C&D Z06 vs F430 vs 997TT

[Scaff]

Then why do they use it?

First off not all magazines use it at all, and I don't have a problem with it being used in the correct context. It is a measure of grip (which I have never disagreed with), however some use it as a measure of handling ability, which it is not.

But it's a 200-ft radius. that's the standard. changing it might change results, depending on gears, turning radius, downforce, toe setups, camber, lots of things. But 200FT is a big enough circle that toe isnt a major factor, turning radius has no play, in short, its big enough to eliminate slow-speed problems some cars could incur. Also, it's not big enough for downforce to come into play, as cars won't see high enough speeds, and as for gears, well, all you can do is pick a size and make cars all conform as best they can.

Which would be fine if every road/circuit had indentical surfaces and corners of a fixed radius, however they don't, so even as an indicator of grip it is limited.

It does allow comaprison from car to car, but its a very limited range.

That's precisly the point. It tells you how many g's = speed, a car can take a corner at, given no exceptions (i.e., bumps, uneven, etc.). is there any other way to measure a car's cornering grip? nope.

Which I do not dispute, its using it as a measure of handling that I take issue with.

They give you the transition statistics you were just asking the skidpad for. problem solved.

Again I would ask if the transitions you encounter on a road or track are always exactly the same? Of course not, so its limited in its range again. It is a better indicator than the skidpan, which I say, but it is still limited.

But a well-written piece, is liable to be determind by personal opinion, and can vary drastically between 2 drivers, let alone 20. Define Handling. Are you saying, "I want this car to be enjoyable, in every way, with corner speed 2nd", or are you saying "Handling is the ability of a car to go around corners in general at the highest possible speed"
I'll take the second, it's more reliable, & fact-based, instead of personal opinions abounding.
Thing is, INDY cars, for example, have twitch-oversteer that makes Vettes seem like Civics. But they handle better. They don't drive as nice, but they arent luxery tourers...what do you want? a sportscar? or a sports tourer?

My entire point is that handleing is very difficult to define and can't be boiled down to a couple of figures, a poiint you demonstrate yourself by using descriptive language in the example of the INDY car, rather than just figures.

I am more than aware that bias and choice of language can colour a written piece, but I find it far more informative than stats alone and better able to illustrate the difference between a car that can generate a high level of mechanical grip, but is unable to communicate that grip limit to the driver and ends up a handling mess.

How are stats ever going to tell me that?


Regards

Scaff

 

[Kent]

Just noticed this thread.

The first post is a perfect example of how "speed" is the least important aspect of a car when day-to-day outweighs track-day.

Happy to see the Vette is faster, that I am.
Otherwise, I just keep in mind that everything is a matter of taste.

Truth is though, a Corvette's interior is closer to that of a G6 or Silverado than a 997TT or a F430. Harsh fact but that's what you get for skimping out on the extra cash.

BTW,

But a well-written piece, is liable to be determind by personal opinion, and can vary drastically between 2 drivers, let alone 20. Define Handling. Are you saying, "I want this car to be enjoyable, in every way, with corner speed 2nd", or are you saying "Handling is the ability of a car to go around corners in general at the highest possible speed"
I'll take the second, it's more reliable, & fact-based, instead of personal opinions abounding.
Thing is, INDY cars, for example, have twitch-oversteer that makes Vettes seem like Civics. But they handle better. They don't drive as nice, but they arent luxery tourers...what do you want? a sportscar? or a sports tourer?

My thoughts on this are that Handling is a personal issue for each person related to their ease and enjoyment of the experience produced by driving a car.

The racecar issue is a moot point relative only to the handling of other racecars from the same racing league.

When it comes to the Corvette's lap time and handling, I imagine it is a little harder to drive in many senses (more demanding phisically as well as mentally when dealing with oversteer/ understeer).

The people at C&D valued comfort and atmosphere over speed and power for this comparison- no big deal. Of course, what is the difference in price between these cars? Is it equal to that of a Kia sedan or a Mercedes sedan?

 

[Duke]

As for mercedes' troubles blame chryslers meddling.

Are you freaking KIDDING me?! Do you know anything about the "merger" at all? All the words I would normally use to describe it are forbidden by the AUP.

You should be saying "As for Chrysler's troubles, blame Mercedes' meddling." Chrysler was doing amazingly well, all by themselves, before they were bought. Then they were raped and pillaged by Daimler management. It's only the last couple years that they're struggling out of that period and learning how to live under the yoke.

 

[niky]

I can't help but point out, but the M Class (as you are saying, is unreliable) is made in Tuscaloosa... Now that's a fact not a dig. I've made my apologies in the other thread.

Not flaming here, but there is both something in this and something besides it.

Like I've said in previous posts, lthe effects of using local labor are both over-rated and under-rated. Local labor affects the overall quality of a vehicle, but this effect is highly dependent on the quality control instituted by the car manufacturer in the first place, and the kind of parts used.

Case in point: Honda versus Ford/Mazda. Most people would tell you Honda has better reliability or quality, and in general, their mechanical parts are very well made. Ford/Mazda sometimes uses dodgy parts or poorly designed parts.

However, Both companies have locally assembled vehicles here. The plants are about 15 minutes south of my hometown. Honda vehicles coming from these plants have been known to have trim and fitment issues, as well as an infamous gas tank strap problem (poor welding meant the tanks could probably fall off and hit the exhaust).

Ford/Mazda vehicles from the local plant, however, have generally better trim fitment, and have garnered some JD Initial quality awards.

Initial Quality doesn't tell you squat about reliability, but it's general indicator of the workmanship that went into the assembling car itself.

In other words: Local labor may have an effect, but it's the direction and procedures handed down by the head office that determines how big and how bad/good an effect this is. If the procedural looseness is big enough that workers can slack off and do a terrible job? That's the company's fault... no matter where the actual plant is located.

 

[TheCracker]

That's precisly the point. It tells you how many g's = speed, a car can take a corner at, given no exceptions (i.e., bumps, uneven, etc.). is there any other way to measure a car's cornering grip? nope.

But it still means f-all in the real world, unless your world involves driving round in circles all day. A skid pan is so far removed from any normal road conditions to draw any conclusions about a car other than 'how many g's it can pull going round a round-a-bout. It says nothing about a cars ability to corner because that comes down to how the car feels in a corner. Feedback from the cars transition from straight line to turn in, holding it through to the apex, how the car communicates through the wheel and 'seat-of-your-pants' whilst at the outer levels of grip are all features of cornering ability - not some sort of meaningless scientific test.

But a well-written piece, is liable to be determind by personal opinion, and can vary drastically between 2 drivers, let alone 20. Define Handling. Are you saying, "I want this car to be enjoyable, in every way, with corner speed 2nd", or are you saying "Handling is the ability of a car to go around corners in general at the highest possible speed"
I'll take the second, it's more reliable, & fact-based, instead of personal opinions abounding.

It's not the second option because some very modest cars can handle great yet do not have high levels of grip. I'd say an average Ford Focus handles better than an Astra VXR, even though the stiff suspension and wide tires offer better levels of grip in the Astra, they also reduce feeling and bring to the table unwanted inputs like torque steer and tram-lining as well as a choppier ride.

Thing is, INDY cars, for example, have twitch-oversteer that makes Vettes seem like Civics. But they handle better. They don't drive as nice, but they arent luxery tourers...what do you want? a sportscar? or a sports tourer?

Who ever said that a racing car handles well? - Good handling on a track and good handling on the road are completely different things, completely. I've driven 'slicks and wings' single seaters before and whilst highly enjoyable on a track, i'd hate to drive one on the road, even a road devoid of traffic, it would be awful, truly awful. On a race track you want to be driving at ten tenths all the time and thats what any race car is set up to do. A road car might be driven at 8 or maybe 9 tenths occasionally, but will spend most of its time at 2 to 5 or 6 tenths and is therefore set up accordingly. A good handling car is one that feels good through the highest spread of commitment levels. Most if not all race cars feel 'right' at ten tenths and gradually get worse the less commitment you put in. The Lotus Cortina i'm fortunate enough to get to race occasionally would make a dreadful road car - even though it's road-going equivalent was concidered a fine handling car in its day. Our car is set-up for optimum track performance and that set-up just wouldn't work on the road, it would just be far too compromised. Handling isn't grip.

Of all the Z06 reviews i've read they say the car is great on track, the lap times it puts out in this C&D test against the F430 and 911 Turbo prove that. But they all say that it just doesn't work quite as well on the open road (i'm talking European roads) Chevy have compromissed a bit of real world handling agility and subtlety for on-track ability. There's little point having everyday usability as a selling feature if people don't want to use the car everyday. If you want a track biased car you won't care about everyday usability - in Europe that means you'll probably go for a 911 GT3 over the Z06.

 

[Poverty]

Are you freaking KIDDING me?! Do you know anything about the "merger" at all? All the words I would normally use to describe it are forbidden by the AUP.

You should be saying "As for Chrysler's troubles, blame Mercedes' meddling." Chrysler was doing amazingly well, all by themselves, before they were bought. Then they were raped and pillaged by Daimler management. It's only the last couple years that they're struggling out of that period and learning how to live under the yoke.

Not by the articles Ive read. Do you know why they merged? And how MB was supposedly was to benefit from it? Lets just say what chryslr had to bring to the table screwed MB's reputation, and theyre now reverting back to theyre old ways.

The MB boss said that theyre aim is to be more reliable than lexus.

As for chrysler doing ok before MB, wasnt GM and Ford doing okay in those days too?

 

[Tornado]

So, again, this "merger of equals" (which is hard to ven type without laughing) where Chrysler was basically bought by Mercedes is Chryslers fault that the CEO screwed over the shareholders, board of directors and basically everyone who wasn't him and sold the damn company to Mercedes? It's Chryslers fault that two men set off a chain of events that led to both companies spiral? Even better, it's Chrysler's fault that Mercedes bought Chrysler? Oh, and Poverty? In the late 90's, the SUV craze was in full swing. Chrysler as a whole had 4. 3 of them were Jeeps. What does that tell you about Chryslers well-being, when Ford and GM had more than 10 each.

 

[Scaff]

Not by the articles Ive read. Do you know why they merged? And how MB was supposedly was to benefit from it? Lets just say what chryslr had to bring to the table screwed MB's reputation, and theyre now reverting back to theyre old ways.

The MB boss said that theyre aim is to be more reliable than lexus.

As for chrysler doing ok before MB, wasnt GM and Ford doing okay in those days too?

I would strongly advise you read the book "Wheels on Fire" by David Waller before saying this was a merger, it may have been presented as that to the public and press. However as Waller (who was part of the team) discusses it was a take-over of Chrysler by MB, a not far short of a hostile one at that.

To try and say that what Chrysler bought to the table screwed with MB reputation, I'm sorry but what are you on about.

Try the other way around, Chrysler was at the time the big American automotive success story (and yes Ford and GM were not doing well at this time - not as bad as now in GM's case, but still not good). Chrysler were a profitable company with an extremely good reputation and MB basically tore that apart.


MB bought out Chrysler plain and simple, to try and then say that Chyrsler were the source of the problems that followed would seem to indicate that your main source of info here was the mainstream press. After all MB did try and display it as a merger of equals (in the world of business there is no such thing) and when it went a bit pear shaped it was nice and easy to try and blame Chrysler.

Regards

Scaff

 

[neanderthal]

Are you freaking KIDDING me?! Do you know anything about the "merger" at all? All the words I would normally use to describe it are forbidden by the AUP.

You should be saying "As for Chrysler's troubles, blame Mercedes' meddling." Chrysler was doing amazingly well, all by themselves, before they were bought. Then they were raped and pillaged by Daimler management. It's only the last couple years that they're struggling out of that period and learning how to live under the yoke.

not raped and pillaged by mercedes. simple change in market place.

the onset of other newer competing SUVs killed the GCs reign as the essentally default SUV if you wanted a small one with a V8. or a luxury model (no luxury SUVs back then except for the Gwagen which was available for an arm, a a leg and your fist born child from Europa motors in new mexico
competing models ate into the minivan triumvirate as well. fords freestar, toyotas sienna, hondas first odyssey etc

chrysler essentially depended on the sales of those two vehicles, the grand cherokee as cash cow (they actually called it "the franchise") and the caravan/ voyager/ town and country which had something like 70% of the market between them at one point.

 

[Duke]

not raped and pillaged by mercedes. simple change in market place.

Daimler management transferred something like $3 billion in assets from Chrysler to Daimler-Benz. Literally just took it out of Chrysler's bank account and put it in their own. Then they blamed the resulting cash flow problems Chrysler experienced on bad Chrysler management...! So they installed Daimler management, who had no idea what to do with American factories and American workers...

At the same time, Daimler management required Chrysler to use more expensive Mercedes parts and Mercedes engineering. And then backcharged Chrysler for development costs on those parts. And then chastised Chrysler for low profit margins on their cars...

I had good friends in Chrysler engineering throughout that whole era, so I heard all this stuff first hand. This is exactly why I call it rape and pillage. The Visigoths could hardly have done a more thorough job.

Luckily, DCX management appears to have become somewhat sane again, with the changes at the top level.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

But it still means f-all in the real world, unless your world involves driving round in circles all day. A skid pan is so far removed from any normal road conditions to draw any conclusions about a car other than 'how many g's it can pull going round a round-a-bout. It says nothing about a cars ability to corner because that comes down to how the car feels in a corner. Feedback from the cars transition from straight line to turn in, holding it through to the apex, how the car communicates through the wheel and 'seat-of-your-pants' whilst at the outer levels of grip are all features of cornering ability - not some sort of meaningless scientific test. .

I'm only going to say this once, and one time only.
Feeling is NOT ability.
Feeling IS Driveability
And feeling is biased in 3 drastic ways.
Driver
Road(s)
Culture
(everything you described there sounds like "enjoyability" not capability)

It's not the second option because some very modest cars can handle great yet do not have high levels of grip. I'd say an average Ford Focus handles better than an Astra VXR, even though the stiff suspension and wide tires offer better levels of grip in the Astra, they also reduce feeling and bring to the table unwanted inputs like torque steer and tram-lining as well as a choppier ride. .

No Grip = sliding To drive at a fast rate around a corner, you must have grip.
Suspension, Chassis: These change how your car reacts to changes in road surface, among other things. With a proper setup, these can able your car to sustain grip, without being thrown off balance, when you drive over bumps, among other variations. That is not measurable, and will never be tested, because you can't.
it all boils down to how much grip you have, While they could test cars over a bumpy slalom, and skidpad, that would favor cars with softer suspensions, and not reflect what it could do on a smoother road.
any test will favor some cars, and not others.

Who ever said that a racing car handles well? - Good handling on a track and good handling on the road are completely different things, completely. I've driven 'slicks and wings' single seaters before and whilst highly enjoyable on a track, i'd hate to drive one on the road, even a road devoid of traffic, it would be awful, truly awful. On a race track you want to be driving at ten tenths all the time and thats what any race car is set up to do. A road car might be driven at 8 or maybe 9 tenths occasionally, but will spend most of its time at 2 to 5 or 6 tenths and is therefore set up accordingly. A good handling car is one that feels good through the highest spread of commitment levels. Most if not all race cars feel 'right' at ten tenths and gradually get worse the less commitment you put in. The Lotus Cortina i'm fortunate enough to get to race occasionally would make a dreadful road car - even though it's road-going equivalent was concidered a fine handling car in its day. Our car is set-up for optimum track performance and that set-up just wouldn't work on the road, it would just be far too compromised. Handling isn't grip.

Cornering speed is.
pleasant happy, senial daily nothingness, is the soft, cushy crap people buy in America. a medium is what is bought in most of Europe, because most roads are apparantly, crap there, though I'm not sure it isnt exaggerated.

Of all the Z06 reviews i've read they say the car is great on track, the lap times it puts out in this C&D test against the F430 and 911 Turbo prove that. But they all say that it just doesn't work quite as well on the open road (i'm talking European roads) Chevy have compromissed a bit of real world handling agility and subtlety for on-track ability. There's little point having everyday usability as a selling feature if people don't want to use the car everyday. If you want a track biased car you won't care about everyday usability - in Europe that means you'll probably go for a 911 GT3 over the Z06.

Why would you get a GT3 over a Z06? hell, at least get a GT2, or something.
And Yes, it does depend on what roads you talk about.
I live in Pennsylvania, one of the top 10 supposed worst road states in America, and guess what? I've never ridden in a car that I thought had to stiff a suspension. but I can handle bumps and jars.

Listen up Judging a car based on road manners is horribly more biased than track manners, because every test will be on different roads, so you'll have 2 days, 2 cars, 2 drivers, and complete contrast.
A detailed review of feeling, is based on: 1. specific roads 2. specific driver 3. specific culture
I don't know about you guys, but that to damn many variables for me to use as any kind of deciding factor.

 

[YSSMAN]

At the same time, Daimler management required Chrysler to use more expensive Mercedes parts and Mercedes engineering. And then backcharged Chrysler for development costs on those parts. And then chastised Chrysler for low profit margins on their cars...

And the funny part is, Chrysler really didn't gain anything quality wise by using Mercedes parts. I'd place the DCX cars at the bottom when it comes to build quality these days, as even the Daewoo/Chevrolet Aveo seems to be screwed together better than the Dodge Cobalt and Jeep Compass.

Not everything from the "merger" has been good, but not all of it has been bad either. If it wasn't for the "merger," we wouldn't have had the LX platform to play with, and thusly Ford and GM wouldn't have been so interested in RWD as a viable option to FWD.

If anything, DCX needs to worry more about their Chrysler arm than their Mercedes arm right now. After Dr. Z left North America to run the global operations, things have began to slowly fall apart. Apparently DCX is ready to announce (if they haven't allready) a $600 Million loss for the last quarter due to slow selling models (Crossfire, Pacifica, Sebring/Stratus), the collapse of the truck/SUV market, and the lack of great quality vehicles.

I'd be more concerned about the future of Chrysler than Ford, but even they are are in very rough shape by comparison to GM...

 

[1X83Z]

Daimler management transferred something like $3 billion in assets from Chrysler to Daimler-Benz. Literally just took it out of Chrysler's bank account and put it in their own. Then they blamed the resulting cash flow problems Chrysler experienced on bad Chrysler management...! So they installed Daimler management, who had no idea what to do with American factories and American workers...

At the same time, Daimler management required Chrysler to use more expensive Mercedes parts and Mercedes engineering. And then backcharged Chrysler for development costs on those parts. And then chastised Chrysler for low profit margins on their cars...

I had good friends in Chrysler engineering throughout that whole era, so I heard all this stuff first hand. This is exactly why I call it rape and pillage. The Visigoths could hardly have done a more thorough job.

Luckily, DCX management appears to have become somewhat sane again, with the changes at the top level.

I'm not sure about the entire merger situation. I've always felt that you, Duke, take too hard of a position against Mercedes and in support of Chrysler, yet it's hard to argue with much of what you say as factually lots or all of it is correct. (typically terms like "violent rapists" and "pillage" are also used in conjunction with you discussing this issue, which I'd say are a bit less than fact, but so be it ) I must take issue with you saying that Chrysler was doing "amazingly well" without Mercedes at the helm, considering that their 1998 lineup consisted of the Sebring (only popular as a convertible but sold as a coupe too), the Cirrus (failure of the decade), and the Concorde (six years old at that point), plus the minivan.

However in the end, here's how I see it: we're seven years on, and Chrysler is making the best cars it's ever made in my lifetime. And Mercedes is doing the same. And the other domestic brands are floundering, producing **** like the Five Hundred. So regardless of how you viewed the merger in 1999, we should all be thankful because it seems to be getting the job done in 2006.

 

[Scaff]

Cornering speed is.
pleasant happy, senial daily nothingness, is the soft, cushy crap people buy in America. a medium is what is bought in most of Europe, because most roads are apparantly, crap there, though I'm not sure it isnt exaggerated.

So now handling can be determined by cornering speed rather than grip, you are aware that theoretical peak cornering speed can be calculated to a fairly accurate degree from grip?

15 * G * R = MPH2

G = laterial g when cornering

R = Corner Radius in feet

MPH2 = MPH squared

(Source - Skip Barber's Going Faster)


Now apart from the point that the above section of the post makes no sense at all, you are once again ignoring the plain and simple fact that handling is not a directly quantifiable factor. It does and will change depending on the road, road surface, climate and the driver.

Don't like that, well I'm sorry but thats the way it is.

Maximum cornering speed like peak grip is a figure almost totally removed from how the car communicates aproaching that limit to you and what you are able to do with the can when that limit is reached or breached.

A car can have a stupidly high peak grip and therefore massive potential cornering speed, if it doesn't communicate that limit to you and/or allow you to balance at or near that limit then its worthless. You will almost never be able to use all that lovely grip.

One again I cite the example of the Lotus Elan, a car that has low peak grip levels and low maximum cornering speed, but everyone who has ever driven one raves about how well it communicates these limits to you and how easily the car allows you to exploit these limits. Balanceing the car on the edge of it limits.

Grip determines how quickly you can theroretically corner, handling determines how much and how easily you can exploit the grip.

They are not one and the same, in fact arguably they have little to do with each other.


You claim not to have ridden in a car that was too stiff for your local road, to which I would say that either the roads are not that bad or you were not going quick enough. I have sections of b-road not far from me that are more than bumpy enough to throw my Celica off line at speed.


You also say that its not possibale to test and figure the grip level offered on every bump of every corner, well sorry but it is. It may well be beyond the budget of any car magazine, but its certanly far from impossiable. Race teams the world over capture telemetry data that tells them just that, this data is then used to recreate the forces acting on a car at that track on a 4 post shaker rig. This allows the forces and grip at each corner to be recreate lap after lap after lap.

I'm only going to say this once, and one time only.
Feeling is NOT ability.
Feeling IS Driveability

You can say it only once if want, but how a car feels and how it communicates that feeling to you certainly is ability. So cars are completely inert in steering feel and simply refuse to communicate what the tyres are doing to the driver, as far as the vast majority of people I've spoken to on this subject are concerned this is a characteristic of handling. Without it you will almost never exploit the cars limits, as it will simply not inform you of when those limits are reached, nor what it is going to do when the limit is reached.

Feeling is not the only ellement of handling ability, but it certainly is a part of it.


Regards

Scaff

 

[LeadSlead#2]

So now handling can be determined by cornering speed rather than grip, you are aware that theoretical peak cornering speed can be calculated to a fairly accurate degree from grip?

I've been saying the whole time cornering speed and grip are one and the same. variations on road surface, along with vehicle characteristics will change the amount of grip you have.

15 * G * R = MPH2

G = laterial g when cornering

R = Corner Radius in feet

MPH2 = MPH squared

(Source - Skip Barber's Going Faster)

And how does this disagree with anything I've said????

Now apart from the point that the above section of the post makes no sense at all, you are once again ignoring the plain and simple fact that handling is not a directly quantifiable factor. It does and will change depending on the road, road surface, climate and the driver.

but you said...

You also say that its not possibale to test and figure the grip level offered on every bump of every corner, well sorry but it is. It may well be beyond the budget of any car magazine, but its certanly far from impossiable. Race teams the world over capture telemetry data that tells them just that, this data is then used to recreate the forces acting on a car at that track on a 4 post shaker rig. This allows the forces and grip at each corner to be recreate lap after lap after lap.

wait... don't these contradict? at least, a little?

Grip determines how quickly you can theroretically corner, handling determines how much and how easily you can exploit the grip.

They are not one and the same, in fact arguably they have little to do with each other.

They have everything to do with each other.
the amount of grip you have = cornering force.
the things you insist are "handling" are simply feelings that inspire confidence, rather than change limits.
once again the amount of grip you have, will very depending on how your vehicles suspension, etc. react to the current road surface.

You claim not to have ridden in a car that was too stiff for your local road, to which I would say that either the roads are not that bad or you were not going quick enough. I have sections of b-road not far from me that are more than bumpy enough to throw my Celica off line at speed.

okay, so we've encountered different roads. and this disagrees with what I said how?
Oh, and no $#!t bumps threw your car out-of-balance. bumps throw any car off. some more than other, and the end results will vary, but bumps will surely throw any car off a little.
My point was that the stiffest suspensions I've seen, handled the bumps the best, and especially the floaters (mountains and such). why? because the vehicle becomes dead weight faster, due to less suspension travel, and recovers 5x faster, due to more force applied in restraining vehicle movement, from going crazy.
I.E. cars with aftermarket suspensions like Eibach sportlines, etc.
but those are on my roads and yours are probabley different, like I said.

You can say it only once if want, but how a car feels and how it communicates that feeling to you certainly is ability. So cars are completely inert in steering feel and simply refuse to communicate what the tyres are doing to the driver, as far as the vast majority of people I've spoken to on this subject are concerned this is a characteristic of handling. Without it you will almost never exploit the cars limits, as it will simply not inform you of when those limits are reached, nor what it is going to do when the limit is reached. A car can have a stupidly high peak grip and therefore massive potential cornering speed, if it doesn't communicate that limit to you and/or allow you to balance at or near that limit then its worthless. You will almost never be able to use all that lovely grip.

Practice. Sure, this car is very difficult to drive, but that doesnt mean it's less capable. that means it's less capable in the hands of Joe Average "I can't drive"

By the by, the softer a car's suspension, the more cummunicative the feeling. And, the easier to drive. You, nor anybody else, has failed to state any reason, of how what I am saying is untrue.
The harder/more racecar like the suspension, the harder the car is for a driver to handle.
The softer and cushier the ride, the easier the limits will be explored, how cant you tell, the ground's outside your window.
Now, show me an example of a car with a soft suspension that doesnt communicate its limits, or a stiff one that does.

 

[Scaff]

I've been saying the whole time cornering speed and grip are one and the same.

Actually no you did not, you highlighted Crakers thread to focus on Handling isn't grip and then directly afterwards said Cornering speed is.

Now to me that read as if you are classing grip and cornering speed as two different things, which I then used the Skip Barber quote to show are not.

By the by, the softer a car's suspension, the more cummunicative the feeling. And, the easier to drive. You, nor anybody else, has failed to state any reason, of how what I am saying is untrue.
The harder/more racecar like the suspension, the harder the car is for a driver to handle.
The softer and cushier the ride, the easier the limits will be explored, how cant you tell, the ground's outside your window.
Now, show me an example of a car with a soft suspension that doesnt communicate its limits, or a stiff one that does.

You are actually serious with this aren't you?

First just to be clear you are saying that grip and ultimate cornering speed are the sole benchmarks of handling?

Secondly you are saying that as a blanket soft cars will communicate well and stiff cars will not communicate well?


Well lets deal with that second one(as the first one I and others have covered in detail), please explain to me in detail exactly how a softly set-up car will commuicate better with me when the soft nature of the suspension is actually going to filter out much of the information.

Secondly race-cars (or track cars for that matter) will normlly communicate far better due to the replacement of most of the rubber suspension bushings with solid rose-jointed bushes. These allow far more direct feel in the suspension.

A stiff car is going to allow more feel through from the tyre quite simply because the suspension is filtering less of it.

You want an example of each, OK here's a few.

Stiff cars with excellent feel
Porsche 911
Lotus Elise
Caterham 7
Renault Clio Williams
Pug 205 GTI

Soft cars with poor feel
Any big Citroen ever made
Any standard Renault
Ford Escort Mk4


I could go on and on.

Personally I have no issue if you wish to believe that handling is nothing more than grip and cornering speed. as long as to be honest I never have to sit next to you in a car.


Regards

Scaff

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I'm talking about communicating limits, Scaff.
I.E. a stiff car will communicate the road surface better, but not how/if how much it is sliding.
A 71 Eldorado, (sorry, you named a bunch of cars I'll never even see in person) will communicate when it's on the edge with utmost reliability. look, the grounds 1 ft away from my window, the tires are squealing like a tortured animal, and we're starting to lose hold of our line! communicated very well. with plenty of advanced warning. perhaps you've never driven a true "boat".

Something I realized a long time ago. A soft suspension car, will squeal tires louder. the softer the suspension, the louder the tires will squeal. because there is more weight on them. Also, the softer the suspension, the longer/more you can squeal the tires, without really sliding. inches, to feet, is a long difference with a soft suspension.
the harder the suspension gets, the less they squeal, and if/when they do, the closer you are to sliding feet, or meters, then a soft suspension.
that's just the way it works.
As far as steering feel, sure, some cars may give a much better initial feel, for some mag editor, who's only driving it a little bit. But in the long run, of owning a car, you'll learn what/when the cars going to do, and how to feel for it.
My brother swears my Grand Am has no feeling whatsoever, and he can't tell what/when its going to do anything. On the other hand, I know exactly what its going to do, when its going to do it, and how its going to do it. why? because I've driven it more than 100 miles. 30,000 to be more accurate. I can throw it into a corner and know what's going to happen. somebody who has never driven it before, probabley won't.
I think it's the most communicative car I've driven, but that's likely because Ive driven it more than any other car.
FWD is more communicative than AWD. which is more communicative than RWD. because it causes shudders and vibrations through the steering. that doesnt make the RWD worse, it makes it harder to drive.

Quite frankly, it's quite ignorant to assume/expect to feel a car's true limitsa on a test drive, and any racecar driver will very likely tell you that they feel much better after driving their car thousands of miles, than on entry.

The differences reviewers feel, are likely not even true communications of a cars limits, rather, how comfortable they are, and what they think the car could do, rather than what it CAN do.
even when they say "I think this car is super easy to drive on the limit", that doesnt make it easier to drive, it means it catered to their liking, on first impression. And then theirs road familiarity, how many times have they driven here? knowing what/when/where the surface will vary, will inspire even greater confidence in a car you trust, than a car you don't trust.

And yes Scaff, Grip = cornering speed. if you don't believe me, reread your skip barber comment.
Grip changes due to suspension/road variations.

If your car has the grip, it has the cornering speed. if it has the cornering speed, it's driving faster through the corner. it is now handling better
you are confusing Driveability, with Handling

 

[Famine]

I'm talking about communicating limits, Scaff.
A 71 Eldorado, (sorry, you named a bunch of cars I'll never even see in person) will communicate when it's on the edge with utmost reliability. look, the grounds 1 ft away from my window, the tires are squealing like a tortured animal, and we're starting to lose hold of our line! communicated very well. with plenty of advanced warning. perhaps you've never driven a true "boat".

Something I realized a long time ago. A soft suspension car, will squeal tires louder. the softer the suspension, the louder the tires will squeal. because there is more weight on them. Also, the softer the suspension, the longer/more you can squeal the tires, without really sliding. inches, to feet, is a long difference with a soft suspension.
the harder the suspension gets, the less they squeal, and if/when they do, the closer you are to sliding feet, or meters, then a soft suspension.
that's just the way it works.

Squeal isn't feel.

Feel is when you can tell who painted the white line you just drove over, just by the information coming into your hands and feet.

 

[Scaff]

And yes Scaff, Grip = cornering speed. if you don't believe me, reread your skip barber comment.
Grip changes due to suspension/road variations.

If your car has the grip, it has the cornering speed. if it has the cornering speed, it's driving faster through the corner. it is now handling better
you are confusing Driveability, with Handling

I never said anything different, why did you think I gave the Skip Barber quote.

Something I realized a long time ago. A soft suspension car, will squeal tires louder. the softer the suspension, the louder the tires will squeal. because there is more weight on them. Also, the softer the suspension, the longer/more you can squeal the tires, without really sliding. inches, to feet, is a long difference with a soft suspension.
the harder the suspension gets, the less they squeal, and if/when they do, the closer you are to sliding feet, or meters, then a soft suspension.
that's just the way it works.

Sorry to break this to you, but longitudinal load transfer does not change with suspension softness or stiffness.

The amount of load transfered is not determined by the suspension stiffness, how that load is shared between the two front (or rear) tyre is. Softer suspension will allow the load to be shared better between the two tyres, up to a point, however it does have its (rather large) draw backs.

Softer suspension naturally requires a higher ride height, which in turn raises the cars Centre of Gravity and Polar Moment of Inertia, reducing the actual limits of grip.

It does not translate directly into feel (through your hands and back-side), neither does tyre squeel, which can vary dramitically with tyre compounds and makes.

As far as steering feel, sure, some cars may give a much better initial feel, for some mag editor, who's only driving it a little bit. But in the long run, of owning a car, you'll learn what/when the cars going to do, and how to feel for it.
My brother swears my Grand Am has no feeling whatsoever, and he can't tell what/when its going to do anything. On the other hand, I know exactly what its going to do, when its going to do it, and how its going to do it. why? because I've driven it more than 100 miles. 30,000 to be more accurate. I can throw it into a corner and know what's going to happen. somebody who has never driven it before, probabley won't.
I think it's the most communicative car I've driven, but that's likely because Ive driven it more than any other car.

Sorry but thats familiarity not communication, and its certainly a useful tool to have, but a truly communicative car will aid you massively in that department.

You can learn the limits of arguably any car with time, but a truely great car will communicate those limits too you far more directly allowing to read the cars grip level and balance with ease and long before any tyres start squeeling.

FWD is more communicative than AWD. which is more communicative than RWD. because it causes shudders and vibrations through the steering. that doesnt make the RWD worse, it makes it harder to drive.

I've driven enough different cars to know that generalisations like this simply can't be made.

One of the single most communicative cars I've driven was a Lotus Elise, and would go so far as to say that the communication on most FWD cars is awful.

The suddering and vibrations is most front-wheel drive cars massively corrupt the feel I am talking about. If I had to make a generalisation here it would be that cars without front wheel drive are normally the most communicative as the feel is purerly from the wheels themselves with no driving force complicating matters.

Quite frankly, it's quite ignorant to assume/expect to feel a car's true limitsa on a test drive, and any racecar driver will very likely tell you that they feel much better after driving their car thousands of miles, than on entry.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort, I said (and maintain) that skidpan and slalom test figures are not a valid representation of a cars handling ability.

The differences reviewers feel, are likely not even true communications of a cars limits, rather, how comfortable they are, and what they think the car could do, rather than what it CAN do.
even when they say "I think this car is super easy to drive on the limit", that doesnt make it easier to drive, it means it catered to their liking, on first impression. And then theirs road familiarity, how many times have they driven here? knowing what/when/where the surface will vary, will inspire even greater confidence in a car you trust, than a car you don't trust.

No good reviewer will say that they know everything from a test, but if you are saying that they do not push the cars limits then I suggest that you are reading the wrong magazines. As an example I would strongly suggest you give Evo a go, as they certainly do push the limits of cars on test, over many hundered (if not thousand in the case of long term cars) of miles.

As for road familiarity, does that not give a good bench-mark to allow comparison of how different cars commnicate differently?

If you know how a good car communicates a certain corner to you, then you know what a bad car is missing out.


Regards

Scaff

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Squeal isn't feel.

No, it's not. But it is communication.

Sorry to break this to you, but longitudinal load transfer does not change with suspension softness or stiffness.

isnt longitudinal front-to-rear?

The amount of load transfered is not determined by the suspension stiffness, how that load is shared between the two front (or rear) tyre is. Softer suspension will allow the load to be shared better between the two tyres, up to a point, however it does have its (rather large) draw backs.

how that load is "shared"? you mean, how the suspension shares it, right?
so a car that leans harder, does not have more weight residing on the outside tire? (hint: softer suspension allow cars to lean harder)

Softer suspension naturally requires a higher ride height, which in turn raises the cars Centre of Gravity and Polar Moment of Inertia, reducing the actual limits of grip.

another thing putting more weight on the outside tire.

It does not translate directly into feel (through your hands and back-side), neither does tyre squeel, which can vary dramitically with tyre compounds and makes.

through your hands, no, your backside, yes.
tire squeal, as Famine said, is not feeling. but it IS communication.
put any tire you like on a soft suspensioned car, turn hard, and they WILL squeal. any tires I've ever seen.
however, on a stiff suspension, some do, others do not, none as loud or as early as on a soft car.

Sorry but thats familiarity not communication, and its certainly a useful tool to have, but a truly communicative car will aid you massively in that department.

Did I say otherwise? (no)

You can learn the limits of arguably any car with time, but a truely great car will communicate those limits too you far more directly allowing to read the cars grip level and balance with ease and long before any tyres start squeeling.

That IS a very nice thing to have, but it won't make the car able to turn faster, simply give a driver more confidence, to take it to it's limits.
A truely great driver, will find the limits of any car, despite any feedback issues, and drive to them.- (the limits)

I've driven enough different cars to know that generalisations like this simply can't be made.

I've driven enough different cars to know that generalizations can always be made, that's the beauty of generlizations. they don't have to be correct 100% of the time, because the very definition of "generalization" is something that usually holds true. (which implies without question that there are exceptions)

One of the single most communicative cars I've driven was a Lotus Elise, and would go so far as to say that the communication on most FWD cars is awful.

you must have driven some odd FWD's, the feeling you get back through the front wheel is second to none.

The suddering and vibrations is most front-wheel drive cars massively corrupt the feel I am talking about. If I had to make a generalisation here it would be that cars without front wheel drive are normally the most communicative as the feel is purerly from the wheels themselves with no driving force complicating matters.

shuddering and vibration are communication, so long as you can tell what the shudders and vibrations mean, maybe that's your problem with them?

I don't believe I said anything of the sort, I said (and maintain) that skidpan and slalom test figures are not a valid representation of a cars handling ability.

No, but it's implied by Magazine editors everywhere, who complain about cars with twitchy limits, that made it "hard to drive" in a false world these editors create where they are the all saying all ending craps of the driving world.

I said (and maintain) that skidpan and slalom test figures are not a valid representation of a cars handling ability

But they are. Those, along with MT's figure-eight, are the only handling tests I've heard of to date.
You are looking for a driveablility test.

No good reviewer will say that they know everything from a test, but if you are saying that they do not push the cars limits then I suggest that you are reading the wrong magazines. As an example I would strongly suggest you give Evo a go, as they certainly do push the limits of cars on test, over many hundered (if not thousand in the case of long term cars) of miles.

First, I believe thats not in the U.S. 2nd, MT R&T and C&D all claim to do these same things, and all have different results.

As for road familiarity, does that not give a good bench-mark to allow comparison of how different cars commnicate differently?

if they drove on the same roads, yes. but they don't, not here, anyway.

If you know how a good car communicates a certain corner to you, then you know what a bad car is missing out.

I've driven bad/horribly communicating cars, and I didnt like it one bit. But I also fully understand that with practice, these cars can rip through the corners quite fast, you just need to learn the car.

Communication is only important to the semi-serious, or non-serious, who won't be driving their car all that much, or simply won't explore the limits of that car often, or ever.

There are many factors in driving, with sense of feel through a steering wheel and seat being minimal, in comparison.
Theres the feeling of your car pulling in certain directions, and how much/quickly it is doing so.
There's the feeling of which end of the car is sliding more, and the knowledge from past experiances how this will be affected by the upcoming hill corner.
There's the sound of the tires, be it road noise, sqealing, etc.
There's the sound of the engine, combined with visual perception of speed, "is the engine picking up faster than speed is increasing?" i.e., spinning tires, combined with past knowledge of what will happen when particular wheels spin.
There's the visual perception of your driving line, and how/if it's is changing, and previous experiance of how to correct it, given many various factors.
There's the visual perception of how fast a corner is approaching, (how fast your going) and how sharp that corner is, and seeing bumps, and how severe they are, and previous experiance of how to encounter them.

There's plenty more, but the whole point is this: Without a sense of "feel" through the steering wheel, and happy feelings in your pants, there are a hell of a lot of other factors in driving a car fast. If a certain car is missing one, it's quite easy to make up for it, with improved other aspects, like visual.
Seeing the front corners of a car will help the initial driver know where the front end is exactly placed on the road.
Seeing out the windshield, without a-pillars obstructing view, so you can see around a bend, is another.

 

[Tornado]

isnt longitudinal front-to-rear?

Yes, but physics dictate that even if you had a car with the axles welded directly to the frame weight transfer would still happen. Stiffer springs help lateral handling.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Yes, but physics dictate that even if you had a car with the axles welded directly to the frame weight transfer would still happen. Stiffer springs help lateral handling.

My point is that we're not talking about front to rear, perse, we were talking about weight going to the outside wheel, something that cannot happen in longitudinal weight transfer, because there is no "outside" in front to rear.
seondly, yes, but cars with softer suspension lean more, thereby automatically having more weight on the outside tire. because the outside is lower than the inside, shifting more weight out there.

 

[Tornado]

seondly, yes, but cars with softer suspension lean more, thereby automatically having more weight on the outside tire. because the outside is lower than the inside, shifting more weight out there.

But the effects would be no more pronounced.

 

[Dave A]

If you place a 10kg weight on a board with a soft spring on it the spring will compress, if you place the same weight on a board with a stiffer spring that only compresses half as much as the softer one, the weight is the same, the force pressing down is the same. The stiffness of the suspension doesn't alter how much force is pressing down.

Also a squealing tyre may be a ommunication, but it's not the only form of communication that your sliding, a good communicating car will tell you everything from the pedals, wheel and seat. A car like the Lotus Elise can be driven very hard, cvery fast and it tells you what you are doing, the car is stiff for a road car, but it communicates superbly, but also the tyre squeal from that is more than enough of an indication that your tyres are over their limits. A car like my mums Clio on the other hand has soft suspension, but it's poor communicater, when your going around a corner the wheel feels detatched from the car, I certainly wouldn't want to drive that fast over the Pennines, my 306 on the other hand. The cars suspension setup is not the sole deciding factor governing how well a car communicates to the driver, it has a apart, but some cars will do better with a stiffer setup and others with a softer one, there's far more involved than the suspension.

 

[Scaff]

OK as this is getting seriously off-topic here, I'm simply going to agree to disagree with you on this.

I and most of the other posters here it would seem disagree with you, saying that skidpan and slalom tests are not a good indicator (if one at all) of the handling capabilities of a car. rather that they serve to illustrate the peak grip in a narrow set of circumstances that the car can meet.

I also have to say that I will have to agree to disagree on this point

Communication is only important to the semi-serious, or non-serious, who won't be driving their car all that much, or simply won't explore the limits of that car often, or ever.

Quite simply because I have experienced myself the importance of a car that communicates well (and I am far from a semi-serious or non-serious driver having spend four years manageing and running automotive product launch training) and also from reading the accounts of more professional drivers, reviewer and race drivers than I care to mention. The vast majority of whom sing the praises of cars that clearly and easily communicate.

Regards

Scaff

 

[LeadSlead#2]

If you place a 10kg weight on a board with a soft spring on it the spring will compress, if you place the same weight on a board with a stiffer spring that only compresses half as much as the softer one, the weight is the same, the force pressing down is the same. The stiffness of the suspension doesn't alter how much force is pressing down.

Obviously, the total weight remains the same, I don't think anybody would ever disagree with that. That's a mute point, at best.
okay, great. Is a car a solid board, with one spring?
put the board, on four springs, at each corner. now lean it over. (like a car in a corner) which side has the most weight on it? the lowest. (the outside)
Now lean it a little less. the outside (lowest) still has the most weight on it, but not as much as when you lean it farther.

Scaff - I think you're failing to see the only thing we really disagree on here, besides the worthyness of slaloms and skidpads, is what constitues handling.

The very things you proclaim make a car a great handler, are what I have called, and likely always will call, driveability.

Driveability = response, feel, ease of use, etc.

Handling = how fast can it take corners?
We can agree to disagree, as I seem to have a more detailed description, classifying them into seperate catagorys, rather than throw it all into a cluster of personal preference, and endlessly debatable feelings.

 

[YSSMAN]

....So to bring this all back to the Z06 vs F430 vs 997TT question...

If a car like the Dodge Viper SRT-10 Coupe or Noble M15 was thrown in, would the positions of the cars have changed much at all?

IMO:

- Viper (5th): Refinement issues, cramped quarters, E-Z Bake side exhaust. Zeus' engine, absolute raw driving expirience.
- M15 (4th): Lack of big-power punch, too expensive (US), extremely limited availability and service. Awesome performance, something "different," rarer than the Ferrari.
- F430 (3rd): Too expensive, limited service, dissapointing performance. The sounds, the looks, the exclusivity (sp?).
- Z06 (2nd): That damn interior, a few chassis issues. Oden's engine, top-bracket performance.
- 997TT (1st): A bit soft, if even "comfortable." Good looks, easy learning curve, still exclusive.

 

[Tornado]

5th: Viper. Hard to get to the limit. Overpriced and too impractical.
4th: Ferrari F430. Not enough power to compete with the Porsche or Corvette. Good handling.
3rd: Corvette. To stiff and track bias may make the car too impractical for every day use. Interior sucks for a $65,000 car.
2nd: Noble M12. Too expensive. Do it yourself-mantra can end up with lot's of frustration. Wonderful chassis. Very communative with the road.
1st: 997 911 Turbo. God in car form.

 

[1X83Z]

Toronado - check out the new M15.

 

[Tornado]

I'm torn with the M15. On the one hand, part of me looks at it as just a useless addition, and not as cool or raw looking as the M400. On the other hand, it makes me think of what the Lotus Esprit V8 would have been had the Renault gearbox not prevented it from having the planned 500 BHP engine (of course, the M400 does that more due to how similar it seemed to be with the Esprit V8).