[totopo]

Originally Posted by abraxis

I'm getting tired of seeing nonsensical arguments. First, to say a tire that was designed for Prius gas efficiency and selected to promote drifting doesn't suck for time attacks is ridiculous. What tires would you say suck, Blizzaks? Second, you go on to say better tires provide too much grip for the 86 to handle so there is no improvement over stock, then you go on to say it's not fair to compare using much higher grades of rubber that do show the 86 can handle even more grip than the Tire Rack test! Well which is it? Can't be both.

So it's a little complicated.

Track times is proportional to lateral traction.

Track times is proportional to vertical traction.

Track times is inversely proportional to tire drag.

∝ = math symbol for proportonal

So to simplify:

Track times ∝ (constant * lateral traction) * (constant * vertical traction) * constant/( horse power- tire drag).

So the problem is test data. There isn't that much out there, so I have to extrapolate based on experts.

So fact: primacy HP gets similar (to better!) track times to MP class tires

Opinion: pobst (much better driver than i am) thinks that MP tires have better lateral traction than primacy HP tires.

Thus his explanation is that the primacy HP tires get their bonus from the less tire drag.

So fact: EP class tires have better track times than primacy HP tires. So their gain in vertical and lateral traction is BETTER than their loss in tire drag.

Basically, what I am saying, is that the primacy HP tires ARE GOOD MATCHED TIRES FOR THE TWINS AND THAT YOU NEED TO GO TO EP TIRES OR BETTER TO GET BETTER TRACK TIMES. THEY HAVE SIMILAR TIRES TO ALMOST ALL OF THE SPORTS CARS OUT THERE OTHER THAN SUPER HIGH END CARS. THE DIFFERENCE IN LAP TIMES IN THE CARS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY TIRES. IF YOU PUT SIMILAR TIRES ON OTHER CARS AND THE TWINS, THE TWINS WOULD STILL BE SLOWER.

To reiterate: THE TWINS WERE DESIGNED TO BE FUN CARS, NOT FAST CARS. They are not some marvels of engineering. They sacrificed some things for others. They perform pretty much what you would expect of them based on their engineering input. They aren't bad cars, but they aren't magic cars (like the EG civic, r32 gt-r, NSX-r, s2k, or rx-7).

Originally Posted by JS + BRZ

Can you please get a lot more descriptive on this?

I can pretty much say the same thing without knowing anything. LOL

There is no way that macphearson struts are as good as double wishbone on the track. Actually, the difference is probably less for GT class race cars with less bump travel than for dual use sports cars with 5" bump travel. The more bump travel you have, the better double wishbones are than macphearson struts.

In steady state, roll angle is not necessarily bad.

Another thing I want to say is that what you think is a fast car MIGHT NOT BE A FAST CAR. How do you know what is fun to drive is actually fast? A lot of times what feels not as fun actually means the car has more traction and you get better lap times. why is a flat handling car faster? what data do you have? race cars have flat handling because they usually have 2" bump travel. Yet look at all the videos/pictures of race cars. Look at their outside fender as they corner. It is basically as close to the ground as they can get. why? to maximize the advantage of their suspension.

When strat61caster says primacy HP are okay, and double wishbone are better than macphearson struts, you listen to him. when I say it, i'm a troll....