S2kRob-

http://www.driftclub.com belongs to one of my good friends, Bryan, out in LA. He's an ardent drifter- and has been called "Drift King USA" by at least one "BIG" magazine- even Keiichi recognised him when they met at Tokyo Auto Salon.

I know he and his merry band of drifters head out to the mountains late at night- they call it touge (mountain) driving. There are some good drift cars out there- Corolla AE86s and whatnot, some with full TRD treatment.

Drifting, Japanese style, requires lots of skill- but it is universally known as being the slowest way around a track. Even Keiichi didn't drift too much when racing in Group N or later in the current JGTCC.

As you pointed out, any truly high performance driving usually requires a properly prepared car. The end result is usually that the same parts get changed out to more specialised parts that help the driver/owner achieve the goals that were set out.

 

And no matter what some others do, they just don't have it in all facets of life.

 

Nick, in reality, by lowering the CG, you will reduce weight transfer in any direction since its a function of CG height and track/wheelbase depending on the axis you're concerned with. Thus, squat and dive will be diminished. Additionally, by reducing weight transfer in a corner, we _should_ (not will) be able to increase maximum cornering grip since we're better utilizing the inside tires.

UL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GTRPower

Front end dive under braking, and rear end squat under acceleration is the same if spring rate and suspension travel are kept constant.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ultimate lurker
[B]Nick, in reality, by lowering the CG, you will reduce weight transfer in any direction since its a function of CG height and track/wheelbase depending on the axis you're concerned with.

 

NO IT IS NOT. The higher the weight is carried the more it effects the weight transfer. Which way are you less apt to fall off a skate board standing up or squating down lower?

If you are going to post here like you are some sort of expert and "CORRECT" people it is good manners to at least BE correct.

UL knows what he is talking about.

 

Hey UL-

Actually, I think you meant theoretically.

In reality, utilising the stock spring rates and shocks, coupled with this ridiculous theoretical lowering of the chassis will only produce more static sag- but the actual weight transfer differences from acceleration and braking will be so minimal that you would be hard pressed to find anything beyond standard testing variances.

 

the most fun i've had with old racing cars was in ones with real skinny tires pumped up hard....brakeaway is gradual and manageable...speaking of drifting....running an old midget on a short dirt track is most all drift!you only get a moment of "straight" before you throw it sideways for the next turn.....in truth, my old super seven on 145/13 michelin "x"s[on 31/2" rims] was more fun in the mountains than the s2k....maybe that'ts the trick!a "retro" kit for the honda ..narrow rims and not so sticky tires..just for fun...

 

Talking about the "usual back pedaling".

It was a Thought problem proposed by UL and it was answered correctly by me.

You SHOULD HAVE SAID after being corrected by UL is "Bieg was right and I was wrong and I should not have shot off my mouth in an open forum"

Thanks UL.

 

Doesn't that depend on the force on the skateboard? In any case, prove it. Show us unknowledgable people the testing done to prove this hypothesis. First hand test data please. SHOW US YOUR TEST DATA USING YOUR EXAMPLE OF STOCK SPRINGS, STOCK SHOCKS AND A LOWERED RIDE HEIGHT. IF YOU CAN'T THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT UP.

Too bad I'm not an expert on stock suspension and hypothetical ride heights unlike some trolls here.

[Edited by GTRPower on 06-05-2001 at 11:58 PM]

 

That is what I am talking about. It is after all about fun is it not?