[rant] Sports car debate

[tommylommykins]

Sorry if this is a repost but I had to share. Mesmerising:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8By2AEsG ... re=related[/youtube]

Is that car turbocharged? Senna seems to be able to put his foot straight down to the floor without the car spinning out... Could you do that in a nonturbo car?

[Giblet]

Its an Acura/Honda NSX which he gave input in development. The early NSX had a 3 liter v6 with 270hp and was never turbocharged from the factory. Not exactly hard to keep that much power down.

[timbo]

Is that car turbocharged? Senna seems to be able to put his foot straight down to the floor without the car spinning out... Could you do that in a nonturbo car?

You can see that he does not simply floor the pedal. He does a few very fast pushes and only when he finds he has enough grip does he go full throttle.
He did that in naturally aspirated F1 cars too, you can listen to the engine thru long curves.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Its an Acura/Honda NSX which he gave input in development. The early NSX had a 3 liter v6 with 270hp and was never turbocharged from the factory. Not exactly hard to keep that much power down.

Trust me giblet, if you have ever experienced a rear wheel drive Vtec motor you would know its quite a beast to keep from spinning the rears. My S2000 wants to buck sideways approaching 6500rpm with even the slightest angle on the steering....and there is still 2500 rpm of Vtec grunt to go. Its an on off power band, this is what unsettles the tyres.

I had the pleasure of an NSX at mallory park 2 years ago, and it had the same tendency to want to kick its tail out. Watching Senna do it, I realise why I could never do what he did....

check out 1.33, And 1.56 thru to 2;04 on how sensitive the car is and also how light the nose as in relation to the rear.

[Giblet]

I have driven an NSX as well, and it was awesome, albeit not on a track. Your car is not mid-engined, and with the light rear end is quicker to go tail happy. The NSX tends to rotate a little more predictably, and with someone like Senna on the throttle, which was arguably his greatest driving skill, 270HP is nothing to deal with when you have been driving cars with 1400HP in qualifying trim.

Not saying it's not easy, but with a light and talented foot anything can be controlled.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Au contraire giblet,

The S2000 is technically mid-engined as the engine is mounted behind the front axle.
Front mounted mid engine is more apt, but still.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000


And on the limit, the NSX is benign compared to an S2000. The S2000 has a bit of a reputation to let go suddenly(maybe a few posters who have been to track days with one will know )if you dont know what to expect.

What the video ably demonstrates is Senna's awesome abilities. They werent stretching his abilites, but you have to wonder what a camera in an MP4-4 or somthing similar would have recorded with Senna at the helm.....in the wet

[strad]

I hope the engine is behind the front axle [-o<

[strad]

Au contraire giblet,

The S2000 is technically mid-engined as the engine is mounted behind the front axle.
Front mounted mid engine is more apt, but still.

I think your definition of mid-engine is wrong..that would make my Mustang Cobra,,,,Mid-engine because the engine is behind the front axle. hahahahaha

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Front-mid engined strad.

Check out the definitions on loads of different technical blogs

[myurr]

Au contraire giblet,

The S2000 is technically mid-engined as the engine is mounted behind the front axle.
Front mounted mid engine is more apt, but still.

I think your definition of mid-engine is wrong..that would make my Mustang Cobra,,,,Mid-engine because the engine is behind the front axle. hahahahaha

Joke's on you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design

[strad]

Jokes on idiots that depend on Wiki...
My Mustang is definietly NOT mid engine.

[Just_a_fan]

Front engined is engine in front of the front axle.
Front-mid is engine behind the front axle but in front of driver.
Rear-mid is engine behind the front axle and behind the driver.
Rear engined is engine behind driver and behind rear axle.

Of course, Europe and Japan have moved the car on from the fifties which is where so many yank cars seem to remain. Perhaps that's why some yank car buyers haven't moved on either

[strad]

I will match the Mustang against the Honda...oh that's right..I have and I cleaned their clock with my antique.
Don't you guys ever get tired of trying to pick the fly --- out of the pepper?

[Just_a_fan]

The S2000 isn't the only sports car made outside of the US though...indeed, they've stopped making it (or at least they don't import them in to the UK any more)

Lots of other nice toys still made though which fit the various descriptions of front-mid engined.

[myurr]

Jokes on idiots that depend on Wiki...
My Mustang is definietly NOT mid engine.

If the engine is behind the front axel then it most definitely is mid engined. I'm not depending on wikipedia, it just happened to be the convenient link to post. Here are a couple more for you:
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/ ... ive_layout
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Front_mid-engin ... ive_layout
http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/FMR_layout

Note that the engine must be entirely behind the front axel to be classified as front mid-engined, so I believe that only the original Mustang qualifies.

As an aside in Gran Turismo cars with an FMR layout are classified as mid-engined.