Ajax

Brewer's Comfort Ratio

Recommended Posts

I've been reading up on Brewer's comfort ratio, trying to learn where my boat falls in its capabilities.

I feel like "comfort" is a highly subjective term. There are people who are very sensitive to heeling and there are people who are very tolerant of heeling and other motions that sensitive people might find objectionable.  One article I read, stated that you can increase your comfort ratio simply by loading the boat down for cruising. That seems rather simplistic because *where* you put the weight is just as important as how much weight you add.

Does this ratio have any value?  Does it seem to be reasonably accurate?

My boat only has a ratio of 21 = "Not very comfortable for blue water cruising."  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is mostly bunk. If you are going upwind in any kind of seas, you'll be uncomfortable. Downwind, not so much. The one thing that will help upwind is a boat that does not pound (too much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monsoon said:

I think it is mostly bunk. If you are going upwind in any kind of seas, you'll be uncomfortable. Downwind, not so much. The one thing that will help upwind is a boat that does not pound (too much).

It is also dependant of the kind of seas you sail. In Southern Brittany, you tend to get long swell which many boats manage well whereas in Northern Brittany we often get confused and choppy seas which some boats don't like at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's bunk too. I have a Tartan 33, comfort ratio 21, and have never been "uncomfortable" offshore. To me "uncomfortable" means a level of discomfort significantly higher than I'd expected or prepared for. I always expect to get a little green around the gills on the first day out. I barf once, eat some crackers, and then I'm fine for the rest of the passage. Maybe my discomfort threshold is high, but being in conditions that you've planned for, even when they're ugly, is well within my comfort zone. I love my Tartan. I know exactly what it's going to do most of the time. To me, that's comfort; I'm not sure how to put a number on that. 

Short steep waves:     To get to the Pacific from Seattle you have to work your way West out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.  Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes you plan and plan, and you think you've timed it right, and it's still a bitch. I've done it in bigger "comfortable" boats and you still get tossed around and beaten up in rough conditions. The predominant wind is from the NW, so it blows right down the Strait, stacking up steep waves with short intervals. The ebb flows against this wind, so if you got yourself into that mess you're going to be uncomfortable in any boat. I've been there in the Tartan. It's like a slow-motion auto accident that keeps happening every ten seconds or so, but it's also like that in the bigger boats. Most people stop in Neah Bay, fuel up, reprovision, and wait for the right weather before turning left at Tatoosh Island. It's a nice break after eighty-odd miles of stress. So, in this case I don't believe putting a comfort rating number on a boat is significant. If the Strait wants to kick your ass, it's going to happen no matter what your comfort ration number is.

Ocean swell:     So, you rest up in Neah Bay, check the weather, cast off, and turn left at Tatoosh Island. Now you're in the Pacific swell, which varies from gentle with no wind waves, to huge with breaking wind waves. Sometimes it's all that, plus confused seas with waves coming from a few directions at the same time. With the wind up and behind the beam I've surfed South through the swell and felt comfortable and secure. I've beaten North through the swell on the way back to Seattle and found the Tartan 33 to be as comfortable as any other boat I've been on in similar conditions. I got beaten up once when I ignored a small craft warning for hazardous seas off the Washington coast. That was not comfortable, but I consider that one my mistake. I was heading South at about 128 degrees. A bulk carrier was bashing its way North, crushing the messy seas and throwing spray as high as the bridge. No 10,000 pound boat is going to be like a 30,000 pound boat in similar conditions, but the Tartan is predictable, and for me that's comforting. Actually, unless you head North to go to Alaska on the West side of Vancouver Island, offshore conditions are--in my experience--far more comfortable than beating out of the Strait for eighty miles. The swells have a long fetch, so in most conditions you'd plan for and go out in they're just big lumpy seas that roll under your boat.

Blue Water?     I've always thought this label is ridiculously subjective. My opinion is that blue water "capability" has far more to do with the sailor than with the boat. Yes, some boats are stiffer, stouter, and more comfortable than others. Still, most any well-found boat, properly prepared by a competent skipper, who knows what to expect from the boat and the conditions, and who plans for every possible disaster at sea, is "blue water" capable. You just have to calibrate your expectations.

Quantifying everything helps some folks. Personally, I think I've made about every mistake you can make , inshore and offshore. I know my boat pretty well, and that's comforting to me. Comparing numerical ratings among boats isn't really useful when I plan to keep the boat I have.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ajax - Over at Sailnet, Jeff_H has debunked the Comfort Ratio numerous times.    His example goes something like this:

Take a sailboat and add a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.   The boat  will have a higher Comfort Ratio due to the added weight, but the motions will be noticeably worse.

 Comfort ratio = D / (0.65 x (0.7 LWL + 0.3 LOA) x Beam↑1.33)      D = displacement in lbs, dimensions in feet.

As I understand it Ted Brewer said he dreamed it up "tongue in cheek".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Ted did not take that ratio very seriously. He was just musing around with it. At least that is what he told me once at a Seattle Boat Show. Nice guy by the way, fun to chat with.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, I have never been as comfortable as Ajax. My keel boat ownership & Comfort Ratios:

Alberg Typhoon: 15.84

J22:  8.64

H-Boat: 15.73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the ratio is pretty subjective and not to be taken too seriously.  Thanks. :)

 

@kevinjones16  Dude, it sounds like you've taken your T-33 out for some serious sailing. Have you taken it to Hawaii and back? Down the west coast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kimbottles said:

Yes, Ted did not take that ratio very seriously. He was just musing around with it

Exactly.

However I was once up the top of the mast in the Panama canal and my wife said it really reduced the roll motion of the boat (much higher polar moment of inertia so resistant to roll from nearby tug wake)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chester said:

I thought weight at the top of the mast increased roll?

Decreases roll dramatically. Especially boat wake rolling. Old-timers would haul a barrel of water up. Narrow beam, tall rig, and deep ballast makes a boat just rise and fall over waves without rolling. Typical modern cruiser with beam, stubby rig and shoal draft is the worst for roll.

Oddly, weight in the ends changes, but generally does not reduce pitching.

Weight aloft not necessarily good for sailing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Decreases roll dramatically. Especially boat wake rolling. Old-timers would haul a barrel of water up. Narrow beam, tall rig, and deep ballast makes a boat just rise and fall over waves without rolling. Typical modern cruiser with beam, stubby rig and shoal draft is the worst for roll.

Oddly, weight in the ends changes, but generally does not reduce pitching.

Weight aloft not necessarily good for sailing. 

this is why i thought...taking weight out high was always the thing, tapered masts, carbon fibre, that was to reduce heel?  righting moment?  as you can tell NOT a math guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Decreases roll dramatically. Especially boat wake rolling. Old-timers would haul a barrel of water up. Narrow beam, tall rig, and deep ballast makes a boat just rise and fall over waves without rolling. Typical modern cruiser with beam, stubby rig and shoal draft is the worst for roll.

Oddly, weight in the ends changes, but generally does not reduce pitching.

Weight aloft not necessarily good for sailing. 

How's it go? More weight aloft means more amplitude, but lower frequency?  So, rig falls down and the boat starts jumping all over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How's it go? More weight aloft means more amplitude, but lower frequency?  So, rig falls down and the boat starts jumping all over?

Maybe roll is worse if the wave is slow enough to get the roll developed. But with a narrow beam most waves, or their pointy tops,  get to the other side quick enough to cancel out the incipient roll.

An enlightening experience can be had by removing the rig, or losing it at sea. Boat becomes as unstable as a canoe. Barf-ability and break the crockery below just crossing a harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moments of inertia are one of those things that are kind of counter-intuitive for most people.

If you add 500 lbs to the top of the mast, the moment of inertia would increase which means it's movement would have a lot more energy... it would accelerate much slower when rolling, and roll further.

This is deemed "more comfortable." A quick harsh roll, where the boat accelerates in roll motion almost instantly, feels horrible. Same for almost any other motion; I would guess the high acceleration in one direction then reversed tells the inner ear & brain "Hey something is really WRONG here!"

Brewer's Comfort Index is a real measure although not IMHO a particularly useful one. It really is trying to approximate the ratio of displacement to water plane area, which tells how fast the boat will accelerate in heave, and to a lesser extent, in pitch motions. The ultimate boat will be very heavy and wall-sided, and just like the example of a weight at the top of the mast, it will go up and down more distance but slowly.

This is the opposite of what you want in a racing boat, where for speed, you want as little energy as possible making the boat go any direction other than forward. This is why racers take weight out of the ends of the boats. It will pitch more quickly but less amount, and the pitching will die out more quickly. The amount of energy the boat wastes in pitching is minimized.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Moments of inertia are one of those things that are kind of counter-intuitive for most people.

That's why people still buy those stupid heavy rims for cars and don't understand the very dramatic impact on performance. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brewer's comfort ratio was done tongue in cheek but it does have some validity as well. Just for fun I have checked the ratio for my boats and it definitely reflected their relative motion comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a germane topic for me as we look for our next boat & are stuck at home spreadsheet sailing.  

The dilemma we're looking at is, for the same $$ do you get a more modern design that'll be more comfortable/easier daysailing & at anchor or an older boat with more displacement and length.  

Any comments on on relative "comfort" of two very different boats I'm looking at?  

1987 Stevens 50 @40,000lbs (basically a Hylas 47)

2009 Beneteau 43 @25,000lbs

Could the big Stevens provide enough additional comfort from its displacement & length to compensate for the lack of a modern big open cockpit & swim step which I know my kids would love?  SoCal & West Coast conditions, probably not crossing oceans but extensive coastal cruising.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is the fit to your use case would trump the extra comfort ratio even if the Beneteau would come out much higher. 

For reference, my little 38' piglet has a comfort ratio of 38...the difference is noticeable versus more modern similar sized boats, which are often in the low-to-mid-20s.  My wife picked it up right away. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I was never more comfortable than on my Bristol 45.5 with a comfort ratio of 43.66. It was a very comfortable ride. We went for two weeks in Indian Ocean with winds 25 to 35 the whole time and it was very pleasant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chester said:

I thought weight at the top of the mast increased roll?

 

if you have ever been on a boat that lost its rig.., you will know that's not so.

boats that have lost their rig have a dramatically worse motion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By and large, slowing down makes boats at sea more comfortable when there's a press on the canvas. With the wind abeam or forward a 6knsb run at 4kn is probably as comfy as a 4knsb pushed to it's max in a breeze. Boats tend to be "corky" when they're going slowly. That can be nice but there's some value in having the extra kns availibe, too. When there's not much damping from the sails and an insalubrious rolling impetus a narrow boat can roll unpleasantly at sea or at anchor.

IMO, IME,and YMMV of course. I think there's a good deal of headology involved. If you think your boat is comfy it probably will be for you. The headology and the physics are very complicated. I don't think a spreadsheet is going to demystify them but it might motivate better morale.

One of my least pleasant passages was from the Line Islands to Honolulu on a classically lovely old cutter which must have a remarkable comfort ratio. I found it wet, slow, un-weatherly, with a nasty pitch and roll and I hated it. But my impressions were likely colored by the rig slowly self destructing, the constant pumping required to keep her floating, the failure of the engine, the exposed cockpit endured in bad foulies and the remarkable horribleness of the rations (vanilla Ensure, trail mix and instant ice tea). When thinking about comfort it's important to consider the entire system. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, socalrider said:

Could the big Stevens provide enough additional comfort from its displacement & length to compensate for the lack of a modern big open cockpit & swim step which I know my kids would love?  SoCal & West Coast conditions, probably not crossing oceans but extensive coastal cruising.  

I would say almost certainly not. Unless the time under way is so unpleasant that they all want to swear off sailing forever then I would think the fun at anchor would well outweight the possible downsides. I would think with that wide stern the Beneteau would heel less too, which I recall was a concern. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2020 at 2:35 PM, Steam Flyer said:

If you add 500 lbs to the top of the mast

Dude I am NOT that heavy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2020 at 4:54 PM, socalrider said:

Could the big Stevens provide enough additional comfort from its displacement & length to compensate for the lack of a modern big open cockpit & swim step which I know my kids would love?  

No. And friends cruising on a Stevens 47 (ok, fully loaded, family of 5, offshore cruising) said it was pretty slow in light winds. Really didn't get moving until 15 knots. Not ideal for southern California.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MCR:

Our 40' cat = 7

Our 30' fat mono = 40

The cat did have a faster roll motion but the fat mono would roll it's guts out in an anchorage.

Ted did say "The intention is to provide a means to compare the motion comfort of vessels of similar type and size, not to compare that of a Lightning class sloop with that of a husky 50 foot ketch"

Anybody remember what a Lightning looks like? Ted's been around a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2020 at 4:27 PM, El Boracho said:

Decreases roll dramatically. Especially boat wake rolling. Old-timers would haul a barrel of water up. Narrow beam, tall rig, and deep ballast makes a boat just rise and fall over waves without rolling. Typical modern cruiser with beam, stubby rig and shoal draft is the worst for roll.

Oddly, weight in the ends changes, but generally does not reduce pitching.

Weight aloft not necessarily good for sailing. 

But the mast is extra heavy due to in-mast furling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Saturday, we were sailing out past LA Light. There was a Catalina 36, beautifully kept, sailing alongside us in our full-cruise and therefore better than a race boat Olson 40. 12-15 knots breeze. Both had only mainsails set, sailing deep, about 7 knots. We both hit a big set of wakes from a fast moving tug boat, pilot boat, and Bertram sportfisher. The Olson did not pitch, hardly noticed the waves. The Catalina pitched like crazy, bouncing and splashing and almost stopping.

We did an aggressive weight saving effort on the Olson (such as swapping out the diesel for electric, saving 700 lbs, and a lighter bulb keel saving about another 500 lbs). We removed weight from the ends (windlass, aluminum pole to carbon, no hydraulics). But we also saved a lot of weight aloft: dyneema headstay and backstay, lighter halyards, less lines and blocks up the mast and in the boom, no wires up the mast other than a very thin wire for the deck light at the lower spreaders, no antenna/instruments/lights at the masthead (only a windex), no spinnaker pole gear, no lazy jacks, no stack pack, no furling sails, and only carbon sails.

Paying attention to speed increasing factors, like reducing weight aloft and weight in the ends, has a huge factor in sea going comfort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, carcrash said:

On Saturday ... The Olson did not pitch, hardly noticed the waves. The Catalina pitched like crazy, bouncing and splashing and almost stopping.

Yes, amazing. One flip side is that sometimes the Olson will submarine the crest of the wave. But that's just water over the deck - really only a bother for any crew out there and were cruising, so... The second downside is the occasional slam when a wave crest catches the flat hull square on. Loud, certainly, but doesn't seem to have any lasting effect. Better that than pointing up at the stars every 10 seconds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2020 at 5:53 PM, Elegua said:

That's why people still buy those stupid heavy rims for cars and don't understand the very dramatic impact on performance. 

Thus the famous Jag inboard disc brakes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Thus the famous Jag inboard disc brakes

We had an MKII for a time that had some pretty cool advanced features. Everything except reliability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KC375 said:

Thus the famous Jag inboard disc brakes

My HMMWV has those.  Very funky. You need to be careful with the brake and the throttle of you'll snap an axle. The tire with a run-flat weighs 165 lbs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ajax said:

My HMMWV has those.  Very funky. You need to be careful with the brake and the throttle of you'll snap an axle. The tire with a run-flat weighs 165 lbs.

Well yes, the Humvee and E type jag may have had a similar solution to locating disc brakes driven by very different design briefs.

The Humvee inboard discs and run flat tires are about survivability...

While a Humvee might get you home after incoming fire a Jag may not get you home after even a rainfall, but you will still look good in your immobilized vehicle.

The Jag is about reducing the unsprung weight so the tire can regain road contact after a bump faster for  a given spring and damping rate...not an attribute that would be enhanced by heavy run flats.

Of course driving at speed may interfere with what for many young men was the prime purpose of the vehicle. For the E-type to fulfill it's role as the greatest crumpet collector known to man it should motor at a slow enough speed to be noticed, appreciated and perhaps allow the operator to initiate banter with its true targets.

The other advantage of inboard discs is the increase in income to mechanics...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Elegua said:

We had an MKII for a time that had some pretty cool advanced features. Everything except reliability. 

That's not a bug,

that's a feature.

(I put my way through college working as a mechanic).

I gave up on using my preferred vehicles for daily transport when I realized I'd reached the point in life where I had to stop showing up for meetings smelling of petrol and having grease under my fingernails. I respected my honda civic but I loved my british rag tops no mater how many times they jilted me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, carcrash said:

We did an aggressive weight saving effort on the Olson (such as swapping out the diesel for electric, saving 700 lbs,

Can you elaborate on that?

I can't see how the weight of a big electric motor and especially the battery bank could be 700 Lbs LESS than a small diesel.

For instance, my old 3GMF only weighed 287 Lbs so even with tanks, filters etc. I can't see the 700 Lb difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

That's not a bug,

that's a feature.

(I put my way through college working as a mechanic).

I gave up on using my preferred vehicles for daily transport when I realized I'd reached the point in life where I had to stop showing up for meetings smelling of petrol and having grease under my fingernails. I respected my honda civic but I loved my british rag tops no mater how many times they jilted me.

They are great for a weekend car where you can call your spouse to pick you up. I'm on my 5th Subaru now. Lots of common parts, easy to open source the ECUs, still simple enough for a retard like me to work on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag's built after Ford owned it are as reliable as a Ford. More expensive when they do need work but that is no more frequent. The bad old days of British reliability are so last millennium.

I've owned a couple of XJR's that I could drive 1/2 way across the country without a single tool on board.

And keep in mind that a Series 1 E-Type was the first car I ever bought - so I know the difference. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Jag's built after Ford owned it are as reliable as a Ford. More expensive when they do need work but that is no more frequent. The bad old days of British reliability are so last millennium.

I've owned a couple of XJR's that I could drive 1/2 way across the country without a single tool on board.

And keep in mind that a Series 1 E-Type was the first car I ever bought - so I know the difference. :D

Very true. But let me tell you about my Ford experiences :D   And I still love my Perkins diesel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Very true. But let me tell you about my Ford experiences :D   And I still love my Perkins diesel. 

our family sat on the chevy side of the church...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Jag's built after Ford owned it are as reliable as a Ford. More expensive when they do need work but that is no more frequent. The bad old days of British reliability are so last millennium.

I've owned a couple of XJR's that I could drive 1/2 way across the country without a single tool on board.

And keep in mind that a Series 1 E-Type was the first car I ever bought - so I know the difference. :D

For six months in England I drove a ford x type, not bad looking but it had all the road manners of the ford mondeo it was in all but skin...I did have my eye on an XKR but entirely the wrong message for the company parking lot as the business was barely breakeven...let's see how Tata does...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KC375 said:

For six months in England I drove a ford x type, not bad looking but it had all the road manners of the ford mondeo it was in all but skin...I did have my eye on an XKR but entirely the wrong message for the company parking lot as the business was barely breakeven...let's see how Tata does...

They're not really flourishing. But at least Tata has managed to shake off a lot of the "old mans car" image.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Misbehavin' said:

They're not really flourishing. But at least Tata has managed to shake off a lot of the "old mans car" image.

 

I have great confidence in Indian car companies. After all in the form of the Ambassador, Hindustan Motors kept the 1956 Morris Oxford in production for 58 years, finally wrapping up in 2014. On the rare cool day in india I'd take the cheap taxis (no AC) for the joy of nostalgia.

1115579d1374574819-tata-motors-launches-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I have great confidence in Indian car companies. After all in the form of the Ambassador, Hindustan Motors kept the 1956 Morris Oxford in production for 58 years, finally wrapping up in 2014. On the rare cool day in india I'd take the cheap taxis (no AC) for the joy of nostalgia.

1115579d1374574819-tata-motors-launches-

 

Yeah, that's impressive. I like the nostalgia about it, but not the environmental aspects.

On car reliability, I've never had more than a couple of small niggles with my Fiats and Alfa Romeo, but the Mazda I owned? That's the only car that have ever left me stranded and had to be towed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Misbehavin' said:

..., I've never had more than a couple of small niggles with my Fiats and Alfa Romeo, but the Mazda I owned? That's the only car that have ever left me stranded and had to be towed away.

I think I'll get you to buy some loto tickets for me...but then maybe not based on the Mazda. My miata was the best car I ever owned...in five years only two unplanned maintenance items - a quarter turn of a nut to tighten AC hose, and tiny drible on passenger side window - molding replace on the spot - both under warranty both fixed without appointment 15 minute drop in at the dealer...on the other hand our Mercedes 500 wagon, in three years more unplanned maintenance than for all the other cars I've owned combined (excluding BLMC products in my teens and twenties)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I think I'll get you to buy some loto tickets for me...but then maybe not based on the Mazda. My miata was the best car I ever owned...in five years only two unplanned maintenance items - a quarter turn of a nut to tighten AC hose, and tiny drible on passenger side window - molding replace on the spot - both under warranty both fixed without appointment 15 minute drop in at the dealer...on the other hand our Mercedes 500 wagon, in three years more unplanned maintenance than for all the other cars I've owned combined (excluding BLMC products in my teens and twenties)

The fun thing, my Mazda was a Miata (MX-5 though) as well. It looked great though, British Racing Green with tan interior, black leather MOMO steering wheel and lowered on polished split rims with black centres. It had the luggage rack as well. It was very fun thing to drive when it worked though, and I loved the pop up lights.

 

And yeah, the big german executive cars are not cheap to keep on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KC375 said:

I have great confidence in Indian car companies. After all in the form of the Ambassador, Hindustan Motors kept the 1956 Morris Oxford in production for 58 years, finally wrapping up in 2014. On the rare cool day in india I'd take the cheap taxis (no AC) for the joy of nostalgia.

1115579d1374574819-tata-motors-launches-

 

I used to ask the car service for an ambassador specifically.  What I sacrificed in comfort ratio I felt I made up for in style. I also spent quality time in those Fiat taxis. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Checker of India.

When countries do that why do they start with such shitty cars? Why do they never start with a '55 Chevy or a '67 Mustang or something?

'56 Morris or '69 FIAT (Lada) and the like - they were horrible cars before they got Third Worlded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

The Checker of India.

When countries do that why do they start with such shitty cars? Why do they never start with a '55 Chevy or a '67 Mustang or something?

'56 Morris or '69 FIAT (Lada) and the like - they were horrible cars before they got Third Worlded.

Well, there is no accounting for tastes...

Morris Oxford ~ $1,700

 

MPG 21

Footprint 178” by 64”

Weight 2,400 lbs

 

 

55 Chevy Bel Air ~ $2,500

 

MPG 15

Footprint 196” by 73”

Weight 3,200 lbs

 

 

67 Mustang ~ $2,700

 

MPG 12

Footprint 184 by 71

Weight 3,400 lbs

 

 

 

Apart from economics...size can be an issue...

My first trip to India, stumbled out of the hotel massively jetlagged 2 hours sleep. As I was getting in the front passenger side I noticed the mirror had been pushed. I made a mental note to do the driver a favour and fix it but got distracted. Headed to a meeting on the other side of Delhi...half an hour later (but not that many miles) I notice I’d not fixed the mirror...it was then I realized both mirrors were flipped in for a reason...that space on both sides was regularly occupied by other vehicles...but who needs a mirror when you have a horn for eco location.

But of course you can always go to cuba

f7aba6c7b52af1cf59ebed2064536183.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KC375 said:

Well, there is no accounting for tastes...

Morris Oxford ~ $1,700

 

MPG 21

Footprint 178” by 64”

Weight 2,400 lbs

 

 

55 Chevy Bel Air ~ $2,500

 

MPG 15

Footprint 196” by 73”

Weight 3,200 lbs

 

 

67 Mustang ~ $2,700

 

MPG 12

Footprint 184 by 71

Weight 3,400 lbs

 

 

 

Apart from economics...size can be an issue...

My first trip to India, stumbled out of the hotel massively jetlagged 2 hours sleep. As I was getting in the front passenger side I noticed the mirror had been pushed. I made a mental note to do the driver a favour and fix it but got distracted. Headed to a meeting on the other side of Delhi...half an hour later (but not that many miles) I notice I’d not fixed the mirror...it was then I realized both mirrors were flipped in for a reason...that space on both sides was regularly occupied by other vehicles...but who needs a mirror when you have a horn for eco location.

But of course you can always go to cuba

f7aba6c7b52af1cf59ebed2064536183.jpg

That's quite funny that they could market the mustang as a sports car despite being so heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panoramix said:

That's quite funny that they could market the mustang as a sports car despite being so heavy.

A big part of the commercial success was that the mustang could be sold to so many people appealing to many different desires.

My aunt bred horses – I think she bought hers just for the emblem.

383829?$enlarged810x608$

She had the 120 hp six cylinder, but she could have had 390 hp if she’d wanted it.

American sports cars were about power to weight emphasis on power.... The  Europeans got their power to weight by keeping weight down which also contributed to handling – handling did not matter so much on sunset boulevard or route 66.

At the time the MGB was doing pretty well in sales. It offered 91 hp ...22lbs/hp. The large engine mustang would give about 9lbs/hp...all of this of course was pre OPEC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, KC375 said:

A big part of the commercial success was that the mustang could be sold to so many people appealing to many different desires.

My aunt bred horses – I think she bought hers just for the emblem.

383829?$enlarged810x608$

She had the 120 hp six cylinder, but she could have had 390 hp if she’d wanted it.

American sports cars were about power to weight emphasis on power.... The  Europeans got their power to weight by keeping weight down which also contributed to handling – handling did not matter so much on sunset boulevard or route 66.

At the time the MGB was doing pretty well in sales. It offered 91 hp ...22lbs/hp. The large engine mustang would give about 9lbs/hp...all of this of course was pre OPEC.

Yes, different perspective.

That's the car that was getting French petrol heads in awe at the end of the 60s :

 

Diametrically opposed to the Mustang, on a twisty road the Mustang wouldn't stand a chance and that would be opposite in a drag race. Not sure what the stylig department was thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Yes, different perspective.

That's the car that was getting French petrol heads in awe at the end of the 60s :

 

Diametrically opposed to the Mustang, on a twisty road the Mustang wouldn't stand a chance and that would be opposite in a drag race. Not sure what the stylig department was thinking...

It wouldn't have seen which way an Alfa Romeo Giulia TI Super went. Not to forget the Alfa being prettier too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Misbehavin' said:

It wouldn't have seen which way an Alfa Romeo Giulia TI Super went. Not to forget the Alfa being prettier too.

The R8 lacked Italian style but was a winning design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

The R8 lacked Italian style but was a winning design.

Maybe a winning construction, as it's quite challenging to look at designwise. Opposite the Alfa, which is both a winning design and construction.

Alfa Giulia: 2 points vs. Renault 8 Dacia 1100: 0 points

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Yes, different perspective.

That's the car that was getting French petrol heads in awe at the end of the 60s :

 

Diametrically opposed to the Mustang, on a twisty road the Mustang wouldn't stand a chance and that would be opposite in a drag race. Not sure what the stylig department was thinking...

Love the heel and toe work...took me a while to get that to instinctive.

Growing up the French car of my dreams was

330px-Renault_Alpine_A_110_(Sp).JPG

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Misbehavin' said:

Maybe a winning construction, as it's quite challenging to look at designwise. Opposite the Alfa, which is both a winning design and construction.

Alfa Giulia: 2 points vs. Renault 8 Dacia 1100: 0 points

Winning design in the sense that it was bringing home lot of silverware!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Panoramix said:

That's quite funny that they could market the mustang as a sports car despite being so heavy.

3400 Lbs is a featherweight these days.

And the Mustang was marketed as a "sporty" car. Shelby made it the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

3400 Lbs is a featherweight these days.

And the Mustang was marketed as a "sporty" car. Shelby made it the real thing.

Yes all that safety and comfort stuff adds up, my s4 cab at 4,100 lbs ends up with 12 lbs/hp. (5mph bumpers, bunch of air bags, autodeploy roll protection, AC, heated seats, power this that and the other....)

Now that the kids are gone I don’t need a back seat and can use the passenger seat for my limited cargo needs - I’m looking for an Elise – nothing superfluous, sub 2000 lbs and 9lbs/hp

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

3400 Lbs is a featherweight these days.

And the Mustang was marketed as a "sporty" car. Shelby made it the real thing.

I checked for comparison and that just 100lbs lighter than this thing designed for big catholic families :

1280px-Renault_Espace_in_Tienen.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad's '65 Impala - the one with the big H in a circle on the trunk lid - weighed 3700.

My Jag XJR - a considerably smaller car - weighs 4500.

My Range Rover - about the size of an old Bronco - weighs 6200 :o That's 1/2 ton more than a Kennedy Lincoln.

All those decades of design effort and aluminium construction and whatnot to lighten cars has only kept the growth in weight down somewhat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

My dad's '65 Impala - the one with the big H in a circle on the trunk lid ...

 

Was that there so the medivac helicopters knew where there was a big enough flat space to land?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KC375 said:

Love the heel and toe work...took me a while to get that to instinctive.

Growing up the French car of my dreams was

330px-Renault_Alpine_A_110_(Sp).JPG

 

I love that Alpine, wouldn't mind the new one either. But then I would rather have the 4C, although the A110 probably is a better car.

Heel and toe is a lot harder to master these days, with drive by wire, clutch delay valves and low capacity turbo charged engines with double mass flywheels.

I actually just described my current Alfa, front wheel drive as well unfortunately, manual gearbox though. Except for the manual gearbox, it's the total opposite of my old MX-5.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Misbehavin' said:

I love that Alpine, wouldn't mind the new one either. But then I would rather have the 4C, although the A110 probably is a better car.

Heel and toe is a lot harder to master these days, with drive by wire, clutch delay valves and low capacity turbo charged engines with double mass flywheels.

I actually just described my current Alfa, front wheel drive as well unfortunately, manual gearbox though. Except for the manual gearbox, it's the total opposite of my old MX-5.

Nowadays for the few manuals that are left they program the CPU to help rev-match - so in some ways you no longer need to learn the skills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KC375 said:

Now that the kids are gone I don’t need a back seat and can use the passenger seat for my limited cargo needs - I’m looking for an Elise – nothing superfluous, sub 2000 lbs and 9lbs/hp

You have good taste.  I came very close to buying one a couple of years back but reason got the better of me (my kids are still here).  Taking it back to the thread topic, I think that car might have the lowest comfort ratio of anything other than a Caterham, but what a blast!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Elegua said:

Nowadays for the few manuals that are left they program the CPU to help rev-match - so in some ways you no longer need to learn the skills. 

True, it's a bit of an anachronism these days. But, like the art of trimming sails and getting the best of a sailboat, there's also a bit of (soon lost) art in dancing on three pedals, making progress on the road in an as fluid way as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Elegua said:

Nowadays for the few manuals that are left they program the CPU to help rev-match - so in some ways you no longer need to learn the skills. 

Here we still have manuals. Unless you are a rally driver, you just brake, downshift and accelerate out of the curve. It gives you an extra second or two... it won't make you late...

I am not a keen driver but I like having lot of levers to operate, it keeps me awake...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Here we still have manuals. Unless you are a rally driver, you just brake, downshift and accelerate out of the curve. It gives you an extra second or two... it won't make you late...

I am not a keen driver but I like having lot of levers to operate, it keeps me awake...

Rev matching is also a way of driving a manual smoothly. And there are such things as terrible manual transmissions. Most EU econoboxes have vague, notchy, cable shifters and clutches with short awkward travel.  I rented a Clio 5 just last Feb and drove about 2k km on the D routes in Gers and I often drive my fathers diesel Peugeot wagon. The transmissions are crap and there is no point in driving these cars “correctly “. 

 My personal car is a Subaru STi that has a nice rod actuated shifter, firm clutch, and all mechanical limited slip awd system. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elegua said:

Nowadays for the few manuals that are left they program the CPU to help rev-match - so in some ways you no longer need to learn the skills. 

Not to mention the luxury of synchromesh...the first car I learned heel and toe on your choice was match the revs or grind a few more ounces off the gears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Rev matching is also a way of driving a manual smoothly. And there are such things as terrible manual transmissions. Most EU econoboxes have vague, notchy, cable shifters and clutches with short awkward travel.  I rented a Clio 5 just last Feb and drove about 2k km on the D routes in Gers and I often drive my fathers diesel Peugeot wagon. The transmissions are crap and there is no point in driving these cars “correctly “. 

 My personal car is a Subaru STi that has a nice rod actuated shifter, firm clutch, and all mechanical limited slip awd system. 

I respect your STi. At the time of purchase I was determined to get a rag top. I had demanding criteria – convertible, rear seat, actual trunk, AWD (heated seats nice to have), used. With six months of looking I bought the only one I found east of the Rockies. In hindsight I should have passed on the rag top and gone with a WRX instead of the S4. As much fun, way more utility, and better use of funds.

I had a very different Renault Clio experience...but maybe not really a fair comparison...I was lucky enough to get a track day with fully prepped Clio Cup car (my first adventure with a sequential gear box). That was a hoot and a half...sort of what my 1275s would have grown into if it could have. It also reminded me of the gap between an enthusiast and a professional. Denis Jenkinson (I memorized everything he wrote starting with - The Racing Driver: The Theory and Practice of Fast Driving – a good re-read at the moment as it is filled with Stirling Moss stories) talked of driving in 10ths with 10/10ths the limit of what the vehicle could achieve. A skilled driver in an average car could live all day at 10/10ths as the car would be the limiter, while with a well prepped car the driver might hit his limits first. With the Clio Cup car I felt I was really at 10/10ths and beyond (a few spins) until I observed I was getting easily passed by pros nonchalantly doing warm up laps...just another thing I’m passionate about without being proficient at it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Rev matching is also a way of driving a manual smoothly. And there are such things as terrible manual transmissions. Most EU econoboxes have vague, notchy, cable shifters and clutches with short awkward travel.  I rented a Clio 5 just last Feb and drove about 2k km on the D routes in Gers and I often drive my fathers diesel Peugeot wagon. The transmissions are crap and there is no point in driving these cars “correctly “. 

 My personal car is a Subaru STi that has a nice rod actuated shifter, firm clutch, and all mechanical limited slip awd system. 

You can rev match with your toes if you anticipate shifts, I tend to do it to limit wear and for comfort. My dad who was driving ambulances while a student taught me how to do it and if you anticipate and stay soft on the pedals, passengers will barely notice the gear shifts. IMHO if you actually need to operate the 3 pedals together, you probably shouldn't be on a public road, a cyclist or a tractor or something slow might suddenly appear just after the bend and if you are pressing that hard, it will not end well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

You can rev match with your toes if you anticipate shifts, I tend to do it to limit wear and for comfort. My dad who was driving ambulances while a student taught me how to do it and if you anticipate and stay soft on the pedals, passengers will barely notice the gear shifts. IMHO if you actually need to operate the 3 pedals together, you probably shouldn't be on a public road, a cyclist or a tractor or something slow might suddenly appear just after the bend and if you are pressing that hard, it will not end well!

I don't agree on the last bit, you can do nicely rev matched gearchanges under braking without pushing the car or the roads limits. It's more about the satisfaction of doing it properly, even without breaking any laws, and accomplishing even smoother driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KC375 said:

I respect your STi. At the time of purchase I was determined to get a rag top. I had demanding criteria – convertible, rear seat, actual trunk, AWD (heated seats nice to have), used. With six months of looking I bought the only one I found east of the Rockies. In hindsight I should have passed on the rag top and gone with a WRX instead of the S4. As much fun, way more utility, and better use of funds.

I had a very different Renault Clio experience...but maybe not really a fair comparison...I was lucky enough to get a track day with fully prepped Clio Cup car (my first adventure with a sequential gear box). That was a hoot and a half...sort of what my 1275s would have grown into if it could have. It also reminded me of the gap between an enthusiast and a professional. Denis Jenkinson (I memorized everything he wrote starting with - The Racing Driver: The Theory and Practice of Fast Driving – a good re-read at the moment as it is filled with Stirling Moss stories) talked of driving in 10ths with 10/10ths the limit of what the vehicle could achieve. A skilled driver in an average car could live all day at 10/10ths as the car would be the limiter, while with a well prepped car the driver might hit his limits first. With the Clio Cup car I felt I was really at 10/10ths and beyond (a few spins) until I observed I was getting easily passed by pros nonchalantly doing warm up laps...just another thing I’m passionate about without being proficient at it.

The S4 is a wonderful. I suspect you made the right choice. There are Clios and there are Clios - this was pure rental-grade shitbox. :D I'm pure amateur grade material. 

18 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

You can rev match with your toes if you anticipate shifts, I tend to do it to limit wear and for comfort. My dad who was driving ambulances while a student taught me how to do it and if you anticipate and stay soft on the pedals, passengers will barely notice the gear shifts. IMHO if you actually need to operate the 3 pedals together, you probably shouldn't be on a public road, a cyclist or a tractor or something slow might suddenly appear just after the bend and if you are pressing that hard, it will not end well!

Using three pedals is key part of driving a manual efficiently and smoothly, it's not about speed. Getting smoothness through slow shifts generate more heat and wear as the entire time the clutch is disengaged it is generating heat and friction. Rev-matching, heel-toeing and other techniques allow you to to shift smoothly without dragging the clutch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Elegua said:

The S4 is a wonderful. I suspect you made the right choice. There are Clios and there are Clios - this was pure rental-grade shitbox. :D I'm pure amateur grade material. 

Using three pedals is key part of driving a manual efficiently and smoothly, it's not about speed. Getting smoothness through slow shifts generate more heat and wear as the entire time the clutch is disengaged it is generating heat and friction. Rev-matching, heel-toeing and other techniques allow you to to shift smoothly without dragging the clutch. 

You just brake smoothly, downshift moving your foot off the brake to match revs, brake again etc... That won't win races but will be smooth with no need to drag the clutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KC375 said:

Not to mention the luxury of synchromesh...the first car I learned heel and toe on your choice was match the revs or grind a few more ounces off the gears

Exactly - heel & toe has been merely an affectation for decades. Once all synchro trannies were fully developed it was pointless.

The last unsynchronized box I had was an E-Type with the Moss box and even that was only on 1st gear.

And it was more than 1/2 century ago.

Now flame away and tell me how much difference it makes on all synchro boxes and how important it is for smooth shifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Exactly - heel & toe has been merely an affectation for decades. Once all synchro trannies were fully developed it was pointless.

The last unsynchronized box I had was an E-Type with the Moss box and even that was only on 1st gear.

And it was more than 1/2 century ago.

Now flame away and tell me how much difference it makes on all synchro boxes and how important it is for smooth shifts.

I prefer smooth driving. It's inherently smoother to rev match, than using the clutch to drag up the revs to match engine speed to road/transmission speed while downshifting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Misbehavin' said:

I prefer smooth driving. It's inherently smoother to rev match, than using the clutch to drag up the revs to match engine speed to road/transmission speed while downshifting.

This.  And if you are braking into an intersection, the heel-toe makes a difference even at low speed. If you have short gears or a drive train with a lot of moment like an AWD system - it makes a big difference.  Clutch lasts longer too. 

But these are dinosaur skills for dinosaur cars. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Exactly - heel & toe has been merely an affectation for decades. Once all synchro trannies were fully developed it was pointless.

The last unsynchronized box I had was an E-Type with the Moss box and even that was only on 1st gear.

And it was more than 1/2 century ago.

Now flame away and tell me how much difference it makes on all synchro boxes and how important it is for smooth shifts.

Ummmm... that's nonsense. It is less about matching the revs to the speed for the sake of the gearbox  and much more about not unbalancing the car when you're driving close to its limits. Clean is right that there's almost never a need for heel & toe off the track. It is still fun to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, monsoon said:

Ummmm... that's nonsense. It is less about matching the revs to the speed for the sake of the gearbox  and much more about not unbalancing the car when you're driving close to its limits. Clean is right that there's almost never a need for heel & toe off the track. It is still fun to do.

Hell there is never a need for a manual anymore, but it's a hell of a lot more fun than any automatic regardless of how advanced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites