2007 s2000: who else has one?
laguna
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Originally Posted by pieter k,Dec 17 2006, 12:23 PM
I'll buy that the AP2 is more predictable. Friday night, when I took it for its first hard drive with the revs up (past 600 miles; yay!), I was able to inch up on the back end's limit of traction, and I didn't feel like it was going to suddenly let go.
I'll save any more analysis of the handling until after I get my alignment Tuesday. I will post specs and impressions.
However, I wonder if there isn't a key in your sharp observation of a *perceived* instability, and whether or not that's correct.
In the weeks I've been poring through the forums, I keep coming across comments from drivers who were initially bewildered by the car's handling, and lo and behold, many of these drivers came from FWD cars before. Many had never even driven a RWD car, let alone a perfectly balanced, relatively light weight true RWD sports car. Of course those drivers were gonna swap ends! Of the ones with experience in RWD sports cars (not any RWD car), I think it can be argued that not all of them necessarily know how to drive them well either.
I also recall reading posts from some of those drivers who said that the "twitchy" back end was not a liability but an asset, part of what made the S2000 such a thrill to drive. It takes skill and practice. Those drivers were NOT intimidated by an active back end.
I myself have only ever driven RWD cars, most of them sports cars. My favorite car of all time to drive is a 911, which has the not altogether deserved reputation as an oversteering monster. I have had my 911 on occasions set up with way too much ARB in the back, and not enough in the front, and on the track, it was like rollerskating on ice. But I was still doing respectable times with it, even set up like that, and the car always communicated precisely what it was going to do. There was no wallow, and no unexpected unweighting. None. Granted, it's a race car, and the S2000 is not, but the point I'm making is that I'm just not sure that the perceived instability of the AP1s was really as unstable as we've been led to believe. Inasmuch as the car attracted a class of drivers who aren't as experienced as say Porsche or BMW drivers with RWD cars, I wonder if the input Honda receieved wasn't a bit unfairly skewed.
Look at how the S2000 has taken off as a track and race car. I know there are some very fast drivers in AP1 S2000s. Obviously, they've managed to work with the car. No platform develops that much support for racing that quickly if it's not in fact quite well designed for the task. Which this car is. Yes, there's a lot of prep involved, but if the car really was fundamentally too loose, I'm not sure if people would have gone through the trouble to make it work. Which brings me back to thinking that Honda DID know exactly what it was doing first time around, and maybe responded a little too deeply to criticism of a perceived problem that for the right drivers, wasn't much of a problem after all.
Then again, I know professional reviewers sometimes make the same comments, and you'd think they know what they're talking about.
Am I wrong? I might be. I would welcome any thoughtful replies to the contrary, as I'm fascinated with this car and am looking forward to getting to know it better.
Anyway, sorry for the length. Maybe that's worth thinking about; maybe not.
I'll save any more analysis of the handling until after I get my alignment Tuesday. I will post specs and impressions.
However, I wonder if there isn't a key in your sharp observation of a *perceived* instability, and whether or not that's correct.
In the weeks I've been poring through the forums, I keep coming across comments from drivers who were initially bewildered by the car's handling, and lo and behold, many of these drivers came from FWD cars before. Many had never even driven a RWD car, let alone a perfectly balanced, relatively light weight true RWD sports car. Of course those drivers were gonna swap ends! Of the ones with experience in RWD sports cars (not any RWD car), I think it can be argued that not all of them necessarily know how to drive them well either.
I also recall reading posts from some of those drivers who said that the "twitchy" back end was not a liability but an asset, part of what made the S2000 such a thrill to drive. It takes skill and practice. Those drivers were NOT intimidated by an active back end.
I myself have only ever driven RWD cars, most of them sports cars. My favorite car of all time to drive is a 911, which has the not altogether deserved reputation as an oversteering monster. I have had my 911 on occasions set up with way too much ARB in the back, and not enough in the front, and on the track, it was like rollerskating on ice. But I was still doing respectable times with it, even set up like that, and the car always communicated precisely what it was going to do. There was no wallow, and no unexpected unweighting. None. Granted, it's a race car, and the S2000 is not, but the point I'm making is that I'm just not sure that the perceived instability of the AP1s was really as unstable as we've been led to believe. Inasmuch as the car attracted a class of drivers who aren't as experienced as say Porsche or BMW drivers with RWD cars, I wonder if the input Honda receieved wasn't a bit unfairly skewed.
Look at how the S2000 has taken off as a track and race car. I know there are some very fast drivers in AP1 S2000s. Obviously, they've managed to work with the car. No platform develops that much support for racing that quickly if it's not in fact quite well designed for the task. Which this car is. Yes, there's a lot of prep involved, but if the car really was fundamentally too loose, I'm not sure if people would have gone through the trouble to make it work. Which brings me back to thinking that Honda DID know exactly what it was doing first time around, and maybe responded a little too deeply to criticism of a perceived problem that for the right drivers, wasn't much of a problem after all.
Then again, I know professional reviewers sometimes make the same comments, and you'd think they know what they're talking about.
Am I wrong? I might be. I would welcome any thoughtful replies to the contrary, as I'm fascinated with this car and am looking forward to getting to know it better.
Anyway, sorry for the length. Maybe that's worth thinking about; maybe not.
The only way to really observe this is to drive them back-to-back with same brand tires. I've never done this. I owned both and do feel that the AP2 is very predictable. Then again, I may simply be one of those poor drivers who can not handle the AP1.
