| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 00:44
 
|
 |
Damon Wrote:
| Quote: |
st184 wrote: | Quote: |
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.
|
Actually, I do realise how advanced the EVO's AYC system is. I've seen it referred to as the "hand of God" by journalist test-drivers. That won't magically conjure up extra tyre grip though. It can only put the power-down using the grip not maximised by cornering too. i.e. if you're using all of the tyre's grip to corner, you can't accelerate or brake without breaking traction and sliding/skidding. Read up on the "traction circle" to see what I mean.
-FWD is a lost cause, however a well setup RWD chassis allows the driver to use all of the front tyre's grip to corner, and divide the rear grip between cornering and accelerating. This should be only marginally slower than an equivalent 4WD car (same grip, h.p, weight etc).
Now check this:
| Quote: |
Phillip Island, 2001 Motor BFYB, Cameron McConville Driving:
1. Ralliart Evo V I - 1:53.21 1280kg, 206kw, 6.2kg/kw
2. B M W . M 3 . . - 1:53.72 1570kg, 252kw, 6.2kg/kw
.
11. Nissan 200 sx - 1:58.46 1282kg, 147kw, 8.7kg/kw
15. Integra TypeR - 2:00.42 1087kg, 141kw, 7.7kg/kw
19. Alfa Spider V6 - 2:01.83 1415kg, 162kw, 8.7kg/kw
|
If 4wd is so bloody good, then why is the RWD M3 only 0.5secs slower than the EVO, which has an identical Power-weight ratio?
And in case you are about to type "it's obviously a horsepower circuit" - see the 3.4 second thumping the RWD 200sx hands-out to the FWD Alfa V6. See also, the 2seconds it whumps the (almost) equally powerful, 200kg lighter Integra by.
Or perhaps:| Quote: |
Wakefield park, in 2003, with Rick Bates at the helm:
B M W . Z_4 : 1:12.09 1365kg, 170kw, 8.0kg/kw
Mazda RX-8 : 1:12.68 1350kg, 177kw, 7.6kg/kw
Impreza wrx: 1:12.84 1395kg, 168kw, 8.3kg/kw
Renault Clio : 1:14.27 1035kg, 124kw, 8.3kg/kw
Astra Turbo : 1:14.44 1280kg, 147kw, 8.7kg/kw
|
I know the RWD's have better Power/weight ratios than the others, but the Z4 only packs 2kw more, and 30kg less than the WRX. 4wd would overcome that deficit if it were as incredible as you suggest, Daemon. Note also, how much slower the Clio is than the WRX, illustrating FWD's lack of pace compared to 4WD and RWD.
| Quote: |
ST184 wrote:
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!
| Quote: |
Daemon Wrote:
Quote:
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.
|
|
What I meant was, by your logic + the info you posted, this should be impossible. OBVIOUSLY there's other factors at play. Just pointing out how weak your argument was, that's all.
| Quote: |
Daemon wrote:
All im saying is that, just because its FWD, doesnt mean its a dis-advantage.
|
And I'm saying that FWD is a BIG disadvantage.
FWD's are cheap and cheerful, just not particularly fast. I have nothing more to say, that I havn't already posted. Feel free to read my previous explanations of why FWD is the "poor cousin" of RWD.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 02:34
|
|
so...hmmm....this is never going to end ok.
so, can i stear it in a different direction that mihgt actually help someone who is trying to decide which sort of car they want.
Why do you like either fwd or rwd? What is it about your rwd or fwd car that you like so much that made you choose it over the other platforms?
sorry but the other topic was never going to get resolved, the fwd lovers arnt changing there views & so are the rwd lovers.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 04:30
|
|
|
This is just plain dumb.
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 04:44
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 01 July 2004 14:30 |
This is just plain dumb.
|
my post? 
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 04:55
|
|
Nah not you - the way this thread has gone! It's crazy...
Toymods ppl argue too much - I've drawn my line!
|
|
|
Location:
Gold Coast, Australia
Registered:
May 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 05:11
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 01 July 2004 14:55 |
Nah not you - the way this thread has gone! It's crazy...
Toymods ppl argue too much - I've drawn my line!
|
 ok cool, yeh i agree
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 01 July 2004 07:28
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Wed, 30 June 2004 15:52 |
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...
|
I'm kicking myself for it beleve me
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Thread Direction:
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 00:46
|
|
I'm just trying to help misinformed people to stop making untrue, incorrect, biased or unfounded statements/claims.
-I can't be blamed for bringing facts and logic to the table can I? surely..... 
Anyhoo, I was raised on a steady diet of RWD, and as such it is my preferred layout. I needed a good car cheap, quickly last year, so off to the Auctions I went (wanted so many wrecks, for their bits). Couldn't find any half-decent RWD Manuals, and since I hate Automatics WAY more than I hate FWD, I grabbed the Celica for a cool $6600. -much better than $11,000 or so in a car-lot!!
I like it coz it's a manual, loud(pod_filter), cheap to run, light, and oversteers like a muddaPhreaker when I trail-brake/Lift-off.
I dislike it because it's loud(wind+roadnoise), vibrates(Engine), SCARY in the wet (lift-off oversteer again), and understeers mildly on 100% throttle.
The dislikes I can all live with, except the lack of power-down throttle-steering: love that RWD 4-wheel drift outta corners. I can even allow for the Hellishly scary lift-off oversteer in the wet. Lucky then, that I've got RWD light at the end of the tunnel, in the form of a VH commode V6-conversion project. And a Go-Kart. And a job test-driving RWD, 4WD and FWD cars. And a 2nd Go-Kart.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 01:59
|
|
|
Meh, like I said if you can't live without rear-drive oversteer, then get a RWD. Otherwise buy the best handling/performing car you can afford regardless of drive layout.
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: JUST GIVE UP....ENOUGH is ENOUGH--> FWD,AWD or RWD, just have some fun
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 02:23
|
|
I'm 100% sure it was this thread that caused my computer and internet line to go into meltdown  .... Well I think ever for/ against is covered SO QUIT IT!! .... unless we're trying to create a new record for the longest Thread.... ST184, I thought there was something missing, that's a better statement 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Thread Record: Can do!!
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 03:40
|
|
Which statement was better, Johnny? (just curious)
-Just thought of something: Stirling Moss is totally down on T/C in F1, he says....hang on....gota find it.....ahh-hah!
Motor Magazine, June 2004;
"Basically they've emasculated the sport with just one thing - Traction Control. You have to think about what it does. Without T/C, you used to come out of a corner in the wet and you would have to carefully feather in the power to keep the car on the track, which is a great skill. With T/C, you just plant your foot, and if there's too much power and the wheel wants to spin, a computer stops it for them. Where's the skill in that? Traction control has got to go, and I'd get rid of downforce as well. Imagine 900hp with no downforce. Oh hoho, that'd be fun."
Good space filler, eh? . -I hate T/C too, in road cars and F1.
How long's the longest thread?
I've read elsewhere that he's equally unimpressed with the T/C's tuning, to act as yaw control in the corners. This basically means that the computer controls the rear's lateral slip angle under power, by modulating the throttle. -Nearly half the corner is taken care of by the computer. The driver just has to get to the apex, then mash the throttle to the floor!
I think that a fair bit of what Stirling said about T/C can be applied to FWD too. Just replace wheelspin with understeer.....
That should get people pissed off enough for another page-worth of posts!  
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Thread Record: Can do!!
|
Fri, 02 July 2004 06:24
|
|
| Quote: |
Without comprimising handling to gain traction, or vice-versa. whoops!
|
This one which is about 125pages ago! 
|
|
|
Location:
NSW Engadine
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Thread Record: Can do!!
|
Tue, 17 August 2004 11:46
|
|
Aah from my memory tyres are made from rubber for a reason... grip... if cars were made to understeer/oversteer the tyres would be steel or something... no cars are designed to oversteer... Circuit cars don't oversteer... you just loose speed in the middle of the corner and revs trying to get out of it... i have had both RWD and FWD and i prefer the way my 162 handles over any other RWD car i have driven...
Having talked to an ex EVO III racer who now owns a FWD 162 says if his celica had equal power to an evo 3 there would be no chance the evo would win... PS this is what he said not me...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Thread Record: Can do!!
|
Wed, 18 August 2004 00:06
|
|
| 79rollaboy wrote on Tue, 17 August 2004 21:46 |
Aah from my memory tyres are made from rubber for a reason... grip... if cars were made to understeer/oversteer the tyres would be steel or something... no cars are designed to oversteer... Circuit cars don't oversteer... you just loose speed in the middle of the corner and revs trying to get out of it... i have had both RWD and FWD and i prefer the way my 162 handles over any other RWD car i have driven...
|
Obviously tyres are there to provide grip - but eventually you're going to hit the limit of that grip, so cars have to have an inherant handling balance of under/over-steer. If you're lucky, your car will be neutral or understeer very slightly most of the time, unless you want to drift, which is another story all together. Circuit-racing wise, you need to spend as little time as possible in the corners, and get onto the straights with as much speed as you can muster. How the driver balances these two needs largely dictates the setup they want/need to go fast with their driving style. Some drivers are quick with a little oversteer, some with a little understeer. Most drivers just want a neutral car - however some bastards are blindingly quick in anything: has anyone heard of a chap called M.Schumacher?
I think it's unfair to try and boil this whole argument down to understeer Vs. oversteer: are you talking turn-in balance? mid-corner? corner-exit? etc. etc. . . 99.9% of RWD's understeer, whether you're talking circuit or road cars. The difference between RWD and FWD, is the freedom that RWD allows the driver - to balance the car post-apex between the steeering and the throttle. Given a similar weight, chassis, weight distribution etc, both rwd and fwd cars can be set-up to behave in the same fashion under braking, turn-in and near-limit, static radius+speed cornering.
The difference, and why I love RWD, is that once you start looking towards the next straight bit of road/circuit, you can pick your line and slip-angle with the throttle. This to me, is much more gratifying than waiting helplessly for the corner to end, while the front-end tries to wash wide, in a FWD and most 4WD's.
Oh - and I can only guess the FWD-162 Vs. Evo3 thing is weight related. That, and the 10-30hp lost through the extra diffs.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 18 August 2004 03:32
|
|
We know you like rear-wheel drive ST184-silycar, you don't need to say it for the 20th time
You constantly talk about what happens as tyres start to hit their limit, yet the only reason that rear wheel drive happens to be 'nicer to drive' out of a corner is because we haven't yet developed a tyre which can operate so well that the drive location is insignificant on tarmac.
If you got over circuit/tarmac racing for one second you'd realise that 4WD is way better than RWD 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 02:06
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Wed, 18 August 2004 13:32 |
You constantly talk about what happens as tyres start to hit their limit, yet the only reason that rear wheel drive happens to be 'nicer to drive' out of a corner is because we haven't yet developed a tyre which can operate so well that the drive location is insignificant on tarmac.
|
Wha?? Lay off the happy-juice dude
| FWDboy wrote on Wed, 18 August 2004 13:32 |
If you got over circuit/tarmac racing for one second you'd realise that 4WD is way better than RWD
|
If YOU got over rallying for one second you'd realise that RWD is nearly as good as 4WD, weighs less, costs less, absorbs less engine power, doesn't comprimise steering geometry+feel, and allows a far wider variety of drivetrain layouts. 
Having said all that, I won't punch you for throwing me the keys to an active-diff EVOVIII or R34 GT-R. Note though, they've both got electrickery to hide the bad habits of 4WD.
Drive-on bruz
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 03:36
|
|
Mate - you just fell for it again!!!
You don't quit
I'll state my final opinion once again incase you can't detect sarcasm/suckering from now on.
THERE IS NO "CORRECT" SOLUTION - IT'S ENGINEERING, NOT A MATHS PROBLEM.
Chill dude! - ALL cars are awesome and we should all be grateful that some clever mofo invented them a long LONG time ago and we can enjoy such ridiculously powerful motoring today - instead of constantly bitching about one type of car over another.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 03:47
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 13:36 |
THERE IS NO "CORRECT" SOLUTION - IT'S ENGINEERING, NOT A MATHS PROBLEM.
|
Engineering is the application of mathematics.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 03:56
|
|
That's a technicality that will be ignored for the sake of my own pride.
I would be amazed if they ever could figure out a discrete solution set to how to make perfect cars
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 04:26
|
|
Yoose noobtard FWD hatah
Yeah - if I had my way, I'll take one Lancia Delta S4 please, thankyou
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 04:39
|
|
Fairly good response time there FWDboy.
I guess I'd be quick to retort too, If I'd spent years defending a fundamentally flawed concept like FWD.
BANG! st184 sillycar fires off another zinger. . GOLD!!
It NEVER ENDS!!!
Ex-World rally hardware is HOT
Hit me with some Group-B luvvin baby!!
And some Group-C SportsCar gear too. Nissan's late-80s Group-C racers made 800hp+ in race trim, and up to 1200hp in qualifying.
I just want one!
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 06:17
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 14:39 |
Fairly good response time there FWDboy.
I guess I'd be quick to retort too, If I'd spent years defending a fundamentally flawed concept like FWD.
BANG! st184 sillycar fires off another zinger. . GOLD!!
It NEVER ENDS!!!
Ex-World rally hardware is HOT
Hit me with some Group-B luvvin baby!!
And some Group-C SportsCar gear too. Nissan's late-80s Group-C racers made 800hp+ in race trim, and up to 1200hp in qualifying.
I just want one!
|
for FUCKsake!QUIT LIVING IN THE PAST! this has been done over a month a go! if you preffer RWD go out and buy one and get stuck in the mud and see how "Great" Rear wheel drive is on snow and ice! See how much freedom your rwd has now! ALL WHEEL DRIVE! my friend allows MORE freedom the both front and rear and I think you will find that front wheel drive is better in mud, is better on ice and snow and I find my front wheel drive handles better then my old Rear wheel drive in the wet. as I said they all have there purposes
Question isn't the ST184 a fwd?
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 06:44
|
|
I believe the Lancia Stratos, and Lancia 034B were both RWD, and competed quite succesfully in world-rally events in the 70's and early 80's. Hhmmm.. . . Rally... . . . That'd mean gravel, mud, ice and snow wouldn't it? The 034B did quite well until Audi figured out its 4WD system, and even then was a close match on many rallies, as well as being superior on Tarmac events. Cue the 4WD Lancia Integrale'.. . . . .
If you'd bothered to read the previous pages of crap I've dribbled about this subject, you'd have learned that your FWD is good in these low-grip conditions because of its front-heavy weight distribution.
If you have a similarly rear-heavy bias with a RWD, similar traction will be achieved. I believe Porsches are quite succesful in historic gravel rallys. Rick Bates drove one to victory a couple of years ago. can't remember where...
Yup - of course 4WD has the potential to be superior. Read above comments on weight, cost, friction, Electronic diffs etc.
And yeah, my ST184 IS a poofy FWD. I put up with it's inferior handling dynamics because it's reliable and good on fuel. Like, 7.6L/100km good. Fuel's expensive man!!
That said, I'd drop the SillyCar like a dead hooker if there were some corners on the way to work.
Give me a Murcielago/Gallardo/911 Turbo/GT-R and I'll sing 4WD's praises all day long.
Thankyou Electro-hydraulics! .
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 07:03
|
|
rofl
Ahh the laughs keep on coming.
Please - continue (^_^)
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 07:13
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 16:44 |
I believe the Lancia Stratos, and Lancia 034B were both RWD, and competed quite succesfully in world-rally events in the 70's and early 80's. Hhmmm.. . . Rally... . . . That'd mean gravel, mud, ice and snow wouldn't it? The 034B did quite well until Audi figured out its 4WD system, and even then was a close match on many rallies, as well as being superior on Tarmac events. Cue the 4WD Lancia Integrale'.. . . . .
If you'd bothered to read the previous pages of crap I've dribbled about this subject, you'd have learned that your FWD is good in these low-grip conditions because of its front-heavy weight distribution.
If you have a similarly rear-heavy bias with a RWD, similar traction will be achieved. I believe Porsches are quite succesful in historic gravel rallys. Rick Bates drove one to victory a couple of years ago. can't remember where...
Yup - of course 4WD has the potential to be superior. Read above comments on weight, cost, friction, Electronic diffs etc.
And yeah, my ST184 IS a poofy FWD. I put up with it's inferior handling dynamics because it's reliable and good on fuel. Like, 7.6L/100km good. Fuel's expensive man!!
That said, I'd drop the SillyCar like a dead hooker if there were some corners on the way to work.
Give me a Murcielago/Gallardo/911 Turbo/GT-R and I'll sing 4WD's praises all day long.
Thankyou Electro-hydraulics! .
|
You don't know when to stop do you?
Actually. I have read your stuff you have been dribbling on about as I AM THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS FUCKING THREAD!!
as far as you rally comment goes. those cars where succesfull. (back in the 70's and early 80's)but are (WAY!) out dated by todays AWD rally cars and todays rally cars are a lot better handlers too on rally tracks.
Dry gravel is not mud, snow or ice! I have driven both rear and front wheel drives over dry gravel roads and didn't really notice too much in the differences and handling
Oh theres something else the front wheel drives are adavanced in too "Fuel ecconomy"
yeah and I'd bet that Celica would be more realiable then that old Commodore you have and is probablly quicker too then that old 202 powered Commodore. I know for fact as I had a 202 blue motor in an old WB Holden with a bigger carby, extractors and an 2 inch exhaust and my standard 3S-FE powered Camry is quicker!? (go figure) both are manuals as well and have about the same amount of power
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 07:58
|
|
I can't believe this is happening all over again.
It's time to settle this with a good ol' fashioned punch up...I will see if we can organise an official toymods brawl...we will have team competitions. Rolla vs Sleeka, FWD vs AWD vs RWD, etc etc...
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 08:13
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 17:58 |
I can't believe this is happening all over again.
It's time to settle this with a good ol' fashioned punch up...I will see if we can organise an official toymods brawl...we will have team competitions. Rolla vs Sleeka, FWD vs AWD vs RWD, etc etc...
|
I'm pretty sure I started this thread over 2months ago and it ended a month ago and it's started again! It's bullshit if you ask me about it.
|
|
|
Location:
Tassie
Registered:
October 2003
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 11:57
|
|
I'm up for a punch up
In my opinion there is nothing better than a brawl with sum bloke u have never met win or lose.
awd rip shit and rwd are almost as good fwd suck .
Bring the punches !!!!!
|
|
|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 12:18
|
|
FWD are good for low power cars ie: corolla with 20v or a gze
because the lose less power trough the transmission than a rear of awd car.
but as you increase power they find it hard to get the power to the ground and there for their efficiency goes down
rwd are BAD for low power because the use to much in the transmission but they are good when you start to make more power cos the gear boxes often are easy to make stronger and the car squats down on launch. also the balance of the car is an easy thing to achieve.
AWD are bad for thrashers like me cos i break their gear boxes like tooth picks but they have grat grip for corners. unfortunately the have the biggest loss of power through transmission out of all the systems.
as long as they do wot u want its all good
thats wot i think anyways
and if ive made spelling mistakes I DONT CARE cos i just got home from work
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Thu, 19 August 2004 23:48
|
|
| mick wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 18:13 |
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 17:58 |
I can't believe this is happening all over again.
It's time to settle this with a good ol' fashioned punch up...I will see if we can organise an official toymods brawl...we will have team competitions. Rolla vs Sleeka, FWD vs AWD vs RWD, etc etc...
|
I'm pretty sure I started this thread over 2months ago and it ended a month ago and it's started again! It's bullshit if you ask me about it.
|
79RollaBoy resuscitated the thread, so we'll all beat him up before the big FWD/RWD/AWD Brawl!!
And Mick: why in the hell are you claiming that FWD has superior fuel enonomy over RWD? Are you mental?!?! And Reliability? You truly are a freak dude. I'm fairly confident guessing that a current model Lexus IS200 is both more reliable AND more fuel efficient than either your Camry or my Celica.
Look: you can make anything fast if you throw enough engineering, money, electronics and testing at it. All I've been trying to impress upon you one-eyed RWD-haters is that weight/power/etc. aside, RWD makes a more effective, more enjoyable car than a identical FWD. If setup correctly, AWD is obviously better again - provided you've got enough power to overcome the drag of 3 diffs instead of 1.
Not saying you can't enjoy driving FWD's - I know I love trail-braking my SillyCar into subtle 4-wheel drifts and absurd broadslides. Problem is though, understeer is the only option once I get back on the power. 
Of course, I don't need to tell you how badly FWD's get the power down out of corners, do I?
Hock a drive in a late model, big HP RWD. Perhaps then you'll appreciate the subtleties of controlling your trajectory with both hands AND feet. All the time - not just under brakes like in FWD.
(End Transmission)
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 20 August 2004 03:21
|
|
|
Someone fucking lock this thread.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 20 August 2004 06:24
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Fri, 20 August 2004 13:21 |
Someone fucking lock this thread.
|
It's just a forum thread - you don't have to read it if you don't wanna
I don't think I can find another way to say what I've already explained 2-3 times before in the thread. I can try if you want me to, but I think I'm fresh-out.
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Fri, 20 August 2004 14:56
|
|
|
Yes - that is true - but it also dragging on for a whee bit too long with the same arguments again and again and again and again
|
|
|
Location:
NSW Engadine
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne - NthSubs
Registered:
January 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 21 August 2004 04:18
|
|
|
i have 4wd, so now every one can hate me
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, OZ
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 21 August 2004 09:11
|
|
|
Someone PLS LOCK THIS THREAD!!! Enough is Enough!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 21 August 2004 23:18
|
|
The way people react towards front wheel drive and rear wheel drive is pathetic, its like the holden vs ford battle.
they are both as good as one another they just have different plus points.
front wheel drive cars handle just as well as rear wheel drive if not even better in a lot of cases, maybe the first front wheel drives wern't so good but a lot has changed since then with car dynamics.
i've owned a rear wheel drive and currently own a front wheel drive, i drive Rear Wheel Drive, All Wheel Drive And Front Wheel Drive cars at work every day from supercharged v8's twin turbo V12's and turbo 4's on twisty and wet roads, now they can all be driven at the same speed as one another.
AWD is great but very boring to drive, simply because they stick to the road so well.
Rear wheel drive is excellent to have fun in exspecially in the wet weather
and Front wheel drive can be driven just as fast as the last two including around corners,
understeer isn't even an issue as if you have a little bit of driving ability you can prevent it or at least control it, and its piss easy to adjust your toe setting to dial in oversteer on a FWD mine always has the back step out before the front understeers
the only reason or time front wheel drives are more likely to understeer is when the wheels are spinning or during braking simply because of the more load placed on the front wheels, where rear wheel drive's have those problems at the back of the car causing oversteer.
but in simple going through corners they are exactly the same if not front wheel drive requires a bit more of an art to go quick.
i don't know what all of you people are going on about,
i beat all my friends cars in the cornering department and they are all rwd on the dirt my car is heaps better then rear wheel drive as i have a much faster out of corner speed and to make it simply the only time i enjoy driving a RWD car is when i want to get the back to step out around corners in the wet and sometimes in the dry.
other then that when it comes down to pure high speed driving i say FWD all the time, i get a much larger grin when i drift around a corner with the back hanging out on the charade then i would in a RWD car anyday.
in a nut shell one isn't better then the other rwd is good in some section's and so is FWD
RWD is for you if you like getting it sideways with little effort and simply showing off and trying to look like a good driver
and FWD is for you if you get more excitment out of fast tight twisty roads.
i know there will be a lot of people out there that will disagree with my view but its just the opinion that i have after owning a FWD and RWD car and spending all day driving Mercede's Benz, Subaru and Nissan cars
and just for those who dont know,
Mercedes = RWD
Subaru = AWD
Nissan = FWD
so i've had a fair bit of experience driving all the types.
whats next? are we going to start asking whats better pepsi or coke?
Macca's or KFC
Pizza Haven or Pizza Hut?
who cares in the end it comes down to personal choice,
whatever floats your boat.
|
|
|
Location:
toowoomba qld
Registered:
March 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sat, 21 August 2004 23:44
|
|
| st184 sillycar wrote on Fri, 20 August 2004 09:48 |
| mick wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 18:13 |
| FWDboy wrote on Thu, 19 August 2004 17:58 |
I can't believe this is happening all over again.
It's time to settle this with a good ol' fashioned punch up...I will see if we can organise an official toymods brawl...we will have team competitions. Rolla vs Sleeka, FWD vs AWD vs RWD, etc etc...
|
I'm pretty sure I started this thread over 2months ago and it ended a month ago and it's started again! It's bullshit if you ask me about it.
|
79RollaBoy resuscitated the thread, so we'll all beat him up before the big FWD/RWD/AWD Brawl!!
And Mick: why in the hell are you claiming that FWD has superior fuel enonomy over RWD? Are you mental?!?! And Reliability? You truly are a freak dude. I'm fairly confident guessing that a current model Lexus IS200 is both more reliable AND more fuel efficient than either your Camry or my Celica.
Look: you can make anything fast if you throw enough engineering, money, electronics and testing at it. All I've been trying to impress upon you one-eyed RWD-haters is that weight/power/etc. aside, RWD makes a more effective, more enjoyable car than a identical FWD. If setup correctly, AWD is obviously better again - provided you've got enough power to overcome the drag of 3 diffs instead of 1.
Not saying you can't enjoy driving FWD's - I know I love trail-braking my SillyCar into subtle 4-wheel drifts and absurd broadslides. Problem is though, understeer is the only option once I get back on the power.
Of course, I don't need to tell you how badly FWD's get the power down out of corners, do I?
Hock a drive in a late model, big HP RWD. Perhaps then you'll appreciate the subtleties of controlling your trajectory with both hands AND feet. All the time - not just under brakes like in FWD.
(End Transmission)
|
once again you have proven my point. You don't know when to stop! your argument is pretty stupid saying that I'm a one eyed RWD hater, I have nothing against rear wheel drive, in fact I couldn't give to fucks what drive I had. because I know all cars are different. I have NOTHING against rear wheel drive! in fact I would own another rear wheel drive car, but couldn't care less what the drive was, all I'm trying to say is they all have there purposes. you are the freak when you mention the Lexus you ever heard of the Toyota Prius? it would have to be front wheel drive now wouldn't it? front wheel drives are more affordable then your average Lexus IS200. I'd rather my Camry because its cheap and reliable and doesn't HAVE the massive insurance cost. front wheel drives are designed with economy in mind, rear wheel drive does make a better sports car where heaps of power is involed but the majority of FWD are better on fuel then RWD. It's just a common fact a wheel tune 4 cyl front wheel drive is usually better then your average V6 Commodore on fuel.
Power isn't every thing
end rant
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 01:51
|
|
|
ALright, that's it.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 01:57
|
|
No chance thats it!!!
I just spent 45 minutes reading that shit and here I go...
FWD=Cheaper more efficient solution for building cars and thats why it is done, simple as that, good on dirt, bad on corners with grip, crappy burnouts, very poor launch grip, easy to cook CV's and diffs becuase they are soooo tiny.
RWD=More expensive, less power put too the gound, more fun (thats a personal thing), better traction, better cornering on tarmac (which is what people drive on most of the time), better
burnouts and its a lot easier to maintain control of the car or catch it if it goes out of shape...
My 5 cents
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 02:32
|
|
|
At least you didn't make it personal
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 03:14
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Sun, 22 August 2004 12:02 |
At least you didn't make it personal
|
Why would I do that??
I saw this as a clear cut better or worse thread, and I would take a RWD car over a FWD car anyday!
To people that have made it personal well, get a life i spose
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 07:31
|
|
| mick wrote on Sun, 22 August 2004 09:44 |
I have NOTHING against rear wheel drive! in fact I would own another rear wheel drive car, but couldn't care less what the drive was, all I'm trying to say is they all have there purposes. you are the freak when you mention the Lexus you ever heard of the Toyota Prius? it would have to be front wheel drive now wouldn't it? front wheel drives are more affordable then your average Lexus IS200. I'd rather my Camry because its cheap and reliable and doesn't HAVE the massive insurance cost. front wheel drives are designed with economy in mind, rear wheel drive does make a better sports car where heaps of power is involed but the majority of FWD are better on fuel then RWD. It's just a common fact a wheel tune 4 cyl front wheel drive is usually better then your average V6 Commodore on fuel.
Power isn't every thing
end rant
|
Holey Schnikeys!! I just looked at the r.r.p. for a Lexus IS200 - $51,000 !!! Tell 'em they're dreaming.
Soz for the freak comment - just amazed that you're trying to tell me that Falcodores are thirsty coz they're RWD. Simply pointing out an example of a reliable RWD that's good on fuel. There's plenty of big, fuel guzzling FWD V6's in America, just be thankful that they're not inflicted upon us.
You're right about power not being everything. It's the only thing!!
Nah - just phoolin. It is addictive as crack-cocaine though. Know any dealers that can hook me up with about 500hp on 'tick?
Oh yeah - Toyota aren't the only ones messin with hybrids (obviously). There's alot of really interesting stuff being done with Petrol FWD and Electic motors instead of rear brakes, which generate electricity under braking. Sort of AWD. I think more and more stuff like this will hit the streets before petrol-less cars are the norm. Technically very intriguiing, although I don't know if there'll be many "driver's cars" around in 20 years time when petrol runs out.
Feel free to move the thread away from a straight-up FWD/AWD/RWD shitfight.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Sun, 22 August 2004 20:47
|
|
| MR 1GGTE wrote on Sun, 22 August 2004 11:57 |
RWD=More expensive, less power put too the gound, more fun (thats a personal thing), better traction, better cornering on tarmac (which is what people drive on most of the time), better
burnouts and its a lot easier to maintain control of the car or catch it if it goes out of shape...
My 5 cents
|
Better on tarmac? how about the old super touring cars, front wheel drives were a bit slow off the start but they cought up to the RWD in the end
also Tarmac rally stages, often the F2 cars "FWD" beat the WRC AWD cars. how can you say a RWD is better on tarmac?
|
|
|
Location:
Central Coast
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Central Coast
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 00:52
|
|
| GIN51E wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 06:47 |
Better on tarmac? how about the old super touring cars, front wheel drives were a bit slow off the start but they cought up to the RWD in the end
also Tarmac rally stages, often the F2 cars "FWD" beat the WRC AWD cars. how can you say a RWD is better on tarmac?
|
As Johnny and I have argued before: RWD super-tourers had a weight penalty, and I don't think their weight distribution was entirely RWD friendly (too much weight in the front).
As for the F2 Vs. WRC tarmac thing: The F2's (or whatever they were) weighed much less than the WRC cars, and had slightly wider semi-slicks under their wheel arches. With much less torque, but nearly as much horsepower (N/A motors) it doesn't take a genius to work out why they did so well. I don't think I've ever heard anyone piss&moan as much as the WRC drivers getting beaten by less powerful FWD's !!
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 01:46
|
|
| GIN51E wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 06:17 |
| MR 1GGTE wrote on Sun, 22 August 2004 11:57 |
RWD=More expensive, less power put too the gound, more fun (thats a personal thing), better traction, better cornering on tarmac (which is what people drive on most of the time), better
burnouts and its a lot easier to maintain control of the car or catch it if it goes out of shape...
My 5 cents
|
Better on tarmac? how about the old super touring cars, front wheel drives were a bit slow off the start but they cought up to the RWD in the end
also Tarmac rally stages, often the F2 cars "FWD" beat the WRC AWD cars. how can you say a RWD is better on tarmac?
|
*flame suit on*
As far as I am concerned AWD is nearly as Bad as FWD, they still characteristically understeer and major suspension revisions are required to make the turn properly, so dont diss the RWD without even factoring one into your argument...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 07:21
|
|
|
I do not consider a GTR a 4WD as it is not full time 4WD, and it is only on when traction is an issue it still drives like a RWD on the track...
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 07:27
|
|
Fuck me...once again we are heading down the same fucked road, with the same fucked arguments, with the same fuckwits...
I say we all spend less time on these forums and go grab a good technical book on car set up and STFU
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 08:22
|
|
Actually i only joined this thread halfway through so i dont really count as the one of the same fuckwits...
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 08:29
|
|
|
i would say fwd cars below 2 litre are generally faster (1.6, 1.8 litres)
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Mon, 23 August 2004 08:57
|
|
|
I wanna test that out, we need two bone stock cars a 4AGE AE86 and a 4AGE AE82, then the battle will be decided...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 25 August 2004 00:36
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Mon, 23 August 2004 17:27 |
Fuck me...once again we are heading down the same fucked road, with the same fucked arguments, with the same fuckwits...
I say we all spend less time on these forums and go grab a good technical book on car set up and STFU
|
Hey Hey!! No-one else really seems that bothered by the thread FWDboy.
I just counted, and you've complained about this thread dragging on 7 times, just on this page!
STOP READING IT! -You'll make all our lives less stressful.
On a lighter note, the thread fell off the first page.
BUMP!
We can't let that happen, otherwise we'll never catch the ST162 thread for total posts!!
ROFLMAO
|
|
|
Location:
South Australia
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 25 August 2004 02:45
|
|
Well as a matter of fact that was my last post - but I'll give you the satisfaction of one more unconstructive post coming from me.
| ST184_sillyboy on Wed 23rd June |
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.
(Note: The Lancia Stratos and 037 Rally cars proved that Mid-engined RWD can work on the dirt, if driven with commitment)
-Notice how Ferrari and BMW have never waivered from RWD ?
That sorted, I have a FWD '90 Celica that OVERSTEERS
That's right - it only ever understeers on 100% throttle, over smooth, banked corners!!
|
Okay so far so good, nothing majorly wrong with anything yet...the Stratos was a diabolical snap-oversteerer and the 037 had problems of it's own but granted they were both awesome rally cars. However a FWD car will not beat them on 99% of rallies | ST184_sillyboy on Thurs 24th June |
| mick on Wed 23rd June |
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.
|
Well I'm not going to mention this one much yet, but suffice to say that you arguments later down the track regarding AWD may be contrary to the picture you are painting here| ST184_sillyboy on Thurs 24th June |
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.
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.
|
RWD cars have a typically more even weight distribution ey? Okay, possible, but they also have larger polar momentum BECAUSE the weight is distributed about a greater area - if you've ever read a decent vehicle dynamics text, then perhaps you wouldn't be so keen to argue that point - low polar momentum, low center of gravity are also important aspects. Gee, I wonder why Subaru are always pushing the nice, low, flat four AWD technology? I dunno.
| ST184_sillyboy on Fri 25th June |
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.
|
Your first point was perfect, and I was definitely way off with my post (think before post is a good motto that I should probably adhere to more often). But I do want to get something off my chest...having the tail hanging out is not necessarily oversteer, and it is definitely NOT a fast way of driving. The arse end of the car could be hanging out but the fronts could still be sliding at a big slip angle, thus although the car is slowly pivoting inwards, it's actual turning arc as measured from the cars centre of gravity, could be WELL under the optimum for that car, and give an indication that the car is actually understeering. Thus - when a RWD gets too much power down and starts pushing the fronts wide, then you are consigned to understeer regardless of the balls the car has. In fact, in any RWD car this can happen to a certain degree (slight understeer is the optimum cornering technique so this isn't all bad news).
| ST184_sillyboy on Sat 26th June |
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.
|
Okay - RWD is fundamentally better - better at what? Quicker you say? Okay if we were all building go-karts here then I'd be making a RWD one, but we aren't. This is one thing you never budge on, the fact that you are narrowing your criteria of what a car is so that you can come to the one conclusion about what platform is better. I'm a BIG supporter of an open mind to what a car is and can be, so I think that we will have a disagreement here for a while. As for 'the challenge' of getting a RWD balanced out of a corner - well, I say that if you can slide the car big time out of the corner, then you didn't go into the corner quite hard enough. Optimum driving is always *slight* understeer, if you under commit on entry, then you will be sliding big on the exit as the car attempts to get more power down around the same curve that a less under-used car would follow.
| ST184_sillyboy on Thurs 1 July |
Actually, I do realise how advanced the EVO's AYC system is. I've seen it referred to as the "hand of God" by journalist test-drivers. That won't magically conjure up extra tyre grip though. It can only put the power-down using the grip not maximised by cornering too. i.e. if you're using all of the tyre's grip to corner, you can't accelerate or brake without breaking traction and sliding/skidding. Read up on the "traction circle" to see what I mean.
|
Well there's a weak statement. Tyres work in mysterious and fun ways - a tyre doesn't have a linear relationship in how it can split it's work - ie if you do 'x' less cornering 'g's then you can do 'x' more accerating 'g's. There are so many dynamic forces at work that it is very hard to quantify what the heck is going on. I wouldn't argue too much about this kind of stuff without some serious back up hardcoredata.
| ST184_sillyboy on Wed 18th August |
I think it's unfair to try and boil this whole argument down to understeer Vs. oversteer: are you talking turn-in balance? mid-corner? corner-exit? etc. etc. . . 99.9% of RWD's understeer, whether you're talking circuit or road cars. The difference between RWD and FWD, is the freedom that RWD allows the driver - to balance the car post-apex between the steeering and the throttle. Given a similar weight, chassis, weight distribution etc, both rwd and fwd cars can be set-up to behave in the same fashion under braking, turn-in and near-limit, static radius+speed cornering.
The difference, and why I love RWD, is that once you start looking towards the next straight bit of road/circuit, you can pick your line and slip-angle with the throttle. This to me, is much more gratifying than waiting helplessly for the corner to end, while the front-end tries to wash wide, in a FWD and most 4WD's.
|
Well, whaddya know another statement that is pretty good. Seems contrary to your previous stuff going on about how good RWD is because of the oversteer...and how your FWD oversteers and how if god drove, he would oversteer. I guess there's a difference in our idea of driving. You want to be challenged to 'balance' the car and to drift out of the corner. I try and drive any car really fast, and adapt my style to get the most out of the car. Maybe I've got it wrong, afterall you seem to love the idea of a ridiculously active diff 4WD even though they won't oversteer. Maybe that's because you know they are going really quick - i dunno.
Then there is your argument about AWD not being any good unless you have 300 computer sensors attached to it and they are more active than a ho-house on saturday night. Then of course, suddenly an overly complex AWD system will lose tonnes of power to the ground and hence be slower, even though you stated a FWD system will gain sweet-fa over a RWD system earlier (okay there is a magnitude of difference between comparing FWD-RWD power loss and 2WD-4WD power loss - but you are being too selective with yer argument there).
In between all these moments of constructive argumentative posts - I can count a billion and one times that the same rhetoric was stated by you over and over again - that FWD is worse because of weight distr./dynamic weight/traction/blah blah and that 'an equivalent rwd is faster'. Whatever 'equivalent' means - which no one seems to be able to nail down quite yet. And for each time that same crap came up I'd spout the same 'why can't we all just get along' message. I'm not right, you're not wrong, and no one here is better than the other.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
July 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 25 August 2004 03:39
|
|
|
meh, if i wanted to hear a life story i would read Clintons Memoirs, at least that has some smut in it...
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 25 August 2004 04:26
|
|
| FWDboy wrote on Wed, 25 August 2004 12:45 |
Seems contrary to your previous stuff going on about how good RWD is because of the oversteer...and how your FWD oversteers and how if god drove, he would oversteer. I guess there's a difference in our idea of driving. You want to be challenged to 'balance' the car and to drift out of the corner. I try and drive any car really fast, and adapt my style to get the most out of the car. Maybe I've got it wrong, afterall you seem to love the idea of a ridiculously active diff 4WD even though they won't oversteer. Maybe that's because you know they are going really quick - i dunno.
Then there is your argument about AWD not being any good unless you have 300 computer sensors attached to it and they are more active than a ho-house on saturday night. Then of course, suddenly an overly complex AWD system will lose tonnes of power to the ground and hence be slower, even though you stated a FWD system will gain sweet-fa over a RWD system earlier (okay there is a magnitude of difference between comparing FWD-RWD power loss and 2WD-4WD power loss - but you are being too selective with yer argument there).
|
Whaddya know: we actually seem to more-or-less agree!!!
About exiting a corner fast: I never meant that people should have an armful of opposite of lock with the foot to the floor (as fun as it is). I'm talking about dialing in that magical 2-5 degrees of slip in the rear end to walk the tyres right up to the limit of adhesion, while gettin' tha power down. Can't do it in a FWD. I've tried. God I've tried. I've pounded through the apex of corners with the arse 10-20degrees out of shape, full throttle, still turning in, and eventually the rear grips and the front slips. Annoying!!
The AWD thing is relative. A certain M.Skaife has done a fair chunk of development and sign-off driving in the HSV GTS and Coupe'4 AWD. The GTS is way quicker in the dry, coz it has more power and less weight. Throw some rain down, and the Coupe'4 is a fraction quicker, because you can drive it into a corner sideways, and be on the power BEFORE the apex, coz the torque-split (front38-62rear) pulls the car out of the slide square.
That's going at 10/10ths though. That same torque split just pushes the nose wide at 9/10ths in the dry. Hence my raving about "clever" active diffs, which shuffle torque about to limit understeer AND oversteer.
The balance between the two is then up to the engineer setting up the computer.
As for drivetrain loss, I hunted around a bit, and:
RWD is 8.5% -> 12.5%
FWD is 6% -> 10%
AWD is 18% -> 23%
Throw another 8 or 10% on all of them if you have an automatic.
I guess if you ain't got enough power to spin da wheels, don't waste precious kW's on extra diffs and driveshafts!!
I mean not to enrage, simply to . . . . . . . . clarify
I s'pose there's been a lot of flaming going on over minor, or misunderstood points then....
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: Front wheel drives
|
Wed, 25 August 2004 04:47
|
|
| FWDBoy wrote: |
RWD cars have a typically more even weight distribution ey? Okay, possible, but they also have larger polar momentum BECAUSE the weight is distributed about a greater area - if you've ever read a decent vehicle dynamics text, then perhaps you wouldn't be so keen to argue that point - low polar momentum, low center of gravity are also important aspects. Gee, I wonder why Subaru are always pushing the nice, low, flat four AWD technology? I dunno.
|
Not trying to be pedantic, but:
Polar moment of momentum is important, yeah, but so is its relationship to the wheelbase. i.e. Ideally, you'd have a long wheelbase, low moment of polar inertia and a low centre of gravity at the car's longitudinal centre. Look at where Mitsubushi put the engine and trans in a TF Magna (96 onwards I think). It's nearly all infront of the front axle line!! Not that all FWD's are that bad, but it's inherently difficult to get the weight spread evenly with FWD.
Yup: go Subaru!! They've finally started releasing WRX's with variable centre-diff torque split. I've never driven one, yet I'm sick of motoring journos whining about they're persistant post-apex understeer. At least now Subaru's giving some owners a choice in how they put their power down.
Ever hear people bang on about how Micheal Schumacher can "carry a car around on his back" ??
They're talking about his freakish ability to "drive around" almost any handling problem a car may have, by controlling a 4-wheel drift with weight transfer, small amounts of wheel-slip, left-foot trail braking, and . . . . yup . . . . power oversteer.
Not that you can really see it, because the slip angles are so small.
umm, yeah: peace out
|
|
|
| Current Time:
Sat Apr 27 13:31:55 UTC 2024 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.011376142501831 seconds |
