I'm going to try to have this discussion again without the personal crap (that even I have been reduced to). It was a good discussion and two big egos wrecked it. Let's all try to keep our egos out of the posts like UL does. He simply presents his opinion, which very closely resembles fact due to his experience and knowledge.

That said, better handling does not automatically eqaul better grip. I'm not even going to talk about our racing experiences with this car, because some feel that it doesn't apply... the reality is that it does, because what the car does at it's limit is an extension of it's inherent behavior. This behavior generally gets exxagerated at the limit, allowing us a very intimate look at those behaviors and characteristics. I'd like to talk a little bit about the word handling, and it's use in these discussions.

The way I use the word handling is to describe the overall cornering characteristics of a car. I read in a racing suspension tuning book one (I think it was the Fred Puhn book with the 911 on the cover) that handling doesn't describe ultimate grip, it defines the combination of grip and driveability. In racing, as in street driving, the driveability aspect is more key to maximizing either lap times or fun. The unpredictable handling that the Stook has displayed is not always fun when it can catch you off guard. However, if you can make changes to the suspension that maximize the driveability without changing the grip level, then the car is much more fun.

I've found that while the S2000 is certainly one of the better handling sports cars available, it has some shortcomings. Not the least of which are the shock damping, rear swaybar size and bump-steer -- most of which have been documented on this board. While the ultimate grip of the car is high, it certainly could be more predictable. I understand the charm of 'quirky' handling cars and respect Beig's argument for retaining the charm of the S2000, but I recall another car known for quirky handling traits as well - the 911. Not only do enthusiasts try to make changes to the suspension to 'tame' this tendency, the Porsche engineers have worked over the years to improve the rear suspension design to the point where now the 911 is touted as one of the most predictable handling cars on the road. To assume that the Honda engineers are going to get it 100% right the first time is a dangerous assumption.

Furthermore, anyone that's been involved in suspension tuning for any amount of time knows that there is no such thing as 100% right. Every surface, every corner, and indeed every moment a suspension is functioning there is a very different set of conditions present that require a different solution. Therefore suspension tuning can only be considered a compromise at best. Just as the Honda design is a compromise, any aftermarket system or part creates it's own new set of compromises.

From my experience tuning suspensions and racing over the years, it's my opinion that the factory Stook suspension has it's drawbacks. For instance the large rear swaybar. The S2k is the only RWD car you can buy with a rear swaybar only 1mm smaller in O.D. than the front. My guess (pure speculation) is that Honda designed it that way to make the car drift more... something that appears to be very popular with Japanese enthusiasts. The only problem is that over bumpy roads, the swaybar can have the tendency to unload the inside rear suspension, causing snap oversteer.

However, by lowering the rear swaybar size, you call into play the bump-steer tendencies of the rear suspension more by allowing for more suspension travel. Therefore one could conclude that the large rear swaybars was the Honda engineers' fix for the bump-steer problem. Right now I have heard King is working on a fix for the rear-bump steer issue, in conjunction with the smaller Mugen rear swaybar which is 2mm smaller than stock. I know that in initial testing with the smaller bar, the bump-steer problem became more prevalent.

Which leads me to my conclusion... There is allot of testing and research that is necessary in designing a suspension. Honda has done more testing than anyone at this point, but others are catching up. Only by trying different things can you truly unmask a car's tendencies and begin to understand the decisions of the Honda engineers. There is nothing wrong with keeping it stock... Honda did a fine job with their compromises. However, there is always room for improvememnt. And just as the race tuning book mentioned, increasing driveability without increasing overall grip is still considered an increase in handling. By making the car's behavior more predictable and more easily accessible to the average driver, I would say that yes... better handling does = more fun.

Remember... keep your responses respecful. Let's see if we can have a good discussion here.

 

I agree with the better handeling without more grip stuff, but what do you think a good starting point would be as far a tuning the suspension?
I have lowerd the car, and have plans for a larger front sway bar, and I also have my billet X brace. I have not changed the shocks and was thinking of coil overs. Any thoughts Jason?

 

Jason, I think this is perhaps the most important thing to remember, and something perhaps not evident to those who don't race. The optimal setup, for grip and drivability, changes with conditions and location. For a road car you pick the compromise that best fits you (i.e. driving a car with 2.5 degrees negative camber on the drive wheels is not fun when it rains!).

Since the other thread was closed before I had a chance to respond to the discussion of lowering and how that changes handling, I'd like to carry that piece over here if I may.

When you lower a car, you lower the Cg height. With no other suspension changes, you will usually lower the geometric roll center. Thus you might believe that there will be no change in roll (or in pitch for that matter). However, _unless_ the roll center moves dramatically more than the Cg, you will reduce roll. Why? Because you will reduce overall weight transfer. There are lots of factors involved, but reducing the Cg is usually a good thing.

UL

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Saini
I'm going to try to have this discussion again without the personal crap (that even I have been reduced to).

 

As James Carville might say about the unpredictability at the limit, "It's the tires, stupid!" They grip like mad and give up in the same way.

(It's a fractured quote, not a comment on poster's intelligence )

 

Well Bieg, I am real sorry this is not going to work out. We tried to restart this as a discussion on handling and it has turned into your tirade to once again explain it is perfect as it is. I resign.. it is your thread.

 

is it too much to ask that I get the question I asked answerd? Not looking for a pissing contest just info pertaining to the subject.

 

mdigrappa - I wouldn't exactly tell you where to start from where you are, but I would also advise that such changes should be to 'correct' a behaviour that you experience in your driving habits and abilities.

cdelena mentioned a lot of tuning and twitching to tune his koni's that he had cutom built. I'm not sure if this is necessarily the way to go, unless you are trying to correct something. for him, its track and ridability. I'm not sure what you are aiming for - I do not know off hand if you autox/roadrace/DE your car at all. I'd definately suggest such things if you haven't ventured into them already.

the front bar, a great thing - I'm sold on it after driving cdelena's car, just looking into alternatives to the Mugen bar at the moment before deciding on one.

 

I will be looking to King Motorsports (along with Mugen) to come with suspension improvements that address issues the Jason and GTRPower have raised. I don't consider King a "backyard" tuner or an amature operation, btw.

Do you really believe that magazine editors and Professional Drivers that work for magazines (Rod Millen for example) have as much seat time (track time)in the S2000 as King Motorsports, Mugen, GTRPower and Jason. Do you also believe that these magazines are unbiased in their reports?

 

What I wonder is how many people on this board have the experience (and training by professionals) to make judgements about the handling of this car. With regard to this subject I respect UL's, Cdelena's, and Jason's opinions but beyond that I don't know how many of us are qualified to judge this car. I know that stock this cars capabilities easily exceed mine so until if and/or when I'm able to put this thing truly at it's limits consistently I won't be modifying the suspension or getting heavily into discussions about it. I know that within my capabilities I'm very happy with the way the car handles and I've expressed that. I think, for many of us, money that we would consider putting into suspension upgrades would be better spent on a good driving school. Sorry if this deviates from the original topic.