cosmo
Well-Known Member
www.motortrend.com/multimedia/videos/#ooid=s1MG4zcTqTOgAkB6gL2nAXJ4uNJ13eT4No one can find the video guys. Clicked all the links from android chrome.
Sponsored
www.motortrend.com/multimedia/videos/#ooid=s1MG4zcTqTOgAkB6gL2nAXJ4uNJ13eT4No one can find the video guys. Clicked all the links from android chrome.
I don't know if progressive is the right word for me to use in this instance maybe. What I am implying by being improved upon by going to a square setup vs the staggered is the transition between understeer and oversteer. Otherwords the amount of throttle you need to correct the understeer. If it were a square setup you wouldn't need that much MORE throttle to correct the understeer as the front end would just bite allowing you to ease on the throttle to induce oversteer vs applying the throttle quickly to correct understeer. I hope that makes sense. My only reasoning for mentioning the weight bias in relation to the staggered set up is that it works against a staggered setup inducing more understeer. A car that is more balanced or has more of a rear bias are the only ones that can truly take advantage of staggering on a road course. Sure on the strip and DDing there are advantages. But with Front heavy cars, Square is just a much better starting point to tune your suspension from. Just overall better on the track.I don't think I can agree with you... It's not like the GT PP runs much of a staggered setup to begin with; 255F/275R as a ratio is far more aggressive than a lot of high powered production models. If anything, the 1LE and Z28 are anomalies for OEM-spec RWD cars coming square from the showroom floor, and they're definitely not the only cars out there with progressive oversteer and strong front end grip. And weight balance would only be part of the equation. The only productions cars that come with an actual neutral 50/50 split or anything rear-biased are typically front-mid engined at the most. Again, plenty of FR cars out there with front-end weight bias, a strong front end, and efficient torque application with progressive limits and a neutral balance. Bumping up the front tire sections to square it out won't do anything to make rear break away more progressive.
Requires Flash. Got it! thx
Haha, fair enough. :kickrock:I don't know if progressive is the right word for me to use in this instance maybe. What I am implying by being improved upon by going to a square setup vs the staggered is the transition between understeer and oversteer. Otherwords the amount of throttle you need to correct the understeer. If it were a square setup you wouldn't need that much MORE throttle to correct the understeer as the front end would just bite allowing you to ease on the throttle to induce oversteer vs applying the throttle quickly to correct understeer. I hope that makes sense. My only reasoning for mentioning the weight bias in relation to the staggered set up is that it works against a staggered setup inducing more understeer. A car that is more balanced or has more of a rear bias are the only ones that can truly take advantage of staggering on a road course. Sure on the strip and DDing there are advantages. But with Front heavy cars, Square is just a much better starting point to tune your suspension from. Just overall better on the track.
Anyway I'm rambling now, I think we generally agree tires and suspension need to be improved upon. You just prefer a staggered setup, that is where we can disagree
I'm sticking to 2016 will see upgrades with 2017 being the absolute latest...no way they let the new camaro get off to that hot of a start. I'm thinking they wanted to make big noise at the same time as the new camaros came out, but couldn't neglect a 50 year anniversary celebration with a new platform.Sorry, but they aren't. Any upgrade won't be until 2018. We would have heard about it already and they would be testing it, but there's nothing out there right now.
2018? Keep dreaming. Once the new Camaro is rolled out, Ford will respond quickly. 2017 is most likely when it happens.Sorry, but they aren't. Any upgrade won't be until 2018. We would have heard about it already and they would be testing it, but there's nothing out there right now.
I'm sticking to 2016 will see upgrades with 2017 being the absolute latest...no way they let the new camaro get off to that hot of a start. I'm thinking they wanted to make big noise at the same time as the new camaros came out, but couldn't neglect a 50 year anniversary celebration with a new platform.
I bring back one of my first page posts from my thread. I knew this would be the outcome; that the GT PP would take a slight back seat to the 1LE. I felt this for the obvious reasons... Massive disadvantage of wheel/tire width and tire compound. I also assumed the 1LE would have firmer dampers.Oh I completely agree that the interior of the Camaro is no where near the new Mustang. I'm only referring to lap times....performance. For example, if the lap time of the 1LE at VIR is 3:00, I want to see the PP right around that. Prediction that I would be comfortable with...
1LE VIR lap time 2:59
GT PP VIR lap time 3:00 to 3:02
Would love obviously to see the PP break sub 3 min though.
Noonz! Where are you?
The 1le is the same pricewise as the 15gt pp I thought and the drive ratio also gives the camaro an advantage combined with all you said...but again that's Ford's faultI bring back one of my first page posts from my thread. I knew this would be the outcome; that the GT PP would take a slight back seat to the 1LE. I felt this for the obvious reasons... Massive disadvantage of wheel/tire width and tire compound. I also assumed the 1LE would have firmer dampers.
Again, ford choose to not throw punch for punch in this regard. Was it a mistake? Maybe if just for the magazine bragging rights, but they also knew (I am assuming) that the Mustang customer would want to tailor their ride and tune the suspension and wheels as they see fit. That's where you spend your few thousand you save from the 1LE. They took the approach of a compromised track set up to appease a larger audience.
They succeeded.
Why not? the Mustang still holds the advantage in weight, still lost. Honestly equipping the mustang to be as heavy as it can be (getting it closer to Camaro weight), can give us a better comparison as to which car is better sorted. However I do agree they should be similarly equipped, but if you add recaro's to the mustang you have to add them to the Camaro. So any advantage gained there would be a moot point.The camaro 1LE does a great job for the price, but one thing i dont like is the comparison of a 1SS 1LE against a fully optioned GT without the recaros. A base GT with recaros and PP vs a 1SS 1LE would have been a better comparison. It is pretty obvious that ford wasnt planning on going all out and shooting for that top spot. Maybe the reason why the "track" package from the previous model changed to the "performance" pack instead.
The 1LE has Recaro's, it's in the video.I do agree they should be similarly equipped