From: welty@balltown.cma.com (richard welty)
Subject: apologies, essay on handling, misc.
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:50:50 GMT

it seems like every couple of years i cranky and tired of the same
old postings; it seems like no progress is ever made in these parts.
i've been seeing the same stuff off and on in rec.autos.* since around
1985, i think (with age, the memory is going.)

but it's not generally the same old people posting the same foolish
things; it's new people, and i really shouldn't get short and snide
with people who have only just arrived.  not suprisingly, these occasional
posting fits of mine correspond roughly to september.

in any event, i should restrain myself better, and keep an even temper.
telling people that they're full of shit does not lead to better
understanding on their part.  my apologies to all concerned.

now, on to handling ...



this current posting festivity all started when someone asked
which car handles best.  i argue that this question is inherently
pointless, and that therefore all responses to such a question
are pointless.

one cannot talk about handling until one has defined some constraints.

where is the driving being done?  (race track, autocross, stage rally,
                                   or just on the street?)

what is the surface? (smooth pavement, broken pavement, mud, snow, gravel?)

what are the constraints on the vehicle?  (race vehicle for a specific
                       class, street legal hot rod, fun sprots car,
                       sedan, cargo hauler?)

what is the constraint on the price? (cost no object, under $xxxxx, free?)

any other preferences at issue?

until these questions are answered, you can't even begin to talk about
`what is best?'

if a racing context is established, then one is immediately forced
to specify a class, and select from vehicles permitted in that class.
one can then look at recent results, and go directly to a fairly decent
answer -- but even that could change, as somebody could be figuring
how to `break the bank' in their class right this minute.  in addition,
we have to consider what the competition context is:  one poster in this
thread brought up `amazing things on smooth surfaces'; well, mid ohio is
smooth, and NHIS is smooth (to name some northeastern venues), but the last
time i drove through the diving turn at lime rock park, it was bumpy as
hell (and summit point isn't much better.)  some of you get to autox
at smooth sites, but some of ours are quite festive.

if we decide against a competition context, then we still need to talk
about some parameters.  going fast on snow is a different ballgame
from going fast on smooth dry pavement; my alfa sedan is a much better
dry pavement handler than my old saab 99 four door, but even with
equivalent snow tires, my saab can run circles around the alfa.

but let's suppose that we've excluded everything except dry pavement from
the equation.

auto rags like to throw around skidpad and slalom numbers; these
are of remarkably limited value.  a skidpad is a splendid learning
tool; but for handling, all it does is compare tires.  circling a
skidpad is a steady state exercise, which can give no characterization
of shocks, and little characterization of sway bars, springs, and suspension
geometry.  a slalom is a little better, as there is some transition
work, but slaloms are generally on level smooth pavement.

but we still have to face the bumps.  here is where a lot of cars
fall on their faces.  in order to get good handling on the smooth
pavement, some designers stiffen the car up until it is has trouble
coping with non-smooth pavement; this is where cars like the 5.0L
mustang and top variants of the camaro and firebird are at their weakest.
(the new `cobra' variant of the 5.0L mustang supposedly finds a better
solution to this problem.)

you could, of course, soften the cars up and use alternative techniques;
this must be done with care.  my italian sedan is an example of a softly
sprung performance car; careful attention to suspension geometer allowed
this tactic to be taken.  the gotcha is that at 2700 lbs, with a high
center of gravity (it is a sedan, after all), there is a lot of weight
moving around, placing a premium on smoothness and patience if you want
to make the car go Truly Fast -- patience that most `fast drivers' do not
have.

this could go on at length, but i'm told that i have to stop at the
store on the way home and get some chili ingredients, so i'll stop here,
with a few closing comments:

there are many, many solutions to handling problems in cars.  some
work better than others, but none are perfect, because there are a
staggering number of different contexts and needs.  an isolated question
`what car handles best?' is inherently useless, because there can be
no correct answer to it.  my anger with this thread was at the fact that
so much net bandwidth was being spend on answers and arguments to a
useless question; none of these answers could possibly be correct,
and the posturing and flaming was getting on my nerves.

(as for weight distribution, my (future) race car has 50/50 weight
distribution, so there.  but i need to get a cylinder head into it
and paint on it, so i guess that for now i'll have to settle for my
big v-6 sedan with only 51/49 weight distribution; sigh.)

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck