Square vs Staggered
07-19-2018, 01:04 PM
#11
The Honda engineers were idiots to use a staggered wheel/tire combination on the S2000, the setup kills the car's performace. Everyone knows square handles better. That's why performance versions of cars like the Corvette, Mustang, Camaro, various Dodges, and even Formula 1 cars use the square setup.
-- Chuck
-- Chuck
Good one! No fail in this post anywhere.
Last edited by s2000Junky; 07-19-2018 at 01:08 PM.
07-19-2018, 01:54 PM
#12
Registered User
Hawkeye said it well. Staggered is generally 'safer' at the limit because the fronts should lose grip and produce understeer before the rears. I prefer a square setup for most cars for performance driving. To me, the car feels more balanced, neutral, and planted. For the s2k, you are limited as to the tire size you can fit in the front, so that is a deciding factor in overall grip if you wish to go square.
07-19-2018, 02:56 PM
#14
We are still talking about the s2000 chassis here right? Assuming so, so yeah if you want to maximize the full possible grip on this car you will end up with a stagger set up by default, but unlike the factory, they left a considerable amount of room to spare for getting more tire width under there. 255/295 stagger for stock modded fenders is max, wider with a widebody/over fenders, but one thing never changes, you still have to steer with the front wheels, so your always going to give up tire width up front if you want to run a close to consistent track width front to rear. So again, given that if you accommodate a square fitment, your likely leaving some total grip on the table because your settling on the rear fitment to match the maximized front.
The better option in my book is to simply tune the suspension to a stagger set up, which the car already is geared towards. With the near 50/50 balance, short wheel base and torsion diff, this car is eager with driver input to over or under steer just from driver inputs. I have no problem getting entry and exit over steer on the big track with a 255/315 stagger, while can also push into a turn with the right level of on throttle entry and back to neutral throttle steer in a long sweeper. A square set up can be made to work well too, but why cut the rear grip short just to run it? Makes little sense to argue to me. Logic, think about it?
The better option in my book is to simply tune the suspension to a stagger set up, which the car already is geared towards. With the near 50/50 balance, short wheel base and torsion diff, this car is eager with driver input to over or under steer just from driver inputs. I have no problem getting entry and exit over steer on the big track with a 255/315 stagger, while can also push into a turn with the right level of on throttle entry and back to neutral throttle steer in a long sweeper. A square set up can be made to work well too, but why cut the rear grip short just to run it? Makes little sense to argue to me. Logic, think about it?
07-20-2018, 09:22 AM
#15
Question for the OP: are you asking for the street or track?
Some understeer is a good thing on the street for what should be obvious reasons hence I still run staggered with my street config. But on track, 255 square is sweet - there's more grip for turning of course, and braking can be done just that little bit later too. There's also the ability to swap fronts and rears to get more even wear out of tires. These comments assume you have an adjustable suspension that you have properly dialed in.
On the street you would have to be taking big risks to be at the level where the differences begin to show up.
Some understeer is a good thing on the street for what should be obvious reasons hence I still run staggered with my street config. But on track, 255 square is sweet - there's more grip for turning of course, and braking can be done just that little bit later too. There's also the ability to swap fronts and rears to get more even wear out of tires. These comments assume you have an adjustable suspension that you have properly dialed in.
On the street you would have to be taking big risks to be at the level where the differences begin to show up.
07-20-2018, 09:36 AM
#16
With non staggered tire setup you'll get more turn in and more trailing over steer. But it's not like the car suddenly becomes an undriveable mess. To get the car to snap on you in the streets you're doing something seriously wrong. My car is a '00 AP1 with 255 square on completely stock suspension and it's perfectly fine. It would benefit from more roll stiffness up front now but it's still very driveable. The255 rubber in the rear actually reduced a lot of the twitchiness the car had independent of the grip at the front. As far as SC goes, Evasive runs their super charged S2000s with non staggered tire setups. I think I've read they're cars are 285 square. Pretty sure most Japanese time attack machines are also non staggered. You can argue why limit the rear, and in response others will ask why limit the front? It does most of the braking and steering. So at least my local racers just put the same tire front to back and tune the suspension rates to complement it.
Other cars running staggered is a poor comparison I think. Corvettes and Vipers obviously produce much more torque than us and really need that extra rear tire. As far as Camaros and Mustangs go I think the more competitive cars in my area actually run non staggered. A cursory google search shows that this seems like an eternal debate for them as well. I also find it interesting that the GT350 has the same wheels in all four corners but comes with staggered tire setup. I would hazard a guess that they wanted to fudge in some understeer for layman and allow more experienced owners to easily go nonstaggered. Though it would seem Mustang engineers flirt with non staggered fitment more often as this isn't the first time they tried non staggered.
Other cars running staggered is a poor comparison I think. Corvettes and Vipers obviously produce much more torque than us and really need that extra rear tire. As far as Camaros and Mustangs go I think the more competitive cars in my area actually run non staggered. A cursory google search shows that this seems like an eternal debate for them as well. I also find it interesting that the GT350 has the same wheels in all four corners but comes with staggered tire setup. I would hazard a guess that they wanted to fudge in some understeer for layman and allow more experienced owners to easily go nonstaggered. Though it would seem Mustang engineers flirt with non staggered fitment more often as this isn't the first time they tried non staggered.
07-21-2018, 06:14 PM
#17
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Waterford, MI - America's High Five
Posts: 683
Received 82 Likes
on
70 Posts
We are still talking about the s2000 chassis here right? Assuming so, so yeah if you want to maximize the full possible grip on this car you will end up with a stagger set up by default, but unlike the factory, they left a considerable amount of room to spare for getting more tire width under there. 255/295 stagger for stock modded fenders is max, wider with a widebody/over fenders, but one thing never changes, you still have to steer with the front wheels, so your always going to give up tire width up front if you want to run a close to consistent track width front to rear. So again, given that if you accommodate a square fitment, your likely leaving some total grip on the table because your settling on the rear fitment to match the maximized front.
The better option in my book is to simply tune the suspension to a stagger set up, which the car already is geared towards. With the near 50/50 balance, short wheel base and torsion diff, this car is eager with driver input to over or under steer just from driver inputs. I have no problem getting entry and exit over steer on the big track with a 255/315 stagger, while can also push into a turn with the right level of on throttle entry and back to neutral throttle steer in a long sweeper. A square set up can be made to work well too, but why cut the rear grip short just to run it? Makes little sense to argue to me. Logic, think about it?
The better option in my book is to simply tune the suspension to a stagger set up, which the car already is geared towards. With the near 50/50 balance, short wheel base and torsion diff, this car is eager with driver input to over or under steer just from driver inputs. I have no problem getting entry and exit over steer on the big track with a 255/315 stagger, while can also push into a turn with the right level of on throttle entry and back to neutral throttle steer in a long sweeper. A square set up can be made to work well too, but why cut the rear grip short just to run it? Makes little sense to argue to me. Logic, think about it?
- Cannot rotate front to rear (this shouldn't be an issue if you aren't over driving...but some tracks do tend to give the fronts some hell)
- Higher cost of tires (but that's a whole 'nother argument).
You're 100% right though on total grip. Just depends how much you're willing to spend to be fast.
07-21-2018, 06:16 PM
#18
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Waterford, MI - America's High Five
Posts: 683
Received 82 Likes
on
70 Posts
With non staggered tire setup you'll get more turn in and more trailing over steer. But it's not like the car suddenly becomes an undriveable mess. To get the car to snap on you in the streets you're doing something seriously wrong. My car is a '00 AP1 with 255 square on completely stock suspension and it's perfectly fine. It would benefit from more roll stiffness up front now but it's still very driveable. The255 rubber in the rear actually reduced a lot of the twitchiness the car had independent of the grip at the front. As far as SC goes, Evasive runs their super charged S2000s with non staggered tire setups. I think I've read they're cars are 285 square. Pretty sure most Japanese time attack machines are also non staggered. You can argue why limit the rear, and in response others will ask why limit the front? It does most of the braking and steering. So at least my local racers just put the same tire front to back and tune the suspension rates to complement it.
Other cars running staggered is a poor comparison I think. Corvettes and Vipers obviously produce much more torque than us and really need that extra rear tire. As far as Camaros and Mustangs go I think the more competitive cars in my area actually run non staggered. A cursory google search shows that this seems like an eternal debate for them as well. I also find it interesting that the GT350 has the same wheels in all four corners but comes with staggered tire setup. I would hazard a guess that they wanted to fudge in some understeer for layman and allow more experienced owners to easily go nonstaggered. Though it would seem Mustang engineers flirt with non staggered fitment more often as this isn't the first time they tried non staggered.
Other cars running staggered is a poor comparison I think. Corvettes and Vipers obviously produce much more torque than us and really need that extra rear tire. As far as Camaros and Mustangs go I think the more competitive cars in my area actually run non staggered. A cursory google search shows that this seems like an eternal debate for them as well. I also find it interesting that the GT350 has the same wheels in all four corners but comes with staggered tire setup. I would hazard a guess that they wanted to fudge in some understeer for layman and allow more experienced owners to easily go nonstaggered. Though it would seem Mustang engineers flirt with non staggered fitment more often as this isn't the first time they tried non staggered.
07-22-2018, 08:11 AM
#19
Me neither, and I drove my MY00 for 2 years stock except for additional front camber which should have made it worse. People confuse bump steer with snap oversteer and they are not the same thing.
09-01-2018, 11:28 AM
#20
The Honda engineers were idiots to use a staggered wheel/tire combination on the S2000, the setup kills the car's performace. Everyone knows square handles better. That's why performance versions of cars like the Corvette, Mustang, Camaro, various Dodges, and even Formula 1 cars use the square setup.
-- Chuck
-- Chuck
Yeah....especially F1!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Fusiondynamics
Wheels and Tires
1
02-08-2005 10:47 AM