Motor Trend: 2016 Miata vs 2015 BRZ

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by totopo

I'm getting tired of seeing "primacy hp sucks" posts.

I'm getting tired of seeing nonsensical arguments. First, to say a tire that was designed for Prius gas efficiency and selected to promote drifting doesn't suck for time attacks is ridiculous. What tires would you say suck, Blizzaks? Second, you go on to say better tires provide too much grip for the 86 to handle so there is no improvement over stock, then you go on to say it's not fair to compare using much higher grades of rubber that do show the 86 can handle even more grip than the Tire Rack test! Well which is it? Can't be both.

[EAGLE5]

I don't think the Primacy were designed for the Prius. They were just put on the Prius and now the twins.

If you take a Miata, remove the top, passenger seat, all lining and trim, and the wall behind the seats, and then put on a hard top, you have plenty of room for transporting a set of track rims, tools, jack, and most anything else you will want at the track. Might suck for daily driving, though.

If I had no use for rear seats, I'd probably have neither car.

[abraxis]

Whichever car they were designed for, they were designed to be low rolling resistance which in simple terms is inverse to grippy.

There's more to life than hauling track tires and a jack around. If there weren't, then neither of these cars would cut it as you pointed out. Sometimes you need to go to IKEA, Home Depot or carry a couple of mountain bikes.

Also, I know the Baby NSX will be probably be heavy and compromised but one can dare to dream right?

[akyp]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

You sure about that? The BRZ got consistent praise for it's flat cornering nature, that is directly a result of it's low c.g. it also means that the 86 handles improved grip better while the Miata may struggle as it maxes out suspension travel with the higher g's.

The flat-4 is wide, probably heavier than an inline-4, and cannot get any closer to the firewall due to the steering shaft getting in the way. Toyota/Subaru knew this so they hype about low CoG all day. Looking at the side-by-side video, the ND can carry more speed through the corners, that says something. IMO neither cars have enough spring rate from the factory to handle sticky tires such as star specs.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

imo the weak link is the weight, 450lbs is not something easy to overcome.

That we can all agree on. I think 2500lbs and 220hp was the initial design goal.

I would also like to say I'm ok with our car losing every objective metric to a brand new car (credit to Mazda). That means Toyota/Subaru have work to do. They've been sitting idle for far too long.

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by akyp

The flat-4 is wide, probably heavier than an inline-4, and cannot get any closer to the firewall due to the steering shaft getting in the way. Toyota/Subaru knew this so they hype about low CoG all day. Looking at the side-by-side video, the ND can carry more speed through the corners, that says something. IMO neither cars have enough spring rate from the factory to handle sticky tires such as star specs.

Not sure I completely agree 100% with that characterization if you watch the video (and many others) closely. There are some relative differences where I don't think that's always true and can be circumstantial.

Are you saying the 86 would carry more speed with a I-4 than a F-4?? Maybe Porsche should switch over? That's another total BS argument I keep hearing is that CoG doesn't matter. Now apparently they marketed CoG to coverup for their poor choice of using a boxer engine? Lol! The laughs just don't stop around here.

The RnT video shows the 86 handling star specs just fine picking up 2.3 seconds with factory spring rates.

One reason why 86 fanboys overreact? They have to read stuff like this.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by akyp

The flat-4 is wide, probably heavier than an inline-4, and cannot get any closer to the firewall due to the steering shaft getting in the way. Toyota/Subaru knew this so they hype about low CoG all day. Looking at the side-by-side video, the ND can carry more speed through the corners, that says something. IMO neither cars have enough spring rate from the factory to handle sticky tires such as star specs.

That we can all agree on. I think 2500lbs and 220hp was the initial design goal.

I would also like to say I'm ok with our car losing every objective metric to a brand new car (credit to Mazda). That means Toyota/Subaru have work to do. They've been sitting idle for far too long.

If you go back to the original engineer interviews they said they wanted a boxer or wankel for low c.g. to get a low hoodline and good handling characteristics, so I guess this car was fucked when they drew it up 8 years ago?

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/tada-how-to...eated-the-gt86

The ND does hit a higher corner speed, but that has a lot to do with the 450 lb weight difference and slightly stickier tires: F=ma, reduce the mass and the acceleration can increase (higher mid-corner speed) with the same amount of cornering force generated by the tires, oh and that is slightly better in the Miata too.

The Miata's soft suspension gives it a lot of dynamic camber, simply put off the showroom floor it's working it's tires better than the 86 I would suspect but we won't know until guys start measuring their factory alignments (mine was garbage at -0.3 degrees camber up front), definite points for the I4+double wishbone but that's a setup that requires more effort to refine as grip gets added, we will see how the Miata guys handle that over the next few years.

I'm still on OEM suspension on my FR-S with Dunlop Direzza ZII Star Specs and it's doing marvelously after getting the alignment improved, it wallows a bit in the front hurting my slalom but that can be fixed with a swaybar, although I'm considering picking up some BRZ front struts as they are stiffer springs. And per the tire tests mentioned

, the 86 picks up a ton of time with sticky 200TW tires without any problems with the handling, and again, I believe that is BECAUSE of the low c.g. facilitated by the boxer engine.

[akyp]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

The Miata's soft suspension gives it a lot of dynamic camber, simply put off the showroom floor it's working it's tires better than the 86 I would suspect but we won't know until guys start measuring their factory alignments (mine was garbage at -0.3 degrees camber up front), definite points for the I4+double wishbone but that's a setup that requires more effort to refine as grip gets added, we will see how the Miata guys handle that over the next few years.

Different approaches to the problem I see. I'm still not sure if the flat-4 is worth the tradeoff (worse F/R distribution and struts). And as said it'd be interesting to see what is the next move by Toyota/Subaru. Any weight loss would be nice.

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I'm still on OEM suspension on my FR-S with Dunlop Direzza ZII Star Specs and it's doing marvelously after getting the alignment improved, it wallows a bit in the front hurting my slalom but that can be fixed with a swaybar, although I'm considering picking up some BRZ front struts as they are stiffer springs. And per the tire tests mentioned

, the 86 picks up a ton of time with sticky 200TW tires without any problems with the handling, and again, I believe that is BECAUSE of the low c.g. facilitated by the boxer engine.

I'm on the same tires actually and my problems are with braking at higher speeds. I think the rears are unloaded too much due to weight transfer. I'll see if that can be fixed with some rear toe-in.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by akyp

Different approaches to the problem I see. I'm still not sure if the flat-4 is worth the tradeoff (worse F/R distribution and struts). And as said it'd be interesting to see what is the next move by Toyota/Subaru. Any weight loss would be nice.

Switching to double-wishbones and trying to lose weight are mutually opposing goals. That said, using struts up front on a RWD car isn't the end of the world. It's not ideal, but for track use with a stiff enough front roll rate and enough static camber, it's not a huge issue.

Originally Posted by akyp

I'm on the same tires actually and my problems are with braking at higher speeds. I think the rears are unloaded too much due to weight transfer. I'll see if that can be fixed with some rear toe-in.

I know the issue you've been describing. You can fix it by experimenting with brake pad stagger.

Also weight transfer even under braking is tied to the very thing you've been arguing isn't too important - CG height.

[Sideways&Smiling]

The suspension designs in the Miata and S2000 are much more sophisticated (and, yes, better) than what is found in the FR-S. The Miata has very good suspension design. It just has very soft stock dampening, whereas the FR-S has pretty common/typical normal car suspension design with pretty good stock dampening.

[JS + BRZ]

Originally Posted by Sideways&Smiling

The suspension designs in the Miata and S2000 are much more sophisticated (and, yes, better) than what is found in the FR-S. The Miata has very good suspension design. It just has very soft stock dampening, whereas the FR-S has pretty common/typical normal car suspension design with pretty good stock dampening.

Can you please get a lot more descriptive on this?

I can pretty much say the same thing without knowing anything. LOL

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by JS + BRZ

Can you please get a lot more descriptive on this?

I can pretty much say the same thing without knowing anything. LOL

It's pretty self-explanatory if you are familiar with the cars, yes? The FR-S follows the tradition of simple front-biased FR coupes with macpherson struts. It focuses on dampening and steering, but the actual engine layout, suspension design & geometry, etc. is unsophisticated. It tries to do as well as it can with what it has, and does a pretty good job at it, but chose the cheapest option to get there instead of investing in suspension design.

This is something Mazda has always excelled at with the Miata and the RX series. Very well designed suspension.

It's far easier and cheaper to throw less soft aftermarket coilovers on a Miata than it is to redesign the entire suspension of the FR-S.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by JS + BRZ

Can you please get a lot more descriptive on this?

I can pretty much say the same thing without knowing anything. LOL

The primary criticism is Macpherson strut (Subaru) vs. Double Wishbone (Mazda Honda) suspension up front, here's a quick article so I don't spout a buncha bullshit:

http://mechanicalmania.blogspot.com/...on-double.html

Lots of things can come up if you google, probably some great diagrams and gifs and videos out there if you feel like spending some time reading, Wiki is also a decent resource when it comes to this

Lotus forum discussion:
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f91/...ishbone-86573/

Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double...one_suspension

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_strut

[totopo]

Originally Posted by abraxis

I'm getting tired of seeing nonsensical arguments. First, to say a tire that was designed for Prius gas efficiency and selected to promote drifting doesn't suck for time attacks is ridiculous. What tires would you say suck, Blizzaks? Second, you go on to say better tires provide too much grip for the 86 to handle so there is no improvement over stock, then you go on to say it's not fair to compare using much higher grades of rubber that do show the 86 can handle even more grip than the Tire Rack test! Well which is it? Can't be both.

So it's a little complicated.

Track times is proportional to lateral traction.

Track times is proportional to vertical traction.

Track times is inversely proportional to tire drag.

∝ = math symbol for proportonal

So to simplify:

Track times ∝ (constant * lateral traction) * (constant * vertical traction) * constant/( horse power- tire drag).

So the problem is test data. There isn't that much out there, so I have to extrapolate based on experts.

So fact: primacy HP gets similar (to better!) track times to MP class tires

Opinion: pobst (much better driver than i am) thinks that MP tires have better lateral traction than primacy HP tires.

Thus his explanation is that the primacy HP tires get their bonus from the less tire drag.

So fact: EP class tires have better track times than primacy HP tires. So their gain in vertical and lateral traction is BETTER than their loss in tire drag.

Basically, what I am saying, is that the primacy HP tires ARE GOOD MATCHED TIRES FOR THE TWINS AND THAT YOU NEED TO GO TO EP TIRES OR BETTER TO GET BETTER TRACK TIMES. THEY HAVE SIMILAR TIRES TO ALMOST ALL OF THE SPORTS CARS OUT THERE OTHER THAN SUPER HIGH END CARS. THE DIFFERENCE IN LAP TIMES IN THE CARS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY TIRES. IF YOU PUT SIMILAR TIRES ON OTHER CARS AND THE TWINS, THE TWINS WOULD STILL BE SLOWER.

To reiterate: THE TWINS WERE DESIGNED TO BE FUN CARS, NOT FAST CARS. They are not some marvels of engineering. They sacrificed some things for others. They perform pretty much what you would expect of them based on their engineering input. They aren't bad cars, but they aren't magic cars (like the EG civic, r32 gt-r, NSX-r, s2k, or rx-7).

Originally Posted by JS + BRZ

Can you please get a lot more descriptive on this?

I can pretty much say the same thing without knowing anything. LOL

There is no way that macphearson struts are as good as double wishbone on the track. Actually, the difference is probably less for GT class race cars with less bump travel than for dual use sports cars with 5" bump travel. The more bump travel you have, the better double wishbones are than macphearson struts.

In steady state, roll angle is not necessarily bad.

Another thing I want to say is that what you think is a fast car MIGHT NOT BE A FAST CAR. How do you know what is fun to drive is actually fast? A lot of times what feels not as fun actually means the car has more traction and you get better lap times. why is a flat handling car faster? what data do you have? race cars have flat handling because they usually have 2" bump travel. Yet look at all the videos/pictures of race cars. Look at their outside fender as they corner. It is basically as close to the ground as they can get. why? to maximize the advantage of their suspension.

When strat61caster says primacy HP are okay, and double wishbone are better than macphearson struts, you listen to him. when I say it, i'm a troll....

[abraxis]

Originally Posted by totopo

So the problem is test data. There isn't that much out there, so I have to extrapolate based on experts.

So fact: primacy HP gets similar (to better!) track times to MP class tires

'are', not 'is'

No. You choose to selectively ignore data that does not support your own predetermined bias. You've done this repeatedly on this forum. You choose to focus on one test at a specific track and ignore multiple unequal variables that could be actual causation for your mistaken correlation. That and all the other times you have spewed the same nonsense about the 86 having a worthless chassis across the forum makes you a troll.

Your fallacious and selective use of rudimentary math is actually quite amusing as is your misuse of basic logic. Like trying to shift your argument to double wishbones and another poster, neither of which I ever addressed with respect to you yourself. This is called lack of topicality and shifting when someone scrambles to defend poor analysis or logical structure by changing the focus of the debate to something else.

Your argument I responded to was that people are delusional fanboys if they think the 86 responds to tire upgrades. You are simply wrong no matter how many ways you try to obfuscate reality by labeling BS as 'facts'. I can rotate the back end on throttle at 15mph using these low rolling resistance tires. I can't do that on any other 'similar' HP tires you seem to be alluding to with the same limited amount of torque. Drifting oriented tires are not ∝ beneficial to time attacks relative to actual HP tires. Try to let that sink in. Reduced grip =/= faster or equal times ceteris paribus (when all things are considered equal or constant).

What you should be saying is that the 86 doesn't respond well to poor tire and wheel selection that adds weight and gearing to an already mid-range torque deprived FA20 on a track that emphasizes exactly that. Maybe you could try working that into your arithmetic sometime. In the meantime, I recommend not relying on your limited 'formula' to bet on any professional races. You can thank me later.

At least you can finally concede the 86 does respond to better tires as long as they are a higher class (lol). I suppose that's progress and you won't be able to keep spewing the same hater nonsense in such absolute terms from now on. Don't worry, we'll get you there eventually.