "turbo is cheating" from the No-replacement-for-displacement dinosaur lovers. What's next, direct port injection is cheating too? It's called technology, the steering wheel, throttle, and brakes still need to be operated to move cars around a track.
> 
> Yes, because it is then taken the competition away from the driver and into who's got the smartest most expensive electronics/sponsorship. With enough electronic interface, one may as well remove the cause of all errors, the human and watch these go round:
> 
> ...


Why are we listing cars at the end of a post? Are we displaying cock size by list of interesting cars?


----------



## Von Twinzig (Feb 10, 2014)

1781cc said:


> VT - where you at?


I'm in a hotel room in France with work. Though I have just had a nice dinner and a couple of large blondes (beers  )

I'm at 280bhp and around 1225kg (1240kg before the a/c and some other stuff came out).

My target for this car was always 300bhp/tonne, so still a long way to go. Rightly or wrongly I had the maths at 360bhp and 1200kgs.

VT


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Whisky said:


> > If I didn't build both platforms to similar specs for SCCA competition, I would think that your points were factual and based on experience or knowledge on the matter. Cheaty electronics? What in the world is that about? That's like a carburated car owner saying an ECU is "cheaty", or the usual "turbo is cheating" from the No-replacement-for-displacement dinosaur lovers. What's next, direct port injection is cheating too? It's called technology, the steering wheel, throttle, and brakes still need to be operated to move cars around a track.
> >
> > Yes, because it is then taken the competition away from the driver and into who's got the smartest most expensive electronics/sponsorship. With enough electronic interface, one may as well remove the cause of all errors, the human and watch these go round:
> >
> ...


I'm not sure why I'm still answering you because obviously you're beyond help. You entered the conversation basically saying that weight shouldn't be removed from a TT because of its balance. Yada yada yada. Then went on to double down on your illogical ideas by saying that any modifications or improvements are "cheaty" and turns the original platform into something else. I looked long and hard to see what your point could be, but it escapes me. So in your illogical (to me) point, a car is just what it is from the factory -- and once you modify it, it's doesn't count anymore? Many cars, including cars with the most decorated track success are horrible in stock form, but modifications brings out the true potential (the Miata comes to mind, or the AWD turbo boost buggies ...EVO, STi). So should we all give up with our cars since you seem to have all the answers.

I have had major success racing mine in SCCA in the US at all stages, started in stock class, moved the Street Prepared, then Street Modified, and now in the building stage for full Prepared. With your logic, maybe I should take back all the trophies and wins because they were due "cheaty" modifying (although evey car competing in these classes were under the same rules). The big elephant in the room is: do you even have a TT? And if you do, and feel so strongly about its lack of ability, why are you even doing in Track/Motorpsorts section for the car? Lossed maybe?


----------



## Whisky (May 5, 2016)

Because you felt personally attacked in your area of interest and profession, which is fine, you can feel offended whenever you want to be, granted especially when it is described as "cheaty". Electronic aid and aero are also fine with in a competitive environment where all competitors are also allowed to deploy the same methods, i.e. it becomes fair where everyone plays by the same rule with in the same competition. Although at times, boring because it takes away the SPORT in motorSPORT. Which means the trophies are yours, the size of your ego is of interest to you, please don't automatically assume it is to me.

I will however maintain it is a fact that once electronics and aero take away the drive from the driver the driver is no longer purely the driver, i.e. not sporting when the term for what it is remains to be "motorsport". Much like wearing high tech swim fabric is banned when the point of a swimming competition is the ability of a swimmer is to swim. Once a car function with the aid of electronics and aero to perform things that shouldn't be possible, it is no longer a car, it is part car, part plane, part computer. So with regards to the discussion for a CAR, I maintain that increasing power output can be beneficial over loosing weight at the expense of balance. Especially when it is a MK 1, which serves as a platform for someone who is just starting to explore performance driving...

Moving on to you, what you've done is a peacock dance. You've bent the discussion by removing the parametres of discussion...it is on a car. Evidenced by you choice to list past vehicles, the choice to mention trophies. What I would have liked from you is a technical discussion in exploration of the subject in an intellectual manner with the aim of learning and therefore a better understanding, I have no interested in the size of your penis deduced from a list of cars... And you listed so, I assume, with the mathematically calculated chance that I DON'T have a multi-million fleet of cars to keep me going scattered around the country... But I'm not here to get my cock out.

I insist that when discussing a topic the essence of the topic remain in place, by ignoring the fundamentals of a car and taking into discussion the capabilities of electronics and aero, you've removed the need for a car to remain a car, the driver to remain the driver. In addition, by ignoring the full responsibility of a driver, you are in fact suggesting the improvement of a driver isn't completely necessary so long as the car is improved with driver aids. Everytime you do that, you are removing the need of a driver from the vehicle, the need of a racer from the race, until ultimately the "sport" becomes a competition between investors, programmers and drones. On the subject of "if winning......then diff here, TC there", there are those who don't care for winning (in those eviroments). That's why we still have pages and pages of racing series where the car is still a car, the driver still drives the car.

On the question of whether I have/had a TT. I've had 4, I current have 2, one is a Mk2, the other is a Mk3. The Mk2 isn't a stranger on UK and EU circuits, it covered something in the region of 9,000 purely on circuit in a single year, while not entirely exclusively by me, I can claim the vast majority of those miles.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

^^^ Within your logic, you keep bringing "penis comparison" so you're clearly stating what your area of interest is. Since it not my aera of interest (except for owning one), I'm unsubscribing from the thread so you can keep rambling about what you like. Out!!!!

PS: anyone interested, I'll start a new thread with the weight/power numbers posted in here so we can have a penis-free discussion about MK1 TT.


----------



## The Godbarber (Jul 12, 2015)

Madmax199 said:


> ^^^ Whiskey is a powerful thing!
> 
> I would love to hear another round of rambling explaining how other front heavy production AWD platforms have had so much success around traditional circuits. Let's take the Mitsubishi Evo for example, how does it go about defying your logic? It's front heavy with terrible balance, yet poops all over the rear biased cars in its class or price range around a racetrack. Is it voodoo, or have we all forgotten how superior AWD cars are at the track? Last I checked, the fastest production car win streak in the World Time Attack (fastest time around a track without traffic) is the mighty CT9a EVO platform, and the "well balanced" cars have all tried.
> PS: I'll leave this little memory refreshment here
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLGhWg ... 10m0Jdk8tc


I've had two evos both were excellent on track !


----------



## The Godbarber (Jul 12, 2015)

Thoroughly good read chaps.

I don't care who's got the biggest cock or who's got the most money for expensive cars.

I personally thought my 225 in stock form was shite .
I have stripped it purely so it feels different and I am looking forward to fighting it on track as i like a car that wants to slide.

I wouldn't get another TT though as an evo would kick it's ass IMHO.

I've stuck with the tt purely because I've never stuck . with a track car before so I'm experiencing with it!!


----------



## desertstorm (Apr 25, 2017)

Old thread but going to add mine in here.

Stock TT : 1465/225 = 6.51
Brushwood69: 1290/330 = 3.90 
Madmax199: 1130/483 = 2.33
1781cc : 1240/260 = 4.76
NickG : 1260/300 = 4.2
Karl Desertstorm 1280 /511 = 2.5


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

desertstorm said:


> Old thread but going to add mine in here.
> 
> Stock TT : 1465/225 = 6.51
> Brushwood69: 1290/330 = 3.90
> ...


Nice update, i think i can be updated to 1200/300 = 4.0, not that it makes much difference now!


----------



## skella45 (Oct 30, 2019)

If you can, try driving two cars that have similar power to weight ratios and feel the difference for yourself.

I've found things like a VX200 turbo and Elise to feel much different to similar fatter cars. Most enjoyment I've has was a simple 1.6 Caterham and I've driven things like a GTR and Lambo Lp640.

Just my opinion though as I'm sure there are people who prefer the heavier and higher bhp cars.


----------



## desertstorm (Apr 25, 2017)

I do agree with you the most fun I have ever had in a vechicle is when I used to race Rotax max 125cc Karts. Only around high 20 odd bhp but driver and kart were only around 160Kg. Smaller lightweight cars like the Caterham are really like the an overgrown kart. Very minimal amount of comforts and you are more connected to the car . Rear wheel drive helps as well, holding a car in a 4 wheel drift at high speed is great fun. Difficult to do in a modern 4WD high performance car.
The TT is a pretty lardy car though so ditching a LOT of weight does make it a lot better in all areas, except maybe comfort.


----------

