Ford Fiesta ST Beats Toyota GT86 on the Track in EVO Test

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by thill

The tire choice was deliberate. It was chosen for the fun factor and most likely the MPG factor (low rolling tires).

You can choose to ignore the data, but Road And Track, Motortrend, and Edmunds have all put better performing tires on the car and the results were consistent everytime. The car has a lot more grip with better tires and it improves lateral acceleration, figure 8, lap times, etc. I don't think the engineers ever intended for people to be tracking the car with these tires.

relax. it was total sarcasm. however, like it or not, these comparisons are of stock cars.

[raul]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont know if anything you said has muchto do with the "physics" of a fwd car.

I would argue that the effects of gravity, friction, inertia, etc. on a car would qualify as physics, but what do I know?

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by raul

I would argue that the effects of gravity, friction, inertia, etc. on a car would qualify as physics, but what do I know?

what you seem to not know is that gravity, friction and inertia also happen to rwd cars. you also seem to lose sight of the fwd cars being able to put more power down to the tires and be lighter weight. cars like the itr and cobalt ss dont defy physics with nannies or extensively modified suspensions. those cars lap times are pertinent empirical evidence. the existence of gravity is not.

[suaveflooder]

lol, why do so many FRS/BRZ guys get butt hurt when we lose on the track? Get over it! HA

[raul]

Originally Posted by fatoni

what you seem to not know is that gravity, friction and inertia also happen to rwd cars. you also seem to lose sight of the fwd cars being able to put more power down to the tires and be lighter weight. cars like the itr and cobalt ss dont defy physics with nannies or extensively modified suspensions. those cars lap times are pertinent empirical evidence. the existence of gravity is not.

That wasn't my argument. When a car accelerates the weight shifts to the back, therefore power is most effective in the rear wheels at those times. Every FWD car that has been pitted against the FR-S has similar weight/power, but more torque and typically better tires. Yes, I know there's a drivetrain power loss advantage when it comes to FWD, but stock for stock, a RWD layout has better native cornering ability. For evidence of this, look at Track vs. Autocross performance. In tracks there is more room to accelerate and for torque to work its magic so hot hatches and torquey cars put down better times. In Autocross environments, the twins simply annihilate any of the hot hatches or FWD coupes it's pitted against. Track times only show that power/torque and tires are huge contributors to track times. Having a drivetrain better suited for cornering doesn't automatically trump a less appropriate one with more power thrown on it.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 86 triplets are faster or better, but that a RWD layout is better suited for cornering.

[Sport-Tech]

One caveat to the "Prius tires" argument - if you check the specs you'll see that the Fiesta ST's tires are actually narrower than the FR-S's : 205 vs. 215. That difference will partially balance out the better quality tire on the ST.

[thill]

Originally Posted by suaveflooder

lol, why do so many FRS/BRZ guys get butt hurt when we lose on the track? Get over it! HA

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I would actually be shocked if the twins did win on the track against a comparable car with the stock tires

I am just trying to make the point that switching out the tires results in a dramatic difference on the track in a timed race.. And I am sure Toyota and Subaru fully realize this but know that the vast majority of people that buy these cars won't track them and would rather get better fuel economy with the low rolling tires (which is estimated at getting 5-15% better fuel economy).

[raul]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

One caveat to the "Prius tires" argument - if you check the specs you'll see that the Fiesta ST's tires are actually narrower than the FR-S's : 205 vs. 215. That difference will partially balance out the better quality tire on the ST.

Compound often has a bigger effect than size.

[suaveflooder]

Originally Posted by thill

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I would actually be shocked if the twins did win on the track against a comparable car with the stock tires

I am just trying to make the point that switching out the tires results in a dramatic difference on the track in a timed race.. And I am sure Toyota and Subaru fully realize this but know that the vast majority of people that buy these cars won't track them and would rather get better fuel economy with the low rolling tires (which is estimated at getting 5-15% better fuel economy).

Not at you at all :happy0180: It is a general need of the masses on this forum to make every excuse possible when the beloved GT86 suffers a loss.

I've always followed the idea of "run what ya' brung"

In this case, the little ford did better. It's not like we haven't disappointed cars that cost more than ours does. It goes both ways

[thill]

Originally Posted by raul

Compound often has a bigger effect than size.

100% for sure. I bet a GT86 on even narrow better ultra performance summer tires would perform better than a GT86 using the stock tires.

[thill]

Originally Posted by suaveflooder

Not at you at all :happy0180: It is a general need of the masses on this forum to make every excuse possible when the beloved GT86 suffers a loss.

I've always followed the idea of "run what ya' brung"

In this case, the little ford did better. It's not like we haven't disappointed cars that cost more than ours does. It goes both ways

I see your point, but I think it is important to understand the "why".

Like I always say. If someone if looking for max track performance for the money on a car, look no further than the Mustang GT. For about $27 grand you get a ton of performance for the money. That said, I would rather come in last place in my car than first in a Mustang

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by raul

That wasn't my argument. When a car accelerates the weight shifts to the back, therefore power is most effective in the rear wheels at those times. Every FWD car that has been pitted against the FR-S has similar weight/power, but more torque and typically better tires. Yes, I know there's a drivetrain power loss advantage when it comes to FWD, but stock for stock, a RWD layout has better native cornering ability. For evidence of this, look at Track vs. Autocross performance. In tracks there is more room to accelerate and for torque to work its magic so hot hatches and torquey cars put down better times. In Autocross environments, the twins simply annihilate any of the hot hatches or FWD coupes it's pitted against. Track times only show that power/torque and tires are huge contributors to track times. Having a drivetrain better suited for cornering doesn't automatically trump a less appropriate one with more power thrown on it.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 86 triplets are faster or better, but that a RWD layout is better suited for cornering.

first off, auto x is dictated by class restrictions more than car capability. if the frs was annihilating things, i dont think there would be the call for moving it down to es (i think). i think the oldest autox counterargument would be how people like andy hollis left a miata for a crx because of their donimance. the reason the hot hatches lose to the frs so badly in autox is more a function of being hindered by weight, while not being able to use the power. either way, i dont think using classed events is a good thing to base these things on either way.

i probably sound like a **** and i dont mean to. the point im trying to make is that i believe the issues with fwd get blown way out of proportion because many fwd cars arent trying to be sporty.

[Celica00]

Originally Posted by raul

That wasn't my argument. When a car accelerates the weight shifts to the back, therefore power is most effective in the rear wheels at those times. Every FWD car that has been pitted against the FR-S has similar weight/power, but more torque and typically better tires. Yes, I know there's a drivetrain power loss advantage when it comes to FWD, but stock for stock, a RWD layout has better native cornering ability. For evidence of this, look at Track vs. Autocross performance. In tracks there is more room to accelerate and for torque to work its magic so hot hatches and torquey cars put down better times. In Autocross environments, the twins simply annihilate any of the hot hatches or FWD coupes it's pitted against. Track times only show that power/torque and tires are huge contributors to track times. Having a drivetrain better suited for cornering doesn't automatically trump a less appropriate one with more power thrown on it.


Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 86 triplets are faster or better, but that a RWD layout is better suited for cornering.

I knew the second I saw the title, that fatoni would be ALLLLLL over this thread.

[raul]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i dont think there would be the call for moving it down to es (i think).

I saw that! Seems crazy, but I think this suggestion is being made to the board due to the upcoming tire restrictions. But what you said about the FR-S performing better in AutoX compared to the hot hatches is kind of what I'm trying to say. RWD makes a car rotate under load while a FWD car makes it straighten up, this helps cornering ability.