New Z -cars
12-05-2002 | 01:41 PM
#31
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,033
Likes: 1
From: Houston, TX USA
[quote]Originally posted by M758:
<strong>
Geo,
Where does the balance between rigidity and weight lay???
Seems to me you can make a chassis 10% stiffer, but also 10% heavier...
Sure stiffer is better, but what about that 10% more weight that you have to carry around to get there??
(note I am just guessing that 10%/10% ratio it may be different)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, don't ask me. I'm not the bloody engineer.
Seriously, I'm not trying to push the car. I think it's cool, but it doesn't quite do it for me for reasons that others have said. I'm not disagreeing with anyone except about the rigidity the brace brings.
As for the ratio, if that thing is 10% of the cars' mass, I'll eat the thing. I would imagine it adds more like 50%+ to the rigidity, but as I said, I'm not the engineer.
As for your other comments, I agree about weight. That seems to be the way of things these days. I don't think we'll see the really low mass cars anymore. Even the bloody Civic is a relatively heavy car today. I'm all for decontenting and reducing mass. I think the sport package should have half the sound deadening and all the power features removed. But, if you want to point fingers, look at the fat *** 911 these days (996 is it?). Fat *** and loads of luxo crap. The problem lay in the economics. While you or I may be willing to pay the same or more for a low mass model, adding the luxo crap opens the market to more of the masses and the yuppy types. Ick.
Please don't think I'm trying to defend this car in any way because of the Nissan's I own. I only made one point.
<strong>
Geo,
Where does the balance between rigidity and weight lay???
Seems to me you can make a chassis 10% stiffer, but also 10% heavier...
Sure stiffer is better, but what about that 10% more weight that you have to carry around to get there??
(note I am just guessing that 10%/10% ratio it may be different)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, don't ask me. I'm not the bloody engineer.
Seriously, I'm not trying to push the car. I think it's cool, but it doesn't quite do it for me for reasons that others have said. I'm not disagreeing with anyone except about the rigidity the brace brings.
As for the ratio, if that thing is 10% of the cars' mass, I'll eat the thing. I would imagine it adds more like 50%+ to the rigidity, but as I said, I'm not the engineer.
As for your other comments, I agree about weight. That seems to be the way of things these days. I don't think we'll see the really low mass cars anymore. Even the bloody Civic is a relatively heavy car today. I'm all for decontenting and reducing mass. I think the sport package should have half the sound deadening and all the power features removed. But, if you want to point fingers, look at the fat *** 911 these days (996 is it?). Fat *** and loads of luxo crap. The problem lay in the economics. While you or I may be willing to pay the same or more for a low mass model, adding the luxo crap opens the market to more of the masses and the yuppy types. Ick.
Please don't think I'm trying to defend this car in any way because of the Nissan's I own. I only made one point.
12-05-2002 | 01:52 PM
#32
Racer
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Russ Murphy:
How much does the pig weigh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
350Z weighs in at 3290lbs.
G35 is 3416lbs.
-Zoltan.
And it looks like crap as well, IMHO. Add a fart can, ultimate rice! We'll see down the road. I'll put the blinders on!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Russ Murphy:
How much does the pig weigh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
350Z weighs in at 3290lbs.
G35 is 3416lbs.
-Zoltan.
And it looks like crap as well, IMHO. Add a fart can, ultimate rice! We'll see down the road. I'll put the blinders on!
12-05-2002 | 04:33 PM
#33
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,714
Likes: 7
From: Barcelona
[quote]Originally posted by JasonECW:
<strong>For the same $36 large as the brembo equipped track Z <snip> you could get a used 993 which will hold better value, comes with nicer and much more durable interior, and has a slightly better power to weight ratio (figuring a 96+ 993 C2)</strong><hr></blockquote>
AND it's a Porsche! I like this rationale, Jason. Why buy a rice rocket when you can get the last of the air cooled Porsches instead??
This is a Porsche forum, btw.
<strong>For the same $36 large as the brembo equipped track Z <snip> you could get a used 993 which will hold better value, comes with nicer and much more durable interior, and has a slightly better power to weight ratio (figuring a 96+ 993 C2)</strong><hr></blockquote>
AND it's a Porsche! I like this rationale, Jason. Why buy a rice rocket when you can get the last of the air cooled Porsches instead??
This is a Porsche forum, btw.
12-05-2002 | 05:42 PM
#34
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 527
From: San Jose, California
[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
<strong>But, if you want to point fingers, look at the fat *** 911 these days (996 is it?). Fat *** and loads of luxo crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No question there's a upward growth in weight with new cars (e.g. the new M3 is ~3,400 lbs).
However, there are 2 modern exceptions (that I know of) and they are:
(1) Ferrari 360
(2) Porsche 911 (996)
Both of these are actually lighter (by just a little, maybe 50 lbs) than their respective outgoing models, the F355 and 993.
Karl.
<strong>But, if you want to point fingers, look at the fat *** 911 these days (996 is it?). Fat *** and loads of luxo crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No question there's a upward growth in weight with new cars (e.g. the new M3 is ~3,400 lbs).
However, there are 2 modern exceptions (that I know of) and they are:
(1) Ferrari 360
(2) Porsche 911 (996)
Both of these are actually lighter (by just a little, maybe 50 lbs) than their respective outgoing models, the F355 and 993.
Karl.
12-06-2002 | 01:11 AM
#36
Pro
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
[quote]Originally posted by Porsche5050:
<strong>what "unique" styling...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good observation, but I've gotta say the Z is executed 1000% better than that HIDEOUS Lexus. All of Toyota's products seem to be slipping down the same slope, with the overtall profiles (Matrix), "grabbed by the widow's peak" headlights (ES300), and spurious aero dealies (Corolla).
I actually liked the concept Z (with the long hood, when it was going to be a 4-cylinder) better, but the production model looks good for now. It *will* look dated quickly.
Anyone seen the Pontiac Solstice Coupe? This has to be the BEST LOOKING concept car to come along in a LONG time - and it's a forced-induction 4-cylinder with a 6-speed rear transaxle! NICE!
<a href="http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv?file=car.mv&num=1185" target="_blank">Solstice</a>
<strong>what "unique" styling...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good observation, but I've gotta say the Z is executed 1000% better than that HIDEOUS Lexus. All of Toyota's products seem to be slipping down the same slope, with the overtall profiles (Matrix), "grabbed by the widow's peak" headlights (ES300), and spurious aero dealies (Corolla).
I actually liked the concept Z (with the long hood, when it was going to be a 4-cylinder) better, but the production model looks good for now. It *will* look dated quickly.
Anyone seen the Pontiac Solstice Coupe? This has to be the BEST LOOKING concept car to come along in a LONG time - and it's a forced-induction 4-cylinder with a 6-speed rear transaxle! NICE!
<a href="http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.mv?file=car.mv&num=1185" target="_blank">Solstice</a>
12-06-2002 | 03:07 AM
#37
Burning Brakes
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 752
Likes: 1
From: Skokie, IL
I agree. The new Camry and Corrola both look like toys. The MR2 changed for the worst. Celica? Pathetic. They are offering about 5 SUV's each of which do nothing for me. The 4 Runner was a classic and it's now becomming a bad joke. When it came to Japanese cars I'd always favor Honda and Toyota but lately I've been more of a Honda, Mazda, and Subaru kinda guy. Nissans and Toyotas just keep getting uglier.
12-06-2002 | 07:31 AM
#38
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 14,075
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA
Just to add fuel to Z-man's and George's debate on the chassis/strut-brace stiffening, you two may actually be talking about the exact same thing, but looking at it from a different context.
First, most of the strut-tower braces on the market for 944s are garbage! Yes they're not well designed, definitely have not been FEA'd and that is why there's no noticeable improvement. If you just tie the two strut tops together with a straight bar, with flexible joints no less, you're not doing much. Looking from the front at bumper height, you have a rectangle connecting the tires' contact patches, with sides formed by the struts and the top by the strut-brace. However, when the tires are pushed sideways, the sides of the rectangle (the struts) can still move laterally while still keeping their tops equidistant apart. This is the parallelogram effect (because the rectangle is on a single plane) and you can flex the struts as much as you want laterally, just keep their tops the same distance apart.
Look at how the 924GTP's strut-bracing was done and you'd have a perfect example of a well-executed brace. This is the 'triangulation' that George talked about. The strut tops are triangulated back to the firewall with a solid welded and bolted joint. The entire structure (tires, struts, and brace) are triangulated on all sides in 3-D space. In a configuration like this, it DOES make a difference.
One final example of chassis stiffening with braces. Check out that one 968-Turbo that was converted to a track car. I think it was white and blue? It was reported to have been 40% stiffer than a standard 968 body due to the welded-in rollcage. If the chassis was already 'sufficiently stiff' then adding the rollcage wouldn't have made much of a difference. But in this case, we've seen that it definitely could be improved.
First, most of the strut-tower braces on the market for 944s are garbage! Yes they're not well designed, definitely have not been FEA'd and that is why there's no noticeable improvement. If you just tie the two strut tops together with a straight bar, with flexible joints no less, you're not doing much. Looking from the front at bumper height, you have a rectangle connecting the tires' contact patches, with sides formed by the struts and the top by the strut-brace. However, when the tires are pushed sideways, the sides of the rectangle (the struts) can still move laterally while still keeping their tops equidistant apart. This is the parallelogram effect (because the rectangle is on a single plane) and you can flex the struts as much as you want laterally, just keep their tops the same distance apart.
Look at how the 924GTP's strut-bracing was done and you'd have a perfect example of a well-executed brace. This is the 'triangulation' that George talked about. The strut tops are triangulated back to the firewall with a solid welded and bolted joint. The entire structure (tires, struts, and brace) are triangulated on all sides in 3-D space. In a configuration like this, it DOES make a difference.
One final example of chassis stiffening with braces. Check out that one 968-Turbo that was converted to a track car. I think it was white and blue? It was reported to have been 40% stiffer than a standard 968 body due to the welded-in rollcage. If the chassis was already 'sufficiently stiff' then adding the rollcage wouldn't have made much of a difference. But in this case, we've seen that it definitely could be improved.
12-06-2002 | 11:15 AM
#39
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,033
Likes: 1
From: Houston, TX USA
Yep, Danno is correct about triangulation. It's the best way to install an STB. However, most cars don't form a parallelagram with their STB. It's more of a trapezoid, and this will resist movement more than a parallelagram. My point is they are not worthless and they would still be high on my list of things to do if you want to work on optimizing your suspension. Of course, the stiffer the chassis, the less effect they will have. Unfortunately for me, IT rules limit us to just tying into the two strut towers.
Cages are the best way to stiffen a chassis if it's properly designed. Sadly, most of the 944 cages I've seen are not well designed from a chassis stiffening standpoint and they should be.
Cages are the best way to stiffen a chassis if it's properly designed. Sadly, most of the 944 cages I've seen are not well designed from a chassis stiffening standpoint and they should be.
12-06-2002 | 12:01 PM
#40
Race Director
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,643
Likes: 8
From: Phoenix, Az
[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
<strong>Yep, Danno is correct about triangulation. It's the best way to install an STB. However, most cars don't form a parallelagram with their STB. It's more of a trapezoid, and this will resist movement more than a parallelagram. My point is they are not worthless and they would still be high on my list of things to do if you want to work on optimizing your suspension. Of course, the stiffer the chassis, the less effect they will have. Unfortunately for me, IT rules limit us to just tying into the two strut towers.
Cages are the best way to stiffen a chassis if it's properly designed. Sadly, most of the 944 cages I've seen are not well designed from a chassis stiffening standpoint and they should be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Geo, I agree.
Putting my structural Engineering Hat on a Strut tower brace that ties the two struts together is not as good as a triangulated method but it is much better than the stock condition that is a simple "U" shape.
In stock form the strut tops are in some sense left hanging out in the breeze. The simple tie-together braces do and some extra stiffness since now it forcs both strut towers to move togther. This distributes the load into two towers rather than just one.
If you really want I could run a simple Finite Element Analysis to show this...
Now specifcly for 944. It is my opinion that it is helpful, however this is only the case for cars with stiffer springs seeing track duty. For the street I do NOT think they are worthwhile and your money is better spent elsewhere. For the track it should and upgrade you make AFTER you have stiffened the suspension.
<strong>Yep, Danno is correct about triangulation. It's the best way to install an STB. However, most cars don't form a parallelagram with their STB. It's more of a trapezoid, and this will resist movement more than a parallelagram. My point is they are not worthless and they would still be high on my list of things to do if you want to work on optimizing your suspension. Of course, the stiffer the chassis, the less effect they will have. Unfortunately for me, IT rules limit us to just tying into the two strut towers.
Cages are the best way to stiffen a chassis if it's properly designed. Sadly, most of the 944 cages I've seen are not well designed from a chassis stiffening standpoint and they should be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Geo, I agree.
Putting my structural Engineering Hat on a Strut tower brace that ties the two struts together is not as good as a triangulated method but it is much better than the stock condition that is a simple "U" shape.
In stock form the strut tops are in some sense left hanging out in the breeze. The simple tie-together braces do and some extra stiffness since now it forcs both strut towers to move togther. This distributes the load into two towers rather than just one.
If you really want I could run a simple Finite Element Analysis to show this...
Now specifcly for 944. It is my opinion that it is helpful, however this is only the case for cars with stiffer springs seeing track duty. For the street I do NOT think they are worthwhile and your money is better spent elsewhere. For the track it should and upgrade you make AFTER you have stiffened the suspension.
12-06-2002 | 12:30 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
From: Denver, Colorado
[quote]Originally posted by Porsche5050:
<strong>...The MR2 changed for the worst. Celica? Pathetic...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I completely agree. I think the new Celicas look absolutely terrible. I liked the look of the old ones, up to about 1999. They kind of looked like curvy 944s...the one thing I didn't like about those though were the rear view mirrors, they looked like droopy dog's ears.
<strong>...The MR2 changed for the worst. Celica? Pathetic...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I completely agree. I think the new Celicas look absolutely terrible. I liked the look of the old ones, up to about 1999. They kind of looked like curvy 944s...the one thing I didn't like about those though were the rear view mirrors, they looked like droopy dog's ears.
12-06-2002 | 01:34 PM
#42
Race Director
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,033
Likes: 1
From: Houston, TX USA
[quote]Originally posted by M758:
<strong>For the track it should and upgrade you make AFTER you have stiffened the suspension.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, I think it should be done before you upgrade the suspension because any flex in the coachwork will act like a spring and any changes to the suspension will yield less predicable results.
Well.....
Then again, if you aren't running spherical bearings in place of the bushings, it probably doesn't matter. The stock rubber bushings and even urethane bushings allow too much slop in the suspension.
<strong>For the track it should and upgrade you make AFTER you have stiffened the suspension.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, I think it should be done before you upgrade the suspension because any flex in the coachwork will act like a spring and any changes to the suspension will yield less predicable results.
Well.....
Then again, if you aren't running spherical bearings in place of the bushings, it probably doesn't matter. The stock rubber bushings and even urethane bushings allow too much slop in the suspension.
12-06-2002 | 02:55 PM
#43
Unaffiliated
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,286
Likes: 209
From: Cleveland
Back to the Z, FWIW, Automobile mag named it car of the year.. (no Cooper S? ::sigh: Here is the weird part: (I quote)
"There are five different models: Z, Performance, Enthusiast, Touring, and Track. ... but the power output and suspension calibration are the same throughout the line."
What is up with THAT? 5 names for the same car? different stiffness interior bolsters?
Also Automobile said "we're reminded of it's failings every day" (they go on to list the flaws..some COTY)
She'll be a real contender when the twin turbos arrive, but until then, ::yawn:: (Sorry, Bri!)
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Here is the weird part: (I quote)"There are five different models: Z, Performance, Enthusiast, Touring, and Track. ... but the power output and suspension calibration are the same throughout the line."
What is up with THAT? 5 names for the same car? different stiffness interior bolsters?
Also Automobile said "we're reminded of it's failings every day" (they go on to list the flaws..some COTY)
She'll be a real contender when the twin turbos arrive, but until then, ::yawn:: (Sorry, Bri!)
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
12-06-2002 | 03:07 PM
#44
Pro
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
[quote]Originally posted by Danno:
<strong>Look at how the 924GTP's strut-bracing was done and you'd have a perfect example of a well-executed brace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this the one?
(Getting good use from Deni's Cotton book...)
<strong>Look at how the 924GTP's strut-bracing was done and you'd have a perfect example of a well-executed brace.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this the one?
(Getting good use from Deni's Cotton book...)
12-06-2002 | 05:52 PM
#45
Professor of Pending Projects
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,891
Likes: 23
From: Orlando, FL
[quote]Originally posted by Dan P:
<strong>Back to the Z..."There are five different models: Z, Performance, Enthusiast, Touring, and Track. ... but the power output and suspension calibration are the same throughout the line."
What is up with THAT? 5 names for the same car? different stiffness interior bolsters?
...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Limited slip, Xenon Headlights, and interior trims are the difference...
When you get to the track model you get the Brembo braking system with 4-piston front calipers and 2-piston rear calipers, 18-inch Rays® super-lightweight forged alloy wheel, spoilers and underbody diffusers... and other bits
It is a nice car. I would buy it, no questions asked... Track model of course...
<strong>Back to the Z..."There are five different models: Z, Performance, Enthusiast, Touring, and Track. ... but the power output and suspension calibration are the same throughout the line."
What is up with THAT? 5 names for the same car? different stiffness interior bolsters?
...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Limited slip, Xenon Headlights, and interior trims are the difference...
When you get to the track model you get the Brembo braking system with 4-piston front calipers and 2-piston rear calipers, 18-inch Rays® super-lightweight forged alloy wheel, spoilers and underbody diffusers... and other bits
It is a nice car. I would buy it, no questions asked... Track model of course...