Im curious about your statement 4Trouble. 60 to 90 second tracks is where the RS shows an advantage. How many turns on these tracks? Would you agree that the more turns you add, the more advantageous the run gets for the AYC cars? I think the real question here is why is the RS only good on 60 to 90 second tracks?

 

It seems you misunderstand on how used '60 to 90 second tracks'. I meant that interms of the size, usually average track time resulting around there for production cars. You can say Nurburgring is '7 to 9min' track which is humongous. Best Motoring usually test their cars on Fuji, Suzuka and Tsukuba, which all have plenty of varying shape and size of turns.

I can almost guarantee that you won't see any advantage on lap time when you compare X RS vs X RS /w S-AYC, when driven by top drivers who have had a lot of time in an EVO.

Given a competant driver, the only way GSR will win over RS would be dropping off a cliff where weight would give advantage.

 

So it is your opinion that S-AYC offers no advantage? I really do find that surprising.

 

This hardly proves your mastered understanding of physics...

 

Good point there. All things fall to the earth at the same speed. Regardless of weight.

 

Lol, good point, I haven't come across that since highschool physics. It's the one where they drop two metal ***** of different masses from top of Pisa.

Regardless, I still don't change my view on AYC vs non-AYC -)

Theoretically, yes, it is suppose to keep the brake, steering input etc at optimal at turns, which should help shave times even if the driver is Schumy or Walter Rohl, but in real life, it doesn't seem to do so. Perhaps due to the weight gain? Or it is just a driver's aid rather than 'performance part' as they claim? I don't know.

 

yeah, and i dont know if anyone else mentioned, since i dont feel like ready through all these posts, but the car tested was a base GSR (no sss package), which is actually about 35-40lbs lighter than the 3518 or something that is the "official weight", that does help a it

 

It's on Vortex or GolfmkV somewhere. I can't remember exactly, but the guy didn't post the whole review. He just talked about the numbers, how the Evo kicked butt and how the R32 did well and was the favorite of the editors if they had to spend their own money.

I don't think it's live on their website. The magazine is just arriving for subscribers (should get mine today) and they don't post articles online for a little while after the subscribers get them. When I get mine, I'll make scans of the whole article and post them (unless someone beats me to it).

That's not true in real-world applications. To fall at the same rate, you have to assume a "free-fall" state which means there are no other factors besides gravity affecting the rate of fall. All objects in a "free-fall" state fall at a rate of 10/m/s/s. But, when factors such as air resistance, wind patterns, etc. are factored in, all objects fall at different rates and reach a different terminal velocity

 

I thought I should have mine by now. Thanks for the info! I will have that sucker soon.

 

adamb03: The point is weight, or mass in this case, does NOT effect the speed at which gravity will pull you to the earth. Of course resistance is going to effect the rate at which you fall. However, your mass will not. Hence the cannonball test off the tower of Pisa.

I just watched a great video of the STi vs Evo X, and now I am totally convinced that S-AYC makes a HUGE difference in handling. There isnt a reviewer out there that doesnt also think this. In this comparison, we are up against an STi with more horsepower, more torque, and over 200 pounds lighter, and guess what. The Evo got through all the turns quicker, and beat out the STi. So yes, S-AYC does make a difference.

 

Only in a vacuum do objects with different weight fall at the same rate of speed. But, in the real world, weight and air resistance play a big role in which object will land first. No more physics talk, everyone can Google this until their heart's content

 

Im not one to argue with MIT, however I do enjoy their online courses. Go educate thy self.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...x-for-L-11.htm

 

Uhhhh...

There is no debating that gravity is a conservative force (I've seen that lecture before and that's the primary thrust of the lecture). There's also no debating the math and that the gravitation pull is 9.8 m/s/s.

All objects when dropped do not hit the ground at the same time in the real world because factors of weight, aerodynamics, atmosphere, wind begin to play a role...which those elements are not taken into account in the math equations on a chalkboard.

Do this for me...pick up a penny and a feather. Hold them above your head and drop them at the same time. They will not hit the ground at the same time. The math equation would say they hit the ground at the same time, but common sense and real-world testing show they indeed do not.

Class dismissed.

Now, back on topic. The Evo X did quite well in this test. I'm surprised the STI didn't do better. I'm surprised by how well the R32 did.

Going to the mailroom at my office to see if my Car and Driver arrived yet

 

Only in a vacuum or any other type of environment without air. Add Air to the equation (which is what we live in) and that statement isn't true. A feather isn't going to drop from the top of a building at the same speed as a bowling ball. But that's just common sense.

 

Man, I came home for lunch and the magazine is here. I can't believe they picked the R32 over the STI! BUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRNNNN!!!!!