Power vs. Control

ok... I fell behind due to napping, but here goes...

one AWD has early throttle but properly driven MR will have earlier.

two, and yes I am skipping around, the cars maybe classed differently, but, you would be suprised to see that even at the national level times are not that far apart on auto x.

three, yes the road course is an entirely different environment and has little to no application to touge/auto x

four, odds are both you (Jason) and Joey probably lapped Waight in his new spec Miata which he does not like and has only had for 2 months.

five, i like the new sig as well bobby

six, as was stated before, lighter cars can corner faster, brake later, apex earlier, and therefore use throttle much faster than heavier cars. There are only 2 real downfalls to lighter cars, stability and power. power is an easy fix however stability and lightweight can not go in the same sentence. Again, I say on a downhill lightweight cars can trounce heavier cars, obviously the opposite is held true on an uphill.

seven, lastly, if there is any endurance to be had, the lightweight car will outlast the heavier car. simply because the parts don't have to work as hard.(given all exactly the same products)

edit: ok so seven isn't the last thing, however two more things

eight, having high power can be more of a hinderance than a help, one of the reasons my goal in power for the STi is 400/40* is because I feel that is where I will meet my limits.

nine, power delivery is a big reason why I loved 1st gen MR2's and also plays a big part of how fast you can go on the road, most people tend to think lots of torque early as possible is best, I prefer a smooth powerband. In my short dealings with the STi, and long dealings with the Evo, I say I actually prefer the evo power delivery, this may undoubtedly be due to having good tires on the Evo v. sh***y tires on the STi, but, the STi seems to be a much harder hit and therefore I am not able to really push the car.

Most STi's are "peaky" in the low RPM and usually have a noticeable tq spike at spool up. Since the Evo has less displacement and a bigger turbo, it spools slower and is therefore less "peaky." So I agree. =)

i expected more arguement from ya Matt

Why's that?

Most of the time I argue for the sake of it ... lol.

#9. stfu. yo MR2 suckz ballz.

yo sti... well i havent seen it but it looks good sofar...

get on here matt.
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=385620

I try to stay out of threads on competing parts, especially since I'm connected to the company ... at least in the forum sense.

I'm in an odd position with that part ... I helped in development and testing, and am viewed as a spokesperson for the company, yet I'm not actually affiliated with the company in a legal sense. If I said something wrong and it reflected badly on EPM, the company would suffer. But, I'm not actually on the payroll and shouldn't even be considered a spokesperson in the first place. Catch-22.

lol

yeah they got like 2 vendors and looks like they contacted every customer they had to testify the part for them LOL

A lot of customers hopped on the EPM bandwagon ... it's because they made a part that the community wanted. And it turned out to be pretty good.

i expected more from ya, because, i gave 9 points for you to counter

I only disagree with #2 (I think). I'm not extremely seasoned with MR cars, but I can't accept that the extra mass over the drive wheels would aid in cornering. You may be able to power on earlier with the excess weight, but you'll lose lateral grip due to the extra mass you're slinging around in the rear.

IMHO, the ideal powertrain is a front-engined midship, like the RX-7.

think of an MR as a reverse FF, best way I can figure to put it into lamens terms. Properly setup FF's will go where you point em when there is throttle, and break loose on lift(alot like lift off oversteer)even with the extra weight, the g forces, and lateral acceleration.

the key to MR drivability, is braking and transferring weight.

theres a reason 90% of race cars are MR

90% is stretching it unless you're counting front engined midships as well ... I see them differently than rear engined midships.

Can we agree that RR has no place in racing?

tell that to Porsche, and, I agree.

BTW, I was overexaggerating, but, you get my point, the majority is Midship Rearwheel Drive

Yeah, but the F cars, Prototypes and the Porsches are the only ones can think of that have a rear mounted midship. Most any production-based car has a front engine, yet may still be midship.

I guess what I'm saying is that your example of an MR2 isn't the same as a Panoz GTR car. One has a front engine while the other has a rear engine, yet they are both midship. The two are not equal.

lol, i agree, but, if MR wasn't the superior drivetrain, they wouldn't use it in the Superior racing

I mentioned earlier that I thought MR was superior. that's why I love RX7s so much ... the rotary theory with midship is a win win.

i just like the sound of the rotaries and the high rpm it makes...

Wangan_X wrote:

think of an MR as a reverse FF, best way I can figure to put it into lamens terms. Properly setup FF's will go where you point em when there is throttle, and break loose on lift(alot like lift off oversteer)even with the extra weight, the g forces, and lateral acceleration.

the key to MR drivability, is braking and transferring weight.

theres a reason 90% of race cars are MR

i think a reverse FF would be a RR (porsche GT2) since a midship the weight is equally distributed in the center of the car. i do agree that midships handle awesome and the best cars usually are midship.. however "snap over steer" is brutal in them. thats were left foot breaking helps.

snap oversteer is such a crock of s***, it's called failing to drive

and no a reverse FF is a MR because the motor is not in front of the front wheels, it is over or slightly behind them.. and, 95% of MR's do not have a 50/50 wt balance, usually 4x/5x

[quote="Wangan_X"]snap oversteer is such a crock of s***, it's called failing to drive /quote]




so the laws of physics are full of s***?

"Snap oversteer is when a vehicle spins dramatically during a turn (usually unexpectedly). This is most common with mid-mounted engine, rear wheel drive (MR) vehicles. Mid-mounted engine vehicles have a much lower rotational inertia than a vehicles with a front mounted or rear mounted engine. The lower rotational inertia of mid-mounted engine vehicles causes the vehicle to spin much faster than a front or rear mounted engine vehicle. Snap oversteer if unexpected can catch the driver off guard when cornering, ultimately leading to loss of control of the vehicle."

if unexpected... you just explained why its a crock of s***, anyone who drives a MR should expect it, and if you don't push too hard and overwhelm the tires or try to shift weight past a certain point(MR's aren't very good late apexers) or use severe inputs(particularily in brakes)

Wangan_X wrote:

if unexpected... you just explained why its a crock of s***, anyone who drives a MR should expect it, and if you don't push too hard and overwhelm the tires or try to shift weight past a certain point(MR's aren't very good late apexers) or use severe inputs(particularily in brakes)

Getting the "weight past a certain point" IS snap over steer / pendulum Effect









http://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum1.html

Wangan_X wrote:

and, 95% of MR's do not have a 50/50 wt balance, usually 4x/5x

67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

TougeTuned wrote:

Getting the "weight past a certain point" IS snap over steer / pendulum Effect

I think that Ervin is trying to say that the car won't just spin for no reason ... it's always due to driver error or something that the driver didn't plan for. The car doesn't just let go in the middle of a corner unless provoked.