Clarkson's view of Formula and the Corvette

M

mattjm321

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
49
Location
Raleigh, NC
Car(s)
'07 G35s, '66 Bronco, '05 Ram (work truck)
Hey all, love the show.

But I can't help but notice that most of Clarkson says ("rip out the technology, focus on the driver", etc.) sounds like Nascar rhetoric over here. They are still running carbs and solid ford 9 inch axles. Lets skip the driving in circles stuff.

Another problem with Clarkson: Everytime he mentions the Corvette, he plugs the leaf spring joke. The C5 and C6 are not leaf sprung. What is he talking about? Does he know what he's talking about?
 
I really like him as a TV personality...guess I'll just have to keep in mind he's arrogant not ignorant.
 
If the C5 and C6 doesn't have rear leaf spring suspension, I suppose some of our more technical members kinda would have voiced it. Further, there's two thousand four hundred and sixty four threads about that theme. ;)

As for the Nascar thingy, I can't comment on Nascar technology, since Nascar is as big in Europe as cricket is in America. We know what it is, but we really don't care, to be frank. :)

What he doesn't like, isn't technology per say, Clarkson loves technology. What he doesn't like, is when technology takes over. An F1-driver strictly doesn't drive out of the pit, the computer does. This is to make sure he doesn't just spin the wheels or oversteers off the track. But that's beside the point, these are race car drivers, they SHOULD be able to control that. That is just one example of technology going waaay too far.

There has been examples of technology which I personally really love, the downforce system thingy from the 70s(?) when they had the technology to create cornering speeds that would have ensured that the drivers would have to wear g-suits. That's genuine ingenuity, and I love it.

But F1 has just become to remote by different types of technology. Schumacher could alter the characteristics of his F1 car 3 times during one corner. Why? Why can't he just get into the damn car and just DRIVE.

It annoys me, and I suppose it annoys Clarkson too.
 
"If the C5 and C6 doesn't have rear leaf spring suspension, I suppose some of our more technical members kinda would have voiced it."

So are you saying you don't believe me? Or are you saying that everyone knows it doesn't and you've all moved on?

I know you don't know or care about Nascar, your European. A lot of Americans don't care either. All I'm saying is Nascar severely limits the technology and competitiveness of its vehicles and instead focuses on on the driver and team.

Google c5 rear suspension images.
 
hhahahahah from the title I was thinking clarkson has some sort of a stupid arrogant view on baby formula. I was a little dissapointed...
 
The Corvette does have leaf springs, or a leaf spring to be exact. Not the traditional type, but still a leaf spring.

Also what I think Clarkson is referring to when he complains about technology is the driver aids like traction control, staibility control and such. I don't think he is against modern engine and drivetrain technologies that much, he just doesn't like a computer controlling the driving.
 
Last edited:
AnGuRuSO said:
hhahahahah from the title I was thinking clarkson has some sort of a stupid arrogant view on baby formula. I was a little dissapointed...
Click to expand...

Its rubbish too! :)
 
True, but it generally is referred to as a leaf spring. A laterally mounted composite single leaf is not what generally comes to mind when people hear "leaf springs".

Leafs2.jpg


BTW, nice choice with the '66 Bronco, I've got a project '68 myself.
 
mattjm321 said:
Another problem with Clarkson: Everytime he mentions the Corvette, he plugs the leaf spring joke. The C5 and C6 are not leaf sprung. What is he talking about? Does he know what he's talking about?
Click to expand...

Actually, Corvettes including the C5 and C6 have been "leaf sprung" for quite a long time -- going back to the 1963 C2 Corvette.

However, it's not the traditional kind of leaf spring used by a pickup truck or roman ox cart as Clarkson implies. And he damned right knows better, so it pisses me off.

Leafs1.jpg


It's a composite transverse setup connecting the rear control arms like they used to do in F1 cars.

Leafs2.jpg


A spring is a spring; the Corvette leaf spring acts as an anti-roll bar, is light (and additionally reduced unsprung weight) and spatially compact, and helps keep the Vette's body sleek. Porsche works around this in its high end cars by mounting the springs/shocks on an angle. In the Carerra GT they're almost horizontal (follow the steering column and look where they are).

FullCutaway2.jpg


Clarkson is against "technology" when it makes up for bad engineering or unskilled driving -- all the nanny electronic driver aids. And I agree with him. I want to learn the physics of fast driving, not have some computer cover up my poor driving.
 
Last edited:
nomix said:
There has been examples of technology which I personally really love, the downforce system thingy from the 70s(?) when they had the technology to create cornering speeds that would have ensured that the drivers would have to wear g-suits. That's genuine ingenuity, and I love it.
Click to expand...
That's called ground effects aerodynamics. It's generated by acellerating the air under the car with a flat floor and big venturi tunnels, this effectively does the opposite of an aircraft wing. The FIA became woried of the extreme cornering speeds that the ground effect cars achieved, so they banned the sliding sideskirts and mandated that the floor of the car had to be flat all the way, thus banning the large venuris. The engineer's solution to this was pushing wings through the air at a very high speed, using powerful engines (read: Turbo era)

More about ground effects here
 
Adunaphel said:
:+1:

And janstett, since when is a Carrera GT a family car? :p
Click to expand...

I didn't create the image, I only violated copyright law by linking to it :)
 
janstett said:
Clarkson is against "technology" when it makes up for bad engineering or unskilled driving -- all the nanny electronic driver aids. And I agree with him. I want to learn the physics of fast driving, not have some computer cover up my poor driving.
Click to expand...

Where would stability control, traction control or ABS come in there? They can cover up poor driving, but on the flip side they save many more lives.

[Can't remember Clarkson's view of them; my personal one is they're nice to have but being able to switch 'em off is good, too]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top