I’m happy with an extra few kgs over the rear half of the car. It will help balance the extra few kgs my belly puts over the front wheels
Not particularly Bernard - it doesn’t take much to understand the effect of an old iron blocked engine by comparison to a modern lightweight aluminium engine will have on a car’s dynamics.
simon
I agree that a weightless engine would be nice, but in the grand scheme of things 40 kg is neither here nor there. Maybe we’ll find out next year if you’ve got any cars running on track by then.
BTW what’s this secret test you’ve got lined up ?
And where was this article in EVO slagging off the Audi you were promising us ?
Bernard
Surely there is room enough in the elise community for all the various options? K’s, honda’s, audi’s. Different people want / like different things. Some want “seat of the pants” acceleration, others want extreme lightness and ultimate handling. Others want stratospheric revs, others can’t be asked to change gear and want monster torque through the rev range.
I think it is great that the developers have given us so many options. Thankyou one and all.
It would be great (in my utopian world) if everyone could celebrate the array of options that exist and respect one another’s work / choices etc for what they are - choices / options. Each has merits and minuses, but generally each and every one enhances the enjoyment that the owner has in their car. Oh how I wish it wasn’t a case of honda vs k vs audi or even one honda conversion vs another. I wish it was a case of “cool - that must be fun / fast” etc
Yup, it would be great…
Yep, I completely agree.
But if you had to, which one would you go for?
Which one
RST V8 supercharged (550 bhp) with hewland sequential box linked to paddle shifter. This to go with my widebody (lotussport exige setup) carbon fibre clams and high downforce aero setup. Running 3 way race dampers, magnesium 17/18 inch wheels on full slicks. Probably won’t see change from 250K, but who cares, its only money.
Anything less is just a pikey option.
Now where’s that winning lotto ticket.
Simon - wish you’d asked me “are you sure of those percentages Mike?” and then waited for the answer…
I was quoting figs from September 2004 from memory,[color:“red”] whoops I got them wrong[/color], HOWEVER I was right in quoting Graham and John as saying that the distribution was pretty near standard.
I now have the sheet from Plans in front of me dated 28th Sept 2004.
UNLADEN but with 22 litres of fuel:
Mike Lane’s audi exige = 798.5 kgs, (front 39.9% / rear 60.1%) …(perhaps 812 kgs with full tank assuming 1kg per litre)
FROM Lotus Service Notes
UNLADEN but full tank
Std Elise …= 755 Kgs (front 40.13% / rear 59.86%)
111S elise …= 770 Kgs (front 39.35% / rear 60.64%)
Standard 177bhp S1 Exige .= 785 Kgs (front 40.63% / rear 59.36%)
So my car had a better weight distribution than a 111S and very close to the Exige.
[color:“blue”] The difference between my car and a standard exige is only 27 kgs. [/color]
With the Lotus battery instead of my tiny racing one, you could add 6 kgs to the front (like most of the other audi exiges) and [color:“blue”]the weight distribution would be front 40.33% / rear 59.66%[/color]
These are as close to facts as we can get, so can everyone shake hands and stop muppeting, for god’s sake and my sanity, pretty please ?
\
And just to add a Honda set of figures to the equation.
This was my car about a week after the conversion was completed. No idea what fuel was in it as all I got was the figures.
FL = 162
FR = 168.5
RL = 247
RR = 249So a total of 826.5
This gives a Front/Rear weight distribution of 40/60 split.
Oh, and BTW, I have the full info (incl graphs) for all the cars above and they all have an aftermarket exhaust on them.So did you lighten the car at the same time?
however whatever the split? the install? the work done on the car ? you appear to be somewhat heavier than the original Exige with a standard tank of fuel - 785kg?
All in all it goes to show how misleading comparing car weights can be because it is so difficult to achieve a common baseline.
The only sensible start point for this debate is to compare base engine weights, which ia well covered above…
simon
As usual you change your story or change your discussion when someone proves you wrong. You claimed above that the weight distribution was terrible in the conversions, I’ve proved it isn’t. (and Mike has cleared up his comments earlier in the thread)
For the record my car has had no weight reduction done on it (other than ally belled discs), it has a stereo, harness bars, fire extinguishers etc, so is heavier than a base weight Exige to start with. The 785kg figure I bet isn’t for an aircon equipped car which mine was. So yes comparing one car to another isn’t totally relevant, but when my car is approx 40kg heavier than the published figures for the Exige (which were probably never achieved anyway) it’s not massive. I wish I’d had the weight checked before we started but unfortunately we didn’t do it.
You keep going on about engine weight and how one engine compares to another, without taking into consideration where the weight is, height of it and what is actually does to the distribution. No-one has said that the Honda and Audi engines aren’t heavier.
As seen above it makes no real difference to the weight distribution, the Honda for example sits lower in the car (and yes it actually does, I’ve checked).
You may know about the K-series but you really don’t understand vehicle dynamics. In particular you keep making claims about what a Honda or Audi engine does to a cars handling with absolutely zero actual data to back it up, something you complain about when others do it.
You also keep talking about a test with a professional driver to compare the conversions to your engines. Okay, so lets get some honesty and info on this. Where, when, who (including why you say they are qualified to comment), which engines and in which cars (as this is probably the largest factor in this), plus if only you know all these details then it isn’t exactly going to be classed as independent.
Oh, and BTW, it’s Ricardo 2010 not 2000.
FROM Lotus Service Notes
UNLADEN but full tank
Std Elise …= 755 Kgs (front 40.13% / rear 59.86%)
111S elise …= 770 Kgs (front 39.35% / rear 60.64%)
Standard 177bhp S1 Exige .= 785 Kgs (front 40.63% / rear 59.36%)
Cheers for posting that - interesting reading.
That makes my converted car 25kgs heavier than the list.
Thats with heavy disks, harness malarky, and heavy victory wheels.
I think I could knock 25kgs out of it without difficulty if I thought it would make a difference (hell SteveB could knock 100kgs out of it, though knowing him he would do it with an axe)
FROM Lotus Service Notes
UNLADEN but full tank
Std Elise …= 755 Kgs (front 40.13% / rear 59.86%)
111S elise …= 770 Kgs (front 39.35% / rear 60.64%)
Standard 177bhp S1 Exige .= 785 Kgs (front 40.63% / rear 59.36%)Cheers for posting that - interesting reading.
That makes my converted car 25kgs heavier than the list.
Thats with heavy disks, harness malarky, and heavy victory wheels.
I think I could knock 25kgs out of it without difficulty if I thought it would make a difference (hell SteveB could knock 100kgs out of it, though knowing him he would do it with an axe)
Only after he’d finished with the chainsaw!
I can add another to conversion to the mix, just for the hell of it. Mid '98 S1 Elise, 26 litres indicated fuel, but standard other than for 2.3L Duratec conversion (+ fire extinguisher + harness bar but no harnesses) - 764kg. Unfortunately the car was not weighed prior to conversion.
This thread really has turn out well then…
I have just had my Elise on the corner weight scales with a dry tank. The car will have a Honda conversion done in a couple of weeks and no other modifications. I will weigh it again when the conversion is complete and post the results on this thread.
HTH
So what does your car weigh at this point?
Whatever any conversion fallguy might achieve by lightweight S/S exhaust, alternator, engine mounts etc etc, can be done with a K . What you conversion “devotees” cannot ever achieve is a lightweight base engine.
If you cannot understand the logic of that you will have to wait until I get hold of a honda and audi to weigh and assess.
Think about it, it’s not a change of story - you know your honda weighs a ton more than a std K let alone one that has had some money spent on it, the discussion was whether there might be some out there honest enough to be open about the weight a conversion added without additional work.
As for this “where the weight is” - the K is shorter and massively lighter, so pushing the engine forward in some desperate attempt to offset the weight at the expense of anything like sensible driveshaft angles sounds and is just desperate.simon
Yet another bodyswerve from Mr Erland.
I have never denyed that the Honda is heavier, and Bernard has never denyed that the Audi is heavier. What people have an issue with is your continuous statements about how it totally screws up the handling and braking and how a K-series car will be miles better. Sorry, it won’t, I know this having kept the same dampers and springs and the same geo set-up on my car between the K-series and the Honda. The only thing I changed was to fit rubber bushes instead of Nylatrons. There was a change but it was small.
You see, this is what I do. I know about suspension, steering, balance, CofG, I spent years driving test cars round test tracks and race circuits tuning and tweeking cars so know exactly what effect a weight change can make.
You on the other hand are just making wild claims based on no data, in fact have you actually, truthfully, driven either a Honda or Audi powered Elise/Exige?
I also notice that you haven’t responded to either myself or to Bernard about your comparison test?
You see, this is what I do. I know about suspension, steering, balance, CofG, I spent years driving test cars round test tracks and race circuits tuning and tweeking cars so know exactly what effect a weight change can make.
Hi Mark,
So, I�ll take this chance and ask you:
As soon as you didn�t change the suspension at all, the front, rear and vehicle�s rolling centres didn�t change, right?
By installing a heavier engine (lets say the Honda one), does the CoG position change at all, or does it remain at exactly the same position as the one with the Rover engine? If it does change, does this alteration affect the lateral and longitudinal load transfer during cornering or acceleration/braking?
P.S. I know that even if it does, the effect will be in low levels, but isn�t the Elise supposed to be a sensitive car in even small changes? I mean people pay hundreds and sometimes thousands � to tune their suspension properly in order to gain better handling and/or 1 sec in lap times. It is known, that 1mm of wrongly adjusted toe can mess your lap times. The “experts” say that even the 0.1 mm of bump steer effect can assist improving (or not) the lap time.
You�ve seen yourself a difference using the nylatron bushes instead of the original rubber ones, so I am sure you can understand how sensitive the Elise/Exige is to these small changes.
IMHO, the Elise is a demanding car, with very low CoG. Putting an extra 30-40 kg to the Elise is not the same like putting it to a Metro.
Also, if the CoG changes even by a tiny amount, maybe it�s a good idea to ask Lotus to produce another set of Yokohama tyres, made specifically for the Honda (or Audi) Elise/Exige, as there is no point for the Honda/Audi Elise/Exige owners to pay so much money for a tyre that is fine tuned to work with other loads.
Mark, I am sure you’ll agree as you definitely know about tyre cornering stiffness and lateral/longitudinal load transfer and how these things work together in order to produce lat/long forces and make the car corner and acc/brake.
I can see your points Mark, and I appreciate the fact that you are a handling-oriented guy, as I am very inclined that way as well (got the hang on bikes, but just starting on cars).
I can nevertheless tell you my experience with 6Kg extra at the back, it was when I was testing different exhausts, and I could really feel the difference.
I had to go back to the heavier setup but having felt how the car behaved before in the corners, I think I’m going back to the lighter (but louder) setup.
BTW…
And just to add a Honda set of figures to the equation.
This was my car about a week after the conversion was completed. No idea what fuel was in it as all I got was the figures.
FL = 162
FR = 168.5
RL = 247
RR = 249So a total of 826.5
This gives a Front/Rear weight distribution of 40/60 split.
I’m surprised at the weights of your car, here’s mine, with 25L fuel, the heavier exhaust, big battery, std wheels, stereo and dynamat (sorry , never got around removing it, will do this winter though), but no cage, harness or plumbed-in fire extinguisher:
FL:157…FR:162.5
RL:220.5…RR:221.5
Total: 761.5Kg
with exactly 42-58% distribution.
Now, this winter I want to go through a bit of weight reduction but nothing major as the car will still be used on the road (I’m still debating if to remove the stereo or not! )
Will also add some weight: plumbed in fire extinguisher, harness, harness bar, cage, so will do well if I just manage to keep it at the same weight…
Also, if the CoG changes even by a tiny amount, maybe it�s a good idea to ask Lotus to produce another set of Yokohama tyres, made specifically for the Honda (or Audi) Elise/Exige, as there is no point for the Honda/Audi Elise/Exige owners to pay so much money for a tyre that is fine tuned to work with other loads.
Mark, I am sure you’ll agree as you definitely know about tyre cornering stiffness and lateral/longitudinal load transfer and how these things work together in order to produce lat/long forces and make the car corner and acc/brake.
Well given that every elise varient weighs different amounts, and even stock cars seem to cary enourmously are you suggesting that Yoko produce tyres for “stock elise, Jan-March 1998” or “Bills elise which weighs more than Joes”, without taking into account the weight of the driver, and ooops I have a PAX best change the tyres.