Stock ride height or lower?

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

if they would have made it drop-friendly then it would have suffered in stock trim.

the wheel gap is aesthetics, and much like the fender line, which has gotten wider and flatter, it's just a sign of the times.

Actually if they wanted to make it drop friendly it would have been better as a stock trim. AKA going Multi-link suspension up front would have a better adjustable range and suffered less geometrical changes in motorsports tuning.

wheel gap is really just a byproduct of many different things in building a car, which includes adhearing to transport law.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

Actually if they wanted to make it drop friendly it would have been better as a stock trim. AKA going Multi-link suspension up front would have a better adjustable range and suffered less geometrical changes in motorsports tuning.

wheel gap is really just a byproduct of many different things in building a car, which includes adhearing to transport law.

too bad they stuck that boxer motor in there to get in the way of your suspension idea. wheel gap isnt a product of anything more than how they design the fenders.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by fatoni

too bad they stuck that boxer motor in there to get in the way of your suspension idea. wheel gap isnt a product of anything more than how they design the fenders.

I know right! stuipd fat ass boxer..taking up so much lateral space that we cant fit good suspension with making the car stuipd fat.

Fenders...yeah design plays the biggest role when we see gap, when i model cars in 3D rendering programs its more apparent than suspension...but to say its the only factor and nothing more is kinda over reaching.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

i like wheel gap, but i hate wheels that are tucked inside the car.

saying that Toyota/Subaru messed up because they made a well balanced OEM car is well, silly

We can agree to disagree on aesthetics. You like the WRC look, I like hunkered down. As such, you don't mind the FR-S/BRZ in stock ride height form, whereas I find it unappealing and in need of fixing. At no point did I mention handling balance, as that is not the thesis of this thread.

What you're confusing is assuming that the stance [wheel gap] and handling are strictly correlative. I did not say it was silly to make a well balanced [handling] car, I said the stock wheel gap looks hideous. Don't confuse the two.

You write in other threads how suspension tuning is compromise. This is accurate. Then, you mention:

Originally Posted by 7thgear

if they would have made it drop-friendly then it would have suffered in stock trim.

What compromises do you think was given to the OEM suspension tuning? Certainly they did not tune for maximum grip, as the tires don't support this, nor the platforms' thesis of handling. They could be leaving performance, or even driver feedback on the table in a calculated move to improve the car down the long 10 year platform road. At this point we simply don't know for sure. Making a blanket statement like you did with no first-hand knowledge of the suspension geometry is awfully naive.

[#87]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

...or the ride height of my daily driven Golf TDI. At his photographed ride height, there is zero wheel gap, however the suspension still has 2" of compression travel and no rubbing whatsoever. This is because the car has wheel wells, like every modern car. YMMV, Chrysler's have very shallow wheel wells. FR-S/BRZ wheel well clearance TBD, of course.

Man I'm a sucker for silver cars with silver wheels and tinted windows

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

What compromises do you think was given to the OEM suspension tuning? Certainly they did not tune for maximum grip, as the tires don't support this, nor the platforms' thesis of handling. They could be leaving performance, or even driver feedback on the table in a calculated move to improve the car down the long 10 year platform road. At this point we simply don't know for sure. Making a blanket statement like you did with no first-hand knowledge of the suspension geometry is awfully naive.

i was going off the bits found here:

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...cion-fr-s.aspx

plus general understanding of MacPherson strutted cars (owned and tracked VW Golf, now tracking a Subaru RS) not to mention my general goal in life to drive slow cars fast. (can you even call that a goal? hahaha,)

[Ryephile]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to give you a hard time per se, you were making some sweeping generalizations of the FR-S/BRZ without first hand knowledge.

MotoIQ does a pretty good job explaining things most of the time. Like they say in their write-up, they were looking at the much-lowered Greddy car, and even then they admitted the car was pre-production, so it's just a tiny bit premature to put the geometry nail in the coffin.

Peace :happy0180:

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

I know right! stuipd fat ass boxer..taking up so much lateral space that we cant fit good suspension with making the car stuipd fat.

Fenders...yeah design plays the biggest role when we see gap, when i model cars in 3D rendering programs its more apparent than suspension...but to say its the only factor and nothing more is kinda over reaching.

what i meant about the fender being the only factor is that no matter what kind of constraints you may be worried about can be fixed by changing the wheel well design. it is my suspicion that they make these wheel gaps because they want a low slung car but have to build to pedestrian impact standards so instead of building a tall car they carry on as usual and then lift the car until the govt is happy. that way when we lower the car to where we want, the gap is gone without us looking were slammed on megans or some junk

[CyberFormula]

when did we find out that the boxer engine will get in the way of the type of suspension we can use?

if this is true....i sense the 2nd generation 86 will have something new.

[serialk11r]

It's just wide, so they can't fit double wishbone suspension. But a lot of high end cars use MacPherson struts so is this really an issue?

I just noticed the Greddy has more drop on the front. I don't like how there is no visible gap :/ Supercars have fenders that FIT despite being low and having a small gap., when you have the tire starting to tuck it doesn't look natural.

[Dark]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

It's just wide, so they can't fit double wishbone suspension. But a lot of high end cars use MacPherson struts so is this really an issue?

I just noticed the Greddy has more drop on the front. I don't like how there is no visible gap :/ Supercars have fenders that FIT despite being low and having a small gap., when you have the tire starting to tuck it doesn't look natural.

There is no issue at all. Proper tuned strut is better than okay tuned double wishbond. Look Mustang Boss 302.

[WingsofWar]

Originally Posted by CyberFormula

when did we find out that the boxer engine will get in the way of the type of suspension we can use?

if this is true....i sense the 2nd generation 86 will have something new.

Originally Posted by serialk11r

It's just wide, so they can't fit double wishbone suspension. But a lot of high end cars use MacPherson struts so is this really an issue?

I just noticed the Greddy has more drop on the front. I don't like how there is no visible gap :/ Supercars have fenders that FIT despite being low and having a small gap., when you have the tire starting to tuck it doesn't look natural.

Yep serialk11r is correct. Unlike V or I configuration engines, the H configuration engine sits at full width at the mounting points. Forcing the chassis to accept a wider engine means increasing the total width of the engine bay at the base frame. This removes less space in the wheel well volume of a similarly sized built car and limits the movement and space of a multi-link suspension.

Heres an illustration i conjured up just now..just to get an idea.

[7thgear]

i don't see the flat engine as being a problem for suspension design, esp soemthing small like the 2 liter.

the engine sits on top of a cross-member and the lower control arms are attached to that cross member.
So regardless of where the engine is, the lower control arms COULD be as long as you want, even so long as to mount at the center of the car.

Since the engine is flat, they could have designed the upper control arms to attached above the engine with a bulge or something (if it's anything like my subaru, there is at least 5" between the inner strut tower and the engine)

the shock mount could have left the same.



MacPherson struts are awesome, and i think for the intended purpose are better than multi-link. Setup is key.


What I'm really curious about though, is why they didn't build the engine bay similar to an S2000, engine sits way back relative to the front axle and there is this nice thick beam connecting the front of the car, which also acts as reinforcement for the suspension pick-up point.

also, one problem of flat engines is that the exhaust manifolds and oilpans necessitate that the actual engine sit about 4-5" higher than it could. So you're moving 95% of the mass 5" upward just because of some pipes and an oil pan, which could otherwise be converted to a dry sump system.

[LSxJunkie]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

i don't see the flat engine as being a problem for suspension design, esp soemthing small like the 2 liter.

the engine sits on top of a cross-member and the lower control arms are attached to that cross member.
So regardless of where the engine is, the lower control arms COULD be as long as you want, even so long as to mount at the center of the car.

Since the engine is flat, they could have designed the upper control arms to attached above the engine with a bulge or something (if it's anything like my subaru, there is at least 5" between the inner strut tower and the engine)

the shock mount could have left the same.



MacPherson struts are awesome, and i think for the intended purpose are better than multi-link. Setup is key.


What I'm really curious about though, is why they didn't build the engine bay similar to an S2000, engine sits way back relative to the front axle and there is this nice thick beam connecting the front of the car, which also acts as reinforcement for the suspension pick-up point.

also, one problem of flat engines is that the exhaust manifolds and oilpans necessitate that the actual engine sit about 4-5" higher than it could. So you're moving 95% of the mass 5" upward just because of some pipes and an oil pan, which could otherwise be converted to a dry sump system.

The S2000 was a 2 seater with a tiny trunk. You could mount the motor farther back because you could push the cabin farther back. No back seats, tiny trunk.