Lotus Elan Central

by **Ekapol** » Wed 04.10.2006, 22:32

You guys are too funny :-D

Love the new Avatar.

by **TheBard** » Thu 02.11.2006, 21:19

See the MX5 is for hairy chested types....

and hairy eared, and.... :lol:

Okay, I'll get me coat :roll:

by **Specky** » Thu 02.11.2006, 21:21

Richard Hammond makes full recovery.. :lol:

TTFN

by **Steve_P** » Sat 04.11.2006, 11:49

I've recently upgraded my everyday car, all the bells and whistles that you think would make it a great car, dozens of airbags, sat nat, cooled seats etc. etc. but you know what, I'd sooner park my bottom in the 15 year old Elan for sheer driving pleasure.....

I'm sure the new MX5 is a good car with lots of nice options, but does it really light your fire? ;-)

by **Andy C** » Thu 09.11.2006, 12:47

by **Oliver** » Tue 21.11.2006, 19:07

I used to work for a Mazda dealer. You just can`t compare the M100 with any derivative of mx5. The mx5 is better than the M100 in the same way that a golf tdi is better than a noble m12.

the most exciting thing about the mx5 is `accessorising` - carbon fibre scuff plates, chrome air vent surrounds etc. the only way to make yours look slightly different from the other 249000. - it`s just another mass produced lifestyle accessory (until the next one comes along). oh and you must not forget the 35 limited editions they`ll bring out over the `product cycle` with daft names like gleneagles, merlot, trilogy, california, etc, etc.

by **Monty** » Tue 21.11.2006, 20:05

IIRC when the M100 was launched it was tested against the MX5 and the M100 came out on top :roll:

Even the new Mx5 is slower than the stock M100 :roll:

Friends of my parents have a newer model MX5 and had mine next to hers and she loved mine :-D

The shape of the M100 is just timeless.

How a bit of carbon fibre and chrome rings makes a better car is beyond me

I`m not calling the MX5 as there very popular and i`ve never driven one (maybe i`ll have a spin in my parents friends)

Obvouisly having ABS and traction control is going to be an advatage, but don`t forget some of these cars are 16 years old and the design is from the Mid 80`s.

by **nchase** » Thu 23.11.2006, 10:00

johnbenk wrote:Hi All

Thanks for the reply Guys. One reason I bought the Mx5 is that at 60mph
the car will STOP in 116ft. A car travelling at 60mph covers 88ft per second. The overall stopping distance AT 70MPH ACCORDING TO THE LAST PAGE OF THE HIGHWAY CODE is 315ft being made up of 70ft thinking distance and 245ft BRAKING distance.

I think you'll find that the Elan at 70 will beat that. Somewhere on this site used to a photo of my breaking marks taken from 70mph - 0 in with the distance being under 25m (just can't find the photo).

by **dapinky** » Thu 23.11.2006, 12:50

I know this is going a bit :offtopic:

I love it when people quote 'stopping distances' from the Highway Code, and then claim their car is better!

The Code was written in 1924 and they used 2 cars to come to these conclusions, an Austin 7 and a 8HP Vauxhall.

Both cars had 'rod and drum' type brakes (one on 2 wheels, one on all 4), and a top speed of a fit tortoise!

As such, the 'tests' were done at 10, 20 and 30 mph and then a mathematical formula applied to extrapolate the results beyond those 'breakneck speeds'.

Even my granny (God rest her sole) could react in less than the quoted times/distances (as an approximation, every 10 mph = 15 feet/second), and 0.7 seconds is quite slow!!!!

Hydraulic brakes are much more efficient and thus the 'braking distance' will also be less, albeit that there are 2 other factors which have a much higher impact on the final results. [1] Modern tyres and [2] road surfaces offer a much greater 'coefficient of friction' than they used to.

Finally (he says, getting down from his soapbox

) whatever anyone says about ABS, Cadence braking, or any other wonder system, - the quickest way to stop in a straight line, on a dry road is to lock up all 4 wheels and skid to a halt.

You will have NO control over direction of travel, but you will have MAXIMUM friction.

by **GeoffSmith** » Thu 31.05.2007, 19:57

WHO STOLE JBK's AVATAR? :evil:

by **nitroman** » Fri 01.06.2007, 04:08

I could understand someone trading the M100 on a Saturn Sky Red Line... but never for an MX5.

I believe the EU pedestrian standards have ruined the look of many new cars, most so sports cars. Note the way that the Saturn Sky & Pontiac Solstice have raised the headlights higher than the bonett? That's the only way to keep a decent look with the new standards in place (either that or design a different front clip for markets outside the EU... something which no bean counter has yet allowed).

by **Rambo** » Fri 01.06.2007, 08:46

geoffsmith wrote:WHO STOLE JBK's AVATAR?

johnbenk
The only gray in the Village

Perhaps one of our moderators is homophobic Geoff ??

by **ab2cv** » Fri 01.06.2007, 13:11

dapinky wrote:whatever anyone says about ABS, Cadence braking, or any other wonder system, - the quickest way to stop in a straight line, on a dry road is to lock up all 4 wheels and skid to a halt.

You will have NO control over direction of travel, but you will have MAXIMUM friction.

Is this really true (and does it apply to all vehicles in all conditions/situations)? I'm not arguing, just questioning for clarification as it goes against what I've been taught in the past. Natural instinct certainly tells you to keep your foot planted on the brake in an emergency stop, but I've found that I 'seem to' stop a bit quicker if I let go of the brake when the wheels lock up and then reapply. Surely if you're skidding then you've lost traction with the road and the only way to regain traction is to let the wheels spin again. Ofcourse, letting go of the brakes causes the car to momentarily stop slowing down again, which will have the net effect of increasing the stopping distance, so I am prepared to accept that the above could indeed be correct.

Alan

by **John_W** » Fri 01.06.2007, 14:21

ab2cv wrote:Is this really true ...
Alan

Categorically not .
John

by **Candles** » Fri 01.06.2007, 16:00

There's another thread with this thrashed out rather geekily. I side with the 'skidding is worse' camp as in my limited studies, static coefficient of friction is higher than the dynamic coefficient of friction.

:roll: