Frs vs s2000

[CSG David]

Bottom line for anyone who is considering the S2000 and/or the BRZ/FRS:

If you want to carry stuff, get the BRZ/FRS. Both are drivers' cars and both are very fun to drive when setup properly. Both cars teach you how to be a good driver. If you love what the Subaru/Toyota/Scion has done, get that. It's an incredibly easy car to drive and definitely very fun to drive at the limit (limits are lower on the OEM Michelins). Just keep the OEM Michelins for MPG purposes (you can get some wheels and nice tires for the extra fun times). If you love VTEC and a little extra rawness with the open top feel even though it's not that fast, get the S2000. However, driving the S2000 at the limit is much more challenging and requires a bit of seat time to get used to.

If you're talking about fast cars, there are 600hp Corvettes and 800hp GT-Rs that I have driven and instructed drivers on the street and on the track. Those are fast cars.

In the end, you can't go wrong with either!

[SubieNate]

David (and other S2k owners),

Why do you think the S2000 is so twitchy at the limit? I would have thought that with the double wishbones all around etc. it would be easy to tune it to be fast and predictable. Or is it a case of sacrificing some of the predictability and stability for speed with the right driver?

Nathan

[iLuveKetchup]

The s2k is very tire & alignment dependent - just IMO & how I drive. It's in the setup. I don't think it's twitchy at all.

[vang]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

The s2k is very tire & alignment dependent - just IMO & how I drive. It's in the setup. I don't think it's twitchy at all.

True. However, I do believe that the stock S2000 is a bit tricky to drive at the limits, the AP1 being more twitchy. While I don't fully understand the physics behind the suspension and chassis that contribute to this characteristic, the short wheelbase probably plays a role.

Notice the small window for the S2000 to transition from complete grip and control to going out-of-control, whereas the FRS/BRZ has a more linear and wider transition window. Note: plot is not based on scientific research.

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by vang

Note: plot is not based on scientific research.

[ST185RC]

Here's a simple way of looking at it, take a thumb tack and a strip of paper. Tack the strip of paper in the middle of the strip onto a cork board or something that won't damage things you should put a tack into. Let this be a representation of the S2000. take a similar strip and pin it with a bias to one end and let this represent the FRS.

Apply torque to one end of the strip, notice how the two end's angular displacement is the same on the S2000 and not the FRS? Now imagine one of those seeds that fall from trees with the wing on it. In free fall, the seed spins on an axis where the majority of the mass resides. Now imagine both cars are spinning freely, they would act similarly in such a way that they would spin with an axis that's close to where the engine sits. The cars that are rotating due to losing grip on both wheels will be the polar moment of inertia.

When the S2000 is oversteering and the tires have lost enough friction (grip), the car will rotate about the axis where the polar momentum of inertia is. The engine acts like the weight in the winged seed from a tree. The front will swing at nearly the same rate as the rear. If the FRS were put into the same situation, the front would swing less than the rear due to the bias. The S2000 would require quicker steering inputs correct a greater angular displacement than the FRS, assuming the chasis rigidity is almost the same.

To make this more complex, let's add suspension and wheels into the equation. While the car is losing traction at the rear it loads the rear shock on one side and potential energy built up from the loading will eventually push back once the wheel catches enough grip (how it gets grip will be highly dependent on the differential) to release the potential energy. On the other side of the car, the inside wheel will have lost grip. This is what most call "weight transfer". The shock and spring rebounding is what causes the car to "snap" back the otherway. Once it snaps back and weight is transfered back to the wheel with less grip, it will act the same way as the first wheel and cascade until the net potential energy of both dampers are back to 0.

While this is all happening the rear, the front is having approximately the same angular displacement as the rear. The steering correction required to straighten the car is much more involving than that in an FRS if all else is the same except where the weight of the engine is.

Of course there are millions and millions of variables involved with driving comparing the two cars. But above is just my very limited understanding of what is happening and I've taken into account none of the other variables that will affect the way the car acts. To name a few, hub offset, staggered set up on the AP1, aerodynamics, phases of the moon etc.

I don't claim to be a expert with physics.

[SubieNate]

So with your thumb tack example you're basically saying that the s2000's exact 50:50 weight distribution makes it even more neutral than the 86 twins so when it lets go, the rear end is more likely to come around because it's RWD and 50/50?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

So with your thumb tack example you're basically saying that the s2000's exact 50:50 weight distribution makes it even more neutral than the 86 twins so when it lets go, the rear end is more likely to come around because it's RWD and 50/50?

thats not how it works but its a piece of it. the twitchiness is usually a result of radical changes in suspension throughout the travel. the front biased weight distribution will however help straighten you out once it hits the fan (think of those old vortex footballs). with 50/50 theres nothing making the car straighten out in the forward direction

[ST185RC]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

So with your thumb tack example you're basically saying that the s2000's exact 50:50 weight distribution makes it even more neutral than the 86 twins so when it lets go, the rear end is more likely to come around because it's RWD and 50/50?

I didn't imply anything of the sort, if anything, it implied quite clearly that the S2000 has more to correct than the FRS based on how the car rotates while the car is oversteering. The thumb tack and strip of paper, like fatoni said, is one piece in a concert of things that are happening. This is pulling away everything from the car to the very basic of free body motion. When you add to it, it gets increasingly more complex.

[CSG David]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

David (and other S2k owners),

Why do you think the S2000 is so twitchy at the limit? I would have thought that with the double wishbones all around etc. it would be easy to tune it to be fast and predictable. Or is it a case of sacrificing some of the predictability and stability for speed with the right driver?

Nathan

Rear toe changes and aerodynamic lift. The AP1s need bumpsteer kits to remedy the issue. The AP2s don't really need it but still have toe changes...just not as prominent as the AP1s. Rear aero is pretty bad on the S2000. I don't know if you guys noticed, but we, at CSG, really love how planted the rear end feels in the BRZ compared to the S2000.

Also with any car, the stickier the tires, the less warning you get when the tire loses grip.

[iLuveKetchup]

^ how do you know it's the aero that is providing the rear end feel?

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by iLuveKetchup

^ how do you know it's the aero that is providing the rear end feel?

I'd guess it's an indirect observation, at higher speed the rear would probably seem to have less traction. Makes sense, the S2000 is an aero mess.

[MY13FRS]

If the S2000 had back seats, it would be the perfect FR-S.

[ESC POD]

Originally Posted by vang

I printed this for my Garage...That shit is Hilarious!!