01-17-2021, 07:22 PM | #111 | |
First Lieutenant
206
Rep 300
Posts
Drives: E92 M3 Comp/G80 M3 Comp on Ord
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
Occasional rain? Try Oct-Dec and just about every other day. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-17-2021, 07:43 PM | #112 |
Major General
5459
Rep 7,037
Posts |
Right but the AWD G8X isn’t launched yet.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-17-2021, 09:47 PM | #114 |
Major General
5459
Rep 7,037
Posts |
If the boss hasn’t lifted the internal only classification Frank better keep quite for now. Regarding AWD I also vaguely recall lemetier hinting that the AWD model contain another”Easter egg”. I.e. some new technical feature. I could have mixed that up though.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-17-2021, 10:55 PM | #115 | |
First Lieutenant
182
Rep 357
Posts |
Quote:
There are a few cars that make themselves less interactive at lower speeds to focus on higher ultimate performance which can spoil them or make their control points seem "aloof" (i.e. some RS Audi's). Porsche 911's are built on a custom platform so they have more control over both the low speed interactivity and the higher speed handling. I hope the M3 hasn't aimed at the higher speed/track times at the expense of the more accessible interactivity on the road. Another member mentioned "today's E30 M3" is likely the GT86 and they could be right - small, light, interactive, small power, loves being revved out and enjoyable at road speeds. I hope I'm wrong and the G8x nails the brief for all areas of driving but I'm predicting BMW have moved the needle on track times whilst making the car less fun on the road. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-17-2021, 11:32 PM | #116 | |
Major
555
Rep 922
Posts |
Quote:
Felt about as good as anything else I've driven. That's 120/130 when overtaking, down to about 100 when cruising. Would not risk higher speeds than that though, without an autobahn... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 02:22 AM | #117 | |
New Member
2
Rep 12
Posts |
Quote:
and with 275 Up front on G80 It will be worse |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 03:42 AM | #118 |
Captain
194
Rep 850
Posts |
We can’t compare whether aquaplaning is usual. It depends on the depth and length of the puddle. At 200 kmph in rain, there may be no aquaplaning vs aquaplaning is usual with PS4S in 100kmph over a deep and long puddle.
__________________
2013 F10 M5 FG, 12.7 E92 M3 ZCP sold
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 05:43 AM | #119 |
Lieutenant Colonel
2422
Rep 1,772
Posts
Drives: Bmw 330i and Bmw 328i
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Los Angeles
|
Lolol its funny cuz half of the owners are gonnna swap em out for toyo R888 or Hankook RS4s anyways. Those tires wont match the grip of these.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 08:20 AM | #120 | |
Major General
3492
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
The more in depth calculation is the land to sea calculation of a particular tyre,(average tread width as a percentage). Also it's tread depth to determine how deep a puddle needs to be before grooves become ineffective. Tyre pressure has an effect too. In simple terms, if the puddle is deep enough, and the force great enough (velocity and area) to support the axle weight, the tyre will depart from the road surface. Once this happens, tread design, rubber compound or any great technology built into the tyre to promote wet grip ceases to work. Front tyre size is particularly important, as it is the axle that clears the water for the rears. Making the rear widths not as critical. I would be very concerned about driving a 3 series size car with very worn front 275 section tyres at high speed in the rain. Very worn being <3.5mm tread depth across the whole tyre. I am surprised about the MPC2 comments above. I have these on my M2C and manage to aqua plane regularly. Cup2's have a particularly wide outer shoulder (low Land to sea) with almost no drainage channels, and at best the tread depth is only 5.5mm (new). Not great anti aqua plane features. Coming back on topic, IMO these minimal stagger, wide fronts was something I foresaw happening with the last generation cars and the creep of xDrive. To put it bluntly, there is significant cost involved in achieving a 50:50 balanced FR chassis. The fanaticism of that balance is only really worthwhile on a RWD platform. Once you transition to an AWD platform, the 50:50 balance characteristics moves down the list of importance. Moving towards a square tyre fitment is IMO confirmation that this rot has set in. Counteracting under steer with tyre size not chassis balance. They foresee AWD will be the big seller, which makes a focussed (BMW roots) RWD chassis the niche. Such a shame. |
|
01-18-2021, 10:23 AM | #121 |
General
21132
Rep 20,742
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
First time I hear this. Could you expand as to why you believe this would be the case?
__________________
Porsche 911 turbo 2021 992 GT Silver
Previous cars: M4cs 2019 F82 Limerock Grey / M4 2015 F82 Silverstone / M3 2008 E92 Silverstone / M3 2002 E46 Carbon Black |
Appreciate
1
Boss3301721.50 |
01-18-2021, 01:33 PM | #122 | |
Major General
3492
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
In adding an AWD drivetrain we have introduced drive train drag and added weight to the front axle. Both of these increase under steer. How do we counter under steer? Increasing front axle grip. Viola, bigger section front tyres. You got it more front weight, and since you've increased the effectiveness of the front axle, the bigger brakes need to go here, more chassis rigidity here too, there are new forces on the front axles that we didn't have before. Incrementally the weight balance moves further and further forward and there is nothing you can do about it other than to embrace the fact that 50:50 is dead. This leads to bean counters fighting back undoing all the expensive stuff you implemented to achieve "the BMW balance", because it's broken anyway and Audi do OK without. You've lost the anchor in the argument, that historical yardstick. It doesn't get replaced by 55:45, no it it just goes. Oh and if you think that's OK, the RWD version will still be OK? Right? No, the whole platform has been compromised. Strut turrets, front geometry aimed to driven front axle inclinations. Wheel wells designed for wide (unnecessary) tyres, carrying big heavy brakes. Chassis strength focussed to adapt to AWD needs, the list goes on, but all at cross purpose to 50:50 balance. This is a real shift, the G20 340i is AWD only in many markets, this indicates the direction of chassis development for AWD. It ends in a video showing distorted weight difference between old and new and not a peep about weight distribution. Purposely omitted no doubt. Coming back to your question, it is inevitable. There are only two manufacturers that I can recall having tried to control weight distribution on FAWD platforms. Subaru and Nissan GTR. One is a low volume super car with an expensive and unpractical transaxle gearbox, the other no longer bothers. A lost battle. C'est la vie. |
|
01-18-2021, 01:43 PM | #123 | |
Major General
5459
Rep 7,037
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 05:17 PM | #126 | |
Always +10MPH
1005
Rep 626
Posts |
Quote:
Just because 50:50 isn't better than a slight rear bias to begin with, doesn't mean 55:45 is now acceptable. It's actually worse than 50:50, magnitudes worse. |
|
Appreciate
1
NISFAN3491.50 |
01-18-2021, 05:22 PM | #127 |
Major General
3492
Rep 9,708
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 06:12 PM | #128 |
Major
1125
Rep 1,083
Posts |
The Q&A from Frank is out on Instagram
My question got answered
__________________
|
Appreciate
2
PLF693770.00 SYT_Shadow11508.00 |
01-18-2021, 06:15 PM | #129 |
///M Powered for Life
11508
Rep 10,341
Posts |
I dislike AWD as much as any of you, but despite the theory you drive something like the M5c and it feels wonderful. I would still prefer RWD.
Even on the M3 forum it's chock full of people pining for AWD, I'm not surprised BMW offered it and I'm thankful they still offer a true RWD version for us. AWD sells. One could say it sells to stupid people, but it sells nonetheless. 0-60 is all the rage for those cool youtube videos! |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 09:27 PM | #131 | |
Major
555
Rep 922
Posts |
Quote:
Not much of an Instagram user so maybe I'm just being a noob here. I could see the other videos but not an FAQ. Edit, here: https://www.instagram.com/stories/bm...0487379786970/ What a godawful interface Instagram has. Nothing much there, and repetitive questions about run flats and tyre pressure... Last edited by maddmatth; 01-19-2021 at 12:15 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2021, 09:40 PM | #132 |
Private
49
Rep 91
Posts |
i use cup2 on my car and recently got 265/35 cup2 and saw that they have new DT1 (different tread 1) and tire rating of 240!!! that's crazy. and it's bmw star. i looked everywhere and found that 245/35 is also DT1 240 rating. so that's whats going to be on M2 wheels . i do not see 285/35 or 285/30 offered in DT1 yet. maybe they will. then i saw this vid and one of the large ass tire has to be 285 rear on this new M car. so that tells me 285 DT1 star rated tire is coming. i think it's awesome that cup2 is getting upgraded . i'm a big fan of cup2 and was going to switch to S007A, i prolly will anyway becuase of cost difference and so many tires i go through each year
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
bimmerpost, bmw g80, bmw g82, bmw m3, bmw m4, tires, tyres |
|
|