Why doesn't the CR have an X brace?
09-30-2009, 08:57 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jc-s2000,Sep 30 2009, 10:15 PM
i think you have to look at it from many ways.
cost vs. performance vs. pricing for end product.
honda probably did not include a chassis x-brace because they felt it was a negligible amount of stiffening that would benefit the overall design and performance goals they had in mind. cost to manufacture and implement them on the cars would obviously raise the overall price of the car, and perhaps they felt it was unnecessary when looking at it from those viewpoints.
will the x-brace or 'strut' brace do anything? yes they will. is the value of cost vs. the performance gains worth it? it's up to you. but chances are the differences will not be night and day. new tires would be night and day, and would yield a greater performance benefit than any of these things (for example).
there are many things to make a car stiffer and perform/handle better, and the s2000 lacks in many areas. but honda made a phenomenally great overall performing car with the price point of the s2000.
cost vs. performance vs. pricing for end product.
honda probably did not include a chassis x-brace because they felt it was a negligible amount of stiffening that would benefit the overall design and performance goals they had in mind. cost to manufacture and implement them on the cars would obviously raise the overall price of the car, and perhaps they felt it was unnecessary when looking at it from those viewpoints.
will the x-brace or 'strut' brace do anything? yes they will. is the value of cost vs. the performance gains worth it? it's up to you. but chances are the differences will not be night and day. new tires would be night and day, and would yield a greater performance benefit than any of these things (for example).
there are many things to make a car stiffer and perform/handle better, and the s2000 lacks in many areas. but honda made a phenomenally great overall performing car with the price point of the s2000.
10-01-2009, 06:45 AM
#15
Originally Posted by patinum,Oct 1 2009, 02:10 AM
Probably because roll bars on street cars is a bad idea.
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204882
And again - cost vs. performance vs. pricing
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204882
And again - cost vs. performance vs. pricing
10-01-2009, 07:06 AM
#16
I haven't had a problem running my car at local (midwest) tracks for HPDE or Time Trials (NASA) without a roll bar.
Sorry - I get a bit defensive some times. I think Honda's press release said something to the effect of a being able to have a car that is more track tuned than a regular S but can still be driven on the street. In my experience, that's exactly what they made. I'm definitely faster on the track with the CR than I was with my AP1 - and the CR feels more at home there. But I can still take it out on weekends. I think if Honda wanted to they could have built a car in the vain of a Type-R or GT3 RS (not as a competitor but full cage - type of car you wouldn't want to drive as much on the street) but that would probably be a lot of R&D for a car that isn't selling well anyway. I do kind of wish they gave us the Type-S and made the CR a bit more extreme and called it a Type-S Zero (a la NSX).
Sorry - I get a bit defensive some times. I think Honda's press release said something to the effect of a being able to have a car that is more track tuned than a regular S but can still be driven on the street. In my experience, that's exactly what they made. I'm definitely faster on the track with the CR than I was with my AP1 - and the CR feels more at home there. But I can still take it out on weekends. I think if Honda wanted to they could have built a car in the vain of a Type-R or GT3 RS (not as a competitor but full cage - type of car you wouldn't want to drive as much on the street) but that would probably be a lot of R&D for a car that isn't selling well anyway. I do kind of wish they gave us the Type-S and made the CR a bit more extreme and called it a Type-S Zero (a la NSX).
10-01-2009, 07:14 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is complete forum myth, but it was plausable to my engineering sense, so i am going to repeat it.
honda doesn't use an xbrace (or left the gap in the first place), because it interferes with the engine sliding below the passenger compartment as the front of the car becomes a crumple zone in a front impact.
honda doesn't use an xbrace (or left the gap in the first place), because it interferes with the engine sliding below the passenger compartment as the front of the car becomes a crumple zone in a front impact.
10-01-2009, 08:41 AM
#18
Originally Posted by patinum,Oct 1 2009, 11:06 AM
I haven't had a problem running my car at local (midwest) tracks for HPDE or Time Trials (NASA) without a roll bar.
Sorry - I get a bit defensive some times. I think Honda's press release said something to the effect of a being able to have a car that is more track tuned than a regular S but can still be driven on the street. In my experience, that's exactly what they made. I'm definitely faster on the track with the CR than I was with my AP1 - and the CR feels more at home there. But I can still take it out on weekends. I think if Honda wanted to they could have built a car in the vain of a Type-R or GT3 RS (not as a competitor but full cage - type of car you wouldn't want to drive as much on the street) but that would probably be a lot of R&D for a car that isn't selling well anyway. I do kind of wish they gave us the Type-S and made the CR a bit more extreme and called it a Type-S Zero (a la NSX).
Sorry - I get a bit defensive some times. I think Honda's press release said something to the effect of a being able to have a car that is more track tuned than a regular S but can still be driven on the street. In my experience, that's exactly what they made. I'm definitely faster on the track with the CR than I was with my AP1 - and the CR feels more at home there. But I can still take it out on weekends. I think if Honda wanted to they could have built a car in the vain of a Type-R or GT3 RS (not as a competitor but full cage - type of car you wouldn't want to drive as much on the street) but that would probably be a lot of R&D for a car that isn't selling well anyway. I do kind of wish they gave us the Type-S and made the CR a bit more extreme and called it a Type-S Zero (a la NSX).
Believe me, Id trade my car for a stock CR. The only thing I would change on the CR are the brake pads.
10-01-2009, 02:03 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zoomie,Oct 1 2009, 07:14 AM
this is complete forum myth, but it was plausable to my engineering sense, so i am going to repeat it.
honda doesn't use an xbrace (or left the gap in the first place), because it interferes with the engine sliding below the passenger compartment as the front of the car becomes a crumple zone in a front impact.
honda doesn't use an xbrace (or left the gap in the first place), because it interferes with the engine sliding below the passenger compartment as the front of the car becomes a crumple zone in a front impact.