Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Buffalo Girls  
#26 Posted : 07 July 2019 16:33:33(UTC)
Buffalo Girls


Posts: 1,815

Honda acknowledge that their ring record specification can’t be purchased off the shelf
Offline Kirsty172  
#27 Posted : 07 July 2019 17:04:31(UTC)
Kirsty172


Posts: 4,930

What are the differences?
Offline Buffalo Girls  
#28 Posted : 07 July 2019 17:21:02(UTC)
Buffalo Girls


Posts: 1,815

Car had a cage, no radio/nav and non-std tyres
Offline Georgeski  
#29 Posted : 07 July 2019 17:38:54(UTC)
Georgeski


Posts: 4,553

Wasn’t it partially stripped too?
Offline Buffalo Girls  
#30 Posted : 07 July 2019 17:52:12(UTC)
Buffalo Girls


Posts: 1,815

Originally Posted by: Georgeski Go to Quoted Post
Wasn’t it partially stripped too?


Yes, rear gone to make way for the cage. Apart from the trick tyres, it’s the same mods that Renault did for the 275 Trophy-R. The important difference was that Renault had the spec for sale, Honda didn’t
Offline MrRS  
#31 Posted : 07 July 2019 20:17:33(UTC)
MrRS


Posts: 43

Honda always said they compensated the extra weight from the cage by dropping a few bits off like the air con etc. Fair enough but they didn’t run it on factory spec tyres which was a cop out. Rumour has it they were the Michelin Cup 2. Regardless, it was a very impressive lap time on a car hugely cheaper than the Trophy R. Lots of talk the Ring spec Trophy R will be about £70K ish. Emmm.
Offline if1  
#32 Posted : 07 July 2019 20:48:10(UTC)
if1


Posts: 2

So did the 275 trophy-R employ a roll cage as well?
Offline Breadvan Matt  
#33 Posted : 07 July 2019 20:56:11(UTC)
Breadvan Matt


Posts: 129

What Craig states is 100% true.
The Honda that went around the ring had no back seats, a roll cage and special sticky tires. Honda themselves admitted this. They defended the rear seat removal by stating that any weight saving gains were offset by the weight of the cage). This may or may not be true but either way, these are all things that are not available (either standard or as options) in your local Honda dealership. So technically it wasn't a standard production car.
Making these items an option on production car is very expensive hence why I'd imagine Honda never offered them.
Offline NickRS  
#34 Posted : 07 July 2019 21:10:16(UTC)
NickRS


Posts: 62
Location: West Sussex

Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.

Offline Buffalo Girls  
#35 Posted : 08 July 2019 21:36:42(UTC)
Buffalo Girls


Posts: 1,815

Originally Posted by: if1 Go to Quoted Post
So did the 275 trophy-R employ a roll cage as well?


No
Offline Marc_250  
#36 Posted : 08 July 2019 22:42:48(UTC)
Marc_250


Posts: 5,115

I vaguely think from what I've seen/read the 275 Trophy-R is the quicker beast than the CTR on circuit when tested independently so could suggest the Honda ring times were questionable. Just looking at the tyres alone I'd put my money on the Trophy-R. That said clearly the CTR is right there at the top of the none stripped out hatches.
Offline MrRS  
#37 Posted : 09 July 2019 05:33:27(UTC)
MrRS


Posts: 43

Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.



The Renaultsport engineers were just given the old 4WS Megane GT to turn into the RS version, so unfortunately their hands were tied. The 4WS always gets mixed reviews.

I reckon given a choice they would have preferred not to have 4WS on the 280/300. As proven when they had a bigger budget and more scope to modify and then dropped it on the Trophy R.

Offline NickRS  
#38 Posted : 09 July 2019 10:24:03(UTC)
NickRS


Posts: 62
Location: West Sussex

Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.



The Renaultsport engineers were just given the old 4WS Megane GT to turn into the RS version, so unfortunately their hands were tied. The 4WS always gets mixed reviews.

I reckon given a choice they would have preferred not to have 4WS on the 280/300. As proven when they had a bigger budget and more scope to modify and then dropped it on the Trophy R.



Not proven at all. They needed to save weight and had 2deg of front neg camber to play with so it was the obvious solution for the R design brief. As I said, for turn in and track use, 4WS is brilliant if you want to keep a more versatile car. I wouldn't run 2deg on a trackable daily, would you?
Offline MrRS  
#39 Posted : 09 July 2019 16:41:09(UTC)
MrRS


Posts: 43

Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.



The Renaultsport engineers were just given the old 4WS Megane GT to turn into the RS version, so unfortunately their hands were tied. The 4WS always gets mixed reviews.

I reckon given a choice they would have preferred not to have 4WS on the 280/300. As proven when they had a bigger budget and more scope to modify and then dropped it on the Trophy R.



Not proven at all. They needed to save weight and had 2deg of front neg camber to play with so it was the obvious solution for the R design brief. As I said, for turn in and track use, 4WS is brilliant if you want to keep a more versatile car. I wouldn't run 2deg on a trackable daily, would you?


So what you are saying is for track use, the weight and complexity of 4WS offsets any real advantages. Particulary when front wheel camber is independent from rear wheel steering angle anyway.

Offline CraigI  
#40 Posted : 09 July 2019 18:19:34(UTC)
CraigI


Posts: 960

Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.



The Renaultsport engineers were just given the old 4WS Megane GT to turn into the RS version, so unfortunately their hands were tied. The 4WS always gets mixed reviews.

I reckon given a choice they would have preferred not to have 4WS on the 280/300. As proven when they had a bigger budget and more scope to modify and then dropped it on the Trophy R.



Not proven at all. They needed to save weight and had 2deg of front neg camber to play with so it was the obvious solution for the R design brief. As I said, for turn in and track use, 4WS is brilliant if you want to keep a more versatile car. I wouldn't run 2deg on a trackable daily, would you?


So what you are saying is for track use, the weight and complexity of 4WS offsets any real advantages. Particulary when front wheel camber is independent from rear wheel steering angle anyway.



What is the Trophy R time compared to the regular Trophy?

What are you driving just now?
Offline NickRS  
#41 Posted : 10 July 2019 22:16:24(UTC)
NickRS


Posts: 62
Location: West Sussex

Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: NickRS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Kirsty172 Go to Quoted Post
I find the lies ascertion very hard to believe.

The marketing of 4ws is just messy now. Anyone who truly values that will also know that the super duper megane doesn't have it. So who are you marketing this at?


Don't worry too much about marketing. If you can do better, give them a call on Monday, they'll snap up your services and will pay you handsomely. Perhaps.



The Renaultsport engineers were just given the old 4WS Megane GT to turn into the RS version, so unfortunately their hands were tied. The 4WS always gets mixed reviews.

I reckon given a choice they would have preferred not to have 4WS on the 280/300. As proven when they had a bigger budget and more scope to modify and then dropped it on the Trophy R.



Not proven at all. They needed to save weight and had 2deg of front neg camber to play with so it was the obvious solution for the R design brief. As I said, for turn in and track use, 4WS is brilliant if you want to keep a more versatile car. I wouldn't run 2deg on a trackable daily, would you?


So what you are saying is for track use, the weight and complexity of 4WS offsets any real advantages. Particulary when front wheel camber is independent from rear wheel steering angle anyway.



I can't remember saying that, including talking about complexity. It's a choice, saving weight and compensating by adding 1 deg of neg camber on a track focused car vs running a more versatile car with road friendly camber and having the benefit of saving the front outer shoulders through minimising steering input with 4ws.

Front wheel camber is intimately linked to rear steering angle, all 4 wheels fight adverse centrifugal / centripetal forces, hence the strategy that RS developed, which seems sound to me. What would you have done ? Do you do much track driving ? Have you driven a mk4 RS ?

Edited by user 10 July 2019 22:17:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline MrRS  
#42 Posted : 11 July 2019 14:39:29(UTC)
MrRS


Posts: 43

I find it strange that just 1 deg of extra negative camber on the front negates all the supposed advantages of 4WS such as better turn in and corner stability, but there we go.

I drove a 280 Cup when the Mk4 first appeared as a demo.
Offline NickRS  
#43 Posted : 11 July 2019 16:43:16(UTC)
NickRS


Posts: 62
Location: West Sussex

Originally Posted by: MrRS Go to Quoted Post
I find it strange that just 1 deg of extra negative camber on the front negates all the supposed advantages of 4WS such as better turn in and corner stability, but there we go.


Not strange at all, very rational. You don't need stability at that skill level ; doubling the front neg to 2 deg gives you significantly more entry and apex speed at an irrelevant cost to braking distance in this context. More than one way to skin a cat in the non binary world of suspension kinematic set ups. They wanted to promote weight loss which also maximises lateral grip. Pretty basic stuff actually.

Edited by user 11 July 2019 18:15:39(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline CraigI  
#44 Posted : 11 July 2019 16:46:46(UTC)
CraigI


Posts: 960

Don’t feed the troll.
7 years away, then comes back just to berate the 280 / 300 /R.

My bet is they’ve probably had an alternative username in that time.
Offline sunnylunn  
#45 Posted : 12 July 2019 08:38:31(UTC)
sunnylunn


Posts: 884
Location: Renault owner &#128512;

its 'mr vix" same rubbish, different username, sad but true.
Offline Georgeski  
#46 Posted : 12 July 2019 08:42:19(UTC)
Georgeski


Posts: 4,553

Originally Posted by: sunnylunn Go to Quoted Post
its 'mr vix" same rubbish, different username, sad but true.


I think its more likely to be 172RS
Offline sunnylunn  
#47 Posted : 12 July 2019 10:51:27(UTC)
sunnylunn


Posts: 884
Location: Renault owner &#128512;

must be sad and lonely to join a forum just to troll, but hey ho, whatever floats their boats.
some of the top Porche have 4 wheel steer I believe, so it should be fine on a Renault, mixed reports, but not everyone is going to like it, and I'm inclined to go with the Renault sport engineers that it must add to the drive or it wouldn't be fitted, the R is a whole different car, made for different driving experience.
Offline Buffalo Girls  
#48 Posted : 12 July 2019 15:42:17(UTC)
Buffalo Girls


Posts: 1,815

Originally Posted by: Georgeski Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: sunnylunn Go to Quoted Post
its 'mr vix" same rubbish, different username, sad but true.


I think its more likely to be 172RS


Quite. Along with a few other user names
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.