racing question
 

in your n/a does any one else kick most peoples ass off the line then loose in third??? i have a 87 n/a and that what usually happens to me well when racing relativly decent cars.

makes sense. the lower power and low weight of the n/a will allow for a good start off the line, but at higher sppeds the other cars higher power will have an advantage. same goes for hondas. they suck at high speeds.

i raced a kid i know with a 2002 honda prelude vtec controlerand intake crushed him off the line but as soon as i shifted into third he past me

The car make more power than your car - how did you expect to win?

I believe the VTEC Prelude makes at least 190hp.


-Ted

Prelude is one of the only fast hondas ;). Sucks they discontinued them, they should have discontinued the civic Si instead :D.

the prelude is always the slowest hondas. they have a lot of power from the showroom, that's about it. you can do up a little v-tec civic and easily smoke the lude. the prelude is alwasy the one of the slowest hondas at any track event (quarter mile or circuit).

howi

the prelude has always been hondas flagship luxury/sports car in north america. they used it to test new ideas such as vtec and 4wheel steering. the only reason this expensive car sold well was due to its high power and luxury apeal. it was never meant as a performance car. like howi said, preludes always get smoked at the race track.

i totally agree.. my friend has a 2000 Prelude and i love it when his vtec kicks in...

The car make more power than your car - how did you expect to win?

I believe the VTEC Prelude makes at least 190hp.


-Ted



i didnt expect to win i knew i would, he just though he could take me off the start, so i raced him. does any one else loose to the new tiberon GT?

yeah, i take back what i said. 3000lb FWD cars are definately awesome. they handle so well on those corners.

I had a 97 prelude and that thing was slowwwwwww. Nice as far as luxury and a little peppy when the vtec kicks in (kinda like a small turbo....very small) but the damn thing was almost imposible to make go any faster without putting in a turbo or super charger. my tII could kick its ass any day even with the turbo not working right now. lol.

Yea but for a honda...its pretty fast. I mean stock for stock its the fastest. But most people don't buy hondas for performance, they buy them for reliability and luxury, which you have to admit hondas are reliable as hell, just slooooooooow :D.

S2000 is the fastest. Preludes stock for stock are fast because they have the best engine. Most Honda tuners will do a motor swap in their Civic and take down the Preludes.

I wouldn't say Hondas are slow, I know a handful around here in KC that could run with the best of them, but yes those posers that run around with Altezzas and chrome tips are slow.

its not the car that counts, its the driver.. a car is never slow, but only the drive is..

only if ur going downhill

"Yea but for a honda...its pretty fast. I mean stock for stock its the fastest. But most people don't buy hondas for performance, they buy them for reliability and luxury, which you have to admit hondas are reliable as hell, just slooooooooow ."

most people do not realize just how fast a civic/integra can be. in full race form, they are sick quick. this is no doubt due to their extremely low weight and the fact that aftermarket modifications are relatively cheap and abbundant compared to other cars. at high speed courses however, they will lose to true sports cars due to their lower horsepower being unable to fight the forces of friction such as wind.

Not to mention the extra traction control/torque steer problems FWD creates, and the usually uneven weight balance from having everything in the front of the car.

How did this become a honda discussion board???

I know what you mean dude, Sometimes I'll do some fast shift work to crush some Accord or maybe even an Integra. I always crush them off the line but I don't push it past 65 in those situations because of the danger factor, I figure that if I can crush you off the line and my car cost me less than a 10th of your car and its 10-16 years older...Then I have won in every way possible.

-Max
"Hondas are like Pigeons, I'm sure there are some good ones...except they are surrounded by a million stupid ones!" - Me...HA ha ha

Oh, yeah. Don't forget, even some great cars I can kill off the line if they happen to be automatic transmission.

"and the usually uneven weight balance from having everything in the front of the car."

a FWD car will handle BETTER with more weight at the front.

at a constant speed moving in a circle the car's weight distribution duz not technicaly affect handling. however, i say this using simple physics, and we all know it is not that simple in real life, but what i am about to say still applies to some degree. this is just some theory and it excludes certain things like suspension, the force on the drive wheels caused by acceleration, and the fact that tires stick and dig into concrete. this duz not make the theory incorrect, it just isolates itself from other variable so that it is easier to understand.

more weight at the front of the car creates more centrifugal force on the front axle causing the car to want to understeer. like when u throw a dart and the heavy front peice keeps tha dart flying straight. correct? well more weight on the front of the car also increase the downward force exerted by the front wheels on the ground, therefore increasing friction. These two forces (force friction/centrifugal force) will remain directly proportional to each other. so as the cars weight increases, so duz centrifugal force, and so duz force friction. so, technically, if we add more mass to one side of the car, it will not affect its balance in constant circular motion.

now, if the car is decelerating or accelerating, this balance changes. during deceleration, more downward force is acting on the front wheels, and less on the back wheels. at tthe same time, the mass at each end of the car duz not change. so the centrifugal force at each end of the car remains the same, while the force friction decreases at the back and increases at the front. this causes the car to oversteer. acceleration has the opposite effect, causing the car to understeer.

now, if u draw some force vectors and some cars with different wieght distributions, u will see that according to the aformentioned theory, a car with more mass at the front will understeer less under acceleration, and oversteer more under deceleration, when compared to a car with 50/50 weight distribution. the reverse goes for a car with more mass at the back end (it will understeer more).

im confident the theory is correct, but only to a certain degree. the theory ignores several factors. but i know for a fact that a FWD car will understeer less when u remove more weight from the back end. i know this because i drove them for 2.5 years at the track.

Re: racing question
 

In addition to the weight issue already described, your car can also wind out gears longer than other cars. This saves you the time of shifting, but it's negligable when you hit third and he has more power.

Steve

Having more weight on the front of a FWD car does not increase handling. It will increase traction while accelerating in a straight line, but when you enter a turn the wieght wants to pull out forcing it to understeer. When the front of the car is pulled into understeer, the front tires give out, and loss traction.

I beg to differ, I have an '89 4 cyl stang with 88hp, that car is slow. 'nough said.

Logan

ehh, maybe, but it's always nice to have more power than the other guy... and in most cases, it IS the car.

agreed, weight in front does not better the handling of a car. if this were true 50/50 weight distribution would not be a goal of any sports car manufacturers.

Weight distribution while maintaining constant (and perfect)circular velocity may not be a primary factor because there is no weight transfer, however this has no real world application. Moving mass has momentum, the more mass, the more momentum. The more mass in the front of the car when turning, the more inertia it will have and thus cause a greater force to move the front in a straightline, which will contribute to an understeer situation.

Friction and centrifugal force are inversely proportional in this example. If they were not inversely proportional then making a very hard turn would increase a cars traction, which hopefully we all know it does not. Mass increase (or in this case weight) is directly proportional to both friction and centrifugal force, but the two are not so to each other. Centrifugal force DECREASES the amount of weight (and mass, in case of body roll) over the frictional service, thus causing a loss of friction (and traction).

Addition of mass to the front of the car (or subtraction of weight from the rear) will result in both more friction and more centrifugal for the front of the car, its been stated how the attidtion of centrifugal force will contribute to an oversteer situation, but the increase in friction (or traction as it may be) will reduce the cars rotational ability (as there is less mass in the back of the car to give its centrifugal force towards the rotation of the car) and this will aid the fwd in its natural tendency to understeer. The wheels in the car do not want to turn, as the force of the car's inertia is attempting to go in a striaght line, running torque through the drive wheels only increases this tendency as the force of accelleration is further pushing it to go in a straight line. The more friction(traction) available, the more the torque is able to carry out this natural inclination, combine this with the more massive front half (and thur more inertia) and the lack of mass in the rear to aid in rotation, and you built yourself an understeer monster.

And just for kicks, heres a thought: does a beefier front anti-sway bar cause understeer or oversteer? understeer because it increases the contact patch on the front wheels. A beefier rear sway bar will increase the contact patch of the rear wheels, (and increase its mass), thus increasing its rotational ability.

Werd

too much initial D for this one. 3cyl geo metro vs Z06 corvette, corvette does win 10/10.

dude... most of what you said is true... and I agree with the results of the above situation... but think about it...

More contact = less grip??

:p:

Maybe some vehicle dynamics courses are in order... and oregano.. man... you need to spend more time in school.

Now whats that thing called when you go round a circle... I think you were talking about the imaginary force that is opposite to it (hard to tell due to the spelling ;)) ...right, centripital force... which means that when you are going around a circle, you are accelerating....

:D

...damn, I guess weight distribution duz matter...

Maybe oregano should not have used the word "better," as it is a subjective term. What he really meant was that the rear end of a FWD would come out easier w/ less weight at the back.
Car manufacturers only strive for 50/50 weight distribution if they're producing a RWD. You will never find a FWD w/ its entire engine and transaxle any where close to the firewall like a RWD.
You might ask what the difference is. Imagine a RWD w/ most of its weight up front. This is a terrible setup becuase:
1) when you enter a turn, you let your foot off the gas pedal and brake. The weight of the car transfers further up front, which can easily initiate a drift.
2) after you initiate the drift, you can not steer the car w/ your gas becuase you have no weight at the back.

This is fine on a FWD, becuase the drive wheels are up front.

Please englighten me as I do not see how an sway bar can increase the contact patch. I believe that the reason why you can increase oversteer by adding a rear sway bar at the back is because the weight transfer will be much quick (similar effect to stiffening up the springs the back of the car), therefore the rear-end will come out much easier.

howi

Why are cars FWD in the first place? Because they are better in bad weather because more weight is over the driving wheels.

So why would a car company try to put more of the weight in the back, it might perform better, but since when is FWD a performance option?

FWD aint no performance option, its a COST option, always has been always will be.
Nothing to do with bad wether traction? :confused:

:confused:
so you need acceleration to keep it going at a constant speed... it's obvious becuase F=mv^2/r. so what? how did you jump to that conclusion?

howi

preludes are slow? Man, someone better tell that to the people I autocross with, because preludes almost allways take the top 2 or 3 spots...

First of all...

The prelude is overweight.

Secondly...

I really don't beleive that you can have a true sports car unless it is RWD.

Thirdly...

You can make a Honda faster than hell but it is still a FWD economy car (with the exception of the S2000, my friends dad has one and it hits 140 mph with ease).

Fourthly...

VTEC (Variable Timing Electronic Control) is amazing engineering and every car company has tried to copy it.

Lastly...

Mazda's Kick Ass...

:confused:
I'm with White FC. what are you talking about BDoty311?

I never said more contact = less grip.

Lots of people are scared of RWD in the snow and rain, so they want a FWD car that will do better in bad weather. Thats one reason why FWD cars are more popular.

an anti-sway bar works by tying the bottoms of the suspension pieces together, which in turn lessens body roll and keeps both wheels better planted on the ground, this in turn keeps weight and mass from transfering to the outside when it experiences centrifugal force, thus it doesnt really increase the contact patch, but it keeps the patch planted more firmly on the ground, and keeping more weight over it, thus increasing traction.

also: inheirently in their design tansversely mounted motors cannot be mounted close to the firewall, as there would be no way to access the intake manifold or any of the sensors in the back, while that problem does not exist with a longitudianlly mounted engine because both manifolds and sensors are on the sides, thus can be planted as close as possible to the firewall. A transversely mounted motor cannot be mounted closer to the firewall as then the axles, hubs, and the entire front suspension would be moved further back, giving the car a much shorter wheelbase and thus crappyer handling.

also: Less weight and stiffer springs out back may be perfectly fine for (attempted) fwd drifting and ebrake driving, or for rally driving, as in those conditions it is beneficial for the rear end to sway outside of the front end, while in GRIP racing, it seems much more beneficial to maintain mass in the rear in order to allow the centrifugal force exterted (or seemingly exerted on it, as centrifugal force is an imaginary force) on the rear to aid the car in rotation. It is certainly possible that this weight and centrifugal force is negligible compared to a well tuned suspension, but it makes far more sense to keep it there than to remove it IMO.

Re: Re: racing question
 

i definetly agree. i can beat all but the best fwds right of the line but where i realy get them is in not having to shift as much. i beat a prety heavily modified neon on the simple fact that on our way to about 105mph i only had to shift twice (into 3rd) while he had shift 4 times (into 5th). when he was in gear he was seriosly pulling on me but while he was inbetween gears (and not even for that long) i kept on pulling and gaining ground.

amen brother. no matter how fast your hon-duh might be, its still a fwd economy car. they never have been, never can be, and never will be true sports cars. so even if one beats you just chew on that.:p:

yes this is why corvettes, while amazing handling machines in the right hands, have such a dangerous tendency to sling the ass end out. 60/40 wieght dist.+ gobs o torque=tendency to oversteer. its just the nature of the beast, but id still love to own a vette day, especialy a lingenfelter:drool:

Yes you did, just not in the exact words, here:
sigh... call the honda whatever you want. the truth remains that they are incredibly fast cars on circuit tracks. But you don't care anyways, because you have a 7 and it's a "real sports car." According to your logic, it doesn't matter if a civic whips your ass on the race track, because you have a "real sports car," and your mind can justify that it was actually you who had won, right?

howi

2000 z06 vette as reported by car and driver

53.5/46.5%

nope dont see the words "less grip" anywhere in that quoted statement, because obviously its not true. Regardless of any rebuttle you can make, more mass in the rear=more inertia for the rear=cars tendency to rotate more.

How about instead of trying to catch me in some sort of imaginary slip up, you accept my post for what it was, an informative post that was correcting misconceptions of a fellow Rx7club member.

ah true, but after 40 years they finaly decided to go to a rear mounted transaxle on the c5s to offset what i just said. c4s are about 60/40 if not worse because of the conventional engine/trany arrangement. and let me tell you they can sling the rear out like its nobody's buisness. a guy i knew with a c4 would always drive around with the 25 some-odd gallon tank full simply for the sake of having more weight over the rear axle. it didnt even realy slow him down because it would help traction so much.

no there is certianly no debating that ;)

I wish people wouldn't say that. Veriable Valves don't "kick in" technical the system is engaged from the start. The cam timing simpley changes...

technically you are right, but insted of stirring up trouble lets just say 'kicking in' = switching to high rpm lobes. ;)

thanks for clearing things up.

I disagree. You can put an engine in a FWD w/ its exhaust ports facing the rear of the car, and the O2 sensor on the down pipe. This has been done.

I disagree again. If you have opened up an transaxle, you would know that the you can design the intermediate shaft to rotate about the input shaft at any angle, and rotate the final fing gear and differential can rotate about the intermediate shaft at any angle. The engine can move back and forth in the engine bay quite a bit without sacrificing wheelbase.

:eek:
This is what Oregano and I have trying to say the WHOLE time!!! And that is if you put more weight in the front of a FWD, the rear-end will come out easier!! Here's a quote from Oregano:
Howi

regardless of if the engine is turned around and moved closer to the firewall, it still restricts the ability to work on it. Never said it cant be done, of course it can, anything can with money, but with (at a bare minumum) obnoxious repercussions if you want to remove manifolds, or even worse, turbochargers.

Pulling the Ebrake during a turn does not = oversteer, nor does punching the breaks on a dirt course to get the rear come out. I assumed through all the talk of friction and traction that we were talking about grip racing. I believed that we were talking about oversteer/rotation in a grip situation, and as we all hopefully know it is not beneficial to lock up and slide your rear wheels while grip racing. Edit: discontinuing, see my previous post. It explains very logically and clearly.

"agreed, weight in front does not better the handling of a car" Tsunami

no, it wont. but it will make a FWD car faster. i have experienced it first hand for 2 years and taken the time to draw vector diagrams showing weight transfer on cars of dif. weight distributions. have u?

"The more mass in the front of the car when turning, the more inertia it will have and thus cause a greater force to move the front in a straightline, which will contribute to an understeer situation" Tsunami

Which is exactly what i said, except u left out the part about how the increased mass increases downward force and thus increases friction(traction). these two forces(centrifugal/frictional) increase/decrease linearly at the same rate. ex. 500kg car at 1g of lateral acceleration, with u(friction constant) of x, generates (500*9.8)Newtons of centrifugal force, and (500*9.8*x)Newtons of frictional force. Double the weight, and u can see that the cent. force doubles, as duz the frictional force. Now, we can apply this same method of thinking to weight distribution by dividing the car into 2 axles of different masses. treating each axle as a seperate body. increase the mass of one, and at the same time u will increase its traction proportionally.

"Centrifugal force DECREASES the amount of weight (and mass, in case of body roll) over the frictional service, thus causing a loss of friction (and traction)."

Weight is mass*g. mass duz not dissapear. neither duz gravity. unless the centrifugal force acts upward, it cant decrease the effective weight on the wheels. weight transfer decreases/increases effective weight by acting up/down on the end of the car. the centrifugal force duz not change for a given mass however, since weight transfer duz not affect mass.

"And just for kicks, heres a thought: does a beefier front anti-sway bar cause understeer or oversteer? understeer because it increases the contact patch on the front wheels. A beefier rear sway bar will increase the contact patch of the rear wheels, (and increase its mass), thus increasing its rotational ability."

A beefier front sway bar helps transfer weight to the rear of the car, thus increasing friction at the rear of the car, thus causing understeer.

I hope i have cleared up any misconceptions u may have had about mass dissapearing or centrifugal force acting in a perpendicular direction to the plane of travel.
WERD.

"Pulling the Ebrake during a turn does not = oversteer"

yes it duz. plz try and tell us otherwise.