Optimal Wheelbase?

Probably somewhere between the 911 and RX-7

90-96 inches

>ignoring polar moment of inertia

>>16442249
spreading a cars mass over a longer distance raises its polar moment of inertia.

>>16442232
NSX is 99.6"

>>16442325
>NSX is 99.6"

It's also slower around Tsukuba than the majority of 911s with a 93"

For a Nissan S13,

Wheelbase 2474 mm (97.4 in)

I guess all the reviews mentioning the long wheelbase of the S13 are accurate.

all the GOAT tier roadsters range from 90-94, so probably that

Right around 100". My opinion, of course.

NA miata
>89.2
NB miata
>89.4
NC miata
>91.7
ND miata
>91.1

NSX
>old one was 99.6, new one's 104

RX7
>FC 95.7
>FD 95

S2000
>Ap1 and Ap2 94.5

I'm sure it all depends on the car, but after looking at some examples and reading
>>16442232
>>16442484
I'd have to agree, and say anywhere from 89-96"

>>16442232
>>16442484
AW11 clocks in at 91.3
NA Miata clocks in at 89.2
Elise clocks in at 90.6

All considered some of the best handling cars money can buy. Granted this is at lower speeds. You're going to have issues at highspeeds unless you have aero work done on the car like a flat underbody and a moderate amount of downforce.

The idea is, how fast do you want to go? And what's the shortest wheelbase you can get away with with stability at that speed? Obviously it's not that simple but that's the general idea.

Depends on weight distribution and track width, wider track needs longer wheelbase, rear engine cars should have longer wheelbase to prevent front wheels from coming off the ground in hard cornering, common problem in older porsche 911s and volkswagen bugs

>>16442571
The NSX is complete dog shit lmao. The old one was trash and the new one is literally a $200,000 plastic Honda. Don't include that pile of trash in these comparisons please.

Rest are legit

>>16444634
>The NSX is complete dog shit

It's well balanced, but too slow to warrant such a long wheelbase

Then again MR cars need a lot of stability

File: superbird.jpg (201KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x768px

>2011+6
>looking at wheelbase without considering the ratio of track width or the ratio of overhang

>>16444804
longer wheelbase means less maneuverability and higher polar moment of inertia

some of us like cars more that can turn

A real racer (Corey) told me it's 103.6"

File: 20161231_115345.jpg (2MB, 1678x2415px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1678x2415px

>Owning a car
> Not having a wheelbase over 96"
Pic related, 97.4″ in my current death missile, had narrower cars and honestly I'm loving it.

>>16442217
How low can you go? Is 81" too far?

>>16444813
he must not race on Tsukuba

>>16444813
how fast is he on the touge?

>>16444809
Still you can't entirely disregard other factors and judge cars purely by wheelbase.

File: 233.jpg (219KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 736x552px

>>16444939
>you can't entirely disregard other factors and judge cars purely by wheelbase.

oh but I can

If I want maximum handling, why would I even consider a car with a long wheelbase, huh?

>>16444634
>I've Never Driven One: The Post

I mean I've only got experience in the old one, but those things are amazing.