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

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by fatoni

we arent limited in the amounts of grip and power we can apply.

There is a limit... those things add to inertia and too much can be detrimental. That's why we don't see Bugatti Veyrons setting track records everywhere.

Originally Posted by fatoni

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.

Franchises like Ferrari, McLaren, etc. aren't limited by cost. They are limited by the technology available to them and for some reason they don't select AWD. Even outside of F1. And I believe MR is still the majority in sports car races like LeMans. When a majority of race car engineers opt for MR over AWD, that means something.

Now for the common consumer, MR is in the minority because 1) it costs more to develop 2) it is unsafe/twitchy/prone to snap oversteer 3) it is impractical.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

There is a limit... those things add to inertia and too much can be detrimental. That's why we don't see Bugatti Veyrons setting track records everywhere.

Franchises like Ferrari, McLaren, etc. aren't limited by cost. They are limited by the technology available to them and for some reason they don't select AWD. Even outside of F1. And I believe MR is still the majority in sports car races like LeMans. When a majority of race car engineers opt for MR over AWD, that means something.

Now for the common consumer, MR is in the minority because 1) it costs more to develop 2) it is unsafe/twitchy/prone to snap oversteer 3) it is impractical.

you have it backward. there is a limit to how much weight you can remove, not how much power you can add. as time goes by, technology will allow us to add more but we cant remove everything.

well pick stock street cars or racecars. the veyron is likely faster than the other cars you mentioned in stock form. please name a racing body where people build cars from the ground up where there are teams with unlimited funds and there is no rules against awd. with lemans there are all sorts of gray areas especially regarding awd and now hybrid technology. those kinds of cars are allowed to race but will never "win" because they run outside of all the classing. thats not even mentioning the fact that awd used more fuel and in an endurance race, that often matters more than the cars lap times. despite the current state of lemans audi, toyota and porsche are all moving in the awd direction. maybe they are changing the rules but i havent been up on that in ages

[Jordo!]

FWIW, the fastest car on the Top Gear power laps was... the V8 Ariel Atom.

Moral: Lightweight + high power to weight ratio = fast and maneuverable by any yardstick.

Rank your most or least favorite cars as you wish from there...

[crazyyankeefan]

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.

In fact, it's been shown and test-driven with the complete opposite reviews regarding GT-R's AWD. The AWD provides so much better grip all the way around, and of course corners particularly, that it allows the car to accelerate better (since more grip), cornering with higher speed. If AWD is not a better system, how do you explain that all Lambo, Veyron and some Ferrari all use it. You can't really consider the F1 in this account because the construct of the car is designed differently to create more aerodynamic downforce (yes, to have better grip while cornering).

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

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.

I've got a magazine article from Race Tech or Racecar Engineering somewhere that did an analysis of this. Apparently they said an F1 car would gain a potential lateral grip gain at 5-10% of torque to the front to counter tire drag. But those gains would be lost to the additional weight for a net loss. The forward grip was not a benefit due to track design, track surface, and current tire traction. Adding the increased complexity would probably decrease reliability.

They concluded that AWD would be at a disadvantage in F1.

However in racing with higher minimum weights, reduced tire traction (whether the tires themselves or surface) and less flowing track design, AWD could be an advantage. But with the exception of rally it is usually banned in those cases.

[switchlanez]

Ok I might be starting to change my mind about AWD now that some of you are bringing up valid points. For F1, I don't think they allow AWD because it takes away from the drama of the sport. There was a time in the '90s when the rules required traction control and other electronic auto-adjusting suspension nannies. Then it became more a race of cars instead of drivers so they reverted back without those things. Maybe AWD would hurt the entertainment factor.

Edit: It seems Dimman referenced an article that proves AWD is technically inferior for F1 applications.

For stock street cars, understeer seems to be the common criticism for Lambos, the R8, and the GT-R. I even see Evo/WRX owners not being fond of it. But I guess they've gotten faster than their non-AWD competition lately and I haven't been paying attention? I've always associated AWD with rally racing or a nanny/safety feature more than a sporty enhancement (and I own an AWD hatchback with WRC pedigree). Or as a way to make a supercar understeer. It's like those dual clutch gearboxes. Yeah it makes the car shift faster but it becomes less involving. Our cars are evolving to be bullet trains - go fast with less involvement. F1 cars, however, are the ultimate pinnacle/ideal that stock street cars strive towards. They share the same essential components that define a car which deems them relevant in this argument.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by switchlanez

Ok I might be starting to change my mind about AWD now that some of you are bringing up valid points. For F1, I don't think they allow AWD because it takes away from the drama of the sport. There was a time in the '90s when the rules required traction control and other electronic auto-adjusting suspension nannies. Then it became more a race of cars instead of drivers so they reverted back without those things. Maybe AWD would hurt the entertainment factor.

For stock street cars, understeer seems to be the common criticism for Lambos, the R8, and the GT-R. I even see Evo/WRX owners not being fond of it. But I guess they've gotten faster than their non-AWD competition lately and I haven't been paying attention? I've always associated AWD with rally racing or a nanny/safety feature more than a sporty enhancement (and I own an AWD hatchback with WRC pedigree). Or a way to make a supercar understeer. It's like those dual clutch gearboxes. Yeah it makes the car shift faster but it becomes less involving. Our cars are evolving to be bullet trains - go fast with less involvement.

the sad thing is that i dont think the sport or the entertainment is the reason it isnt in f1. other wise things like double diffusers, super sticky tires and sequential gearboxes would be gone (imo they should be gone). understeer doesnt equal slow. often times it inspires confidence and i would venture to say that 99% of cars today understeer in a static state.

i agree with that last statement though. its probably why that the frs, which i think is a few shades above mediocore, is such a stellar option in todays world.

[regal]

Forget racing, few of us have the budget or time for it. For the consumer if you need AWD buy a damn truck. All AWD does is kill fuel economy, decrease reliability, longeveity and add maintenance costs. The only thing gained by a consumer who knows how to drive is getting into ralley sports. Give me lightweight RWD simplicity and dependability. If there is >6 inches of snow and salt then its time to drive the rusted out 4wd pickup, happens once or twice a year where I live.


I want a car that has response to me and that I respond to as one, closed loop feedback. FWD/AWD can't compete with RWD on public roads, avoiding deer, road debris, crazy poor marked road construction surprises, geese, buzzards that fly out of nowwhere, potholes, paying attention, keeping me alert and in tune with whats happening, driving intuitively, machine and driver as one, dissolving that divide.

[raz0rbladez909]

Lol this thread certainly got derailed

[Synack]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

FWIW, the fastest car on the Top Gear power laps was... the V8 Ariel Atom.

Moral: Lightweight + high power to weight ratio = fast and maneuverable by any yardstick.

Rank your most or least favorite cars as you wish from there...

Bazinga!

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by regal

Forget racing, few of us have the budget or time for it. For the consumer if you need AWD buy a damn truck. All AWD does is kill fuel economy, decrease reliability, longeveity and add maintenance costs. The only thing gained by a consumer who knows how to drive is getting into ralley sports. Give me lightweight RWD simplicity and dependability. If there is >6 inches of snow and salt then its time to drive the rusted out 4wd pickup, happens once or twice a year where I live.


I want a car that has response to me and that I respond to as one, closed loop feedback. FWD/AWD can't compete with RWD on public roads, avoiding deer, road debris, crazy poor marked road construction surprises, geese, buzzards that fly out of nowwhere, potholes, paying attention, keeping me alert and in tune with whats happening, driving intuitively, machine and driver as one, dissolving that divide.

You sir, are a fool.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by Synack

Bazinga!

Well the v8 aim isn't s production car, it's not even the lightest car that company makes and it also has 500hp. What is the second fastest car on the list we should graph the weights and times of cars they test to see what happens

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

FWIW, the fastest car on the Top Gear power laps was... the V8 Ariel Atom.

Moral: Lightweight + high power to weight ratio = fast and maneuverable by any yardstick.

Rank your most or least favorite cars as you wish from there...

Ultima gtr is seconds faster... Oh and half a ton heavier.

[Embarrassed]

370z

Just thought it should be somewhere on this page... what with the thread name and all

O