3 things: Even after reading many reviews, I still can't fathom these...

[ZDan]

FWIW, I daily an S2000 and on the street I never get into VTEC. Essentially, I'm driving a 2800 lb. car sports car with 150hp. And it is a HOOT to drive. I've only test-driven FR-S, and IMO it provides the same amount of real-world street/backroads driving FUN as the S2000.

I do appreciate fast cars (other car: 500+hp RX-7), but for 99% of my street driving, I don't even need more than 150hp.

When it comes time to retire the S2000, I'm getting an FR-S or BRZ as my daily. Not at all concerned about "only" 200hp.

[boead]

Originally Posted by solidONE

A lot of room for improvement and tuning. And, with some minor tweaks it can be just as much a scalpel on the twisties as the tiny MX-5. I think this has already been proven time and time again by boatloads of tuners within months after it's release. With the right "investment" it has the potential to battle with and win against sports cars that cost many times more than it. I think that is what the designers and engineers of this car were aiming to do, and they did it well. This car is the best thing that happened to the automotive aftermarket since the fast and furious movies. lol

Im planning to either invest $10-15 in this car or sell it in 3-4 and buy a factory SC or TT, with 300 HP this little coupe is going to be very popular.
It truly appears that the stock components are ok for a car with up to 300HP, likely see a production model at 275 with plenty of head room. Then a 350+ versions like what Nissan did with the GTR, vastly improved to justify the $70k tag it'll likely carry. Im sure a 275HP version is gonna be about $35k base.

[Mr.Corvus]

Originally Posted by ZDan

FWIW, I daily an S2000 and on the street I never get into VTEC. Essentially, I'm driving a 2800 lb. car sports car with 150hp. And it is a HOOT to drive. I've only test-driven FR-S, and IMO it provides the same amount of real-world street/backroads driving FUN as the S2000.

I do appreciate fast cars (other car: 500+hp RX-7), but for 99% of my street driving, I don't even need more than 150hp.

When it comes time to retire the S2000, I'm getting an FR-S or BRZ as my daily. Not at all concerned about "only" 200hp.

This just reminds of a talk I had with a elderly gent passing by on the street who was admiring my FR-S. We shot the shit about some simple specs, and then asked about the HP. I replied with a shrug "eh, it's only got 200, right now". In summation, his reaction was best described as "LOL WHAT?? ONLY 200?" as to say that I was underestimating the power of the car.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by circuithero

Comic relief with my morning coffee for the win. Btw, its: "DESPITE what you believe, you really don't know what you are talking about".

you got me good there .. now i deed my coffiee.

[zoomzoomers]

Just the other day I was enjoying a drive to work a little later than usual. The weather was just outstanding and it was a nice 70 something out, with clear skys and the sunlight bathing the roadways. I thought, "ahh this is why I love living in SoCal", and going on my merry way. I happen to travel up a rather winding, and fun, stretch of hwy to work. Thankfully, there is, usually, no cops about on this stretch of road. I happened to be going at a quick pace as there was scarcely and cars on the road. Then, low and behold, a late model Mustang with loud pipes and chrome rims comes speeding up and blows by me. Normally, I'd have let it go, but the smirk on the driver's face and the look he gave me was just irresistable. So I bit and the game was on.

I caught up rather quickly, remember the curvy hwy, and as I was just catching the Stang, a '13 Porsche Boxters S, with it's top down of course, was catching the both of us. At this point, things got realy fun and it was on. Now normally, I'm a safe driver. So much so, that most friends ask me why I drive sports/sporty cars in the first place, but on this day, the stars had aligned just so and it was fate. Well, long story short, the Boxter pilot was really going in HOT and I kept right with him, all the way till the end. We both let off when the Stang owner, who was desperately trying to keep up and maintain some sort of manhood and self respect, almost lost control. On a rather fast sweeping right hander that decreases in radius, he almost lost it and spun out. Probably at triple digit speeds.

The Porsche pilot and I bust out in laughter and gave each other a nod and a smile as we peeled off and went on our seperate ways. Never saw the Stang pilot again. Must of have quite difficult to driving with your testicles in your throat. Dunno, your guess is as good as mine.

So the moral of my story? Don't have one. If you were waiting for one and read this to the end, you might want to go buy that Stang, but if you just enjoyed the story for the pure pleasure of it. Then, you sir, might be a good candidate for a FRS/BRZ.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

@circuithero-I stopped trying to argue when I read "zero unit vector."

That's completely contrary to the basic definition of unit vector. If you can't get that right I'm not going to bother arguing.

directional unit vector of gravity = gx(1,0,0), gy(0,1,0), gz(0,0,1). depends on how you setup the (0,0,0) location, two out of the 3 g scalar componets would equal zero. thus zero directional unit vector.

please don’t take things out of context just to make a point.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by ZDan

hardly...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Again, repeat after me: For *any* car discussion, center of gravity (c.g.) is *the same* as center of mass. THE SAME. There is no other calculation to be done. Find the location of the center of mass, done, that's it. No need to apply forces, moments, torque, gravity, anything. You *have* the center of gravity. The two are identical.

Projecting much?!

Here is what you originally said:
WRONG. Lowering a car 1" will lower its center of gravity by slightly less than 1".

Then you added:

Utter bullshit! Center of gravity is NOT a FORCE! It is a location in space.
And center of mass is NOT a MASS! It is *also* a location in space. For our purposes it is precisely the *same* point in space.
Your absurd and meaningless equation above takes the cake! You do not calculate "center of gravity" by multiplying "center of mass" by gravity.

Utterly ridiculous...

actually for car discussion, if you are talking about external forces, then using COG and COM makes sense. Since you are assuming the mass is concentrated on this single point.
But for suspension behavior discussion, how can you possibility have a meaningful discussion of weight transfer or roll along the axis of the car if all your weight is concentrated into one point in all directions?

also COG location is where the resultant force due to gravity and distance which cancels. The equation you quoted was a simplify version where I was trying to illustrate the point that COG is force dependent. I will agree with you that the equation you reference is not complete. However, my subsequent equation which builds upon the original equation is.

[Brzetto]

Originally Posted by fatoni

calling people spoiled brats for having an appreciation is at the very least as ignorant as they are for liking the power they have been exposed to. the frs is slow relative to its competition. you can say its fast for your standards but then its competition is just faster. the mustang can be had for much less than five thousand over the frs. in fact i had offers from dealers for cheaper than ive ever seen an frs. if there is a giant killer in this conversation, its the mustang and not the frs. anecdotal evidence that one time a corolla beat a skyline isnt proof of anything.

the frs is a neat little car. its design philosophy speaks to my personal values and that doesnt happen much in todays industry so im excited. im sure there are going to be isolated situations where an frs will surprise some people but it isnt close to being a giant killer.

Like the original AE86, this car with a turbo setup CAN beat cars that cost double the price so yes it's a giant killer.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

actually for car discussion, if you are talking about external forces, then using COG and COM makes sense. Since you are assuming the mass is concentrated on this single point. But for suspension behavior discussion, how can you possibility have a meaningful discussion of weight transfer or roll along the axis of the car if all your weight is concentrated into one point in all directions?

Again, it is simply a point in space that is effectively the average location of the distributed mass. It does work PERFECTLY well to assume that all the mass is located at that point for calculating weight transfer under different conditions of constant acceleration (braking, cornering, accelerating). You do not need the distributed mass matrix to come up with weight transfer under constant acceleration conditions. C.g. location is enough.

also COG location is where the resultant force due to gravity and distance which cancels.

Awkwardly stated, but if you're saying that you can support the mass at the c.g. location and forces on either side on any axis "cancel", yeah, that's pretty much it.

The equation you quoted was a simplify version where I was trying to illustrate the point that COG is force dependent.

The c.g./center of mass is a location that is determined by how the mass is distributed. It is not "force dependent". It is a property of a body's mass distribution.
[edit]OK, it *is* force dependent in the event of a non-uniform gravitational field! But that situation has nothing to do with what lowering a car does to its center of gravity.

I will agree with you that the equation you reference is not complete. However, my subsequent equation which builds upon the original equation is.

Your equation:
COG is a force(COG=COM(M)x Gravity(A))
This is NOT an appropriate application of F=ma!
"Center of gravity" isn't a force, it's a location in space. "Center of mass" isn't a mass, it's a location in space. You can't multiply a location by gravity and arrive at another location. The equation isn't simply "incomplete", and it's not even "incorrect". It is *meaningless*.

In any event, for *any* practical discussion of cars, c.m. and c.g. are at the same location. In a non-uniform gravitational field, they aren't, but this is not pertinent to any discussion about cars on earth.

And lowering a car *DOES* lower its center of gravity.

[bcj]

Originally Posted by fatoni

25k will get you a faster car if you look elsewhere. relative to its price, it is slow.

Any other 25k car will be slower around 10mph advisory corners. That's why I got the FR-S.

[SubieNate]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

directional unit vector of gravity = gx(1,0,0), gy(0,1,0), gz(0,0,1). depends on how you setup the (0,0,0) location, two out of the 3 g scalar componets would equal zero. thus zero directional unit vector.

please don’t take things out of context just to make a point.

There is no such thing as a unit vector of gravity. The unit vectors are just used in vector mathematics to define your three axis and allow you to break other actual vector forces up into each individual direction. "Unit vectors" are imaginary vectors, one unit long (with 1 unit being equal to one unit in whatever measurement system you use) that are aligned with your chosen axis. There is no physical manifestation or real world force associated with them.

i.e.

A force could be pushing on an object with a vector force defined as (34*i-hat,24*jhat, 29*k-hat) Newtons. All this means is that:

In the i direction (x) the component of the total force is 34 N. In the j direction (y) , 24 N, and in the k direction (z) 29 N. The total resultant force is the square root of (34^2+24^2+29^2) or 50.724 N.

Using this info and the components and a bit of trig you can find out exactly what angle relative to each axis that 50.724 N force is pushing on the object.

Components of gravity may or may not be zero depending on the scalar multiplier that is multiplied by the unit vector in each direction to get the magnitude of gravitational force in each of the directions (i-hat, j-hat, k-hat) but each of the unit vectors themselves are and will always be equal to one. (i(1,0,0), j(0,1,0) k(0,0,1)). Anything contrary to that is wrong.

Cheers
Nathan

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SubaruBRZLimited

Like the original AE86, this car with a turbo setup CAN beat cars that cost double the price so yes it's a giant killer.

you can turbo those giants too. if youre trying to make a point in cost effectiveness, the frs is far from the poster child. since youre keen on examples, i can have a mustang gt when the market allows for cheaper than an frs. if you spend the money on a turbo, you are still likely making less power than the mustang (although you are right in the fact that hp is only part of the equation). i guess a 30k+ frs can kill the 25k mustang gt giant. or how about how you can buy a miata, supercharger, rollbar, springs, sways, shocks, swaybars, clutch and exhaust for less than a brz?

my point is, cost provides diminishing returns. almost always, the cheaper modified car is going to be a better value. that doesnt mean that every car is going to be a giant killer.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by bcj

Any other 25k car will be slower around 10mph advisory corners. That's why I got the FR-S.

id like to see any evidence of that.

[SubieNate]

To me, the Mustang won't count until it has real rear suspension. I don't care how advanced or well tuned the solid axle is, it's just too archaic and every track test I've ever seen for it has complained about it in some way, using phrasing akin to, "it's great for a design that should be outdated." If you have to qualify it it's not really a compliment.

Am I the only one that finds it odd that someone that doesn't own this car and plainly doesn't want to has as many posts as fatoni?

Nathan