It's all about mu

[Gords_zenith]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

rats, the mods are on to him.

our chance for village justice is ruined.

Haha that's funny.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

rats, the mods are on to him.

our chance for village justice is ruined.

lol. I had to add a thread tag.

[Dave-ROR]

After reading a few more of his posts, I figured I'd just throw this in here as evidence of how dangerous this car is with it's crazy snap oversteer. Plus I forgot how entertaining it was when this happened.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m_Iy6gTPVg"]Oops in turn 1 at Sebring. Subaru BRZ / Chin Motorsports 4-13-13 - YouTube[/ame]

(and yes, the crazy snap oversteer bit was sarcastic)

[jvincent]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

rats, the mods are on to him.

our chance for village justice is ruined.

I say we DOGE him into submission.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by stugray

And in Suberman's defense (I know I will regret this).

The BRZ is rated at 0.92Gs on the 300 ft skidpad.

Just beneath the 1988 Vette (0.93Gs) and barely above the 1985 Honda CRX (0.91Gs).
Note: The 2008 Bugatti Veyron gets exactly 1.00G. If you could get significantly greater than 1.0G in a skidpad test, dont you think a multi-million dollar car could do it?

So based on those numbers, the BRZ is a poor handling car (by today's standards).
(caveat: the above 0.93G skidpad test was done with the well known "crappy" stock tires)

No regrets. That number is apparently on the stock tire. Put Prius tires on the 'vetted and see what the g number is.

There's no doubt the BRZ can handle. It's after it stops handling so well that the issues arise.

On dry road the car grips well enough but on wet roads, and as this whole topic got started, and snow or ice it reveals an Achilles heel.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by maloney2

Yes they are, but the weight has been transferred from the inside wheels so the total normal load remains the same. In general the more load transfer the lower the cornering potential of the vehicle due to the diminishing frictional coefficient of the tires with increased load.

You're right, I went a bit over board on a new guy. Sorry about that.

The Big Bang reference was supposed to tip you off I wasn't serious, but I guess you misinterpreted that.

You did accuse me of making false statements. And in all caps AND bold. In my line of work that's calling someone a liar which justifies a sharp rebuke.

A moments longer reflection might have reminded me you likely use "false" in the mathematical sense as "incorrect".

Just writing that in your opinion I'm wrong would avoid that misunderstanding.

You validly point out the fact that the coefficient of friction between tire and road varies and varies with load. I was simplifying that for this reason. While it is true that the coefficient of friction varies it does so by reducing as load increases. It is not linear but it is close enough to linear for a lay person. The main point is mu for rolling tires is treated as for static friction even though there's a lot of movement going on at the contact patch. For practical purposes the driver only needs to know that rolling mu will be at a minimum just before the tire slides and mu then becomes much lower kinetic mu, often quite quickly. The higher mu experienced at lower tire loadings is not noticed by and not relevant to the driver because slip angles haven't reached critical levels when mu is higher.

That's not all that you state correctly but there's no point me setting out every point I agree with you upon.

These boards are a democracy. You can accept or reject whatever you wish.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR

So basically you just insulted someone who continued their education past the bare minimum because you felt threatened by them or something?

Keep it up and your stay will be shorter than you expect it to be.

Not intended. The Big Bang reference should have made that clear.

[AdrianG]

Originally Posted by Suberman

These boards are a democracy. You can accept or reject whatever you wish.

THAT'S what democracy means!?!!? I've been doing it all wrong this whole time. Thanks, lawyer genius!


- AdrianG

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Not intended. The Big Bang reference should have made that clear.

BS. You've attacked me when I pulled out my credentials, wparsons when he defended himself against your attack on his intelligence when he stated that he works at the nuke, so on and so forth.

Stop trying to be coy, you're a bully to those who threaten you with their knowledge and intellect.

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by Suberman

You're right, I went a bit over board on a new guy. Sorry about that.

The Big Bang reference was supposed to tip you off I wasn't serious, but I guess you misinterpreted that.

You did accuse me of making false statements. And in all caps AND bold. In my line of work that's calling someone a liar which justifies a sharp rebuke.

A moments longer reflection might have reminded me you likely use "false" in the mathematical sense as "incorrect".

Just writing that in your opinion I'm wrong would avoid that misunderstanding.

To summarize, Suberman was wrong, but it was Maloney's fault...

HE misinterpreted. HE used the wrong word, or phrasing. HE called Suberman "a liar" by using capital letters?

Trollpology.

[that_guy]

Funny how the words "true", "agree", and my favourite "sorry" come out only when threatened with possible removal from the site.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Not intended. The Big Bang reference should have made that clear.

Yeah. It was a clear attack on him.

Attack his point of view and facts all you want, that's fine, but personal attacks won't be tolerated.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by stugray

Then that just means that those cars have tires that have a frictional coefficient that is greater than 1.0 OR the results were taken on a skidpad greater than the 300ft version.

When you go up in skidpad radius, the average speed of the vehicle goes up so aerodynamic downforce comes into play.

Another effect I have seen when trying to measure lateral acceleration in cars with data acquisition: A fixed data acq system (like traqmate) has internal accelerometers that can measure acceleration in 3 axes.
I have seen a 62 triumph TR4 register nearly 1.0G "lateral" acceleration.
That is clearly not reasonable in that car, so what is happening is that as the car corners, the body rolls and the "lateral" accelerometer is now getting a component from gravity.
So sometimes the lateral "G-force" numbers are lying a bit.

I believe these numbers were on a standard skidpad, and body roll isn't much of an issue on those cars. I would bet on the sticky tires as the cause - both of those cars can come with the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires, which are barely street legal and mostly made for the track. They really aren't practical tires in any way. They do put down impressive results on the track though. The pilot sport cup 2s (the newer version of the same tire) were used on the 918 spyder for its sub-7 minute lap of the nurburgring, for example.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by PMPB

wparsons when he defended himself against your attack on his intelligence when he stated that he works at the nuke, so on and so forth.

Best part, I'm not an engineer and don't work at a power plant at all. I figure he either tried to look me up online and failed, or was trying to make a lame homer simpson joke.