haha nice man.

and cool starry bra.

those front brakes gonna wear out quick lol.

Dunno. This is the first car in a long line of cars where I do not have to worry about the brakes. Pedal is always solid, and brakes hold up even at DDT.
It's on stock size rotors with nothing but Ferrodo DS2500 front pads and Castrol SRF fluid. Works perfect on the current setup. No fade all day at DDT. It has factory brake ducts which help a lot. And I removed the rotor splash shields which also help a lot

that red 86 tho

Is this car in addition to the s4?

No.
Stupid but, I traded the S4.
I was paying 550 a month to finance something that I grew to not like very much.
Not very driver involving and too clinical of a performance drive. It's very capable, but took no skill to go fast. Didn't find it worth while to continue paying for something which I did not enjoy. Got rid of it > got the wagon > pocketed some money and now I have no car payments.

Crazy, right? XD Car ADD right here for sure.

No.
Stupid but, I traded the S4.
I was paying 550 a month to finance something that I grew to not like very much.
Not very driver involving and too clinical of a performance drive. It's very capable, but took no skill to go fast. Didn't find it worth while to continue paying for something which I did not enjoy. Got rid of it > got the wagon > pocketed some money and now I have no car payments.

Crazy, right? XD Car ADD right here for sure.

almost similar feeling i had with teh STI but in addition it was a gas pig lol.

sounds like you need an AAAAAAARRRGGGHHH

or better yet get a DD and first gen NSX as track toy

I'd love to track the 335d but I'd be afraid I'd bust something

track days are dirt cheap

Said no one ever

Lulz, stock pads will be cooked on the 335d after a few laps

Said no one ever

I tried it on the street and yup, you can feel it.

He didn't feel shit. Senna over here

I am not entirely sure if an OEM company, by design, will have a rear toe curve in heave to have a negative slope. its entirely possible for sure, but probably not on a wagon designed for the masses. Just seems completely backwards if one thinks about it.

No.
Stupid but, I traded the S4.
I was paying 550 a month to finance something that I grew to not like very much.
Not very driver involving and too clinical of a performance drive. It's very capable, but took no skill to go fast. Didn't find it worth while to continue paying for something which I did not enjoy. Got rid of it > got the wagon > pocketed some money and now I have no car payments.

Crazy, right? XD Car ADD right here for sure.

Just to make sure I am understanding english XD
You are saying that a car with a rear end which toes out in droop is unlikely--yeah? But this means that the rear end toes in on compression, which reduces rear steer. You are seeing that it's more common for it to toe-in under droop and toe out under compression? I know that the 2nd gen RX7 did this rear steer thing (amongst other cars such as Mercury Cougar), but those were known to be the less traditional setups.

Thanks Fatty. I see you have a Crosstrek tho - and a manual one at that.
Those are super nice. It was on my short list as well

@Hyper Lafora is basically saying to not go full retard on the rotation. Too much slows you down. I was doing it for laughs, but he is making sure that there isn't the misconception that looser/more sideways = faster. It costs time. If you watch the video, you'll see that on a number of corners, I still have the steering wheel turned in at corner exit - despite rotating the car in on entry. Problem here is loose off power and push on power. The choice here is to manage it such that the car is braked/turned in/rotating towards apex at the right moment so that you can go full gas to stop rotation and unwind on corner exit....rather than slide with glee all over the place.

It's all weight transfer amirite. Load the front tires to get the car to dance. Load the rear tires to stop the dance. Needs to be executed at the right moments to string corners together in the most efficient manner.

The rear toe is one of a rare few parameters that plays an enormous amount in terms of sensitivity on limit balance / stability. In english that just means that the slope of the curve of us/os to per deg toe change is steeper for rear toe than it is for the front.

So having said that, and keeping in mind this is an OEM vehicle that isn't a sports car by design, I am skeptical it'll have a bumpsteer curve that has a negative slope in droop. It well could have, I don't know, but I'm not sure if mrs soccer mom would appreciate the back end dancing around as she's stoping for an unsight snoopy crossing the road in front of her with Timmy in the back seat munching on a doughnut

If you look at it from an emergency situation avoidance point of view, it'd make even less sense to have a rear bump steer curve with a negative slope (ie losing rear toe in as pitch angle increases). Person stands on the brakes AND steer at the same time. As he/she steers, rear toe out increases, increasing agility and therefore decreasing stability (keep in mind more often than not, the front geometric roll centre height is also lower than that of the rear relative to the car's CGH; so you have MORE roll angle on the front vs the rear, thereby reducing the effect of roll-steer (regardless of its slope on the curve) at the INITIAL steering input on the rear ANDDDDD have a quicker response in the back relative to the front simply due to the RCH - CGH relation). How many Joe Schmoes do you think can handle that shit in an emergency? Not to mention the probability of rear ride height increasing a large range is higher than the probability of rear ride height decreasing a large range (ie a person gunning the car enough to squat OUT of a corner). So in that case, why wouldn't you have a rear bump steer curve that toes in on droop and out on compression? You're unloading the rear tires, thereby decreasing its grip AND you're giving it toe out under OEM situation? the more I write this and the more I reason along that line, the more unlikely I feel it to be the case.

People don't often drive a car hard enough in transient for a rear toe out bump steer to wad it up into the wall. But they sure as hell will brake hard enough and need the steering to have it lose control. Does that make sense?

This is where what I'm going to write is tricky, not tricky in terms of a feedback / advise point of view, but what I write highly depends on how the driver approaches the corner.

I dare say 90% of the time, for drivers who range from beginner lappers all the way up to even experienced karters just starting to get into a car for the first time, most corner exit u/s is caused by corner entry o/s. Assuming they dont' arrive at the corner with their front tires on fire.

Think about this.

You want the car to rotate quick on entry, so you shallow up the line, because by instinct, that's what you'd do. By shallow I'm talking the car's traj; so in essence you're running an initial tighter arc, because if you swing a wide arc that requires more steering input at the initial entry phase when you square up the corner, the car will probably come around on you so fast it'll get even hairier, quicker.

So you shallow up the line with less steering input, but you have to dial MORE input in to make it the rest of the corner. This is all fine if you don't have to correct the initial steering and back off of the steering angle; if you do, forget it, it's game over. First 30% of the corner, you have steering input X. If you correct, you're either at 0 or worst, -X degree. By the time you gathered up the car, say another 20% of the corner has blown by. So now for the remaining 50% of the corner, you need to put > X deg of input to make it around. Meanwhile, you're seeing it's time to step on the gas, so you get on the gas and dial MORE input because you need to make it around the corner. No way in hell will the car not push under those circumstances. Even if you get the car to the apex, if it isn't pointed correctly, it's still going to cost time. I don't have empirical hard data that I can show you that this is the case, but for the past 10 seasons, combining video and data, this is what I see more often than not.

Worst is in a racing situation if the driver AND the engineer doesn't see this, they're FUCKED. Driver comes in, bitching about corner exit u/s. So the engineer loosens up the car. The more they loosen the car, the worse it gets. A dog chasing its tail and they're suddenly wondering why the fuck they're a second off their reference lap.

THAT is why I'm a huge supporter of rotation at steady state (ie no input); because it makes the diagnosis and cure SO much more efficient. Does the car need to rotate on entry? Yes. But does it need to rotate fast on its nose? No.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-of-t...l-so-different/

Fwiw i have not driven a car in recent times that turn in this well under a trail braking situation. It is far more lively than the audi and even the boss under braking. The toe curve is for the win on this one. Loses toe on droop.

Edit - if u look at stock e90 alignment numbers you see why it is alignedthat way as well. It cAlls for a whack load of rear toe. Something to the tune of .3 degrees. So soccer moms can enjoy a stable rear end at the expense of tires