'17 Toyota 86 vs '17 Maza MX-5

[Syche]

I had the pleasure of driving a few older miatas and a 16 pretty much back to back and I have to say the bias is real with me ... if it has a boxer I'll take it *insert fry futrama meme * there is something about a boxer...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by wparsons

It's not just flex... mac struts have very little (or no) camber gain on compression, which means more static camber on a car that doesn't ride like a dump truck.

Race cars are fine because they run really high spring rates and a lot more static negative camber. Less compression under cornering loads means less camber loss from compression on a mac strut, and higher static camber puts the contact patch flat under lateral load.

Double wishbones or multilink can run softer springs and have more compression travel in corners and still keep the contact patch flat under lateral load.



Vertical in which axis? What makes you think that improves the camber curve? Adding caster can give some negative camber with the wheels turned, but under compression it's still going to lose camber because of how macpherson struts work. The only way to have anything approaching a curve is to ensure that the LCA would be flat to the underbody under full compression, but even then it's a very slight curve.

Our rear suspension gains 1.5*+ in a 1" compression, the front stays nearly identical to normal resting.

Camber gain is a VERY good thing on cars that have bump travel in a corner (or body roll).



I'm not comparing lap times in what I'm talking about...

[]

No road car has equal length wishbones. This is a fairly old argument and there are numerous successful cars out there to contradict your frankly old fashioned ideas.

Every McPherson strut out there has the LCA angled downwards at static ride height, plenty of negative camber gain can be achieved. Of course if you lower the car you mess up that aspect.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by totopo

So I guess the LaFerrari, the mclaren P1, and porsche 918, Nissan Gt-R, Corvette z06, Viper ACR, and the radical sr8 are sub-par hack jobs with their front double wishbones. If only they went with the superior macphearson am i right????

I'm not saying the macphearson are terrible, it's just that the uneven double wishbone is superior in terms of road holding. It's not like a car is terrible because it has macphearsons... but you can't honestly say it is better than double wishbones in terms of track performance (don't bring up gt examples with homologation and balance of power rules, they balance power).

the pull and push rods on F1 ARE double wishbone suspensions. They refer to the way the spring/shock is connected.

edit: So then do you agree that the miata has a better suspension setup than an 86 for the track? What on the track do you think can possibly make a macphearson strut outperform an uneven length double a

edir #2: also, point out to me what in tune to win about suspension design is outdated.

I'm pretty sure a Porsche 911 or Cayman will out corner any Miata. Front struts and rear multi link (well, Porsche wants you to think the Cayman rear suspension is multi link but look closer.)

[Syche]

I wish I could weigh in on corn... but we don't got that up here in Berta LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

No road car has equal length wishbones. This is a fairly old argument and there are numerous successful cars out there to contradict your frankly old fashioned ideas.

Who the heck brought up even length double wishbones? Of course everyone is talking about uneven length double wishbones here.

I jumped into this to help out @wparsons because I couldn't believe people actually would think macpherson is SUPERIOR to uneven double A in terms of track performance in this day and age where google exists. But I feel like I'm arguing against walls here. are you going to ignore my previous posts?
Are you guys trolls? You must be trolls.

I bet if the 86 had double wishbones in front you guys would be super fanbois about how double wishbone is the superior setup.

Are there fast cars with macpherson? Yes. Can you make it work on the track? sure. Is it terrible? no. But there is no way it is better than double A. You are going to want to say that bmw and porsches use macpherson, but that doesn't mean they are better. What do the FASTEST cars use? The ones that don't worry about packaging, expense and trunk space (F1, Super GT, LaFerrari, P1, 918 spyder, centenario, Nissan GT-R, Corvette, Viper ACR, radical SR-8)

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

I'm pretty sure a Porsche 911 or Cayman will out corner any Miata. Front struts and rear multi link (well, Porsche wants you to think the Cayman rear suspension is multi kink but look closer.)

But the 918 spyder outcorners the 911 and for their supercar why did porsche chose the OBVIOUSLY INFERIOR double wishbone!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

edit: and the civic type R can outcorner an 86 on the track, so then FF must be the superior layout RIGHT? AND it proves that hatchback is superior to coupe, and that 4 doors are better than 2, and since it's faster than a miata, it proves that 2 rows of seats are better than 4. It's also heavier than an 86 so it also proves that more weight is better for a track car am i right?!?!?!?!?!



edit #2: So other than examples, what is the mechanism you propose that makes macpherson better on the track than uneven length double A arms? The mechanism by which double A arms are better than macpherson is a greater degree of control of camber and toe on bump and rebound as well as tuning anti-dive and anti-squat.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by totopo

What the heck are you trying to say? with the stock tires a better suspension design wouldn't help the car? That's completely wrong, suspension works in concert with tires.

Are you guys seriously saying macphearson are EQUAL to uneven length double wishbone? Like seriously truly believe that and not just because the 86 uses it?

What I was saying is that everything has its own limitations. Nothing is perfect. Can you please explain why the rear suspension on the 86/BRZ has the tendency to bottom out, even though it uses a "superior" design?

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

What I was saying is that everything has its own limitations. Nothing is perfect. Can you please explain why the rear suspension on the 86/BRZ has the tendency to bottom out, even though it uses a "superior" design?

I've been reading this more and more lately. Under what conditions does the rear bottom out? I've had mine over a year now and I drive it every single day, and I have yet to bottom out the rear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

I've been reading this more and more lately. Under what conditions does the rear bottom out? I've had mine over a year now and I drive it every single day, and I have yet to bottom out the rear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Possibly referring to the bump stop engaging very early in the suspension travel.

Practically speaking the MX5 and the BRZ use the same rear suspension. The BRZ is much simpler and more robust than that of the MX5 but the effective geometry is virtually identical.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by totopo

But the 918 spyder outcorners the 911 and for their supercar why did porsche chose the OBVIOUSLY INFERIOR double wishbone!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

edit: and the civic type R can outcorner an 86 on the track, so then FF must be the superior layout RIGHT? AND it proves that hatchback is superior to coupe, and that 4 doors are better than 2, and since it's faster than a miata, it proves that 2 rows of seats are better than 4. It's also heavier than an 86 so it also proves that more weight is better for a track car am i right[/IMG]

edit #2: So other than examples, what is the mechanism you propose that makes macpherson better on the track than uneven length double A arms? The mechanism by which double A arms are better than macpherson is a greater degree of control of camber and toe on bump and rebound as well as tuning anti-dive and anti-squat.

I'm pretty sure I have not claimed that McPherson struts are superior to double wishbones. I am sure that McPherson struts can be designed to handle at least as well as double wishbones on a road car, for a lot less money initially and for ongoing servicing.

The proof is in the performance on the road. I'll go as far as to assert that double wishbone front suspension is inferior to McPherson strut for any road car that can be built with tall enough front strut towers. Somewhat ironically, a boxer engine would allow for a lower front end and Subaru had to work hard to get the front of the BRZ look low while still finding adequate room for the struts.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by totopo

Who the heck brought up even length double wishbones? Of course everyone is talking about uneven length double wishbones here.

I jumped into this to help out @wparsons because I couldn't believe people actually would think macpherson is SUPERIOR to uneven double A in terms of track performance in this day and age where google exists. But I feel like I'm arguing against walls here. are you going to ignore my previous posts?
Are you guys trolls? You must be trolls.

I bet if the 86 had double wishbones in front you guys would be super fanbois about how double wishbone is the superior setup.

Are there fast cars with macpherson? Yes. Can you make it work on the track? sure. Is it terrible? no. But there is no way it is better than double A. You are going to want to say that bmw and porsches use macpherson, but that doesn't mean they are better. What do the FASTEST cars use? The ones that don't worry about packaging, expense and trunk space (F1, Super GT, LaFerrari, P1, 918 spyder, centenario, Nissan GT-R, Corvette, Viper ACR, radical SR-8)

Somebody posted a diagram clearly illustrating equal length wishbones. The less suspension travel you have the closer the two wishbones get to being of equal length.

Another misconception is that race cars use double wishbone rear suspension. They do not. They all use multi link.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by guybo

Tune to Win is from the 1978- things have come a long way. MacPherson are best for a road car for lots of reasons- not the least is durability. It's very easy to throw out a double wishbone's alignment. On a road car, durability is one of the most important things and that's one of the reasons rally cars use them because of the rough nature of the sport. DD is more analogous to rally than track racing. A purebred race car only goes a few hundred miles between alignments.

Also, modern race cars don't use double wishbone, they use push or pull rod. Outboard brakes and aerodynamics make them very advantageous.

Push or pull rod is still double wishbone (or multi link), it's just how the shocks are connected and actuated.

Originally Posted by Gforce

No road car has equal length wishbones. This is a fairly old argument and there are numerous successful cars out there to contradict your frankly old fashioned ideas.

Every McPherson strut out there has the LCA angled downwards at static ride height, plenty of negative camber gain can be achieved. Of course if you lower the car you mess up that aspect.

No one is suggesting equal length wishbones. If you watch the video it even explains why unequal is the one you want.

Don't be mistaken, macpherson struts are great for packaging and reducing cost, just like FWD drivetrains. Doesn't make them ultimately better for handling.

Go measure the camber "curve" on our cars from OEM resting ride height to fully compressed. There is almost no negative camber gain (like 0.1*) through an inch of travel, and once the LCA is past horizontal the camber goes back towards positive. Compare that to our rears, which gain about 1.5* of negative camber through 1" of travel. Are you trying to argue that negative camber gain on compression isn't good?

I challenge you to find one street car with macpherson struts that actually has a good camber curve.

Originally Posted by Gforce

I'm pretty sure a Porsche 911 or Cayman will out corner any Miata. Front struts and rear multi link (well, Porsche wants you to think the Cayman rear suspension is multi kink but look closer.)

You're really thick, aren't you? Go re-read what I've been saying all along. You *can* make mac struts handle well on a track, but at the cost of more static negative camber than a double wishbone or multilink setup would need. Why does that matter? Tires flat to the pavement grip best, so with more negative camber you have less braking grip.

But, since you insist on idiotic comparisons, look at the tires, spring rates, etc between a cayman and a miata. You might be shocked to see the lap times a spec miata can do compared to a similarly prepped cayman though.

Since you also brought up the 911 and Cayman, why is their bread and butter car a worse design than the entry level model? I love 911's, but there's no arguing that the engine is in a way worse place than in the Cayman. Just because Porsche continues to do it and makes it work does not mean it's ideal.

Originally Posted by Gforce

Somebody posted a diagram clearly illustrating equal length wishbones. The less suspension travel you have the closer the two wishbones get to being of equal length.

Another misconception is that race cars use double wishbone rear suspension. They do not. They all use multi link.

You do know that the only difference (based on what we've been talking about) between double wishbone and multi link is how many pieces the "arms" are, right? They still have an upper and lower arm, and the camber curve can be easily designed to what you want. Similar packaging issues as well. There are other engineering differences, but the end result is the same. For all intents and purposes, multi link and double wishbones are used interchangeably.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Somebody posted a diagram clearly illustrating equal length wishbones. The less suspension travel you have the closer the two wishbones get to being of equal length.

Another misconception is that race cars use double wishbone rear suspension. They do not. They all use multi link.

they are usually multilink for packaging reasons (bigger trunk or bigger engine). Multilink is a lot closer to double a than macpherson. Most of them are semi trailing arm, which is a super angled lower A with 2 upper arms instead of one a arm to spread the upper attachment point for packaging. None of the ones for performance use the rear stock as a suspension point.

F1 is still double wishbone: http://scarbsf1.com/?p=3349

The super GT BRZ uses double wishbone:
https://www.subaru-msm.com/global/SU...e/detail/8.jpg

are these not race cars? What non-homologated frame based race car doesn't use a double A? If anything the multilink on them would be to split up one or both of the wishbones.

You provide nothing but your opinions, why should I believe anything you say? you just pull stuff out of your butt whereas every resource like everywhere says unequal double A is the best. Show me something concrete. Your opinions do not count for anything to me.

edit:
Evidently not race cars:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/w...rd-GT-rear.jpg
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/w...08/upnis09.jpg
http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticl...VO-Part-2.aspx

this is a multilink: basically double A
http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticl...ilvia-S13.aspx

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by wparsons

You *can* make mac struts handle well on a track, but at the cost of more static negative camber than a double wishbone or multilink setup would need. Why does that matter? Tires flat to the pavement grip best, so with more negative camber you have less braking grip.

Agree with your points but worth noting that the front tires on the double wishbone car won't be flat to the pavement either due to camber gain under braking. Will be worse with soft suspension. But better than a macpherson strut car (with aggressive static negative camber).