We Imagine the BMW F80 M3

[FogCityM3]

Think your numbers are great guesses (just clicked the link after my post, so apologize for repetitiveness). Guess where we differ is whether constitutes a leap; at least in my view, would view as more incremental vs what happened with the E46 vs E99x, which I would characterize more as a leap. Thx for sharing.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Those are somewhat imprecise terms. The peformance of the call over the existing model will be substantial due to its weight being about the same or a bit less with a lot more power. Have a look here are my "ancient" predictions of the cars performance. Link.



A DCT is good for an amazing amount of "equivalent power". Probably at least 50 or so hp. The equivalent power simply comes from nearly instant shifts (not from any ratio magic or lower losses, etc.). Thus the race of an E60 M5 with M-DCT compared to an F10 M5 with a manual transmission could indeed be a close race. However, DCT vs. DCT would still have the F10 as the hands down winner.



I firmly disagree with this. More marketing mumbo jumbo...

Just like the highly functional side vents on the E9X M3. Just like the highly aerodynamic rear bumper cover styling on the E9X M3. Just like the Powerdome (or whatever BMW like to call it) on the E9X M3. There is plenty of function over form at BMW and that is good, however, there is plenty of form over function and when it comes specifically to body styling form rules over function.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mhabs

Think your numbers are great guesses

Not at all. My guesses are based on some guessing for weight. However, they are totally educated guesses and are inline with the conclusion of many that the new M3 will be about the same weight or possibly lighter. From there the 450 hp is also a very reasonable "guess". From there out it is just physics (physics based simulation) and regression (for lap time) as to what level of performance will be obtained. So some educated guesses combined with physics based simulation. I don't call that "guesses".

[FogCityM3]

guesses or educated guesses, to the nearest decimal point, whatever...power and weight are assumptions nevertheless. funny how one can reach the same conclusions (before I clicked on your link) just by looking at performance of what's already out there (M5 and M3 DTM CRT) and connect dots quickly with logic and minimal effort or intellectual snobbery.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not at all. My guesses are based on some guessing for weight. However, they are totally educated guesses and are inline with the conclusion of many that the new M3 will be about the same weight or possibly lighter. From there the 450 hp is also a very reasonable "guess". From there out it is just physics (physics based simulation) and regression (for lap time) as to what level of performance will be obtained. So some educated guesses combined with physics based simulation. I don't call that "guesses".

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mhabs

guesses or educated guesses, to the nearest decimal point, whatever...power and weight are assumptions nevertheless. funny how one can reach the same conclusions (before I clicked on your link) just by looking at performance of what's already out there (M5 and M3 DTM CRT) and connect dots quickly with logic and minimal effort or intellectual snobbery.

There is nothing wrong with guesses based on trending and market forces. It is quite valid and is generally somewhat accurate. That being said it has serious limitations and there is nothing physical about it. Once you know power and weight you know pretty much everything you need to get a wide range of quite accurate performance figures. I know I and this community are interested in those. I enjoy the application of basic physics to the world of the gear head since it is filled with so much imprecision, smoke blowing and down right factually incorrect beliefs. Furthermore my figures are bracketed, based on the small bit of imprecision in the power and weight figures we have. That is also another benefit of a rigorous approach.

I think you have overstepped quite a bit calling such activity intellectual snobbery. Maybe the foundations of science with Kepler and Keplers laws finally overturning centuries of a false geocentric world view was also intellectual snobbery? Or perhaps it was one of the most important advances in science and the scientific method.