Sciaru BRZFRS (BreezeFrees)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Azuremen
  • 5,613 comments
  • 439,443 views
No surprise the Subie understeers. All Subies understeer. It's a habit. :D Providing that extra edge of safety is probably a good idea giving the profile of the drivers likely to buy the Subaru version.

Unfortunately, after this, they'll all be flocking to Scion dealerships and crashing the car, anyway...

Kamuifanboy
the front of the car begins to lift...
Click to expand...

Because of the lack of front aerodynamics, not the presence of rear aerodynamics.

Most road cars develop front-end lift at high speeds. The answer is not to remove the rear wing, but to add a front splitter to keep the front tires planted.

Eric.
...regarding STI downforce and stuffs here's a cool comparison with an Evo9 and 06 WRX.

http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/everyday-impreza-talk/151727-evo-ix-vs-sti-aerodynamics-pics.html
Click to expand...

Given the conversions given in that thread... the STI has over 100 pounds of lift in front at 124 mph? Wow. That's horrible... :lol:

77 pounds of downforce... not bad... but not really going to do much for the car in the corners on a racetrack. Aluminum wings on racers do more... somewhere between 200-400 pounds of downforce... from experience, enough to leave a sizable dent in your trunk if you don't reinforce it... :lol: (former rice-boy here)
 
Blew my cover on that shot.

Subaru-Concepts-1061111338135231600x1060.jpg
 
Doubtful. At constant speed you're just fighting drag and rolling resistance. Rolling resistance will depend on weight but +/- 200lbs probably doesn't make a difference.
 
Meh, they didn't push enough probably. Stiffer springs up front will make for understeer before the limit. If you push harder you'll get into crappier parts of the camber curve in the Scion, and it will understeer more than the BRZ at the limit.
 
squirlybmx
It wasn't depeloped at the nurburgring, right? I'm thinking of mailing him a few packs of nurburgring stickers lol. I think the BRZ-FRS will end up being great daily drivers comforty wise, and they were almost immedately praised for how comfortable the seats were in the first few tests.
Click to expand...

Nobody has tested it on anything but a track yet as far as I'm aware so we don't know what the ride is really like, but I can see it being reasonable - they don't look like they've given it too stiff a setup, and the wheel/tyre combo is a fairly sensible size too. 16s and 17s for the most part, when I suspect they could easily have squeezed 18s or 19s under those arches.

Real test will be on UK roads. Chassis engineers all over the world hate UK roads and very, very few carmakers find the perfect setup.

Omnis
No, but I'm saying that if you specifically design a rear bumper, for example, to reduce drag and greatly improve aerodynamics ...

... then why isn't that carried over to every other Sonata whether it's a hybrid or not?

We see a lot of aero features already designed into the 86, but I wonder how much emphasis was put on that and why they wouldn't just go all out in the first place.
Click to expand...

That annoys the heck out of me too. Here in the UK/Europe we get loads of eco-specials, essentially regular cars with longer gearing, a little less power and a few aerodynamic aids to reduce drag.

Can't help feeling that manufacturers should offer that stuff on all the models, and then have a sporty one with shorter gearing, a body kit etc that doesn't really need the eco stuff.

E.g. why should I pay more for a Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion? Shouldn't the BlueMotion bits be on every Golf?...

Omnis
Is aero lift at high speeds good for fuel economy?
Click to expand...

I've been wondering this. I reckon it depends how efficient the shape is in the first place.

Thinking about it logically, if you get aero lift then more air is going under the car. But if the underside of the car is aerodynamically inefficient - which it is on most cars without flat undersides - then it'll create even more lift but also even more drag.

The best plan is simply to make a car aerodynamically efficient in the first place so it doesn't need to rely on accidental benefits.
 
A car that slices cleanly through the air shouldn't develop much lift. Lift usually indicates too much air is getting into the turbulent zone under the car.
 
The creation of lift brings with it a big of drag. A neutral surface like the tail of a plane creates less drag than the main wing, even if the two had the same frontal area. Despite the smaller frontal area, a fighter jet's wing has a lower drag coefficient than a cargo plane because the wing's profile is lower. It doesn't create as much lift at any given speed. The only thing is that it's thin - cars can only get so thin until you can't put people in them.

As for drag, I agree with Eric in that lift or downforce is negligible by itself. The issue is aerodynamic drag. You don't have to have drag to have no lift, or a bit of downforce.
 
Lower lighter cheaper... Slower lol

Still very impressed here and cant wait to drive one.
One thing Im really wondering about is the visibility in a car that low, just how easy will parking be as a dd?

Regarding aero...
The sti fenders were designed with airfow in mind according to subby (per lit I read during the purchase process). I would expect the same attention to detail with the brz.
 
Last edited:
Parking? Seriously? This thing is likely a dream to park.
 
Id think but visibility is one of those dd issues the enthusiast in each of us can overlook when looking at a nominee for purchase.
 
I'd worry about rear and side visibility more than being able to park it.
 
The one thing I'm worried about with this car: The headrests.

This is an issue for track people. See, my RX7 (1991 mind you) has a very simple but useful gimmick with the headrests. They tilt. Normally I have them tilted forward so they reach my head and I can rest vertically if I like. But when I put my helmet on (eh, you didn't think about that part) the headrests are designed to tilt backward to allow clearance for the helmet. Such a simple idea, and it works perfectly.

But the FR-S's headrests look awfully far forward to be clearing any helmet. They probably don't tilt because of modern safety regs but I really hope they do because it's almost necessary when wearing a helmet.
 
It looks like the passenger headrest is tilted really far forward, so far in fact that it looks like it would be uncomfortable. After seeing a whole wheels set and tools in the back, I wonder how hard it would be to put two bikes back there.

 
Last edited:
Keef, just take out the headrests and stack some corvette tires in the back. Problem solved.

My favorite thing about this car just looking at it is probably the air vents. They're out of the way and don't blow right on the hands.
 
Keef
But the FR-S's headrests look awfully far forward to be clearing any helmet. They probably don't tilt because of modern safety regs but I really hope they do because it's almost necessary when wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

Anti-whiplash. Almost a necessity nowadays. If they're non-adjustable, I don't doubt the aftermarket will come up with a solution.

-

Any car that has room for four tires in the back seat alone is big enough for me.
 
Omnis
I'd worry about rear and side visibility more than being able to park it.
Click to expand...

It's the "checking your blind spot" bit that tends to be most useful on the road. Being a convertible my old Miata was either the worst car on the road (massive blind area, thanks hood) or one of the best (drop the roof, bingo! 360-degree vision).

Visibility is definitely one of those things you only notice is bad when you really need it.

I'm hoping the quarterlights on the 86 do enough to give you at least a little blind-spot view, and to their credit that rear screen does look quite wide.
 
Keef
But the FR-S's headrests look awfully far forward to be clearing any helmet. They probably don't tilt because of modern safety regs but I really hope they do because it's almost necessary when wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet both seats were tilted forward in order to create enough space to place wheels in the back in that particular image. No human other than really old people drive in a position that upright.
 
I just saw one in real life, and I think it looks a lot better than in any photos, or in GT5.
 
Leonidae@MFT
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnwYw94O0QE">YouTube Link</a>

Hmm.. Hot or not?
Click to expand...

The prototype wide body kit I posted a while back is the only full kit I like so far. The one in the vid would look good without the stupid black accents on the front, and it flares out too far by the wheel well.
 
Wing on a 86 -> Um no, it doesn't have enough power to compensate that huge wing. If and only it had more than 300+hp then I would justify the extra wing.

-> Cars like these has to be subtle, discreet, and clean. Thats why I refuse to put any humongous wing on my S and AE86.

-> Plus any more grip on 'my' BRZ would be boring. As my AE86 has too much tire/tyre (stock MR-2 4AGE w/ Celica Supra tires/tyres). :indiff:
 

Latest Posts

Back