But wouldn't some wider tyres at the rear and some more negative camber give you improved grip at the rear to a fair degree?

Not necesarilly wider ... just griper would do (which is what I opefully have at the moment). Though, the lack-of-grip-at the-rear-end is not a tyre related issue but a suspension related issue. The OEM S02s are one of the stickiest tyres you can get. The back end is loose despite the sticky rubber ... I'm guessing it's something to do with the suspension geometry or/and the LSD. Let's put it this way -when I had my MR2 (prev shape), it had 225 rubber at the back and no LSD. OK, it had only 120kW but that is not an issue as the rear-end can be loose even under neutral throttle (ie. just loding it up with cornering forces). Still, the MR2 had so much grip at the back that you really had to do something insane to break it loose. I'd say that when the S2000 is wagging it's tail, the MR2 would be only at about 7 - 8/10th as far as the rear grip goes. I don't think it is just the fact that the MR2 had the engine behind you and 56% of weight over the rear wheels (unlike 50% for the S2000). On the other hard it was pretty eazy to exceed the grip of the front-wheels reasonably eazy in the MR2 while in the S2000 the front-end grip is in another league. S2000 is also a lot more 'chuckable' and responds a lot better to change of direction (and weight transfer). And then the controlability if the S2000 once it does step out is among the best. S2000 is one step above the MR2 in terms of handling dynamics except for the rear-end which is a step bellow. Give me better rear-end grip and I'm sure I could be chasing that BoxsterS time .... I'm sure I could close to within 1sec (or less) of it just like that.

Camber (ie. alligment) does help and so do the tyre pressures but they still don't remove the 'problem' alltogether. Maybe a thicker front anti-roll bar would help as that is what a lot of folk in the US do. Actually, according the US guys, the way to make the S2000 insanly quick around track is to put sticky and fat rubber on it and then mount a huge, bigass wing at the back. The wing is worth about 2secs at a track like Laguna (ie. 1:45 - 1:50 laptime). With setup like that they keep Vipers honest.

Not sure if there is any conclusive evidence that the rear end is changed on the AUS delivered cars on 02+ models that can be qualified by Honda though. UK sources suggest that anti-roll bar thickness, damper rates and alignments have changed to give a more settled rear end though nothing is mentioned in Aussie press?!?!

Yes, the local S2000 does have the suspension revisions. Not only do the local magaizes mention it, but also the Honda magazine mentioned it about 6+ months ago. They like the changes when driving on the road (ie. up to 8/10th) but on the track they said not much has changed as the back it letting the car down.

ps. Some more CM times from Winton from the previous 2 years (to put the S2000's 1:44.09 into perspective):
- MG Trophy 160 = 1:50.78
- MX5 = 1:49.88
- Mercedes SLK230 = 1:48.38
- MR2 Spider = 1:47.56
- Renault CLio Sports = 1:47.30
- Audi S6 = 1:47.25
- WRX'02 = 1:46.74
- 200SX = 1:46.40
- MX5-SP = 1:44.7
- Audi RS4 = 1:44.13
- Elise'02 = 1:43.88
- HSV GTS Coupe = 1:42.78
- EVO VI = 1:42.23
- 911 = 1:42.01
- M3 = 1:41.56
- 911 GT2 = 1:36.35

 

I was very impressed by the Boxster S times. How do they do it with a power to weight ratio very similar to that of an S2000?

The CV8 and GTS also pull some remarkable times.

 

I was very impressed by the Boxster S times. How do they do it with a power to weight ratio very similar to that of an S2000?

To start off the Boxster S has a power to weight ration that is superior to the S2000. S2000 = 176kW and 1259kg = 7.15kg/kW. On the other hand Boxster S = 191kW and 1300kg = 6.8kg/kW. So, they are not that far but appart but the BoxsterS has a noticable edge.

Then there is the difference in power delivery. Even though the BoxsterS has a very good power peak, it is the power throughtout the whole rev range that is really impressive. It's like a V8 motor compared to the S2000 ... expect it does rev out nicelly and has a nice peak. Even if you look at just the power band (that you can use on the track) then you'll see a big difference. If you pressume that on the track you never drop bellow 70kph and that you're always in the right gear then the power at your dispposal in the S2000 is between 130 and 176kW (it would be 140 - 176kW if you never need to drop bellow 76kph). Anyway, BoxsterS on the other hand has 170 - 191kW at its disposal when above 70kph. It's mainly the bottom end of the power-band that makes the difference as the Boxster has a 30% power advantage there over the S2000 while at the peak there's only about 8% difference. Account into that that the BoxsterS weights 3 - 4% more than the S2000 (unless you load it up with a lot of options). All this means is that BoxsterS punches out of corners a lot better than the S2000.

Then there's the tyre size ... as I mentioned the BoxsterS is only about 40kg heavier than the S2000 but it comes with 225 rubber at the front and 265 rubber at the back. Compare that to the S2000's 205 and 225 rubber and notice that the BoxsterS has 12cm more width in terms of rubber on the road. This ultimatelly means that thew BoxsterS has more available grip and hecne better mid-corner speed (which is usually shown by it pulling higher g-forces than the S2000).

And last of all the BoxsterS does not have the rear-end letting it down in terms of outrught grip. That alone is loosing the S2000 good 1sec in it's lap-time.

ps. BoxsterS has been locally clocked at 13secs flat to 160kph, Compare that with around 14.5secs for the S2000 and more like 15secs in the local testing (that is the quick test too).

The CV8 and GTS also pull some remarkable times.

The HSV GTS does not surprise me with it's time at all ... it has a huge power advantage that will make a difference even on a track like Winton. At Sandown, with it's long straights, the 300kW HSVs are in a different league to the S2000.

Though the CV8 really surprised me ... last year they managed 1:44.8 with the CV8. So this year they took 1.2secs off that time and that is the biggest discreptancy between all 3 years. For referrence purposes the SS usually mamanges high 1:46s and even this year the SV8 managed 1.6sec slowe rthime that the CV8. No idea how/why.

 

You are the facts and figures guru, DavidM..

It is surprising that the S2000 does so well and only the real pointy end of the sports car food chain and the 250KW+ monsters gain better times. However I understand about your concern on the inherent problems with the rear end being more in the suspension design rather than the tyres and alignment settings but I am unqualified to attest to that at this point in time. The rear feels planted enough unless I deliverately provoke it but I haven't been in an environment where I could safely push this car to feel its limits.

Getting back to the PCOTY test, it is apparent that the S2000 is a car that you either love or hate and was just as polarised with the judges' opinions. They mention that half the camp felt it should be in the top 6 but the other half hated what others love about it... the peaky power delivery, the tight cabin, firm ride, the noise....

 

However I understand about your concern on the inherent problems with the rear end being more in the suspension design rather than the tyres and alignment settings but I am unqualified to attest to that at this point in time. The rear feels planted enough unless I deliverately provoke it but I haven't been in an environment where I could safely push this car to feel its limits.

The thing with the S2000 is (as you'll sure find out) that it handles really well and over over 10/10th it's very controllable and adjustable. It's just that the rear end is not as 'grippy' is I would like when pushing the car to the limits. Still, it is probably gripier than 99% of cars out there .... I'm comapring it cars like Boxster, Elise (and even the MR2).

Getting back to the PCOTY test, it is apparent that the S2000 is a car that you either love or hate and was just as polarised with the judges' opinions. They mention that half the camp felt it should be in the top 6 but the other half hated what others love about it... the peaky power delivery, the tight cabin, firm ride, the noise....

What surprises me then is why they would like the Elise. S2000 a more practical and better road car ... S2000 is very much a practical Elise with better engine, gearbox and more straightline opmh. Though, on an overal scheme of things the S2000 is an 'average' road-car but an excellent sports-car (or track car) ... jurnos here don't think that higlhy of i though ... maybe because it's just not prefect.

 

The point is that a "grippier" rear end does not mean a faster car -

The way to drive the s2000 correctly as I have observed after watching numerous fast lap videos would be to make the rear end work for you, that is, to use its drifting qualities to get the car pointing the right way. I am not saying its the easiest, but I do think that driven correctly, the s2k would have probably been faster than waht mcConville managed out of it, especially given that amateur nonprofess drivers have not been getting much worse times -

A great example is the NSX in GT3, the fast way to drive that "electronic" car, is to make use of the looseness of the car to prevent understeer.

 

Drifting is not a fast way around a race track. A car with a loose rear end would be faster if it were more neutral - period.

 

Credibiliity does not seem to be Motor's strong point, unlike inane profanities disguised as humor, and ineptly articulated prejudices as journalism. This is a "performance" car test that ranks a Mazda6 above an Elise, various Commodores above a Viper, a Camry above an XKR, and most of all, a Magna above "our" S2000. To suggest that their judging criteria need some basic rethinking is charitable; who could forget the year when the 200SX was their car of the year AND subscription prize?

 

The point is that a "grippier" rear end does not mean a faster car - The way to drive the s2000 correctly as I have observed after watching numerous fast lap videos would be to make the rear end work for you, that is, to use its drifting qualities to get the car pointing the right way. I am not saying its the easiest...

That might be a the way for cars that do not have much front-end grip and understeer a lot. WRX are often set up like that for track work for that reason. Though S2000 is not one of those cars as the front end does have a problem holding it's line ... why need to 'help' with the rear-end when the front is doing just fine. More grip at the back would make the S2000 faster as you could go around the corner faster ... as fast as the front allows you to.

...but I do think that driven correctly, the s2k would have probably been faster than waht mcConville managed out of it, especially given that amateur nonprofess drivers have not been getting much worse times

I'm sure that there's more in the S2000 and even a driver like CM gets some variance while driving the same cars at different times ... the CV8 is a prime example; though normally he's consistant to within 1/2 a sec. I have no doubt that the S2000 can do mid 1:43s with me as a driver and 1:43 flat with CM having a good day and conditions right.

Also, don't forget that CM has bested our best efforts by at least 1/2 a sec after 5 (or so) laps at the wheel .... most of us in 1:44s have been to Winton 3+ times now and have good 60 laps under our belt. Imagine what CM could do after 60 laps.

A great example is the NSX in GT3, the fast way to drive that "electronic" car, is to make use of the looseness of the car to prevent understeer.

GT3 might be a very fine game but that's all it is ... it resembles very little of reality and the cars there certainly do not resemble the driving experience of the real things. They at best symbolize the feeling of the cars and are about the same as cartoons to real-life.

This is a "performance" car test that ranks a Mazda6 above an Elise, various Commodores above a Viper, a Camry above an XKR, and most of all, a Magna above "our" S2000.

Yeah, the order that the cors come in is very strange .... you'll notice that the 'sports cars' loose out when scored on design, function, drivability and value .... not entirely sure how important any of those criteria are when looking for "performance" car of the year. From the look of it they place too much importantce on those and not enough of "perfromance" and "dynamics". Even when you look hard at the negatives of the S2000 ... how can it finish 5th last?! How can possibly Mazda6, Magna, Monaro and Commodore come up highter in "performance car" of the year ... are they better perfromance car?! I don't think so.

To suggest that their judging criteria need some basic rethinking is charitable; who could forget the year when the 200SX was their car of the year AND subscription prize?

hehe. Though, I don't disagree with the cars that they choose as winners ... I can't think of a car in any of the lineups that did not deserve the win. The 200SX beating the 911 TT is hard to swallow ... but it won in on performance and 'fun factor' for the money. It must be hard to balance things like 'value' in a PCOTY but I can understand how without criterias like value, desing and drivability, the winner would always be the most expensive Porsche or Ferrari ... how could anything beat it on pure perfromance numbers?

 

David

you are the GOD of technical information!

btw - did they mention the term "good value" again regarding the Boxster S?