| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 11:30
 
|
 |
| Jag7799 wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 21:15 |
but who wants to drive a car with only 100kw.. let alone drag one? .. okay now im just being a prick 
|
 what's that all you can beat? fark  oh great thanks alot now I'm being a prick too you would be suprised, is that why there are so many front wheel drives on the road I have seen front wheel drives flog rear wheel drives before so heres the answer its usally someone who drives a 6cyl commodore who trys to drag them.
another thing why are we comparing 100kw under cars to high powered sports and drag cars there in a different class all together
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 11:31
|
|
Im with you all the way on this one jag7799.
Once you get over a certain amount of power in front wheel drive cars they cant compare to a rwd. My friend who owns the fastest land cruiser in australia 13sec 1/4mile 2 tonne car 660hp @ wheels. He took a drive in a integra type R, and told me even in 3rd the body would shudder as the front wheels lost traction. I havnt driven a high powered fwd so i used his experience as an example.
look at austs fastest FWD, a extremely modified civic, that hardly resembles a civic now and its only running 9's, compare that to the rwd's running 9's, and you see cars with very stock looking bodies.
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 11:39
|
|
| venzy wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 21:31 |
Im with you all the way on this one jag7799.
Once you get over a certain amount of power in front wheel drive cars they cant compare to a rwd. My friend who owns the fastest land cruiser in australia 13sec 1/4mile 2 tonne car 660hp @ wheels. He took a drive in a integra type R, and told me even in 3rd the body would shudder as the front wheels lost traction. I havnt driven a high powered fwd so i used his experience as an example.
look at austs fastest FWD, a extremely modified civic, that hardly resembles a civic now and its only running 9's, compare that to the rwd's running 9's, and you see cars with very stock looking bodies.
|
THEY WEREN'T FUCKING BUILT FOR THAT PURPOSE but its funny how a 9 sec front wheel drive drag car could probablly flog the majority of peoples cars on this forum oh so that what you have against them 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 11:49
|
|
| mick wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 21:39 |
| venzy wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 21:31 |
Im with you all the way on this one jag7799.
Once you get over a certain amount of power in front wheel drive cars they cant compare to a rwd. My friend who owns the fastest land cruiser in australia 13sec 1/4mile 2 tonne car 660hp @ wheels. He took a drive in a integra type R, and told me even in 3rd the body would shudder as the front wheels lost traction. I havnt driven a high powered fwd so i used his experience as an example.
look at austs fastest FWD, a extremely modified civic, that hardly resembles a civic now and its only running 9's, compare that to the rwd's running 9's, and you see cars with very stock looking bodies.
|
THEY WEREN'T FUCKING BUILT FOR THAT PURPOSE but its funny how a 9 sec front wheel drive drag car could probablly flog the majority of peoples cars on this forum oh so that what you have against them
|
that if they had spent the same ammount on a RWD they could be running 7's? hehe
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 11:49
|
|
| mick wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 19:39 |
THEY WEREN'T FUCKING BUILT FOR THAT PURPOSE but its funny how a 9 sec front wheel drive drag car could probablly flog the majority of peoples cars on this forum oh so that what you have against them
|
Are you arguing for or against these guys. You just answered the whole point. They can be MADE to go fast, but it's a triump of engineering over design. They can be MADE to handle well, but it's always going to be a compromise.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 12:20
|
|
Man this forum is full of weiners who either get defensive because they have pride issues, or antagonistic because they feel like provoking a response.
Cars = Fun
Who gives a crap what wheel the drive comes from? If you struggle to have fun in a particular type of car, then don't drive it and that's the end of the story.
And someone shrink that damn image before I go nuts having to scroll all the time.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 12:31
|
|
im antagonstic
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 12:35
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 22:20 |
Man this forum is full of weiners who either get defensive because they have pride issues, or antagonistic because they feel like provoking a response.
Cars = Fun
Who gives a crap what wheel the drive comes from? If you struggle to have fun in a particular type of car, then don't drive it and that's the end of the story.
And someone shrink that damn image before I go nuts having to scroll all the time.
|
this has been the best post so far this thread. this thread, also was never ment to be a shit stir though it kinda blew out into one
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 22:04
|
|
|
These threads always do, that's why I don't start 'opinion' based threads 'cause it'll all go to hell eventually.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 23 June 2004 22:41
|
|
|
thats because when someone makes valid arguments as to why someone is wrong etc... the person gets all personal and emotional.. and as soon as that happens.. flame war is on
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 00:34
|
|
| Quote: |
An equivelant RWD or 4WD car is faster everywhere, with the exception of Rally - where FWD can be driven at 8/10ths quickly without having to commit to corners. The extra weight over the driven wheels also helps traction on low-grip surfaces.
|
I think you need to come to a few club races, cause you'll see the lead change in many races between all three drive types....
Anyway that said, I'm very comfortable drive any type,but it does help when you own one of each.... S3, Corolla 20V and XR6 Turbo Ute...
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 01:17
|
|
The only cars I've taken out to a rally sprint are a Mk 2 Escort (rally car), my Celica SX and an old Subaru L Series. The L series kicked arse when it was muddy, the SX went hella fast down straights and into the corners, and the escort pissed me off cause it broke lots. From my other experiences (driving CRX, WRX, Celica Supra and the list goes on quite a while) all I can say is that any car is simply a 'solution' to a problem and there are challenges to driving all of them.
If you are so obsessed with going ultra fast on the street, go buy a motorcycle and stop effing around with four wheeled lumps of garbage .... oh wait? Don't want to git rid of your boot space, or your passenger seat ??? Hang on, I smell more compromise... 
At least we don't get motocycle riders coming onto these forums starting pissing contests about how 'pussified' we are for driving something with four wheels.
Now I'm going to go back to my shell of study/uni crap.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 01:24
|
|
|
Man, I just realised how thankful I am that Toyota don't make motorcycles...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 01:41
|
|
If you take into account Yamaha's influence/direct involvement in Toyota's motorsport/performance cars in the past, it could be inferred that any of the tuning fork company's bikes could be badged as Toyota. 
Cheers,
Dan
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 05:33
|
|
| mick wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 20:57 |
| st184 sillycar wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 16:49 |
An equivelant RWD or 4WD car is faster everywhere,
|
thats were you are wrong because in a case of cars having less then 100kw the front wheel drive will usally come off best off the mark due to having the least amount of traction and will also usally have the highest top speed as well
|
What the shit???? In what universe is LESS traction an ADVANTAGE in a drag-race???
-It's conceivable that of a FWD and RWD car, each with identical engines, weights, etc the FWD will have maybe 0.5% higher top speed, due to the drivetrain loss at the diff's crownwheel+pinion in the RWD.
And Johnny: Remember the Super Touring catagory? The RWD cars caried about 50kg ballast, and the Audi 4WD's around 90kg. And they both whooped the lighter, equally powerful FWD's silly!!! That is, until the rule-makers decided that FWD's should be winning to please the manufacturers, and started piling more and more weight onto the non-FWD cars...
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 10:13
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Thu, 24 June 2004 15:33 |
| mick wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 20:57 |
| st184 sillycar wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 16:49 |
An equivelant RWD or 4WD car is faster everywhere,
|
thats were you are wrong because in a case of cars having less then 100kw the front wheel drive will usally come off best off the mark due to having the least amount of traction and will also usally have the highest top speed as well
|
What the shit???? In what universe is LESS traction an ADVANTAGE in a drag-race???
-It's conceivable that of a FWD and RWD car, each with identical engines, weights, etc the FWD will have maybe 0.5% higher top speed, due to the drivetrain loss at the diff's crownwheel+pinion in the RWD.
And Johnny: Remember the Super Touring catagory? The RWD cars caried about 50kg ballast, and the Audi 4WD's around 90kg. And they both whooped the lighter, equally powerful FWD's silly!!! That is, until the rule-makers decided that FWD's should be winning to please the manufacturers, and started piling more and more weight onto the non-FWD cars...
|
oh fuck you got me there just like i got you before dam it was supposed to say least amount of traction issues should edit but na couldn't be bothered sorry my bad, but still your comment was bullshit about rwd and awd's being quicker everywhere what world are you in?
to all complaining about fwd's at drags how can you complain about a car that wasn't meant to be a drag racer? have any manufactures mad a STANDARD fwd drag car? if this was to be they woulda of done it by now, also you can make anything go if you have the money, fwds are desingend with economy in mined not for drags but still for what they are there not bad and do there job, a standard V8,6 or 4cyl rear wheel drive car will have more problems with getting power to the ground then a standard 4-cyl,V6 fwd car, a standard fwd car will have a better advantage on wet and slippery roads to an standard rwd car due to traction you get better traction in that case then in a rwd oh and it is easier to bog a rear wheel drive then front wheel drive, some superiority? so there you have it, known disadvantages of rear wheel drives, I don't care what kinda drive I drive as i love driving. but you have to realize this every car is built for a purpose not just RACING if that was the case we would all be driving Supras
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Traction BRAWL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 11:15
|
|
I own a FWD Celica, and a RWD '83 Commode. Both with around 90kw, although the old commode had more torque (3.3L Vs. the Celica's 2.2L). Since I also drive RWD and FWD cars at work (Proving Ground) I think I have a fairly balanced perspective.
FWD only gives a traction advantage over (some) RWD cars in REALLY low grip conditions. Like mud or super-slick wet tarmac. This is due to the majority of the car's weight being over the driven wheels. RWD can have this same advantage if the engine is mounted in the middle or rear of the car, like a Ferrari 360/F40/F50/Ezo, Toyota MR2 or Porsche 911.
This fact of life ^^^^ is a DISadvantage in any other conditions, like umm....cornering, dry weather, etc... This is because the Front tyres are responsible for:
*Most of the car's weight
*Steering
*Acceleration
*65% of the braking
-This unfair burden is carried by tyres the same size as those on the rear of the car. No surprise then, when the front tyres break-grip when cornering/accelerating/braking.
-RWD cars typically have a more even weight distribution, due to the mechanical components being spread more evenly around the car. They also enjoy the benefits of steering from the front, and driving from the rear. This allows the driver the luxury of balancing the car between the throttle and steering while exiting a corner, allowing front AND rear tyres to reach their full grip potential together.
-As for the drag strip, I don't know of ANY manufacturer to make a car specifically for dragging, FWD, RWD or 4WD. Ford is known to tune the rear suspension of the mustang to eliminate axle-tramp during hard launches and burnouts, but this is not the car's sole purpose in life. It's really up to the suspension engineers, when they're designing and tuning a car's suspension as to how well it launches off the line, especially with RWD.
I'm not claiming to be some kind of handling/mechanical-layout overlord, but it's simple physics that FWD can't make use of it's available grip beyond a corner's apex, like a RWD car can. Since cars transfer their weight towards the rear under acceleration, this just magnifies RWD's advantage over FWD both out of corners, and on the drag-strip.
If you're bogging down either a RWD or FWD car off the line, then that's your - bad, not the car's. If you're driving an automatic and can't launch cleanly, then PLEAASE stop whining and accept that Auto's are for losers and shopping-carts.
-I enjoy driving my Celica, because it trail-brakes into corners with as much tail-out attitude as I want. It just can't maintain the drift out of the corners, that's all. 
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 12:28
|
|
Alright hang on a sec, you say that having more 'dynamic' weight towards the rear is an advantage in accelerating, so why do you say that FWD has no advantage when braking when it has better dynamic weight over the fronts during that period?
Pfft.
You can brake seriously effing late in a FWD car and it can work brilliantly.
Almost everything else you said is fairly spot on.
Don't forget though, that as you 'accelerate' better in a RWD, you will lose more front end grip and hence start to steer wide due to the weight coming off the fronts - usually this isn't much of a problem, but again it's just more fuel to the argument that it's all a compromise.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 12:56
|
|
| mick wrote on Thu, 24 June 2004 20:13 |
| st184 sillycar wrote on Thu, 24 June 2004 15:33 |
| mick wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 20:57 |
| st184 sillycar wrote on Wed, 23 June 2004 16:49 |
An equivelant RWD or 4WD car is faster everywhere,
|
thats were you are wrong because in a case of cars having less then 100kw the front wheel drive will usally come off best off the mark due to having the least amount of traction and will also usally have the highest top speed as well
|
What the shit???? In what universe is LESS traction an ADVANTAGE in a drag-race???
-It's conceivable that of a FWD and RWD car, each with identical engines, weights, etc the FWD will have maybe 0.5% higher top speed, due to the drivetrain loss at the diff's crownwheel+pinion in the RWD.
And Johnny: Remember the Super Touring catagory? The RWD cars caried about 50kg ballast, and the Audi 4WD's around 90kg. And they both whooped the lighter, equally powerful FWD's silly!!! That is, until the rule-makers decided that FWD's should be winning to please the manufacturers, and started piling more and more weight onto the non-FWD cars...
|
oh fuck you got me there just like i got you before dam it was supposed to say least amount of traction issues should edit but na couldn't be bothered sorry my bad, but still your comment was bullshit about rwd and awd's being quicker everywhere what world are you in?
to all complaining about fwd's at drags how can you complain about a car that wasn't meant to be a drag racer? have any manufactures mad a STANDARD fwd drag car? if this was to be they woulda of done it by now, also you can make anything go if you have the money, fwds are desingend with economy in mined not for drags but still for what they are there not bad and do there job, a standard V8,6 or 4cyl rear wheel drive car will have more problems with getting power to the ground then a standard 4-cyl,V6 fwd car, a standard fwd car will have a better advantage on wet and slippery roads to an standard rwd car due to traction you get better traction in that case then in a rwd oh and it is easier to bog a rear wheel drive then front wheel drive, some superiority? so there you have it, known disadvantages of rear wheel drives, I don't care what kinda drive I drive as i love driving. but you have to realize this every car is built for a purpose not just RACING if that was the case we would all be driving Supras
|
Just wanted to point out again...rwd cars arnt made for dragging either
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: WHEN HAS THE TOPIC BEEN ABOUT AUTOS!
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 13:07
|
|
|
when I meant bogged I meant as being stuck in mud, not racing, and theres no need for the auto comment as I drive a manual ha ha thats right! you go on and say that about autos, but remember an auto can be built for drag use so think before you comment perhaps? I think you'd be one of the idiots who'd drive an auto manually? (its so funny to watch people do that!) if this be the case learn how to drive it! I'm not a fan of autos either but I had too help out the owners on here who had autos LEAVE THEM ALONE if you wanna start an arguement about autos, post your own thread and stop wasting post on mine! but still manuals are better (my 2 cents)
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 13:14
|
|
Not this tit for tat crap all over again.
Alright - no one speak unless you have a degree in mechanical engineering!!! Or have read race car vehicle dynamics front to back to front three times.
(that rules me out)
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 24 June 2004 13:43
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 24 June 2004 23:14 |
Alright - no one speak unless you have a degree in mechanical engineering!!! Or have read race car vehicle dynamics front to back to front three times.
(that rules me out)
|
as someone who's 2 exams & the small issue of a thesis away from the 1st bit, let me tell you - there's some seriously dumb people with mechanical engineering degrees!!
A mate of mine who recently graduated from mech eng had the engine in his corolla sieze a few months back.. had the car since new (late 90s)... couldnt recall the oil being changed.. i think his words were he'd "been pretty busy for a while"
(no offense intended to engineers with brains )
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 00:01
|
|
on the auto vs manual topic in here
i like both
i now drive a 5 sp manual beast
i used to drive a slack auto slow 1g
manuals are great most of the time
but i had nothing wrong with auto's
as for drag use.. there are more auto's used for drag use and they deliver better times than manuals
the one manuals that can compare to auto's on the strip are dog box's and holinger, clutchless manuals.
sometimes i wish my car had both auto and manual
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 02:35
|
|
| Quote: |
And Johnny: Remember the Super Touring catagory? The RWD cars caried about 50kg ballast, and the Audi 4WD's around 90kg. And they both whooped the lighter, equally powerful FWD's silly!!! That is, until the rule-makers decided that FWD's should be winning to please the manufacturers, and started piling more and more weight onto the non-FWD cars...
|
Your talking about cars that look like some thing you buy on the road, IP cars are something you can quiet easy build and drive on the road, besides, have a look a the euro races not the ones here, huge differences in budget when compared to the crappy OZ races, they weren't all the same power here, many ways around the rules, just don't let the scruitneers catch you....many ex-oz S/T guys work on my car back then and now and I know the dirty in's and out's people did. In Euroland, all works teams, and very popular....It was one for all over there, again, you saw FWD infront of RWD and AWD, remember seeing a FWD Mondeo swap leads with the AWD Audi's several time a lap in one instance. I said before, I'm not biased towards any drive train, all need to be driven differently, though I love my S3 stock handling and ferious lauches, even since the upgrades I've done. The rolla was another fun car to drive B4 becoming a full on rally car, especially around commodores, supra's and other more powerful RWD's, yes kill me in a straight, but the first few corner I'd get to, Bye-Bye, but what do you get for $8k of DMS race shock?
Look I can confidently say a good driver knows the weakness and strengths of each type of car, and the weaknesses and strengths in the one they drive...80% of the time on the street I can say the driver is that weakness, has to be explain a '85 disel hilux beating many 200sx through some twisty stuff, but on the track, I'll happily give any vehicle of equal power and decent suspension, a good run for their money regardless of transmission type. Shit, give me anything that handles and with half that of their power, I'll still show them a thing or two. Ok in Drag racing, an AWD and RWD will perform better with less suspension mod's, but in another situation there is no reason a properly setup car is better or worse than another, execept Motorkhana, FWD rule this type of racing, hands down.... Just learn it's abilities!!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 02:41
|
|
| Quote: |
Alright - no one speak unless you have a degree in mechanical engineering!!! Or have read race car vehicle dynamics front to back to front three times.
(that rules me out)
|
Does a BSc(app.Phy)+ MEng(Mech.)+ MBA(start Jan)+Ten years of racing and build race cars count
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
roflmFao
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 06:58
|
|
Heeheeehheeehee...huuhoohoohhoohaahaahaa!! aaahhhh..BOY!! I'm not trying to shit-stir everyone, but BY KRIKEY it's funny seeing everyone so mad over me spouting physics!
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 24 June 2004 22:28 |
Alright hang on a sec, you say that having more 'dynamic' weight towards the rear is an advantage in accelerating, so why do you say that FWD has no advantage when braking when it has better dynamic weight over the fronts during that period?
Pfft.
You can brake seriously effing late in a FWD car and it can work brilliantly.
Almost everything else you said is fairly spot on.
Don't forget though, that as you 'accelerate' better in a RWD, you will lose more front end grip and hence start to steer wide due to the weight coming off the fronts - usually this isn't much of a problem, but again it's just more fuel to the argument that it's all a compromise.
|
The reason that having so much weight over the front tyres when braking is bad, is that you're using ALL FOUR tyres to brake. It's more effecient to have the load shared equally to maximise grip. Most FWD's will over-work their front tyres & brakes, leaving the rear tyres dragging around doing not much. Transferring weight rearward in a RWD while accelerating is ACE, 'coz it lets you get WAY more power to the ground.
As for the "losing more front end grip and hence start to steer wide" in a RWD" - yeah, totally agree with you. There's many RWD cars renowned for understeering horrificly under light-moderate throttle. Just hope that if you're in one of these, it's got enough power to kick the rear-out 2->5 degrees under heavy throttle, and keep on turning!! -At least this is possible in a RWD. In a FWD car, you've got to just grin and accept the understeer post-Apex. 
blluuurrrrggghh!!!! 
And Johnny: I'm not arguing the skill of FWD vs. RWD owners. I'm just stating the undeniable fact that RWD is the fundamentally better platform.
[/tit-tat]
I don't wanna hear who's Corolla can beat who's Falcon through the hills, or what time fellaX's integra can do at the drags. Just saying that RWD is less-flawed than FWD. Obviously 4WD+4WS with variable torque-split, electronic brake balance, 50/50 weight distribution etc. etc. is the ultimate, but who can afford a Nissan GTR? Really?
Sorry slushbox lovers, but the automatic gearbox is a toilet of a setup. Seriously!! I know that autos are usually quicker in RWD drag-cars with more than 1000hp, but I think you'll find most other race cars packing a clutch and conventional gears. Don't let me stop you from slurring your gears, just don't pretend that it's as involving as driving a manual!
-oh, I've raced Karts for 5 years, and i'm 1 1/2 years into a mech.eng degree. Not that engineers are the last-word on car or physics knowledge. We've had engineers sent down to the proving ground to do suspension revisions who didn't know what a suspension-bush was!! AAAARRRGGHHH!!!!!
[Updated on: Fri, 25 June 2004 07:01]
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 09:38
|
|
I added a 'dynamic' where I shouldn't have in that post  Kind of stuffs me point up - wasn't thinking -> D'oh! Technically it shouldn't matter too greatly what the weight distribution is on a car as to how well it brakes.
my bad
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 25 June 2004 12:44
|
|
I've read that if F1's didn't have so much rear downforce, they'd lift the rear tyres off the ground under braking.
-no real point to me posting that here, just astounding grip and braking power. 4.5Gs of braking at some circuits!!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 02:56
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm not trying to shit-stir everyone
|
Neither am I, just enjoy a good constructive discussion that rarely ended up here 
| Quote: |
I'm not arguing the skill of FWD vs. RWD owners. I'm just stating the undeniable fact that RWD is the fundamentally better platform.
|
Crap... what about Honda's? They handle bloody excellent in standard form, even when the ST16# celica was released the media was very surprised in the handling and preformance, which was a bench mark at the time.... Ok RWD has been around for over 100 years so of course they're are going to be 'more developed' FWD been around for Half that....And with computer technologies of today, both are becoming even better. Really, undeniable, a Mid mount platform, RWD or AWD are the best designs, Like The Lanica Stratos, RS200, Delta S3, MR2 etc Yes F1.... but for every day driving, it's your choice....
| Quote: |
-oh, I've raced Karts for 5 years, and i'm 1 1/2 years into a mech.eng degree. Not that engineers are the last-word on car or physics knowledge. We've had engineers sent down to the proving ground to do suspension revisions who didn't know what a suspension-bush was!! AAAARRRGGHHH!!!!!
|
Welcome to my hassles as an employer... All have the Papers, but most have very little practical knowledge....
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne - NthSubs
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 03:37
|
|
at the next drag meet some1 bring a stock ae82 with a 4age and someone else bring a stock ae86 with a 4age... and take it from there...
unless it has been done? any results?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 03:51
|
|
It's funny to see a mechanic ask an engineer "So, have you gone and found out what torsion-rod suspension is yet?"
-and see the engineer laugh and answer "not yet. Someone told me a bit about suspension bushes though."
This, as the engineer's walking past a "lifestyle" 4wd on a hoist, with it's torsion-rod suspension clearly visible...........
-And to tit-for-Johnny's-tat:
Of course FWD's can be made to ride and handle nicely, never said they couldn't.
It's just that the RWD layout and dynamics CAN produce superior handling and traction, as well as allowing the driver to utilise ALL of the available grip out of a corner. This is as opposed to the FWD experience: just waiting for the post-apex understeer to stop when getting on the power.
It's not like every RWD car ever made is a superbly balanced track-beast. Just like not every FWD is a gutless, boring, eternally understeering shitbox! I said as much in one of my previous posts here. When I said that RWD is fundamentally better, I meant just that - F U N D A M E N T A L L Y better. The fine-tuning is another matter, but RWD is quicker than a FWD car with same weight + power. Hence the ballast for RWD's in SuperTouring, and the eventual ban of non-FWD cars.
Physics aside, I personally think that to deny one's self the challenge of balancing the rear of the car on-throttle, and the front with your hands through the steering is well; wrong, boring, annoying, FRUSTRATING - when you know that RWD's can be worked-hard into, and OUT of a corner.
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 07:28
|
|
fuck!is this crap still going! is it just me or does every thread i start ends up as an argument? na it's all good. some very interesting points have come out of this, thread both for front wheel drives and rear wheel drives. although, this ended up in some parts a shit stir, there was some good points for both sides so I've just come to the conclusion each to there own
happy driving and keep safe
Michael
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 08:53
|
|
This topic has come and gone many times throughout the life of Toymods.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FWD, RWD, and AWD.
But, in my opinion, at the end of the day, it's whatever makes you enjoy the driving.
And the hands down winner of the Big Grin Factor is RWD. Give me the choice of a competent RWD or a faster FWD/AWD and I'll choose the RWD every single time.
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 09:00
|
|
| Nark wrote on Sat, 26 June 2004 18:53 |
This topic has come and gone many times throughout the life of Toymods.
There are advantages and disadvantages to FWD, RWD, and AWD.
But, in my opinion, at the end of the day, it's whatever makes you enjoy the driving.
And the hands down winner of the Big Grin Factor is RWD. Give me the choice of a competent RWD or a faster FWD/AWD and I'll choose the RWD every single time.
|
yeah its what you like, It really doesn't worry me what i drive but as after a while i'll get used to it, all cars are different, and all have different purposes.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 26 June 2004 15:09
|
|
I like FWD because due to all the time I spent trying to get them bloody sideways I actually learnt alot about car balance and feel, not just mashing the throttle - now I can get AWDs massively sideways
You can learn alot about balancing a car when you have to try so damn hard to get that 'grin' factor out of it...it's all too easy to go sideways in a rear wheel drive, monkeys can drift a rwd if you ask me.
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 03:09
|
|
|
Even that statement has a billion holes in it. There's just too many factors to take into account. Every car is a compromise until we develop methods of instantaneous transportation using some whacked star-trek like technology. Cars are an engineering solution to a problem, so it's hard to say if one platform is better than another...if you limit yourself to one kind of automotive racing (lapping around a track) and one kind of surface etc then you are going to come to certain conclusions that are most optimal given their complexity.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 03:12
|
|
for most people on this site its not going to make a big difference if they're car is rwd or fwd. I bet probably 95% of people here have cars with 100kw at wheels or less, and many would only use it there car for driving on the street not racing, in which case it really isnt going to make much of a difference
This thread has been good....im trying to decide on what car to buy atm. such a hard decision and this rwd/fwd dilema is making the choosing that little bit harder
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 03:28
|
|
If you wanna go sideways get a RWD, if you don't care, then just get whichever car has the best handling and engine that you can afford.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 03:39
|
|
|
i wanna get sideways
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 04:01
|
|
|
Unless you are willing to drive ridiculously committed on dirt/wet roads (preferably on a track, not public roads please!) to try and get a FWD sideways then get a RWD.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 08:59
|
|
It was all going so well in the thread, things seemed to be winding down to a nice, sensible and almost satisfying conclusion. Then I see this, and want to stab FWDBoy in the face!
| FWDboy wrote on Sun, 27 June 2004 13:09 |
Even that statement has a billion holes in it. There's just too many factors to take into account. Every car is a compromise until we develop methods of instantaneous transportation using some whacked star-trek like technology. Cars are an engineering solution to a problem, so it's hard to say if one platform is better than another...if you limit yourself to one kind of automotive racing (lapping around a track) and one kind of surface etc then you are going to come to certain conclusions that are most optimal given their complexity.
|
N O ! !
N N O O ! ! ! !
GGnnnNNNRRRRRGGGHHH!!!
Read my posts again, where I explain WHY rwd is faster than FWD, unless you're on mud, or similar super-low-traction surface.
Weight distribution, traction budget, weight TRANSFER!! AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
PAY ATTENTION and PLZ get over your love of FWD long enough to see reason and accept logic, and the laws of physics/
-Peace out hombre
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 11:38
|
|
| Quote: |
-And to tit-for-Johnny's-tat:
|
Well as for your TIT FOR FN' TAT,DOPE..
| Quote: |
Of course FWD's can be made to ride and handle nicely, never said they couldn't.
It's just that the RWD layout and dynamics CAN produce superior handling and traction,
|
TRACTION ONLY.... HANDLING NO, I'M SORRY NEITHER ARE BETTER.
| Quote: |
It's not like every RWD car ever made is a superbly balanced track-beast. Just like not every FWD is a gutless, boring, eternally understeering shitbox! I said as much in one of my previous posts here. When I said that RWD is fundamentally better, I meant just that - F U N D A M E N T A L L Y better. The fine-tuning is another matter, but RWD is quicker than a FWD car with same weight + power. Hence the ballast for RWD's in SuperTouring, and the eventual ban of non-FWD cars.
|
Yes Fundamentally better and ease of getting the Power to the Ground, and That's it, That I will not question, Handling, neither rules as I said... besides,
| Quote: |
Really, undeniable, a Mid mount platform, RWD or AWD are the best designs, Like The Lanica Stratos, RS200, Delta S3, MR2 etc Yes F1.... but for every day driving, it's your choice....
|
is FWD mentioned ??? Did I say FWD was the best ??? No!
an again, Look at the BTCC (Volvo 850 T5, Audi A4, Mondeo, Yes your beloved BMW's have all won it while with no handicaps) not the OZZIE crap you keep referring to and you'll be very surprised at the mixed results, and Sorry was under the same opinion until I got shot down about FWD vs RWD... By some very high profile drivers too..........Sorry I just needed to get that out... Anyway KINGMICK sum it up TRACTION ON DRY HARD SURFACES.......Besides, the answer is to the intial question, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THEM OR ANY DRIVE......That's it from me on this subject as I can go on and on
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 13:01
|
|
lol - at what point did I say that FWD was better or faster than RWD in that post I did say that the statement had holes in it, but I didn't say it was outright bollocks either it's just not the best way of stating how good RWD is.
Me thinks you are getting aggro at nothing there dude!
I would like to stress though that to say that RWD is in every regard better or faster than FWD is a little ambitious...
And you should get the distinction between traction and handling correct...there is nothing to be gained handling-wise from the layout of the drive - except in regards to the weight distribution. Having said that, using the above guys' parameters (same engineer etc etc) there is nothing stopping anyone from making a 50/50 weight distribution FWD if they so desire.
| Quote: |
PAY ATTENTION and PLZ get over your love of FWD long enough to see reason and accept logic, and the laws of physics/
|
Err - dude I study physics...sure I made a completely balls statement earlier (was tired) but I'm not retarded nor am I in love with FWD - AWD is my true love
All I'm trying to say is that FWD bashing is definitely a stupid thing to do, and trying to have some kind of 'scientific' debate about an 'engineering' issue is also completely stupid. If there was some kind of exact science to these things then it would be easy to answer.
Even you are trying to debunk yourself by mentioning low traction surfaces etc etc...if we all drove and raced on dirt roads then maybe we'd all be trying to prop up rear-wheel drives' reputation
The advantage of rear wheel drive over front wheel drive depends greatly on the total available 'lateral' frictive force versus 'longitudinal' force that a tyre can apply to the ground.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 27 June 2004 13:06
|
|
Of course the frictive force available depends on all sorts of shit, efficiency of the tyre at slip angles, the tread patterns efficiency, the compound of the tyres used, the construction etc etc, and thus you can see where this kind of argument leads - nowhere.
There's way too many factors because there is so much you can do with cars - you can't even begin to quantify these things unless you had the kind of knowledge that only a fictitious (or non-fictitious if you are of faith) character like god could answer.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Tue, 29 June 2004 02:38
|
|
Yeah, soz bro: I really should meet people in-person before I decide whether or not I wanna stab them in the face 
Anyho, Johnny: I forgot to finish a sentence:
| Quote: |
Of course FWD's can be made to ride and handle nicely, never said they couldn't.
It's just that the RWD layout and dynamics CAN produce superior handling and traction,
|
Without comprimising handling to gain traction, or vice-versa.  whoops!
That said, Engineers have refined the FWD thing quite commendably in the last 10 years. I still say it's a triumph of engineering persistance over poor design, just like the Porsche 911's rear-engined layout. Pendulum-swinging lift-off oversteer anyone? 
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Tue, 29 June 2004 05:21
|
|
| Quote: |
I really should meet people in-person before I decide whether or not I wanna stab them in the face
|
rofl - that's the funniest thing I've heard all day
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Encore performance next friday night ; )
|
Tue, 29 June 2004 23:07
|
|
|
Thankyou, thankyou - you're too kind. I'm doin' it for the fans.
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Encore performance next friday night ; )
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 00:14
|
|
Ill add something.
A FWD in the regards that for first time car tuners, its alot easier to get a little more power out on a small budget.
The FWD plateform uses alot less power to get power to the wheels, but then lacks the grip. Which if your a good driver you can dail out.
Also theres a weight factor overall, bring back the point about the Mini, light weight with a well desgined chassis, hey its a great little car and can easily be good up to a level of competitness but if you compare it to todays technology of WRC cars, its really ............ shit.
I dont mind driving a little FWD, I can put some decent mods on it, get some more performance, dial out under steer and have a fun little car. But I know its limit's.
For Example about my grip and good driving. Watch the video High Octane 3, and theres a little n/a civic who managed to get better 60ft times than most of the AWD cars out there.
|
|
|
Location:
VIC, Sth Frankston.
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 01:22
|
|
Aw man, how did i miss this thread!?!?
I dont like the thought of cv joints having to pivot and rotate at high speed. Understeer sucks a whole lot, im sure a lot more gutters have been hit front on by fwd cars rather than rwd.
The problem with a lot of rwd cars in australia is that they are primarily falcons or crumpledoors. They have more torque that what the driver knows what to do with in most cases, worse in the wet, get the back end happy and woops! around it goes.
FWD was manufactured with the joe public in mind. They wanted cars to understeer rather than oversteer due to safety benefit of when the driver may loose control. FWD was found to be cheaper and easier to manufacture so the motor companies didnt mind.
Its all bullshit. A well balanced 4cyl rwd manual car is ideal for the every day joe imho. If he/she wants some fun, shift down a gear, up the revs, and plant the foot. Want to cruise and get good fuel economy, fine, shift into fifth and cruise.
Anyway. I've ranted enough for now. Going to go back to dreaming about my project sa63 3sgte. THERE IS A DIFF IN THE BACK!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 01:32
|
|
IMO, at the end of the day its up to the individual. I personally prefer RWD but i drive a FWD. The only real reason im gonna get a RWD is to go sideways. All points that are good for both platforms have been covered but with all the mech eng jargon that has been used who will really apply it? Race wise, the driver will always try and take the straightest and fastest line possible whether in FWD or RWD where weight distribution and balance is more important than what side the wheels drive (Note: that it is the biggest contributor for balance.)
IE:
Best motoring: champ s14a and Integer type R both ran equal lap times
It all depends on how far the user wants to go and the purpose behind it.
P.S BEAMS 3S-ge!!!!!!!!!!!! "i want one"
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 01:55
|
|
Heres the latest times from Central Circuit in Japan (Note The Runduce Evo8 time was set a few weeks ago)
#1 Runduce EVO VIII 1.20,149 (600ps)
#2 SEQUENTIAL S15 1.21,686 (550ps)
#3 TRIAL R33 GT-R 1.21,716 (806ps)
#4 STILLWAY EVO VII 1.22,345 (580ps)
#5 NAGISA AUTO R34 GT-R 1.22,509 (800ps)
#6 GARAGE ITO R34 GT-R 1,25,029 (770ps)
#7 Js Racing S2000 1.25,428 (320ps)
#8 SUN LINE AUTO Z33 1.30,110 (302ps)
#9 SHIFT DC5 Type R 1.30,532 (220ps)
Its one of the most used Super Lap tracks in Japan and yet a FWD Integra can manage a 1.30,5. Only ten seconds behind a a car with twice the amount of grip and power.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 02:08
|
|
|
awd is based on a fwd layout so handling characteristics are similar (with an exception to sum)
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 02:13
|
|
| Daemon wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 11:55 |
#1 Runduce EVO VIII 1.20,149 (600ps)
#2 SEQUENTIAL S15 1.21,686 (550ps)
#3 TRIAL R33 GT-R 1.21,716 (806ps)
#4 STILLWAY EVO VII 1.22,345 (580ps)
#5 NAGISA AUTO R34 GT-R 1.22,509 (800ps)
#6 GARAGE ITO R34 GT-R 1,25,029 (770ps)
#7 Js Racing S2000 1.25,428 (320ps)
#8 SUN LINE AUTO Z33 1.30,110 (302ps)
#9 SHIFT DC5 Type R 1.30,532 (220ps)
Its one of the most used Super Lap tracks in Japan and yet a FWD Integra can manage a 1.30,5. Only ten seconds behind a a car with twice the amount of grip and power.
|
How do you know the Rundance Evo has twice the grip? Sure it's AWD, but that only makes time coming off the corners. INTO, and THROUGH the turns, it's all brakes and tyre grip baby!! how much does the Type-R weigh? it could be 200kg lighter than the EVO. As an example, 20kg extra on a Go-Kart costs around 1.3secs/lap !!
Notice the RWD 550ps S15, which is 3.5secs quicker than a 770ps 4WD R34 GT-R.... By looking at just this information, this would seem impossible!
You're comparing Apples and Oranges Daemon.
My only real point is that RWD:
a)Puts the power to the ground better than FWD (weight distribution aside).
b)Lets the driver balance the car between understeer and oversteer exiting a corner.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 02:47
|
|
Firstly - on 99.9% of circuits out there, RWD is a better configuration than FWD. It *is* possible to have a tarmac circuit that will actually suit FWD lay-out but due to the fact that most racing etc has been done in RWD for the past, ohhh, century, most tracks are excessively rear-drive oriented.
Secondly, being 10 seconds slower around a circuit is BLOODY slow, we are talking a few kilometers at most, and being 3 seconds slower per kilometer is a significant deficit. Most racing is decided these days within a few 1/10ths of a second per kilometer.
Thirdly FWD was not put into production because it understeers. It was because of packaging and spatial considerations, not performance.
Lastly don't pay-out CVs and their cousins, for they are responsible for good independent rear suspension
|
|
|
Location:
New Zealand
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 05:28
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 12:13 |
| Daemon wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 11:55 |
#1 Runduce EVO VIII 1.20,149 (600ps)
#2 SEQUENTIAL S15 1.21,686 (550ps)
#3 TRIAL R33 GT-R 1.21,716 (806ps)
#4 STILLWAY EVO VII 1.22,345 (580ps)
#5 NAGISA AUTO R34 GT-R 1.22,509 (800ps)
#6 GARAGE ITO R34 GT-R 1,25,029 (770ps)
#7 Js Racing S2000 1.25,428 (320ps)
#8 SUN LINE AUTO Z33 1.30,110 (302ps)
#9 SHIFT DC5 Type R 1.30,532 (220ps)
Its one of the most used Super Lap tracks in Japan and yet a FWD Integra can manage a 1.30,5. Only ten seconds behind a a car with twice the amount of grip and power.
|
How do you know the Rundance Evo has twice the grip? Sure it's AWD, but that only makes time coming off the corners. INTO, and THROUGH the turns, it's all brakes and tyre grip baby!! how much does the Type-R weigh? it could be 200kg lighter than the EVO. As an example, 20kg extra on a Go-Kart costs around 1.3secs/lap !!
|
The new AYC in the Evo8 is far more advanced than you realise. The ability to put different torque through different wheels offers twice the amount of useable grip than any simple FWD layout.
| Quote: |
Notice the RWD 550ps S15, which is 3.5secs quicker than a 770ps 4WD R34 GT-R.... By looking at just this information, this would seem impossible!
|
Read your own advice mate. You talk about weight, then forget everything you just said in the first paragraph. Its all about the ability to set a car up for one super lap.
| Quote: |
You're comparing Apples and Oranges Daemon.
|
All im saying is that, just because its FWD, doesnt mean its a dis-advantage.
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 05:28
|
|
Has any1 played V8 supercars ?
cuz they have this class in england i think it's called toca ???? as far as i no the cars r all fwd opel astras etc . they suck at conering u can't hit the gas and steer u have 2 ride the brakes all the way thru the corners . And my boss lets me take his car 4 deliveries at work that is a fwd vectra THE WORST car i have ever driven it's an auto so to keep a steady speed u need 2 give it sum gas all the time u can just cruise and wet roundabouts r just damm scary . altho with a fwd u can use the handbrake 4 burnouts
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 05:30
|
|
oh and reverse doughnuts made me ill 
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 30 June 2004 05:52
|
|
I don't think using a computer game as an example is going to prove much
I'm now shaking my head at mick for starting this thread...
|
|
|
