End of the square vs staggered
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,863
Likes: 125
From: Pawtucket, RI
When you said "added 1/2" wheel width, did you mean to the front or the back or both?
What does "real improvement" mean if not "feel", if you don't have lap times?
255 square being better/faster than 225/255 doesn't necessarily mean "square is better than staggered". But since 255 is kind of the end of the line for 25" diameter street tires, naturally a lot of S2000s wind up there. It would be interesting to compare 255 square vs. something like 245/265 stagger, but not realistically possible due to lack of tires in those sizes, and again brings gearing into it.
In my experience, the effects of tire width (within reason) on lap times isn't as big a deal as it's usually made out to be. This year I've run 245 RE71R, 235 NT01, and 225 RE71R on the BRZ, and damned if I can tell which are ultimately "faster"... I think the RE71Rs do better for 3-lap time trials though.
It was far more than feel though, there was a real improvement. FWIW, I have spent probably 80+ hrs in this car physically driving on a race track in the past 4 years, I know the car pretty well.
And again the post was meant to be end of square vs staggered for ME.
In my experience, the effects of tire width (within reason) on lap times isn't as big a deal as it's usually made out to be. This year I've run 245 RE71R, 235 NT01, and 225 RE71R on the BRZ, and damned if I can tell which are ultimately "faster"... I think the RE71Rs do better for 3-lap time trials though.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,742
Likes: 211
I'll throw my 2 cents in here.. I agree with bgoetz. I've actually done more tracking with the car on a staggered tire setup than square. The fine control you get moving to a square setup is tremendous. I won't pretend to be a fabulous driver but it's SOO much easier to "play" within a certain slip angle w/ a square setup than a staggered. Just a little turn of the wheel makes a big difference. When I was on a staggered setup there was a bit of a "delay" for the lack of a better term. This makes sense since the front now has more grip it has a larger impact. Anyway, I don't have too much to add but the move from a staggered to square setup was pretty eye opening to me. Would a 255/275 setup be faster? Probably (because of more tire), but the car definitely changes dramatically (in a good way) with a square setup.
Some other factors to consider about staggered vs square is the car's aero. OEM the car exhibits some rear lift at higher speed. The added grip via staggered setup in the rear "helps" to a degree. It's why people on square setups need wings on track to settle down the rear.
Some other factors to consider about staggered vs square is the car's aero. OEM the car exhibits some rear lift at higher speed. The added grip via staggered setup in the rear "helps" to a degree. It's why people on square setups need wings on track to settle down the rear.
Community Organizer
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 31,070
Likes: 566
I'll throw my 2 cents in here.. I agree with bgoetz. I've actually done more tracking with the car on a staggered tire setup than square. The fine control you get moving to a square setup is tremendous. I won't pretend to be a fabulous driver but it's SOO much easier to "play" within a certain slip angle w/ a square setup than a staggered. Just a little turn of the wheel makes a big difference. When I was on a staggered setup there was a bit of a "delay" for the lack of a better term. This makes sense since the front now has more grip it has a larger impact.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,863
Likes: 125
From: Pawtucket, RI
I guess my only gripe is fixation on "square". It implies there is some magical handling balance when front and rear tires are equal size, and I don't buy that. Is having more grip up front than a 225 tire provides going to make an S2000 faster around most tracks? Probably. But for equal overall tire width, would 245 square be inherently "better" than 235/255, given suspension setups properly optimized around each? Again, problem there is gearing change, so really only a thought experiment... But still, *if* it turned out that 245 square was significantly "better" than 235/255, the next thing I'd do is go 255F/235R, which should be better still...
Community Organizer
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 31,070
Likes: 566
^^ I agree, it really comes down to some logical examination which seems to get glossed over every time "square" is referenced. Square means nothing unto itself, its all relative to what ever the tire width is in question square or staggered, and what was run before and how the suspension is set up to be able to capitalize on what ever tire widths. I've always said just to cut through a lot of this BS debates in the past, if you want to maximize the grip level of this particular car (compounds aside) stuff as much tire as the fender wells can accommodate, and that would mean it would have to be staggered, a 255/295 stagger to be exact. Tune the suspension around that and you cant argue 255/255 is going to have a higher performance capability.
Last edited by s2000Junky; Oct 11, 2018 at 02:11 PM.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 331
Likes: 20
From: California
One potential wrinkle I haven't explored is that if you take a balanced square setup of X width and add width to the rear, the only way to re-balance and exploit the newfound extra grip at the rear is to increase rear roll rate bias, which can bring some penalties as the rear starts to get stiff enough to unload the inside rear wheel on the stock differential. I'm guessing a balanced staggered setup would have greater need for a clutch-type LSD upgrade than a balanced square setup.
If both staggered and non staggered setups are tuned with the same amount of oversteer, there will be differences in the spring rate and swaybar bias. This should change the over all feel at the limit, right?
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 907
Likes: 24
From: SoCal
Update: installed the rear RCA and turned the knobs in the right directions and the car feels fantastic again. I believe the lack of the rear RCA contributed largely to the rear-end sway. If anyone reads this and is interested in going square, front/rear RCA are a must, not an option, like I had previously thought.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,730
Likes: 56
When you said "added 1/2" wheel width, did you mean to the front or the back or both?
What does "real improvement" mean if not "feel", if you don't have lap times?
255 square being better/faster than 225/255 doesn't necessarily mean "square is better than staggered". But since 255 is kind of the end of the line for 25" diameter street tires, naturally a lot of S2000s wind up there. It would be interesting to compare 255 square vs. something like 245/265 stagger, but not realistically possible due to lack of tires in those sizes, and again brings gearing into it.
In my experience, the effects of tire width (within reason) on lap times isn't as big a deal as it's usually made out to be. This year I've run 245 RE71R, 235 NT01, and 225 RE71R on the BRZ, and damned if I can tell which are ultimately "faster"... I think the RE71Rs do better for 3-lap time trials though.
What does "real improvement" mean if not "feel", if you don't have lap times?
255 square being better/faster than 225/255 doesn't necessarily mean "square is better than staggered". But since 255 is kind of the end of the line for 25" diameter street tires, naturally a lot of S2000s wind up there. It would be interesting to compare 255 square vs. something like 245/265 stagger, but not realistically possible due to lack of tires in those sizes, and again brings gearing into it.
In my experience, the effects of tire width (within reason) on lap times isn't as big a deal as it's usually made out to be. This year I've run 245 RE71R, 235 NT01, and 225 RE71R on the BRZ, and damned if I can tell which are ultimately "faster"... I think the RE71Rs do better for 3-lap time trials though.
I am not sure where you got that I didn’t have lap times, I have tons of lap times. The traffic made getting a solid time a bit difficult, and even with traffic I waa running identical times as my PR with the staggered setup. Based on my theoretical I was over 1sec faster than my PR on staggered RE71s. We ran a configuration that I haven’t ran for a LONG time on the second day, which is typically 2sec faster, my times on that configuration validated my theoretical.
Again, this isn’t my first rodeo. I have been involved in some form of motor sports for the better part of 14years and between seat time instructing from the right seat and time driving my car, I would venture a guess that I get far more seat time than most.
All I can give is my experience and based on running many different setups on this car it was conclusive enough that I really don’t care what anyone else thinks, I have found my setup. Could I cut out the rear fenders and toss on wider tires and go faster, possibly, but then I could do the same in the front and go wider square.
I do think things deviated a bit from my original intent though. I fully recognize that more tire in most cases is better, that said things become rather limited in this car on a reasonable budget and without hacking shit up. For 95% the debate of square vs staggered is always going to mean 225/255 vs 255/255. That said a square setup certainly brought a balance to my car that I had been searching for for a long time, the key being balance. Could I achieve this with a wide staggered setup like Junky and by tunning my suspension, possibly, but I tried a lot and nothing was even close to as noticeable.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,730
Likes: 56
I am curious though, Junky since you seem to most vocal, what real world data do you have to support your claims? Do you have a comparison of square vs staggered experience? Better yet do you have lap times from all the times you have been to a track?
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 51
What I would like to know:
1) How does the Wisefab suspension (all new fabricated arms, spherical bearings, 40mm drop spindles) affect this decision? It basically maintains a more stock suspension geometry where the RCA blocs only affect the lower control arm.
2) Has anyone done testing with lots of springs and anti-roll bars (e.g. the Karcepts) plus adjustable, field rebuildable shocks (where the valving and N2 pressure are easily changed) to arrive at their best setup in terms of speed and handling feel? Ian Mr. SIdeways did extensive testing with his ND STR Miata to win the SCCA Solo 2 National Championship, a tightly contested event with over 50 competitive cars. As a sidebar, 2014 Todd Roberts finished 4th in A/Street with 225/255 staggered setup while nearly all of the other fast A&B Street S2000s were using 245/255, the closest they could get to square. In STR, where the rules limit cars to 255 section width, everyone runs square 255 tires. Maybe Samed can chime in with the tires in TT5, but I believe they are all square.
1) How does the Wisefab suspension (all new fabricated arms, spherical bearings, 40mm drop spindles) affect this decision? It basically maintains a more stock suspension geometry where the RCA blocs only affect the lower control arm.
2) Has anyone done testing with lots of springs and anti-roll bars (e.g. the Karcepts) plus adjustable, field rebuildable shocks (where the valving and N2 pressure are easily changed) to arrive at their best setup in terms of speed and handling feel? Ian Mr. SIdeways did extensive testing with his ND STR Miata to win the SCCA Solo 2 National Championship, a tightly contested event with over 50 competitive cars. As a sidebar, 2014 Todd Roberts finished 4th in A/Street with 225/255 staggered setup while nearly all of the other fast A&B Street S2000s were using 245/255, the closest they could get to square. In STR, where the rules limit cars to 255 section width, everyone runs square 255 tires. Maybe Samed can chime in with the tires in TT5, but I believe they are all square.