Are today's Supercars "SOFT"?

Soft as in more comfortable ride, easier to drive and handle, more safety features.

I rate this by what I call the Concubine factor. ie would you buy her one?

One of the most pathetic sights is a beautiful blonde trying to make her 288GTO move when the light turns green.

No such problems for today's billionaire. They can buy an Enzo, Carrera GT or SLR for their kept women and feel safe that they are able to drive it themselves.

I mean Walter Rohl (Porsches' test driver) was quoted saying the Carrera GT is so easy to drive that "Even a woman can drive it". And it's the only one of the three I mentioned that has a clutch pedal. The others are paddle shift and automatic.

So are the Supercars today compromising performance for usability or has our technology evolved to the point where we can have both without compromising either?

i think that our technology is so advanced that it is able to have both. but if i bought a 100k+ car, i wanna have to drive it. i rather have a clutch than pull a couple of paddles, dont get me wrong, paddles are fast and are great technology, but i would have more fun with a stick.

i think that our technology is so advanced that it is able to have both. but if i bought a 100k+ car, i wanna have to drive it. i rather have a clutch than pull a couple of paddles, dont get me wrong, paddles are fast and are great technology, but i would have more fun with a stick.

yea stick is more fun and used alot more, but in f1 n some le mans cars they use paddles, it much faster somehow.. and automatic is by far the slowest even if u compare the 5 speed vs the automatic 5 speed

Is performance being compromised for usability? Good question.

Let’s take the Carrera GT as an example. Is this car easier to drive than supercars of yore? At town speeds, absolutely. This doesn’t trouble me; if I spent a six-figure sum on a car, I would expect it to be drivable at any damned speed. Yes, my mother could drive it to the shops without (much) difficulty, which couldn't be said for an F40. But does that mean the Carrera GT is ‘soft’, some sort of town runabout? Not in the least. This car’s ride has nothing Jaguar about it, and the performance on tap is still capable of scaring the crap out of someone as accomplished as Walter Rohrl. To the extent where he stipulated a “button for the wet" after a trouser-soiling lap of the Nurburgring. When you’re on it, the handling is more faithful and predictable than that of a comparable supercar of the 80’s, let’s say, but this car still demands a huge amount of skill to drive at the limit, and will gladly spit you into the armco if you don’t respect that. And at a higher speed than anything that went before it. I believe Porsche wrote off 2 Carrera GT's at the ‘ring. If you’ve seen clips of Rohrl driving the Carrera GT, you’ll know that this thing can still wag its tail. The same applies for the Enzo, though its greater emphasis on technology does bother me – scrap that - the paddle-shift enrages me. As for the SLR, it’s automatic, I don’t rate it, though it is probably considered by some people in the market for an Enzo or Carrera GT.

Cars have been becoming easier to drive since they were first invented. Think of the 16 cylinder Auto Unions of the 1930’s. The men who drove the supercars of that era weren't brave, they were clinically insane. I think the key issue is exploitability. Performance cars have gradually become more exploitable throughout time. When pushed, today's breed will be superior to their ancestors. This can be attributed to three things. Technology, engineering, or both. Sadly technology is increasingly intruding on driver involvement, and a machine that drives itself doesn’t interest me. As Rohrl says, "one day when we are all in cars that rise safely on rails, we will look back on this time as one of the greatest ever. I wouldn’t trade it for anything".
As long as certain manufacturers continue to place driver involvement and enjoyment at the centre of a car’s raison d’etre, all is well. Of today’s supercars the two ‘purest’, imo, are the Carrera GT and the Pagani Zonda.

So, in conclusion. Today's supercars are more docile creatures, but are these "kept women" really driving them? No. Is performance being compromised for usability? Not a chance. Driver involvement? In many of today’s supercars, I would say yes. The second division of supercars, i.e. the 996TT’s and Modena’s of this world, in my opinion are too soft, nevertheless easily capable of outperforming their predecessors. A 996TT is probably even quicker than a 959 and much easier to drive. This is compensated for by the real drivers’ machines these two companies manufacture, the GT3 and 360 Challenge Stradale, which aren’t too soft. Not by a long shot.

Excellent thread, btw :thumbsup:

You just have to know where to look. Perhaps the most raw cars aren't even in the supercar bracket to begin with. Viper, S7, GT, TVRs........for some reason I think these cars are not going to be handling like an Enzo.

*cough*

The Acura NSX.

You just have to know where to look. Perhaps the most raw cars aren't even in the supercar bracket to begin with. Viper, S7, GT, TVRs........for some reason I think these cars are not going to be handling like an Enzo.
I did think about TVR's, but i think they're possibly too raw and lacking some finesse.

The NSX is a great example of a rewarding sports car

on the same note...
soft? no.

easier to use, yes.

better handling, smarter cars, but still require some awesome skill to exploit the full potential of the car.

Is performance being compromised for usability? Good question.

Let’s take the Carrera GT as an example. Is this car easier to drive than supercars of yore? At town speeds, absolutely. This doesn’t trouble me; if I spent a six-figure sum on a car, I would expect it to be drivable at any damned speed. Yes, my mother could drive it to the shops without (much) difficulty, which couldn't be said for an F40. But does that mean the Carrera GT is ‘soft’, some sort of town runabout? Not in the least. This car’s ride has nothing Jaguar about it, and the performance on tap is still capable of scaring the crap out of someone as accomplished as Walter Rohrl. To the extent where he stipulated a “button for the wet" after a trouser-soiling lap of the Nurburgring. When you’re on it, the handling is more faithful and predictable than that of a comparable supercar of the 80’s, let’s say, but this car still demands a huge amount of skill to drive at the limit, and will gladly spit you into the armco if you don’t respect that. And at a higher speed than anything that went before it. I believe Porsche wrote off 2 Carrera GT's at the ‘ring. If you’ve seen clips of Rohrl driving the Carrera GT, you’ll know that this thing can still wag its tail. The same applies for the Enzo, though its greater emphasis on technology does bother me – scrap that - the paddle-shift enrages me. As for the SLR, it’s automatic, I don’t rate it, though it is probably considered by some people in the market for an Enzo or Carrera GT.

Cars have been becoming easier to drive since they were first invented. Think of the 16 cylinder Auto Unions of the 1930’s. The men who drove the supercars of that era weren't brave, they were clinically insane. I think the key issue is exploitability. Performance cars have gradually become more exploitable throughout time. When pushed, today's breed will be superior to their ancestors. This can be attributed to three things. Technology, engineering, or both. Sadly technology is increasingly intruding on driver involvement, and a machine that drives itself doesn’t interest me. As Rohrl says, "one day when we are all in cars that rise safely on rails, we will look back on this time as one of the greatest ever. I wouldn’t trade it for anything".
As long as certain manufacturers continue to place driver involvement and enjoyment at the centre of a car’s raison d’etre, all is well. Of today’s supercars the two ‘purest’, imo, are the Carrera GT and the Pagani Zonda.

So, in conclusion. Today's supercars are more docile creatures, but are these "kept women" really driving them? No. Is performance being compromised for usability? Not a chance. Driver involvement? In many of today’s supercars, I would say yes. The second division of supercars, i.e. the 996TT’s and Modena’s of this world, in my opinion are too soft, nevertheless easily capable of outperforming their predecessors. A 996TT is probably even quicker than a 959 and much easier to drive. This is compensated for by the real drivers’ machines these two companies manufacture, the GT3 and 360 Challenge Stradale, which aren’t too soft. Not by a long shot.

Excellent thread, btw :thumbsup:

Great post crazyjay! :thumbsup:

This should of been placed in a section of a journalist car magazine. :biggrin:

i donos most of the new supercars are going towards paddles, and some new porsche has a computer controlled automatic that they say it better than stick shift (not jus an ordinary ecu) and u know what else sucks? in 2002 the rx7 spirit / supra / r34 skyline gtr / s15 silvia got discontinued THAT FRIGGIN SUCKS ..

Great post crazyjay! :thumbsup:

This should of been placed in a section of a journalist car magazine. :biggrin:
Stop it, you're making me blush! :redface:

:iceslolan

The problem is that all the "raw" supercars are either not that popular (like the absolutely visceral Koenigsegg CC8S and the even more powerful CCR) or are poor performers in amongst their bretheren (Saleen S7).

The F40 and the 288GTO were anomalies even in their day. Enzo Ferrari firmly believed that you had to be good enough for a Ferrari, not that his cars had to be good enough for you. When the 288GTO was released, the press ripped into it for not having advanced AWD, ABS, or active suspension like its contemporary the Porsche 959 (notice, it's a common thread throughout the history of Porsche since Ferry left, the Porsche supercars are pussycats to drive). Enzo Ferrari simply stated "We did not want AWD for this car. We did not want ABS for this car. ABS is not optimal for racing situations. What is important is that the 288GTO's brakes are efficient." Thus, the 288GTO, with its exposed Kevlar floor and large pair of Garret turbos was a wild and untamed car, while the 959 was an easily controllable cruiser.

The F40 was a further extension of the 288GTO. The Garrets were replaced by IHI turbos that produced even more boost. There was massive lag (after all, this was no sequential setup. Those snails spooled up at the same damn time, so you got all 478bhp AT ONCE), and the ground clearance and suspension travel were nil. The tires were steamroller wide Pirellis that hated conditions that were anymore damp than 45% humidity. It was a beast, and it was the very last car to carry Il Commendatore's personal seal of approval. That car embodied the very vision of the man who created the idea of a supercar. There is actually a rumor, rather unsubstantiated, that Enzo wanted to call the car the 288GV. 288 being the engine designation (2.8L, 8 cylinders) and GV being the intials of the late driver who some say inspired the car, and the late driver who was Enzo Ferrari's personal favorite, like a second son.

Gilles Villeneuve.

Now, Contemporary supercars to the 288GTO and F40, if you look at them, are actually quite tame to drive with little of those cars' drama, histronics, or flair. Here's a quick list off the top of my head.

Porsche 959 (ultimate 911 with Paris-Dakar rally wins. Intended for Group B rallying, but the class was dissolved before they could compete. Oops)
Bugatti EB110 (an obscure quad-turbo AWD monster that just never lived up to its promise)
Jaguar XJ220 (the prettiest of all supercars, and probably the most comfortable)
Lamborghini Diablo (thank Chrysler for this Gandini styled replacement for the Countach. It was a good idea at the time. Who knew it'd stay around for so many years?)
DeTomaso Pantera (yeah, it was still around and had been freshened by Gandini. But it was getting really old, really quick)

Once you take the Ferraris out of the picture, you see that supercars aren't getting much softer. They've always been cushy SAVE for the road-going race cars that came from Modena. Let's move up an era.

McLaren F1 (fastest in the world until recently. But still the most expensive)
Ferrari F50 (roadster built to homologate the 333SP for WSC competition. The 50th anniversary of Ferrari just happened to be a good cover)
These are really the only examples from the mid 90's that weren't one-off creations to homologate GT1 cars. The Porsche 911GT1, Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR, Nissan R390GT1, Lotus Elise GT1, Panoz Esperante GT1, and Toyota TSO20 GT-1 had a collective production run of less than a hundred units.

The raw "real" supercars out there now aren't the all out cars like the Enzo and the Carrera GT. Those are going to people with tons of cash who want the best toys money can buy. The guys who want performance want road going track cars. The new breed baselines with the Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R and Chevrolet Corvette Z06, then escalates into cars like the Dodge Viper Competition Coupe, the aforementioned Porsche 911 GT3 and Ferrari Challenge Stradale, then you get even more wild with it and you start to see near dedicated track cars with barely livable streetability. Here's a quick list, at least from the top of my head.

Mosler MT900 Photon
Noble M-12 GTO
Radical SR-3
Lotus Exige
MG X-Power SV-R
Ultima GT-R

There's your edge and ferocity. It's moved down into a less expensive (relatively speaking) bracket and has bred more cars than ever previously seen. Enjoy.

damn this thread is deep. i would of never thought of half the stuff that is in there.

Diablo is tame to drive? I always heard they were raw.

There's a difference between "raw" and "sloppy". The Diablo is a pussycat once you get it out on the highway (even though it's a little toasty). The Diablo's glitches are its heavy shift action (gearbox designed by a tractor building lowlife, what do you expect?), long wheelbase, tall gearing, and wide rear end (with poor visibility).

Diablos don't do the following: handle or brake. They are the straight-line posers of the supercar world. Just like their Countach forefathers, the Diablos are fast, cushy, and stylish and NOTHING else.

That's what you get when you build sports cars you don't race. God, Ferrucio Lamborghini was a dumbass.

Ferrucio Lamborghini brought us the Miura. Ferrucio Lamborghini was no dumbass :grinno:

Im with you on the difference between raw and 'sloppy', as you put it, but i disagree with you that the Enzo and Carrera GT aren't "real supercars". It doesnt get much more real than those two.

Well lets not forget that poeple in charge of the companies are mainly accountants. And the vast majority of supercars will go to filthy rich people that just want to show up on TV shows or magazines like People driving them. They could not care less about performance.


On the other hand exotics like GT3 or a Noble, are accesible to upper end middle class(in highly dev contries of course) which are much higher in number that the filthy rich and among them the number of true enthusiasths will be much higher creating a demand for raw cars. So I guess this might be an explanation for the move of "raw" cars into the cheaper category as noted by Layla.

I know what you're trying to say, but who buys a car doesn't change what the the car is.

There has always been some availability of pure drivers' cars at the lower end of the market. Think Caterham - cars dont get any more focused than that. Though the number on offer is increasing ever-rapidly, which can only be a good thing

I know what you're trying to say, but who buys a car doesn't change what the the car is.

There has always been some availability of pure drivers' cars at the lower end of the market. Think Caterham - cars dont get any more focused than that. Though the number on offer is increasing ever-rapidly, which can only be a good thing


no i was not bashing the cars, not even the car manufacturers i was just trying to offer a reason why often the performance is not the 1 one concern with the companies.

as a bussiness major I understand them very well. You build what the market demands even if its a 500K supercar that handles like a trabant;)

And sadly enought among the super rich there are not enough purists to warrant a raw supercar. On the other hand in the lower price brakets there seems to be more room for such cars.

interesting thread. the other day i was driving my r33 gtr and came unstuck. it has 285's front and back, and as you all know 4wd, 4ws, lsd, etc etc. it just goes to show even with all its electronic devices it is still very much a drivers car and can bite you in the but if you dont treat it with respect. ps great thread.

Let’s get the definition of a raw supercar straight. My general definition - and you may well disagree with me - is: excessive bhp/ton, ability to switch off TC (or no TC altogether), RWD & manual gearchange. Nowhere within this does drivability at low speeds come into it. Anyone can handle a car at 30, does it make you more of a man if you can put up with lack of comfort?

Back to the debate. Yes, car companies must build what the market wants. There’s no doubt about it. Porsche & Ferrari built the 996 and 360 Modena because they knew the demand would be there. Which it was. But companies like these can't stop there. Their competition is capable of building rival products, which the market also wants, products that may be slightly better or worse. Example: an M3 is capable of competing with a 996. So why the premium on the Carrera? Because it’s a Porsche, and the M3 isn’t. Ferrari and Porsche need to maintain their image, the crucial premium. And that's why they make cars such as the Enzo and Carrera GT. These flagship models are intended to highlight this traditional superiority. Don’t forget, we’re the best. This is what keeps these brands (and their margins) at the top of the automotive pile, a critical factor when even new cars like the Noble M12 are more than capable of living with a GT3 or Challenge Stradale. Desirability. Mystique.

Are the Enzo and Carrera GT based on what the marked demanded? Were investment bankers consulted in the design process? Is Jay Kay to blame for the paddle shift? Come on... Rich fatties buy an Enzo because it's the most expensive, outrageous Ferrari there is. If they had a say in the design process, it wouldn’t have looked like such a monstrosity. But its hideous looks are key to its performance, which is the absolute #1 concern for Ferrari. The Enzo is their vision of the ultimate supercar.
When it comes to the flagship model, Ferrari and Porsche don’t ask the market what it wants, they build what they want to build and produce as many as it suits them to sell. The tycoons of this world may not want a raw supercar, but Ferrari / Porsche will build it, and it’ll sell regardless. Most customers may not drive it like it was intended to be driven, but that’s irrelevant. When it's tested against its rivals, it must come out on top. It can't be too soft, with Ferrari saying "yeah well, that's what the fatties wanted. we could have made it better if we wanted to".

So, in conclusion, Ferrari and Porsche need to build the Enzo and Carrera GT to set the standard, to show off their engineering prowess. But this isn’t quite enough. These cars are accessible to too few. There’s no point in boasting a capability to build a phenomenal car but only offer it to the ludicrously rich. That’s where the GT3, 360 CS come in. These cars are within the reach of many more people, meet the true enthusiasts’ requirements, and maintain the desirability and premium for all Porsches & Ferraris.

Let's not kid ourselves. Both the Carrera GT and the Enzo make concessions to their buyers. It's called leather seating. It's called reasonable interior appointments. It's called engines that last longer than 1000km, or 10000km. No major manufacturer can choose to ignore these demands. The F40 is probably the last true "raw" car built by a major manufacturer. While now the Mosler MT900 Photon would probably be the best description of a "raw" car.

like crayzayjay said, it doesnt matter if a car is comfortable or not that makes it raw, its how hard you have to drive the car that makes it raw. (at least thats what i got out of his definition). so if a car has leather seating, the doesnt make it un-raw. what do you want, to sit on plastic seats. but thats just what i think.

How much bhp/ton does it take to meet your definition? Is a Z06 a raw car?

Let's not kid ourselves. Both the Carrera GT and the Enzo make concessions to their buyers. It's called leather seating. It's called reasonable interior appointments. It's called engines that last longer than 1000km, or 10000km. No major manufacturer can choose to ignore these demands. The F40 is probably the last true "raw" car built by a major manufacturer. While now the Mosler MT900 Photon would probably be the best description of a "raw" car.
You're right, let's not kid ourselves! These concessions are inline with what's expected for road-going supercars and fairly insignificant when you consider that an Enzo still develops 485bhp/ton and a Carrera GT 445bhp/ton. Much more power than that simply isnt usable. Schumacher supposedly couldnt lap faster with TC switched off on the Enzo than when it was switched on due to insane wheelspin. Engines that last 1,000km? Are you kidding me!?! What else do you want? A pit crew?
"The F40 is the last raw car built by a manufacturer?" An F50's not raw? A 964 RS isnt raw? A 993 GT2's not raw? The GT3 RS isnt raw? The 360 A Carrera GT isn't raw? The paddle-shift may dent the Enzo's purity of design but the car's dynamics are still focused and pretty damned raw.

To answer your last post, for me anything over 300bhp/ton is very potent though it's really the behaviour and setup of a car that makes it "raw",and not how much power it has. I dont know enough about the Z06 to tell you whether i think it's raw or not.
But I think we have a fairly similar definition of the term except that you're a little more extreme. I'll allow a leather interior on my Carrera GT, knowing that the marginal extra weight it puts on is pretty insignificant. It doesnt change the car's character and as long as i'm not lapping Silverstone against a field of 20 other Carrera GT's, i couldnt care less.

Yes, I want a pit crew! :)

I would agree with what has been said earlier by some of the longer posting members. Porsches have always been more tame than Ferraris and no matter how good a driver you think you are, the Enzo can still scare even Dario. Furthermore, there is a plethora of other car companies that offer no frill rides. My favorite of these as you can tell by the name is Mosler. But as previously stated there is TVR, Noble, ultima, etc. And if you still aren't convinced that the Enzo could anyways own you, there will soon be the 6000GT.

So if you think the Euro aristocracy of cars is becoming soft, then either look for a smaller production car or look for homologation cars (liek the 600GT and Mosler).

If you still want something more, and if you have the money, every once in a while you'll see a R8 for sale, or you could buy a 5-6 year old F1 car and as Clarkson said "a strand of Schumacher's DNA"

I can only hope that I someday become a good enough driver to call a 200k+ Ferrari "soft"

Still, again, a good thread.