This is a discussion of the future of supercars. If you are too lazy to read it then please do not post. I also realize that this could have been posted in Chit Chat, but I wanted to focus it towards those of you who may actually know something about cars.

Recently I've spent a lot of time dreaming about building my own supercar. I've drawn many concepts and mapped out in my head the design philosophy and parameters that it must meet. In short, it would be a very small, very light weight vehicle with a form follows function philosophy. The 'fun to drive' factor would be very high on the priority list, and I believe this can be much more easily achieved through weight reduction as opposed to massive quantities of power. Thus, focus on power to weight ratio is imperative (the current target is around 3 lbs/hp, with a total vehicle weight of less than 1000lbs). It must be road legal, but it would be more track oriented. Reliability would be important, as would a suspension designed for both road comfort and track competition (greater emphasis however, would be placed on track development). The chassis would be a honeycomb monocoque, but I would explore the possibility of incorporating lighter materials than carbon fiber. I would also like explore the possibility of using a CEM (Cylindrical Energy Module) powerplant. I don't know if a supercar would be the best application for a CEM, but I believe it's worth looking into. The current goal is to offer one and three seat chassis' with the driving position located in the center, but this is not definite. And finally, I would like to achieve all of this at a cost of less than $200,000 per vehicle (and hopefully significantly less, but with the possible incorporation of new technologies I understand that R&D costs can run very very high).

Thus, my vision for the future of supercars is a focus on weight reduction and improvement in power/weight ratios. I believe 600+hp is overkill and much faster cars can be built with less power at a lower cost. In fact, I believe it is possible to achieve near Formula 1 performance in a much more reliable, significantly less expensive, user friendly package. This has been my dream for quite sometime and I recently discovered that I'm not alone...

Those of you that saw the January '07 issue of evo magazine (#100) may have read Gordon Murray's article, Driven Man, about the future of supercars. In the article, Murray states, "there has been little progress [in supercars] in the last 15 years from a circuit performance point of view, and we are all witness to the rapidly diminishing 'fun on the road' factor due to ever-increasing pressure from traffic volumes and legislation." This statement is backed up later in the same issue, in which evo editor Richard Meaden compared 10 cars on the West Circuit. The Carrera GT, McLaren F1 and Ferrari Enzo represented supercars as we know them and took 6th, 7th and 8th places respectively (see Top 10 list below). Murray goes on to acknowledge the option of developing pure track cars, but exclaims that this is simply avoiding the problem. The solution, Murray believes, is that "if we are to see usable performance and fun survive as part of motoring culture we need less concentration on power and top speed and a shift of focus to power-to-weight figures that are achieved through light weight." He concludes the article by saying that if he were to build another supercar, "it would get its performance level from a good power-to-weight ratio but it would achieve the figure by low weight rather than high power. The engine would be smaller and less powerful [than the McLaren F1's], but would still be the heart of the car. Practicality, size, ergonomics and visibility would all be high on the priority list, as would a price tag of less than the current crop of supercars."

So I ask, why are all the big hitters (Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Pagani, etc.) continuing to build relatively heavy cars with massive quantities of power? Is it a lack of focus on the design philosophy? Perhaps a function follows form design? Maybe they prefer to keep their cars in the $300,000+ price market in order to preserve the company's (and customers) image? Or could it be marketability? To build a car with the design philosophy previously stated would almost certainly mean the absence of nearly all creature comforts as well as little or no luggage space. Are people willing to pay $100,000+ for a vehicle of this kind?


Lap times around the West Circuit from the article Ten Fastest in evo magazine:

1. Radical SR3 1300 1.17.10
2. Caterham R500 Evo 1.19.00
3. Ariel Atom 1.19.60
Caterham CSR 260 1.19.60
5. Dax Rush MC 1.19.70
6. Carrera GT 1.20.20
7. McLaren F1 1.21.20
8. Ferrari Enzo 1.21.30
9. Litchfield Type-25 1.22.35
10. Lotus Exige S 1.22.40


I realize that few examples of extremely light weight supercars already exist and others are on the way, the Caparo T1 and more recent RoadRazer fit into this category, but none have made any kind of serious impact in the supercar world. Why? Where do you think the future of supercars is headed?

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2007 12:39:34 PM

Google GM EcoJet concept. Its a powered by a Biodiesel helicopter engine.

I usually dont get into this kinda thing, but this stirred my interest recently. Think of the sound this thing must make, even at idle.

1/29/2007 1:03:00 PM

^^didnt read all that but i think hat you are talking about is building a "$100,000+" stripped down riced out CRX with a 500 HP engine. And no, people are not gonna be willing to pay for that.

also ariel already done did it for cheaper

1/29/2007 1:15:27 PM

Whereas I agree with you on the weight increase issue (is there even a Lamborghini sold that weighs less than 3500lbs?) 1000lbs is not practical for a street legal car. There are too many safetly regulations and the sacrifices that need to be made in other areas will the eyes of most buyers outweight any gain.

1/29/2007 1:20:08 PM

which is why I <3 a Porsche GT3 RS.

1/29/2007 1:22:08 PM

optmusprimer: I saw that a while back. Jay Leno owns it, right? How did they solve the issue of the constant stop and go of driving with the engine? I was under the impression that the problem with using jet engines in cars is that they are designed to run at a fairly constant rpm. I know this isn't the first turbine powered car but I've never looked into the mechanics of how one works.

TKE-Teg: Safety regulations would be a major obstacle in building a super light weight car but it could definitely be made safe. Consider the safety of the current F1 cars... 3 years ago Ralph Schumacher hit the wall at Indy (the solid part, not the safer barrier part) at around 180mph and was out for 2 weeks with a relatively minor back injury if I remember correctly (don't quote me on that). The problem would be convincing the DOT that the car is safe without achieving those safety standards in the traditional manner (i.e. airbags and such). I also can't speak for how safe an F1 car (or F1 style car in this case) would be if hit by another vehicle (particularly an SUV). But lets be honest, if I owned a car that was capable of supercar performance I would rarely drive it on the road in the middle of the day. If I drove it around town it'd most likely be in the wee hours of the morning when traffic is not an issue. It just wouldn't be any fun to drive a car of that performance level in traffic.

1/29/2007 5:30:15 PM

tl;dr

1/29/2007 5:30:58 PM

/pipe dream

1/29/2007 6:29:26 PM