Shelby Cobra - Worth Buying?

[Automobile]

Should I buy it? It looks fast. I saw one racing against Porsches and RX-7's in a Sunday Cup style race here in Australia not long ago. It was owning on the straights, was in 1st place for ages, but overshot a few corners towards the end and came 3rd or 4th. This seems like one of those sexy cars that might be well worth the 500k-ish pricetag. What do you reckon?

 

[<_Spike_>]

I'll put this simply...HELL YES!

Tune it and tweak it a little and, when driven properly in this state, it's a true beast of a machine. Better then the AC 247 S/C

 

[stinger061]

I prefer driving the Shelby in stock form as opposed to being tuned. Its a great car to drive and if you use it stock in some of the classic car series you can have some great battles with the AC 427

 

[FC3Sleepah]

A bit tricky to drive, somewhat floats. lol But great car even stock.

 

[Leonidae]

it's great car. amazingly fast, bit softish suspension, and when in corners, never bury the throttle to floor unless you're completely ready for it or it'll kill you and spit your pieces along the track. yes.. it has torque low down, and it's light and rwd = tailhappy terminator.

 

[Danny]

But consider the the AC is faster in a straight line, oddly.

 

[Thiele]

But consider the the AC is faster in a straight line, oddly.

yes because of the gearbox the cobra runs out of gears too quickly with it's 4 speed

i hate the stock gearbox on the cobra and the ac is nearly as bad but can get to about 280kph and the cobar can only get to about 250

i'd say the first thing when you buy it fully customisable transmittion [spelling?]

hey Automobile you saw that race too i watched it on TV it was awesome, gee that cobra was fast

 

[srpst23]

You need to buy it if you are planning on completing the game, as it is required for the Shelby Cobra Cup (I think that is what it is called).

 

[GotTorque]

That race sounds interesting. Any idea if it's been uploaded anywhere?

It sounds as if the driver wasn't really able to handle the car. Or, if it's a replica, who knows what's going on with it.

The real life 427 Cobra can turn rather well. It's 1068kg with *massive* tires. Not only that, the low weight and huge traction patches mean that it can brake and accelerate well. Well enough that even if it has to give up a few mph in a turn to a better balanced car, it can brake later, and power out harder, ultimately leading to a better lap time.

In GT4, totally stock/default (meaning with S2s) + oil change, I ran a faster lap around Tsukuba than I could with a stock NSX. And I ran a faster lap around Laguna than I could with a fully modded, maxed power Elise on S3s.

The car is fast and very capable of amazing lap times. (just as in real life)

However, be warned, as Leonidae said, it "got torque" ( ) in the extreme. Too much throttle in a turn and it will try to kill you. This car must be respected. (especially on S2s. It's a bit tamer on S3s)

Also, brake too hard and you will lock 'em up, and cause the car to slide. This makes turning impossible. Likewise, carry too much speed in a turn, and it'll just scrub - like any car going too fast on turn entry.

Take it easy on the brakes and throttle, think ahead, watch your speed, and follow slow in, fast out, and always remember to respect the beast. And as long as you're comfortable with a car getting a little sideways, you'll absolutely love it.

If you want a car that is not just fast, but also easy to drive, this isn't it. If you're willing to put in the effort though, yes, it is totally worth it.

Don't use it against old cars though. Unless they are old race cars or worked out the ass, it needs to be put up agains stuff from at least the 90s or newer, just to have a bit of competition.

The 4 speed is plenty on small tracks. On high speed tracks it will really be limiting. But I just don't use it there (like the 'ring, for instance). I prefer to use it on shorter, tighter tracks where top speed isn't reached. (mostly because I've chosen to not modify the engine or tranny - since there is really no need. lol)

 

[Danny]

yes because of the gearbox the cobra runs out of gears too quickly with it's 4 speed

i hate the stock gearbox on the cobra and the ac is nearly as bad but can get to about 280kph and the cobar can only get to about 250

i'd say the first thing when you buy it fully customisable transmittion [spelling?]

I think the AC is lighter too.

 

[Superhero Wally]

Definitely yes, the sound alone is worth the price of admission, but that goes for all 3 shelbys available in the game.

 

[Luca]

You need to buy it if you are planning on completing the game, as it is required for the Shelby Cobra Cup (I think that is what it is called).

No, you can do the Shelby Cup in a Series 1 as well. It's not as cool but it is much easier to control, and it's cheaper.

 

[only_da_b3st]

yes buy one!, they are fast. and suprisingly quick around corners

 

[Scaff]

The real life 427 Cobra can turn rather well. It's 1068kg with *massive* tires. Not only that, the low weight and huge traction patches mean that it can brake and accelerate well. Well enough that even if it has to give up a few mph in a turn to a better balanced car, it can brake later, and power out harder, ultimately leading to a better lap time.

I don't want to get into this on two seperate threads, but one thing you could not call the standard tyres on a 427 is massive.

The car ran 185x15 front and 195x15 rear, which is going to result in some quite small contact patches, particularly given it light curb weight. To put it into context, my Celica runs 205x15 (front and rear). Cobra's (particulalrly the 427) was always considered a car that was very under-tyred.

Its the modern kit-cars and other versions that run on extreme rubber, mainly because those building them today have little desire to die.

I'm a big fan of the Cobra, have been since I was a kid (a picture of one had the honour of gracing my bedroom wall), but to be honest GotTorque, you are starting to enter the realm of a fan-boy here.


Comments like this don't do you any favours

It sounds as if the driver wasn't really able to handle the car. Or, if it's a replica, who knows what's going on with it.

Or it could just be that the real thing is a total nightmare to drive on the limit, due to being under-tyred for its power, has a relatively narrow track for its wheelnbase (which will murder stability) and a chassis that by modern standards is far to flexiable.

You seem to be setting standards for the real car based on the car in GT4, and while I've no problem with someone displaying enthusiasm for a car they love, could we please see it tempered with a little realism.

Thanks

Scaff

 

[GotTorque]

I don't want to get into this on two seperate threads, but one thing you could not call the standard tyres on a 427 is massive.

The car ran 185x15 front and 195x15 rear, which is going to result in some quite small contact patches, particularly given it light curb weight. To put it into context, my Celica runs 205x15 (front and rear). Cobra's (particulalrly the 427) was always considered a car that was very under-tyred.

Its the modern kit-cars and other versions that run on extreme rubber, mainly because those building them today have little desire to die.

I'm a big fan of the Cobra, have been since I was a kid (a picture of one had the honour of gracing my bedroom wall), but to be honest GotTorque, you are starting to enter the realm of a fan-boy here.


Comments like this don't do you any favours


Or it could just be that the real thing is a total nightmare to drive on the limit, due to being under-tyred for its power, has a relatively narrow track for its wheelnbase (which will murder stability) and a chassis that by modern standards is far to flexiable.

You seem to be setting standards for the real car based on the car in GT4, and while I've no problem with someone displaying enthusiasm for a car they love, could we please see it tempered with a little realism.

Thanks

Scaff

Oi, here we go again. Me thinks you do in fact wish to get into it, as often as possible. lol

By all means let's temper things with realism. So, how about a little comparison then?

2002 WS6 Trans Am. 300rwhp, 332rwtq. Capable of 12.9's under the right conditions with the right driver. Skid pad - .88G (that's a pessimistic rating at that). Slalom - 61.6mph. 60-0 - 126 feet. Weight ratio 55/45 (worst I've seen, often listed as 53/47). Total weight - 3500lbs.

Ok, now, by way of comparison, the Solstice will only do the slalom at about 65mph, same as an MX5. Which, um.... is the same as a Porsche Cayman S. I do hope you aren't going to suggest that those 3 cars are sloppy, dangerous, and/or poor handling.

For that matter, the 2006 M3 Coupe at 67.3, with a .88G skid pad rating. (which is also about what the Solstice and MX5 rate. Cayman was a little higher at .92)

Ok, now that that is established. Let me further state, that the WS6 is a good handling car. Even though it is hampered by trash shocks, it will turn in well and hold on even better. I know this for a fact. I own one.

It is rolling on 275/40ZR17s. The Solstice is on 245/45R18s. The Solstice also weighs about 2800lbs, with about a 52/48 weight ratio.

Now, 275s are huge. It's 11inches or so. And on a small car like the Solstice, 245 is large as well.

So let's boil it down to a single ratio for the sake of comparison, just for the moment, ignoring other factors, divide the weight (in lbs) by the tire width (in mm). When doing that, we get - 12.73 for the WS6. For the Cobra? 12.39 (lower is better).

Further more, I will point out that when it comes to ultimate handling, smaller rims are better. The F-Body guys who race hardcore run 16s. Bumping to 18s, even on wider rubber, hurts lateral grip.

The problem, is 60's tire technology. Bias ply on anything is like rolling on ice. So hell yeah it's scary and dangerous. But, when running it today, one would use modern tires. For it's weight, it has quite substantial width, on a rim that (thankfully) is not oversized (as is the modern trend).

Once again, going 130mph into a turn is going to make it feel like it understeers. Obvious, one would think. Just as locking the brakes doesn't help one turn either. The problem is not it's total grip, it's the amount of power and acceleration at the driver's disposal. Which means... it's driver error. Not the car.

 

[SirBerra]

In my humble opinion, don't buy it unless you absolutely need it. Get the Shelby Series One instead. It's a better handler, gentler on tires and will give higher A-spec points while winning.

 

[Flerbizky]

In my humble opinion, don't buy it unless you absolutely need it. Get the Shelby Series One instead. It's a better handler, gentler on tires and will give higher A-spec points while winning.

Agreed !....

 

[Dave A]

The Cobras stats are as follows.
engine V8
position Front Longitudinal
aspiration Natural
valvetrain OHV 2 Valves / Cyl
displacement 6997 cc / 427 cu in
bore 107.4 mm / 4.23 in
stroke 96.0 mm / 3.78 in
compression 11.5:1
power 305.7 kw / 409.9 bhp @ 5600 rpm
torque 626.39 nm / 462.0 ft lbs @ 2800 rpm
drive wheels Front Engine / RWD
body / frame Aluminum over Tubular Steek Frame
front brakes Girling Discs
rear brakes Girling Discs
front tire size 185x15
rear tire size 195x15
steering Rack & Pinion
f suspension Unequal Wishbones w/Coil Spring over Dampers
r suspension Unequal Wishbones w/Coil Spring over Dampers
weight 1035 kg / 2282 lbs
wheelbase 2286 mm / 90.0 in
front track 1397 mm / 55.0 in
rear track 1372 mm / 54.0 in
length 3962 mm / 156.0 in
width 1727 mm / 68.0 in
height 1245 mm / 49.0 in
transmission 4-Speed Manual
gear ratios 2.20:1, 1.66:1, 1.31:1, 1.00:1
final drive 3.54:1
top speed 265.5 kph / 165.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 4.5 seconds
0 - 100 mph 10.3 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 12.4 seconds

Now looking at thoes tyre sizes, they are too thin, a Subaru Impreza has 205/45's front and back, the TVR T350C has 225/50's front and back and the 2000 model AC Cobra 212 SC has 245/45's on the front and 265/45's on the rear. The thinner the tyre, the smaller the contact patch, the less grip your tyre can provide. The Cobra was notorious for being very capable of killing you the second you exceed the cars limits. It was one hell of a car, but it was not an easy car to drive fast. It was also limited by it's design, it also had a narrower track than any of thoes cars mentioned as well and remember it's not exactley a long car with a wheelbase thats over 20cm shoter than a Subaru Imprezas and almost 20cm shorter than aTVR T350C's so it wasnt the most stable car to drive at speed and thanks to it's terrible aerodynamics it took a lot of power to reach that said speed. It's light weight would not have helped it put it's power down either, easier to turn into the corner, but there was less weight to be shifted over the rear wheels when accelerating, making it harder to control the power and prevent loss of grip when coming out of a corner and thanks to the light weight when the weight did shift suddenly and the grip wa exceeded you'd have the inertia of the car moving out of the corner throwing the back of the car out as well.

Slalom tests arn't the best indicator of how well a car really handles, a lot of higher powered rwd cars can take slaloms very fast by getting momentum from gently drifting the car through the cones, this isn't representative of how the car will takle a series of 3 or 4 corners on a track.

I will conclude by saying the Cobra is a fantastic car, it is one of my all time faverout classics, and in it's day it was trumendous, but you have to remember how far technology has come now and a lot of modern cars will hammer it. A standard Noble M12 will slaugter a 427 on a track, and in 40 years who knows, maybe the latest hot hatch will slaughter an M12.

 

[Scaff]

*snip*

So let's boil it down to a single ratio for the sake of comparison, just for the moment, ignoring other factors, divide the weight (in lbs) by the tire width (in mm). When doing that, we get - 12.73 for the WS6. For the Cobra? 12.39 (lower is better).

The simple (or rather not simple) problem with this is that you can't boil it down to a simple ratio, the relationship between a car rim size, tyre size, suspension type, suspension set-up and vehicle dimensions dictate it is anything but simple.

I would give your ratio as much weight as I would give to skidpan figures (which is very little at all), slalom tests are a better indicator, but still not the be all and end all of the matter. You see the tyre width alone does not give you the contact patch, using that is more complex, but would have far more meaning.

Further more, I will point out that when it comes to ultimate handling, smaller rims are better. The F-Body guys who race hardcore run 16s. Bumping to 18s, even on wider rubber, hurts lateral grip.

You are I hope aware that as long as vehicle weight and tyre pressure remain constants you get almost no change in overall contact patch size between differing width tyres?

I would also disagree on your argument that wider tyres provide less lateral grip, if I may quote Allan Staniforth (chassis and suspension author of wide regard)

As grip has a direct relationship to weight on the tyre (more = more) choosing a fatter tyre or enlarging the patch by fitting the tyre to a wider rim might appear to reduce grip by increasing the area of contact carrying the same weight, but the increased frictional area touching the road normally outweighs this. This is particulaly apparent in both cornering and standing start acceleration, where wider and bigger diameter is always the route when more and more power becomes available.

You also have to consider how the contact patch will distort, as the shape of a narrow tyres contact patch is very different to that of a wider contact patch (despite the fact that they may well cover the same overall area).

The longer (front to rear) and narrower (left to right) contact patch of a narrow tyre will react to steering inputs very well, resulting in generally very good initial turn-in and corner entry, a narrower tyre will also normally give much better feedback to the driver. However narrow tyres (particulalry if they have a relatively high sidewall) will distort far more under lateral loads, and given the narrow nature of the contact patch, can and do suffer from a loss of lateral grip.

The short (front to rear) and wider (left to right) contact patch of a wider tyre will reduce the cars ability to initially turn-in and corner entry can suffer as well, additionally they do reduce feedback to the driver. However the wider contact patch (particularly with lower sidewalls) will distort far less under lateral loads, retaining more of its lateral grip.

Its this basic principal that is made use of when a car is fitted with narrow tyres up front that on the rear, as in the Cobra.

The problem, is 60's tire technology. Bias ply on anything is like rolling on ice. So hell yeah it's scary and dangerous. But, when running it today, one would use modern tires. For it's weight, it has quite substantial width, on a rim that (thankfully) is not oversized (as is the modern trend).

Don't disagree onthe modern tyre front, but in a racing situation all cars would be running on at least similar tyre types.

Weight as an overall factor is not dominant in sizing wheelbase or width, how the weight is distributed and how it transfers under load is. A narrow wheelbase on a car of the Cobra's length is unbalanced.

On the rim/tyre size issue again, it depends on what form of motorsport you are running in. Autocross and shorttrack work will benifit the better turn-in and feel of a narrower tyre, however the majority of track or circuit work will benifit from a wider, lower profile tyre. If this was not the case why would the race teams of the world use the rim/tyre sizes that they do?

Once again, going 130mph into a turn is going to make it feel like it understeers. Obvious, one would think. Just as locking the brakes doesn't help one turn either. The problem is not it's total grip, it's the amount of power and acceleration at the driver's disposal. Which means... it's driver error. Not the car.

Sorry but you can not just blame everything on a driver, if a car is unstable or tricky on the limit or is poor at communicating the that limit to the driver then its as much of the car at issue as the driver.

Using your argument on this point, then no bad cars exist, only bad drivers. Well thats patently not true.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Should I buy it? It looks fast. I saw one racing against Porsches and RX-7's in a Sunday Cup style race here in Australia not long ago. It was owning on the straights, was in 1st place for ages, but overshot a few corners towards the end and came 3rd or 4th. This seems like one of those sexy cars that might be well worth the 500k-ish pricetag. What do you reckon?

Yes.

• Sexy:____CHECK
• Classic:_CHECK
• Fast:____CHECK
• Fun:_____CHECK
• etc:_____CHECK

Really the only obvious deterrent to owning it in GT4 is that it is costly for a car that will either dominate or be dominated in most of the events it can qualify for. Other than the Shelby Cup, there are not many events where this car matches up evenly with the best AI opponents in each of the races. An AI driven AC 427 will show up about 20% of the time in the European 1000 Miles! Event, and that might be a fun match-up.

Regardless, in the grand scheme of things, the cost is not ridiculous, especially when you consider all the relatively easy ways of earning enough credits to buy this car in a short amount of time....

So go for it and enjoy the ride!

 

[GotTorque]

Live4speed - Absolutely - it was a difficult car to control and could easily kill you. Look at the power : weight and amount of torque.

My point is not that it is some sort of chariot of the gods. Nor is it that it was easy to tool aound in at warp speeds around a track. It is like the 109 - a machine for Experten (LW term for Ace). If the driver has the skill and wherewithall, the machine till perfom to amazing levels, but... it will kill a n00b.

2282lbs is less than I was using. I went by the GT4 1065kg, just because I remembered it from playing with P:W last night. Using 2282, that gives a ratio of 12.01. Near that of the Solstice actually.

The Impreza is a much heavier car. In the 3200lb range. It actually has less width per pound than all the cars I mentioned.

Let's try to head nit picking off at hte pass, shall we? I know it's a "meaningless" ratio, due to not accounting for the myriad of other factors involved. However, we aren't talking about those other factors right now. We have been talking about tire width and vehicle weight. And in that light, it is a handy tool.

AND - it was never suggested that slalom was any sort of be all-end all yard stick. That is why I mentioned skid pad ratings, weight balance, and in at least one case, braking distance. The only important thing really left out is power to weight. One must look at all factors.

Power is a significant factor.

Power would result in my car absolutely monstering a Solstice or MX5 on a large course, like say, Laguna. Power is what the Cobra has in spades.

Power is also a double edged sword. It can allow you to go too fast.

Ever mod a car in GT4 and think it suddenly lost all handling ability? The problem is you're going so much faster now that braking points come sooner and the same driving technique won't work.

This is why the Cobra is so hard to handle. Get on the power too much, too soon and you're toast. Brake like a normal car, and you're waaaay too late and are toast. Turn while standing on the brakes and you plow off the track.

Drive it more carefully and respectfully and you will be ok.

You wouldn't think of taking a turn, in your real life car, at a speed you knew was too fast for it to handle, right? Of course in real life you have the butt-o-meter to help you guage what's going on, and the fear of your life in the back of your head, keeping you in check.

However, if for some reason you DID over drive the car, you'd wreck it and possibly kill yourself. The difference? With 5.57lbs per hp it's a _hell_ of a lot easier to do that than with 15.82lbs per hp. (Cobra/Solstice)

And as mentioned time and again by me, here in this thread and in the other one, combining that with the ease of breaking traction thanks to 462lb/ft, makes it something that is only for the highly skilled.

None of that means that performance was poor, or that it was sloppy, or that it was/is in any way incapable of good lap times.

By the same token, many of our boys thought the 109 was crap. Yet it was used by the greatest aces of all time. Like Yeager said - it's the man, not the machine. Gotta use the machine to it's strengths, and have hte skill to be able to do it in the first place.

 

[GotTorque]

The simple (or rather not simple) problem with this is that you can't boil it down to a simple ratio, the relationship between a car rim size, tyre size, suspension type, suspension set-up and vehicle dimensions dictate it is anything but simple.

I would give your ratio as much weight as I would give to skidpan figures (which is very little at all), slalom tests are a better indicator, but still not the be all and end all of the matter. You see the tyre width alone does not give you the contact patch, using that is more complex, but would have far more meaning.



You are I hope aware that as long as vehicle weight and tyre pressure remain constants you get almost no change in overall contact patch size between differing width tyres?

I would also disagree on your argument that wider tyres provide less lateral grip, if I may quote Allan Staniforth (chassis and suspension author of wide regard)



You also have to consider how the contact patch will distort, as the shape of a narrow tyres contact patch is very different to that of a wider contact patch (despite the fact that they may well cover the same overall area).

The longer (front to rear) and narrower (left to right) contact patch of a narrow tyre will react to steering inputs very well, resulting in generally very good initial turn-in and corner entry, a narrower tyre will also normally give much better feedback to the driver. However narrow tyres (particulalry if they have a relatively high sidewall) will distort far more under lateral loads, and given the narrow nature of the contact patch, can and do suffer from a loss of lateral grip.

The short (front to rear) and wider (left to right) contact patch of a wider tyre will reduce the cars ability to initially turn-in and corner entry can suffer as well, additionally they do reduce feedback to the driver. However the wider contact patch (particularly with lower sidewalls) will distort far less under lateral loads, retaining more of its lateral grip.

Its this basic principal that is made use of when a car is fitted with narrow tyres up front that on the rear, as in the Cobra.




Don't disagree onthe modern tyre front, but in a racing situation all cars would be running on at least similar tyre types.

Weight as an overall factor is not dominant in sizing wheelbase or width, how the weight is distributed and how it transfers under load is. A narrow wheelbase on a car of the Cobra's length is unbalanced.

On the rim/tyre size issue again, it depends on what form of motorsport you are running in. Autocross and shorttrack work will benifit the better turn-in and feel of a narrower tyre, however the majority of track or circuit work will benifit from a wider, lower profile tyre. If this was not the case why would the race teams of the world use the rim/tyre sizes that they do?




Sorry but you can not just blame everything on a driver, if a car is unstable or tricky on the limit or is poor at communicating the that limit to the driver then its as much of the car at issue as the driver.

Using your argument on this point, then no bad cars exist, only bad drivers. Well thats patently not true.

Regards

Scaff

What was that Churchill quote? 2 Nations separated by a common language? The internet doens't help I wouldn't imagine.

I feel like I'm speaking in klingon here or something. It's getting frustating to have everything I say taken the wrong way and/or distorted. (and I don't have this problem on US boards. lol - just sayin')

When upsizing a rim, you must keep the total rolling diameter. This means a smaller sidewall. That means less sidewall flex. That means less longitudinal contact patch. That means that a 275 R16 is better than a 275 R17, assuming the same tire brand and model.

Whether or not you beleive that, it is true. The Road Racers, and auto-xers that use F-Bodies know that 16" rims are ideal for that car. Any taller and you hurt performance. And no - it's not about rim weight. There are 17s that are lighter than 16s. It's about grip. Ever notice just how much sidewall F1 and Cup Cars have? A lot.

So if we look at vehicle weight, and assume same brand and model tires, the ratio DOES give an indication of what's going on. It is NOT a magic number that tells all. And for some reason, I can't help but wonder if you really do know what I'm saying and are choosing to jump on things anyway.

The reason is that you keep trying to overcomplicate things simply to carry an argument. The bottom line is what it always has been. The vehicle has enough grip to corner well. What makes it tricky is it's ability to gain speed, and torque.

That's it.

That means it can and does handle well. But it's difficult to get the most out of it.

If you want to say that an easier car to drive is better, that's fine, and there is validity to that. But you are suggesting that the Cobra did NOT handle well. And that is false.

Look, if a 10 hour rookie gets into a plane, tries to take off, ground loops and dies. The plane gets a reputation for being nightmarish. Funny how people who knew how to deal with it never had a problem. The Camel was such a plane. Actually, a lot of similarities - lots of power for it's size, massive torque, close coupled, and very tricky to control with a well known rep for eating rookies. Did that mean it was a poor performer?

My one friend likes to slide cars in GT4 and is much more aggressive. He can't drive my cars. He does nothing but plow off the track. Doesn't matter which car we're talking about - Skyline, Silvia, Corvette, F-Body, Ford GT, etc.

So he can't control my cars. They are a lot of work for him. Bad cars, right?

I get in, have NO problems, and turn in great lap times.

Hmmm. Perhaps it is the man, not the machine afterall.

Or more to the point, a well matched man/machine set. The man must know how to control and get the most out of the machine.

I did, I will reiterate, point out in the other thread, that something like the Elise was much easier to control, and got similar lap times. Over the course of a long race, I would MUCH prefer to drive the Elise. And if I was to really push the car, I would much prefer a car that didn't feel scary and dangerous. (you know that Allied pilots were afraid to push the 109 once the slats opened up, right? They all said it couldn't turn for crap because of it. Heh, funny that the LW and the Finns had no problem with it at all. In more than a few cases they were known to turn fight with the VVS, which have a rep of being much better handlers)

We aren't talking about enduros. We aren't talking about actually losing ones life here. We are talking about potential. The potential is there.

People think F-Bodies can't handle too. And they are wrong as well. Someone I know on another site is always telling me how worthless my car is in a turn becasuse it's an F-Body, and because it has a live axle.

Funny how I can go out and get in it and experience otherwise. (Too bad he's on the other side of the continent)

 

[FC3Sleepah]

More than anything sidewall just helps with the ride quality, rather than lateral grip. You can have a soft sidewall, and a hard sidewall, and those both affect their lat. stab. respectively. Regardless, the point I personally was making is that it's a weird car to get used to, and for the average person, it'll spit them out like a piece of well used gum. As is the reputation it has gained throughout the years.

 

[Michael88]

I think the AC is lighter too.

No, the Cobra is lighter. as far as I can remember the AC is 11xxkg heavy and the cobra is something around 900kg..
However, I still like the AC better than the Cobra, it has a better engine sound and its also a little bit faster.

 

[Tornado]

The Cobra is fast if used correctly. For example, the car is poor in turns. It is fast straight. There. The A/C is the same way. Come on, people, everyone knows the 289 was the one that turned. The Cobra is worth buying because it is fun to drive. Not really a good car, but a fun car to try. Might as well buy both the AC and Shelby.
If you want to use it to win the Shelby cup: Stop. Buy Series 1. Enter Series 1. Win.

 

[Scaff]

What was that Churchill quote? 2 Nations separated by a common language? The internet doens't help I wouldn't imagine.

I feel like I'm speaking in klingon here or something. It's getting frustating to have everything I say taken the wrong way and/or distorted. (and I don't have this problem on US boards. lol - just sayin')

I'm sorry but I fail to see what the problem with the quote is, as long as you have a basic understanding of the termanology in use its quite straightforward.

Your not speaking Klingon at all, but some of your points have leaned towards sweaping generalisations or been vauge in the detail. While the internet is a tricky medium and we are an international site here at GT Planet, I have had very indepth and techincal discussions with members here with little problem.

When upsizing a rim, you must keep the total rolling diameter. This means a smaller sidewall. That means less sidewall flex. That means less longitudinal contact patch. That means that a 275 R16 is better than a 275 R17, assuming the same tire brand and model.

Whether or not you beleive that, it is true. The Road Racers, and auto-xers that use F-Bodies know that 16" rims are ideal for that car. Any taller and you hurt performance. And no - it's not about rim weight. There are 17s that are lighter than 16s. It's about grip.

Now that a much better explination of what you are talking about, however I would not agree 100% with your statement, it depends also on the tyre pressure and to a degree the car (and its suspension layout) all of which will have an effect on the contact patch distortion under load.

Additionally the model and brand of tyre will have a huge impact on the effect of the sidewall on contact patch deformation, a smaller stiffer sidewall does not automatically mean a reduced contact patch, far from it.

However the point was in regard to tyre widths on the Cobra, not rim sizes.

Ever notice just how much sidewall F1 and Cup Cars have? A lot.

Uh yes, but its not for the reason you are suggesting, certainly as far as F1 goes.

Modern F1 cars run with almost totally solid front set-ups (and very, very firm rear set-ups), the vast majority of the suspension lwork is actually done by the tyres sidewall.

The reason behind this was principally the introduction of the 'plank' under the car, with anything less that almost fixed suspension it would wear far more than permitted, particularly at speed with the aero load factored in as well. As it is almost impossiable to drive a car with suspension that stiff, the tyres sidewalls account for almost all of the suspension workload.

So if we look at vehicle weight, and assume same brand and model tires, the ratio DOES give an indication of what's going on. It is NOT a magic number that tells all. And for some reason, I can't help but wonder if you really do know what I'm saying and are choosing to jump on things anyway.

Its very vague at best, and to be honest given the sheer number of other far more important variables in place, such as cog and roll centre locations, which for me makes it almost irrelivent.

The reason is that you keep trying to overcomplicate things simply to carry an argument. The bottom line is what it always has been. The vehicle has enough grip to corner well. What makes it tricky is it's ability to gain speed, and torque.

No, when you talk about tyres and/or vehicle dynamics its a complicated subject, please believe me you don't want me to get complex on this matter.

The bottom line is that the vehicle could (and was by numerous real world owners) improved, as standard the car was under-tyred (for goodness sake racers of the day said as much) and later models did benefit greatly from different rim and tyres sizing.

That means it can and does handle well. But it's difficult to get the most out of it.

*snip*

We are talking about potential. The potential is there.

In that regard ever car has potential, but you seem to be adement that the Cobra can do no wrong, as such I assume that all the drivers who have commented on the tricky nature of the car (all elements that could and have been improved) are quite simply wrong or not man enough for the car?

People think F-Bodies can't handle too. And they are wrong as well. Someone I know on another site is always telling me how worthless my car is in a turn becasuse it's an F-Body, and because it has a live axle.

Funny how I can go out and get in it and experience otherwise. (Too bad he's on the other side of the continent)

Different cars, different people.

You like the car and others don't, simple as that.

Scaff

BTW - Please do not double post, continued offences will lead to warning. Thanks

 

[Dave A]

No, the Cobra is lighter. as far as I can remember the AC is 11xxkg heavy and the cobra is something around 900kg..
However, I still like the AC better than the Cobra, it has a better engine sound and its also a little bit faster.

They're both Cobras, the Shelby should weigh 1035, without any weight reductions, the AC in GT4 does weigh a bit more for some reason, but difference isn't hugh, somewhere arouns 1100 mark if I recall.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

BTW - Please do not double post, continued offences will lead to warning. Thanks

With the posts several minutes apart, why would you encourage him to add it to the previous post? Doing so would have meant most folks who read the thread between that time would not have seen his additional message.

Only if you are in the habit of re-reading past posts looking for the "edit" signs, the times they were edited, and then try and find the changes are you going to have a shot at reading the new messages.

I understand and respect the need to prevent people from purposefully breaking up a single response into several posts one after the other in order to boost their post counts. However, in this situation this doesn&#8217;t appear to be the case, and with so much time in between posts, it would have also meant the chance that many members would never have seen the second post.

Does not make much sense to me, but I am more than willing to try to understand the motive and meaning behind it.

(This is off-topic, so I started a thread in the feedback section in the event others wanted to chime in on this.)

Do's & Don'ts: Double Posting

 

[GotTorque]

This whole "double post" thing is crazy. That was separated by a long time. Didn't even think about it. Wasn't intentional.

I like the condescending tone of "you do not want me to get complex". And on top of arguing for the sake of arguing at that.

Let's see, how many times must a person state something in order for it to get read, understood, and acknowledged?

If we assume you do understand what is being said (meaning that it's not a simple matter of diction and/or internet causing miscommunication), then when I say that it was a difficult car to control and could (and did) easily kill inexperienced people, and was also hard to get the most out of - and you say that I'm implying the car could do no wrong..... well, it points to you arguing simply because you feel like it (for whatever reason). Clearly those 2 are in total contradiction to one another.

Likewise, saying that something could be improved has NO bearing on where it stood in the first place. A T3 is a fast connection. But it could be improved. How would that lead to a reverse cause and effect relationship whereby the T3 was now somehow not fast, just because it could be improved?

So - the thread was "is it worth it?" That means in GT4. Yes, absolutely.

The other points are - was it fast? Quite. Could it turn and brake well? So much so that it's hard to see how anyone could think otherwise.

Did any of that mean it couldn't be improved? Hardly. You can ALWAYS add more tire, better compounds, more power, and reduce weight.

To put this whole thing into another context with an analogy, you would be essentially saying that the Sopwith Camel was a poor fighter because it was dangerous for pilots who weren't experienced, or careful enough (or just got too tired), and ended up killing many of it's own (almost as many as the enemy managed to kill acutally). However, clearly that is not true. Once one could handle it, it was a superb performer.

And so it is with the Cobra.

All this talk about how it could be improved is irrelevant. All this talk about how difficult it was to handle and control is also irrelevant because it is out of context.

Over a long race, a car that is easier to control will ultimately be superior to one that is more difficult to control, even if the easier car is a bit slower. That isn't the point here.

 

[Scaff]

This whole "double post" thing is crazy. That was separated by a long time. Didn't even think about it.

It was 20 odd minutes, and a polite request thats all.

I like the condescending tone of "you do not want me to get complex". And on top of arguing for the sake of arguing at that.

First off it was not intended as condescending, and I apologise if it was taken that way. You acused me of overcomplicating the subject (tyre size in relation to grip) and I replied to say that first the subject itself is complex and secondly it can get a hell of a lot more complex that this (I know because I train in the automotive industry).

I also refute arguing for the sake of it, you main points that I disagreed with and I said as much and gave my reasons. Or do you think you should be able to post anything you like here without any form of feedback.

As far as I am concerned it was a discussion about certain points you rasied and I disagreed with.

Let's see, how many times must a person state something in order for it to get read, understood, and acknowledged?

* snip *

So - the thread was "is it worth it?" That means in GT4. Yes, absolutely.

As I said above I do not disagree with your general point about the Cobra, rather I disagreed with some the statements you made.

For example you stated that the Cobra had massive tyres, my point was that it quite clearly does not.

Regards

Scaff