Honda Car Forum

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:33 am, Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
>>> did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is
>>> wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v?
>>> or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also
>>> want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
>> Do you have a link?
>
> Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at
> the track.
> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123912
>
> (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of
> production.)
>
> BMWs also carry a strut suspension.
>
> Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and
> implementation details play a significant role in delivered
> performance.

Thanks - that's it in a nutshell.

Tony Harding (ToHard@nowhere.org) writes:
> ACAR wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 3:33 am, Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
>>>> did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is
>>>> wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v?
>>>> or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also
>>>> want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
>>> Do you have a link?
>>
>> Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at
>> the track.
>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123912
>>
>> (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of
>> production.)
>>
>> BMWs also carry a strut suspension.
>>
>> Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and
>> implementation details play a significant role in delivered
>> performance.
>
> Thanks - that's it in a nutshell.



But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... they had to mount the
steering rack about four feet off the ground, with frickin' Ford Twin
I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of
Mr. MacFarty's wonky design.



- Robbie Coltrane holding a large machine hammer,
in 'Planes and Automobiles'

"This is an Edinburgh spanner"

M.A. Stewart wrote:
> Tony Harding (ToHard@nowhere.org) writes:
>> ACAR wrote:
>>> On Jan 16, 3:33 am, Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
>>>>> did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is
>>>>> wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v?
>>>>> or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also
>>>>> want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
>>>> Do you have a link?
>>> Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at
>>> the track.
>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123912
>>>
>>> (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of
>>> production.)
>>>
>>> BMWs also carry a strut suspension.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and
>>> implementation details play a significant role in delivered
>>> performance.
>> Thanks - that's it in a nutshell.
>
>
>
> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... they had to mount the
> steering rack about four feet off the ground, with frickin' Ford Twin
> I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of
> Mr. MacFarty's wonky design.

but they don't /want/ to know about the reasoning - they just want to
watch ricer videos on the net.


>
>
>
> - Robbie Coltrane holding a large machine hammer,
> in 'Planes and Automobiles'
>
> "This is an Edinburgh spanner"
>
>

On Jan 17, 6:57*pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
>
> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...

yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.

we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>
> yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>
> we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.

drifting is not handling big guy - there's limited tire adhesion, so the
problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
- one slides, the other doesn't.

On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
> >> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
> >> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>
> > yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>
> > we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.
>
> drifting is not handling big guy

the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan.
some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional
try it, you'll rice it.
[there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a
lightly modified S2000]

- there's limited tire adhesion, so the
> problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
> have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
> - one slides, the other doesn't.

I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm
suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this
design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/
response desired.)
I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. The last Accord we
bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> ACAR wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
>>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with
>>>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>>> yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>>> we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.
>> drifting is not handling big guy
>
> the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan.
> some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional
> try it, you'll rice it.
> [there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a
> lightly modified S2000]
>
> - there's limited tire adhesion, so the
>> problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
>> have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
>> - one slides, the other doesn't.
>
> I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm
> suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this
> design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/
> response desired.)
> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.

unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.
macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
wishbones can.


> The last Accord we
> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.

again, what is the tire width? compare like with like. camry has a
wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
can't hang with the accord in the twisties.

On Jan 18, 9:30 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
> > are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>
> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.

a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy?
really?

> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
> wishbones can.

double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed.
and some aren't.

>
> > The last Accord we
> > bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>
> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like.

one might argue that designers include tire considerations when
designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM
sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars.

> camry has a
> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.

camry?
who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design?

what else ya got?

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:30 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.
>
> a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy?
> really?
>
>> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
>> wishbones can.
>
> double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed.
> and some aren't.
>
>>> The last Accord we
>>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like.
>
> one might argue that designers include tire considerations when
> designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM
> sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars.
>
>> camry has a
>> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
>> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
>> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.
>
> camry?
> who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design?
>
> what else ya got?

buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling.

jim beam wrote:
> M.A. Stewart wrote:
>> Tony Harding (ToHard@nowhere.org) writes:
>>> ACAR wrote:
>>>> On Jan 16, 3:33 am, Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
>>>>>> did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is
>>>>>> wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the
>>>>>> cr-v?
>>>>>> or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also
>>>>>> want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
>>>>> Do you have a link?
>>>> Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at
>>>> the track.
>>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123912
>>>>
>>>> (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of
>>>> production.)
>>>>
>>>> BMWs also carry a strut suspension.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and
>>>> implementation details play a significant role in delivered
>>>> performance.
>>> Thanks - that's it in a nutshell.
>>
>>
>>
>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda
>> did with
>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... they had to mount the
>> steering rack about four feet off the ground, with frickin' Ford Twin
>> I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of
>> Mr. MacFarty's wonky design.
>
> but they don't /want/ to know about the reasoning - they just want to
> watch ricer videos on the net.

LOL, this NG is priceless! :-D