Wider Track 205

[Biggles 65]

Nissan Deltawing ?

[welshpug 1,657]

RWD...

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

Nissan Deltawing ?

 

That thing is mega in reverse... point proven.

[Biggles 65]

Everyone knows real racing cars have huge front track compared to the rear...

 

 

Nissan Deltawing ?

 

 

RWD...

 

"Real racing cars" - to use the phrase from above - ARE rwd

[Batfink 201]

Austin Mini beat real race cars and had a wider front track to rear

[allanallen 528 2 Cars]

 

"Real racing cars" - to use the phrase from above - ARE rwd

Get out!

[EdCherry 34 1 Cars]

He has a point fella's.

 

Deciding which axle widths should be run depends on a whole host of possibilities and ultimately the design philosophy the car will be/was made with (or changed too). Until theres hard figures or data analysis of a specific example, reasoning as to which way to go you might as well call it quits...

 

or....

 

real racing cars only turn left!

[Batfink 201]

I think the phase 'one mans meat is another mans poison' is apt.

[calvinhorse 870]

I think the phrase ' wait till he sees the price of 309 beams' may put him off

[welshpug 1,657]

or, "how much travel will I have with a 7" wheel on a 205 shell and 309 beam?" ...

Edited February 13, 2013 by welshpug

[Rob Thomson 6]

I've never understood the obsession with wide-track cars. Yes, they have certain benefits (i.e. more roll stiffness without stiffer springs) but generally those benefits are offset by a whole load of disbenefits (i.e. it shags up the handling). If you're a driving God you might benefit, if you're normal you'll just find it harder to drive consistently at or near the limit and what's the point of that?

 

As a vaguely interesting anecdote, when the WRC regulations were introduced the manufacturers automatically widened the track of their cars to the widest possible within the regulations. The Impreza's track increased fairly significantly from it's Gp.A width. Colin McRae hated it, said it was s*it to drive, and begged the engineers to reduce the front track to give him more feel. If one of the best rally drivers in the world would rather have narrow track doesn't that tell you something?

 

Another problem with rallying in the UK is that you spend half the time negotiating narrow chicanes. I lost count of the number of wing mirrors I broke on my 106 while trying to weave it between the bales. Surely any increase in track is going to cost you more in time lost in the slow corners than you'll ever get back in the quick stuff?

 

Sorry, I'll get off soapbox now.

[parry 23 1 Cars]

My addition to this conversation.

 

I widened my track by using 8inch et0 rims, I went from semi slicks to slicks. The results were very diferent. With the wider track and slicks I could no longer get liftoff oversteer that was on purposely induced to help turnin. I found my self understeering. I put this down to the slicks having so much grip and the rear being overtyred. One day I ran standard rear rims with semi slicks and slicks on the front as I was not getting any heat in the rears on a very cold day. The results was the car could be driven with the rear onc again. I loved it!!! But the times did not reflect what I was feeling. I was slower.

 

Not sure if this helps, but IMO the more grip you have on the rear does change the handling of the car. But I found for the better, was this due to slicks, possibly, as this was not a controlled experiment.

 

I am happy with slicks and wider track all round now, I had to stiffen the front and increase camber to make the car turn in, but I am faster than ever!

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Rob, completely agree, with an additional point - the priority for rally cars is probably somewhat different to track/race cars. Going into a stage with an understeery car would be positively dangerous in my eyes (particularly if we're talking 'proper' rallying here, where you're going round unknown routes off notes) - you need that adjustability, you need that ability to get the car sideways if you overcook something and need to slow it down or adjust your line. Numbing out a cars adjustability for the sake of ultimate grip would be a bad step, IMHO. Not saying you can't have it both ways, but I'll leave that to the suspension gurus. Me, I know how I like it

[petert 588]

An interesting conundrum. I've often wondered if slicks on C5 rims, standard track etc., would be quicker. Let the stop watch (and cheque book) decide I guess!

[parry 23 1 Cars]

An interesting conundrum. I've often wondered if slicks on C5 rims, standard track etc., would be quicker. Let the stop watch (and cheque book) decide I guess!

Peter, I will always be quicker than you!

[petert 588]

What's your fastest time at Wakefield again?

[parry 23 1 Cars]

What's your fastest time at Wakefield again?

1:11:5 with an 8v! 1sec diference with half the horsepower, I call that an ass whipping!

[Batfink 201]

I've never understood the obsession with wide-track cars. Yes, they have certain benefits (i.e. more roll stiffness without stiffer springs) but generally those benefits are offset by a whole load of disbenefits (i.e. it shags up the handling). If you're a driving God you might benefit, if you're normal you'll just find it harder to drive consistently at or near the limit and what's the point of that?

 

As a vaguely interesting anecdote, when the WRC regulations were introduced the manufacturers automatically widened the track of their cars to the widest possible within the regulations. The Impreza's track increased fairly significantly from it's Gp.A width. Colin McRae hated it, said it was s*it to drive, and begged the engineers to reduce the front track to give him more feel. If one of the best rally drivers in the world would rather have narrow track doesn't that tell you something?

 

Another problem with rallying in the UK is that you spend half the time negotiating narrow chicanes. I lost count of the number of wing mirrors I broke on my 106 while trying to weave it between the bales. Surely any increase in track is going to cost you more in time lost in the slow corners than you'll ever get back in the quick stuff?

 

Sorry, I'll get off soapbox now.

 

What about all the maxi cars? They seemed to find an advantage? The impreza could have just been crap in its new setup rather than it being an issue with track width.

[c_robinson 8 1 Cars]

Rob, completely agree, with an additional point - the priority for rally cars is probably somewhat different to track/race cars. Going into a stage with an understeery car would be positively dangerous in my eyes (particularly if we're talking 'proper' rallying here, where you're going round unknown routes off notes) - you need that adjustability, you need that ability to get the car sideways if you overcook something and need to slow it down or adjust your line. Numbing out a cars adjustability for the sake of ultimate grip would be a bad step, IMHO. Not saying you can't have it both ways, but I'll leave that to the suspension gurus. Me, I know how I like it

 

Interesting view, however I completely agree with you and hate a car i can't steer with my feet.

 

Chatting to Guy Wilks and Kris Meeke on s1600 set up they both agreed they much prefere a car to be understeery as understeer is more predictable and less snappy than oversteer.

[kyepan 291]

Interesting view, however I completely agree with you and hate a car i can't steer with my feet.

 

Chatting to Guy Wilks and Kris Meeke on s1600 set up they both agreed they much prefere a car to be understeery as understeer is more predictable and less snappy than oversteer.

 

on the kart circuit i've been learning a new driving style, much more oversteer as opposed to the more neutral style i had before. It's much harder to drift the kart into corners, but ultimately i have more control over the front end and where i end up because of it. You can be fully sideways & hard on the brakes, which invariably leads to dropping it more than i would like. The karts i race have much wider rear track.

 

I guess what i'm saying, understeer is safer, but you have less control, sideways, is harder but you're in control of the yaw a lot more. Phill price said sideways was safe.. i think it's more versatile.

 

Not sure i've added anything to the conversation other than driving styles differ, even in the same machinery, and if you know what you like and how to drive, it would be wise to move in a direction with your setup that allows you to be there more. Drift setups for drifters for example... they want to be in oversteer the whole time and so set the cars up accordingly.

[Rob Thomson 6]

 

What about all the maxi cars? They seemed to find an advantage? The impreza could have just been crap in its new setup rather than it being an issue with track width.

 

GIles Panizzi is a much better driver than any of us. Ultimately wide-track will be faster in talented hands; but as with everything it's a compromise. Wider means less weight transfer which means more grip, but the greater track-to-wheelbase ratio means it'll be twitchier. While I can't stand a car that doesn't slide I'm also aware that my driving skills are finite.

 

I agree to an extent about the Impreza; I'm sure all of the current WRC cars are as wide as possible, but back in '97 McRae got what he wanted and Subaru reduced the track. Happy driver equals a fast driver though it's especially interesting because McRae was very adaptable and was known for driving around car/handling problems rather than bothering to tell his engineers that he didn't like a particular set-up.

[Batfink 201]

I'm guessing the maxi cars were also more optimised for tarmac?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Batfink

[welshpug 1,657]

I don't recall seeing a maxi on a pure gravel event.

 

I'm not so sure their specific aim was to have wider track, but to facilitate the larger brakes and wheels whilst retaining good wheel travel (ever notice the significantly raised front inner arches of a 106 and 306 maxi? ) they used quite deep wheel offsets IIRC so weren't as wide as you would imagine were you to use a typical pug offset.

 

the clio's of the same era didn't have such a wide body, though the later Megane certainly was pretty wide.

[c_robinson 8 1 Cars]

damper angles also come into why the cars were widened. when putting 300bhp through the front wheels grip is the ultimate priority, and a vertical and at 90 degrees to the road damper (ie upright) doesn't surfice!

Edited February 14, 2013 by c_robinson

[Rippthrough 98]

If you go too wide, you don't have room to position the car for smooth transitions (Imagine trying to drive a car as wide as the road and then finding a hairpin...) as with everything, it's a balance.