Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[funwheeldrive]

Man, I really wish the 86 was a liftback. I know it would have weighed more, but an optional hatch would be awesome.

I still have high hopes for the Supra, even though it will be years until I can afford one.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

The BRZ is basically a modern S13. Same size, same weight, 35% more power. All thanks to modern technology. So I'm curious to know why you think that the more expensive Supra Mk5 couldn't adhere pretty close to the same design targets.

And no, just NO. More weight is always bad. Maybe more weight, distributed considerably better, than a slightly lighter car is better, but overall more weight is never a desired trait for a sports car. It is the enemy of everything related to stopping, turning and accelerating.

Im not really familiar with the s13. I don't know how it compares to the 86. Was its iron block much heavier? Is the hood aluminum like the 86? Was there little sound deadening material like the 86? How would the quality of the components compare? Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

I think they could use an aluminum block over iron like that of 2jz block. They could use thinner metal on the body panels. They could use aluminum on some body panels and other components, yet the MKIV had a lot of light weight components already like an aluminum hood n magnesium steering wheel to name a few. They could NOT overbuild the car like the previous Supra. Of course they can find ways to cut corners over its predecessor to make it as light as possible. Or they could make it as small as the 86 or z4 roadster to try to reduce weight gains.

Like i said, compare the 95' M3 to the 15' M3 and there is a 300lb difference. Why? Even with aluminum components and other weight saving upgrades there is still 300 extra pounds. Why? Of course it would be hard to keep adding power, features and performance at the same weight.

With regard to weight, of course lighter is better in general, but did you see or read this link? Useable power and performance for the non-professional driver is best with some weight for better traction. Extreme aero and track speeds to achieve downforce to augment light weight is not every day practical. Check WreckedExotics.com for good examples.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top...no-san-mr-gt-r

Check the link below for Nurburgring times; there are several heavy cars on there that do pretty well like the GTR and Camaro. There are always trade offs to adding more weight with things like larger brakes, more powerful engines, more technology, hoping that the trade off leads to more performance. The 2008 GTR for instance is faster than a 2011 911 GT3 RS and a 2016 M4 GTS. There are more examples. Most cars that are lighter are considerably more expensive like the Lamborghini and employ expensive add ons like active aero and carbon fiber bodies or they have huge wings and other aero. It's hard to compare apples to apples and come away with lighter is always righter.

https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

And no, just NO. More weight is always bad. Maybe more weight, distributed considerably better, than a slightly lighter car is better, but overall more weight is never a desired trait for a sports car. It is the enemy of everything related to stopping, turning and accelerating.

To add a few more things about weight and performance...

Is AWD worth the weight in performance? Maybe it could be.

Is a dual clutch transmission worth the weight over a single clutch? Maybe.

Are larger brakes better? Maybe, depends.

Is a stiffer chassis or suspension better? Depends.

Is magnetic suspension better? Maybe.

Is ABS n other traction tech worth the weight? Maybe.

Will weight in general help with traction when aero is lacking? Maybe.

Adding weight can very well lead to better stopping, turning and accelerating. The fact that the GTR did the Nurburgring faster than cars with more power that are lighter is a testament to that fact.

[Slammillionaire]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Adding weight can very well lead to better stopping, turning and accelerating. The fact that the GTR did the Nurburgring faster than cars with more power that are lighter is a testament to that fact.

Wut? Are you pretending like that GTR wouldn't get a faster lap time if it was lighter? The added weight is a by-product of those parts and systems on the car, not a benefit. My brain hurts

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Will weight in general help with traction when aero is lacking? Maybe.

I'll help out here. The answer is NO.

Adding weight can very well lead to better stopping, turning and accelerating.

No, it can't. Acceleration obviously suffers with increased weight, but so do braking and cornering. It is due to the nonlinear relationship between the load on a tire and its grip. Add 10% more load and grip will increase by something less than 10%.

Say a 3000 lb. car generates 3000 lb. of cornering grip, so it can corner at 1-g (3000 lb. grip/3000 lb. weight). Add 10%, 300 lb., vertical load and now it makes maybe 3280 lb. of cornering grip. If that +10%/300 lb. load came from *downforce*, car can now corner at 3280/3000 = 1.09-g. But if 10%/300 lb. of MASS is added to the car instead, now it corners at 3280/3300 = 0.99-g.

More downforce = good for cornering/braking g's. More weight = bad.

The fact that the GTR did the Nurburgring faster than cars with more power that are lighter is a testament to that fact.

GTR is fast in spite of its weight, not because of it. If adding weight made cars faster, race teams would do it to the extent that the rules allowed. Instead they remove as much weight as possible, to the extent the rules allow. But hey, maybe they're just idiots...

[m.box.design]

Originally Posted by ZDan

GTR is fast in spite of its weight, not because of it. If adding weight made cars faster, race teams would do it to the extent that the rules allowed. Instead they remove as much weight as possible, to the extent the rules allow. But hey, maybe they're just idiots...

This. Just look at Super GT, BTCC, or DTM; they impose weight penalties on cars that qualify super fast to level out the playing field. Weight is added as a penalty

[mazeroni]

Weren't early model R35s crap on public roads? To get the thing to preform, despite its curb weight, they stuck on big tires and stiffened the suspension. So it wasn't comfortable.

I know I have read numerous articles about the latest GTRs being overall slower and less agile because they made it more livable.

Anyway, my understanding has always been that the less weight in the car, the more compliance you can add to the suspension because you can tune the geometry to deal with the movement of the wheels, rather than the body. I'm also guessing that the type of suspension matters as well. The 86 would probably ride like a dream and still tackle corners if Toyota had the budget to invest into a more complex setup.

Maybe double wishbones all around would help? Or whatever Koenigsegg is doing with their Triplex Suspension.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

To add a few more things about weight and performance...

Is AWD worth the weight in performance? Maybe it could be.

Is a dual clutch transmission worth the weight over a single clutch? Maybe.

Are larger brakes better? Maybe, depends.

Is a stiffer chassis or suspension better? Depends.

Is magnetic suspension better? Maybe.

Is ABS n other traction tech worth the weight? Maybe.

Will weight in general help with traction when aero is lacking? Maybe.

Adding weight can very well lead to better stopping, turning and accelerating. The fact that the GTR did the Nurburgring faster than cars with more power that are lighter is a testament to that fact.

You are reversing cause and effect in your theory. Some components work better due to how they function and weigh more because of how they that function is achieved. The improvement is not related to the increased weight. If they could get the same function out of a reduced weight component it would work even better.


Weight in itself is very detrimental to stopping, turning and accelerating.

[Guff]

Let's stay Supra specific here guys!

[krayzie]

If Toyota wants to keep re-educating the public about the essence of sports cars they would aim for lightweight and fun to drive for the Supra just like what they did with the 86. Nissan on the other hand have always aimed for high tech even going back decades, but seems like their marketers will eventually force the company to turn every model into a pig SUV as they no longer cater to enthusiasts.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top...no-san-mr-gt-r

Ill repost the link a third time because it is obvious no one read it. Also, 2.7 seconds 0-60 in 2007 with a 193 mph top speed with a .97 lateral g. Those numbers have since improved to over one g n so on.

If the Supra hopes to live up to its predecessor then it will be heavier. Like the GTR, it will need more to do more, so inevitably the extra weight will be worth the gains, and it will also make the car accessable to your average driver like Mr. Mizuno-San mentions in the article.

[Guff]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top...no-san-mr-gt-r

Ill repost the link a third time because it is obvious no one read it. Also, 2.7 seconds 0-60 in 2007 with a 193 mph top speed with a .97 lateral g. Those numbers have since improved to over one g n so on.

If the Supra hopes to live up to its predecessor then it will be heavier. Like the GTR, it will need more to do more, so inevitably the extra weight will be worth the gains, and it will also make the car accessable to your average driver like Mr. Mizuno-San mentions in the article.

There are more ways than one to skin a cat. The Supra is an FR GT car, it always has been. It will not be 86 light, nor will it be GTR heavy. Transaxle AWD systems are great and all but they accomplish something totally different to what the Supra ethos is.

And I used to drink the Mizuno kool-aid myself back in the day, but then I started driving more cars and realized that he has a fair amount of marketing obligation. I've driven GTRs, and I love them, but to say that a fast car has to be heavy is just not true.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/top...no-san-mr-gt-r

"An F1 car weighs 560kg, more than 600kg with the driver. How much downforce does an F1 car generate? Currently, it is around 1,300kg. So what is the total weight? 1,860kg [about the same as a GT-R with the driver on board, coincidentally]. A GT1 racing car weighs between 1,200 and 1,300kg. Plus downforce of 600kg, the actual weight on the car is 1,800kg… you see, very easy!”

Love the guy's enthusiasm, but he's full of it. Newsflash, a 2012 F1 car will outcorner a 2012 FIA GT1 car by a HUGE margin. It's not even close. And are they really actually trying to suggest that the GT-R is in the same league?! Fricking absurd...

Cornering g's are lateral force generated *divided by vehicle weight*.

With the same lateral grip available, f1 car will pull twice the cornering g's and corner 41% faster vs. a twice-as-heavy GT1 car.

If the Supra hopes to live up to its predecessor then it will be heavier. Like the GTR, it will need more to do more, so inevitably the extra weight will be worth the gains, and it will also make the car accessable to your average driver like Mr. Mizuno-San mentions in the article.

In addition to weight hindering performance (which it does), it also hinders FUN. Personally, I'd rather drive a small lightweight go-kart than an oversized, overwrought, overweight tank...

[Racecomp Engineering]

"An F1 car weighs 560kg, more than 600kg with the driver. How much downforce does an F1 car generate? Currently, it is around 1,300kg. So what is the total weight? 1,860kg [about the same as a GT-R with the driver on board, coincidentally]. A GT1 racing car weighs between 1,200 and 1,300kg. Plus downforce of 600kg, the actual weight on the car is 1,800kg… you see, very easy!”

This is garbage nonsense.

- andrew