Quote:
Originally Posted by fatoni
i still dont see that as groundbreaking. it just doesnt seem that important to me. if i took a 200 lb ballast and stuck it in a miata i would have a car that weighs as much and has a lower cog. doesnt really strike me as ground breaking in the hanlding department especially considering the poor weight distribution, debatably inferior suspension type, and weight. i know im sounding like i dont like the car but it isnt the case. its a neat car and im glad it exists but it doesnt rewrite the rules imo. were talking about less than an inch of cog and thats not going to do a whole lot considering that we talk about track width in feet
|
Sort of agree on your 200 lb ballast point, but it's not quite that simple. You'd have to find a way to mount those 200 lbs pretty far below the CG height on the Miata for it to have the intended effect (and without affecting the suspension). Not to mention the negative effect the 200 lbs will have on acceleration, braking, handling, etc.
Also 0.9" in CG height makes a significant difference. I think you're selling it short. A standard overly-simple calculation for lateral g is:
g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]
Using that formula, if you raise the CG height on an 86 from 18.1" --> 19.0"
and keep all else equal, you would decrease lateral grip from 0.900 --> 0.857. Not to mention the effect of the 0.9" raised CG on non-steady state cornering (like a slalom).
But even taking this away from the theoretical, if you've ever driven a GR STI back-to-back compared with a 370z, consider there's only a 1" difference in CG between the two. Pretty eye-opening, isn't it?
CG is one of the most important factors that will determine a car's handling (along with curb weight, balance, and polar moment of inertia), with even a 1" difference in CG being fairly significant.