jeff@qubix.UUCP (06/12/84)
After reading Peter Barbee's response to my letter "Corvette too
rough?", I just shook my head and said "the man must be deranged".
I said -
"My '66 Vette may generate as much sideways G's (as my '84) but the feel
of the two cars is as different as night and day."
Peter's response-
"I need some numbers to believe your '66 and '84 are even comparable.
If you think your '66 was a good handling car (especially compared to the
new one) your judgement is suspect."
In the first place my '66 IS (not was) a good handling car. I drive it
on the street everyday. If Peter is saying I have bad judgement because I
think the '84 out-handles the '66, read my statement again and you'll see
I'm not making any judgement at all. I said it MAY be as good in terms of
skidpad G's. I DON'T have any numbers. That's why I said I don't which is
better. By the way Peter, how can you be sure the '84 is better if YOU don't
have numbers? Have you tested or seen the results of a test made on a '66
Vette W/F41 suspension? Unless you have numbers on both the '66 and '84,
you can't say the two aren't comparable. Think about this Peter: I enjoy
driving BOTH cars, therefore, I have no prejucice for or against either.
So at least I'm being objective when I say that they may be approximately
equal in skidpad G's. I base that on the subjective feel I get when I go
around on the cloverleaf freeway exit on 101. Since I've never taken either
car to the limit I don't know which will generate more G's, especially
considering the difference in feel of the two cars.
You say "if you think the '66 is a good handling car,... your
judgement is suspect". Yes, I do, and judging by your comment apparently
you don't. Well it's a good thing all those guy's who won all those
first place trophies in "A Production" class of SCCA races with their
427 Corvettes (1965-1969) didn't know how bad the handling of their
Corvettes was. I guess they weren't as smart as you are Peter!
Elsewhere, I said
"So going by that reasoning, the softer the suspension, the more fun a car is
to drive." (refering to a previous statement from an unknown source in Guy
Harris' letter that the '84 Vette would be more fun with a softer suspension).
..."And since it's a fact that the stiffer the suspension the
better a car handles"..."I always thought the better handling the more fun
to drive".
Peter's response to the above:
"I find two glaring logic errors here. First it is possible that the
suspension could be too stiff on a car, thus if it were softer it would be
more fun to drive."
OK Peter, so where's the LOGIC error?! My statement may or may not
be accurate, but it IS ABSOLUTLY *LOGICALLY* correct! If they say that
a given car becomes more fun to drive when the suspension is softened,
then the LOGICAL extrapolation of that statement is that the softer the
better. Peter can't tell the difference between a logic error and a sub-
jective judgement that may or may not be accurate.
Now folks, check out my second "logic" error: I said that "the
stiffer a given suspension, the better a car handles". That statement
has nothing whatsoever to do with logic, so how can it be a logic error?!!
Again, apparently Peter has no concept of the meaning of the word "logic".
To support his claim that a softer suspension is a better handling
suspension, he cites Peugots in Grand Prix racing as "handling better
than many harsher sprung cars". Talk about a glaring logic flaw! The
"harsher sprung cars" weren't Peugots!! They had entirely different sus-
pensions, so even if they didn't handle as well as the softer Peugots that
doesn't mean it was cause the suspensions were stiffer. Maybe the Peugots
were of superior geometrical design. I still say that if you take two
identical cars with identical supensions and tires and skidpad numbers,
and modify one of them by only making the suspension softer, no other
difference, that the cornering force will suffer on the car with the
softer suspension. Obviously I'm not saying that in every case the car
with the stiffer suspension will out corner the car with the softer
suspension. I'm just saying that IF everything else is equal, the
stiffer suspension will beat the softer suspension.
Elsewhere in my letter I said:
"In the "Best Handling American Car" article in Car&Driver, I found
the conclusion they reached absolutly baffling. Their data showed the
Vette to have MUCH better cornering, MUCH better steering response...than
the Z-28 so the conclusion they reached was that the Corvette handled
MUCH worse than the Z-28!!... Now that's certainly logical!"
Peter's response to the above:
"I think what Car&Driver really discussed was the best *driving* car."
Wrong again, Peter. Several places in the article they said
best HANDLING car, not best driving car. How can you assume they meant
something entirely different from what they said?
Peter goes on to say:
"The main point I got out of the article was their feeling that the 'Vette
required too much driver input and forced the driver to concentrate on
driving at all times."
Peter may have actually correctly interpreted the article, but
driver concentration has nothing to do with handling, and the article was
suspose to be about handling. In truth, the '84 Vette is by far the
easiest to drive car I've ever driven. It takes no concentration whatsoever
to drive in a straight line cause the car is rock solid and goes only
where you point it. No "twitchyness" at all. My '66, now that's a car
that corners well but is hard to drive. The steering on the '84 is so
light that handling the car is effortless. The lack of body roll makes
it super-solid feeling. If ever a car made you feel relaxed when driving,
it's the '84 Vette W/Z51 suspension.
Elsewhere Peter says:
"...the 930 Turbo, ...C&D...gave it poor grades as a highway cruiser
(read GT) because of its nervousness. Notice I'm comparing your precious
'Vette to the 930 Turbo..."
No Peter, I see nothing at all in your letter that makes any compar-
ison between a '84 Vette and a 930 Turbo. Perhaps you would be so kind as
to show me the comparison. Apparently you accidently left it out. Your
930 reference DOES, however, prove my assertion that the authors of the C&D
article think that a softer ride is a better ride. Thanks for backing me up
on that one.
In response to my assertion "Apparently a Cadillac ride is EXACTLY
what they (Car&Driver) would want in a sports car" Peter responses:
"Come now, you've read enough in the magazine to know better than this."
Oh, now besides everything else, Peter's a Pyschic! He has never
meet me, but he knows how often I've read Car&Driver. How do you know
how much I've read in the magazine?
You refer to my "precious" Vette in the alledged 930 comparison.
No, Peter, my '84 Vette is not precious because it has one gigantic
drawback - no horsepower. Of course it is obvious that lack of power
is not a drawback to you. Judging by the tone of your letter I'm sure that it
would frighten you to drive a car with horsepower like my rat-motored '66.
A car like the '71 Pontiac Catalina which I used to drive would be more
your style. Soft suspension, nice and slow, can't feel any bumps.
--
Jeff Buchanan @ QUBIX Graphic Systems, Inc., Saratoga, CA.
...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!
...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!jeff
decwrl!qubix!jeff@Berkeley.ARPAkitten@pertec.UUCP (06/17/84)
I have to defend Peter on this one, Jeff. Handling is made up of more qualities than just cornering force. It involves the suspension and chassis, as well as the brakes (which have so far been neglected in this discussion). I read the article, too, and though I don't have it with me, I recall the tests including skid pad, race track lap times, high speed braking, and a subjective "twisty mountain road" test. The first three items were for the purpose of finding the cars' limits, whereas the last was a more "what it's like to drive every day and live with" test. "Handling" can be defined as a combination of cornering force, suspension performance (returning the tire to the road ASAP without rebound), chassis flexibility, steering control, and driver input/car output (read 'feel'). What Peter was trying to say was that if the suspension was transfering shock (bumps) through the steering wheel and/or the chassis (therefore to the driver's seat) excessively, and if chassis 'twitchiness' required lots of driver input and attention, it can greatly detract from the FTD (Fun To Drive) Quotiant. It was by this very deduction that C & D decided that the Camero Z28 out-handled the Corvette, the practicalness won out. Driver fatigue is too much of a price to pay in the real world for the majority of the fun-loving driving public. You KNOW C & D LOVES the Corvette, read the artical they had on it when it first came out. They even commended that...uh...OTHER car rag for making it their Car of the Year (I subscribe to both 'rags', btw). I know you love your cars, I can be just as obsessive (NOT a derogatory comment :-) ) about mine. But don't take it so personally, okay? kitten~