Originally Posted by RED MX5,Jul 16 2006, 01:19 PM

Let's clearify some of our terminology. I'm having trouble with the idea that some cars take less "finesse" than others. Driving smoothly takes an enormous amount of concentration, focus, and I dare say, finesse; This is always the case, no matter what kind of vehicle is involved. It always takes finesse to take a vehicle to the edge of its performance envelope, and in general it takes *more* finesse to get the most out of a car has extremely forgiving handling. IOW, it takes a hell of a lot of finesse to get the most out of a car that plows like a pig, probably more than it takes to get the most out of a sharp handling car like the S2000. For this reason I'm having a problem with the idea that it takes more finesse to drive one can that it does to drive some other car. The term itself ("finesse") is just too vague.

"Forgiving" is another term that is giving me some trouble here. Certain characteristics make a vehicle more or less forgiving, by which I mean that they either work for or against the driver when he pushes the envelope or gets in over his head. Some cars have handling quirks that can make them extremely unforgiving, and such cars are often a joy to drive at speed. The old 911s are a perfect example. As you roll on the throttle to squirt off a corner the cars squat in the back and the rear tires get awsome grip. I absolutely love the way those old things squirt off a tight corner. The cars can also be considered forgiving, because as long as you get on the gas when the tail starts to step out they usually get more grip in the back and recover easily. However, they are NOT forgiving if the driver lets the slide scare him and takes his foot OFF the gas. Do that and the car is going to spin. Now those old Porsches were anything but forgiving in the way I've been using the term here, but in point of fact they are very forgiving in competent hands.

The way I've been using the term ("forgiving") here was intended only to relate to the way the car behaves when the driver does the kinds of things that can get them into trouble. When Joe Average is out in his classic 911 burning up a canyon road and a deer appears in the middle of the road, Joe's natural tendency is to lift throttle, so he ends up spinning and running off the road rather than hitting the deer. Lucky deer. If Joe had been in his Buick Roadmaster lifting the throttle would have further overloaded the already complaining front tires (remember, Joe is "burning up the canyon") resulting in more understeer. Joe can even nail the brakes and the car will continue to understeer, so he's going to end up plowing straight into the deer as the car scrubs off speed. The car "forgives" Joes mistakes while the Porsche did not, and in spite of the deers problems, Joe is better of hitting the deer than spinning off the road and into something even harder. The ambiguity seems to come from the fact that a car that responds quickly and consistently to the drivers inputs is very forgiving in capable hands, but I'm using the term to reference characteristics that "forgive" more normal driving from less capable (and more common) hands. An average driver is better off in a car that understeers, so understeer is generally considered to be more forgiving than oversteer. That's the way I'm using the term ("forgiving") here.

Old 911s, Boxters, most Lotus cars, Ferraris, and some Vettes, are all vehicles that can get an inexperienced driver into trouble quickly, and for that reason I would not classify any of them as "forgiving." Like the S2000, these cars are easy to control and make exploring the performance envelope a joy, but they all have characteristics that work against the driver when he makes an error. The same responsiveness that makes the cars fun also makes them respond quickly to bad driver inputs, a fact that can work against the average driver.