FWD unicycle, I'm pretty sure.

 

hey man, no need to bring raver music into this.

 

 

well, there's your problem... RWD and AWD unicycles are far more stable. AWD is a bit of a cheater setup though, which is why F1 doesn't use AWD unicycles.

 

I do not believe you.

 

Uhhhh they have two highly advanced technologicaly complex sequential turbos, and weigh the same.

 

Let's face it, the S2000 (esp. AP1) has always been more tail-happy than other cars. It's not mystery. A good driver can control and manage it, but it doesn't mean the car is not tail-happy. There are plenty of RWD cars that are more stable.

 

Like the faster rx7.

 

Snap oversteer isn't limited to the S2000, and it was very common on old cars. Fat, grippy tires are the most common cause of snap oversteer, and what do you think muscle cars sat on back in the day?

What most people don't understand is that there is a direct trade off between stability and responsiveness (due primarily to slip angle vs. lateral acceleration but also a variety of other factors). They praise the S2000's quick turn in and responsiveness ("go-kart like handling") but then complain about how unstable it is at the limit. They don't realize you can't have one without the other. The "tail-happy" nature of this car is not a fault, but merely a consequence of its responsiveness.

 

[QUOTE=tarheel91,Oct 14 2010, 04:55 PM] Snap oversteer isn't limited to the S2000, and it was very common on old cars.