'17 Toyota 86 vs '17 Maza MX-5

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

In winter you don't need wide tires. In fact thinner tires are more optimal in rainy or snow conditions. So, camber helps even in this case for braking.

Not correct. There remains a myth that snow requires "narrower" tires than bare pavement. If that were ever true it isn't any longer. Also, wet road performance with wider tires is comparable.

Camber reduces braking performance unless you really are riding a motorcycle.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Go back and see who started slinging insults first... hint, wasn't me.



And what's your backup? You have nothing but your own opinion. Once again you're claiming to be more knowledgeable than actual experts (suspension engineers, race car designers/builders, etc).



Annnnnnnd, you've argued yourself in a circle. You took the bait and gave the answer I was hoping you would.. Glad you're finally seeing the light as to why a good camber curve from double wishbones/multi link suspension is beneficial. Less static camber is good for braking and acceleration, and keeping the tire flat with negative camber under lateral load is good for cornering grip.



5 winters on the car, 4 lowered with more camber, zero close calls and I can outbrake other cars on comparable snow tires. Want video next winter with measurements? What will you argue then?


You'd probably be shocked how little body roll it takes on our cars to push the front tires well into the positive camber range. This is the stock alignment, the tire is easily into the 4*+ positive range. It's not scientific, but you can also clearly see how much more vertical the rear tire is under the same lateral load.

In which post do I make an ad hominem argument?

Not sure what you wish me to back up, specific reference would help.

You might identify where I have said that camber relative to the road is not important. The issue under discussion is your assertion that the double wishbone front suspension fitted to an MX5 was superior to the McPherson strut suspension fitted to the BRZ, and in the face of slightly superior lap times of the BRZ on grossly inferior tires. You might explain how you support that argument in light of objective reality.

Here's Michelins advice for track use of their premier street tire:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret...nd_Feeding.pdf

For street use on more ordinary tires less negative camber will work better. Even for track use Michelin warns that negative camber reduces braking performance.

Your claimed expertise in winter braking is laughable and impossible so yes I'd like objective evidence of your car's ability to outperform its own ABS. I presume you understand that ABS means the car is doing all the skilled part of braking, no?

Your photo is of your car, after the big static negative front camber? How about an MX5 with its fabulous double wishbone front suspension at the same corner, same speed? To make your point you need to have a snowy track.....

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Not sure what you wish me to back up, specific reference would help.

Any time you claim something as fact.

Originally Posted by Gforce

You might identify where I have said that camber relative to the road is not important. The issue under discussion is your assertion that the double wishbone front suspension fitted to an MX5 was superior to the McPherson strut suspension fitted to the BRZ, and in the face of slightly superior lap times of the BRZ on grossly inferior tires. You might explain how you support that argument in light of objective reality.

How about a different review where the Miata is 1.5 seconds faster? Yes it's a 2015 BRZ, but the 2017's are not 1.5 seconds faster than 2015's.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda...rz-comparison/

Originally Posted by Gforce

Here's Michelins advice for track use of their premier street tire:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret...nd_Feeding.pdf

For street use on more ordinary tires less negative camber will work better. Even for track use Michelin warns that negative camber reduces braking performance.

If this is the warning you speak of, it's hardly a warning, it's tuning advice.

Originally Posted by PDF

Also, when driving on a track that requires more hard braking, your car may benefit from less negative camber. This should improve straight-line braking, but will typically result in a slight loss of ultimate grip in the middle of the corner

Did you also see the camber range they suggest? -1.5 to -3 is their ideal range, with a maximum of -4. All of that outside the stock range of our cars, which by your logic means it'll have issues under braking.

Originally Posted by Gforce

Your claimed expertise in winter braking is laughable and impossible so yes I'd like objective evidence of your car's ability to outperform its own ABS. I presume you understand that ABS means the car is doing all the skilled part of braking, no?

Where did I say I could outperform ABS? I simply said my car as it sits in the winter stops faster than other cars on comparable tires. Dry, wet or snow. You're hell bent on arguing to the point that you're not even reading anymore.

Originally Posted by Gforce

Your photo is of your car, after the big static negative front camber? How about an MX5 with its fabulous double wishbone front suspension at the same corner, same speed? To make your point you need to have a snowy track.....

And again, totally not reading what you're arguing.

You'd probably be shocked how little body roll it takes on our cars to push the front tires well into the positive camber range. This is the stock alignment, the tire is easily into the 4*+ positive range. It's not scientific, but you can also clearly see how much more vertical the rear tire is under the same lateral load.

Also, that part of my post had nothing to do with winter driving, so why are you asking for a snowy track? The point was how easy it is to push the front tires well beyond vertical into the positive camber range despite your claims that the stiffer suspension keeps the front tires flat.

I don't need a miata on the same track/corner and same speed to know that these cars need more static camber up front than in the rear to equalize tire usage under lateral load, all due to the lack of any camber gain up front under compression. I've looked at enough of these cars, and seen first hand how much harder the front tires are being rolled over to not need to compare to another car. Comparing front to rear shows everything you need to see.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Not correct. There remains a myth that snow requires "narrower" tires than bare pavement. If that were ever true it isn't any longer. Also, wet road performance with wider tires is comparable.

Camber reduces braking performance unless you really are riding a motorcycle.

The narrow tire grips better and minimizes the risk of aquaplaning. It also gives better snow grip.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

The narrow tire grips better and minimizes the risk of aquaplaning. It also gives better snow grip.

Well, it doesn't, actually. You are confusing the performance of racing tires and road car tires. Aquaplaning is reduced by tread pattern. Tire width has very little effect, over the range of widths we're discussing.

Snow tires no longer need to "cut through the snow" to work properly. That's not how they work.

There is no reason to fit narrower tires for winter use any longer, if there ever were.

Narrower tires give a small advantage in traction for acceleration but the disadvantages in braking and cornering more than offset that modest difference.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Any time you claim something as fact.



How about a different review where the Miata is 1.5 seconds faster? Yes it's a 2015 BRZ, but the 2017's are not 1.5 seconds faster than 2015's.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda...rz-comparison/



If this is the warning you speak of, it's hardly a warning, it's tuning advice.



Did you also see the camber range they suggest? -1.5 to -3 is their ideal range, with a maximum of -4. All of that outside the stock range of our cars, which by your logic means it'll have issues under braking.



Where did I say I could outperform ABS? I simply said my car as it sits in the winter stops faster than other cars on comparable tires. Dry, wet or snow. You're hell bent on arguing to the point that you're not even reading anymore.



And again, totally not reading what you're arguing.



Also, that part of my post had nothing to do with winter driving, so why are you asking for a snowy track? The point was how easy it is to push the front tires well beyond vertical into the positive camber range despite your claims that the stiffer suspension keeps the front tires flat.

I don't need a miata on the same track/corner and same speed to know that these cars need more static camber up front than in the rear to equalize tire usage under lateral load, all due to the lack of any camber gain up front under compression. I've looked at enough of these cars, and seen first hand how much harder the front tires are being rolled over to not need to compare to another car. Comparing front to rear shows everything you need to see.

ROFL.

Did you notice the missing roof on the Miata? Ever consider that the lighter vehicle weight gave the advantage to the Mazda?

And so on, give up while you still can.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

Snow tires no longer need to "cut through the snow" to work properly. That's not how they work.

There is no reason to fit narrower tires for winter use any longer, if there ever were.

Narrower tires give a small advantage in traction for acceleration but the disadvantages in braking and cornering more than offset that modest difference.

The whole discussion started because you said that negative camber is not good during winter and we are trying to explain to you that there is no issue. That's not how it works, because gforce/suberman/ubersuber says so? You are funny.



Rally Sweden

Originally Posted by Gforce

ROFL.

Give up while you still can.

@wparsons does not have to afraid anything from you. You've been banned twice and the new ban is coming soon.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

ROFL.

Did you notice the missing roof on the Miata? Ever consider that the lighter vehicle weight gave the advantage to the Mazda?

And so on, give up while you still can.

Do you honestly believe that the ~100lbs is worth 1.5 seconds per lap? Good luck with that theory.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by wparsons

Do you honestly believe that the ~100lbs is worth 1.5 seconds per lap? Good luck with that theory.

I believe you'll find the convertible MX5 could be as much as 500 lbs lighter than the lightest BRZ...

And I think the 2017 BRZ might be as much as 1.5 seconds faster than previous model years.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Gforce

I believe you'll find the convertible MX5 could be as much as 500 lbs lighter than the lightest BRZ...

the hardtop miata is 100lbs heavier than the soft top, so why he said 100bs. Remember you are the one saying that soft-top is such a big advantage. There are more reasons for brz being 500lbs heavier than a soft-top. I am amused you chose the soft-top as the thing to focus on instead of say, lack of rear seats.

Man, I kind of am hoping you are a troll. I kind of feel sorry for you if this is how you really think. It must be hard to go through life thinking the world is out to get you instead of realizing your own lack of expertise.

[why?]

Originally Posted by totopo

the hardtop miata is 100lbs heavier than the soft top, so why he said 100bs. Remember you are the one saying that soft-top is such a big advantage. There are more reasons for brz being 500lbs heavier than a soft-top. I am amused you chose the soft-top as the thing to focus on instead of say, lack of rear seats.

Man, I kind of am hoping you are a troll. I kind of feel sorry for you if this is how you really think. It must be hard to go through life thinking the world is out to get you instead of realizing your own lack of expertise.

he's one of the dumbest humans you will ever encounter, why anyone argues with him is beyond me.

[Gforce]

Originally Posted by totopo

the hardtop miata is 100lbs heavier than the soft top, so why he said 100bs. Remember you are the one saying that soft-top is such a big advantage. There are more reasons for brz being 500lbs heavier than a soft-top. I am amused you chose the soft-top as the thing to focus on instead of say, lack of rear seats.

Man, I kind of am hoping you are a troll. I kind of feel sorry for you if this is how you really think. It must be hard to go through life thinking the world is out to get you instead of realizing your own lack of expertise.

The comparison invited by posting the link to the 2015 video was of the convertible Miata v the BRZ. Motor Trend suggested that the Miata enjoyed an 18% torque to weight advantage over the BRZ, which suggests the Miata was around 400-500 lbs lighter.

The RF hardtop MX5 is more like 100 lbs lighter than the BRZ, and slower.

The BRZ is faster out of the corners onto the straights. The MX5 does very well in the transitions, a known weakness of the BRZ. Put the same tires on the BRZ and the BRZ will be faster than the MX5 RF everywhere.

The op post linking to the 2017 motor trend video shows a track position tracker which illustrates the comparative advantage of the two cars. Why anyone would try and claim one is superior to the other as a sportscar purchase is beyond me. The market agrees as the two types of sportscar enjoy roughly equal sales, the 2017 MX5 has rejuvenated sales and it looks like the really good upgrades Subaru has made to the 2017 model is set to boost their sales also. I'd happily buy one of each. Maybe I will....

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by Gforce

I believe you'll find the convertible MX5 could be as much as 500 lbs lighter than the lightest BRZ...

Originally Posted by Gforce

The comparison invited by posting the link to the 2015 video was of the convertible Miata v the BRZ. Motor Trend suggested that the Miata enjoyed an 18% torque to weight advantage over the BRZ, which suggests the Miata was around 400-500 lbs lighter.

The RF hardtop MX5 is more like 100 lbs lighter than the BRZ, and slower.

Facts really aren't your thing, are they?

From mazda.ca:

Soft top: 1058kg - 2324lbs
RF: 1114kg - 2447lbs

From toyota.ca
86: 1252kg - 2750lbs

I was slightly off, the RF is actually 123lbs heavier, not 100lbs, but the point still stands and still A LOT closer than your statement. The lightest 86 is still 300lbs heavier than the heaviest miata, which is 3x the 100lbs you're claiming.

Originally Posted by Gforce

And I think the 2017 BRZ might be as much as 1.5 seconds faster than previous model years.

You'll find that actual track data doesn't support your theory.

Originally Posted by Gforce

The BRZ is faster out of the corners onto the straights. The MX5 does very well in the transitions, a known weakness of the BRZ. Put the same tires on the BRZ and the BRZ will be faster than the MX5 RF everywhere.

Based on what? The reviews state that the miata has more grip and higher cornering speeds, but is slower in transitions.

[Gforce]

Check out the position trace in the lap diagram shown on the video (begins at 12:58). The BRZ beats the MX5 on the straights coming out of the corner before the straight. Simple reason is much more power. The MX5 has the performance pack (upgraded brake package, Bilstein shocks), the 86 does not. A BRZ with PP should beat the MX5 more convincingly. Fit pp s001 to the BRZ and the MX5 would be left in its dust.

As for the argument about the vehicle weights I think the 15-20% weight advantage accounts for the convertible Miata beating the older BRZ and the 3-5% weight advantage of the MX5 RF is clearly not enough to beat the suspension improvements Subaru finally made to the BRZ. Improvements I too have made thanks to the factory finally making rear springs with the correct spring rate for good handling.

As I wish to emphasize for the original poster that nobody should choose between these cars based on the type of front suspension it has. The close real world performance should be sufficient proof that McPherson struts can be built to work just as effectively as double wishbones. And they hold their factory alignment settings forever.

PS the published curb weight for the BRZ with pp is 1278 kg. (2812 lbs for our American friends). You're just supporting my argument that the new BRZ is a much better handler than the MX5, if you consider how much bigger it is. But you are right I confused my recollection of the weight difference between the two MX5 versions with the weight difference between the MX5 and the BRZ. Thanks for clearing that up. It makes me more right than I thought I was.