This is not a winter car! Fed up! May end up selling...

[7thgear]

all those tests favor memory over cognetive skills

you do enough practice tests you start seeing patterns

although i guess that's sort of the point?

hmmm

[Kfresh23]

Originally Posted by Suberman

I'm not unhappy with the car.

I find the winter handling to be ridiculously incompetent. Unnecessarily so and designed this way to amuse inexperienced drivers.

Everyone who knows anything about driving fast knows that this car has a poor suspension specification. The first thing such drivers do is fit better tires but that doesn't fix the balance problem. It just oversteers too easily and you have to work way too hard to get it to drive properly.

Some say this is fun, I find it tediously incompetent. Its fun for the odd "canyon run" as the Californians like to call it but, really, it is puerile entertainment and ultimately unsatisfying. It could easily be so much better. More fun for a serious driver.

I do not quite understand your logic when you say the handling to be "ridiculously incompetent" and is designed to "amuse inexperienced drivers"? It was a contender for BEST DRIVERS CAR in 2012 in Moter trend magazine, as well as CAR OF THE YEAR in Top Gear (UK) magazine for 2013. Professional Race car driver, Randy Pobst raves about how well the car HANDLES........Jeremey Clarkson thinks it's one of the most fun cars he has ever driven, and how well it HANDLES also. You might have forgotton that the engine was placed lower in the car than a Ferarri 458, to give it a very low center of gravity which enhances HANDLING! You may not like the "set up" of the suspension etc, but this is just a personal preference to you, and has nothing to do with the capabilities of this car. It is VERY competent in the snow/ice etc. and that is in turn, helped by a EXPERIENCED driver. Any car can be driven the right way, or the wrong way, and more times than not, it is when a car is driven the "wrong way", a person will complain about how bad the car is, or the set up, basically blame the car, not the person driving it. All I am saying is that there are hundreds of people in this forum that seem to have ZERO issue with how this car performs in the snow (myself included, and I live in the same city as you and ONLY drive my BRZ....everyday!). So is it possible....just maybe, that we are able to handle this car differently than you? ANd that your opinion is soley based on your experience, and not how the car drives or is set up? Again, I have no problems in the snow in two winters so far, and when I do one day get stuck (because it will happen), I blame myself, or the conditions, not the car.

Originally Posted by Suberman

I think you'll find an M3 is quite tail happy, nobody tries to ice race them. However, I concede the M cars are the only BMW worth actually buying.

BMW are unaccountably popular. Most people who buy then don't seem to know how to drive. They are all hopeless winter cars. You have to buy the X drive to have a winter BMW. They are truly hopeless otherwise.

Porsche 911 are also tricky to drive because they understeer very badly at low speeds and then oversteer if you are on anything slippery. Even the newest ones aren't easy to drive.

I also had to give my opinion on this as well, only because I have had experience with both vehicles you mention. I owned a 06, 330i RWD and drove it for 3 winters. I have never been more impressed with how this vehicle was in hte snow as well. It has a much more advanced traction control sytem than the BRZ, and it felt like an AWD car once it was fitted with winter tires! I drove without fail in all conditions, and was never worried about getting stuck, or spinning out. I even thought it was better than my previous Mazda protege (FWD) with winter tires. It is also comparable to the BRZ, with the only difference being weight and amount the rear would kick out. Both cars never felt like I did not have control...so to say it is "truley hopeless" is false....because I had one, and it wasn't.....not even a little!
A 911 tricky to drive? Understeers at low speeds? Huh? I had the pleasure of driving one for a month (2006 Carrera S), and wow, did I not EVER experience these things you speak of!! It handled like no other car I have ever driven....did it oversteer on wet roads with a little extra throttle......why yes! Of course it did! It's a RWD sports car, it's supposed to! Was I out of control? No, the car behaved like a dream, and returned to it's normal position of "straight"! I am just saying that of 3 vehicles you say are fails at certain things, I say they are not....because I have driven them, without issue. You may say I am wrong, but with my experience I am not.....that is fact, it actually happened.....it's not made up.....If you have also driven these cars and experienced the things you speak of, then it is YOU, not the car that has the problem. (you aslso say Alfa's are good cars too so that kind of speaks for itself!)
You may be more experienced than myself, Randy Probst and Jeremey Clarkson combined! And if you are.....you are in the wrong profession, and I expect to see you with your own tv show, and atop the podium...and then reading about it in your magazine column!

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Understeer is quicker, everybody knows that.

So by your logic, a less tail happy car with more power should be faster around a track, right?

How about an e46 M3, AP1 S2000 or RX8?

Top Gear test track results:
Time/Car/Season.Episode
01:31.8 Mazda RX-8 03.05
01:31.8 BMW M3 E46 2.02
01:31.3 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GT86"]Toyota 86 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] (partly wet) 19.03
01:37.4 Honda S2000 (very wet)


and the loose correction factors that Top Gear uses for bad weather conditions:

Term Conditions Adjustment
HOT Track surface or car performance affected by high temperature or humidity +1 second
Mildly moist (MM) / Damp (D) Track surface slightly damp with some dry patches after light rain or drizzle +2 seconds
Moist (M) Track surface slightly wet due to shower of rain +3 seconds
Wet (W) / Melted snow (MS) Track surface wet due to light rain or melted snow +4 seconds
Very wet (VW) Track surface very wet (with large puddles) due to heavy rain +6 seconds

Let's set some things straight...

wet track,
inferior tires,
down hp (about 135hp less than the M3, about 45hp less than the RX8 and S2000),
and in your opinion too tail happy to be fast.

The S2000, M3 and RX8 are known to be great drivers cars, and are benchmarks used to compare other cars.

If any of your claims are right, why are the triplets quicker around a track than great cars?

[Dipstik-sportech]

I think I figured out how he wins arguments. He defends his view whether he's right or wrong until the opposing side gets frustrated and gives up

The Frozen North

[7thgear]

except in the real world there is a judge/jury that put an end to it all

here it's the wild west....a very passive wild west, maybe not so wild,... a mild west?

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

all those tests favor memory over cognetive skills

you do enough practice tests you start seeing patterns

although i guess that's sort of the point?

hmmm

Spot on... I know a number of people who've written the GMAT, LSAT who've scored in the 99th percentile, and have subsequently been asked to join Mensa based on their scores. They are great test takers and good at studying, and all have wisdom and humility far exceeding what is being displayed by Suberman. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the Canadian section because of all his assinine personal attacks, and badgering.

[jvincent]

You guys are being so hard on our all knowing oracle. Be careful, or he might smite you!

Imagine if you had his big brain and had to suffer the clear incompetence of the masses.

I was going to ask the oracle and his big brain why, with all his knowledge of cars, and slip angles, and physics, and driving skills, and literature why has yet to determine what changes need to be made to the suspension of his glorious chariot so that it handles properly in the snow.

But I am still looking for a goat to sacrifice in his honour for my last transgression, so I do not deign to ask him directly yet.

[Gords_zenith]

Originally Posted by Suberman

The more power you're trying to put down the more understeer you need. In fact, that is the major problem with this car. Even at the modest power available it still power oversteers. In enter this becomes a terminal problem.

Gentlemen this is just elementary suspension physics.

In fact, a F1 car understeers terribly in hairpins. It goes neutral only under basically full power and full downforce.

I mean do any of you watch the onboard camera shots in F1?

Do any of you read up on suspensions and how they work? Can some of you who aren't getting it read this stuff and actually understand it?

F1 cars understeer in hairpins because of their long wheel bases and lack of steering lock. It's not because of the suspension springs rates, like you propose it is. Yes, that plays a role but less than you think it does. Besides, suspension geometry is less important to F1 as they win and lose based off aero.

This is one article I was able to dig up, quickly.

http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-new...s?artid=155793

They are designed to be stable at 300+km/h, stable being relative here, as you or I wouldn't be able to handle a F1 car around a long sweeper at 180+km/h.

[7thgear]

F1 should never be used for arguments for against anything that production street cars do

as pointed out in the article, like 95% of an F1's performance is aero, the rest is just fine tuning.

[Gords_zenith]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

F1 should never be used for arguments for against anything that production street cars do

as pointed out in the article, like 95% of an F1's performance is aero, the rest is just fine tuning.

Agreed! But, to prove that his point wasn't valid I had to argue it.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Gords_zenith

F1 cars understeer in hairpins because of their long wheel bases and lack of steering lock. It's not because of the suspension springs rates, like you propose it is. Yes, that plays a role but less than you think it does. Besides, suspension geometry is less important to F1 as they win and lose based off aero.

This is one article I was able to dig up, quickly.

http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-new...s?artid=155793

They are designed to be stable at 300+km/h, stable being relative here, as you or I wouldn't be able to handle a F1 car around a long sweeper at 180+km/h.

This is truly hilarious. Steering lock affecting understeer has got to be a new one. Must email Newey. Tighten up that steering lock and understeer will be reduced. I do agree that reducing steering lock to zero will reduce understeer, and the closer you get the less understeer will be possible but that's not cause and effect.

Wheelbase makes a difference but that isn't why a chassis understeers. A smart car understeers more than a bus.

The slowest corners in F1 are at Monaco and all F1 cars understeer around Monaco, especially at the hairpins. Aero is the least effective at Monaco.

Most of an F1 cars springing is in the tire. However, those are the same for all teams. The springs and roll bars are the critical items affecting the handling if the car. That's why they're adjustable!

Etc, etc etc.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Gords_zenith

Agreed! But, to prove that his point wasn't valid I had to argue it.

You needed better arguments though.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

F1 should never be used for arguments for against anything that production street cars do

as pointed out in the article, like 95% of an F1's performance is aero, the rest is just fine tuning.

Geez, you're wasted where you are. Get over to Milton Keynes and ask for Adrian. He needs you.

I really appreciate the way you think physics are different in F1 than for other vehicles.

Aerodynamics can only work if the chassis works. Aero effects are totally, and I do mean totally, useless unless the springing, damping and tire pressures are exactly right.

You all have it completely backwards, which is unsurprising given your other posts on handling topics.

Just btw aero has no effect on winter driving unless there's a blizzard. Then down force isn't on your mind....

[that_guy]

Originally Posted by Suberman

You're just wrong and, indeed, you cannot be right. A car must be set up to understeer to have any hope of getting its power down in a corner.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you actually read what you post before you click "Submit Reply" or does your button simply say "Full Retard"?

If a rear wheel drive car understeers a great deal, it means that too much weight is being transferred over the front axle thereby causing the tires to lose grip and steering control (in VERY simple terms...so you can understand). So...the front tires have all the weight on them...but the rear tires propel the car. WAIT A MINUTE?! That means that there is less weight, less force, and therefore LESS GRIP in the rear. Attempting to power out at this point will do nothing and if you continue to try to the point that the car neutralizes again, it will simply spin out because as physics teaches us, power will move to the wheels of least resistance...in this case, the rear tires that have no weight on them. So those tires are now moving quicker and when they settle, you will do nothing more than induce oversteer. Again, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally Posted by Suberman

ALL cars have to understeer to initiate a corner. Understeer defined is slip angles at the front axle exceeding slip angle at the rear axle. That's what understeer means. What I'm complaining about is this car doesn't understeer enough to put its modest power down, proved conclusively by its hopeless winter handling. Actually, it didn't really work well on any road surface but with good enough tires to overwhelm the torque it can be made to drive fairly well on dry pavement.

I don't think you quite understand what understeer is. It is the result of lost grip on the front of a car, hence the difference in slip angles. Here's a good little quote for you...

When a car begins to understeer, it takes an arc “less than desired” through the corner. This may be caused by turning in too sharply, breaking too heavily or even carrying too much speed into a turn. The key to countering understeer is to do less of whatever it is you’re doing; if you’re on the throttle, back off a bit. If you’re on the brakes, ease up your braking effort, and if you’ve turned in too sharply, dial in a bit less steering, then lightly apply the brakes. By asking the front tires to do less work, you give them a chance to regain grip.

Originally Posted by Suberman

You will note that the BRZ has positive camber at the front axle and negative camber at the rear. The front bar is 18 mm while the rear bar is 14 mm and the spring rates generate understeer.

Wrong, the car does not have positive camber from factory. It has near 0 degrees, but it does not have positive camber in the front.

Originally Posted by Suberman

Anyone bandying around auto cross, or even to some extent track conditions is missing the point of this thread completely.

No we are not. We get the point entirely because many of us do actually autocross and for some of us, do it at a very high level of competition. You on the other hand seem to have difficulty driving the car in basic Canadian weather - hardly the person I'd want giving advise on performance driving techniques and theory.

Originally Posted by Suberman

I'd bet money my IQ is far higher than yours and I don't even know you. Just statistically it is very unlikely your IQ comes even close to mine. Heck, even the nuclear engineer probably isn't in the same league as me.

This is too good. Anyone that has to explain their own level of intellect to another is clearly not intelligent at all. But you sir have taken it one step further and BETTING THEM that you are indeed smarter than them, and on the internet no less. But that's not even the best part. You take that into the @&#$ing stratosphere by then taking a completely random and non-contributing statistic such as the IQ of any old nuclear engineer, and staking your claim as the elite mind over that individual (or individuals) as well.

Mind...BLOWN. You've outdone yourself here. But please, tell me again about how you created all mankind... I love that story.

Originally Posted by jvincent

You guys are being so hard on our all knowing oracle. Be careful, or he might smite you!

Imagine if you had his big brain and had to suffer the clear incompetence of the masses.

I was going to ask the oracle and his big brain why, with all his knowledge of cars, and slip angles, and physics, and driving skills, and literature why has yet to determine what changes need to be made to the suspension of his glorious chariot so that it handles properly in the snow.

But I am still looking for a goat to sacrifice in his honour for my last transgression, so I do not deign to ask him directly yet.

I nominate this for post of the year.