RE: Honda S2000 GT 100 Edition

[HAB]

kambites said:

I would say that 40:60 is better than 50:50 in a RWD car but it's entirely down to personal preference. The idea that 50:50 is "perfect" is BMW marketing crap.

It's not marketing crap at all. In a front engined RWD car, the ideal weight distribution is 50/50. In a mid/rear engined car it isn't. (usually) You can't just make sweeping comparisons in weight distribution without taking into account whether the car is mid engined or front engined RWD. It doesn't work like that.

[kambites]

I don't see how the location of the engine can change the optimal weight distribution. It obviously places certain constraints on what it's practicable to achieve, but it doesn't change the ideal.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 13:46

[HAB]

kambites said:

I don't see how the location of the engine can change the optimal weight distribution. It obviously places certain constraints on what it's practicable to achieve, but it doesn't change the ideal.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 13:46

There is no ideal that works for every application. Its inherently variable and as I said, depends primarily on the layout. To say that BMW 50/50 is 'marketing crap' is just wrong. Because it is correct for that specific layout. As an extreme example, the Porsche 917/30 Can Am had nearly 30/70 to aid traction for 1300 odd bhp. It was mid engined btw. That was the optimum for that particualr application. Its the same (albeit to a lesser degree) principle for all cars.

Edited by HAB on Thursday 6th August 14:01

[kambites]

HAB said:

kambites said:

I don't see how the location of the engine can change the optimal weight distribution. It obviously places certain constraints on what it's practicable to achieve, but it doesn't change the ideal.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 13:46

There is no ideal that works for every application. Its inherently variable and as I said, depends primarily on the layout. To say that BMW 50/50 is 'marketing crap' is just wrong. Because it is correct for that specific layout. As an extreme example, the Porsche 917/30 Can Am had nearly 30/70 to aid traction for 1300 odd bhp. It was mid engined btw. That was the optimum for that particualr application. Its the same (albeit to a lesser degree) principle for all cars.

So what you're saying is that 50/50 is perfect for one kind of car on one kind of road in one kind of weather with one kind of driver? OK I'll admit that, but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

[HAB]

kambites said:

but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

They can claim whatever, but its quite easy to see if they're telling porkies.

[kambites]

HAB said:

kambites said:

but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

They can claim whatever, but its quite easy to see if they're telling porkies.

As, I would argue, are BMW because a 50/50 weight distribution clearly gives inferior traction in a RWD car whilst gaining little or nothing in the way of handling balance over a slightly more rear biased setup.

As I said, I think it's all down to personal preference. Some people even prefer heavily front biased FWD cars.

[sami_voodoo]

kambites said:

HAB said:

kambites said:

but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

They can claim whatever, but its quite easy to see if they're telling porkies.

As, I would argue, are BMW because a 50/50 weight distribution clearly gives inferior traction in a RWD car whilst gaining little or nothing in the way of handling balance over a slightly more rear biased setup.

As I said, I think it's all down to personal preference. Some people even prefer heavily front biased FWD cars.

Volvo 850 Estate touring car - Part 3

With two designs in place, the Volvo was able to run close to a 50/50 weight distribution, which when coupled with the car's extremely wide track should have made it's cornering ability second to none. Unfortunately, what TWR found was that the car performed badly through slow corners as a lack of direct weight over the front axle caused the front wheels to loose grip, but through fast corners the car performed extremely well.

[kambites]

Quite.

[HAB]

kambites said:

HAB said:

kambites said:

but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

They can claim whatever, but its quite easy to see if they're telling porkies.

As, I would argue, are BMW because a 50/50 weight distribution clearly gives inferior traction in a RWD car whilst gaining little or nothing in the way of handling balance over a slightly more rear biased setup.

Just not true. And BMW are not telling lies. 50/50 for that particular application is correct. If you moved more weight rearwards, the handling balance would be less predictable, and there is no need for more traction because BMW make saloon cars, not race cars.

Tell me, how many front engined/RWD saloon cars have a rearward weight bias? Do you know more than BMW about chassis configuration for road cars?

Edited by HAB on Thursday 6th August 14:34

[kambites]

HAB said:

kambites said:

HAB said:

kambites said:

but by that definition every manufacturer could claim that every one of their cars had perfect weight distribution.

They can claim whatever, but its quite easy to see if they're telling porkies.

As, I would argue, are BMW because a 50/50 weight distribution clearly gives inferior traction in a RWD car whilst gaining little or nothing in the way of handling balance over a slightly more rear biased setup.

Just not true. And BMW are not telling lies. 50/50 for that particular application is correct. If you moved more weight rearwards, the handling balance would be less predictable, and there is no need for more traction because BMW make saloon cars, not race cars.

Tell me, how many front engined/RWD saloon cars have a rearward weight bias? Do you know more than BMW about chassis configuration for saloon cars?

No of course I don't. I just know enough about physics and driving to know that weight balance is a trade off and a matter of personal preference and that the idea that one configuration is "best" is crap.

Besides, even if there was an absolute "best" I find it hard to stomach that by complete coincidence it happens to be exactly 50/50.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 14:35

[HAB]

Once more.

There is no best, there is no optimal, there is no ideal. There is no right or wrong. It depends on the configuration and the application.

[kambites]

HAB said:

Once more.

There is no best, there is no optimal, there is no ideal. There is no right or wrong. It depends on the configuration and the application.

And the road and the conditions and the driver. So how is BMW saying that 50/50 is "optimal" not lying? Or at least bending the truth to the point of breaking? Unless they know exactly how and where every one of their cars will be driven.

[HAB]

kambites said:

HAB said:

Once more.

There is no best, there is no optimal, there is no ideal. There is no right or wrong. It depends on the configuration and the application.

And the road and the conditions and the driver. So how is BMW saying that 50/50 is "optimal" not lying? Or at least bending the truth to the point of breaking? Unless they know exactly how and where every one of their cars will be driven.

You don't half talk a lot of ste. Do you really think its possible for a car to be optimally designed for every road/driver/weather??? I've explained why 50/50 is as close to ideal as possible for a front engined/rwd road car. I could find dozens of sources that back this up.

Now it's your turn to tell me why it isn't. Without any of the usual pseudo technical pyschobabble, if you don't mind.

Edited by HAB on Thursday 6th August 14:53

[kambites]

HAB said:

You don't half talk a lot of ste. Do you really think its possible for a car to be optimally designed for every road/driver/weather???

Of course it isn't. That's exactly what I was saying. You seemed to be saying that it was possible and that that lead to 50/50 weight distribution.

There are various reasons why it might not be. Cars run different camber and toe front to rear so the contact patch size and slip angle vary differently front to rear as the car starts to lean; you typically spend more time on the throttle than on the brakes when turning, so your average weight distribution when cornering is more rear-biased than the static weight distribution of the vehicle; obviously you get better traction with the weight further back (assuming RWD); you get more even distribution of weight under braking if the static weight distribution is rear biased;...

I will concede that 50/50 would be best in a 4WD car with symmetrical front and rear wheel steering, enough power to break traction at any speed and a person who could trail brake as effectively as they could balance the throttle driving it. I think that's perhaps pushing the boundaries of reality a bit though.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th August 15:03

[HAB]

kambites said:

HAB said:

You don't half talk a lot of ste. Do you really think its possible for a car to be optimally designed for every road/driver/weather???

Of course it isn't. That's exactly what I was saying. You seemed to be saying that it was possible and that that lead to 50/50 weight distribution.

earlier kambites said:

It obviously places certain constraints on what it's practicable to achieve, but it doesn't change the ideal.

One minute you say there is an ideal, the next there you say there isn't (which is what I've been saying all along, in case you missed it)

If your going to bullst, at least be consistent.

For the last time, there are optimal configurations for specific applications, geddit?

[HAB]

kambites said:

There are various reasons why it might not be. Cars run different camber and toe front to rear so the contact patch size and slip angle vary differently front to rear as the car starts to lean; you typically spend more time on the throttle than on the brakes when turning, so your average weight distribution when cornering is more rear-biased than the static weight distribution of the vehicle; obviously you get better traction with the weight further back (assuming RWD); you get more even distribution of weight under braking if the static weight distribution is rear biased;...

I will concede that 50/50 would be best in a 4WD car with symmetrical front and rear wheel steering, enough power to break traction at any speed and a person who could trail brake as effectively as they could balance the throttle driving it. I think that's perhaps pushing the boundaries of reality a bit though.

Sorry, but thats bonafide pseudo technical pyschobabble. Is everyone going round a racetrack flat out in your world?

[kambites]

Hang on, in your previous post you said "It's not marketing crap at all. In a front engined RWD car, the ideal weight distribution is 50/50." and you're complaining at me for changing my tune?

[kambites]

HAB said:

Sorry, but thats bonafide pseudo technical pyschobabble. Is everyone going round a racetrack flat out in your world?

Course not. But how do you want to define this "ideal" that you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether it exists or not?

[kambites]

Anyway, whilst this is entertaining, it's getting a bit off topic.

[HAB]

kambites said:

Hang on, in your previous post you said "It's not marketing crap at all. In a front engined RWD car, the ideal weight distribution is 50/50." and you're complaining at me for changing my tune?

All along I've said that 50/50 is ideal in a front engined rwd road car. Are you blind?