When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
This is an American NSX...I think Americans hands in it will be its demise. It's going to be an OK car for sure, but....it's like a sequel with a different director...chances of it being the magic of the first one is slim.
What exactly do you mean by this? Assuming for a moment that the C7 Z06 never had any issue with over heating it would be as fast as a McLaren around track, cost roughly the same as a 911, and be as comfortable as a "normal" corvette plus it has a removable roof ().
The design compromises of using DOD and a 7 gear transmission seem more reasonable than hybrid drive when it results in a car that weighs 3,800 lbs.
Shaka I must say that you posts are quite fascinating. So to ask, what advantage would a multi link rear suspension have over the double A-Arm the car is already using?
Renault F1 used Michelin's OPT system briefly, but it was banned. Porsche 928 had the Weissach system which had a mind of it's own but Porsche didn't have the money to develop it back then. It is very complex set of links mathematically speaking but the beauty of it, you can alter one link without upsetting the geometry of the others unlike A arms
Magneti Marelli, supplier to and sponsor of Ferrari's F1 team came up a few years ago with the "FLECS" (Flexible Link Elevated Compliance Suspension) using Michelin patents, a design based around a lower control arm with flexible longitudinal blades.
No matter the attitude of the car as a result of transfer induced by a variety of methods, the tire must be in the optimum location in it's friction circle. Check out these animations.
Take a look at the C7 in full droop. It not only gives excessive negative camber gain but also tows out in droop. There is little camber thrust on the inside tires. Ackerman, bump and gain are always compromises. Multilink can be tuned to be spot on in all situations.
Double A arms are quickly becoming the thing of the past as design programs gain legacy in multi link systems. You can get a nice program from Lotus for about 6 grand, Tadge should buy one instead of taking a whole bunch of springs and shocks to the ring to try out. Watch for a new Vette suspension soon.
This is not nice to see on a modern sports car. Tadge's excuse is wheel alignments must be done under 3 minutes at the end of the production line.
Double A arms are quickly becoming the thing of the past as design programs gain legacy in multi link systems. You can get a nice program from Lotus for about 6 grand, Tadge should buy one instead of taking a whole bunch of springs and shocks to the ring to try out. Watch for a new Vette suspension soon.
I'm pretty sure that the only thing GM took to the ring were video cameras. I agree that the money should be spent on top notch simulation programs. As long as people continue to think there is actual development there or that the times are useful for ranking cars manufacturers will continue to divert money from R&D to marketing.
You do realize the toe out under compression was put there on by design? Adding toe out under load in the rear increases grip in the rear in a turn, the brings about under steer at the limit.....suspension design 101....car goes off the road nose first its the drivers fault. Car goes off the road tail first its the car makers fault....
Same goes for the "long/ short" a arms in the rear. The added negative camber in the rear adds grip under heavy cornering load and makes the rear grip better than the front under heavy load....that's more under steer at the limit and thus a design to make the car go off the road nose first when the driver runs out of talent. Then there are the tires...the car has a 49/51 (f/r) weight distribution...Why the big difference in tires sizes? the smaller tires in the front were also put there to induce understeer at the limit...
The main reason to have a whole bunch of links it the suspension is to induce some form of 4 wheel steer( changing toe in or out under corner load). I do not care for lots of toe changes as the suspension moves through its travel. It makes it very hard to be consistent around a track.
You do realize the toe out under compression was put there on by design? Adding toe out under load in the rear increases grip in the rear in a turn, the brings about under steer at the limit.....suspension design 101....car goes off the road nose first its the drivers fault. Car goes off the road tail first its the car makers fault....
Same goes for the "long/ short" a arms in the rear. The added negative camber in the rear adds grip under heavy cornering load and makes the rear grip better than the front under heavy load....that's more under steer at the limit and thus a design to make the car go off the road nose first when the driver runs out of talent. Then there are the tires...the car has a 49/51 (f/r) weight distribution...Why the big difference in tires sizes? the smaller tires in the front were also put there to induce understeer at the limit...
The main reason to have a whole bunch of links it the suspension is to induce some form of 4 wheel steer( changing toe in or out under corner load). I do not care for lots of toe changes as the suspension moves through its travel. It makes it very hard to be consistent around a track.
^ that's smart. Never thought of checking the stiffness/strength that way.
To me the S2000 felt much stiffer than the 'Vette, but the Z06 flex is acceptable.
This is with the roof on. I've tried to explain above why you should not compare chassis stiffness numbers between manufacturers. The C7 is a brilliant design with a unique approach to chassis design. I'm coming out with a suspension kit that will address some of the short cuts Tadge has taken on the C7 chassis. Get the bone stock 7 spd C7 for racing. Loose the DI, VD and ediff for a 3000lb fun car with my suspension mods.
This is with the roof on. I've tried to explain above why you should not compare chassis stiffness numbers between manufacturers. The C7 is a brilliant design with a unique approach to chassis design. I'm coming out with a suspension kit that will address some of the short cuts Tadge has taken on the C7 chassis. Get the bone stock 7 spd C7 for racing. Loose the DI, VD and ediff for a 3000lb fun car with my suspension mods.
I understand you explanation relies on end grip as being the end objective. I think it should be a dual objective, available grip and the car's ability to communicate the grip level. With repeated tries on the same track same conditions you can learn the car's ability without much feedback, but it would be much better if you could learn it from the chassis not by trial and error.
I'm leaning towards building an LS7 S2000 for my next car to keep weight down and improve driving feel. The C7 is still my favorite as an all around compromise, the car that can do it all. But there is no doubt that running costs are high pushing a 3,500+ lbs car on CCBs and Cup 2s around, and the driving feel is a bit on the numb side.
).
