Test drove an S2000 today (RX8 more fun for sure)
08-06-2006, 03:48 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shaolin
Nobody cares about your a stock or b stock results because those are driver dependent. That is irrelavent anyway to this thread anyway. Let me remind you of the topic at hand: overall handling not who can get down the track the fastest.
You contradict yourself, for instance, you yourself said "Porches are one of the greatest handling cars" Well that is because of there mid-engine placement thereby achieving lower yaw moments. If you cannot comprehend what that means than take a physics class.
Quote from shaolin: "As it's been pointed out, how a car handles has alot more factors than weight distribution and yaw moments/ inertia." "But brakes don't make the car buddy." So you are saying a cars handling has nothing to do with going through a hairpin turn and needing good breaking and balance?
That's kind of a bold statement to leave breaking out as one of the factors for a cars handling.
You are not credible based upon your above contradictions.
Nobody cares about your a stock or b stock results because those are driver dependent. That is irrelavent anyway to this thread anyway. Let me remind you of the topic at hand: overall handling not who can get down the track the fastest.
You contradict yourself, for instance, you yourself said "Porches are one of the greatest handling cars" Well that is because of there mid-engine placement thereby achieving lower yaw moments. If you cannot comprehend what that means than take a physics class.
Quote from shaolin: "As it's been pointed out, how a car handles has alot more factors than weight distribution and yaw moments/ inertia." "But brakes don't make the car buddy." So you are saying a cars handling has nothing to do with going through a hairpin turn and needing good breaking and balance?
That's kind of a bold statement to leave breaking out as one of the factors for a cars handling.
You are not credible based upon your above contradictions.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 04:17 PM.
08-06-2006, 06:19 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my scoop ...
I bought a new 2005 RX-8 a few months ago after testing the S2K. I completely skipped the 350Z because I didn't like the styling. I have been a Honda/Acura car & van owner for the last 20+ years and I love every single one of them. Like most of you, I wanted something more exciting and, for me, I wanted something a little esoteric as well.
When I tested the S2K, I wanted to verify 2 major things: engine and handling. The engine can rev and will rev well. It gave enough torque for what I was looking for. The handling for the 2005 S2K I tested was finely tuned and provided enough feel that I am in control along a twisty road.
Following this, I tested the 2005 RX-8.
Here is a short list that made me pick the RX-8:
1) I cannot stand of the noisy S2K engine. When I depressed the accelerator, the noise of the engine sounded like it was ready to explode. It was not the same buttery smooth Honda engine I was used to. It had a rough sound and the convertible did not help much.
2)The S2K is a pure 2-seater. There's not a chance that a youngster can sit in the passenger seat due to the killer air-bag. And, there are no back-seats.
3)When I revved the RX-8, the sound of the Renesis was pure music to my ears. It had a positive feedback sound that literally beckoned me to press the accelerator more.
It was that simple.
Other pointers included the super powerful brakes of the RX-8, whose stopping distances from 60-0 MPH is in the same class as most of the other sports cars whose prices are, at least, 3-6 times higher. I am talking the true sports-car class standard, like the Corvettes and Porsche 911. Yes, that's how good the brakes are for the upgraded brakes.
And, last by not the least, the TopGears guys tested the RX-8 and found that it completed their course with the exact timing as a BMW M3. Now, that goes to show that on a twisty road, the RX-8 may not beat an M3 on the 1st gear but it will more than make up for it on the 2nd and 3rd gear and going full speed on a twisty road due to its super balanced weight distribution and its very low center of gravity. It can make turns that will make sedans spin out of control.
OK OK OK ... the final thing: if I'm not wrong, the RX-8 is the *only* car that was rated 5-stars for the rollover test of the NHTSA.
I bought a new 2005 RX-8 a few months ago after testing the S2K. I completely skipped the 350Z because I didn't like the styling. I have been a Honda/Acura car & van owner for the last 20+ years and I love every single one of them. Like most of you, I wanted something more exciting and, for me, I wanted something a little esoteric as well.
When I tested the S2K, I wanted to verify 2 major things: engine and handling. The engine can rev and will rev well. It gave enough torque for what I was looking for. The handling for the 2005 S2K I tested was finely tuned and provided enough feel that I am in control along a twisty road.
Following this, I tested the 2005 RX-8.
Here is a short list that made me pick the RX-8:
1) I cannot stand of the noisy S2K engine. When I depressed the accelerator, the noise of the engine sounded like it was ready to explode. It was not the same buttery smooth Honda engine I was used to. It had a rough sound and the convertible did not help much.
2)The S2K is a pure 2-seater. There's not a chance that a youngster can sit in the passenger seat due to the killer air-bag. And, there are no back-seats.
3)When I revved the RX-8, the sound of the Renesis was pure music to my ears. It had a positive feedback sound that literally beckoned me to press the accelerator more.
It was that simple.
Other pointers included the super powerful brakes of the RX-8, whose stopping distances from 60-0 MPH is in the same class as most of the other sports cars whose prices are, at least, 3-6 times higher. I am talking the true sports-car class standard, like the Corvettes and Porsche 911. Yes, that's how good the brakes are for the upgraded brakes.
And, last by not the least, the TopGears guys tested the RX-8 and found that it completed their course with the exact timing as a BMW M3. Now, that goes to show that on a twisty road, the RX-8 may not beat an M3 on the 1st gear but it will more than make up for it on the 2nd and 3rd gear and going full speed on a twisty road due to its super balanced weight distribution and its very low center of gravity. It can make turns that will make sedans spin out of control.
OK OK OK ... the final thing: if I'm not wrong, the RX-8 is the *only* car that was rated 5-stars for the rollover test of the NHTSA.
08-06-2006, 06:34 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My god you are thick. You argue that in a thread about handling capabilities that nobody cares about scca results? those tracks re so tightly wound that you rarely go above second gear. handling is the priority and acceleration is less important at scca events...hence miatas being very competitive. I never said brakes are not important, I said that they don't make the car...meaning that because the rx-8 has better brakes than the s2000 doesn't make it a better car overall...learn some reading comprehension and don't put words in my mouth.
your credibility went out the window because my reference to porsches was 911s which are rear engined not mid engined. The reference was only made to point out that 50/50 distribution is not always best. Get that through your thick head. It was you who were raving about 50/50 weight distribution and I am simply reminding you that weight distributions are application specific in how they best suit a car. On rwd cars a slight rear bias is preferred. Look t the weight distributions of any supercar.
As for the ace results being driver dependent...I told you that across the country rx-8s turn slower times than s2ks...you asked for the info and now you throw it out? Driver dependencies is a moot point in a case where many drivers across the country are seeing the same results. I believe its you who needs the science class because the variable element of driver skill is eliminated here with the simple fact that the test example is of a vast variety of drivers.
and still...scca classes the rx-8 in b stock and the s2k in a-stock. you can't refute that and this is for reasons of track competencies of each car respectively. The rx-8 is not as competitive as the s2k in scca chapters across the country. What's your next argument, that s2k drivers are better drivers? asinine.
And still, I have seen no technical or objective sources from you on your bs yaw moment. You read about the renesis being able to be located lower and further back and assumed that it was lower than the s2k's yaw moment. Don't make assumptions.
You continue to make yourself look ridiculous in this thread. You provide no technical data, try to refute race results that its driver skill when we're talking about a plethora of drivers from the bay area, and then put words in my mouth about braking and balance "not being important." You're just too childish to realize that a lot more factors that you don't understand are involved and that your precious rx-8 is not as track capable as an s2k. b-stock vs a-stock really should have ended this argument a long time ago. The fact that you don't understand this leads me to believe you have no experience at all and are speaking from assumption, speculation, and magazine regurgitation.
From what I gather from your posts, the rx-8 is a superior handling car/better track car because "you say so." It really is pretty funny seeing you try to talk about "physics" and then provide none to support your claim. Go ahead refute scca results and class specifications...like I said...just don't forget to invite the other fanboys along for the ride.
your credibility went out the window because my reference to porsches was 911s which are rear engined not mid engined. The reference was only made to point out that 50/50 distribution is not always best. Get that through your thick head. It was you who were raving about 50/50 weight distribution and I am simply reminding you that weight distributions are application specific in how they best suit a car. On rwd cars a slight rear bias is preferred. Look t the weight distributions of any supercar.
As for the ace results being driver dependent...I told you that across the country rx-8s turn slower times than s2ks...you asked for the info and now you throw it out? Driver dependencies is a moot point in a case where many drivers across the country are seeing the same results. I believe its you who needs the science class because the variable element of driver skill is eliminated here with the simple fact that the test example is of a vast variety of drivers.
and still...scca classes the rx-8 in b stock and the s2k in a-stock. you can't refute that and this is for reasons of track competencies of each car respectively. The rx-8 is not as competitive as the s2k in scca chapters across the country. What's your next argument, that s2k drivers are better drivers? asinine.
And still, I have seen no technical or objective sources from you on your bs yaw moment. You read about the renesis being able to be located lower and further back and assumed that it was lower than the s2k's yaw moment. Don't make assumptions.
You continue to make yourself look ridiculous in this thread. You provide no technical data, try to refute race results that its driver skill when we're talking about a plethora of drivers from the bay area, and then put words in my mouth about braking and balance "not being important." You're just too childish to realize that a lot more factors that you don't understand are involved and that your precious rx-8 is not as track capable as an s2k. b-stock vs a-stock really should have ended this argument a long time ago. The fact that you don't understand this leads me to believe you have no experience at all and are speaking from assumption, speculation, and magazine regurgitation.
From what I gather from your posts, the rx-8 is a superior handling car/better track car because "you say so." It really is pretty funny seeing you try to talk about "physics" and then provide none to support your claim. Go ahead refute scca results and class specifications...like I said...just don't forget to invite the other fanboys along for the ride.
Last edited by shaolin; 08-06-2006 at 06:43 PM.
08-06-2006, 06:39 PM
#56
The Ferrari Enzo has 43.9/56.1 front/rear weight distribution, which is why I have video of me pwning it in a parking lot*
*Enzo was parked, and driver wasn't there to see me doing donuts inches from his rear bumper.
*Enzo was parked, and driver wasn't there to see me doing donuts inches from his rear bumper.
08-06-2006, 07:09 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shaolin:
Rear engine or mid-engine same difference ,the point is that the engineers are trying to lower the yaw moment. Yes, rear engine like Porche have lower yaw moments but they pay a price by losing 50:50 weight distribution and therefore braking and steering performance.
Do you really think that a longitudinally placed 4 banger has a lower yaw moment than a rotary carbon-fiber driveshaft combo?
Give me a f"n break. That's a no brainer, back to school for you sir. Talk about discrediting someone. 
Like I said before your track results are a moot point because of drivers capabilities, hell you didn't even post who was in that sampling for all we know in that group there may have been 100 s2k drivers for one 8 driver.
Rear engine or mid-engine same difference ,the point is that the engineers are trying to lower the yaw moment. Yes, rear engine like Porche have lower yaw moments but they pay a price by losing 50:50 weight distribution and therefore braking and steering performance.
Do you really think that a longitudinally placed 4 banger has a lower yaw moment than a rotary carbon-fiber driveshaft combo?
Give me a f"n break. That's a no brainer, back to school for you sir. Talk about discrediting someone. Like I said before your track results are a moot point because of drivers capabilities, hell you didn't even post who was in that sampling for all we know in that group there may have been 100 s2k drivers for one 8 driver.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 07:20 PM.
08-06-2006, 07:28 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go look at the link...it gives driver names. 100 drivers to 1? Now you're getting desperate. The results at any scca are similar...
Wow...mid engined and rear engined the same huh? Sounds like you need to go back to shool.
Look I love the rotary too...but its not making any miracles happen. scca reults ar the most reputable source here. And still the fact remains that the two cars are classed differently, the s2k leading in a superior class.
I would tell you again to go back to school, but I've taken you to school time and time again.
Wow...mid engined and rear engined the same huh? Sounds like you need to go back to shool.
Look I love the rotary too...but its not making any miracles happen. scca reults ar the most reputable source here. And still the fact remains that the two cars are classed differently, the s2k leading in a superior class.
I would tell you again to go back to school, but I've taken you to school time and time again.
08-06-2006, 07:41 PM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shaolin:
You are still stuck on track results. You didn't say anything different. I told you before that it was irrelevant and not the point of this thread. It also looks like you are at a loss of words concerning the 8's lower yaw moment. oops
You are still stuck on track results. You didn't say anything different. I told you before that it was irrelevant and not the point of this thread. It also looks like you are at a loss of words concerning the 8's lower yaw moment. oops
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 07:44 PM.
08-06-2006, 07:45 PM
#61
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: El Centro, Ca.
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was my experience when I try to test drive a S2000
Originally Posted by hondasr4kids
Today I got to see how much I appreciate the 8. I went to the Ventura auto mall to look at cars for my wife. I'm looking at S2000s since that's all she talks about. Well as soon as I rolled in (I'm in the 8) I get cocky looks. I went in straight to the S2000. I get told that, that is a better choice than the 8. The guy tells me that it handles better, has more power, blah, blah (also asking $40k) and the 8 is nothing but a disapointment underpowered non-handling, ugly, POS. I tell that as a saleman that he shouldn't be bad mounthing my pride and joy. I told him to tell me that when the S2000 has a 50/50 distribution, sit 4, has actually significally amount more of power than the 8 (WOW 1 hp more), when the valve don't need constant adjustment, when the motor doesn't blow up from over reving, and whe it gets Car & Driver Car of the year (or something like that) in 2 years in a row. He just stood there with his jaw on his hand. Then I tell him that I can go to the other local dealer and get the same car for $34k, then I walked out got in the car and drove off while the manager try to chase me down to talk to me. So word of advise don't go there.
08-06-2006, 08:03 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theres no oops about it. you still hve not provided any technical referenes other than your word regarding yaw moment. I dare say that you know nothing about the s2k yaw moment. So go ahead provide the articles...I want to see the figures for your precious yaw moments. Even still it won't change the fact that the rx-8 is consistently slower.
oh and you're moron if you think scca results are irrelevant. and its you who is at a loss for words regarding the rx-8s inferior scca classification. oops.
save for your blatant plagiarism I have seen no evidence to back any of your claims, and when evidence is provided for the counterpoint you call it irrelevant. Everyone on this board will readily accept scca results as valid proof...
Do you even know what scca is? Let alone the various classifications? they sure as hell hold a lot more water than your endless bs that has no foundation.
oh and you're moron if you think scca results are irrelevant. and its you who is at a loss for words regarding the rx-8s inferior scca classification. oops.
save for your blatant plagiarism I have seen no evidence to back any of your claims, and when evidence is provided for the counterpoint you call it irrelevant. Everyone on this board will readily accept scca results as valid proof...
Do you even know what scca is? Let alone the various classifications? they sure as hell hold a lot more water than your endless bs that has no foundation.
08-06-2006, 09:08 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shaolin:
Why are you still stuck on track results? Are you aware that those results are driver dependent? If you don't realize that you need help.
Do you have any knowledge of math or physics? I don't think you do, because you still think a longitudinally placed 4 banger has a lower yaw moment than a rotary carbon-fiber drive shaft combo. You wont find anyone else needing to see technical papers on this issue because it is a no brainer, but I guess you don't have any. Because of this you got discredited and looked stupid doing it.
Why are you still stuck on track results? Are you aware that those results are driver dependent? If you don't realize that you need help.
Do you have any knowledge of math or physics? I don't think you do, because you still think a longitudinally placed 4 banger has a lower yaw moment than a rotary carbon-fiber drive shaft combo. You wont find anyone else needing to see technical papers on this issue because it is a no brainer, but I guess you don't have any. Because of this you got discredited and looked stupid doing it.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 09:20 PM.
08-06-2006, 09:14 PM
#64
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yaw!
Shaolin man, you're not gonna change the guys opinion. You seem like a bright guy, so let it be.
Fact is, most guys here really like the s2000. Better "sportscar" than the 8? Sure, I'd agree! But to me and most here, it is just a bit better than the 8 as a "sportscar", but the 8 is a whole lot better everwhere else. The fact that an 8 is within a hair on all handling fronts yet can carry 4 adults without a kidney jarring ride, that does it for me.
Shaolin man, you're not gonna change the guys opinion. You seem like a bright guy, so let it be.
Fact is, most guys here really like the s2000. Better "sportscar" than the 8? Sure, I'd agree! But to me and most here, it is just a bit better than the 8 as a "sportscar", but the 8 is a whole lot better everwhere else. The fact that an 8 is within a hair on all handling fronts yet can carry 4 adults without a kidney jarring ride, that does it for me.
08-06-2006, 09:30 PM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9291150...I agree. like I said...if I could only hav one I'd take the 8.
I just think that turbodiesel has little ground to stand on...I think its ridiculous that he uses heresay to support his claims and furthermore, I think its outrgeous that someone would consider scca not reputable.
whatever I've made my point here and I'm tired of arguing with dimwits.
you guys believe what you want, but the scca results are there if you want to see them.
Regardless of driver dependencies, the rx-8 sits in an inferior scca classification than the s2k at the autocross...where handling counts. I'll just end my argument here by stating that I deal in the real world with real world results. turbodiesel reads magazines and makes unsubstantiated speculations.
I just think that turbodiesel has little ground to stand on...I think its ridiculous that he uses heresay to support his claims and furthermore, I think its outrgeous that someone would consider scca not reputable.
whatever I've made my point here and I'm tired of arguing with dimwits.
you guys believe what you want, but the scca results are there if you want to see them.
Regardless of driver dependencies, the rx-8 sits in an inferior scca classification than the s2k at the autocross...where handling counts. I'll just end my argument here by stating that I deal in the real world with real world results. turbodiesel reads magazines and makes unsubstantiated speculations.
Last edited by shaolin; 08-06-2006 at 09:35 PM.
08-06-2006, 09:48 PM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
average s2k times are much etter than 8s. Look at the champions board. you still haven't responded to why scca puts the rx-8 in an inferior class.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
08-06-2006, 09:56 PM
#68
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shaolin
average s2k times are much etter than 8s. Look at the champions board. you still haven't responded to why scca puts the rx-8 in an inferior class.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
08-06-2006, 10:02 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's a question...does your beloved rx-8 handle better than a lotus elise/exige which has a I-4 engine as well? how about a miata? it is well known that these cars handle much better than an 8 sorry to say.
okay...now I'm really done.
okay...now I'm really done.
08-06-2006, 10:21 PM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shaolin
average s2k times are much etter than 8s. Look at the champions board. you still haven't responded to why scca puts the rx-8 in an inferior class.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
by the way the personal attacks are not necessary. I didn't want to say it, but as a matter of fact I was student of the year in my university physics courses and have a degree in forensic science...although I now work in real estate. so please don't insult my intelligence.
yeay, yeah and I'm a f''n rocket scientist but heh "I didn't want to say it"
Tell you what Mr. University Degree go get your little textbook and read the chapter on rotational motion; you must have skipped that day.
I dont know why or care why scca does that maybe because the s2k has been around longer, so there are more s2ks and more experienced and established s2k drivers. Regardless, some of the 8's times are better on there so moot point.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-06-2006 at 10:25 PM.
08-06-2006, 10:45 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty childish.
Yes some of the 8's times are better, but that is not the point. In cases like this, (you should have learned in your highschool science class) you take the median, mean, and mode of all times and compare respectively for each variable. In this case the variables being the two cars, and the control being the track. Guess what...all analyses show the S2K's times as being lower.
Well I suggest you go look at SCCA's website and read up on their different classifications and why they are that way. There are cars that have been around for much less time than RX-8 running in A stock, specifically several variations of EVOs and new STi's. On top of that there are far fewer S2K's than RX-8's in EXISTENCE. Your argument for why is a poor one. Cars are placed in various classifications because of their overall track competency. When we're talking a multitude of drivers variables like individual skill are eliminated and its a community skill as a whole. This is when it is possible to determine the superiority of vehicles and place them in corresponding classes. http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/Fil...ionsbymake.pdf just so you can see what cars fall into what classifications. A-stock is a very esteemed class.
And the fact that you don't care about SCCA just shows me just how little you really know.
By the way their isn't a "chapter" on rotational motion, it's an actual course called Theories and Laws of centrifugal force and inertia. You still provide no basis for your arguments rather than what you say. If you want to make a technical argument you must back it with technical data based on fact and foundation, not what you made up or speculate.
Piston engines can be made to be just as balanced, and far more goes into it than what you seem to suggest. Overall mass distribution over the engine's body mass itself as well as density levels, cam shaft and crank shaft locations, degrees and directions of rotations all play important roles in centrifugal forces/ inertia/ polar i.e. yaw moments. Piston rod angles also play a major role. NOT only that but they work in conjunction with the rest of the layout of the car.
Regardless of my educational background these are facts. The RX-8 succeeds in simplifying the need to balance centrifugal forces within the central mass of the vehicle because of it's simple compact renesis, and the fact that there is only one shaft and rotating rotors moving in one constant direction. Yes this is true, but is it better? No. Just different.
Alot more goes into centrifugal forces than the location and position of the engine, its various components, and how the density of the mass as a whole is distributed. Things like chassis dynamics, riggidity as people like to call it, suspension setup, and geometry all play important roles. Factors like camber, caster, and toe also play roles, as well as tire contact with the ground, and surface area. The S2000 has a staggered setup on wheel sizes, as well as a suspension setup that makes it more track biased than the RX-8's. The results are what we see at SCCA...the S2000 consistently faster than the RX-8. The car is just more prepared for the track....at the cost of daily liveability. The S2000 is a very harsh care to drive on a daily basis.
Like I already pointed out--there are many cars such as the exige/elise and the miata that are superior in handling to the RX-8 that use I-4 engines. Polar/yaw moments are taken into consideration in the design of these vehicles and there are a number of ways that engineers can lower them. A rotary by design is easier to work with, but in the cases of cars like the S2000, miata, elise, and others, it is NOT superior.
I am still waiting for your technical analysis on polar/yaw moments in the RX-8. I want to know where you came up with these conclusions....somewhere other than your rear.
I don't know why I continue to argue with you...you constantly make conjecture and speculation and wave them in everyone's face as fact. Shoot there's a reason why science is deeply rooted in experimentation and mathematics. Proof is in the numbers, and when asked for proof you say it's a "no brainer." Well hell that's all Einstein needed to say when he proposed his theory of relativity then huh? I suppose that's why it's still a theory and not a law because it's a "no brainer" and he doesn't need to show facts to support his claims. Gimme a break.
Hey by the way it's spelled "Porsche" not "Porche" as you've done repeatedly. I let it slide the first few times, but you continue to misspell the moniker. It's also a dual syllable word...just so you know.
Yes some of the 8's times are better, but that is not the point. In cases like this, (you should have learned in your highschool science class) you take the median, mean, and mode of all times and compare respectively for each variable. In this case the variables being the two cars, and the control being the track. Guess what...all analyses show the S2K's times as being lower.
Well I suggest you go look at SCCA's website and read up on their different classifications and why they are that way. There are cars that have been around for much less time than RX-8 running in A stock, specifically several variations of EVOs and new STi's. On top of that there are far fewer S2K's than RX-8's in EXISTENCE. Your argument for why is a poor one. Cars are placed in various classifications because of their overall track competency. When we're talking a multitude of drivers variables like individual skill are eliminated and its a community skill as a whole. This is when it is possible to determine the superiority of vehicles and place them in corresponding classes. http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/Fil...ionsbymake.pdf just so you can see what cars fall into what classifications. A-stock is a very esteemed class.
And the fact that you don't care about SCCA just shows me just how little you really know.
By the way their isn't a "chapter" on rotational motion, it's an actual course called Theories and Laws of centrifugal force and inertia. You still provide no basis for your arguments rather than what you say. If you want to make a technical argument you must back it with technical data based on fact and foundation, not what you made up or speculate.
Piston engines can be made to be just as balanced, and far more goes into it than what you seem to suggest. Overall mass distribution over the engine's body mass itself as well as density levels, cam shaft and crank shaft locations, degrees and directions of rotations all play important roles in centrifugal forces/ inertia/ polar i.e. yaw moments. Piston rod angles also play a major role. NOT only that but they work in conjunction with the rest of the layout of the car.
Regardless of my educational background these are facts. The RX-8 succeeds in simplifying the need to balance centrifugal forces within the central mass of the vehicle because of it's simple compact renesis, and the fact that there is only one shaft and rotating rotors moving in one constant direction. Yes this is true, but is it better? No. Just different.
Alot more goes into centrifugal forces than the location and position of the engine, its various components, and how the density of the mass as a whole is distributed. Things like chassis dynamics, riggidity as people like to call it, suspension setup, and geometry all play important roles. Factors like camber, caster, and toe also play roles, as well as tire contact with the ground, and surface area. The S2000 has a staggered setup on wheel sizes, as well as a suspension setup that makes it more track biased than the RX-8's. The results are what we see at SCCA...the S2000 consistently faster than the RX-8. The car is just more prepared for the track....at the cost of daily liveability. The S2000 is a very harsh care to drive on a daily basis.
Like I already pointed out--there are many cars such as the exige/elise and the miata that are superior in handling to the RX-8 that use I-4 engines. Polar/yaw moments are taken into consideration in the design of these vehicles and there are a number of ways that engineers can lower them. A rotary by design is easier to work with, but in the cases of cars like the S2000, miata, elise, and others, it is NOT superior.
I am still waiting for your technical analysis on polar/yaw moments in the RX-8. I want to know where you came up with these conclusions....somewhere other than your rear.
I don't know why I continue to argue with you...you constantly make conjecture and speculation and wave them in everyone's face as fact. Shoot there's a reason why science is deeply rooted in experimentation and mathematics. Proof is in the numbers, and when asked for proof you say it's a "no brainer." Well hell that's all Einstein needed to say when he proposed his theory of relativity then huh? I suppose that's why it's still a theory and not a law because it's a "no brainer" and he doesn't need to show facts to support his claims. Gimme a break.
Hey by the way it's spelled "Porsche" not "Porche" as you've done repeatedly. I let it slide the first few times, but you continue to misspell the moniker. It's also a dual syllable word...just so you know.
Last edited by shaolin; 08-07-2006 at 12:30 AM.
08-06-2006, 11:09 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See here: http://www.rx8.co.nz/Vehicle/technical.aspx
And here:
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2069?m...41482&mime=asc
There is no conclusive proof that either car has a lower yaw moment than the other, but they have nearly identical drivetrain/chassis layouts other than the fact that the S2K is a ragtop. So where do we go from here? The track. SCCA. Solo II autocross. But guess what? The RX-8 doesn't even compete in A-stock...it's in B-stock. Too bad....wonder why? Maybe the national trend of the S2000's track times keeps it in A-stock and the national trend of RX-8 track times keep it in B-stock. Naw...couldn't be [sarcasm]. But wait...you argue that it's driver specific. Oh...well I guess a national association like SCCA that measures club racers across the country meaning thousands of drivers is not conclusive data then. That is the most ridiculous BS I've heard.
The front-midship powertrain layout, with the weight of the engine located behind the centre line of the front wheels, is part of Mazda’s sports car heritage that has been applied over the years in cars such as the Mazda RX-7 and MX-5 roadster.
The aim of this unique powertrain configuration is to place the engine close to the centre of the vehicle to achieve uniform weight distribution over all four wheels and minimise the car’s yaw inertia moment by reducing weight on the car’s front end.
The aim of this unique powertrain configuration is to place the engine close to the centre of the vehicle to achieve uniform weight distribution over all four wheels and minimise the car’s yaw inertia moment by reducing weight on the car’s front end.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2069?m...41482&mime=asc
-50/50(front/rear) weight distribution
-Entire drivetrain located behind the centerline of the front axle (front mid-engine layout). This helps lower the vehicle's center of gravity and helps to centralize vehicle mass, resulting in a low yaw moment and more responsive vehicle behavior
-Wide track (57.8 in. front/59.4 in. rear) contributes to vehicle stability and chassis rigidity
-Highly rigid "high X-bone frame"
-Compact, highly rigid 4-wheel "in-wheel" double wishbone suspension allows for low hoodline
-Mono-tube shock absorbers
-Electric power steering system
-Four-wheel disc brakes (11.8-in. vented front/11.1-in. solid rear), with 3- channel ABS
-Limited-slip differential
-Entire drivetrain located behind the centerline of the front axle (front mid-engine layout). This helps lower the vehicle's center of gravity and helps to centralize vehicle mass, resulting in a low yaw moment and more responsive vehicle behavior
-Wide track (57.8 in. front/59.4 in. rear) contributes to vehicle stability and chassis rigidity
-Highly rigid "high X-bone frame"
-Compact, highly rigid 4-wheel "in-wheel" double wishbone suspension allows for low hoodline
-Mono-tube shock absorbers
-Electric power steering system
-Four-wheel disc brakes (11.8-in. vented front/11.1-in. solid rear), with 3- channel ABS
-Limited-slip differential
Last edited by shaolin; 08-06-2006 at 11:25 PM.
08-07-2006, 06:47 AM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shaolin:
You have repeatedly made an idiot out of yourself. You don't know anything about rotational motion or math or physics or statistics.
You completely disregard driver skill. For instance, one run the 8 driver is able to get a better time and the other two he screws up, c'mon whats up with that. You say take the averages across the country, but you give no statistical analysis on that population sampling.
Look man you are really getting desperate by reaching for far fetched things like bringing camshafts and piston rod angles into the mix (you quack
). Keep it simple stupid i.e. a four cylinder engine has a longer longitudinal axis than a rotary (ok are you following?) therefore, longer axis equals more rotational inertia and longer axis means the engine is not able to be set further aft in the chassis further contibuting to more inertia. Nuff said.
You have repeatedly made an idiot out of yourself. You don't know anything about rotational motion or math or physics or statistics.
You completely disregard driver skill. For instance, one run the 8 driver is able to get a better time and the other two he screws up, c'mon whats up with that. You say take the averages across the country, but you give no statistical analysis on that population sampling.
Look man you are really getting desperate by reaching for far fetched things like bringing camshafts and piston rod angles into the mix (you quack
). Keep it simple stupid i.e. a four cylinder engine has a longer longitudinal axis than a rotary (ok are you following?) therefore, longer axis equals more rotational inertia and longer axis means the engine is not able to be set further aft in the chassis further contibuting to more inertia. Nuff said.
Last edited by turbodiesel; 08-07-2006 at 04:01 PM.
08-07-2006, 08:06 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also driven the S2000 and loved it. I currently own a 04 RX-8 (bought after the S2k testdrive) and love it also. If I have to compare the two cars I would say that the S2k had more of a brutal sportscar feel to it with the 8 beeing the refined one.
I chose the 8 over the 2k for its usability and its roof
I chose the 8 over the 2k for its usability and its roof
Last edited by anbjornk; 08-07-2006 at 08:16 AM.
