>500 to >650 to >???cars

  • Thread starter Thread starter zonekill
  • 163 comments
  • 8,013 views
The359
Nice how you completely left out such ratings as "ergonomics" :rolleyes: There are quite a few sections in there that have nothing to do with performance, and therefore make the rating moot.
Click to expand...

Definition of ergonomics: the branch of engineering science in which biological science is used to study the relation between workers and their environments

So, with that said. A car does not perform without a driver. period. A driver does not perform well in a car where everything is not comfortably placed.

The location of the shifer assembly can alter the performance of a car, because it alters the performance of the driver, the two are effected hand in hand. Also the location of the shifter assembly falls into the category of ergonomics. Therefore, it does fall right in there with performance now doesn't it...we can battle this out, but pointing out one or two categories that still pertain very much to the performance of a car as a weakness is not going to win this battle. I'm not trying to prove the Prelude to be an awesome car, however you and a select few others are trying to prove me wrong, where I have clearly stated that a prelude is an underrated car, and for 26K it is the best handling car in it's class, because it still rates on the level of cars north of 45K. If you still disagree with this then I there is nothing I can do to further persuede you to drop this side of the arguement.
 
tha_con
The location of the shifer assembly can alter the performance of a car, because it alters the performance of the driver, the two are effected hand in hand. Also the location of the shifter assembly falls into the category of ergonomics. Therefore, it does fall right in there with performance now doesn't it...we can battle this out, but pointing out one or two categories that still pertain very much to the performance of a car as a weakness is not going to win this battle. I'm not trying to prove the Prelude to be an awesome car, however you and a select few others are trying to prove me wrong, where I have clearly stated that a prelude is an underrated car, and for 26K it is the best handling car in it's class, because it still rates on the level of cars north of 45K. If you still disagree with this then I there is nothing I can do to further persuede you to drop this side of the arguement.
Click to expand...

Completely trivial. Many of those categories would change depending on the driver. What may be ergonomic for one is not ergonomic for another. So merely because the Prelude has a nice set up for the magazine's driver does not make it into some supercar.
 
The359
Completely trivial. Many of those categories would change depending on the driver. What may be ergonomic for one is not ergonomic for another. So merely because the Prelude has a nice set up for the magazine's driver does not make it into some supercar.
Click to expand...

It's not ergonomic because of the driver, it is because of the adjustability. It just happens to have a nicer layout, and when combined with the adjustable seat/lumbar/steering wheel and layout of the shifter/e-brake,
 
i'm not downing the prelude. i'm sure its a very good car for its price. the point still is we don't need 6 preludes, or 6 corvettes, or even 6 vipers in the game- period. and tha_con, explain how am i reading the chart wrong?
 
The location of the shifer assembly can alter the performance of a car, because it alters the performance of the driver, the two are effected hand in hand. Also the location of the shifter assembly falls into the category of ergonomics. Therefore, it does fall right in there with performance now doesn't it..

accually, last year a 911gt3R won the race at road america when the shifter broke off in warm ups and the car used vice grips as the shifter for the race. didnt effect too much...

b
 
in the realm of pure performance numbers, those ergonomic points ARE trivial.

In most cases, they refer to a tidy and efficient arrangement of the dials, visibility, and ease of use. They do not make a car faster, more agile, brake in a shorter distance, corner more confidently, or basically alter anything except usability.
 
I think the count will be 650-1000 if you put in the concept cars to
 
To a few replys...here are some responses and rebuttals.

accually, last year a 911gt3R won the race at road america when the shifter broke off in warm ups and the car used vice grips as the shifter for the race. didnt effect too much...
Click to expand...

This COULD be a good rebuttal, but the car is still ergonomically in tact. Had you said that the shifter was moved 6 inches farther to the rear, I would have considered it a valid arguement..but you didn't. The car still maintained the same useability, and vice grips hold strong, so in actuality it's pretty similar to changing to a different shift knob, which does not change the ergonomics of the shifter assembly.

in the realm of pure performance numbers, those ergonomic points ARE trivial.

In most cases, they refer to a tidy and efficient arrangement of the dials, visibility, and ease of use. They do not make a car faster, more agile, brake in a shorter distance, corner more confidently, or basically alter anything except usability.
Click to expand...

Okay. So with your logic, if the shifter was 8 inches farther to the back, and the steering wheel was 4 inches higher, with the pedals being altered at a 25 degree angle, and the seat being raised from the ground another 2 inches, do you think this WONT effect the driveability of the car? If I have to make an image to show you how this all works I will, I'd rather not, but you are simply arguing because you have nothing better to do and IMO you find it enjoyable to argue with me...which is understandable.

But the fact remains that placement of all objects that you use to control the car is very important, and it varys with each car, but if it is not ergonomically correct and the body has to work in different ways that are not comfortable, a driver can experience slower lap times from muscle exhuastion, cramps, stiffness and other symptoms that come with awkward body positions. I promise you, in nascar for instance, that if you moved the shifter assembly back 6 inches it would reduce lap times for most if not all drivers, because at that point you will begin to hit your arm (tricep area) on the back of your seat, which restricts natural movment, and hinders driveablility, thus lowering performance.

i'm not downing the prelude. i'm sure its a very good car for its price. the point still is we don't need 6 preludes, or 6 corvettes, or even 6 vipers in the game- period. and tha_con, explain how am i reading the chart wrong?
Click to expand...

Because that chart is written in lateral accel. G force (or cornering force for short), and steering deflection in degrees, nothing on the chart has anything to do with the speed in which the car is traveling, only the cornering force. Therefore, your statement of the car traveling at 100 MPH leads me to believe you are reading the graph wrong, are you not?
 
tha_con
To a few replys...here are some responses and rebuttals.





Okay. So with your logic, if the shifter was 8 inches farther to the back, and the steering wheel was 4 inches higher, with the pedals being altered at a 25 degree angle, and the seat being raised from the ground another 2 inches, do you think this WONT effect the driveability of the car? If I have to make an image to show you how this all works I will, I'd rather not, but you are simply arguing because you have nothing better to do and IMO you find it enjoyable to argue with me...which is understandable.

But the fact remains that placement of all objects that you use to control the car is very important, and it varys with each car, but if it is not ergonomically correct and the body has to work in different ways that are not comfortable, a driver can experience slower lap times from muscle exhuastion, cramps, stiffness and other symptoms that come with awkward body positions. I promise you, in nascar for instance, that if you moved the shifter assembly back 6 inches it would reduce lap times for most if not all drivers, because at that point you will begin to hit your arm (tricep area) on the back of your seat, which restricts natural movment, and hinders driveablility, thus lowering performance.
Click to expand...

I only argue with you when you post flat out wrong arguments, then try to cement them with your brand of logic.

You're right a lot of the time, it doesn't mean you always are.

Good ergonomics do not make a car fast. Period. Remember that we are discussing cars here.

If you want to get into all the variables that contribute to a car's performance, then you have to factor in the weather, the temperature, the elevation, the driver, what the driver ate for lunch (you never know, he could have heartburn, making results harder to come by), his familiarity with said ergonomics, the compound of the tires, the layout of the track, blah blah blah.
 
Ergonomics can not help the performance of a car. Really bad ergonomics can ruin the performance, but neither car is that bad.
 
xcsti
Ergonomics can not help the performance of a car. Really bad ergonomics can ruin the performance, but neither car is that bad.
Click to expand...

you would need truly horrific ergonomics to have any significant effect on performance.

Thankfully, manufacturers employ these people that are called ENGINEERS.
 
So with the theory you two are using. If my full range of motion was hindered, or if I was placed in an uncomfortable position that was unnatural to the body, then my performance as a driver would not be hindered? Because if the driver cannot perform, the car cannot perform, they tie into eachother. If you believe that ergonomics do not effect a car then you are mistaken.

You can take the same chassis, and the same engine, but switch around minor things in the car to manipulate hte ergonomics, and I PROMISE that the times will not be as good consistently, or even from the start for that matter.
 
tha_con
So with the theory you two are using. If my full range of motion was hindered, or if I was placed in an uncomfortable position that was unnatural to the body, then my performance as a driver would not be hindered? Because if the driver cannot perform, the car cannot perform, they tie into eachother. If you believe that ergonomics do not effect a car then you are mistaken.

You can take the same chassis, and the same engine, but switch around minor things in the car to manipulate hte ergonomics, and I PROMISE that the times will not be as good consistently, or even from the start for that matter.
Click to expand...

You're digging a hole man.

You can run it into the ground, but the fact of the matter is that Car A is not faster than Car B because it has a more user friendly and efficient layout.

Some of the fastest cars are pigs to drive, and are critisized for being awful ergonomically. It doesn't lower a car's potential. Like I said, you would have to have almost non-functional interiors to really affect a car's universal performance.

Ergonomics are only one small facet in relation to making a car go fast.

Going back to the original argument, I would have to agree that the prelude would be faster than an 82 vette around a track, because it is miles ahead in the suspension, chassis, and power to weight ratio (okay, I don't know about the power to weight, it is a really heavy car) departments. The early 80's vettes were embarassing. I can tell you one thing, however: it's not due to mirror placement, gauge visibility, comfortable seats and neatly arranged switch-gear.
 
Ergonomics in GT don't matter because we're not actually physically driving the cars.
 
Back