FR-S vs. 370z, end all be all of discussions

[raz0rbladez909]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Even with 250-hp of brz sti, you're still looking at worst power-to-weight ratio than 370z. Not to mention the 250-hp brz sti will no longer be only 2700 lb. The problem with a lot of people keeping bashing Z for its weight, but nobody ever realize it's the power-to-weight ratio that matters

I honestly can't believe the two are even being compared. The FRS/BRZ are on a more competitive level with the MX5 then anything else honestly. Yeah I know in the Motortrend article it kept up with the V6 Mustang and 2.0T Gen Coupe but even those two versions aren't targeting the 370z. The Z handles very well despite it's weight and it's all about how it is setup honestly. I like the FRS/BRZ as much as the next guy but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that it's going to beat everything out there.
Put it this way, if the S2000 CR or Type S(in Japan) is being left behind against the 370z, where do you think the FRS/BRZ would stand.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXQmHoQML1A"]Best Motoring - [3/09] 370Z vs Cayman S vs 997 C2 vs 135i vs S2000 - YouTube[/ame]

[switchlanez]

Here is Moto-P in his FR-S harassing this Z in the corners (in this case, corner 11 of Laguna Seca). But the Z would pull away in the straights. The Z driver even admitted that Moto stayed on his tail the first few runs and might have even let Moto pass. But as the day progressed, the Z driver gained more confidence to push harder.



The Z is one of the better (if not the best) handling cars in its size/weight/class with great all around performance. The FR-S puts less emphasis on performance stats and more emphasis on the immeasurable factor of communication with the driver. It feels more instantly accessible to more drivers than the Z and inspires greater confidence in corners.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."
-Colin Chapman

that was true in the sixties. today, i think the gtr is telling us otherwise. while obviously lighter is going to be better, now there are things that both add weight and make cars faster everywhere

[Synack]

Originally Posted by fatoni

that was true in the sixties. today, i think the gtr is telling us otherwise. while obviously lighter is going to be better, now there are things that both add weight and make cars faster everywhere

What horsepower and AWD?

Lighter is always better, so long as you have the suspension and tires to properly support it.

[crazyyankeefan]

Originally Posted by Synack

What horsepower and AWD?

Lighter is always better, so long as you have the suspension and tires to properly support it.

Then why do you even bother driving the fr-s? Go get a Honda Fit and mod the suspension and tires to "properly" support it. "Lighter is always better" is just a silly assessment. There's no way the 86 would handle you guys' "proud" corners better than a Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, LF-A and GT-R, which by the way are all HEAVIER cars than 86. Just cuz the 86 is marketed for its handling and cornering, it doesn't mean it's a "god" at the corners. It's all marketing scheme. Cuz this car's lack of power, they have to neglect its shortcoming and focus on it's strength to hype it up. Not saying it handles poorly, but to think it handles way better than a lot of higher-class cars just cuz it's lighter and more agile is just most of the fanboys trying to make themselves feel better

[Synack]

Originally Posted by crazyyankeefan

Then why do you even bother driving the fr-s? Go get a Honda Fit and mod the suspension and tires to "properly" support it. "Lighter is always better" is just a silly assessment. There's no way the 86 would handle you guys' "proud" corners better than a Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, LF-A and GT-R, which by the way are all HEAVIER cars than 86. Just cuz the 86 is marketed for its handling and cornering, it doesn't mean it's a "god" at the corners. It's all marketing scheme. Cuz this car's lack of power, they have to neglect its shortcoming and focus on it's strength to hype it up. Not saying it handles poorly, but to think it handles way better than a lot of higher-class cars just cuz it's lighter and more agile is just most of the fanboys trying to make themselves feel better

I never talked up the FR-S once. I just said lighter is simply better with proper supporting mods. I dare any of the cars you listed above to handle better than a properly tuned Lotus Exige.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

that was true in the sixties. today, i think the gtr is telling us otherwise. while obviously lighter is going to be better, now there are things that both add weight and make cars faster everywhere

Same principle applies to the GT-R. Adding power won't allow it to brake later nor raise its limits of grip in high speed corners. Subtracting weight will.

With a skilled driver, the added weight from AWD limits the GT-R from going faster. Formula 1 has seen some attempts at incorporating AWD but through all evolutions its cars currently remain MR (the lightest configuration possible). MR is the optimal weapon of choice in almost all forms of modern sports car racing. MR is trickier to handle but it's the driver (not AWD) who tries like hell to put the power down onto the asphalt and take maximum advantage of all possible weight savings.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Synack

What horsepower and AWD?

Lighter is always better, so long as you have the suspension and tires to properly support it.

im not speaking specifically about awd. additional diffs, dcts, aero parts, huge engines, huge tires, huge brakes and durable components all make the car faster and heavier.

replace lighter with anything in that last sentence and its going to make sense. that doesnt really refute anything.

that isnt even mentioning that the exige and all those other cars are designed to handle at different speeds. twitchy and responsive doesnt mean better handling.

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Same principle applies to the GT-R. Adding power won't allow it to brake later nor raise its limits of grip in high speed corners. Subtracting weight will.

With a skilled driver, the added weight from AWD limits the GT-R from going faster. Formula 1 has seen some attempts at incorporating AWD but through all evolutions its cars currently remain MR (the lightest configuration possible). MR is the optimal weapon of choice in almost all forms of modern sports car racing. MR is trickier to handle but it's the driver (not AWD) who tries like hell to put the power down onto the asphalt and take maximum advantage of all possible weight savings.

more brakes, more tire, and more power will do all that stuff. the cars mentioned will out handle (depending on your definition of grip) the exige simply because in the name of weight, the exige lacks size. you cant fit much rubber up front and that is why they barely go head to head with miatas in auto x courses.

you cant make claims like that because we have never seen that at all. relating f1 to real cars doesnt really make sense to me but if you want to play that game, an awd f1 car is probably going to be faster. they arent that way because of the rules. obviously, all else equal makes the lighter car the faster car. that simply isnt how cars work though. we have to look at them as a whole

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

more brakes, more tire, and more power will do all that stuff.

Nope.

inertia: The resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion

Throwing more of the stuff you mentioned at the car increases inertia and hinders the car's ability to accelerate, decelerate, and change direction. And a lighter sports car (like MR) will see greater benefit from a smaller increase in those things than a heavier car (AWD), all things equal.

Originally Posted by fatoni

you cant make claims like that because we have never seen that at all. relating f1 to real cars doesnt really make sense to me but if you want to play that game, an awd f1 car is probably going to be faster. they arent that way because of the rules. obviously, all else equal makes the lighter car the faster car. that simply isnt how cars work though. we have to look at them as a whole

I'll believe your claim the day I see F1 rules change to require AWD cars. Given variations between make/model, car makers still tend to opt out of AWD when they build a race car from scratch. AWD is not in the majority. That's looking at cars as a whole. Also, power to the front wheels can induce unwanted understeer.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Nope.


Throwing more of the stuff you mentioned increases inertia and hinders the car's ability to accelerate, decelerate, and change direction. And a lighter sports car (like MR) will see greater benefit from a smaller increase in those things than a heavier car (AWD), all things equal.

Things are never equal, this is all relative. More stuff WILL increase acceleration, decelerations, and handling; turbo, bbk, and coils. All despite adding weight. Being light/balanced is only good until a certain point, relativity is key.

And if the F1 could run AWD im sure they would spank current setups, dont underestimate the speed of traction.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Nope.

inertia: The resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion

Throwing more of the stuff you mentioned at the car increases inertia and hinders the car's ability to accelerate, decelerate, and change direction. And a lighter sports car (like MR) will see greater benefit from a smaller increase in those things than a heavier car (AWD), all things equal.


I'll believe your claim the day I see F1 rules change to require AWD cars. Given variations between make/model, car makers still tend to opt out of AWD when they build a race car from scratch. AWD is not in the majority. That's looking at cars as a whole. Also, power to the front wheels can induce unwanted understeer.

i know what inertia is. it is only one half of the equation. its not how much energy it takes to move an object. its the difference between how much it takes and how much you have. have you ever thought about how the fastest cars (especially street cars) are never the lightest? we can only get cars to be so light but we arent limited in the amounts of grip and power we can apply.

you cant have it so that all else is equal so i dont know why you keep saying that. obviously if all things were equal except one car had the advantage you explicitly state, the car you mention would be faster. i could say that if there were two cars where one had bigger brakes or bigger tires or more power etc and one didnt, my car would be faster all else being equal. that doesnt mean anything.

you dont need to believe my claim. companies opt out of awd because a)it isnt cost effective and b)it isnt legal in under the sanctioning body they race in. just as awd is not the majority, neither is mr. majority doesnt mean much.

just as power to the front can induce understeer, power to the rears can induce oversteer. with the advancement of electronics and torque vectoring diffs and such, its hard to argue.

dont take this the wrong way, i prefer adding lightness over all else. my preferences dont make it the best though

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Things are never equal, this is all relative. More stuff WILL increase acceleration, decelerations, and handling; turbo, bbk, and coils. All despite adding weight. Being light/balanced is only good until a certain point, relativity is key.

My point is it's best to start with a lightweight platform then tune all those other things up to a point. Too much power and you'll need more grip and brakes, hence increasing inertia. Like you said relativity is key - more specifically, balance and tuning are key. There was a comparo on youtube showing that an FR-S was slower around a track when they added more rubber/grip. So it's possible to have too much of those other things. Weight reduction amplifies braking, it amplifies grip, and it amplifies power. But, unlike those other things, I don't think you can ever have too much weight reduction so long as the weight remains balanced. Weight reduction amplifies all and trumps all because it requires less of everything else to be tuned to their optimal point and is the only mod that can possibly leave you with less of your worst enemy (inertia).

Originally Posted by chulooz

And if the F1 could run AWD im sure they would spank current setups, dont underestimate the speed of traction.

Given the obscenely low center of gravity and gobs of aero downforce, I don't see traction benefiting much from AWD in F1.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

My point is it's best to start with a lightweight platform then tune all those other things up to a point. Too much power and you'll need more grip and brakes, hence increasing inertia. Like you said relativity is key - more specifically, balance and tuning are key. There was a comparo on youtube showing that an FR-S was slower around a track when they added more rubber/grip. So it's possible to have too much of those other things. Weight reduction amplifies braking, it amplifies grip, and it amplifies power. But, unlike those other things, I don't think you can ever have too much weight reduction so long as the weight remains balanced. Weight reduction amplifies all and trumps all because it requires less of everything else to be tuned to their optimal point and is the only mod that can possibly leave you with less of your worst enemy (inertia).

Given the obscenely low center of gravity and gobs of aero downforce, I don't see traction benefiting much from AWD in F1.

if you look at that test, you will see that the frs is slower because when they added rubber, they not only went wider but they also went taller.

weight will only take you so far because as you increase your speed, weight matters less and less as it becomes a smaller fraction of the net resistance. if you want to go fast, the primary resistance is going to be from air. less weight isnt going to alter the relationship between the air you race in and the frontal surface area of your car.

if f1 cars didnt have to deal with fighting for traction, they would never spin out or need brakes

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Nope.

inertia: The resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion

Throwing more of the stuff you mentioned at the car increases inertia and hinders the car's ability to accelerate, decelerate, and change direction. And a lighter sports car (like MR) will see greater benefit from a smaller increase in those things than a heavier car (AWD), all things equal.


I'll believe your claim the day I see F1 rules change to require AWD cars. Given variations between make/model, car makers still tend to opt out of AWD when they build a race car from scratch. AWD is not in the majority. That's looking at cars as a whole. Also, power to the front wheels can induce unwanted understeer.

Inertia doesn't exactly directly have anything to do with it. Tire grip also depends on with how much force they are being pressed against the ground, among other things. More weight = more normal force for the tires = more grip. It's just a question of whether or not the increase in available grip matches the increase in mass, and usually it doesn't. However, the actual coefficient of friction vs. load of the tires is not typically the problem from what I've read. For example, having the suspension keep the tires in the optimal position is also extremely important, which is why there is active suspension showing up in more and more cars.

AWD is definitely worth its weight, because grip for acceleration is hard to come by while massive engine power isn't. Pretty F1 would be faster with AWD.