I'm considering an Elan S4

[Bugeye58]

And, some people will never really learn how to drive! There are subtle nuances to handling, and interpretation of feedback required to push any of these cars near their limit, that require a skill set that some folks will never have. I see it while instructing at our race school every year.
To me, any Elan I ever drove was pretty predictable, if you could truly <u>feel</u> what was happening.
Jeff

 

[DrEntropy]

I used to explain it as: "Sympatico with the Equipment".

If ya ain't got it, you'll be inna boonies. Simple as that. And it takes about thirty seconds for the instructor to know whether it's there or it aint.


"If'n you're gonna drive it like this, put a tag on it and keep it in traffic!"


...."What th' Captain MEANS is".... /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

 

[swift6]

but new cars these days are designed to understeer first to give you a wake up call. The Elan...not so much, but it is arguably the same with any classic car and not an Elan specific thing (other than the Elan may be going faster than most LBC's )

Actually Morgan MOST cars are designed to understeer from the factory and have been for a very long time, nothing new about it. For the public at large, understeering cars are safer cars. A car that understeers is much easier to control and most high end/exotic sports cars will understeer until you really start to push them. Even cars like the Aston Martin DB9R understeers until you start pushing 2.0 lateral G's.

So tell us though Morgan, was it understeer or oversteer that put you into the tractor tire in the Oldsmobile? Or was that a different Morgan Segal who is also a photographer? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

 

[MoPho]

[
Actually Morgan MOST cars are designed to understeer from the factory and have been for a very long time, nothing new about it. For the public at large, understeering cars are safer cars. A car that understeers is much easier to control and most high end/exotic sports cars will understeer until you really start to push them. Even cars like the Aston Martin DB9R understeers until you start pushing 2.0 lateral G's.

I am very well aware of that, but we are talking about cars of the early 60's and they were not engineered to understeer in the same way they are today (or the last 20 years or so if you want to be technical about it)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]So tell us though Morgan, was it understeer or oversteer that put you into the tractor tire in the Oldsmobile? Or was that a different Morgan Segal who is also a photographer? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif [/QUOTE]

Actually, there was no understeer or oversteer, I drove straight into it because I was forced off the road by another competitor - story failed to mention that part. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

 

[swift6]

I am very well aware of that, but we are talking about cars of the early 60's and they were not engineered to understeer in the same way they are today (or the last 20 years or so if you want to be technical about it)

So they understeered by accident? Granted, there is more engineering in modern cars (there had better be for their prices) but any simple car with a front weight bias (which can cover most designs with the internal combustion engine)will understeer. It took extra engineering to get them to be more neutral, not less. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

So, regardless if you got forced into the tire. That still must of been a blast. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif

 

[DrEntropy]

Funny thing about the Elans is they're very near neutral, to slight oversteer. Changing tire pressure to have a 4 pound differential (higher in back) puts it into a smidge more oversteer. The +2 is opposite: understeers. The extra 500 pounds and the increased track/wheelbase make a big change in otherwise nearly identical suspension/chassis. Neat.

...well, I think it is. "It's th' little things wot amuse me."

 

[sammyb]

Obviously, Lotus was on the cutting edge of chassis/handling dynamics, but they were one of the few.

Cars were not necessarily designed to understeer in America until 1964 when the Corvair cases had put a real awareness out there. Prior to this, cars understeered due to a lack of desire to deal with the inherent weight distribution problems with big front-engined cars. Understeer was seen as safer, so why tune it out, no matter how much the car plowed?

In the 1960s, very few cars focused on handling -- trying to provide neutral-to-slight oversteer characteristics. Shelby did the best he could to improve the Mustang, while also working on making the Cobra controllable. (The 289 was the more successful racer due to the lighter weight/better balance.)

It wasn't really until the mid 1970s that American car companies focused on handling, and that was only due to Clean Air standards that robbed the cars of power. Corvette, Trans Am and a few other cars received more attention to futher handling abilities. This being said, the direction was to still maintain understeer characteristics.

 

[DrEntropy]

<from the box top>
Don't know if I've posted this before, but it's relevant here now: I sold cars from a small dealership in the mid and late '70's. Alfa, Lotus and & *hold onto your chairs*... American Motors cars. The AMC regional Rep came in one day and was carping about "Imports are getting an 8~10% cut of OUR sales... yadda, yadda, yadda!" I'd heard it all from him before, and this time my mood wasn't tolerant somehow... I insisted he look from under the car at his "marque", noting the 1920's era suspension bits and arrangement... then had him look at the suspension of a Eurpoa on a rack in the shop, then an Alfa GTV6... told him unless and until US makers started to learn from good design and CHANGE to make improvements, the Japanese would be eating his lunch very soon... Sure he didn't appreciate it but the railing against 'imports' was not repeated. It was reticence on the part of "Dee-troit" to spend money on engineering when they "knew in their hearts" the car buying public cared more about "Longer! Lower! Wider!" exterior styling than about suspensions... deluded by sucess in the Fifties. Blindered then finally blind-sided. The reward for that short sightedness is evident today.

<steps down>

 

[MoPho]

So they understeered by accident? Granted, there is more engineering in modern cars (there had better be for their prices) but any simple car with a front weight bias (which can cover most designs with the internal combustion engine)will understeer. It took extra engineering to get them to be more neutral, not less. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif

They'll understeer by accident if you yank the wheel real hard, sure.
Suspension geometry and chassis design plays as much of a role on the handling, cars of the period were engineered to be more neutral and/or a bit lively compared to today. That is why they are fun. If anything, understeer on such cars is as much a function of the narrow tires

Perfect example is the 911, which was a notorious oversteerer, but the new 911's understeer first and are pretty difficult to get them to accidentally snap oversteer like the old ones, even with an engine in a place that is against the "laws"

An Elan has a 48/52% F/R weight distribution and it's chassis is set up to be very lively. It's pretty hard to get an Elan to understeer.

Regardless, my point was that any classic cars handling is going to be trickier than a modern car, it is not just an Elan issue


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]So, regardless if you got forced into the tire. That still must of been a blast. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif[/QUOTE]

It was, perhaps the best race I've been to. here is some more pics
My back went out on me from the crash and I was feet up for about a week /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

 

[MoPho]

Obviously, Lotus was on the cutting edge of chassis/handling dynamics, but they were one of the few.

Cars were not necessarily designed to understeer in America until 1964 when the Corvair cases had put a real awareness out there. Prior to this, cars understeered due to a lack of desire to deal with the inherent weight distribution problems with big front-engined cars. Understeer was seen as safer, so why tune it out, no matter how much the car plowed?

In the 1960s, very few cars focused on handling -- trying to provide neutral-to-slight oversteer characteristics. Shelby did the best he could to improve the Mustang, while also working on making the Cobra controllable. (The 289 was the more successful racer due to the lighter weight/better balance.)

It wasn't really until the mid 1970s that American car companies focused on handling, and that was only due to Clean Air standards that robbed the cars of power. Corvette, Trans Am and a few other cars received more attention to futher handling abilities. This being said, the direction was to still maintain understeer characteristics.

But we're not talking about American cars with heavy engines up front. Most true European sports cars of the day had pretty even weight distribution. For example a Jag E-type had a 51/49% F/R weight distribution and that car does have a big engine in the front. My father had an E-type coupe and it handled great, it would would 4 wheel drift before it would underteer

 

[sammyb]

MoPho,
I understand -- I was just trying to establish that most of the cars -- certainly in this country were not designed with weight balance in mind.

As for the E-type, it was the target of many barbs from racers, enthusiasts and journalists for being a poor handler in comparison to contemporaries (certainly compared to XK120s, which were class leaders in their day.) From what I've been able to gather, the coupes seem more tail-happy than the roadsters, which has also been my experience in MGBs (I know that MGB-GTs have a rear weight bias.) Tire selection and pressures also make a big difference.

As for Porsche -- it only took them until 1999 to get the oversteer out! Seeing that they were working on the concept in the early 40s, it basically was a 60-year project! (I happen to love the tail-happiness of a 911 -- I had a 70 911T a few years ago.)

 

[TypeRboy]

I suppose the Elan could bite you, but whether a car is slow to respond or quick, each can get you into a circumstance that you can't get out of.

Sometimes I do worry about being surrounded by fiberglass, but then it's no worse than being in the side car of a motorcycle!

And the Miata is a great car to drive in that it cruises so well and the handling is great.. Starts everywhere everytime, and nothing shakes or rattles even over railroad tracks. It could use a serious dose of power, but it's shared between my wife and daughter and so it shall remain gutless and dependable.

I still think that you are less likely to crash an Elan than say.. a new Mustang GT driving agressively.

 

[Guest]

Reviving this back to it's original topic - there's a nice looking S4 closing on E-bay today.