i suppose you're right.

im pretty sure i would have handled it differently if he had called bs or something like that. i could have just proved myself right and been done with it, but i got pissed about the fanboi comment, and then when he said that he was straightening me out or whatever it was, i got really offended. i was thinking "straightening me out for telling the truth?"

i totally agree with you that it sounds like an unreasonable amount of lift, as i was floored the first time i read it. i wasnt offended that he found that hard to beleive, i was offended that he played the fanboi card.

at least when steve c would call someone a fanboi it was for a valid reason.

 

soooo....what do you guys think of that beetle??

 

i think its probably a blast to drive. just not at 192mph

 

I hadn't paid any attention to this thread in the last week or so. Then I click to open page 2, and I found a it of a treasure trove of flamitude. I thought to myself, why is this? What caused this 'circus of derision'? So I went back to the start, and indeed I found the cause:

Now see the article Mr. E. G. is likely referring to: Lift vs. downforce in automobiles

After reading the quote, I had to chuckle, as the figures are misleading, and even after reading the article I found that cites "742 lbs of lift", his comments are implying a circumstance with a very low probability of actually occurring, if it has ever happened period. I must also interject my life experience here, as I drive at highway speeds daily, both at and above legal limits, and have yet to see (especially after 7 years of production) a New Beetle twist off its rubber into the wind and into oncoming traffic. The "Mercedes CLK-GTR LMP" effect is simply not an issue here, because it's simply not happening.

I did searches about New Beetles being unsafe at highway speeds, but was unable to turn up anything that talked about the current-generation Beetles being so unsafe, let alone safe due to lift issues. Granted, I got a lot of articles about the very old WW2-spawn Bug/Beetle, so I thus refined my search for the model years of the current one. Still no dice on that front, at least within the first 30-40 entries (read: the most relevent ones out of ~500) Google found. I got forum entries describing repair costs, or levels of "unsafe operation", but they all dealt with circumstances unrelated to speed of any kind, and preempted the car from even reaching the "unsafe speed" zone Mr. E. G. is implying.

I then looked up the New Beetle's top speed. According to several links Google returned, it's top speed is 126mph, with a +/-1mph margin of error. So even if the car generates so much lift, the remaining unlifted weight still far exceeds the lifting force. The New Beetle's weight lists for between 2900-3200 lbs stock, without a driver. Figure in 150lbs for an average driver, and you're knocking on 3200-3400 lbs; Even farther in excess of the 724 lbs of lift at 124mph, and also a reduced percentage of the car's mass lifted at that speed.

Basically, the Beetle is not capable of endangering itself because it's not engineered to even reach the speeds that are implied to be the point of its demise. Thus, the argument is not valid. Its invalidity is compounded by the fact that the modifications done to this modified "super" Beetle are of a racing bent, utilizing spoilers that reduce lift and drag, thus actually making that particular car safer than the average stock Beetle in high-speed situations.

 

everything you aid was really well thought out and it might even apply to what i said if i had never corrected myself, but i allready have.

i meant to say high speed, not highway speed.

we've allready established that but i guess you accidentally skipped over that part.

in other words, i never intended to say that the vehicle would be unsafe at highway speeds. that was a typo and i have allready acknowledged that a good while ago. with that in mind, its not a surprise at all that you found no info on google about the vehicle being unsafe at highway speeds. i never said that you would.

sorry if you were confused and thought that i did.


also, i never once even implyed that the car would flip as the mercedes clk gtr did. just because a car doesnt do a complete backflip does not mean that the car is making maximum traction. if you were to drive the volkswagen beetle at a speed of 124 mph it would in fact create a substantial amount of lift.

in order to flip the car over the amount of lift would need to exceed the weight of the vehicle. again, i never said anything about the car flipping over. im not really sure where you got that from. but i did say that that amount of lift would make it extremely dangerous to drive at that high of a speed. and that statement is accurate.

i appreciate that you put forth a great deal of effort and your response was well thought out, but im afraid you were going on a goose chase looking for things that i never claimed to be there, or things that i had allready cleared up.

you said so yourself that the car is capable of reaching 126 mph which, even with a margin of error, is close enough. lets say its less lift though. lets say it is only 500 lbs of lift. again, that is still a dangerous situation. if you think that flipping backwards is the only danger associated with lift, then you are mistaken.

 

again i hate to disagree with you, but the beetle that started this discussion is in no danger of producing a great amount of downforce

the aerodynamic modifications to this car are mostly cosmetic, and i assure you that they will not help you to shed any significant portion of the lift i said the car would make at the speed qouted for the factory model.

theres one thing that is completely irrelevent in your response. we were never once talking about the likelyhood of that modified bettle being able to safeley achieve 124 mph.

you're mixing things together. i said that this modified beetle would not be safe at 192mph, and i qualified this with the fact that the factory beetle creates x lift at x mph.

in case you are not aware, lift will increase exponentially as speed increases. so even if this "super beetle" does elleviate some of the lift at 124 mph, it is irrelevant because we were talking about its ability to be driven safeley at 192 mph. at that speed it will be making a whole hell of a lot more lift than 742 lbs.

those minor body modifications will certainly not cancel out that 1000+ lbs of lift that this car would be generating at 192mph. period. i think its kind of funny that you look at that car and see "race bent" aerodynamic modifications. riiiiiiiiiiiight.

again, im not sure why you felt the need to endorse the modified beetles ability to drive at 124 mph. that was never even mentioned.

 

also that apr article was only cited because it mentioned the same numbers of lift that i had qouted, which again were based off of road and track magazine who got the information from vw themselves. i merely skimmed through the article as it was pretty watered down and generic in its ability to explain aerodynamic phenomenon.

aerodynamics is a really interesting subject but i suggest that articles like that are not taken as gospel. if you are interested in reading about the subject i recommend some of the work by simon mcbeath or joseph katz. from there you will want to get into wing section theory and a few other topics, but that will get you started.

 

Just as soon as I got tired of reading this flamefest, I came upon one of the funniest terms I've ever read.

I would like to crown Mr. E.G. the winner of this argument (whatever it's even about at this point) for his use of the word "asshat" when describing the other guy. I mean honestly, that's pretty damn funny! Do you mind if I borrow that one?

Well done, Mr E.G. you're the champion in my book...and to think, it all started over a VW Bug. Can't we all just play nice now?

 

Mr. E. G. is far from the first person to use the term "asshat", let alone us it around here. I believe Chris Stack also makes fairly prodigous use of it, as do others.

As for your corrections Mr. E. G., they are duly noted. I came late to the party, and didn't feel like reading every single word.

As far as looking at this particular Beetle and seeing race-style mods, I do see a non-stock Beetle that is no doubt more capable than it was in stock form. Does this include the aerodynamics? I believe it does, since Beetles have been campaigned in races with various aerodynamic changes. Whether they allow the car to reach 192mph, I have no idea. But I also don't know that they in fact do not allow that to happen. Aerodynamics is only one factor in this equation too: we're not counting gearing and other factors. Any numbers on modded Beetles you want to share?

Vipers have terrible Cd too, but they still manage to work their way close to 200mph. Granted they will have less lift, but they're not exactly slippery in the wind.

Either way, I could care less. If these people prove it goes that fast with video or other evidence, great on them. If not, well, at least it's just about the fastest Beetle around.

 

hahaha. im glad you got a kick out of it, but i cant take credit for it.


no problem. it happens.

i wouldnt be surprised at all of the car has the gearing and power to get to that speed. for the record i never said that it couldnt go that fast, only that it would not be stable at that speed. i would never have the balls to try it. i assure you those aerodynamic "improvements" on that car are in no danger of making any down force. i would say they are cosmetic at best, and i can elaborate a little more if you would like, but i spy a couple things that would be counter prodcutive in creating down force. also, its the over all shape that kills the beetle in terms of lift. its close to a worst case scenario. the same applies to many vehicles of that shape. the audi tt makes a lot of lift as well. however, there are cars that have that shape and manage quite well for themselves such as the porsche 911. that is a generalization at best since the 911 is only similar. it could be said that if you wanted to observe good aerodynamics vs bad aerodynamics, you should closely examine the audi tt with the porsche 911. their shapes are similar yet the 911 is way better. if i was a tt owner i would spend some time staring at a 911 for some inspiration.



thats true. most super cars and so forth create a great deal of drag. even the more streamlined high speed production cars will, and the majority of the drag comes from the downforce creating devices. for example the carrera gt creates a fair amount of drag. its coefficient of drag is .39 and it has a decent amount of frontal area. but it also creates a substantial amount of downforce which makes it one of the more agile cars at high speed. for example, the maclaren f1 could go 240+ which is insane. and for those that dont know it, the difference between 200 and 240 in terms of aerodynamics is pretty freaking huge. however the maclaren made enough downforce so that it was stable and predictable at ultra highspeeds, but it wasnt "that" much downforce. the carrera gt would more than likely feel more stable at 180+ than the maclaren would.

but the carrera gt uses a wing (in part) to create that downforce which makes for some hefty drag. the maclaren used some tricky business with fans and whatnot which made for effectively "free" downforce. but when it came time to race in lemans and other such races they had to 86 the fans and they went with a traditional (and really big) rear wing. the first season was a flop in terms of aerodynamics, but in the second season they had it dialed in a little better and they made a ton of downforce. literally.

anyways, im rambling on now, so i will shut up.