follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Speed By Design
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum - FT86CLUB > Off-Topic Discussions > Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions

Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions Discuss all other cars and automotive news here.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2021, 01:18 PM   #15
Irace86.2.0
Non Sequitur
 
Irace86.2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Drives: Q5 + BRZ + M796
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 4,773
Thanks: 3,625
Thanked 3,612 Times in 2,058 Posts
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKz View Post
isn't 50/50 a bit overrated? I never quite understood this as I would imagine a moving car would have more weight pushed towards the rear, yes?


2000GT still the best looking 2 seater, everything else to me looks stubby. In general, I prefer the longer 2+2 GT style.
50/50 is overrated and is good too. Assuming no aerodynamic effects, no, the car at speed is identical to static. If it was positively accelerating then yes. If it was negatively accelerating then no by a lot because it would shift to the front and not the rear.

This is definitely the right proportions for hood to cabin length...sitting on the rear wheels is nice, but the overhangs are big and the wheels seem like they need to move back slightly because that rear overhang looks like a Porsche:

__________________
Irace86.2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Irace86.2.0 For This Useful Post:
HKz (03-04-2021), The Red One (03-04-2021), ZDan (03-04-2021)
Old 03-04-2021, 01:41 PM   #16
DarkSunrise
Senior Member
 
DarkSunrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Drives: 13 FR-S
Location: USA
Posts: 5,406
Thanks: 1,575
Thanked 3,753 Times in 1,996 Posts
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Interesting. I thought I’d like it visually, but the 2+2 looks much better IMO.

Still like the idea of a 2 seat FRS though (even if it wouldn’t work for my usage case).
__________________
Build Page
"I love this car. I think we wimped out when we didn't name it Best Driver's Car." -Randy Pobst on the BRZ
DarkSunrise is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DarkSunrise For This Useful Post:
Red-86 (03-04-2021)
Old 03-04-2021, 01:49 PM   #17
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKz View Post
isn't 50/50 a bit overrated? I never quite understood this as I would imagine a moving car would have more weight pushed towards the rear, yes?
"50/50" is not "perfect" weight distribution. For a rear-drive track car, more *rearward* than that would be better. (for an fwd track car you want a lot of *forward* bias)

Street usage, 205hp/2800 lb. FR car, 55/45 is no big deal. For track usage and if tenths of a second matter, it's more of a big deal. Without even getting into ability to put power down (yet), the 55/45 FT86 is murder on the front tires at the track while taking it relatively easy on the rears. At 50/50 the rears would contribute more and the fronts would be less overloaded, and I'd have more total lateral grip for cornering. Faster...

Braking is another area where 55/45 is objectively worse. Under 1-g braking with 18" c.g. height, 73% of the load is on the front tires and only 27% on the rears. Same deal, fronts are more overloaded and not developing as much stopping grip per load as grip/load curve is not linear. At 50/50 under 1g braking, it'd be 68% front and 32% rear. May not seem to be a lot, but the 50/50 car will have an advantage in braking grip with the rears contributing a lot more and fronts on the more linear portion of the load/grip curve.

And the 3rd area is of course ability to put power down. At stock power/weight, 55/45 isn't the end of the world. If you were to add power it would begin to be more of an issue. I'd feel a lot more comfortable adding power to a 50/50 (or better, more rearward!) car vs. 55/45.

Should note that a 55/45 car puts not 5% less, but 10% less load on the driven wheels vs a 50/50 car.

Yes, under acceleration the rears are loaded up somewhat, still better to have more rearward weight bias if you want to be able to put more power down. 50/50 static distribution will be able to put down significantly more power than 55/45.

Quote:
2000GT still the best looking 2 seater, everything else to me looks stubby. In general, I prefer the longer 2+2 GT style.
2000GT, 240Z, Cobra Daytona, Ferrari GTO, 275GTB, Daytona, etc., pre C8 corvettes, etc. etc., FR sports cars wanna be cab-rearward for 50/50 or BETTER (more rearward) weight distribution. Styling is another question, but the benefits of cab-rearward for weight distribution are so ingrained into me that 2+2 FR cars like the 240SX and FT86 just look *wrong* with the rear wheels shoved way aft!
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
bfrank1972 (03-05-2021), Captain Snooze (03-05-2021), HKz (03-04-2021), Irace86.2.0 (03-04-2021), Stonehorsw (03-05-2021), WolfpackS2k (03-05-2021)
Old 03-04-2021, 03:58 PM   #18
ichitaka05
Site Moderator
 
ichitaka05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Drives: ichi 86 Project
Location: Middle of No where
Posts: 19,454
Thanks: 6,354
Thanked 16,281 Times in 7,279 Posts
Mentioned: 613 Post(s)
Tagged: 27 Thread(s)
Did great job on photochopped. But it won't be THAT short in the rear. iirc when I was talking with Tada-san, about what if kinda thing and he said if 86 was 2 seater, it would of been fraction shorter in front & rear.
__________________
ichitaka05 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ichitaka05 For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (03-04-2021), nikitopo (03-05-2021), ZDan (03-04-2021)
Old 03-04-2021, 04:12 PM   #19
Red-86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Drives: 86 (sold), 370Z
Location: Australia
Posts: 353
Thanks: 518
Thanked 477 Times in 224 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
I prefer the styling of the 2+2 twins to the chopped versions, personally. If you are going for a cab rearward design, the bonnet needs more length to run with that aesthetic. Looks too stubby with the standard bonnet length and chopped rear.
Red-86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2021, 04:45 PM   #20
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichitaka05 View Post
Did great job on photochopped.
Thanks! I didn't do much really, it was a lot easier and more straightforward than expected, at least to give a decent impression

Quote:
But it won't be THAT short in the rear. iirc when I was talking with Tada-san, about what if kinda thing and he said if 86 was 2 seater, it would of been fraction shorter in front & rear.
The approach I took to improve the f/r weight distribution by making it a 2-seater was to move the rear wheels forward as far as possible, making it a much shorter-wheelbase car, ~93".

Another approach to making it a 2-seater with about the same wheelbase and overall length as the current 2+2, you could keep the wheels where they are and move the driver/passenger and engine/transmission way aft relative to the wheelbase. Could still easily achieve 50/50 or better this way, and really I'd be fine with 50/50 cab-rearward 2-seater on the existing 101" wheelbase But that exceeds my ability to make a reasonable-looking photoshop image!

2nd approach would address people's concerns about the front looking too stubby as moving the passenger cabin aft effectively lengthens the front.
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
ichitaka05 (03-04-2021)
Old 03-04-2021, 05:06 PM   #21
beltax90
Senior Member
 
beltax90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Drives: 2010 corolla
Location: california
Posts: 856
Thanks: 702
Thanked 1,005 Times in 454 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Nah, more SP2

Corrado is cab-forward FF architecture, with 2+2 hatch bent roofline
touche
beltax90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2021, 05:47 PM   #22
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
OK, don't kill me, I love Lava FR-S, but:
Attached Images
   

Last edited by ZDan; 03-04-2021 at 07:05 PM.
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
Irace86.2.0 (03-04-2021), soundman98 (03-05-2021)
Old 03-05-2021, 01:41 AM   #23
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 2.0T (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 3,100
Thanks: 120
Thanked 485 Times in 278 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
I think the roofline needed to be more low slung to match the shorter dimensions.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SUB-FT86 For This Useful Post:
Red-86 (03-05-2021)
Old 03-05-2021, 06:54 AM   #24
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUB-FT86 View Post
I think the roofline needed to be more low slung to match the shorter dimensions.
Should note that the modded pics are chosen because they're almost a dead-on side view from a height about half the height of the car to make it easy to do the short-wheelbase mod in photo editor with simple cut/paste operations. The cars do not look like this to humans more than 2'6" in the real world.
Lower roofline with the rest of the car remaining fixed would squash the greenhouse too much. I'd only lower the roof if also lowering the line from the nose to fender arches, tops of doors, hips, tails. Basically remove a ~1-2" section of body from around the whole car. Which would be cool! But beyond my skeeelz.

I think the swb orange FR-S already looks kick-ass and 1" lowering just at the suspension would achieve 85% of the desired "lower" look from there.
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2021, 11:17 AM   #25
bfrank1972
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Drives: 2013 FR-S Argento
Location: Westport,CT
Posts: 1,833
Thanks: 510
Thanked 1,026 Times in 608 Posts
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
"50/50" is not "perfect" weight distribution. For a rear-drive track car, more *rearward* than that would be better. (for an fwd track car you want a lot of *forward* bias)

Street usage, 205hp/2800 lb. FR car, 55/45 is no big deal. For track usage and if tenths of a second matter, it's more of a big deal. Without even getting into ability to put power down (yet), the 55/45 FT86 is murder on the front tires at the track while taking it relatively easy on the rears. At 50/50 the rears would contribute more and the fronts would be less overloaded, and I'd have more total lateral grip for cornering. Faster...

Braking is another area where 55/45 is objectively worse. Under 1-g braking with 18" c.g. height, 73% of the load is on the front tires and only 27% on the rears. Same deal, fronts are more overloaded and not developing as much stopping grip per load as grip/load curve is not linear. At 50/50 under 1g braking, it'd be 68% front and 32% rear. May not seem to be a lot, but the 50/50 car will have an advantage in braking grip with the rears contributing a lot more and fronts on the more linear portion of the load/grip curve.

And the 3rd area is of course ability to put power down. At stock power/weight, 55/45 isn't the end of the world. If you were to add power it would begin to be more of an issue. I'd feel a lot more comfortable adding power to a 50/50 (or better, more rearward!) car vs. 55/45.

Should note that a 55/45 car puts not 5% less, but 10% less load on the driven wheels vs a 50/50 car.

Yes, under acceleration the rears are loaded up somewhat, still better to have more rearward weight bias if you want to be able to put more power down. 50/50 static distribution will be able to put down significantly more power than 55/45.

2000GT, 240Z, Cobra Daytona, Ferrari GTO, 275GTB, Daytona, etc., pre C8 corvettes, etc. etc., FR sports cars wanna be cab-rearward for 50/50 or BETTER (more rearward) weight distribution. Styling is another question, but the benefits of cab-rearward for weight distribution are so ingrained into me that 2+2 FR cars like the 240SX and FT86 just look *wrong* with the rear wheels shoved way aft!

All 100% true - I think, however, the moderate front weight bias also contributes to the overall excellent and approachable handling characteristics of 86. Not optimized for ideal performance under braking or putting power down, but you can really explore the limits of these cars without a sphincter workout.
bfrank1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2021, 12:26 PM   #26
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfrank1972 View Post
All 100% true - I think, however, the moderate front weight bias also contributes to the overall excellent and approachable handling characteristics of 86. Not optimized for ideal performance under braking or putting power down, but you can really explore the limits of these cars without a sphincter workout.
I don't think 50/50 should feel less stable necessarily. My 987.2 2.9Cayman didn't feel more twitchy at the track with 45f/55r weight distribution. And less twitchy on the highway! I still like my BRZ better tho...
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2021, 01:29 PM   #27
WolfpackS2k
Senior Member
 
WolfpackS2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Drives: '06 Cayman S, '17 GTI Sport
Location: NC
Posts: 2,470
Thanks: 2,317
Thanked 1,389 Times in 793 Posts
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
My Cayman felt considerably more twitchy than my S2000 (to me at least).

But that's not a straight F/R weight distribution comparison. The Cayman has a very low polar moment of inertia since the mass is centralized.
__________________
Current: '12 C63 AMG P31 & '17 VW GTI Sport
'06 Porsche Cayman S - sold and missed

'13 SWP BRZ-L - Innovate Supercharged - RIP, claimed by VIR T10

'07 S2000 - DD & track rat - sold
'92 GS-R - 300k club member - sold
WolfpackS2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2021, 03:22 PM   #28
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 3,225
Thanks: 617
Thanked 2,354 Times in 1,306 Posts
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k View Post
My Cayman felt considerably more twitchy than my S2000 (to me at least).

But that's not a straight F/R weight distribution comparison. The Cayman has a very low polar moment of inertia since the mass is centralized.
Suspension geometry has more to do with it than weight distribution. Cayman is designed to be very stable/benign. S2000, especially AP1, is designed to *rotate*. My AP1 and my 240Z had the same weight distribution, but very different handling characteristics. The Z was a lot more linear, and I could drive it with utter abandon even when I had it set up poorly with too much oversteer. AP1 handling is nonlinear due to rear suspension monkey motion (toe change with bump). Do the wrong thing and the handling behavior changes instantly. Not as quick to recover.

Wait, your Cayman felt *more* twitchy? Was your S2000 an AP2 (ah, '07, so yeah)? AP2 eliminated absurd rear toe-change-with-bump the AP1 had, big improvement.

Cayman definitely felt no more twitchy to me on track vs. BRZ, which is definitely less twitchy than my AP1 was.

Last edited by ZDan; 03-05-2021 at 03:34 PM.
ZDan is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is The Crossover The New Sports Car? FT86 Vs. BMW X7 M50i Vs. Supra & 8 rennlistuser3 FR-S / BRZ vs.... 45 08-08-2020 11:22 AM
[||•]=(FT86)=[•||] SWITCHBACKS | LED DOMELIGHT | MORE LEDS --> [||•]=(FT86)=[•||] 86SPEED Interior Parts (Incl. Lighting) 10 10-25-2018 03:13 PM
Evasive FT86 Service & Maintenance Thread Discount Labor for FT86 Members Evasive Motorsports Southern California 423 10-01-2018 12:49 PM
Has the FT86 changed the sports car industry? husker741 Scion FR-S / Toyota 86 GT86 General Forum 112 10-24-2013 09:15 AM
GTS owners... difference between 'sports' abd 'vsc sports' button? UnLeasHer AUSTRALIA 5 07-26-2012 03:22 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.