fastaussie
Suspended
i'm presuming you're talking about a model kit 355? 
NSX NC1 - Track Review Laguna Seca - Randy Pobst
- Thread starter RYU
- Start date
fastaussie
Suspended
it's old world Ferrari, the NSX was modern Japanese. you're either going to like one or the other...
Well, not quite, because Honda doesn't add the gas and e-motors at their respective peaks. IIRC, each front motor adds 36hp plus 47hp from the rear, so 119hp.
Agree with that completely.
On the outside, for me, the F355 is one of the most beautiful Ferrari's ever made. But the interior doesn't do it for me.
The sloping center console of the NSX in comparison looks much more modern to me than all the loose bits in the Ferrari.
All that matters is peak rpm hp. Between 6000-7500 rpm when the ICE makes peak hp, the emotor in the rear is not contributing significant hp at all. You can't just add the horsepower like that from emotors. So that's really why the total output for the NSX is 500 + 73 odd hp, because the two front motors are independent from the ICE and contributing whp. The rear motor is pancaked between the tranny and flywheel so it's not going to contribute peak hp.
The front motor on the 918 makes more hp than all 3 emotors for the NSX combined.
- - - Updated - - -
This is why I say the NSX is more timeless.
- Joined
- 6 October 2016
- Messages
- 34
Jeff from Temple of VTEC said that the NSX used in that Motor Trend test had an alignment issue.
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1294136&page_number=4#1294136
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1294136&page_number=4#1294136
fastaussie
Suspended
spoke with Randy earlier about these claims. they are in fact completely true, however it was Randy himself who complained of the NSX being very loose on corner entry and unbalanced in general. Acura's technicians realigned the car and Randy took it back out for further runs. Randy said it was better, but still unbalanced and easy to provoke "sudden entry oversteer". in the end, not much changed if anything at all.
if anyone would like to know more specifics, e-mail me directly. i won't be posting our private conversation here on an open forum...
if anyone would like to know more specifics, e-mail me directly. i won't be posting our private conversation here on an open forum...
Thanks for running that to ground. All this "do over" stuff is generally unproductive.
Not for one second casting aspersions against Randy, but it's interesting that of the many, many testers that have driven an NSX on track, it is only this car at this test that is noted as being overly loose? Track layout, individual problem with that car or chassis balance?
fastaussie
Suspended
PM me...
Interesting question. I got the impression the earlier track reviews were under fairly cautious supervision by the Honda reps, and I predict were done with the nannies left switched in, which I'm guessing somewhat masks the inherent over-steer. The longitudinally mounted engine with EV motor and DCT hanging off the arse - it's not hard to imagine all that weight in that place is going to have effect.
But, the first video I saw the NSX doing some serious drifting was the Chris Harris Top Gear review, and frankly I breathed a sigh of relief - I had until that time got the impression the NSX was too buttoned down, that drifting wouldn't be naturally easy. I've only ever drifted in a go-cart and it was a hell of a lot of fun, so one day when I have my own NSX, I'd love to learn to do it. Looks like the car's natural tendency to over-steer could be a lot of fun.
As Andy Probst said in his review:
"[laughing].. surprised me - well the over-steer is just really, shocking really. ...it's kinda fun, but way more free than I would've expected, it surprises me. ...I think that all went pretty quick - it's smooth. ...I find myself a little careful with the throttle, as I'm just a liiittle bit concerned about just how much over-steer I might just end up with. ...Lot of counter-steering going on here - you can see how busy I am with the wheel."
"Just got out of the Acura NSX, an all new creation from Acura, that is a hybrid with electric motors driving the front wheels individually, and another one in the rear boosting the boosted V6. The car likes to have the vast majority of it's braking done on the straight - you don't want to trail-brake the car heavily, because the NSX will entry over-steer. The all-wheel drive system is well balanced under power. The braking is strong, the braking was consistent, the body control was really, really good - I mean it felt racy, it felt firm, it was not harsh. The gear-box is super quick, super smooth. It has a lot of gears and they're close ratios, so I like the transmission programming a lot, and it worked really well on track."
I see it as a balanced and great review - along with Chris Harris, he pushed the car to it's limits. Over-steer? - bring it on!
Last edited:
All of this controversy over the laps MT produced. What about this:
http://fastestlaps.com/tests/tooenuj3d8tz
Rahal Graham is pro driver also. He virtually matched the ACR's time. Even the McLaren 675LT could not muster a better time - only the Hypercars and "racecar" ACR hold better times.
Then this:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/27/acura-nsx-hybrid-wins-time-attack-2-division-pikes-peak/
The NSX beat the ACR by 11 seconds. Even if the Viper had issues and handicaps, 11 seconds is huge and the NSX was driven by one of the engineers...
So the only test that shows less than favorable times is the MT test. I don't see how all of the weight is there simply because they did a 1/4 mile race also.
Like I said, I'd like to see more tests to see consistent results.
http://fastestlaps.com/tests/tooenuj3d8tz
Rahal Graham is pro driver also. He virtually matched the ACR's time. Even the McLaren 675LT could not muster a better time - only the Hypercars and "racecar" ACR hold better times.
Then this:
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/27/acura-nsx-hybrid-wins-time-attack-2-division-pikes-peak/
The NSX beat the ACR by 11 seconds. Even if the Viper had issues and handicaps, 11 seconds is huge and the NSX was driven by one of the engineers...
So the only test that shows less than favorable times is the MT test. I don't see how all of the weight is there simply because they did a 1/4 mile race also.
Like I said, I'd like to see more tests to see consistent results.
fastaussie
Suspended
it is, and anything can be drifted...
are you forgetting that a 2014 (i think?) Porsche 911 Turbo beat the NSX by several seconds up the peak?
or the Top Gear, or C&D tests, among others?
dunno why it's so fast around Thermal? but it's certainly lightning quick there according to the lap time, there's no denying that...
The Porsche driver was a better pro driver than the "engineer" they chose for the race apparently.
The C&D test has the NSX besting the R8 V10+
The Top Gear track time was similar to the MT time so there is some consistency on where it weighs in.
There's no denying the Thermal track times tho. I think more tracks needs to be tested to get a clear verdict. Give it more time to prove itself. It's certainly not slow even if it's almost 2 tons.
- Joined
- 6 October 2016
- Messages
- 34
Here's what motormag from Australia said,
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1273091&page_number=9&
The NSX inherently tends to oversteer. With the electric motors and all the driving nannies, they keep that oversteering in check. As you go more aggressive with the different driving modes, the nannies allow the driver to "play" around more, to the point if you are in that drift mode, all things are off, and you get a drift machine.
I think based on what Klaus said, it's clear the intention is to make the car looser so that it's more fun, sort of like how Porsche made the 911R with less aero aids than a 911 GT3 RS. It's slower around a track, but more fun.
The R8 V10+ in the C/D test was using max performance summer tires, which are slightly inferior to the trofeo R's on the NSX in the same test:
http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...results-historical-lap-times-and-more-feature
WIth that said, the NSX is faster than even the 2014 911 Turbo S. Also, C/D hinted that if they had more time, they could've driven the NSX faster, as they said that they were able to shave 1-2 seconds every day as they " learn its layers." My take is that while the NSX is easy for the average Joe to drive fast, in order to get the best laptime, it will require some different driving techniques because of its unique torque vectoring system.
On the contrary, I think pro level drivers will be able to extract more from the NSX than the regular Joe. How else would anyone explain the Thermal track times? Unless Honda has a dead ringer for that course??? I don't see Honda being as competitive with Ferrari to bring specialized cars to each track testing even tho there's already murmur of controversy in this MT testing.
I agree it is a matter of getting used to the new driving dynamics from the SH-AWD tho and even pro drivers have their own style or preconceived reactions.
I agree it is a matter of getting used to the new driving dynamics from the SH-AWD tho and even pro drivers have their own style or preconceived reactions.
Speaking from experience, Thermal is a different kind of track. It's got no elevation change. No bumps or other random characteristics of the sort. It's got tight hairpins with hard braking zones followed by straights. It's basically a really nice autocross course. It makes sense that a car optimized for the street performance like the NC1 would do well on this track. Lots of EV torque and Torque Vectoring to dig out of the tight, flat turns easily.
Thermal is almost the exact opposite of MRLS in my opinion.
Thermal is almost the exact opposite of MRLS in my opinion.
- Joined
- 6 October 2016
- Messages
- 34
fastaussie
Suspended
I wonder if what Randy was experiencing at the track had more to do with the brake bias rather than just an alignment issue, it took Porsche forever to get the brake bias sorted out on the 918.
Under trail braking conditions the electronic nannies will be working overtime trying to get regenerative braking applied at the same time as modulating the hydraulic brakes to give the sensation as well as the expected pedal feel for a standard hydraulic only braking system.
If the brake bias distribution is not right, it is possible that the front end will experience substantially higher deceleration rates than the rear end of the car, thus causing the rear end to be unstable under braking (think super aggressive front pad and mild rear pad scenario for those who have tracked).
The opposite also causes instability as well when the rear end has higher deceleration rates than the front, (like using a pad with higher operating range on the rear of the car vs the front, while the front end provides sufficient deceleration compared to the rear everything is fine, once the front pads start fading and the rear keeps biting the car becomes unstable under braking/trail braking)
It could also be the way that the rear e-diff has been implemented, a traditional clutch based LSD is supposed to help quite a bit during trail braking. Folks use different ramps/percentage lockup under acceleration/deceleration depending on the types of tires that are been used. I don't know the internals of the e-diff on the NSX2.0 so can't guess if it provides an extra layer of stability under braking.
Not been able to pinpoint the root cause of problems is not something that I would like to have to deal with as a track enthusiast.
Under trail braking conditions the electronic nannies will be working overtime trying to get regenerative braking applied at the same time as modulating the hydraulic brakes to give the sensation as well as the expected pedal feel for a standard hydraulic only braking system.
If the brake bias distribution is not right, it is possible that the front end will experience substantially higher deceleration rates than the rear end of the car, thus causing the rear end to be unstable under braking (think super aggressive front pad and mild rear pad scenario for those who have tracked).
The opposite also causes instability as well when the rear end has higher deceleration rates than the front, (like using a pad with higher operating range on the rear of the car vs the front, while the front end provides sufficient deceleration compared to the rear everything is fine, once the front pads start fading and the rear keeps biting the car becomes unstable under braking/trail braking)
It could also be the way that the rear e-diff has been implemented, a traditional clutch based LSD is supposed to help quite a bit during trail braking. Folks use different ramps/percentage lockup under acceleration/deceleration depending on the types of tires that are been used. I don't know the internals of the e-diff on the NSX2.0 so can't guess if it provides an extra layer of stability under braking.
Not been able to pinpoint the root cause of problems is not something that I would like to have to deal with as a track enthusiast.
Last edited:
Similar threads
