At what age did you realize that heavier cars are better than

File: race_mode.gif (2MB, 740x456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 740x456px

>>16284255
>heavier cars are better than light ones
wrong

>>16284255
But which is more fun around the track. The one that feels like a go kart, or the one that feels like your mom's neutered sedan?
How often will you get to 170 mph? Shit even on closed courses it'll be unnecessary.

>more grip at low speeds
wrong
>safer in a crash
wrong
>better sound insulation
not related in any way

Weight has nothing to do with top speed you moron. It has to do with acceleration and inertia. There are merits to ultralight cars and moderately heavy cars for performance, all depends on what the design goal is.

>>16284255
>>more grip at low speeds
>>safer in a crash
>>better sound insulation

none of these things have any direct correlation with weight

>>16284360
>>16284353
You kids are so dumb.

If a car weighs more it will be slowed down less by an impact, meaning less force is transmitted to the driver as a result of a change in speed. Obviously the only exemption is if you crash into something which cant move, like a tree or some shit.

Go back to school.

>>16284397
Apparently they don't teach physics in school anymore. They did when I went though, which is how I know you are a complete moron.

im gunna have a go at this

lighter cars are cheaper to buy and cheaper to work on. easier to work on and cheaper to maintain

>>16284353
Are you saying a truck with an empty bed has more grip than a truck with sandbags over the axle?

>>16284411
No they don't
Thats why I came out of school thinking a Morris minor can handle a head on collision better than a 70s eldorado

>>16284416
At low speeds as OP suggested, yes. With less weight to accelerate less available traction is required. In the case of cornering, which OP is obviously talking about, a heavier car wants to continue in a straight line to a higher degree than a lighter car, so same result, less available traction required. I get that they don't even teach Newtons laws anymore and are probably spending that time in your generation's public schools to teach you about transgender acceptance, but have some common sense. Do you see go kart racers adding ballast to their karts?

>>16284255
I'm sorry that you are so angry about light weight vehicles.
I mean even though they are way better in every way.

>>16284411
Complete pleb.

Say you're driving a Mercedes S-Class and you rear end a Fiat Punto. Obviously you're going to demolish the Punto either way, but if you have a bunch of bricks tied down on the rear passenger seats and in the boot, you're going to obliterate it. Because you slow down less you're going to feel less of the impact.

Like, I said, go back to school.

>>16284455
>He actually thinks the no sandbag trick will have more grip
Roflmao typical retarded tripcucm

>>16284431
An Eldorado has a 6 foot long sheet metal box that will deform in front the firewall, the Minor doesn't. Has nothing to do with weight. Even if all collisions were head on a lighter car is better because it has less energy to disperse. Why don't you fill your trunk with sandbags like the last guy suggested? Think how much safer it will be in a head on collision. Maybe you just just take all the 45lb plates from your local Golds Gym and put them in the backseat too, you'll be practically invincible.

>>16284485
Yea an eldorado doesn't have a 7l engine and gearbox in front of the firewall
and a Morris minor will always come out ahead against an 1800kg Volvo suv in a head on collision according to your minimum wage grease monkey knowledge :^)

File: 38997274fb58a7273b93f9704b0cde73.jpg (690KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1920x1080px

Yeah, nah. Fuck you, OP.

>>16284511
How much weight do you have added to your current car? How much better has it gotten since you added 1000lbs+ of ballast?

>>16284590
Went from undrivable in rain or on loose surface to fine

File: 800px-R34_Xanavi_Skyline_001.jpg (134KB, 800x438px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x438px

>>16284255

is that why race cars are stripped out and use the lightest materials possible?

>>16284829
There's definitely tons of cars out there that will just spin out if the road is wet because they are so light. That's how traction works of course. You're lucky your car just hasn't floated away into the atmosphere. Hopefully one day all the massive OEMs with tens of thousands of engineers can become as smart as one 4chan poster, then they will figure out that they can just add lead shot to the car to make it do better in crash tests and handling comparos

>>16284863
Huur duur adding 1000kg to a lotus won't make it better!!!
Of course not
That doesn't change the fact that my truck has waay more grip when there's weight over the rear wheels

>>16284255
>cars without aero

>>16284863
>You're lucky your car just hasn't floated away into the atmosphere.

that's not funny dude, my friend in his miata flew away into the stratosphere when he took a corner at 25 mph (it was rated for 15).

>>16284875
Except your brake distance increases and your cornering gets worse.

Sure sand bags will stop you from spinning your tires leaving from a stop, but that's the only benefit.

>>16284863
What a fucking retard.

You probably live in Florida and have never seen snow you dirty nigger. Rain is a low friction surface much as snow is, have you ever wondered why people load their cars up with sandbags when it snows? Ever wondered why manufacturers use downforce? You sure are fucking stupid.

File: image.png (1MB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x1136px

I'm enjoying the lite life

>>16284875
This may be too complicated to you, but I'm going to help you out just because it seems like you're having a lot of trouble operating your normal motor vehicle. Take a look at your wheels, somewhere on them is a stem, which will have a threaded cap on it. Remove the cap and push the little pin in behind it. This will let some of the air out of your tires, increasing your contact patch in the same way as putting weight in the bed.

>>16284897
My cornering increases because my ass isn't skipping along the road

>>16284900
See>>16284897

>ever wondered why manufacturers use downforce
They rarely do on vehicles such as trucks and economy cars, and those vehicles with them rarely go fast enough around turns to benefit from the downforce.
Spoilers are more about aesthetic on road cars.

>>16284912
Really? Because from my winter experience adding weight to the box makes oversteer more dramatic.

>>16284911
Letting air out of my 185s won't have same effect as 200kg of weight
Literally stop posting you worthless grease monkey

>>16284916
>Spoilers are more about aesthetic on road cars.
And gas mileage, and they help keep the rear window clean on hatchbacks/wagons/SUVs/crossovers.

>increased load over driven axle
increases the contact pressure between the tire and road, which leads to a different contact patch for tractive force transmission
>downforce, weight, high speed
cars will lift at high speeds, this lifting force is resisted more by a heavier car
>dynamics of wet surfaces and grip
don't even bother, tribology is already a heavily empirical science and adding fluids to the mix makes it even harder to wrap your head around

>>16284353
>more grip at low speeds
Friction is based on normal force, without down force barges have a higher normal force
>safer in crash
barges are likely to decelerate more slowly in car on car collisions due to increased momentum. safer
>better sound insulation
yeah you're right

>>16284255
15, but i started liking real cars when i hit 22

>>16284923
>gas mileage
I'll say "whatever" to that.
>help keep rear window clean
Aesthetic?

>>16284905
What the fuck is that

>>16284916
It's the exact same concept you turd. Putting 500kg of bricks in your car is exactly the same as using downforce, the difference is the bricks will work from 0mph and the downforce wont.

Obviously the bricks will hurt your stopping distances and acceleration where as the downforce wont, no one is arguing otherwise.

>>16284936
No, they can actually help keep dirt off the rear window by reducing turbulence (and with it dirt deposits).
It's kinda neat.

>>16284852
Because they're built for speed, less weight less power same speed. They do however need downforce to compensate not being thicc enough.

>>16284940
Gee I don't know anon sure looks like a truck without the body panels and box

>>16284863
I think you may have spent too long in your shop huffing fumes because what you just said sure is stupid.

>>16284255
jesus, the bait here gets more retarded every day

>>16284921
Yes, it will

>>16284929
Did you really raid the thesaurus to post that and still not understand even rudimentary physics at the same time? When do you need traction? When trying to accelerate or turn. When do you need more traction? When your car is heavier. This is some super advance shit that only someone with 5 PHDs can understand, but I'll share it with you, maybe if you stare at it for an hour it will get through

-An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force

File: 1480900777916.png (62KB, 486x332px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 486x332px

>>16284945
>Because they're built for speed, less weight less power same speed.

you mean, less weight, same power, more speed right?

>>16284965
Please stop posting you are embarrassing yourself.

>>16284965
m8 have you even been through a dynamics class?

>>16284397
>If a car weighs more it will be slowed down less by an impact, meaning less force is transmitted to the driver as a result of a change in speed.
Holy shit you're stupid.

Fnet = ma, nigger. It's slowed less because the same force causes less acceleration.

Heavier cars might have more safety features or a stronger frame, but adding weight in random places has no impact of passenger safety. If anything it makes you less safe because it means the vehicle has more kinetic energy at speed.

>>16284970
>>16284985
Not only do I have no idea what I'm talking about, the same goes for every single race team in every series on earth, both on and off road. The only benefit of light weight is top speed of course, has nothing to do with grip. But for some strange reason the only place people racing deliberately add weight is for top speed runs on the salt. Isn't it weird that everyone that actually knows what they are doing with cars does everything wrong, while an uneducated 4chan poster casually thinking about something with no grasp on physics figures it all out instantly? Strange world we live in.

>>16284986
So you're saying if you had to be hit in the face by an object travelling 40mph you wouldn't care if it were a brick or a box of tissues?

>>16284353
At 60 mph a heavier car will have more kinetic energy, and more force in a crash as a result

>>16284986
Such a fucking moron. The damage to the body of the driver is a direct result of the change in speed following the crash.

Take crumple zones out of the equation entirely. If you hit a stationary 500kg object with a 1500kg moving object, the 1500kg object will slow down quite a bit, but a 3000kg one wouldn't slow down as much.

>>16284986
Nigger it's not the KE of the car that matters, it's the impulse of your body's deceleration. As long as that weight isn't hitting you it doesn't fucking matter.
>>16284999
Ever considered that you're the uneducated one?

>>16285019
>take everything that matters out of the equation entirely, and then assume that the crash is the type that constitutes maybe 1% of all auto accidents, and then maybe I may be right sometimes!
Does it hurt when you think? Everything you are saying is not just easily dismissed by actual physics and results of all crash testing statistics, but common sense.

>>16285016
So? Impulse involves acceleration, not velocity. Heavier = momentum.

>>16285031
You do realize the aim of crumple zones is to slow the rate of deceleration in an impact, right?

You do realize making a car heavier does this exact thing...

right?

Kid has brain damage I think, go back to fitting FRAM filters kiddo.

>>16285031
Want me to write out the equations for you you dumb fucking nigger? It isn't easily dismissed by physics, it's fucking supported.

File: olvov.jpg (127KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x450px

>>16284986

to put it in terms you'd understand, when the fat footballer runs into you (social outcast malnourished faggot) you get rekt and he doesnt.

Go watch smart car crash videos and tell me the lighter car is safer.


Kys too.

This thread made me realize how little everyone here actually knows

>>16285019
The force has to go somewhere though, and if your heavier car doesn't have better crumple zones to compensate for its weight, it's going to get torn apart and you're going to get fucked up.

Acceleration on the driver is only critical in accidents involving stationary objects that aren't going to move when you hit them, like trees and walls - cases where being heavier doesn't change anything.

itt OP is a troll

/o/ goes crazy

>>16285085
>The force has to go somewhere though
Yeah, straight into the dumbass I rear ended.

>>16285019
>If you hit a stationary 500kg object with a 1500kg moving object, the 1500kg object will slow down quite a bit, but a 3000kg one wouldn't slow down as much.
This depends entirely on whether or not the stationary object will move when struck - ie how much force it is capable of exerting on the car. If you hit a 500kg tree it doesn't matter whether or not your in the 1500kg car or the 3000kg one - you're gonna get wrapped around it.

>>16285038
>>16285046
Why don't we just do a simple high school example so you can understand it. I'll even use your head on crash with an El Dorado as an example

Crash A: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. Their engines and transmissions have been removed and their weight per car is 3500lbs.
Crash B: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. They are in stock condition and their weight is 5000lbs.
Crash C: two El Dorados collide head on at 60mph. They are in stock condition, but there is 10,000 lbs of ballast added in the trunk. The total weight of each car is 15,000lbs.

Which car is safest to be in?

I feel like this is relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

>>16285101
Ye I should have said the 500kg object is movable, a Fiat 500 sat at some traffic lights, for example.

>>16285107
>Which car is safest to be in?
Stupid example because you're dead in any case, you aren't surviving a 60mph head on collision with another car no matter what you're driving.

>>16285107
The El Dorado example wasn't mine, and I was talking about rear ending someone/hitting something that will move.

Way to move the goal posts, gutter sucker.

>>16285127
Change it to whatever speed you want. Change the car on the right to whatever car you want, it can weight 200lbs. There is no situation in which having more force in the car you are in to disperse will help you in the case of a crash assuming the construction and characteristics of the structure is the same.

File: normal_force.jpg (6KB, 276x211px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 276x211px

>>16285099
>Yeah, straight into the dumbass I rear ended.
When two objects collide they exert normal forces on each other. The exact force you apply to his bumper will also be applied to the front of your car. Your car is heavier, so it will accelerate his to match velocity, pushing it forward into the intersection. That takes a lot of force, force that could be pushing the engine of your landyacht into your lap.

File: 20161207_230055.jpg (3MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x3096px

>>16285107
checkmate tripfag

>>16285261
>assuming it's a perfectly inelastic collision

>>16284354
Top speed is more gearing and aero rather than acceleration and intertia.
Sure, acceleration helps you get to top speed faster which is always nice, but I'm not sure what inertia has to do with it.

>>16285342
>doing more work than you have to for someone who already doesn't understand it

>>16284255
not in any universe. bikes weigh less than a car and no car has acceraion rate of a bike unless stuck bike motor in a car so i call bullshit on your theory dingus. old equasion: lots of power no weight = go fast

according to your BS a F1 car weighs as much as a bus

>>16285470
In what universe does a bike have as much power as a car?

Dumbass.

File: faggot.jpg (183KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1920x1080px

>>16285865
busa universe, nigga..

File: 1474976039083.jpg (17KB, 236x367px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x367px

>>16284255

File: 20814.jpg (122KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x683px

>>16284255
Your bait is shit, sempai. Might I recommend mackerel or squid next time.

>>16284397
F=delta(mv)/t
whilst the car slows down less and thus has a smaller change in velocity, its mass is greater proportionally so the change in momentum is the same you fucking mongoloid

>>16284354
>Weight has nothing to do with top speed
Not true, a heaver car produces more normal force into the tyres, this creates additional frictional and hysteresis losses. These values are repetitively static and compared to aero have a negligible impact but not nothing.

>>16285950
On the other hand the change in momentum for the occupants is less as they have decelerated by a smaller amount and there mass is the same regardless of the mass of the vehicle surrounding them. Look at what happens when a train hits a car. Both vehicles experience the same change in momentum and the car almost always has a better safety structure but guess who walks away.

File: image.jpg (172KB, 934x964px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 934x964px

>>16285950
What a shitty piece of bait, the occupants aren't part of the car, fucktard.

>>16285975
>but guess who walks away.
The train *will* be damaged, but locomotives are so big that no part the car hits is really important.

In the example where you add ballast to a car as a safety measure in car-car collisions that is not the case.

Basically, while added weight will help you "win" a crash with another car, having actual safety features is still more important. Being heavy does not make cars safe on its own, but it can be a factor.

>>16285950
t. clueless armchair physicist

>>16285054
The smart is very safe for it's driver and passenger you dumb fuck.
http://euroncap.blob.core.windows.net/media/8805/euroncap_smart_fortwo_2007_4stars.pdf

>>16286023
Sure just because some Jewish agency says it's safe you're going to pack your kids in there? Good goy.

>>16284255
>>>more grip at low speeds
yes and also more weight to move, which cancel it out. Fucking retards, take a physics course.

>>16286273
Way to make the dumbest post of the year, in what way does more grip cancel itself out? Fucking virgin.

So you're saying that those 2000hp racing trucks are actually handling gods and no one knew?

Damn son Formula 1 see yourself out.

>>16286341
Way to miss the point entirely.

The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight. Ever see those 2000bhp Vette drag cars? There's a reason they dump a bunch of sandbags in the interior.

>>16286582
>The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight.

No it wouldn't and I'd like to see you prove that it would. Unless you shed the weight by removing the prop shaft, rear diff and drive shafts.

File: retard.png (331KB, 600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 600x1081px

>>16286582
>The GTR would be slower to 60mph if you shed 500kg of it's weight.

>>16286312
More momentum means more force is required to move the car in a turn. The force required to move all that mass is the same as the benefit of extra mass Pulling down on your car

Force of static friction = Force in turning your car around a turn.

File: 1479209884214.png (396KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 540x540px

>>16284255
>go over pothole in heavy car
>kill car and make pothole larger
meanwhile
>go over pothole in light car
>nothing happens
gee I wonder which is better

File: 2.jpg (72KB, 800x546px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x546px

>>16284485
>lighter cars are always safer because they have less energy to disperse
t. tripfag

>>16284329
>posts a full size two seater hypercar

>>16284590
kepp shifting those goalposts

Fuck i wish i had a golden lel for you

>>16284255
>more grip at low speeds
If you actualy belive that you are retarded.
You have more latheral load on the tires with more weight and since the tire grip won´t scale linear with downforce on the tires you will actualy lose some grip.
Also Aerodynamic downforce is less efficient on heavy vehicles.
>safer in crash
Tell that to the smart fortwo...
>better sound insulation
implying I don´t want to hear what my engine is doing.

Light cars will always have better acceleration, if you give both cars the same engine the light car will top out at a bit higher speed since it has lower friction in the tires and bearings.

>>16286587
So people put sandbags in drag cars for fun?

>>16286879
If they need to do that they fucked up they weight ballance and fix it in a primitive way.

>>16284353
This is so dumb.
Light cars are more dangerous because of heavy cars.
If all cars were light, heavy cars would only be considered murdering steel.
Also, you cant dorifto heavy cars
Sage

>>16284255
im a big guy (over 2m tall) so i always liked bigger cars more. but not too big - american pickup trucks are just meh as fuck, same for SUVs.

>>16286971
If I pull it off, will you die?

>>16287035
it would be extremely painful

File: fdgsdfg.jpg (148KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1920x1080px

>>16286944
>Also, you cant dorifto heavy cars
That's where you're wrong, kiddo

>>16286879
Yes. It's called "sandbagging"

>>16286887
Gotta offset that ill-placed pigfat V8 and train sized supercharger weight with rocks and sticks like a real caveman

>>16287093
>not having supririor flat 6 turbo over the rear axle

>>16287055
Losing control of a pigfat barge isn't drifting.

>>16288489
REKT

>>16284255
I realized the opposite after going from my fathers BMW 535 to a small Corolla. Light and small cars are so much more fun, especially at lower speeds. I don't care about performance because I'm not a race driver.

>>16288682
A 13b swapped cappuchino would be the ultimative fun maschine.

>>16288682
Oh me too. I couldnt wait to dump my S55 AMG for some SPAM tin can with 12 inch wheels. It really makes you think about how great Toyota shitiest models are compared to luxury cars. I get great gas mileage and have a blast driving it. I love my 1983 Tercel I'll never touch unlrealible german trash again.

>>16288719
Tercel? That's awesome bro! Does it have that superior beam axle suspension in the back? 175/70/13 tires? HNNNNNGGGGG I AM SO JELLY RIGHT NOW

>>16288711
Yes, I want one so bad
>>16288719
Bus riders will not understand you, but I do

I went the Miata route, and I'm now stripping it and making it rougher for more fun. Will probably have removed 50-100kg when I'm done.

File: 1397401299162.jpg (114KB, 500x502px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x502px

>>16284945
>They do however need downforce to compensate not being thicc enough.

What? No, race cars certainly don't need to compensate for weight. The only actual benefit of weight over the axles is traction when trying to accelerate on a very slippery surface at low speed. Race cars don't have that problem as the surface they're driving on is very grippy and they move at a far greater speed. At that point weight is only a problem, because any benefit of the downward push of it is offset by the lateral forces of inertia in the turns. In the end you only get a bigger load on the tires and no increase in grip.

It's also not true that all race cars depend heavily on aero to create grip. That applies to i.e. F1 and probably some higher end GT classes and prototypes, but touring cars and such will rely much, much more on mechanical grip gained with good tires and an advanced suspension, combined with a light frame.

>>16288874
>benefit of weight over the axles is traction when trying to accelerate on a very slippery surface
Nope, since you have to axelerate that weight.

>>16288711
theres a 13b swapped AE86 racecar for sale on craigslist near me.

I want it.

>>16288888 (Heil Hitler)
HOLY KEK
Buy the 13b swapped AE 86!

>>16288887
Right, but as I said, that only applies at minimal speeds like trying to move from a standstill when it's really slippery, think of a snowy incline.

>>16288900
>3 rotor or nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIbgFF0nkSY

>>16288908
Nope, not even on ice.
You will have a higher force pushing your car, but the mass you have to accelerate will grow equaly or even more if you look at the non linear grip of tires.

>>16288920
I love that clip, their reaction is so epic

>>16284852
They are also designed completely differently for crashes. Not even close to a smiliar comparison.

>>16284916
Spoilers create lift and not downforce anyway.

>>16289090
This. You get more speed and mpg when your car is flying just a little bit.

>>16286587
500kg can be shaved by getting rid of all the fancy launch control awd technology and shit
In that case the car won't be any faster

>>16289181
You can remove parts of the interior, the A/C, and sound system, maybe there are some other parts you won´t need,
If you do that it will be faster from 0-60.

File: 4565.gif (796KB, 320x286px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 320x286px

>>16289195
>>16284255

>>16284255
> heavier car
> has more grip
> also needs more grip

sorry op

heavy = less fun

and thats all you need to know

>>16287106
>porsche won't even use the rear engine in their own racecars

f l a w e d

>>16286879
Haha it's called sandbagging and people intentionally do it to go slower and occasionally to fix a weight balance issue. So no help ur case

I always knew you fuckers were dumb as a sack of dicks but fuck /o/...

More weight does increase traction... but it also means you have more inertia and therefore cantturn as fast. In the winter people add weight to help their tires/chains dig into the snow to get better grip from a standstill. But once moving, you now have the momentum of the extra weight to swing around in turns.


I know someone will refute this post but don't bother. I will never return to this thread lest I lose all faith in humanity from the sheer amount of dumbfuckery. Completely, 100%, triggered by it, in fact.

>>16284986
>hey guys i just got back form my first college physics lecture

>>16288682
t. butthurt and piss poor millenial

>>16290386
You have to make it all the way to college these days to learn Newtons laws, and people still don't understand it? No wonder no millennial degree holders can get hired anywhere.

>>16290454
Just test drive an old Corolla, you'll understand.

>>16284353
>>better sound insulation
>not related in any way
actually factually wrong

>>16290496
>wow man my car is so much quieter now that I put 300lbs of lead in the trunk
think before you post

>>16290463
>tfw no degree yet
>still got a decent paying job with great benefits in a pleasant wok environment
being white is nice

>>16290520
The only way to stop sound is with mass. Think a little and then kill yourself.

File: m1a2-abrams-battle-tank-08-ts600.jpg (44KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x400px

>>16290534
Here we go then, the worlds quietest vehicle. And here I was thinking that design, use of materials, and build quality was the way to make a road car quiet. All you have to do is just make the car heavier.

File: 1466889091924.jpg (3KB, 121x122px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 121x122px

>>16290558
how retarded can you possibly be. Dynamat weighs something. Sound deadening weighs something. Put it in a car and that car will get HEAVIER. Are you legitimately this fucking dull?

File: image.jpg (20KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x337px

>>16290558
>>16290520
>>16290463
>>16285107
>>16285031
>>16284999
Anyone else legit not know Heartbreaker was this much of a retard until this thread came around?

>>16284543
>yfw the new ones are heavier and faster

>>16290558
The only way to make a car quieter is to add mass, just get over it lad.

>>16290644
Changing tires can make a car louder/quieter, so does changing exhaust and intake components so you're definitely wrong.

This thread is so full of retardation, shitposting and circlejerking that I'm devoid of hope in humanity for the rest of the day.

>more grip at low speeds
Enjoy being a slow faggot and taking corners like a cuck
>safer in a crash
Enjoy crashing like a faggot. Also, bullshit. What are airbags? Crumple zones? That's the same level of thinking of a soccer mom.
>better sound insulation
It has absolutely nothing to do with how heavy a car is but, uh, with the amount of sound insulation and that doesn't weigh that much.
>you need less power if it weighs less
Or, you could stop being a faggot and pack just as much power in a lighter car. Seems to work just fine for the VenomGT.
>you don't need to go 170mph
But if you did, a heavy car is not the way to go.

This thread is so full of retardation, shitposting and circlejerking that I just lost my hope in humanity for the rest of the day.

File: 1779713_10154718623720587_1833795722259006308_n.jpg (12KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 259x194px

>>16290693
>>16290714
>tfw you abort a post and it still gets posted
nonetheless

File: Screenshot_2016-11-08-09-40-00-1.png (431KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 720x500px

>>16286713
Half the fags in this board: btfo by this Post. I note none replied to it

>>16284255
when i put big wide tyres on muh dunnydoor

>>16290802
sauce?

>>16286748
Finally, someone who knows that tire sensitivity is a thing.

>It's the exact same concept you turd. Putting 500kg of bricks in your car is exactly the same as using downforce, the difference is the bricks will work from 0mph and the downforce wont.

This is retarded. Sure, a heavier car will create more grip, but since F=ma, the lateral acceleration will actually be less.

At any point where you're accelerating and power limited, more weight will also slow you down.