[z12358]

The following point must have been made before but I haven't seen it anywhere so here it goes. The famous obsession about 50/50 weight distribution misses something about weight that I think (and feel) is more important. I am talking about the weight's distance from the car's center of gravity.

Consider two cars that weigh the same and have 50/50 front/rear axle weight distribution BUT the first one has ALL of its weight packed in the middle (i.e. AT the center of gravity) while the second car has half of its weight ahead of the front axle and the other half behind the rear axle (i.e. as far away as possible from the center of gravity). If you could balance each car on a sharp pole placed right under their centers of gravity, you could rotate the first one much easier (with much less force) than the second one. By the same token, you could stop the rotation of the first one with much less force than the second one. The explanation is high school physics and is expressed by rotational momentum and/ centripetal force (both proportional to -- among other things-- mass AND its distance from the center of rotation). Force just measures change of momentum per unit of time, i.e. is the first derivative of momentum (rotational, in this case).

The conclusion is that cars characterized by LOW rotational momentum (force) will turn easier, will have better control, and will be less prone to sliding (hint: the Boxster S, and most mid-engined cars). Cars characterized by HIGH rotational momentum (hint: Z4M, 911, Corvette, etc.) even when achieving 50/50 weight distribution will turn harder and when swung around their center of gravity (which happens every time you make a turn) will be much harder to stop rotating (straighten out). The increased force required to make them turn (rotate) and stop turning (straighten out) produces the instability (i.e. the "excitement" factor) and the sliding the Top Gear guy is talking about.

Personally, I'll take control any time.

Z.