Thats exactly what I just said.

A real race track is more fluid. It doesn't force your car into acrobatic manuvers just to make a corner. Some of the gate progressions at a autox are designed to be difficult to naviagte a car through. (1.) to make the small course a challenge to the drivers. And, (2.) to cause cars to be slower in an often small and confined area.
Road courses are designed for maximum safety at maximum speed. I'm just pointing out the differences, this is why I could see how someone could push a car street car too hard at a suspension-demanding auto-x course, lose control, and flip.

 

You're reading way more into the course than you should.

The typical car you see on a road course does not have stock wheel rates or shocks. The suspension loads and unloads very quickly and is highly controlled by high rate absorbers. There is less suspension movement. There is less body roll which leads to less weight transfer. And less weight transfer means the car is less likely to roll over.

This is entirely about stock suspension cars being overdriven to the brink and then driven past the brink by a 'superhero'.

 

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. The "fluidness" of a road course has nothing to do with this. It has to do with inertia and physics. At 100 mph, the tires won't get quick impulsive forces strong enough to flip a car. They'll just slip over them. It's the slow speed, and not this concept of "acrobatic maneuvers" you keep bringing up that's the cause of flips in autocross. In every case I've ever heard of, the car slid (happens the same in both road courses and autocross), and the tires caught.

It's only a few poorly designed suspension'd cars that have tendencies to flip otherwise....such as the E30 BMW and the Focus.

Total amount of weight transfer cannot be changed via less body roll. It can only change via CG height, track width, and amount of grip.

 

I'm not even sure what eveyone's point is anymore. Why I feel compelled to respond....I'm not sure. I'll try to paraphrase to see if I get what everyone is trying to convey:

Psuedo says, Inertia of a car making a turn at high speed will indeed carry a car to the brink of breaking traction before it could cause it to flip. I agree.

Psuedo says, Slower speed turns allow for increased traction, this coupled with poor handling suspension, high CG, and poor performing, tall profile tires can cause car to
potentialy flip. I agree with this as well.

Leonard says, the same thing Psudeo and I both said already, then adds that the case in point is just a poor handling, stock equiped car driven far too agressively.
I agree with Leonard as well.....but.

I believe its all the above, add to that the possiblity of a too technical obsticle auto-x course, making a poor handling stocker driven by a too aggressive driver more prone to flip.

On a sidebar. I do think that many small auto-x venue track designers "over do" it by making the course far too complicated. I can drive these courses,a nd my SVTF does a pretty good job at getting me through them. But, I think most will agree that its not much fun sawing at the wheel to try to make nearly impossible gates at relatively low speeds. I prefer courses that might be less technical but more fun to drive on...a course that allows for a bit more speed into a turn with perhaps a much smoother exit. This isn't meant to be an attack on any local course designers. Just stating a preference. I'm sure many agree.

 

Forgive me here, if I'm wrong, but are you saying Foci have poorly designed suspension and have a tendancy to flip?
I've seen plenty of Foci out there and they seem to do quite well, and I know I've pushed mine pretty hard without ever a fear or sense of flipping.

 

There were pending lawsuits back a couple years ago because the rear suspension, if given the right series of inputs would infact JACK the car up with some force. Brad Lockhart, I believe was his name was the name of a racer who flipped a focus and ended up having some minor neck injuries. This is all back at least 3 years, so I don't recall all the specifics.

It's nothing against how well the cars handle. E30 BMWs handle quite well, as to Foci'....but they also seem to be a bit more prevelent in terms of cars that have flipped.

And again...it's not something I'd worry myself about. You're still something like 10 times more likely to have an accident on public roads than at an autocross. We hear of an autocross flip incident once every year maybe?!? That's with hundreds of clubs, running hundreds of events all over the country. I think it's a pretty damn safe sport, all things being considered.

 

I see what you are saying, however, I also have heard and seen several incidents where Corvettes have flipped...but I wouldn't neccessarily say they too have a tendancy to flip.

 

Interesting. One is an (almost ridiculously) high powered sports car, owned primarily by people with more interest in image than driving ability. The other is a relatively tippy, but perfectly sensible front wheel drive sedan with a "hot hatch" variant. Now I have zero statistics with regards to either car flipping, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that between the two models, at autocrosses (where the image concious Corvette owner is more likely to be in the minority), the Focus would have higher flip numbers.

There's no sense being offended by it, it's a simple fact that taller shorter wheelbase cars will tip more easily than lower longer cars. The Focus falls into the former category. It doesn't make it a poor performer or an unsafe car, it simply means that its capabilities are not going to be as high as cars built with a narrower purpose. Also if there was indeed a rear suspension jacking issue, it is probably limited to the earlier models, the car was after all not initially targetting driving enthusiasts.

 

I'm not offended by any comments...I didn't design nor did I build the car. So I don't feel the need to stick-up for it.... But, I often hear people make claims that Foci can flip easily because they appear "top heavy."

Stating that a Focus has more of a flip-tendancy because it is "tallish" is not really a fair assessment. Just because a car has a high profile does not necessarily mean it has a high center of gravilty. The Focus' overall height is lower than many of it's contemporaries, (Civic, Corolla, etc) and ,it's track width is also about the same if not wider. Not to mention it comes equiped with bigger wheels and wider tires standard.
Weight is comparable as well...and yes, infact the Focus even is it's most unassuming trim level is actually designed to handle quite well. Engineered by Ford of U.K. it was built to satisfy European drivers that wanted a well rounded performing compact that offered a sport tuned suspension. And from it's inception it was intended to have great road manners, it was designed with good suspension geometry and a very rigid structure.

Additionally, the base Focus was also awarded 4 out of 5 stars in the NHTSA roll-over test. I imagine the SVT variant would do much better.

 

Again, IMO, it has nothing to do with being tall, and everything to do with a possible mistake in the rear suspension design.

By the way, you're still getting your physics confused... bigger wheels and wider tires will make the car tip EASIER. Having NO grip will cause the car to be harder to flip.