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

[industrial]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I dunno Jordo is mostly quite reasonable, it's true that the FR-S sits near the bottom of the sports car pack in terms of performance. He acknowledges the strengths of the car.

Yeah, that's why it's selling like crap, all the owners are crying about how much it sucks and all the magazines hate it. Get the fuck outta here! There is more to a car than quantitative numbers gathered from laboratory settings.

[Jordo!]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Hard to agree with that statement when he throws misinformation like this out there:



That's already been proven wrong.

Buttonwillow (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 2:13.79
Miata: 2:14.23

Willow Springs (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 1:30.32
Miata: 1:31.88

And we already know the 86 gains ~2 seconds on a short track (1:30 second track) with just stickier tires. That means an 86 on stickier tires would be about 2-3 seconds faster per lap than a Miata on a short course. Basically the Miata is getting destroyed by an 86 on stickier tires.

Ehhh.... its more like a draw at best from every comparison test I've seen, winning some and losing others. It's not clear that it would gain 2+ seconds on the average.

As an entry level sports car, the FR-S is a better deal than the Miata on price and practicality but overall it's somewhere between neck-and-neck and just pulling ahead on performance.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

It's groundbreaking in the modern era of cars. If it wasn't, the 86 wouldn't be the only mass production car with a CG height that low. There's a reason only exotics and expensive sports cars can match the CG of the 86. And that's especially impressive when you consider the 86 still has 4.9" of ground clearance to work with, while the exotics that beat it have closer to 4". (Consequently that means the CG for the 86 can be lowered into the 17.1-17.6" range while maintaining real-world practicality.)

As for static camber, that only applies if you want to lower your car and prep it for the track (quite appropriately for this topic, to lower the CG). At stock heights, a macpherson strut setup can actually gain some negative camber through much of its range of articulation.

i still dont see that as groundbreaking. it just doesnt seem that important to me. if i took a 200 lb ballast and stuck it in a miata i would have a car that weighs as much and has a lower cog. doesnt really strike me as ground breaking in the hanlding department especially considering the poor weight distribution, debatably inferior suspension type, and weight. i know im sounding like i dont like the car but it isnt the case. its a neat car and im glad it exists but it doesnt rewrite the rules imo. were talking about less than an inch of cog and thats not going to do a whole lot considering that we talk about track width in feet

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Hard to agree with that statement when he throws misinformation like this out there:



That's already been proven wrong.

Buttonwillow (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 2:13.79
Miata: 2:14.23

Willow Springs (stock tires on the BRZ)

BRZ: 1:30.32
Miata: 1:31.88

And we already know the 86 gains ~2 seconds on a short track (1:30 second track) with just stickier tires. That means an 86 on stickier tires would be about 2-3 seconds faster per lap than a Miata on a short course. Basically the Miata is getting destroyed by an 86 on stickier tires.

while i dont agree whith a lot of what he says, lap times are just as much about power as they are about handling. besides, comparing track times in stock sports cars is pointless really. id like to see the cars go head to head with asts and the widest street tires you can fit in the wells but i admit thats because thats as far as i plan to go with mods

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i still dont see that as groundbreaking. it just doesnt seem that important to me. if i took a 200 lb ballast and stuck it in a miata i would have a car that weighs as much and has a lower cog. doesnt really strike me as ground breaking in the hanlding department especially considering the poor weight distribution, debatably inferior suspension type, and weight. i know im sounding like i dont like the car but it isnt the case. its a neat car and im glad it exists but it doesnt rewrite the rules imo. were talking about less than an inch of cog and thats not going to do a whole lot considering that we talk about track width in feet

If the weight is serving a purpose and it happens to improve the distribution that's not necessarily bad for handling, as the greater weight increases the normal force on the tires. Of course, all road cars are heavy enough that adding weight will not favorably impact how the tires respond, but the ballast could very well increase lateral grip as the increased force on the inside tire could outweigh the extra mass, hypothetically. Like say you mount a supercharger/turbocharger + intercooler down low, it depends on the tires obviously but theoretically you'd be able to get better grip despite the added mass.

Of course, I agree on the rest of the stuff, FRS/BRZ is quite front heavy for a RWD car and not a particular lightweight strictly speaking.

[quik1987]

In terms of aesthetics, Nissan would sell a lot more 370Z if it came with this front bumper.




Only good looking 370Z imo.

[industrial]

Wow, that kit looks amazing. That's one thing that always irked me about the 370. The lines in general on the car are beautiful but a few details just ruin the car for me. Neither the normal model with the fangs or the nismo with the disgusting spoiler and wavy lip spoiler looked right to me. The newer non-nismo models without the fangs are alright. I hated all the factory wheels for the 370 too, they did nothing for the car. Really, they just need to stick some wide work emotion kai's on there. That's a good universal look. I wonder what they were thinking sometimes.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i still dont see that as groundbreaking. it just doesnt seem that important to me. if i took a 200 lb ballast and stuck it in a miata i would have a car that weighs as much and has a lower cog. doesnt really strike me as ground breaking in the hanlding department especially considering the poor weight distribution, debatably inferior suspension type, and weight. i know im sounding like i dont like the car but it isnt the case. its a neat car and im glad it exists but it doesnt rewrite the rules imo. were talking about less than an inch of cog and thats not going to do a whole lot considering that we talk about track width in feet

Sort of agree on your 200 lb ballast point, but it's not quite that simple. You'd have to find a way to mount those 200 lbs pretty far below the CG height on the Miata for it to have the intended effect (and without affecting the suspension). Not to mention the negative effect the 200 lbs will have on acceleration, braking, handling, etc.

Also 0.9" in CG height makes a significant difference. I think you're selling it short. A standard overly-simple calculation for lateral g is:

g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]

Using that formula, if you raise the CG height on an 86 from 18.1" --> 19.0" and keep all else equal, you would decrease lateral grip from 0.900 --> 0.857. Not to mention the effect of the 0.9" raised CG on non-steady state cornering (like a slalom).

But even taking this away from the theoretical, if you've ever driven a GR STI back-to-back compared with a 370z, consider there's only a 1" difference in CG between the two. Pretty eye-opening, isn't it?

CG is one of the most important factors that will determine a car's handling (along with curb weight, balance, and polar moment of inertia), with even a 1" difference in CG being fairly significant.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If the weight is serving a purpose and it happens to improve the distribution that's not necessarily bad for handling, as the greater weight increases the normal force on the tires. Of course, all road cars are heavy enough that adding weight will not favorably impact how the tires respond, but the ballast could very well increase lateral grip as the increased force on the inside tire could outweigh the extra mass, hypothetically. Like say you mount a supercharger/turbocharger + intercooler down low, it depends on the tires obviously but theoretically you'd be able to get better grip despite the added mass.

Of course, I agree on the rest of the stuff, FRS/BRZ is quite front heavy for a RWD car and not a particular lightweight strictly speaking.

They do something like that in circle track racing. They call it 'wedging' the chassis. Some actually pour molten lead into lower frame tubes.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Jordo!

Ehhh.... its more like a draw at best from every comparison test I've seen, winning some and losing others. It's not clear that it would gain 2+ seconds on the average.

As an entry level sports car, the FR-S is a better deal than the Miata on price and practicality but overall it's somewhere between neck-and-neck and just pulling ahead on performance.

Where have you ever seen a Miata put down a faster laptime than an 86, stock v. stock? All else equal, the 86 is the faster car around the track.

And mounting sticky tires on the 86 means it will demolish the Miata, roughly 2-3 seconds per lap on a ~1:30 course. This has all been proven already.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Sort of agree on your 200 lb ballast point, but it's not quite that simple. You'd have to find a way to mount those 200 lbs pretty far below the CG height on the Miata for it to have the intended effect (and without affecting the suspension). Not to mention the negative effect the 200 lbs will have on acceleration, braking, handling, etc.

Also 0.9" in CG height makes a significant difference. I think you're selling it short. A standard overly-simple calculation for lateral g is:

g = [weight transfer x track width] / [weight x CG]

Using that formula, if you raise the CG height on an 86 from 18.1" --> 19.0" and keep all else equal, you would decrease lateral grip from 0.900 --> 0.857. Not to mention the effect of the 0.9" raised CG on non-steady state cornering (like a slalom).

But even taking this away from the theoretical, if you've ever driven a GR STI back-to-back compared with a 370z, consider there's only a 1" difference in CG between the two. Pretty eye-opening, isn't it?

CG is one of the most important factors that will determine a car's handling (along with curb weight, balance, and polar moment of inertia), with even a 1" difference in CG being fairly significant.

its not that hard to get the weight down low and i dont think its a good thing. i just used 200 because its about the weight difference bewteen a miata and an frs so al that negative weight youre talking about is inherently a part of the frs. and that formula only works relatively. it has nearly no use when comparing two different vehicles. my whole point was that if mazda mada a miata with an extra 200 lbs on the floor it would have a better cog than the groundbreaking frs despite being worse than the miata we have today

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

its not that hard to get the weight down low and i dont think its a good thing. i just used 200 because its about the weight difference bewteen a miata and an frs so al that negative weight youre talking about is inherently a part of the frs. and that formula only works relatively. it has nearly no use when comparing two different vehicles. my whole point was that if mazda mada a miata with an extra 200 lbs on the floor it would have a better cog than the groundbreaking frs despite being worse than the miata we have today

Read again, I was using the formula on the same car, the 86. The point is that 1" difference in CG makes a large difference in handling.

And yes you can add 200 lbs on the Miata but as you admit, it'd be a worse car than the current Miata (and worse than the 86). I don't follow where you're going with that. The 86's CG (yes, relative to its overall weight, dimensions, specific output, etc.) is impressive. I don't see how theoretically adding 200 lbs to a Miata and lowering its overall CG (while killing its acceleration, handling, braking, etc.) changes anything.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Read again, I was using the formula on the same car, the 86. The point is that 1" difference in CG makes a large difference in handling.

And yes you can add 200 lbs on the Miata but as you admit, it'd be a worse car than the current Miata (and worse than the 86). I don't follow where you're going with that. The 86's CG (yes, relative to its overall weight, dimensions, specific output, etc.) is impressive. I don't see how theoretically adding 200 lbs to a Miata and lowering its overall CG (while killing its acceleration, handling, braking, etc.) changes anything.

i know what you meant but i hardly think its fair to say that that because .9" would be a big deal from one frs to another, the .9" between the frs and the miata is groundbraking

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i know what you meant but i hardly think its fair to say that that because .9" would be a big deal from one frs to another, the .9" between the frs and the miata is groundbraking

Well I guess there's one area we agree. The Miata and FR-S are different cars in a lot of respects. As much as you think the 0.9" CG difference between the two is irrelevant because they're different cars, I think the hypothetical of adding 200 lbs below the CG of the Miata is irrelevant for the same reason. When the Miata matches the 86's CG, while increasing ride height by half an inch, adding two seats, matching specific output, exterior dimensions, upgrading brakes, etc. and only gains 200 lbs, I'll say the FR-S's CG isn't groundbreaking.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Well I guess there's one area we agree. The Miata and FR-S are different cars in a lot of respects. As much as you think the 0.9" CG difference between the two is irrelevant because they're different cars, I think the hypothetical of adding 200 lbs below the CG of the Miata is irrelevant for the same reason. When the Miata matches the 86's CG, while increasing ride height by half an inch, adding two seats, matching specific output, exterior dimensions, upgrading brakes, etc. and only gains 200 lbs, I'll say the FR-S's CG isn't groundbreaking.

yeah im only arguing to show that its only one side of the coin. i could just as easily say that once the frs gets a vert top and double wishbone suspension while losing 200 lbs then it would be groundbreaking. the point is that its a pretty normal car and the summation of all the things about it falls into pretty normal territory.