To All NSX Owners - Likes and Dislikes?

[Z18]

Giuseppe: you can also tell your Modena friend that I too have a 360 (and an S2000, for that matter), and I still feel that way about the NSX (although, of course, I LOVE my other two cars as well, but for different reasons -- I'm definitely not monogomous when it comes to sports cars)

-Z18

 

[NSX4U2]

I'm hoping you are in disguise and are really a Honda Engineer who is planing to take all my comments and add them to the next NSX.

No dislikes, only looking for "process improvements":

Add 186.7 HP
Improve the brakes
Put 17/18 - 8/9.5 wheels or ? on the car
Improve Aluminum T-panel flex

97-T

 

[gheba_nsx]

Z18,
thanks for the support

!

It is kinda hard to argue with him *every* day since he parks in the spot right next to mine here at work and he get 90% of the attention (god bless the civic/integra fans... they all support me!

)!

Anyway, this is what answered about your yesterday's sentence I forwarded him: " I would say it was more for a carrera esp carrera 4". His wife drives a 993 Carrera 4...

 

[skim83]

Originally posted by Z18:


3. What is it with the Japanese and their propensity to put tiny tires on their sports cars? The NSX simply needs more rubber on the pavement for better handling.

[

-Z18

Correct me if I'm wrong but, and in some aspects I probably will be, but more rubber on the pavement means worse handling I thought. I think it was the E30 model BMW's or early model Benz, forget which one, that handles better than the newer models due to less rubber contact. More rubber means that you'll have to constantly correct the cars path while driving, because the car gets so much road feedback, whereas less rubber allows you to relax more and not have to correct for every bump in the road. I could be wrong, and probably am, for performance cars since they are equipped to handle all the road feedback and are meant to be driven faster right?

 

[Nsxotic]

Z18's comment was incorrect. Larger tires certainly do NOT increase handling; in fact it is just the opposite. I'm sure Ken can direct us to that old thread about tire size/handling. 17/18 combos may look a whole lot better but the 15/16 combo is superior handling.

------------------
Todd Arnold

http://www.geocities.com/nsxcessive/index.html

 

[Z18]

Nsxotic: Wider tires, not larger tires -- in other words, more contact on the ground.

I've no idea which thread or article you are refering to, but in general, wider tires increase the cornering ability of the car. I'm sure it also adversely affects other things (including cost), and all things are a trade off, but my opinion is that the NSX needs wider tires.

Go to the track and look how people modify their cars to go faster. One of the components is almost always wider than stock tires.

Look at most other performance and exotic sports cars: wider tires.

And then my personal experience with my cars and friends cars: wider tires = better cornering speeds. Add to that my experience behind a Z06 on a track and him out cornering me... it's all about suspension, tire width, and tire compound (and balance, and other things -- I don't want to generalize too much).

-Z18

 

[nsxtasy]

Wider tires, not larger tires -- in other words, more contact on the ground.

Wider tires do NOT make more contact on the ground. The size of the contact patch (the area of the tire in contact with the ground) depends only on the air pressure in the tires and the weight of the car. For example, if you have a car that weighs 3000 pounds and the air pressure in the tires is 30 pounds per square inch, the size of the four contact patches is 100 square inches - regardless of whether the tires are 205/50-15 or 275/30-18.

The SHAPE of the contact patch changes with wider tires (they are wider side-to-side, narrower front-to-back) but the SIZE is the same. This is illustrated on Tire Rack's website here.

in general, wider tires increase the cornering ability of the car.

There have been several articles written on this subject, and the conclusions that they have generally found are that (a) wider tires on bigger wheels help up to a certain point and hurt after that, and (b) the differences are very slight. I recall one article using a BMW and lap times on a closed course that found that widening the tires and going from 15" to 16" wheels was an improvement, doing it from there to 17" was a toss-up, and from there to 18" made it worse.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 16 November 2001).]

 

[nsxbadboy]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Wider tires, not larger tires -- in other words, more contact on the ground.

Wider tires do NOT make more contact on the ground. The size of the contact patch (the area of the tire in contact with the ground) depends only on the air pressure in the tires and the weight of the car. For example, if you have a car that weighs 3000 pounds and the air pressure in the tires is 30 pounds per square inch, the size of the four contact patches is 100 square inches - regardless of whether the tires are 205/50-15 or 275/30-18

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 16 November 2001).]

This is interesting but can be proved wrong rather easily.What if the wheel/tire were 155/80/13?Im not trying to be a smart @ss for I may be missing something.

Joe



------------------
97 NSX-T
93 Supra TT BPU+

 

[skim83]

The whole point about the wider tires is that it DOESN'T contribute to better handling that most people think it does. More road feedback that the car/steering has to deal with the more corrections that the driver has to make. Of course, wider tires allow for faster acceleration because there is more tread that is in contact with the road. I can guarantee you that the main reason for all the wider tires on cars these days is just for looks. A car looks better and more aggressive with a low profile wide tire. I mean, hell...you ever look at how ugly a non-full size spare looks like =)

There was a pretty informative article I read about 2 years ago in European Car that explained it well. I'll try to find it again since what I'm typing is mostly from memory...and a bad one at that.

Actually, NSXtsy, wider tires do mean more contact. If you take a narrow tire and release air pressure so that the car sits flat on the tire it doesn't mean that the whole flat tire is in contact with the road. What I'm gonna say is hard to explain in words for me but I'm gonna try my best.

Think of a flat piece of paper lying on a flat surface. When you push against the paper from opposite sides the middle of the 2 opposite sides go up right? Well this applies to tires also. As the tire loses pressure the middle of the tire goes up. So in essence you are driving on tires that have one long groove down the middle. Hope I explained it well, if I could draw it it would be so much easier.

[This message has been edited by skim83 (edited 17 November 2001).]

 

[nsxtasy]

What if the wheel/tire were 155/80/13? Im not trying to be a smart @ss for I may be missing something.

The missing assumption is that the air in the tires is holding up the car. As long as this is the case, then the contact patch will be the same size (25 square inches per tire).

wider tires allow for faster acceleration because there is more tread that is in contact with the road.

Wrong. There is not more tread in contact with the road.

I can guarantee you that the main reason for all the wider tires on cars these days is just for looks.

Right.

If you take a narrow tire and release air pressure so that the car sits flat on the tire

See above. The contact patch is the same size as long as the tires are inflated and the air in the tires is supporting the weight of the car. This is basic physics. The downward force of gravity on the car must equal the upward force supplied by the air in the tires. The upward force is the inflation pressure, which is applied over the area of the contact patch.

Incidentally, this also explains why drag racers reduce the inflation pressure in their tires - to get a bigger contact patch.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 17 November 2001).]

 

[ilya]

I do agree that thinner tires may provide better handling, but don't larger tires increase grip (possibly at the expense of handling)? As on the Viper for example.
My impression was that the reason for larger rear tires was for traction on high HP and torque cars like the Viper and Corvette. Otherwise they would spin the rear wheels even easier than they already do. Is that correct?

 

[lemansnsx]

Originally posted by ilya:
I do agree that thinner tires may provide better handling, but don't larger tires increase grip (possibly at the expense of handling)? As on the Viper for example.
My impression was that the reason for larger rear tires was for traction on high HP and torque cars like the Viper and Corvette. Otherwise they would spin the rear wheels even easier than they already do. Is that correct?

http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000362.html


------------------
Andrew Henderson
The NSX Model List Page
"We have long acknowledged that enthusiasm for things automotive is a sure
sign of emotional instability if not outright dementia" - Brock Yates

 

[Vegas Boy]

Dislikes:

1) No cupholder (I spill Starbucks in my lap about twice a week)
3) So-so stereo, but I usually listen to the intake and exhaust notes.
3) No cargo room when you put Nitros in the trunk.

Gee, I think thats it.

Other than that, you can bury me in mine.
I sold the Ferarri and Porsche when I slimmed down my fleet (kids & tech wreck), kept the NSX! No regrets, although my wife would like a Boxster!

 

[skim83]

NSXtsy I understand what you're saying about lower air pressure causing more contact but that's only to a point. The tire walls limit how much you can increase contact.

Wider tires DO create more contact. There is more rubber that is in contact with the road. I'm gonna try and create a rough drawing by typing.

Narrow tire

-----

-----

Wider tire

-------------

-------------

There is obviously more contact area. The contact that a tire has with the road is basically a square patch. A wider tire means a wider square, or a rectangle. This means more contact. When I say wider tires I mean width as when your eye level with the car from the front and measuring the tire from left to right.

I mean think about it this way. A tire that is 4 inches wide. Now think about a tire that is 1 mile wide. The 1 mile wide tire has more contact with the road. Maybe we are thinking differently or something but I don't see what you're saying when you say wider tires doesn't create more contact.

[This message has been edited by skim83 (edited 18 November 2001).]

 

[Exotica]

Quote from Skim83:
--------------------------------------------
There is obviously more contact area. The contact that a tire has with the road is basically a square patch. A wider tire means a wider square, or a rectangle. This means more contact. When I say wider tires I mean width as when your eye level with the car from the front and measuring the tire from left to right.

I mean think about it this way. A tire that is 4 inches wide. Now think about a tire that is 1 mile wide. The 1 mile wide tire has more contact with the road. Maybe we are thinking differently or something but I don't see what you're saying when you say wider tires doesn't create more contact.
---------------------------------------------

Skim,

Using more general terms, here is another explanation of why Ken (NSXtasy) is correct:

Gravity is what pulls the car down. The amount of force is based on the car's weight. The tire pressure is what provides the "resistance" - holding the car off the ground. Assuming weight and tire pressure remain constant, a car using wide tires does not have any more "downward force" than when it uses narrow tires. The only difference is what part of the tire is touching the ground (more width means less depth is touching).

A crude example would be like comparing a waterski (long and narrow) to a wakeboard (short and fat). If the same person were to ride each of them then the same amount of surface area would be touching the water in both cases; regardless of the shape of the ski. The reason is his weight (like the car) is constant and the water (like the tire pressure) is constant. Only the shape of the ski has changed (representing a wide vs. narrow tire). His body cannot provide any more "downward force" on the wider wakeboard than it can on the narrow waterski. Therefore a wider ski would not indicate more ski was touching the water. It would only mean more WIDTH of the ski (and less DEPTH) was touching the water.

The same is true for tires. Either a long and narrow section of the tire will be touching the ground, or a short and wide section. Either way, the same amount of rubber is actually touching the ground.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

 

[nsxtasy]

Thanks for the additional explanation and example, Exotica. Nice.

Skim83, check out the link to the Tire Rack website by clicking here. You'll see an illustration of two different tire patches, one for a wide tire and one for a narrow tire. Both are rectangles that are the same size (area) with different dimensions. This is what happens when comparing different size tires, all other things (weight and air pressure) being equal.

 

[lemansnsx]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Thanks for the additional explanation and example, Exotica. Nice.

Skim83, check out the link to the Tire Rack website by clicking here. You'll see an illustration of two different tire patches, one for a wide tire and one for a narrow tire. Both are rectangles that are the same size (area) with different dimensions. This is what happens when comparing different size tires, all other things (weight and air pressure) being equal.

Problem is that for every site like Tire Rack showing that the patch is the same size you can find another site encouraging wide low profile tires because they give you a larger contact patch!!


------------------
Andrew Henderson
The NSX Model List Page

"We have long acknowledged that enthusiasm for things automotive is a sure
sign of emotional instability if not outright dementia" - Brock Yates

 

[skim83]

I understand vertical load and stuff but maybe I'm not understanding it fully. And I see one thing wrong with the Tire Rack picture. The reason for the long and narrow patch is because of the tires change in profile. What if the low profile tire in that picture was more narrow. Wouldn't the contact patch be smaller then the low profile tire picture shown? I know that width isn't everything but I could've sworn it had some effect in the equation. I mean, wouldn't a tire that is:

30 inch wide
2 inch sidewall height

have more contact than a:

10 inch wide
2 inch sidewall height?

Sorry if this continuing conversation bothers anyone but I'd really like to learn something here. I can't get this off my mind.

 

[Jimbo]

Skim,

This is a deceptive issue. There are a number of things happening at the same time.

Ken is technically correct about the issue of the contact patch. Perhaps it would help to think of a balloon sitting on a glass coffee table. The contact patch of the balloon against the glass is a function of the air pressure in the balloon and the weight or the force applied to the balloon against the glass. Of course, there are other limiting factors, such as the sidewall, but in general terms Ken is correct.

The other issue that affects handling and cornering speed is the actual frictional force between the tires and the road and this is obviously related to the size of the contact patch. The heavier the car the larger the contact patch and the greater the friction.

Of course, it is possible to have a smaller contact patch with higher frictional forces (Just imagine if you put a plastic skirt around your NSX and evacuated the air from the underbelly...you wouldn't need wider tires), but at some point for a given tire material and road surface you're going to generate a maximum amount of frictional force for a certain size contact patch.

Imagine a flat block of wood sitting on a sheet of glass. It slides easily because of the low friction between the wood and the glass.

Now imagine gluing four little squares of rubber to each corner. The block is harder to slide (just pushing it sideways) because of the increased friction. If you look at the loading however, the weight of the block is concentrated on the four little pads. You could cover the whole surface of the block with rubber and find that there's not much difference in sliding the block (just as long as you don't push down on the block as you slide it). That's because the weight of the block is spread out over a greater surface area. There's also the possibility that with a larger surface area that there is a greater chance of certain areas not having intimate contact with the surface, which is why people reduce the air pressure to increase the friction.

However, assuming that you can increase the downforce to take advantage of the larger contact surface, then it's of course, always better to have more rubber on the road. If you push down on the wood block as you try to slide it, the sliding gets a lot harder. This is why modern racecars are so concerned with aerodynamic downforce.

Of course, when you use aerodynamic downforce to push the car down on the track to increase the friction, the air pressure in the tires (and the sidewalls) are the means of transmitting that force to the road. So, as you can see it's a fairly complex situation.

I think it was this balancing act between surface area and friction that was throwing you off.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 20 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 20 November 2001).]

 

[W]

I went from a '92 Lexus SC400 to a '92 NSX. After owning the Lexus for a few years I wanted a sportscar.

It came down to two cars: a 3.0L NSX or an early model Viper. Did I want Honda refinement and reliability or brute force American muscle?

Cars in direct competition with the Viper included: built LT1 Corvette or Camaro (like a LPE 383) or big single turbo Supra.

The only car that I considered in competition with the NSX was the C5 Corvette.

To be honest, it really came down to looks and that meant NSX or Viper. I knew I wouldn't have been happy with any of the other cars. If I had gotten one of the other cars it probably would have been the big single turbo Supra and I'd be out right now cruising the highway looking for Vipers and NSX's to race.

I chose the NSX because I was going to drive it most of the time and didn't want to be distracted by the RT/10's peculiarities (no door locks, no ABS, no side windows, questionable soft top). I hope someday to add an RT/10 to the collection.

The NSX is an awesome car but my main beef is with the stereo. The Lexus didn't have a great stereo but it was a lot better than the Bose system that came with my NSX. I also wish I had a sunroof/moonroof. Other things that I miss but are relatively unimportant include: heated seats, power tilt and telescopic steering, memory system for 2 drivers.

The NSX was my dream car and I definately made the right decision getting it.

 

[nsxtasy]

wouldn't a tire that is:

30 inch wide
2 inch sidewall height

have more contact than a:

10 inch wide
2 inch sidewall height?

First of all, unrealistic examples often don't help convey a concept. So let's not worry about tires that are a mile wide or 30 inches wide.

Second, the sidewall height is not in contact with the road. So the sidewall height isn't a measurement that has anything to do with the contact patch of a properly-inflated tire.

What we're saying is this: Suppose your tires are 275 mm (10.83 inches) wide, and your car weighs 3000 pounds, and you have 30 psi in your four tires. The force of gravity is pushing down on those tires with a force of 3000 pounds, and the pressure of the tires are pushing back with the same force, spread over a certain area - the contact patches of your four tires. That pressure is distributed over that area at a rate of 30 pounds per square inch. Since the total force is 3000 pounds, we know that the area is 100 square inches, or 25 square inches per tire. (We'll assume equal weight distribution here to make our calculations easier.)

Since the contact patch for each tire is 25 square inches, if it were rectangular (it's not exactly rectangular, but it's close enough to use for the purposes of our example), the rectangle is 10.83 inches wide and 2.31 inches long. That's the effective area where the pressure is pushing down on the tires. (There may be some borders around that area where the tread is being deformed but not holding the weight of the car, which is why the tire may look like the contact patch is more than 2.31 inches long.)

If you change from the 275 mm wide tires to 195 mm (7.68 inches) wide tires, then the contact patch will be narrower, but longer (3.26 inches long if it were rectangular).

It's not easy to visualize, because you can't actually SEE the contact patch, but that's the way it works.

 

[skim83]

Thanks guys for the information. I already knew about vertical load, gravity, psi, etc. but now I know more =) NSXtsy you're right about the "unrealistic examples" since most of the time unrealisitc examples don't portray real world. I applaud you Jimbo for your explanation =) Kind of already knew what you were talking about but I see it in a new picture now =) I guess if I think on it more I'll come around to your guys way of thinking so I'm just gonna look over some stuff while I have some free time to better understand this concept. I'm far from being a gear-head so I appreciate all the help and the willingness to help.

 

[Attitude Adjuster]

Just think of the tire width in this light... The wider the tire, the more patch contact HOWEVER.... the more area for the weight of the car to be displaced. The more area that the weight is being displaced, the less force per square inch. It's like if I were to take a finger and put pressure on your skin (wide contact patch) versus me exerting the same pressure but using a needle. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Kenji Ligon
"A behavioral Scientist trying to use Physics and logic!!!"

91 Red CTSC NSX

[This message has been edited by Attitude Adjuster (edited 20 November 2001).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Just think of the tire width in this light... The wider the tire, the more patch contact HOWEVER.... the more area for the weight of the car to be displaced. The more area that the weight is being displaced, the less force per square inch. It's like if I were to take a finger and put pressure on your skin (wide contact patch) versus me exerting the same pressure but using a needle. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

What you're saying is that the contact patch can be bigger if the pressure in the tires is less ("less force per square inch"). While that statement is true, it's more often the case that the air pressure stays the same and the size of the contact patch stays the same.

 

[Mantra]

You should buy one in order to be elected to participate in NSXPRIME forums...

I dislike only the fact that it is very difficult to make love inside an NSX...

Best regards from Italy, Cristiano.