# TT Quattro - understeer, cure?



## iamneallyons (Mar 20, 2016)

Hi guys,

so im looking into buying a quattro TT 225, iv watched and read the reviews and it gets a hammering for understeering.

i want the car to double up as a bit of a tracktoy, my question is - can the understeer problem be solved, iv heard of haldex controllers but been told they are like hens teeth, does coilovers/larger rear ARB or changing the bushes get you closer to the solution or what?

any info will be gratefully received, thanks.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, You will get used to it & drive it accordingly, slower in & faster out.  Thicker rear ARB will make it more neutral.
Hoggy.


----------



## Von Twinzig (Feb 10, 2014)

iamneallyons said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> so im looking into buying a quattro TT 225, iv watched and read the reviews and it gets a hammering for understeering.
> 
> ...


Read my thread, (or Madmax or any number in the Track and Motorsports section) to see what needs to be done to largely eradicate understeer. There's no magic bullet, you need to adopt a series of changes to deal with it.

VT


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

Most cost effective method is to put cookbot inserts into the front control arms and swap out the other bushes for poly equivalents. That's one of the best bang for buck understeer eradicators. Delrin inserts used by some of our overseas members are apparently even better but they're hard to source for us here in the UK which leaves us with the Cookbots.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

TT Tom TT said:


> Most cost effective method is to put cookbot inserts into the front control arms and swap out the other bushes for poly equivalents. That's one of the best bang for buck understeer eradicators. Delrin inserts used by some of our overseas members are apparently even better but they're hard to source for us here in the UK which leaves us with the Cookbots.


That won't change the understeer, only tighten everything up and improve turn in feel. As VT says, check out the motorsports section, there's a good collection of info there for the track, what you don't find or don't understand, just ask


----------



## Von Twinzig (Feb 10, 2014)

NickG said:


> TT Tom TT said:
> 
> 
> > Most cost effective method is to put cookbot inserts into the front control arms and swap out the other bushes for poly equivalents. That's one of the best bang for buck understeer eradicators. Delrin inserts used by some of our overseas members are apparently even better but they're hard to source for us here in the UK which leaves us with the Cookbots.
> ...


This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

VT


----------



## iamneallyons (Mar 20, 2016)

ok thanks, i will have a look into that section tomorrow night - iv been doing a little reading elsewhere and it seems some adjustable camber plates can go a long way to helping (negative camber), thicker rear ARB, polybushed front and some good coilovers.

Are the haldex controllers worth the effort?


----------



## Von Twinzig (Feb 10, 2014)

iamneallyons said:


> Are the haldex controllers worth the effort?


I'm using the Powertrack insert. Cheap as chips. Other options exist, but are at the "Caviar" end of the menu :?

VT


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

iamneallyons said:


> ok thanks, i will have a look into that section tomorrow night - iv been doing a little reading elsewhere and it seems some adjustable camber plates can go a long way to helping (negative camber), thicker rear ARB, polybushed front and some good coilovers.
> 
> Are the haldex controllers worth the effort?


Cross the thicker rear ARB off that list. As I explained to you on Facebook (yes, it's me Max), you want to increase the terminal front mechanical grip to match (neutral) or exceed the rear's (oversteer). By adding more rear bar, you approach the problem the opposite way with removing rear grip to get the balance towards oversteer -- but the result is a total net loss in grip and an overall slower car. So don't fall for the common "unstick the rear" bandaid approach, but rather work at making the front end "stick" for a real postive improvement across the board!


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Von Twinzig said:


> iamneallyons said:
> 
> 
> > Are the haldex controllers worth the effort?
> ...


Truly one of the best mods per $ you can do.

Also OP. as mentioned, getting larger sway bars will only be 2 steps forward and 1 step back. If you plan on seriously attacking the understeer and not compromising speed + cornering grip, you need to approach it better. For a road car or daily yes, sway bars will make the car FEEL better but you're robbing yourself of grip. 
Stiffer springs, front sway bar delete (with appropriate spring rates to hold their own), wider tires, and weight reduction (especially up front) are some of the correct ways to approach the understeer issue with this platform.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Von Twinzig said:
> 
> 
> > iamneallyons said:
> ...


I disagree, it's actually 1 step forward, 2 steps back! :lol:


----------



## ImageTT (Jan 16, 2016)

Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.


----------



## Samoa (Apr 4, 2014)

ImageTT said:


> Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.


Mate changed his S3 to FWD, finding the weight reduction & other suspension tweaks inc a LSD worked best on the track. You'll also find in the wet the wider you go with the tyres, the more the risk of aquaplaning & loss of traction.

There's also so much truth in Hoggy's comment of slower in, faster out with a standard car










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

ImageTT said:


> Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.


You say that, but then you've only got to look at the UK Time Attack results to see that each class that allows AWD is dominated by Evo's, Subaru's and Nissan GTR's. That can't be a coincidence!


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

NickG said:


> ImageTT said:
> 
> 
> > Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.
> ...


This exactly. The only time awd should be ditched imo is for rwd, not fwd lol.

Also, yes wider tires in the rain are can have negative consequences, especially grippy summer tires, but I'd like to meet a man who races purely in the rain and shake his hand because he must have some seriously big knads... :lol:


----------



## ImageTT (Jan 16, 2016)

NickG said:


> ImageTT said:
> 
> 
> > Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.
> ...


I race in time attack myself, I have a lime green 700bhp Impreza Sti RA. Under those circumstances, dealing with such huge power, then yes of course 4WD is an advantage. Out for a car under 300bhp, FWD is more than good enough. I am lucky enough to have been invited to take part in an even at Castle Coombe that saw me out on track with a number of Group B rally machines such as Quattros, 6R4's etc and we all got absolutely anhialted by a properly setup Touring Car running 300bhp and FWD. food for thought.


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

ImageTT said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> > ImageTT said:
> ...


But as you've said - that is state of the art FWD... If it was a 300HP ST or something then a totally different story.


----------



## ImageTT (Jan 16, 2016)

Agreed, but we are comparing like for like.

I have raced all my life at various levels and would take a well set up FWD car over a 4WD car given a 300bhp threshold.

I drove my Quattros and FWD TT's back to back and found the FWD far better balanced in corners, more communicative and demonstrated much less understeer. The weight difference was obvious too.

Just offering my opinion of course.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

ImageTT said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> > ImageTT said:
> ...


You sir, are a person of interest!! Not the Kawasaki green classic is it?

I wonder if the money to set-up a FWD such as the touring car you mentioned is silly when compared to a decent spec amateur build though? I know the BTCC car i was lucky enough to get up close and personal with last year was heavily modified on the suspension front - way out of the league of your average garage build. If that's what's needed then it would make sense why 4WD works better for most garages builds - No-one has the budget for extensive work like that!







Anyway, Time Attack Uk is what i'm currently working towards, how do you find the series?


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Hoggy said:


> Hi, You will get used to it & drive it accordingly, slower in & faster out.  Thicker rear ARB will make it more neutral.
> Hoggy.


Even though Max has already corrected you, and I know you've been regurgitating it for 14 years, but PLEASE STOP spreading this incorrect information. Thick rear ARB doesn't improve handling or make the TT more neutral, it makes the TT tripod which reduces overall grip compared to 4 wheels on the ground.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Samoa said:


> ImageTT said:
> 
> 
> > Consider a FWD TT, there's rarely any times on track that you actually need 4WD. I have both front and 4WD track cars and have never felt the 4WD has been any benefit. The lighter FWD suffers far less from understeer.
> ...


I get baffled every time this argument comes up! How it is even brought up is totally foreign to me. Since when is traction no longer a factor in performance and track time? Ask anyone with racing knowledge, AWD will always be an advantage at the track and faster. Why do you guys think they're classed separately, or that AWD have to carry handicaps/penalties in open classes? It's not because they're slower! In fact AWD has been banned from circuit racing several times due to the unfair advantage that they carry over similarly-prepped 2WD platforms. The time attack example brought up is a good one, these things are world class and pulverize production car single-lap records everywhere they go. In over a decade of multi million dollar efforts, never has a 2WD paltform win or showed dominance. First it was the Cybe EVo--AWD, then the HKS Evo--AWD, then came Nemo--AWD, then Sierra Sierra... See a pattern here?

In racing, you build a car that can be competitive. So if within the rules, a FWD or RWD can have that advantage, then they will be built. Otherwise, whenever the rules are open or not too taxing to AWD with the handicaps, all that you'll see dominate are AWD cars. In my racing class for example, AWD cars have 2,450 lbs minimum weight, and it's 2,000 lbs for RWD and 1,800 lbs for FWD cars (on top of that I have to run a 46mm restrictor plate on my turbo inlet to limit power and keep a level playing field for the other platforms). All these penalities are simply because everyone knows AWD will always outperform 2WD in racing situations where it's all about balancing at-the-limit traction from the available power.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> This exactly. The only time awd should be ditched imo is for rwd, not fwd lol.


No, I'll leave this here for you brother!








Gonzalo1495 said:


> Also, yes wider tires in the rain are can have negative consequences, especially grippy summer tires, but I'd like to meet a man who races purely in the rain and shake his hand because he must have some seriously big knads... :lol:


Preach brother, preach! Couldn't have said it better myself!!!


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

Madmax199 said:


> Gonzalo1495 said:
> 
> 
> > This exactly. The only time awd should be ditched imo is for rwd, not fwd lol.
> ...


Jesus Christ, that rally drivers foot movement at 3:40... What the fuark  !


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

TT Tom TT said:


> Jesus Christ, that rally drivers foot movement at 3:40... What the fuark  !


Yep, that's how it's done with a turbo AWD car -- I do it too! I always get a chuckle out people that race an AWD/Turbo car and don't left-foot-brake... [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Madmax199 said:


> TT Tom TT said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus Christ, that rally drivers foot movement at 3:40... What the fuark  !
> ...


How'd you get round the ECU on that one?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

NickG said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > TT Tom TT said:
> ...


That was the first thing I chased down when I started tracking the TT. The car was still my wife's DD at the time and my evo was apart for a rebuild. TT would have been gone if there was not a way of getting rid of the factory throttle/brake overlap cut. My very first post on Vortex and the reason I initially joined any TT forum. It can be mapped out by any competent tuner or using Maestro or a standalone aftermarket ECU. Removing the brake/gas pedal overlap throttle cut, and having a 1:1 pedal to throttle relationship are the two best software changes you can make on these cars for track duty. :wink:


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

how so many more spectators weren't killed is astounding!


----------



## iamneallyons (Mar 20, 2016)

OK OK im upto date! superb response, makes a change these days forums are usually dead...

anyway, firstly the very last post - whats this your on about??? does the TT cut the throttle to a point when braking???

some really good points here, my only gripe with FWD is the way the power gets put down - im moving away from a fwd platform back to an awd platform because the spin on the front wheels when powering through a corner does my head in if im honest - iv got an alfa 156 GTA at the moment and its naturally quite good at reducing torque steer as standard but pressing on you can just feel that front skid creeping in when your trying to turn and press on, i know the TT naturally suffers from that dreaded understeer but if it can be dialled out i feel it could be a very well equipped car which would suit my weekend use and occasional blip to the track.

also whats this powertrack insert your on about, what is its function is it something thats mechanical or is it an electrical controller or what?


----------



## iamneallyons (Mar 20, 2016)

Any more input on this guys?

so i suppose my main question is this, after reading quite a few of the project posts etc - loads seem to remove all sorts of weight from the car - il be honest i wouldnt want to go to the extremes because id want the car to still feel comfortable as a weekend/occasional through the week car (its not a daily) aswell as being able to do 3/5 trackdays throughout the spring/summer... should i get a TT? will it tick my boxes or would i be best off with say a subaru or an evo?

it seems that the terrible understeer issue can be SOMEWHAT rectified by coilovers/camber plates/bushes/widertrack - an the powertrack thing which im still waiting to hear a bit more about from anybody that can help out with info?


----------



## vanp (Feb 16, 2014)

So since I had a lot of suspension work done on my 3.2, the grip is a million times better (and more neutral) when cornering than it ever was before.

I had cookbot/defcon inserts with all new polybushes in the front wishbones (including caster increase bushes), new drop links and polybushes in the front anti roll bar. In the rear, I replaced for a slightly stiffer R32 roll bar, polybushes and new drop links again, lastly, adjustable tie arms with polybushes.

Now I understand that science dictates with a thicker rear anti roll bar you are supposedly taking away grip from the rear, but if this is the case, how can I corner a million times faster (like night and day handling) and without a hint of understeer (at least in the dry) when compared to before - especially if as you have already mentioned, all the other mods I've had done just tighten it up but don't improve the grip - because the fact is, the grip is massively improved.

Obviously my geometry was tweaked after all this and I think the VR6 TT has thicker ARBs from the get go than the 225, but I would beg to differ that my car now has less grip than it did before all this - does not compute :?


----------



## Von Twinzig (Feb 10, 2014)

vanp said:


> So since I had a lot of suspension work done on my 3.2, the grip is a million times better (and more neutral) when cornering than it ever was before.
> 
> I had cookbot/defcon inserts with all new polybushes in the front wishbones (including caster increase bushes), new drop links and polybushes in the front anti roll bar. In the rear, I replaced for a slightly stiffer R32 roll bar, polybushes and new drop links again, lastly, adjustable tie arms with polybushes.
> 
> ...


Road vs track, different levels of commitment. You won't easily reach the point where you run out of grip on the road in a road oriented car. There're also a significant difference between trackdays and racing, the same step again, maybe more.

VT


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

Powertrack insert, there's a big thread on here about it.
I'll look for it in a sec and add it if I find it.
I believe it puts a restrictor into the hydraulic pipe of the haldex.
This has the effect of raising the working hydraulic pressure of the system.
Therefore, the haldex kicks in much quicker as the pressure is higher.
The unknown is whether running the system for prolonged periods at higher pressures increases wear.
Note, the pressures are not higher than achieved under normal operation, just maintained near the max
I think that's the gist of it?
Someone who knows will let us know if I'm broadly right lol

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=966585&p=5672569&hilit=Powertrack+insert#p5672569

There's a link in there too


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

vanp said:


> So since I had a lot of suspension work done on my 3.2, the grip is a million times better (and more neutral) when cornering than it ever was before.
> 
> I had cookbot/defcon inserts with all new polybushes in the front wishbones (including caster increase bushes), new drop links and polybushes in the front anti roll bar. In the rear, I replaced for a slightly stiffer R32 roll bar, polybushes and new drop links again, lastly, adjustable tie arms with polybushes.
> 
> ...


So if I get this right, what you're saying broadly is lots of new suspension bits = better grip?
Or to put it another way, you're refreshed suspension is better than the 10 year old stuff you had before?
I have to say ask Is that really a huge surprise? You'd be pretty pissed if that wasn't the case!!!!
I think what the others are saying is that your suspension could be even better?

Edited as I originally said 15 years old and I forget not all TTs are as 'vintage' as mine ;-)


----------



## firediamonduk (Dec 24, 2013)

vanp said:


> So since I had a lot of suspension work done on my 3.2, the grip is a million times better (and more neutral) when cornering than it ever was before.
> 
> I had cookbot/defcon inserts with all new polybushes in the front wishbones (including caster increase bushes), new drop links and polybushes in the front anti roll bar. In the rear, I replaced for a slightly stiffer R32 roll bar, polybushes and new drop links again, lastly, adjustable tie arms with polybushes.
> 
> ...


I am no guru like Max or CollecTTor and im sure they will be along shortly to explain better than me, however i believe you will find that you have not increased your overall grip, you have balanced the feel so you are not loosing front end grip so much (understeer) however unless you are on a track you are unlikely to need ultimate grip so putting a thicker ARB on the rear is fine for fast road use but comparatively, if you were to put 3 identical cars round the same corner, one with standard suspension, one with the thicker ARB and one with the stronger springs on the front and no roll bar etc... etc... you would find that the one with no front roll bar would be quickest, followed by the thicker ARB one and then standard would be slowest because balancing the grip is an improvement over standard but not as good as dialing it out properly by improving front end grip rather than reducing rear grip


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Modifications like bushings, springs/coils, tubular subframe, rollcages etc. do not increase grip, just stiffness of the car/chassis.

Now, don't get me wrong, it makes a huge difference having a nice sturdy build, and that can greatly benefit you in many ways such as better response, better turn in, etc. But these don't really affect grip, just handling.

Things like tires, ecu tuning with boost by gear, aero modifications to plant the car down on the ground, running high spring rate coils and ditching arbs for smaller ones etc. are how you increase grip. For most of us here, getting wide tires will be sufficient for whatever kind of driving you do. Track cars obviously need more dedication and modification to maximize their potential.

Speaking of what most of us do as far as driving. VT put it perfectly, on the street you will not reach the limits of your car easily. The science has already proven thicker arb just stiffens the car, but in the wrong place. You are going to tripod the car on any hard turn as CollecTTor mentioned because the stiffer bar is going to keep the outside tire from making contact with the road.

On a daily car that never sees the track, yes the car FEELS better, but you are definitely not cornering fast enough to notice a "million times faster" cornering is actually slower.

And there's nothing wrong with the r32 rear bar. I have one myself (smaller than the UK equivalent granted), and I understand that while the car feels better, I have removed grip from the rear in order to compensate for understeer. But this car will not be seeing a track for a very very long time so for now I'm okay with having the bar on there.


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Gonzalo1495 said:
> 
> 
> > This exactly. The only time awd should be ditched imo is for rwd, not fwd lol.
> ...


 [smiley=dude.gif] That video is also legendary I've seen it so many times lol. I should have ellaborated that I only understand it's acceptable in something like high speed drag racing where people ditch the front for weight savings. (Think crazy airstrip drag races doing 200+mph).


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

firediamonduk said:


> vanp said:
> 
> 
> > So since I had a lot of suspension work done on my 3.2, the grip is a million times better (and more neutral) when cornering than it ever was before.
> ...


Well said! That's exactly what is happening. All these things we're discussing (understeer, neutral, and oversteer) are terminal. This means that you have to be exceeding the limit of traction to reach and experience the terminal balance of the car. What is felt (by simply increasing the rear ARB size in a street setup), is the increased roll stiffness. Reduced body roll will always feel good and inspire confidence to the human body, we don't like rapid pitch, dive, and lateral tilt. However, very often a car that moves around generates more grip and handles better than a rock-solid flat-cornering one -- just ask the Honda kid riding on bumpstops for a ride in his dynamically unsuspended car. Feels lovely inside the car cornering virtually flat, but the lateral G-forces generated are extremely disappointing.

The fact remain though, you can reach the desired balance by adding front grip (better cornering car overall), or removing rear grip (less cornering ability). It's just two different approaches at getting to a terminal balance, one with more overall grip than the starting point, and one with less.


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

This is all really interesting stuff, but at the risk of getting slated, what I don't get is why there are so many opinions on improving the TT's handling. Surely, after 17 years of a car being available, someone has worked out a decent compromise for handling ON THE ROAD (not track)
Why grip, who really cares about grip, if you improve grip on a road car, you're really only pushing out the limits to a point which is not relevant in a road situation anyhow.
Again, at the risk of getting slated, what I'm personally after in a road car is a car that's feels communicative, talks to me, and reacts to my input. What I also want is to be able to play with the limits without travelling at insane speeds that are not relevant to road use. A car I can play with at 40-60 mph speeds on A and B roads and come back with a smile because I've driven the car, not been driven by it (by far a too modern issue with stupid size tyres and OTT brakes) I also own an E30 Alpina, that tells me when I've pushed it too far at a reasonable speed to the point it is fun and within safe limits to explore that edge. What I want from my TT is to be able to enjoy it and feel like I'm part of it while doing so in a safe manner, with handing that enables me to recover it if I'm a bit silly. All the time while having a ride that's comfortable and enjoyable day to day and lastly, at a reasonable cost. While throwing thousands at a track car may well be OK, on a 15 year old car which isn't really worth a lot, spending £1000 seems like the right limit without being silly
Yes, I want it all  Can anyone help, pleaasseeee


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

vanp said:


> I had cookbot/defcon inserts with all new polybushes in the front wishbones (including caster increase bushes), new drop links and polybushes in the front anti roll bar. In the rear, *I replaced for a slightly stiffer R32 roll bar*, polybushes and new drop links again, lastly, adjustable tie arms with polybushes.
> 
> Now I understand that science dictates with a thicker rear anti roll bar you are supposedly taking away grip from the rear, but if this is the case, how can I corner a million times faster (like night and day handling).....
> 
> Obviously my geometry was tweaked after all this and I think the VR6 TT has thicker ARBs from the get go than the 225, but I would beg to differ that my car now has less grip than it did before all this - does not compute :?


I think the confusion here stems from that you guys in the UK have different R32 bars than we do in the US. You're going to a mild rear swaybar upgrade from original. The statements Max and I make about not upgrading rear swaybars is regarding the 21, 22, 25+mm bars that the aftermarket pushes. Those cause tri pod effect under heavy lateral loads. I don't have pictures, but Max even has a picture of my old 180Q doing this on track. I'm sure he'll post them if we ask nicely. :lol: :lol:

That said, a car with three tires on the ground can't generate as much lateral grip as one with four wheels on the ground. If you are lifting the rear inside wheel, you've hurt overall handling. If it's on the ground, and you enjoy the feel, turn in, balance, etc, then by all means, keep on doing what you're doing.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

But that being said, generally speaking the thinner the sway bar, the more load will also be on the inside wheel (I.e. just because they're both in contact with the road, using say a 19mm rear bar doesn't mean you're getting the same grip as it touching with a 16mm rear bar where by more load should be on the inside wheel).

Essentially what i'm saying still is, thinner bar = MOAR grip.


----------



## firediamonduk (Dec 24, 2013)

pebisit said:


> This is all really interesting stuff, but at the risk of getting slated, what I don't get is why there are so many opinions on improving the TT's handling. Surely, after 17 years of a car being available, someone has worked out a decent compromise for handling ON THE ROAD (not track)
> Why grip, who really cares about grip, if you improve grip on a road car, you're really only pushing out the limits to a point which is not relevant in a road situation anyhow.
> Again, at the risk of getting slated, what I'm personally after in a road car is a car that's feels communicative, talks to me, and reacts to my input. What I also want is to be able to play with the limits without travelling at insane speeds that are not relevant to road use. A car I can play with at 40-60 mph speeds on A and B roads and come back with a smile because I've driven the car, not been driven by it (by far a too modern issue with stupid size tyres and OTT brakes) I also own an E30 Alpina, that tells me when I've pushed it too far at a reasonable speed to the point it is fun and within safe limits to explore that edge. What I want from my TT is to be able to enjoy it and feel like I'm part of it while doing so in a safe manner, with handing that enables me to recover it if I'm a bit silly. All the time while having a ride that's comfortable and enjoyable day to day and lastly, at a reasonable cost. While throwing thousands at a track car may well be OK, on a 15 year old car which isn't really worth a lot, spending £1000 seems like the right limit without being silly
> Yes, I want it all  Can anyone help, pleaasseeee


I agree with you that a car that you can push to the limit without doing silly speeds can be more fun that a super stable rocketship.

When i worked in a dealer we used to have Citroen C1's as run about cars and i think they are great for ranting about in, you can rev the nuts off them, throw them into corners do 180 hand brake turns, they were hillarious (the fact we were not personally responsible for their maintenance probably helped, like driving a rental car)

James May also always maintains his Panda is more fun to drive than any super car because of the low threshold of grip. Not sure i would go that far but cars with a low grip threshold are fun to drive. My TT is in standard form and i do find it a little boring from that point of view. Yes i can boot it really hard round a corner and it will understeer and then lift off over steer if i try really hard but it is too stable most of the time to be able to push it hard, however because it is very stable it does inspire confidence which is good. I do miss the fun that can be had in a RWD car though...

However this thread is about eliminating understeer which i guess can either be by increasing front end grip to balance the car or by removing rear grip, both of which methods have been explored in this thread so i think the OP has had his monies worth


----------



## iamneallyons (Mar 20, 2016)

I would agree iv had my money's worth, final question is this - if you spend the money on coilovers, caster plates and widening the front track through say wider tyres and have a power insert done.. Will/would the car perform as a weekend motor and for a few track outings without being an understeering mess.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

iamneallyons said:


> I would agree iv had my money's worth, final question is this - if you spend the money on coilovers, caster plates and widening the front track through say wider tyres and have a power insert done.. Will/would the car perform as a weekend motor and for a few track outings without being an understeering mess.
> 
> Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk


You wont need caster plates, you might need rear adjustable arms. Yeah it should handle perfectly fine for the road, dare i say it, even reasonably well! 8)


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

pebisit said:


> This is all really interesting stuff, but at the risk of getting slated, what I don't get is why there are so many opinions on improving the TT's handling. Surely, after 17 years of a car being available, someone has worked out a decent compromise for handling ON THE ROAD (not track)
> Why grip, who really cares about grip, if you improve grip on a road car, you're really only pushing out the limits to a point which is not relevant in a road situation anyhow.
> Again, at the risk of getting slated, what I'm personally after in a road car is a car that's feels communicative, talks to me, and reacts to my input. What I also want is to be able to play with the limits without travelling at insane speeds that are not relevant to road use. A car I can play with at 40-60 mph speeds on A and B roads and come back with a smile because I've driven the car, not been driven by it (by far a too modern issue with stupid size tyres and OTT brakes) I also own an E30 Alpina, that tells me when I've pushed it too far at a reasonable speed to the point it is fun and within safe limits to explore that edge. What I want from my TT is to be able to enjoy it and feel like I'm part of it while doing so in a safe manner, with handing that enables me to recover it if I'm a bit silly. All the time while having a ride that's comfortable and enjoyable day to day and lastly, at a reasonable cost. While throwing thousands at a track car may well be OK, on a 15 year old car which isn't really worth a lot, spending £1000 seems like the right limit without being silly
> Yes, I want it all  Can anyone help, pleaasseeee


I think because there are so many factors at play, and so many choices (compromises  ) to make.

Theres how good the suspension actually performs at any given point.
Theres the position within envelope that the car spends most of it's time
Theres how the suspension feels
Theres cost
Theres how it looks 
Also, personal choice.

Any suspension setup is a balance / compromise of these factors (and probably a whole lot more!)
The track guys are possibly the only ones with any real empirical data on this?
If I do this i can get round there this quickly, but if I do this I go that quickly etc
The rest of us just go on how the car 'feels'.
But what any one person wants / needs / desires is not necessarily the same for another.

Look at seat positions for an example......
Some like to sit high over the wheel like mr incredible (i'm in that camp lol)
others like sitting much lower, more F1.
I'm sure theres a technically superior position, but if you don't like that then its useless for you!
I'll stop rambling now lol


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

I see, that a few in this thread struggle to differentiate grip and balance. What's the point of fixing a car's inherent balance if we're making it slower in cornering? Yeah, in the streets feel is what counts since we're never going to be exploring the limit, but that "feel" can also be changed while also improving the overall cornering capability of the car.

Instead of taking the time writing things I've posted may a dozen times here, I'll quote this below to touch on the difference between "balance" and "grip"... and that although most like to blend them, they are different as should be viewed independently of each other.



Madmax199 said:


> I think I have to sit a minute to think about how to come up with a clever way to explain this. There is *balance* and there is *grip*.
> 
> - *Balance*
> Simply put, balance is defined as what end of the car looses grip first. So, if the front looses grip first (something that we all can experience firsthand owning a front-heavy AWD car with McPherson front design like the TT), there is understeer. If the rear looses grip first, then there is oversteer. All of this being terminal behavior under lateral/cornering loads -- any car can understeer/oversteer in transition or if provoked, it is the steady state terminal behavior that really determines how a car naturally behaves.
> ...


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

And this was a more visual follow up to that post I quoted above. It demonstrates these terminal behaviors that we like to discuss and hope to fix or improve. The notion that the way a car behaves in the streets or at the track is different, is very flawed. They are essentially the same, just that the conditions allow the driver to operate and explore the limits more and easier than they ever could safely in the streets.

A 40 km/hr turn in a car is a 40 km/turn anywhere you go, street or track... you may choose to not negociate it at 40 km/hr in the streets, but it is still a 40 km/hr corner for the grip generated by the car. I am posting these because I feel that some people in this thread want things, but don't really understand why and how it really works. For example there is the guy that wants lower limits in his TT so he can "explore them in street driving speed" :roll:. That is like asking tyre technology to go back to when no street tyre of any size could generate 1G of cornering forces in a standard commuter production car (something that most top shelf high perfomance compounds of any brand have been achieving since mid-2000s). Basically what this means is that this guy wants the TT to be less capable because his driving ability can't explore the limits of the car within his range of driving in the streets... I'm simply going to facepalm this one to remain nice!



Madmax199 said:


> ^^^ I understand that these are long posts to follow, therefore I will attempt to follow up with a more visual one. I kinda struggled to find the ideal pic of a TT in motion while under full lateral load to illustrate how the platform behaves terminally and why/how we understeer. I did found the perfect pic of a MK4 R32 (same platform as the AWD TT) so I will use it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Damnit...I didn't make the cut....AGAIN?!?!?!?! :lol:

EDIT: In the quoted point #2 about effects of rear ARB, there's a typo. It should be....



> What's even worse is that the weight that was carried by that tyre get instantly transferred to the diagonally opposite end (which happens to be our *OUTSIDE* front that was already overwhelmed as it is).


 instead of "inside front."

[smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Absolutely love reading and discussing this kind of thing, my knowledge is personally coming on a lot for it! Instead of "Fit a big ARB because that's what's done" i'm actually learning and understanding the theory behind it all to enable an educated decision to be made on setups and components. [smiley=book2.gif]

Love it!


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

CollecTTor said:


> Damnit...I didn't make the cut....AGAIN?!?!?!?! :lol:
> 
> EDIT: In the quoted point #2 about effects of rear ARB, there's a typo. It should be....
> 
> ...


Thanks for catching that, at least I know one person is really reading instead of skimming! I edited the typo and inserted the infamous white coupe doing its glorious dog-peeing impersonation. :mrgreen:

I'll also leave it here just in case! Lol


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

NickG said:


> Absolutely love reading and discussing this kind of thing, my knowledge is personally coming on a lot for it! Instead of "Fit a big ARB because that's what's done" i'm actually learning and understanding the theory behind it all to enable an educated decision to be made on setups and components. [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Love it!


Glad that you are the kind that looks to understand how and why instead of blindly following a status quo! Refreshing to see on a board where most loyaly abide to the monkey-see monkey-do motto. Keep this and you will get far in developing your TT! [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

Nice write up!

First thing that comes to my mind about that bodyrol and stofter arbs are movies like dukes of hazzard where cars have huge body roll, and all wheels always on the ground while cornering, but the cornering speeds are terrible on these extreme soft cars.

Has it to do with extreme soft spring rates?

And why do wtcc btcc dtm cars have zero body roll? Because of extreme high spring rates? Giving same flat cornering as with bigger arbs but without tripodding?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Beunhaas said:


> Nice write up!
> 
> First thing that comes to my mind about that bodyrol and stofter arbs are movies like dukes of hazzard where cars have huge body roll, and all wheels always on the ground while cornering, but the cornering speeds are terrible on these extreme soft cars.
> 
> ...


Yep, cars back in the day used small and rubbish tyres, and were sprung rather softly for their weight compared to modern cars (many also didn't have ARBs). So dukes of hazzard era was more about this (the dude that posted about wanting lower limits to enjoy his TT would love and enjoy this):










WTCC, BTTC, DTM etc. are very low on the ground (low CG), have an aero package helping, and use extremely stiff spring rates and damper valving (still use ARBs as helpers and fine-tuning tools). Therefore they corner much more flatter than a typical production car modified for dual street and track duty. However they still roll (see pics below) but you won't catch them tripoding -- that's left for amateurs like us that don't have the mean, budget, or knowledge to fix basic handling behaviors.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Thanks for catching that, at least I know one person is really reading instead of skimming! I edited the typo and inserted the infamous white coupe doing its glorious dog-peeing impersonation. :mrgreen:
> 
> I'll also leave it here just in case! Lol


  [smiley=dude.gif]


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

NickG said:


> Absolutely love reading and discussing this kind of thing, my knowledge is personally coming on a lot for it! Instead of "Fit a big ARB because that's what's done" i'm actually learning and understanding the theory behind it all to enable an educated decision to be made on setups and components. [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Love it!


Max definitely showed me the light. I knew the math behind it all and the reason for increasing rear spring rate to improve the understeer gradient, but stopped all dynamic simulations in school when one wheel lifted. I never made the connection of that being the end of modeling for a reason. :lol:


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

Madmax199 said:


> And this was a more visual follow up to that post I quoted above. It demonstrates these terminal behaviors that we like to discuss and hope to fix or improve. The notion that the way a car behaves in the streets or at the track is different, is very flawed. They are essentially the same, just that the conditions allow the driver to operate and explore the limits more and easier than they ever could safely in the streets.
> 
> A 40 km/hr turn in a car is a 40 km/turn anywhere you go, street or track... you may choose to not negociate it at 40 km/hr in the streets, but it is still a 40 km/hr corner for the grip generated by the car. I am posting these because I feel that some people in this thread want things, but don't really understand why and how it really works. For example there is the guy that wants lower limits in his TT so he can "explore them in street driving speed" . That is like asking tyre technology to go back to when no street tyre of any size could generate 1G of cornering forces in a standard commuter production car (something that most top shelf high perfomance compounds of any brand have been achieving since mid-2000s). Basically what this means is that this guy wants the TT to be less capable because his driving ability can't explore the limits of the car within his range of driving in the streets... I'm simply going to facepalm this one to remain nice!


Sorry, really don't get that paragraph, and the statement 'A 40 km/hr turn in a car is a 40 km/turn anywhere you go, street or track', while accurate as to the speed you're carrying, bears absolutely no resemblance to the road conditions you're travelling on, the width of the road you have to play with the terminal effects you talk of, the run off you have (or don't if you're on a small English B road), etc, etc. While in a pure situation we can talk about how and why a car corners as it does which is pure physics after all, to extend that out to say one situation is the same as another is way off. The term handling is not a scientific measure of how fast one can go round a bend, it is a smile factor measure based on how I can make a car talk and play with it on its limits. 
Furthermore, the other statement 'Basically what this means is that this guy wants the TT to be less capable because his driving ability can't explore the limits of the car within his range of driving in the streets... I'm simply going to facepalm this one to remain nice!' itself shows somewhat of a limited view point to driving. Yes, in pure terms, if we want to talk of maximum speed through a corner, you're quite correct and I bow down to your exemplary knowledge. However, driving IS NOT about how fast you can go through a series of bends. Otherwise, the simplistic MX5 mk 1 would never be the car that produces such a smile on the face of its driver that it does, similarly Lotus Elise, etc, etc. All cars with small power outputs, relatively skinny tyres, and much lower limits than an Evo. But I know what Id rather be driving and whats more likely to put a smile on my face, and an Evo doing most of the work for me is not it. Furthermore, a car that corners as flat as you seem to maintain necessary to ensure good grip would most likely demonstrate some aspects that would not be comfortable in a road situation, namely lack of comfort and a likelihood that when it did finally let go, it would do so in a more uncontrolled basis by the sheer virtue that the tyre's would not progressively give up grip but lose it in one very quick manner as a result of springing being stiff such that the suspension does not enable grip to slowly die as the G force involved produces more of an angle against the road surface. Less weight and softer suspension produces a better 'handling' car than hard suspension and more power will ever do.
Think about it, the mere concept that having more grip and therefore more power in which to break such grip is somehow better than being able to break such grip at a lower speed makes no sense. I've been lucky enough to drive competitively in the good old days, admittedly mostly as a navigator in Mk1 escort rallying and trust me, these guys will get a non traction controlled, non 4 wheel drive Escort mk 1 round a set of bends infinitely quicker than most guys on here could do so with a 4 wheel drive TT. Why, simply they're better and can control a car on its limits far better than the likes of most of us (including me)
In summary, a good 'handling' car should make us smile because it involves us in its a journey, something that far too many modern cars fail to do, especially cars such as Mitsubishi Evo's that persuade many drivers that they are the new born Colin McRae. Nope, its the car mate !!!
By the way, this is a rally enjoyable conversation, thank you


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Why would a flat cornering car suddenly lose all grip? If it's "flat," it's going to be pretty balanced and have a relatively more equal load on all tires. If it's not flat, as Max has shown, you overpower the front outer tire. I'm not sure why that concept is being ignored. All I got from that long post was that you want lower limits to explore because it's fun. Some of us prefer higher limits, that's what fun for me. Taking a Miata on 195's around a turn as fast as possible isn't as fun to me as taking a Miata around the same turn but with 245 tires on it because the higher level of grip produces more G forces. Driving a slow car fast is fun to some, boring to me. To each his own.


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

'Driving a slow car fast is fun to some, boring to me. To each his own'... Agreed, that's the point of it, isn't it
Although, I have to add 'Some of us prefer higher limits, that's what fun for me. Taking a Miata on 195's around a turn as fast as possible isn't as fun to me as taking a Miata around the same turn but with 245 tires on it because the higher level of grip produces more G forces.' If your read my post, you would understand that that's a relevant point if you were in a road situation that enabled you to enjoy the higher grip those wider tyres enabled. You live in America, big wide roads Id guess, at least that's what its been like when I've been. Hardly the same as a twisty, British B road that you're lucky to get 2 cars side by side on, you'd be a fool to want to explore higher G forces in that situation
And as to the flat point, think about it, sooner or later, you have to exceed the grip a flat handling car possesses. When that happens, the car will either slide, or the side which is under the most stress due to the G force, due to its excessive grip, will cause the other side to lift. If the suspension cannot maintain the contact of the tyre on the road, since thats what allows the car to grip, then you lose traction very quickly, downside being, bad handling car that you cant catch on the limit. In essence, what Max is refrerring to re the tripod thing is the grip on one wheel relenting, but if the suspension allows the car to relent that grip slowly, then the effect is less pronounced. Look at what is held up as one of the greatest handling hot hatches ever to exist, the Mk2 Golf GTI 16v, a car well know for lifting the wheel. Dramatic changes in the grip of a car cause handling issues, not how much it grips in the first place. A car that relents grip too quickly and in too large amounts, will always be the one that snaps back at you so you cant feel the grip going and react to it in time. Seemples


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

pebisit said:


> Driving a slow car fast is fun to some, boring to me. To each his own... Agreed, that's the point of it, isn't it
> And as to the flat point, think about, sooner or later, you have to exceed the grip a flat handling car possesses. When that happens, the car will either slide, or the side which is under the most stress due to the G force, due to its excessive grip, will cause the other side to lift. If the suspension cannot maintain the contact of the tyre on the road, since thats what allows the car to grip, then you lose traction very quickly, downside being, bad handling car that you cant catch on the limit. In essence, what Max is refrerring to re the tripod thing is the grip on one wheel relenting, but if the suspension allows the car to relent that grip slowly, then the effect is less pronounced. Look at what is held up as one of the greatest handling hot hatches ever to exist, the Mk2 Golf GTI 16v, a car well know for lifting the wheel. Dramatic changes in the grip of a car cause handling issues, not how much it grips in the first place. A car that relents grip too quickly and in too large amounts, will always be the one that snaps back at you so you cant feel the grip going and react to it in time. Seemples


You're arguing against it, as am I. A more balanced car, without the big rear swaybar and the tripod affect, will have higher grip AND break away more smoothly. I could induce snap over steer with the big rear sway on the white car in the picture above, and it was "fun," but it isn't the fastest way around a turn.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

pebisit said:


> 'You live in America, big wide roads Id guess, at least that's what its been like when I've been. Hardly the same as a twisty, British B road that you're lucky to get 2 cars side by side on, you'd be a fool to want to explore higher G forces in that situation


That's an assumption, and exactly what Max was saying before. An asphalt covered road with a curve is a road in any country. I don't drive more aggressively based on how much runoff room there is. I try to avoid runoff regardless of how much room there is.  I'll post a video when I get home, and you can tell me if I'm on wide American roads or narrow British B roads.



pebisit said:


> And as to the flat point, think about it, sooner or later, you have to exceed the grip a flat handling car possesses


No, you don't. That's called knowing your limits, and why you drive aggressively, to hopefully find them before going off.


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

CollecTTor said:


> You're arguing against it, as am I. A more balanced car, without the big rear swaybar and the tripod affect, will have higher grip AND break away more smoothly. I could induce snap over steer with the big rear sway on the white car in the picture above, and it was "fun," but it isn't the fastest way around a turn.


Agreed, but the point is, its not about the fastest way around a turn unless your racing someone. 95% plus of people on here are not interested in racing, they're interested in taking their car out for an enjoyable drive ON THE ROAD. Therefore, they're interested in making that drive enjoyable. Whether they've taken a bend at 50 or 55 mph is irrelevant to them. They would be more interested in helping the car round the bend at 50, than the car getting them round the bend at 55, because no ones there to see it do so.
I want to improve my cars handling, that means make me a bigger part of the driving the car, feel more involved in it and get it to talk to me. Not about going faster round a bend. Now, some would say why buy a TT then, I would counter argue that in saying I really like the car, love the looks and think it marked a seminal moment in car design. My garage is full of BMW Alpinas, I have no interest in excessive grip.

'No, you don't. That's called knowing your limits, and why you drive aggressively, to hopefully find them before going off.' That statement says I never hit the limit of my cars grip, I therefore cannot control a car. Driving a car is about exploring those limits safely in a way that enables the car to communicate to you that its starting to exceed the limits. Your statement says because your car is so flat, your never going to lose grip till its totally gone ... err, whats the point then bar stating I went 90mph round that corner. To quote myself earlier, your not driving the car, the car is driving you. You may have built it to do it, but your certainly not part of the driving as your never never going to touch that limit of losing adhesion. Do you think any racing driver out never loses adhesion??

I don't think either of us is wrong, per se. I think we're looking at it from different angles. My angle is to enjoy driving the car and be part of the experience, yours is to go round corners quickly. You can set a car up for either, but one way or the other is not wrong and its not correct to discount what someone says because its not how you would set your car up


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

From what I've read you want to improve your cars feel, not handling. [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

pebisit said:


> CollecTTor said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, but the point is, *its not about the fastest way around a turn* unless your racing someone.


That's EXACTLY what it's about, even when not racing. The higher speed creates higher lateral G forces. That's what I enjoy because I know I've pushed my car to a HIGHER level. I notice my speed and lateral G while taking the 270* off ramp at my exit every day on the way home, to see if I have a higher peak than my previous best. If you enjoy lower limits for some reason because you think the car is driving itself at higher speeds, or it's more fun, or whatever reason you believe, then go enjoy what you like. That statement just doesn't make sense to me, so I'll keep trying to go as fast as possible around the turn.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

NickG said:


> From what I've read you want to improve your cars feel, not handling. [smiley=gossip.gif]


DING DING DING, winner! What's funny about that is my car is pretty close to neutral with slight understeer tendency, meaning it handles well AND feels good (to me!).


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

CollecTTor said:


> pebisit said:
> 
> 
> > CollecTTor said:
> ...


Nope, that's what its about to you. Again, you're not reading what I'm saying, not everyone is interested in how fast they take a corner, if it makes it fun for you, cool. But to quote what another forum user mentioned, earlier, James May has far more fun in his panda that his Ferrari because it has lower limits. Its a bit of an excessive variance, but if I lose adhesion in a car travelling at 20 mph, I can recover it safely, the same could not be said if you lost adhesion at 100 mph  
100 up, happy days !!!!


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

NickG said:


> From what I've read you want to improve your cars feel, not handling. [smiley=gossip.gif]


Urggh, no, handling is not how fast a car goes round a corner, its exactly about how the car feels and reacts. I've owned and driven some cars that are amazingly quick around corners, yet suffer from terrible handling. Don't confuse grip with handling, different concept entirely


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

pebisit said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> > From what I've read you want to improve your cars feel, not handling. [smiley=gossip.gif]
> ...


Define Handling: The ability of a vehicle to cope (HANDLE) with a corner.

A better handling car could therefore cope with a tougher/tighter/faster corner.

*EDIT: This link is made for women so should be easy to understand...

http://www.vroomgirls.com/all-about-handling/*



> "Handling generally refers to how a car responds when it turns. A car with better handling can go around corners or turns at higher speeds and is less likely to lose control in a sudden panic swerve. How well a car handles is largely a function of the car's suspension - the bits and pieces that attach the wheels to the car and allow them to move up and down - but the steering and tires as well as the vehicle's weight also play major roles."


****Hides and hopes any women who may be reading this thread have got bored by now and miss this comment :twisted: *



pebisit said:


> In summary, a good 'handling' car should make us smile because it involves us in its a journey, something that far too many modern cars fail to do, especially cars such as Mitsubishi Evo's that persuade many drivers that they are the new born Colin McRae. Nope, its the car mate !!!
> By the way, this is a rally enjoyable conversation, thank you


So what your saying is, an R35 GTR is a poor handling car, because it's too good?! :?


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

Strange definition of handling. That doesn't define anything, its ability to cope with a corner. Does that mean, the quicker car round the corner is the best handing. I think most of the car testers and racers out there would argue against you. They'd all tell you that a Fiesta ST is a fantastic handling car and yet there would be plenty of supercars out there that can corner much faster that they wouldn't necessarily define as being great handling cars.
Handling is a combination of a huge number of factors that as a total define what in your eyes you see as handling well. You only have to go and look at F1 and see 2 racers driving identical cars, one who may get on with it, the other not because they don't drive in that manner. F1 cars, like many 'identical' racing cars are setup differently for each driver because they enjoy different handling traits. Its not an exact science, its about how the car behaves, especially at its limits and what the driver wants at those limits.

Re the R35, that's rather a bad example. I never said that a car that was fast round corners is a bad handling car. What I Said was a good handling car should make us smile because it involves us in its journey. The very definition of handling implies someone is controlling it, handling it and therefore determining how it behaves. An animal trainer handles the animal, he has a level of control on it through his own actions. If the car needs no more control than pointing in the direction you want it to go, its not really handling, is it. Its pointing.
If what you're saying is true then nothing but a 4 wheel drive computer controlled super powerful beasty is a good handling car. Funny that, then, that plenty of FWD small little unpowerful hatches and especially RWD supercars are derived as exemplary handing cars. Your logic makes no sense
By the way, got to say this is really an enjoyable debate, we may have different opinions but its nice to be able to discuss them without anyone resorting to personal abuse.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

pebisit said:


> They'd all tell you that a Fiesta ST is a fantastic handling car and yet there would be plenty of supercars out there that can corner much faster that they wouldn't necessarily define as being great handling cars.


This is relative though mate, i would re-word your quote to this...

They'd all tell you that a Fiesta ST is a fantastic handling car *Compared to it's competitors (Clio RS, Polo Gti etc.)*and yet there would be plenty of supercars out there that can corner much faster that they wouldn't necessarily define as being great handling cars *Compared to other super cars of equivalent money/purpose (Competitors)*.

You won't find a car tester out there who'd tell you a Fiesta ST handles better than a Ferrari F430 (even if the F430 was voted the worst handling Supercar it would still handle infinitely better than an ST). <<< At least not a tester whos word would have any value :lol:

*Note - I'm not saying an F430 is a bad handling car, i have/had no example to mind of a poorly handling supercar.


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

Boom

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-c ... 14-verdict

So, there a hot hatchback half way up, like I said, handling is not and never will be the speed at which a car goes around a corner.

Here's another, the well known thin tyred GT86:

http://blog.toyota.co.uk/gt86-is-britai ... ar-autocar

http://www.evo.co.uk/toyota/gt-86/page/0/3

Note the pluses on the Evo review .. great chassis and handling .. OMG, whatever next 

Here's another interesting read about handling, funnily enough he mentions a Lotus Elan, a car he proclaims to handle beautifully but have modest grip levels, which by your definition means it doesn't handle that well ... mmm, really !!!

http://www.evo.co.uk/features/16971/ask ... good-thing


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

pebisit said:


> http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-c ... 14-verdict


That's not a top 10 list of cars handling.... that's a top 10 list of the entirety of a cars attributes. (Also the Hothatch you mention is the fastest FWD production car to lap the 'ring, it's no slouch.)



pebisit said:


> http://blog.toyota.co.uk/gt86-is-britai ... ar-autocar
> 
> http://www.evo.co.uk/toyota/gt-86/page/0/3
> 
> Note the pluses on the Evo review .. great chassis and handling .. OMG, whatever next


Yep great handling - But you've missed my point made in my post - Great handling compared to what? The Ferrari 458 at the top of the list in your first link...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Surely the speed at which a car can go round a corner (or more accurately the g it can generate) is purely down to grip - the tyres have a theoretical limit and the chassis/suspension design allows the car to reach a percentage of that limit in real-world conditions.

When the word 'handling' is used to describe other objects, it refers to how they feel, not how they perform a specific measurable function. If someone gave a chef a new knife and asked how it handled, you wouldn't expect him to tell you something that could be measured by a machine, like how sharp it was, you'd expect him to describe some aspect of his interaction with it. I think it's the same for cars - handling refers to something other than mechanical grip, and therefore isn't just a description of how fast it goes round a corner.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Spandex said:


> Surely the speed at which a car can go round a corner (or more accurately the g it can generate) is purely down to grip - the tyres have a theoretical limit and the chassis/suspension design allows the car to reach a percentage of that limit in real-world conditions.
> 
> When the word 'handling' is used to describe other objects, it refers to how they feel, not how they perform a specific measurable function. If someone gave a chef a new knife and asked how it handled, you wouldn't expect him to tell you something that could be measured by a machine, like how sharp it was, you'd expect him to describe some aspect of his interaction with it. I think it's the same for cars - handling refers to something other than mechanical grip, and therefore isn't just a description of how fast it goes round a corner.


I'll join the convo back, was fun grabbing the popcorn and reading the different points of view. Grip is definitely part of the "handling" umbrella. Somehow as humans we all came equipped with our own G200s (lateral acceleration sensor), and the lateral forces at play when cornering a car definitely tickles our senses (same thing as riding a roller coaster). If not, I don't see where else lateral forces in action while driving can be classified. It is not some obscure/abstract force, even a todler reacts to it in a car.

What I see is becoming apparent in the convo is that some people try to limit the definition of handling to steering feel only (mainly steering sharpness). Yes, it is part of the handling of a car, but not the only aspect of it. A car that reacts quickly to inputs is all that would be needed then to have a great handling car according to those that view it that way. What is left behind is that that same car, same reaction to inputs, will handle way better if the lateral forces generated (aka grip) are also improved.

Good examples of this are the EVO 8/9 and the mighty Miata. An evo has incredible almost-telepathic steering sharpness and reaction from the factory (super quick ratio steering rack) -- however despite its feline agility from inputs, that car is very ill-handling just like the TT. Fixing it's intrinsic flaws and issues require the same things, lots of static camber compensation, geometry alterations, etc., etc.. The Miata on the other hand has a pretty normal steering and can be viewed as average compared to the Elise, F40, and Evos of the world -- yet, due to the exceptional grip generated by a Miata (mainly to the almost-perfect unequal double A-arm suspension front and back) we all know that it is universally considered one of the best handling production car ever made.

So yes, feel and reaction is a big part of the handling of a car, but it is simply foolish to think it is all that makes up the overall handling. Same goes for weight, agility, and nimbleness of a platform (regardless of grip and steering feel). Light cars tend to be more nimble than heavy ones. I've seen and been part of similar discussions (in my Honda CRX days) where CRX enthusiasts tend to think that only light and nimble cars handle well. But, they are not realizing that the steering sharpness is crap in a CRX, and the grip level is just slightly better than average... the damn thing is just a light car with decent suspension and OK steering. Try telling most die-hard CRX lovers that lightness and nimbleness are not all that there is to handling and that a Miata can run laps around one in that department... it would be a declaration of war!

In conclusion HANDLING is the umbrella that covers how a car behaves and responds to *ALL* the forces in play... not just the part of the handling that we like. *Feel and steering sharpness, weight and nimbleness, lateral grip generated are all part of the handling my dear people. *


----------



## pebisit (Nov 18, 2004)

Madmax199 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Surely the speed at which a car can go round a corner (or more accurately the g it can generate) is purely down to grip - the tyres have a theoretical limit and the chassis/suspension design allows the car to reach a percentage of that limit in real-world conditions.
> ...


Nailed it, that's exactly my point



pebisit said:


> Handling is a combination of a huge number of factors that as a total define what in your eyes you see as handling well. You only have to go and look at F1 and see 2 racers driving identical cars, one who may get on with it, the other not because they don't drive in that manner. F1 cars, like many 'identical' racing cars are setup differently for each driver because they enjoy different handling traits. Its not an exact science, its about how the car behaves, especially at its limits and what the driver wants at those limits.
> 
> .


If you look at the greats in the world of motorsport, 2 cars shine brighter than almost all, based on the amount of success they had, and those cars were very simple utilitarian vehicles with what would be said to be archaic setups by todays standards, names the Ford Escort and Austin Mini. The escort in particular with its leaf rear suspension and non assisted steering, is now so far behind the times its scary, but both were great handing cars due to having a combination of good feel, low weight, good steering response and a reasonable level of grip for the day. Any decent rally driver would tell you that a great handling car should tell you what the back end is doing by its seat and the front end by the wheel and should respond immediately to any alterations made with the steering wheel in aiding it on its path. Drive either today and you still cant help but be amazed at how alive they feel and how they respond to your input, unfettered by modern 'improvements'

Take that all back to the TT and splitting it up into its handling factors (and this is where I bow down to your knowledge as I'm only just getting back into TT's), you could split up handing into the following though you could well add more and I would personally score them as follows based upon my limited mileage so far:

Grip - 7
Feel - 3
Balance - 4
Response/Agility - 5
Weight - 4

Taking that into account and also taking into account my car is a road car, then it somewhat curtails what can be done (I want to keep my creature comforts)

Grip - I hear that I could change the Haldex and do lots of other things to improve grip, but since its a road car, it proves sufficient for me. It always amazes me however that people skimp on tyres. Tyre's are a massive part of handling, in a nutshell. the job of your suspension is nothing more than to keep the tyre's on the road where they can work. So quality tyres are always number 1 in my book along with decent suspension that is compliant and can therefore maintain the tyres adhesion to the ground. Hard suspension equals bouncy ride which means your tyres are losing their adhesion with the ground which therefore equals bad handling

Feel - Its not unreasonable to say that the TT suffers from bad feel through the wheel (I would say terrible being old skool  ). This is an area that I would target and would welcome options to improve upon it

Balance - Again, the TT suffers from terrible understeer. I'm not after a rear snappy, 911 esque monster but I would like the car to be far more neutral than it is. Again, I would welcome options to improve it

Response/Agility - While no where near the best, the TT does seem to respond from inputs at the helm OK. My honest belief for me personally is that at the moment, if I could increase feel, then maybe I could live with the response I currently have

Weight - SO while I could act to lose weight, it ultimately doesn't equate with what I'm trying to do with my car. Better un sprung weight through lighter wheels, most definitely, but losing rear seat, air con, lighter seats etc, that's something for all you track boys

So, being a bit selfish and once again apologizing to the thread owner for somewhat taking over it, can anyone help me in how to gain improved feel in my TT and more neutral balanced handling 
Thanks once again for this fascinating debate


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Madmax199 said:


> What I see is becoming apparent in the convo is that some people try to limit the definition of handling to steering feel only (mainly steering sharpness).


I've not seen that. I think there are two groups - one that believes handling is a number of factors and how they interact with a driver, and the other group who believes handling is purely a measurement of how fast a car goes round corners.

I'm in the first group and I think based on your previous post, so are you.


----------



## firediamonduk (Dec 24, 2013)

I wasn't saying above the TT is beyond my limits. If I want to be stupid I can go and boot it into a corner, make the front end wash out with under steer then get the lift off oversteer to bring the back round. What I was trying to get at is driving around the city centre of Bristol which is where I live and drive mostly, I'm pretty sure I would have more fun in a small crap handling car with skinny tyres because you can throw it into a roundabout control the terrible handling and come out the other side chuckling. It doesn't matter if there is a pothole or the surface in the inside of the corner is cracked or all the other road defects we have in the UK because the government would rather spend money putting in cycle lanes no one uses and making the roads narrower so the 1 pedestrian an hour that walks along the path has even more space.

I find the TT a very "safe" and sure footed car to drive fast. It mostly does what you ask it to do without fuss however I find it a bit unengaging to drive. I'm sure I could improve it by spending a lot of money on suspension parts but then I am limiting the car in other areas. I actually use the 4 wheel drive to drive across muddy fields and down rough tracks so if I lowers it and put stiff springs on then it won't do that anymore... Also rock solid springs which make you corner nice and flat when on a smooth track are not so good when you go hanging round a corner and there is a series of potholes and cracks which unsettle the suspension and make the car skip across the road into the oncoming lane... I'm sure I won't be popular for saying it on here because as a TT enthusiast I should love AWD but i miss the rear wheel drive fun of my very poor handling MGTF and my fantastic handling RX8...

Don't get me wrong I love my TT but it isn't a car I would choose to start with to build a fun track machine...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

pebisit said:


> Grip - 7
> Feel - 3
> Balance - 4
> Response/Agility - 5
> Weight - 4


I'm assuming this is based out of 10.

How can you be dissatisfied with the car weighing 3,200 lbs stock being awd AND german made. I would classify it as a 7-8 stock. Mine atm weighs around 2,900lbs at it feels so good and nimble. These aren't cheap japanese made awd cars that weigh 2,700lbs lol. If you want to compare them to other cars then you should say so otherwise imo.

Also a stock 60/40 balance isn't the worst thing ever. Everything else I can Kind of agree on. May just be my inner TT love but you definitely did not do the car justice lol.

Also as Collector mentioned, for a while I was running very shitty tires in the rear, and I would be able to induce snap over steer fairly easy since I have the US spec 15mm r32 bar and poly bushes + coils etc.

It was "Fun" for a while, but like Adam, it's not my cup of tea especially being I bought an AWD turbo grip monster, not a rwd hoonigan joy ride in the first place.

You may have simply just bought the wrong car mate. If you want to take the time to make it feel better by all means if you like that go for it. It just seems counterproductive to do it to this car.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

I had typed most of a lengthy reply on Friday, but had to deal with an emergency and never got back to finish the post.



Spandex said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > What I see is becoming apparent in the convo is that some people try to limit the definition of handling to steering feel only (mainly steering sharpness).
> ...


That's a simplistic division of the talking points, and I feel like what you are describing as the second group is based on statements I've made in this thread. For the purposes of this thread, we aren't comparing the HANDLING of the TT to other cars. It was a discussion that began talking about understeer and reducing it and transitioned into the repeated explanation of how adding big aftermarket swaybars has been the status quo pushed onto the community by the aftermarket vendors and perpetuated online because of how awesome the car feels when "flat" relative to the softly sprung OEM springs and even sport springs and most off the shelf coilovers. In attempts to define HANDLING, other cars have been thrown into the mix for comparisons. My comments on taking a corner faster as being the goal is relative to only one car, the TT. My statement of measuring how fast the car goes around a corner has nothing to do with how it handles COMPARED to other cars. It's all relative to the changes made to the suspension to increase the TT's capability compared to previous setup, not how your Miata or another car corners.

Understeer gradient is a numerical definition of a car's mechanical properties that indicates terminal handling behavior. It is NEVER discussed in these types of threads. It's quite simply calculated from corner weights and wheel rates. These require measurements, and can't be assumed to be the same for all TT's, but the measurements from two cars will be similar the less they are modified. Wheel rates are comprised of suspension spring rates, damping rates, swaybar rates, bushing compliance, suspension geometry, tire sidewall stiffness, wheel stiffness, and even the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road surface in question. While it's possible to measure all these individually, it's much easier to take a shortcut and lump them together as "wheel rate," which is just the addition of all the individual "springs" that the suspension is comprised of: tire, wheel, hub/bearing, spring ,strut, bushings, body, etc.

Understeer gradient is defined as = ( load on front axle / front wheel rate ) - (load on rear axle / rear wheel rate ). If the number is positive, the car has a tendency to understeer. If the number is negative, the car has a tendency to oversteer. The gradient has a unit of degrees per G.

The main thing to take away from this is understeer is more defined by where the weight is versus which wheels are driven. We associate FWD with understeer and RWD with oversteer, when in reality, a FWD vehicle that had more of it's weight over the rear axle will still oversteer (think of a FWD forklift with 5000 or 10000 lb ballasts on their rear steering axle), and a RWD vehicle with more of its weight over the front axle will still understeer (think utility diesel cab and frame with no trailer attached like this). Driven wheels have nothing to do with understeer vs oversteer for the sake of suspension dynamics. (We aren't dealing with the engine overpowering tire grip when discussing purely suspension and handling topics.)

What this means is in a constant radius turn, and with a positive understeer gradient , the steering angle (assuming front axle steer) must increase with speed in proportion to the gradient (deg/G). If the gradient is negative, on the same constant radius turn, as speed increases, the steering angle must decrease to counter the increased lateral acceleration caused by the rear of the vehicle "slipping" more than the front. This gives us an idea of the "balance" of the car. By having the understeer gradient as close to zero, the car will exhibit minimal under or oversteer behavior. THIS is the point of increasing spring rate at the rear and then fine tuning by swaybar, as opposed to using the swaybars to grossly affect the spring rates. That was the whole argument about balanced vs decreasing capability. If you prefer your car to have heavy understeer tendency so you can explore the limits safely on British B roads, then you're......not really grasping the concept of improving the car's HANDLING capablities.


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

Probably the most interesting thread I have read on here for ages - thanks guys.

Even enjoyed that programme - the unfair advantage


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Matt B said:


> Probably the most interesting thread I have read on here for ages - thanks guys.
> 
> Even enjoyed that programme - the unfair advantage


Does make a change to the usual! Plenty to consider too.


----------



## Hawwy (Sep 22, 2013)

What is this powertrack insert im
Hearing about


----------

