Alfa Romeo 4C Forums banner
41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,370 Posts
If the 4c didnt have a carbon tub it would be much heavier its a great thing . Not really sure what the motivation of this is

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2016 4C Spider + 3 Ferraris + 6MT 997.2 RWB'd
Joined
·
769 Posts
I don’t see that big of a miracle when comparing weights with competitors without such a tub. The A110, for example!
That's because obviously you're not an engineer. Without suffering from Aluminum's material fatigue, delamination, poor Young's Modulus, poor shear strength, singular orientation/localized molecule weakness (seen in Hertz density measurments), and, and, and... Carbon fiber tubs are like your loyal, super predictable best friend over (especially long, hardcore/proper driving) time where aluminum/steel/alloy just change over time and use into the insanely useless/frustrating/nagging lumps of what used to be a fine car (and that's just referring to the better built Lotus/Alpines out there).

With a carbon tub/everything, ownership makes sense, even with the upside that if you crash (because you're simply not good enough a driver to not have "bad luck"/"being in the presence of the other idiot"), the carbon tub is safer/stronger to keep you whole and you just total it, getting a new carbon tub. In a metal equivalant, you might get stuck having to reweld more lumps and spend weeks with jigs to "straighten it" (and we all know it will never really be factory straight), which will just add to hating the pile of metal as it never drives the same.

The story/list goes on. Carbon Composites>some super-alloy that doesn't exist yet>the alloys and composites used in the highest end Porsches/etc>the alloy in the alpine/lotus/etc>alloys and steels in most etcetera cars>the carbon and resin that your cheap honda parts is made of>"old 4ss cars". The alpine is sacrificially light, sacrificial to your safety and to longevity. In 10 years, drive a 2017 alpine and a 2013 4c, both maintained perfectly, and the 4c will still drive the same as the alpine will have developed "character". @lars said enough, but seems like you need a little more to go and google.

Of course, because internet, you're gonna find a bunch of bs that actually just whines about not being able to afford or understand the ideal materials for a job. Please do use a mercury filled glass hammer to nail all your household items and tender your meat! Tide pods and cleaning chemicals are the ideal items to put inside your body - it doesn't take an actual education with experience to just know things and be a genuis!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
That's because obviously you're not an engineer. Without suffering from Aluminum's material fatigue, delamination, poor Young's Modulus, poor shear strength, singular orientation/localized molecule weakness (seen in Hertz density measurments), and, and, and... Carbon fiber tubs are like your loyal, super predictable best friend over (especially long, hardcore/proper driving) time where aluminum/steel/alloy just change over time and use into the insanely useless/frustrating/nagging lumps of what used to be a fine car (and that's just referring to the better built Lotus/Alpines out there).

With a carbon tub/everything, ownership makes sense, even with the upside that if you crash (because you're simply not good enough a driver to not have "bad luck"/"being in the presence of the other idiot"), the carbon tub is safer/stronger to keep you whole and you just total it, getting a new carbon tub. In a metal equivalant, you might get stuck having to reweld more lumps and spend weeks with jigs to "straighten it" (and we all know it will never really be factory straight), which will just add to hating the pile of metal as it never drives the same.

The story/list goes on. Carbon Composites>some super-alloy that doesn't exist yet>the alloys and composites used in the highest end Porsches/etc>the alloy in the alpine/lotus/etc>alloys and steels in most etcetera cars>the carbon and resin that your cheap honda parts is made of>"old 4ss cars". The alpine is sacrificially light, sacrificial to your safety and to longevity. In 10 years, drive a 2017 alpine and a 2013 4c, both maintained perfectly, and the 4c will still drive the same as the alpine will have developed "character". @lars said enough, but seems like you need a little more to go and google.

Of course, because internet, you're gonna find a bunch of bs that actually just whines about not being able to afford or understand the ideal materials for a job. Please do use a mercury filled glass hammer to nail all your household items and tender your meat! Tide pods and cleaning chemicals are the ideal items to put inside your body - it doesn't take an actual education with experience to just know things and be a genuis!
Thank you for your entertaining answer. Please, do re-read my post, I meant a comparison by weight. As @lars says, the 4C would have been even heavier with an aluminium chassis. My main question is why that is.

The Alpine has, when compared to the 4C, the aluminium chassis (which, as we said, puts it at a disadvantage in terms of weight), a bigger and more powerful engine, a wet DCT with one more gear, aluminium body panels instead of composite plastics, an obviously better finished interior, more equipment (electric and heated seats, power steering, navigation, climate control, bigger brakes, two trunks, and more).
I looked up the weights of the cars as tested by some of these wanna-be "expert driver" journalists of these wanna-be "cool" publications, and I couldn't find one data entry which made the 4C any lighter than the Alpine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Apline (which is not available in US) is about 350 pounds heavier than a Euro-spec 4c. It is also very likely more rigid, although Apline might be "rigid enough", I don't know.

Another consideration is that even at this low weight, 4c Spider did not get much heavier (due to various reinforcements) compared to 4c coupe, thanks to the CF tub.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,255 Posts
Alpine site says the A110 "unladen" weight is 1114 Kg.
US Dry weight of a 4C coupe is 1050 Kg

So, 64kg or 141 lbs.

The "dream" Euro spec 895 Kg is not a realistic comparison number (no a/c, no radio, no side air bags, and a tub that might not have even been representative of later production cars (once the US car was developed, did they stick with a lighter Euro tub for those thousand cars a year anymore, especially when the spider could likely use the additional reinforcement?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,370 Posts
Does @caemca even have a 4C or is he one of those guys stirring the pot ?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,756 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
Does @caemca even have a 4C or is he one of those guys stirring the pot ?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I was hoping he would offer for sale the carbon he is stripping off it, sadly no he’s keeping them. Maybe we need some pics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Alpine site says the A110 "unladen" weight is 1114 Kg.
US Dry weight of a 4C coupe is 1050 Kg

So, 64kg or 141 lbs.

The "dream" Euro spec 895 Kg is not a realistic comparison number (no a/c, no radio, no side air bags, and a tub that might not have even been representative of later production cars (once the US car was developed, did they stick with a lighter Euro tub for those thousand cars a year anymore, especially when the spider could likely use the additional reinforcement?).
Alpine official number is the french Masse min. à vide en ordre de marche.
This comprises (from the french Wikipedia page):
"consumables, including fuel, at a predefined level (e.g. 90% for drinking water and gas for motorhomes);
functional fluids such as oil and coolant
tools or spare wheel (car);
the driver (no driver in M1 category, like passenger cars).
It does not include the payload (passengers and freight)."
This should therefore represent a car ready to go, but without driver.
The number they officially quote is 1098 kg.




Alfa's official numbers, of which there are many, represent the dry weight of the car.
Here what the english Wikipedia page has to say about that:
"Dry weight is the weight of a vehicle without any consumables, passengers, or cargo.
It is significantly less than the weight of a vehicle in a driveable condition and therefore rarely used.
Quoting a dry weight can make a car's weight and power-to-weight figures appear far more favorable than those of rival cars using curb weight."

This makes the two numbers not directly comparable. So I looked online, and found people who actually weighted their cars. This is the measurement I found on the italian ClubAlfa forum, of an EU 2017 Coupe with exactly half a tank: 1067 kg.



I did what I could in order to find some comparable numbers. It is possible, but not certain, that the Alpine had more fuel in its tank than the 4C.

On another note, wasn't the US car developed at the same time as the EU version, since both markets received their LEs pretty much simultaneously?


EDIT: @lat
Apline (which is not available in US) is about 350 pounds heavier than a Euro-spec 4c. It is also very likely more rigid, although Apline might be "rigid enough", I don't know.

Another consideration is that even at this low weight, 4c Spider did not get much heavier (due to various reinforcements) compared to 4c coupe, thanks to the CF tub.
The data I found about torsional stiffness:
  • Alfa Romeo 4C: 14'500 Nm/degree (Source: Ing. Montuori's university lecture about the 4C);
  • Alpine A110: 22'000 Nm/degree (Source: Autocar test, a short video of which is visible on YouTube).
Apparently the carbon fiber tub itself is way stiffer than anything else (I read 44'000 Nm/degree somewhere online), but in connection with the front and rear metal frames the results are less astonishing. Crazy good, but less astonishing than they could be.
 

·
Registered
2016 4C Spider + 3 Ferraris + 6MT 997.2 RWB'd
Joined
·
769 Posts
Nah dude, actually reread mine, because it implies the following:
A "USA" Alpine would have been STUPIDLY HEAVY... Which is why it was a non starter and why it couldn't - I repeat - could NOT compete in the US market. It would have been as heavy as any other aluminum four banging car with a nice interior (think audi tt rs weight).

Then you have this odd idea that an aluminum body is not one of the worst, more fragile compromises a car body has ever been made of (stretched canvas and hammered magnesium being arguably worse). Composites are the ideal car body. Full stop. Don't think so? Go park your aluminum bodied car (especially a lightweight special) and your 4c in a shopping cart infested lot or get into a light crash, learn, don't repeat. So basically the alpine renders owners into a pu33y that must park so far, you need another form of transportation to go buy whatever fits into the marginally larger trunk - I park my 4c amongst the carts and kept my jeep habits of (crawling - my forged wheels will stay perfect) hopping curbs when inconsiderates block the turn lane so I can make my green. I sometimes consider rhinolining the body, but then I hear SOME stress also keeps us alive for longer.

The sorted 4c is faster than the sorted alpine (and equivalent powered lotus, caterham, early caymans, etc for that matter), as tracks in Europe and Japan show (been hunting down times from consistent drivers since I've first embarrassed my buddies' more expensive choices back in 2017, now in the leauge of C7R's, heavily modified ZR1's, 911 Turbos and track-focused GTR's... But with oem 245hp! yes, we have tight and shortish tracks, almost everyone leaves me at Daytona oval doin their 200mph+); the 4c is safer than the alpine because the 4c bounces and absorbs impact around you while the alpine folds into you and crumbles at you over 35mph; the 4c is more rigid, and for much longer, than the alpine by the order of 6 times more; the 4c is modifyable to nearly half its weight (just wait for one of us to drop in the 'busa engine and spaceframe the subframes) while the alpine is engineered to it's hilt with maybe a battery swap and some very uncomfortable interior choices left as major improvements, as the tight packaging won't let you bolt anything but oem without just being better off trading the alpine for a 4c and fitting the alpine body and inteior to that. The alpine on the other hand is built with more/better quality and construction design, has the better transmission, and the vastly better interior and DIN/dash tech. These are facts, but I'm sure someone has heated articles from a "self made" journalist to point out a brochure's numbers you can counter- ugh let's just talk truth, shall we? Bringing BS to facts is plain annoying, not "devils advocate" or something. Carbon fiber is the ideal material for a road chassis, add chromoly exoskeleton for ideal offroad, and add power/downforce for ideal higher speeds - nuff said as the rest is personal preference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I really wouldn’t know if a carbon fiber tub is that much of an advantage in itself.
Lotus claims the CF tub is heavier than their aluminum tub and they have no need to move into the 21st century as they were first to develope a CF tub F1 car. Yes McLaren was in a race first, after Lotus car was banned, but they were still first.
 

·
Registered
2016 4C Spider + 3 Ferraris + 6MT 997.2 RWB'd
Joined
·
769 Posts
Lotus claims the CF tub is heavier than their aluminum tub and they have no need to move into the 21st century as they were first to develope a CF tub F1 car. Yes McLaren was in a race first, after Lotus car was banned, but they were still first.
I would LOVE to see proof of this ridiculous claim. Link, please... I am semi retired and would like to forward such hilarious statements upstream for something fun to do!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,933 Posts
Nah dude, actually reread mine, because it implies the following:
A "USA" Alpine would have been STUPIDLY HEAVY... Which is why it was a non starter and why it couldn't - I repeat - could NOT compete in the US market. It would have been as heavy as any other aluminum four banging car with a nice interior (think audi tt rs weight).

Then you have this odd idea that an aluminum body is not one of the worst, more fragile compromises a car body has ever been made of (stretched canvas and hammered magnesium being arguably worse). Composites are the ideal car body. Full stop. Don't think so? Go park your aluminum bodied car (especially a lightweight special) and your 4c in a shopping cart infested lot or get into a light crash, learn, don't repeat. So basically the alpine renders owners into a pu33y that must park so far, you need another form of transportation to go buy whatever fits into the marginally larger trunk - I park my 4c amongst the carts and kept my jeep habits of (crawling - my forged wheels will stay perfect) hopping curbs when inconsiderates block the turn lane so I can make my green. I sometimes consider rhinolining the body, but then I hear SOME stress also keeps us alive for longer.

The sorted 4c is faster than the sorted alpine (and equivalent powered lotus, caterham, early caymans, etc for that matter), as tracks in Europe and Japan show (been hunting down times from consistent drivers since I've first embarrassed my buddies' more expensive choices back in 2017, now in the leauge of C7R's, heavily modified ZR1's, 911 Turbos and track-focused GTR's... But with oem 245hp! yes, we have tight and shortish tracks, almost everyone leaves me at Daytona oval doin their 200mph+); the 4c is safer than the alpine because the 4c bounces and absorbs impact around you while the alpine folds into you and crumbles at you over 35mph; the 4c is more rigid, and for much longer, than the alpine by the order of 6 times more; the 4c is modifyable to nearly half its weight (just wait for one of us to drop in the 'busa engine and spaceframe the subframes) while the alpine is engineered to it's hilt with maybe a battery swap and some very uncomfortable interior choices left as major improvements, as the tight packaging won't let you bolt anything but oem without just being better off trading the alpine for a 4c and fitting the alpine body and inteior to that. The alpine on the other hand is built with more/better quality and construction design, has the better transmission, and the vastly better interior and DIN/dash tech. These are facts, but I'm sure someone has heated articles from a "self made" journalist to point out a brochure's numbers you can counter- ugh let's just talk truth, shall we? Bringing BS to facts is plain annoying, not "devils advocate" or something. Carbon fiber is the ideal material for a road chassis, add chromoly exoskeleton for ideal offroad, and add power/downforce for ideal higher speeds - nuff said as the rest is personal preference.
I take it you work in media or PR though not for Alpine, I’ll bet. 😉 😁 Very poetic. Don’t understand the need for the off-road digression but can’t disagree with the rest. Always interesting, OriginalForza.
 

·
Registered
2016 4C Spider + 3 Ferraris + 6MT 997.2 RWB'd
Joined
·
769 Posts
I take it you work in media or PR though not for Alpine, I’ll bet. 😉 😁 Very poetic. Don’t understand the need for the off-road digression but can’t disagree with the rest. Always interesting, OriginalForza.
The off-road digression is for posterity, since I am hoping for "abandoned b-roads" near future when mostly autonomous travel starts to identify the more efficient roads to the denser areas and leaves the rest, more circumnavigating routes less and less used... Since I keep hearing more and more people rely more and more on google maps and waze and such, as well as see my old "longer way but faster eta shortcuts" get faster and faster/have less and less traffic, even the whole autonomous thing isn't all that necessary since people themselves are programming their routes according to the app's repeatable logic. Eventually, ever-thinning municipal budgets versus ever-multiplying government debt should see unused roads get the maintenance cold shoulder, and nature/rain/ice/temperatures will accelerate their more moon-like texture... It's not hard to see why I am gearing up to spec my self driving pleasures towards "off road".

Also, not of any small coincidence, the rich (Hamilton, England's princes, elon musk, your area's richest and most active denzien...) Are all obsessed with EV off road machines or rockets or flight. Just for your consideration what that entails as they also keep megaphoning the climate chamge issues and our inability to stop making at least twice more waste than useful, reliable products.

I'm sort of entertaining myself on the forums anyways so it's all semi-serious. Of course I don't give a 4u6k about if someone likes the Alpine over a 4c even tho the 4c is a slightly superior overall platform to own, the Alpine is a great car and shouldn't be slighted given the fact it continues to be made is something to celebrate, imho. I just won't be buying one despite having enjoyed my rental around northern France in 2019. Btw, Honfleur is a beautiful town to just kinda disappear in, and Mont Sant Michele is a must before you die - with a clear sky, it is surreal.
 

·
Registered
2016 4C Spider + 3 Ferraris + 6MT 997.2 RWB'd
Joined
·
769 Posts
I am still waiting on proof for any of your many claims.
Google. I'm not claiming anything, just passing on what most of us already know from our own looking into such stuff. I'm just asking for where Lotus has officially published the statement that "our carbon chassis outweighed our extruded aluminum chassis" or anything close to that. It's simply absurd. You do know that the euro-market 4c coupe chassis (C/F cradle + front and rear subframes + roll bars + mounting brackets + roof + a-pillars without glass)
weighs 236lbs? A BIW exige sans windscreen, a 30 year old featherweight, is around 320lbs. This number includes the bare doors but we're talking 70lbs at most... Still heavier and exiges are 99% horror stories and a miracle or two in a crash. 4c crashes are mostly walk aways. Nuff said.

It's also very simple: if you have a structure that can take advantage of the directional properties of carbon fiber, like a car chassis, where certain pieces of it can be aligned with the flexing or stress that the part will see, you can get up to about a 30% weight savings over aluminum. It's very simple science. So... Are you a troll or something? It's pointless. The similar weight between the a110 and the 4c isn't miraclous divinations to the science gods, it's at the expense of rigidity, safety, and quality. Nuff said. I know which car I'd rather push 10/10 or daily drive... But you do you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Google. I'm not claiming anything, just passing on what most of us already know from our own looking into such stuff. I'm just asking for where Lotus has officially published the statement that "our carbon chassis outweighed our extruded aluminum chassis" or anything close to that. It's simply absurd. You do know that the euro-market 4c coupe chassis (C/F cradle + front and rear subframes + roll bars + mounting brackets + roof + a-pillars without glass)
weighs 236lbs? A BIW exige sans windscreen, a 30 year old featherweight, is around 320lbs. This number includes the bare doors but we're talking 70lbs at most... Still heavier and exiges are 99% horror stories and a miracle or two in a crash. 4c crashes are mostly walk aways. Nuff said.

It's also very simple: if you have a structure that can take advantage of the directional properties of carbon fiber, like a car chassis, where certain pieces of it can be aligned with the flexing or stress that the part will see, you can get up to about a 30% weight savings over aluminum. It's very simple science. So... Are you a troll or something? It's pointless. The similar weight between the a110 and the 4c isn't miraclous divinations to the science gods, it's at the expense of rigidity, safety, and quality. Nuff said. I know which car I'd rather push 10/10 or daily drive... But you do you.
I am convinced "Google." is not how proper forums work. I do not think a user should be expected to skim Google to verify every claim on a forum like this, on which technical claims are posted every single day and most of us are not engineers (car-related or otherwise) nor pilots with extensive technical experience. I did my best to support every single one of my claims with numbers and sources. If you can't be bothered doing this for yours, while instead spending your valuable time in achieving an entertaining writing style, I won't be bothered reading your posts any longer.

PS: I started by googling your TT RS comparison. Well, it turns out it is a 5 pot, 4x4, 2+2 car. Great comparison that is.
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
Top