Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 29 2012 08:10pm)
I guess morph doesn't want to play anymore. Shame, I thought he knew it all.
Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 26 2012 10:20am)
Its hard to make it smaller? More power requires a longer wheelbase to maintain control. Look at the wheelbase and overall length on a corvette or 458 italia.
I said no... what about porshe.
then you said
Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 27 2012 10:05am)
Hey bro, maybe you should get an edumacation before you start popping off at the mouth. What do I know? I'm just a dumbass from SC.
Last time I checked, 911's are rear engine. That's apples and oranges. And yes, most porsches are squirrely as fuck under braking, including their race cars. You completely missed the point though. The more power a car has the longer the wheelbase needs to be to keep it planted. That's why successful road course cars aren't the size of a smart car.
If YOU had any experience with different types of sports cars, especially those with more power, you would understand the reasoning. It was stupid for you to go off on me without knowing anything about me.
Edit: a gt3rs doesn't make much more power than a mustang. Let me spell it out for you. Engine over rear wheels keeps rear end planted by increasing traction. A front engine car with the same power would need to be longer to keep it from being tail happy.
So at this point the the argument you have already agreed, that what retarded drivel you spewed in your first post was already flat out wrong.
Quote (FMX_89 @ Dec 28 2012 09:43am)
Ok here we go. I'm a little late but deal with it. Nowhere did I say that the longest wheelbase possible is better. You are putting words in my mouth. There is a fairly direct correlation between power and wheelbase amongst all cars of the same TYPE. You used a rear engine car as an example when all of the other cars we are talking about are front engine. The BRZ and the Mustang are both front engine RWD. These cars are sold to the general public. The general public are not trained in maneuvers like counter steer and trail braking. The general public need a car with slight understeer, not oversteer, in order to keep them out of the trees.
So when we put a lot of power in a car with a short wheelbase (and lighter weight) what do we get? Easy power induced oversteer. AKA the back end passing the front end. If the car has pretty neutral handling leaning towards understeer and you have enough power to break the back end loose in a corner and induce oversteer the wheelbase of the car has a direct effect on how fast the rear end moves out.
Example. Spin around in a long ass crew cab truck. Now spin around in a ZX-14 powered Smart car. Anyone that has ever played around in a RWD vehicle has felt the phenomenon. So, a car with a shorter wheelbase is harder to control once traction has broken than a car with a longer wheelbase. That is common sense. Where you fucked up in this argument is founding your counter argument on an example car of a different type. A rear engine porshce has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.
No, I'm not a race engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Now you go off on some tanget like we were ever talking about specific models or some shit.
a rear engine porshe has everything to do with why your statement 'More power requires a longer wheelbase to maintain control.' is false.
now go back outside and do whatever you get paid minimum wage to do.