NSX and S2000 chasis rigidity

[chan]

hi,

i had sit in my friend's NSX for a few time a few years back and amazed how rigid the chasis is. i know the car uses the best material. beside the material does a standard 93' NSX has any braces installed. how rigid is a S2000 compare to a NSX?

[s2king]

Dunno, let me go for a test drive in your friends NSX and il tell you the difference.

[aka_NSX]

i used to have s2000 before i reckon NSX still better to drive . . .
its only braces / tower bar installed on NSX is in the engine bay
please see pic:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~nolimit33/mypic121.JPG


but the NSX-R come with the front and top chassis reinforcement bar . . . . please see attachment . . . .

[chan]

Dunno, let me go for a test drive in your friends NSX and il tell you the difference.

that's good idea but he sold his car before he left this country :D

[chan]

i used to have s2000 before i reckon NSX still better to drive . . .
its only braces / tower bar installed on NSX is in the engine bay
please see pic:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~nolimit33/mypic121.JPG


but the NSX-R come with the front and top chassis reinforcement bar . . . . please see attachment . . . .

r u sure there is no under body braces at all?

[aka_NSX]

r u sure there is no under body braces at all?

from honda i'm sure there is none, but aftermarket there is ppl make one as u can see on the pic attached

[chan]

thanx aka NSX

[Andys]

Its a ~1300kg fairly small car that is made of aluminium. Yes, its a super-stiff chassis :)

- Andrew

[chan]

it's not small but it's light in its size.

[EfiOz]

It's also a fully roofed car which is where a lot of the stiffness advantage over the S2K comes from.

[TYPER NSX]

Who Wants Test Drive Nsx R

[zero33]

Who Wants Test Drive Nsx R

^^ Is this an invitation for test pilots? :wave:

[.::F[L]Y::.]

Who Wants Test Drive Nsx R

me me me me! lol

[Chi]

Obviously the NSX will have a better chance of being a stiffer chasis compared to the S2K due to having a roof and being aluminium.

But the S2K is definately one of the stiffest chasis's out on the market for a convertible/roadster.

[zero33]

Y::.;1620879']me me me me! lol



x 2!!!!

:cool:

[r-r-redEuro]

Obviously the NSX will have a better chance of being a stiffer chasis compared to the S2K due to having a roof and being aluminium.

But the S2K is definately one of the stiffest chasis's out on the market for a convertible/roadster.

would it do much difference if the s2000 was hardtop ? imo, i dont think it would because the hardtop isnt welded in the chassis and just a add on ? correct me if im wrong

[aaronng]

would it do much difference if the s2000 was hardtop ? imo, i dont think it would because the hardtop isnt welded in the chassis and just a add on ? correct me if im wrong

If it had a hardtop convertible, it will help if it was designed for rigidity. Just have a look at Volvo's C70. Having the hardtop up increases rigidity by quite a bit.

[AusS2000]

The S is very stiff due to it's X-bone chassis.

http://s2000.byteserve.com.au/images/xbone.jpg

Only cars with inherent weakness require aftermarket bracing.

[Chi]

would it do much difference if the s2000 was hardtop ? imo, i dont think it would because the hardtop isnt welded in the chassis and just a add on ? correct me if im wrong

you are wrong because your comment has no relation to what I said.

I never said anything bout the hard top making the S2k stiffer.


Im saying that since the S2K has an opening and being convertible it will not be as stiff as the nsx which has a permanent roof.

But none the less it is still a very stiff chasis for what it is.

If convertibles were stiff enough for the Super GT races in japan I'd think they'd use one by now.

[AusS2000]

I expect the S is 'stiff enough for the Super GT races in japan'. It's more likely aerodynamics and safety that exclude it.

As to whether a S2000 would be stiffer as a hardtop, it's not so it's a moot point. And installing a hardtop doesn't make it a 'hardtop'. It makes it a convertible with a hardtop.

If the S2000 were a hardtop from the factory it wouldn't need the xbone chassis and so would be significantly lighter.

[aaronng]

I expect the S is 'stiff enough for the Super GT races in japan'. It's more likely aerodynamics and safety that exclude it.

As to whether a S2000 would be stiffer as a hardtop, it's not so it's a moot point. And installing a hardtop doesn't make it a 'hardtop'. It makes it a convertible with a hardtop.

If the S2000 were a hardtop from the factory it wouldn't need the xbone chassis and so would be significantly lighter.

If the S is only as stiff as a roofed coupe/sedan and Super GT requires much higher chassis stiffness (hence the spaceframe tube chassis), then I don't think the S would meet Super GT requirement eventhough it had every seam spot welded and filled with urethane.

[AusS2000]

Oh, in that case no car is stiff enough for Super GT, until it is modified with spaceframe tube chassis.

[aaronng]

Oh, in that case no car is stiff enough for Super GT, until it is modified with spaceframe tube chassis.

Yup, that was why as soon as Super GT allowed space frame tubes, the teams dumped the NSX chassis and went spaceframe + NSX shell over the top.

[goforthandmultiplys2]

I expect the S is 'stiff enough for the Super GT races in japan'. It's more likely aerodynamics and safety that exclude it.

As to whether a S2000 would be stiffer as a hardtop, it's not so it's a moot point. And installing a hardtop doesn't make it a 'hardtop'. It makes it a convertible with a hardtop.

If the S2000 were a hardtop from the factory it wouldn't need the xbone chassis and so would be significantly lighter.

Take your hand off your stick.
Here's some engineering for you.
Cross sectional rigidity....or stiffness is directly proportional to the product of moment of inertia and Young's modulus. The addition of a roof to a vehicles cross section increases that sections moment of inertia massively.
X section floor or not.
This is nearly as good as the time you said nitrous oxide was volatile !!!!:thumbdwn:

[JAP-S2K]

It's a bit like comparing a cat and dog really, 2 different chassis types and one built nearly ten years later. Pro's and con's for both.

[AusS2000]

Take your hand off your stick.
Here's some engineering for you.
Cross sectional rigidity....or stiffness is directly proportional to the product of moment of inertia and Young's modulus. The addition of a roof to a vehicles cross section increases that sections moment of inertia massively.
X section floor or not.


Nice of you to join the party. A tad late though.

Now, you may be up on Young's Modulus but how did you fair in reading comprehension? Apparently not well as if you could comprehend what you quoted you'd understand it agrees with your statement.

0/10

[AusS2000]

This is nearly as good as the time you said nitrous oxide was volatile

I really want to keep this civil but what is your reasoning for ridiculing this?

Nitrous Oxide in automotive use (and medical for that matter) is stored under pressure as a liquid. When exposed to atmospheric pressure it immediately evaporates to a gas.

From Wikipaedia:
"Nitrous oxide is stored as a compressed liquid; the evaporation and expansion of liquid nitrous oxide in the intake manifold causes a large drop in intake charge temperature"

Definition of volatile from Dictionary.net:
"Capable of wasting away, or of easily passing into the a["e]riform state; subject to evaporation."

I guess when you really want to make a d1ck head of yourself it helps to quote another instance where you previously made a d1ck head of yourself. Just to make sure nobody misses it.

[ludecrs]

You missed another one of his comments in another thread ;)

no need to go looking for it, I deleted it :p

[AusS2000]

Damn!

Oh well, I'm sure everybody gets the idea.

[ludecrs]

And on that note, thread is closed - before it gets too ugly.