S1 vs S2 on limit behaviour differences
Discussion
yes, purely down to the skinny front tyres on the std S2 - it understeers more on the limit, out of the box ...that would be the no.1 difference IMO, second would be the far superior S2 shocks over the original Konis
of course, if you fit the wider wheels n tyres you are back to equals
any Elise/Exige etc can be made to handle like another though, as they are all the same car underneath, its just which suspension/wheels/tyres/geometry you choose to use for which purpose.....
of course, if you fit the wider wheels n tyres you are back to equals
any Elise/Exige etc can be made to handle like another though, as they are all the same car underneath, its just which suspension/wheels/tyres/geometry you choose to use for which purpose.....
It's less snappy on the limit because it has narrower front tyres and a different suspension bits/setup, both of which can be modified.
Having said that, The difference in weight, especially between an early S1 and a Toyota engined S2, is big enough that I suppose you'll never get them to handle quite the same.
Having said that, The difference in weight, especially between an early S1 and a Toyota engined S2, is big enough that I suppose you'll never get them to handle quite the same.
chris7676 said:
So assuming the same setup (including tyres) there would be no differences? Just wondering as heard many times that the S2 is less snappy on the limit...
no difference, they are the same carexcept for engines - biggest jump from an S1 Elise to a lux spec, fully optioned Europa is like 740Kg ish to just under a metric ton 980Kg ish
but generally a late S1 Elise at 760Kg and early S2, both K engined, similar weight and ripe for an engine conversion
an Elise chassis is a precision tool ,with lots of adjustability (if you know what you are doing) - so take one to a specialist and say "I want it to handle like this" and they can do it for you - its more about how you drive, your level of skill and how you prefer the car to be.....rather than adjust to the car, you can adjust the car to you
Edited by bogie on Thursday 15th October 11:19
There was a really detailed post on this subject a few years ago from someone close to the factory if you can find it!
The main difference with the S2 is, as mentioned already, that it has narrower front tyres which combat aquaplaning, which is an issue on Elises due to the very light front end (coincidentally a friend of mine sent me an alarming video from Cadwell of an Elise aquaplaning last night). These front tyres are bespoke for the Elise and are softer than the rears so that dry weather balance is still achieved. The one thing this does though is magnify any driving technique flaws, the end result being understeer. With a narrow soft tyre you need to be gentle on the way into a bend, otherwise it'll just break away at the front. Elises are very light at the front and require a specific driving tehcnique anyway, so although I love the principle of it, Lotus were bound to get complains of understeer from less capable drivers. If driven properly, a standard S2 Elise will not suffer any understeer issues at all and handle beautifully.
Another difference is that the S2 Elise sits lower than the S1 (by 20mm IIRC - please correct me if I'm wrong), which helps transient stability.
Finally, the spring rates are higher on the S2 Elise. They're the same as the Lotus Sports Suspension (LSS) kit fitted as an optional extra to some late S1s.
According to Lotus it doesn't many any difference, but the sills are lower on the S2 and have a honeycomb insert to keep the strength up. I'd be surprised if this didn't add some weight to be honest, although I don't know for sure. It was done purely to aid ingress and egress from the car.
The S2 is also less raw. Many people mistake this for less focused, but in reality all it means is that the car is more useable everyday. The original S1 was conceived as a Caterham type car, not a daily driver.
I've driven both S1 and S2 back to back and prefer the handling of the S2. It's critical that any Elise needs to be well set up though, otherwise all these comparisons just go out of the window.
The main difference with the S2 is, as mentioned already, that it has narrower front tyres which combat aquaplaning, which is an issue on Elises due to the very light front end (coincidentally a friend of mine sent me an alarming video from Cadwell of an Elise aquaplaning last night). These front tyres are bespoke for the Elise and are softer than the rears so that dry weather balance is still achieved. The one thing this does though is magnify any driving technique flaws, the end result being understeer. With a narrow soft tyre you need to be gentle on the way into a bend, otherwise it'll just break away at the front. Elises are very light at the front and require a specific driving tehcnique anyway, so although I love the principle of it, Lotus were bound to get complains of understeer from less capable drivers. If driven properly, a standard S2 Elise will not suffer any understeer issues at all and handle beautifully.
Another difference is that the S2 Elise sits lower than the S1 (by 20mm IIRC - please correct me if I'm wrong), which helps transient stability.
Finally, the spring rates are higher on the S2 Elise. They're the same as the Lotus Sports Suspension (LSS) kit fitted as an optional extra to some late S1s.
According to Lotus it doesn't many any difference, but the sills are lower on the S2 and have a honeycomb insert to keep the strength up. I'd be surprised if this didn't add some weight to be honest, although I don't know for sure. It was done purely to aid ingress and egress from the car.
The S2 is also less raw. Many people mistake this for less focused, but in reality all it means is that the car is more useable everyday. The original S1 was conceived as a Caterham type car, not a daily driver.
I've driven both S1 and S2 back to back and prefer the handling of the S2. It's critical that any Elise needs to be well set up though, otherwise all these comparisons just go out of the window.
LotusEater666 said:
One key difference is aero (S2 much more downforce at rear).
I hadn't heard this before, so did a search and found this:elises.co.uk said:
The Elise S2 has a Cd of 0.407 and a CdA of 0.651 with the roof on. The Elise is more aerodynamic with the roof on. The front and read lift co-efficients are Clf -0.02 and Clr -0.04 assuming a 130/130mm F/R ride height and roof on. These coefficients need to be multiplied by the appropriate surface area before the downforce in kg can be calculated. These compare well to the equivalent figures for the standard S1 car which are Cd 0.408, CdA 0.653, Clf -0.030 and Clr +0.053. This assumes a standard ride height of 140/140 F/R and the roof on.
Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
source: http://www.elises.co.uk/components/s2/bodywork/ind...Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
So the S1 has downforce at the front and lift at the rear
That might explain a few things!Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 15th October 16:04
The story behind S1's duff aero is quite amusing. The S1 went into the air tunnel late and aero engineer Hill had to stick a ton of clay on the model to make it behave. You can imagine Julian Thomson's (designer) horror when he saw it. So they had to improvise with a spoiler, something which I think Thomson still hates to this day.
LotusEater666 said:
The story behind S1's duff aero is quite amusing. The S1 went into the air tunnel late and aero engineer Hill had to stick a ton of clay on the model to make it behave. You can imagine Julian Thomson's (designer) horror when he saw it. So they had to improvise with a spoiler, something which I think Thomson still hates to this day.
There's a great feature on that in the Elise design and engineering video. Julian was really upset about it! He admitted in an interview though that he quite likes it now Vlad. said:
RobM77 said:
Elises are very light at the front and require a specific driving tehcnique anyway, so although I love the principle of it, Lotus were bound to get complains of understeer from less capable drivers.
Like Jeremy Clarkson? 
I've endlessly argued this before on here, but in my opinion Clarkson is a fat fingered oaf and his driving was promoting huge understeer in the car. Lotus ride and handling are the best in the world, and I'm sure they knew full well how to make the car handle with someone like that steering it 
My Elise was bought as a road car, but it has been on track three times - twice at the ring in the dry and once at Bedford Autodrome with very heavy rain and standing water all day (I've never seen worse conditions on a race track). On both occasions the car was both beautifully predictable and well balanced - no issue with understeer at all and I drove at about 90% of my usual race pace all day at Bedford and perhaps 80% at the ring.
A CD of 0.41... After seeing references to elises being bricks I had been curious how bad they were.
As a comparative example, I believe these bricks are 0.39:
http://www.alfaholics.com/cars_for_sale_menu/road_...
As a comparative example, I believe these bricks are 0.39:
http://www.alfaholics.com/cars_for_sale_menu/road_...
Regarding tyres, in actual fact the fronts aren't that much thinner on the S2 if you measure the contact patch between 185 S1 p-zero on 15s and 175 S2 RE040 or AD07 on 17 inch wheels....
However the rear tyres on an S2 are significantly wider than those fitted to the S1 (205/50 16s v 225/45 17s)
However the rear tyres on an S2 are significantly wider than those fitted to the S1 (205/50 16s v 225/45 17s)
RobM77 said:
LotusEater666 said:
One key difference is aero (S2 much more downforce at rear).
I hadn't heard this before, so did a search and found this:elises.co.uk said:
The Elise S2 has a Cd of 0.407 and a CdA of 0.651 with the roof on. The Elise is more aerodynamic with the roof on. The front and read lift co-efficients are Clf -0.02 and Clr -0.04 assuming a 130/130mm F/R ride height and roof on. These coefficients need to be multiplied by the appropriate surface area before the downforce in kg can be calculated. These compare well to the equivalent figures for the standard S1 car which are Cd 0.408, CdA 0.653, Clf -0.030 and Clr +0.053. This assumes a standard ride height of 140/140 F/R and the roof on.
Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
source: http://www.elises.co.uk/components/s2/bodywork/ind...Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
So the S1 has downforce at the front and lift at the rear
That might explain a few things!Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 15th October 16:04
S1 at std hight (160mm) has Clr +0.053 (compared to an S2 at 130mm Clr -0.04)
in reality, that's sod all, like less than some peoples handbag in weight.
S2 has wider front/rear track too - 20mm at the front and 50mm at the rear and lower CoG - Gavin Kershaw is quoted as saying, "The biggest improvements came from the fundemental design changes - lower and wider stance - plus Bridgestone delivering a bespoke tyre."
Different damper mounting points. Camber changes in the rear suspension to improve unloaded rear wheel contact. Different wishbones....
Different damper mounting points. Camber changes in the rear suspension to improve unloaded rear wheel contact. Different wishbones....
Scuffers said:
RobM77 said:
LotusEater666 said:
One key difference is aero (S2 much more downforce at rear).
I hadn't heard this before, so did a search and found this:elises.co.uk said:
The Elise S2 has a Cd of 0.407 and a CdA of 0.651 with the roof on. The Elise is more aerodynamic with the roof on. The front and read lift co-efficients are Clf -0.02 and Clr -0.04 assuming a 130/130mm F/R ride height and roof on. These coefficients need to be multiplied by the appropriate surface area before the downforce in kg can be calculated. These compare well to the equivalent figures for the standard S1 car which are Cd 0.408, CdA 0.653, Clf -0.030 and Clr +0.053. This assumes a standard ride height of 140/140 F/R and the roof on.
Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
source: http://www.elises.co.uk/components/s2/bodywork/ind...Lotus reduced the front downforce and the rear lift on the S2 to achieve almost neutral balance which delivers consistant handling balance at all speeds, while the S1's high front downforce and rear lift contributed greatly to the cars tendancy to oversteer at high speed. It could be argued that reducing downforce is a retrograde step and that leaving the front in S1 configuration and then increasing the rear downforce further to achieve a Clr in the region of -0.3 would generate more lateral rip, but testing showed the drag penalties associated with doing so were unacceptable. The roof of the S2 was lowered to also improve the quality of air flow over the rear of the car and hence make any rear spoiler more efficient. The Elise S1 111S and Sport 160 spoiler efficencies were reduced by the higher roof line.
So the S1 has downforce at the front and lift at the rear
That might explain a few things!Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 15th October 16:04
S1 at std hight (160mm) has Clr +0.053 (compared to an S2 at 130mm Clr -0.04)
in reality, that's sod all, like less than some peoples handbag in weight.
I have an S1 Sport160 and my sister has an S2 Sport135. They may be fundamentaly the same car but they certainly feel very different. The S1 has a livelier front end and more of a tendency to snap into oversteer than the S2. You can feel the lack of intertia in an S1 compared to an S2.
They're not miles apart, but the difference is enough to be significant.
That said, with some camber and a touch of toe out you can make the S2 feel a lot pointier.
They're not miles apart, but the difference is enough to be significant.
That said, with some camber and a touch of toe out you can make the S2 feel a lot pointier.
dom180 said:
S2 has wider front/rear track too - 20mm at the front and 50mm at the rear and lower CoG - Gavin Kershaw is quoted as saying, "The biggest improvements came from the fundemental design changes - lower and wider stance - plus Bridgestone delivering a bespoke tyre."
Different damper mounting points. Camber changes in the rear suspension to improve unloaded rear wheel contact. Different wishbones....
Yup, they are somewhat wider, but at the same time, the COG and overall weight went up rather cancelling out the track advantage.Different damper mounting points. Camber changes in the rear suspension to improve unloaded rear wheel contact. Different wishbones....
chris7676 said:
Different wishbones then? Hmmm...
Yes and no, S2's have slightly longer front wishbones, rears are the same length (although yota ones are braced more and the top rear is a different offset)Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff