Quote from george_tsiros :

also, samjh, if i were just a bit more hotheaded i could have taken that last line as an insult

And I could take that as a petty threat. However, English is my second language, so I am very forgiving when members who do not use English as their main language misunderstand what is written in these forums.

English-speakers commonly say that a "car lurches forward", when there is too much deceleration too suddenly. You are right that it is not an accurate expression, if you interpret it literally. It's a form of colloquialism.

The English just suck at their language

Gee, you guys were busy in my absence!

OK, to clear it up for our non-English friends;

Here is an example - put your car in first gear, accelerate heavily for a few seconds. Then stamp on the brake. What the car is doing here, is lurching forwards - the back of the car lifts up, the front dives down, the weight is shifted to the front of the car, and the back end of the car becomes light, thus the car is unbalanced. All cars do this, to varying degrees. Stiffer suspension does it less, for obvious reasons.

Heel and toe, in this instance, keep the rear end of the car lower under heavier breaking (as the throttling raises the car up at the front, keeping the car balanced, therefore less "lurch").

Further to this, there's nothing wrong with applying "racing" techniques (haha) to road use if it makes your car more stable. If anything, more people should be doing it, because it will cause less accidents.

As for assuming that I'm not a safe driver, well I guess you'll never know. You can make all of the assumptions you like, but 9 out of 10 times you'd be completely wrong.

Start the engine, put in first gear and drop the clutch at idle RPM. What happens next is what I think most (non-English?) people would understand as lurching forward. But whatever

Quote from samjh :

And I could take that as a petty threat.

no, you have no right to feel 'threatened' because you started it, by implying my english is not up to par.

and to stay on topic:
i know how the car behaves under braking, under various circumstances (empty, loaded, old suspension, new suspension, wheels misaligned, wheels aligned, rear tyre deflated, tyres overinflated, very hot slippery asphalt, tarmac, snow, wet, dirt) and i am pretty familiar with it (because on a motorcycle you need to control the nosedive properly when you want to brake hard). "lurching forward" is not a phrase i expect to be used, on a racing forum, from a native english speaker, for when a car shifts its weight forward. EDIT: that is why i think he meant to say something else

If a car has 100% anti-dive, and the driver brakes hard and doesn't heel and toe, then does the car still 'lurch forward'? Or do cars only lurch forwards when it suits them?

Quote from tristancliffe :

If a car has 100% anti-dive, and the driver brakes hard and doesn't heel and toe, then does the car still 'lurch forward'? Or do cars only lurch forwards when it suits them?

I have no idea what you are talking about - are you talking about independent active suspension?

I drive a 1996 Mazda MX5. Does that make any sense now?

Quote from george_tsiros :

"lurching forward" is not a phrase i expect to be used, on a racing forum, from a native english speaker, for when a car shifts its weight forward.

Well that's not exactly my fault is it?

And you're not exactly staying on topic, you're nitpicking about how people use language, which is pretty poor really.

you call it 'nitpicking' i call it 'understanding so that we can have a discussion'.

you prefer to have a discussion where a possible misunderstanding is ignored?

Quote from dawguk :

I have no idea what you are talking about - are you talking about independent active suspension?

I drive a 1996 Mazda MX5. Does that make any sense now?

Anti-dive is when the suspension elements are aligned in such a way that force vectors do something that I don't fully understand, but essentially the car doesn't dive. It's pretty nasty when used at anything more than about 10%, as the suspension effectively goes [partially] solid in ride...

Anyway, without diving, then no 'lurching' takes place, even though the car and driver and doing the same things. Therefore lurch is the wrong term, and should be replaced with 'forwards load transfer' with immediate effect!

/nerd

I drive a 1991 MX-5, so I can relate to you on that front

(some) bmw motorcycles (r1200gs at least do) have this mechanism where when braking the nose doesn't dive.

the weight is transfered, that is, load balance goes to the front, but the front suspension does not compress.

for those who are used to the normal way, it is disorientating