if an s2000 could handle like my car
Former Moderator
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,729
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by ZDan,Dec 15 2010, 06:53 AM
There *is* some funky oversteer behavior of the AP1 due to unnecessary and gimmicky rear geometry that causes the rears to toe in with bump (compression) and out with rebound (extension). This designed-in "bump steer" was a bad idea with the FC RX-7, the original NSX, and it was a bad idea for the AP1 S2000.
It goes like this: initial handling is on the oversteery side due to rear roll stiffness bias, but as the car rolls, the outside rear toes in, reducing oversteer.
Unfortunately this results in non-linear handling characteristics, which don't provide any real benefit *and* can easily cause the uninitiated to loop it.
Basically, if when you feel twitchiness at the rear during cornering, you LIFT off the gas (or worse, stab the brakes), the nose dives, rear end rises, and the outside rear toes relatively OUT. So not only have you unloaded the rears, giving more OVERsteer, the outside rear toe also changes giving still MORE additional oversteer.
It is drive-aroundable, but to be honest, my 240Z and old 240SX's had much more linear handling, generally more tossable.
It goes like this: initial handling is on the oversteery side due to rear roll stiffness bias, but as the car rolls, the outside rear toes in, reducing oversteer.
Unfortunately this results in non-linear handling characteristics, which don't provide any real benefit *and* can easily cause the uninitiated to loop it.
Basically, if when you feel twitchiness at the rear during cornering, you LIFT off the gas (or worse, stab the brakes), the nose dives, rear end rises, and the outside rear toes relatively OUT. So not only have you unloaded the rears, giving more OVERsteer, the outside rear toe also changes giving still MORE additional oversteer.
It is drive-aroundable, but to be honest, my 240Z and old 240SX's had much more linear handling, generally more tossable.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,337
Likes: 1
From: Gods Speed #57 Lemons #77
Miata is an easier and more forgiving car to drive (probably more neutral at the limit as well).
The single biggest thing that made my S2000 easier to handle at the track (compared to my old track rat Miata) was the addition of a rear wing (APR GTC-200 with risers). That made the rear far more stable and predictable.
The single biggest thing that made my S2000 easier to handle at the track (compared to my old track rat Miata) was the addition of a rear wing (APR GTC-200 with risers). That made the rear far more stable and predictable.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,648
Likes: 1
From: Culpeper Virginia
Originally Posted by TubeDriver,Dec 15 2010, 08:22 AM
Miata is an easier and more forgiving car to drive (probably more neutral at the limit as well).
The single biggest thing that made my S2000 easier to handle at the track (compared to my old track rat Miata) was the addition of a rear wing (APR GTC-200 with risers). That made the rear far more stable and predictable.
The single biggest thing that made my S2000 easier to handle at the track (compared to my old track rat Miata) was the addition of a rear wing (APR GTC-200 with risers). That made the rear far more stable and predictable.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 529
Likes: 6
From: Little Rock, AR
ZDan, thanks for that run down of suspension reaction. I have heard all sorts of people say the geometry changed and the original was prone to oversteer but hadn't found anyone that knew the specifics, I'm an engineer and headed up suspension design of my schools FSAE car my senior year so I like knowing the exact mechanics. That also jives with what I have seen on autox days, you have that initial feel of the back end floating out on you but if you wait a split second past the oh &%^$ feeling it grabs
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,926
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by JLUDE,Dec 15 2010, 08:41 AM
I'd imagine that wider tires, and a more rigid chassis helps at high speeds, too. The S2000 feels solid as a rock above 100 mph. I wouldn't say that about the Miata.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,655
Likes: 171
The setup on the car is different. You can 'drift' a miata more easily and doing so on an S is just darn difficult.
It's all in the geometry of the cars suspension setup. You won't be changing that.
Aside from bad lines and poor inputs I've not once found the car to behave in a manner that made it difficult to handle or drive. If you're driving at the limit of the vehicle, the vtec cross over, some would call harsh, would be more of a problem than the ability to recover from the back end stepping out.
In all my cases of the back end coming out it's been because I've entered a turn to hot and am breaking late.
That said, I do find the S hard to correct. I believe that is a problem between the seat and wheel though.
It's all in the geometry of the cars suspension setup. You won't be changing that.
Aside from bad lines and poor inputs I've not once found the car to behave in a manner that made it difficult to handle or drive. If you're driving at the limit of the vehicle, the vtec cross over, some would call harsh, would be more of a problem than the ability to recover from the back end stepping out.
In all my cases of the back end coming out it's been because I've entered a turn to hot and am breaking late.
That said, I do find the S hard to correct. I believe that is a problem between the seat and wheel though.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 36,017
Likes: 226
From: Queen City, NC
The biggest difference between the S2000 and the Miata and "snap oversteer" is power. Put 250 hp in a Miata and the same driver doing the same thing, and you'd get the same outcome if you ask me.
What ZDan said is true about the "active" suspension as well. I had an FC RX-7 and thought it was great, but on the S2000, it feels less subtle and more sinister, which can be disturbing. The RX-7 also had ~200 hp vs the S2000's 250, and thinner rear tires, so lateral gs didn't build up so much and "pop" once traction went. You could have the suspension loaded around a corner, hit an undulation, and pop, everything gets out of whack. I personally think the S is best as a "slow in, fast out car".
What ZDan said is true about the "active" suspension as well. I had an FC RX-7 and thought it was great, but on the S2000, it feels less subtle and more sinister, which can be disturbing. The RX-7 also had ~200 hp vs the S2000's 250, and thinner rear tires, so lateral gs didn't build up so much and "pop" once traction went. You could have the suspension loaded around a corner, hit an undulation, and pop, everything gets out of whack. I personally think the S is best as a "slow in, fast out car".
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: 1000 feet above sea level
[QUOTE=CKit,Dec 15 2010, 05:27 AM]My $0.02.
One major thing to consider coming from a Miata is that it takes greater throttle control (remember, it's just my $0.02).
One major thing to consider coming from a Miata is that it takes greater throttle control (remember, it's just my $0.02).
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,629
Likes: 42
From: Windsor, CA
The steering in my S2000 has less feel than my 2003 Accord. The S2000 is WAY more responsive, but there's not a lot coming through the wheel. You have to drive based on what you get from the seat and pedals more than the wheel. There's some info, but its pretty faint.