Post your opinions!

I personally think RWD is the way to go, unless you're into serious racing.

RWD is just so much more fun than any of the others. While it isn't necessarily the fastest, it really does provide the most entertainment.

Post your opinions!

I personally think RWD is the way to go, unless you're into serious racing.

RWD is just so much more fun than any of the others. While it isn't necessarily the fastest, it really does provide the most entertainment.

RWD is the way to go for circuit and drag. Leave 4wd for dirtfags and fwd for the street for people who find kelvinator with wheels an acceptable form of transport.

But yeah anyone into cars needs rwd. Inb4 'fwd can handle better than rwd screaw' from 3000gt nigger.

Im going to agree with thunderstruck on nearly all points. except for AWD/4WD also being for snow, really wet, ice, and towing.

RWD/AWD/4WD = fun
FWD = Econobox/ Family Sedan

I think other than the weight, space, and driveline efficency issues, the traction afforded by AWD is far superior in all conditions to any of the other setups.

If you must chose between FWD and RWD though, for performance I would almost always chose RWD, for economy, efficency, and packaging, FWD, and for fun, RWD again.

My car is FWD. Its alright in winter.
My dads car is FWD. Its alright in winter.
My brothers car is 4WD. Its awesome in winter.
My moms car is RWD. In winter, the tires need replaced with winter tires and 300lbs of sandbags need to be thrown in the trunk.

RWD fasd

There are some good quick FWD cars and I love 4WD in fast cars such as the WRX. 4WD is much heavier.

IMO RWD is the most fun.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/pz3pl.jpg


FUCK YOU AND YOUR WHEELS!

http://www.mitchsplace.com/crownvicmuscle/images/new_burnout.jpg > http://www.enzodude.com/enzopics/burnout.jpg

Questions?

RWD is my usual fave for anything. FWD is worthless to me. I would possibly pick AWD over RWD if the car was very high powered and/or modified.

I would really like to see a car with 4WD. It'd be cool to be able to drive around with RWD dynamics and then if conditions were bad you'd throw in 4H/4L and say, "Fuck you, conditions!"

I'm biased when I say that underpowered FWD can be fun due to owning the mini. In my eyes though, 4WD is the way to go. Look at the WRC for example - how is that not the biggest automotive thrill?

http://www.mitchsplace.com/crownvicmuscle/images/new_burnout.jpg > http://www.enzodude.com/enzopics/burnout.jpg

Questions?

Hey its enzodude

http://www.enzodude.com/enzopics/burnout.jpg

Questions?

Yeah I got a question. What the fucks up with the black guy on the right?

Yeah I got a question. What the fucks up with the black guy on the right?

He is photoshopped in.

I'd go for RWD personally, just for fun. I tend to find that small RWD cars have better driving positions than small FWD cars, presumably because the front footwells can extend a little bit further forward.

Yeah I got a question. What the fucks up with the black guy on the right?

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2074554&page=1

I'd go for RWD personally, just for fun. I tend to find that small RWD cars have better driving positions than small FWD cars, presumably because the front footwells can extend a little bit further forward.

No they can't, that space is for engine!

FWD is good in a daily driver that you don't have to work on (FWD interiors can be more comfortably designed due to the lack of a trans tunnel.)

AWD is good if you drive dirt, or want a 13 second drag car that cuts really good 60's.

4WD is for trucks.

And RWD is good for everything else.

the fuck? there's a difference between AWD and 4WD? How? Isn't AWD All Wheel Drive?

http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/diff4WD_AWD.html

the fuck? there's a difference between AWD and 4WD? How? Isn't AWD All Wheel Drive?

4WD is in trucks and SUV's, it has a low rang, AWD is full time AWD, and with audi and subaru is mechanical 50-50 split (40-60 on new audis) with torsen diffs, they correct slippage before it occurs at the tires, amazing tech.


and yeah, i loves AWD. driven them all, actually the people that chimed in should say if they have driven fwd awd, 4wd, rwd

FWD
i've driven a few renta econoboxes that are fwd, audi a4 1.8t CVT FWD and audi TT 5-speed FWD with baseball glove leather 1.8t
AWD
(i'd say 6-7 audi a4's due to getting loaners at the dealership when mine was in for service. 1.8t tiptronic, 2.0t tiptronic (the zf-unit they used was garbage) and my 2.0t 6-speed sitck, a6 2.7t, subaru legacy gt (2.5t)
RWD
'94 thunderbird lx 4.6 v-8, '98 v-6, miata (tricked out suspension, most fun rwd car ever) 2001 5.4 expedition
4WD '84 Blazer (learned how to rebuild carbs on it), 1997 expedition 4x4.

these are are cars me or my family has had and i've driven more than 200 miles on each (except for the loaner a4's, and the tt)

between the 1.8t fwd a4 and 1.8t quattro a4, the fwd ones are quicker due to less drivechain loss, and the front track setup is made to cut down on understeer, but understeers x2 as much as the AWD. (with the same sport suspension). and flooring it through the apex in fwd gives understeer, in awd, you get this sensation of the car turning in better, and with the gas pedal as control. meh, i'm baked and dont know how quite to explain it. them vicodins and klonopins got me cloudy.

RWD is the way to go for circuit and drag. Leave 4wd for dirtfags and fwd for the street for people who find kelvinator with wheels an acceptable form of transport.

But yeah anyone into cars needs rwd. Inb4 'fwd can handle better than rwd screaw' from 3000gt nigger.

Hey, Kelvinator makes good stoves! :mad:

Seriously though, under 200 or so hp and under light street conditions both front and rear drives are fairly evenly matched. FWD starts becoming a hassle from torque steer and from poor front traction due to turning and accelerating. FWD's tend to be better at brake steering though since they have a large forward weight bias. That and a slightly simpler drivetrain setup in the chassis are the only things I can think of where FWD would be worth anything on the street. (That is, until I show them the Citation (http://furious.pl/robocze/auta/citation.jpg) in my trunk (http://www.pelkie.com/Glubrecht/FieroDTC.jpg). ;))

I got a lot of work done to the VUE over the past few days, but the guys at Vatozone don't have my parts and I have to get some from a dealership. Otherwise I would have it running tomrrow. I went with a balance shaft delete kit and my next upgrade will be an LE5 intake manifold, both of which will bump me up to around 190 hp. I've been throwing my parent's VUEs around the backroads and they have nice handling for stock suspensions and unresponsive automatics.

FWD starts becoming a hassle from torque steer and from poor front traction due to turning and accelerating.

The front and rear do pretty similar amounts of work (relative to their weight) during a turn.

The front and rear do pretty similar amounts of work (relative to their weight) during a turn.

Until, of course, you start accelerating. You know as well as I that tires have a specific force they can apply before they leave familiar friction limits. The force vectoring associated with parallel (accelerating) and normal (steering) forces at the contact patch is decidedly against using the same tires to accelerate and to turn. That is, the tires are turns at much more of an angle when used in FWD than in RWD, where any angular displacement would generally be toeing out which would aid in turning and whose displacement is nowhere as large as the tires used for steering. Thus, the limits of the tire is reached much faster when the tire is being used to accelerate and steer.

It's not about the front and rear tires between FWD and RWD, but rather how handling is affected due to the uses of the tires used for steering between FWD and RWD.

Of course, you are the engineer in all of this and have corrected me on how the weight affects frictional force before. How does a real-life tire like to put out a force at some angle between parallel and perpendicular to it's normal rotational direction? Does it tend to be different than what force vectoring of steering and acceleration would predict?

In a perfect world I wouldn't have to see the blight that is FWD cars outside of novelty races and city centres (as small hatchbacks for frugal travellers).

Until, of course, you start accelerating. You know as well as I that tires have a specific force they can apply before they leave familiar friction limits. The force vectoring associated with parallel (accelerating) and normal (steering) forces at the contact patch is decidedly against using the same tires to accelerate and to turn. That is, the tires are turns at much more of an angle when used in FWD than in RWD, where any angular displacement would generally be toeing out which would aid in turning and whose displacement is nowhere as large as the tires used for steering. Thus, the limits of the tire is reached much faster when the tire is being used to accelerate and steer.

It's not about the front and rear tires between FWD and RWD, but rather how handling is affected due to the uses of the tires used for steering between FWD and RWD.

Of course, you are the engineer in all of this and have corrected me on how the weight affects frictional force before. How does a real-life tire like to put out a force at some angle between parallel and perpendicular to it's normal rotational direction? Does it tend to be different than what force vectoring of steering and acceleration would predict?

I'm not sure what you're getting at - obviously if you are applying drive force as well as lateral force then the tyres will start skidding much sooner than if you were just applying lateral force - what I meant by my post was that the rears are applying around the same lateral force as well, thus while you are right that it effects FWD cars, it effects RWD cars too (though in that case the rears break loose, not the front). It is of course slightly exacerbated by load transfer towards the rear in a FWD car.

I assume you know what the slip angle is - you can look it up if you don't, it's tough to explain without diagrams. It's definition would be the angular difference between the direction the tyres are moving, and the direction the tyres are pointing. Though it seems intuitive that the front wheels would have a massive slip angle compared to the rear (since you are turning them a fair few degrees in the turn), this is actually false. They have around the same slip angle, assuming similar conditions. In a right hand turn, the wheels point far to the right relative to the cars heading (heading=direction it is facing, course=direction it is moving), but because (taking the rear axle as the origin) the front of the car itself is also moving to the right due to clockwise yaw, that means that the direction they are actually moving over the ground is to the right of the cars heading, and the direction they are pointing is only a few degrees past that, thus the slip angle is still small, and the lateral forces front to rear are thus similar.

I'm not sure if what I just wrote is really what you were talking about, tbh, you may have to explain your point again.

I is simpler to explain what I mean via graphics.

Suppose a tire is on an x-y grid. The front tire is pointing at 3/4 pi radians, thus the accelerating force will also be pointing this direction, and lateral force pointing at 5/4 pi radians. Assuming a length L between the front tire and rear tire (oriented towards 1/2 pi radians) the torqueing moment would be lateral force * sine(slip angle) * L.

It is true that the torquing moment is the same for all front-steering vehicles, but the FWD setup also has an acceleration that is vying for tire grip as well. When you give up some lateral force for some acceleration, you give up much more of steering because it is weighted by the slip angle and moment length.

I is simpler to explain what I mean via graphics.

Suppose a tire is on an x-y grid. The front tire is pointing at 3/4 pi radians, thus the accelerating force will also be pointing this direction, and lateral force pointing at 5/4 pi radians. Assuming a length L between the front tire and rear tire (oriented towards 1/2 pi radians) the torqueing moment would be lateral force * sine(slip angle) * L.

It is true that the torquing moment is the same for all front-steering vehicles,

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this, but while the equation for that moment is... I guess... true, it isn't the same for all FWD cars or all turns. Obviously you know this since you know wheelbases change, etc... did you mean something else by this?

but the FWD setup also has an acceleration that is vying for tire grip as well. When you give up some lateral force for some acceleration, you give up much more of steering because it is weighted by the slip angle and moment length.

A realistic tyre friction circle is generally shown to be a somewhat deformed circle. As with any circle, as you are pointing in one direction, then start rotating away, then the 'magnitude' that you are pointing in the original direction initially decreases very slowly, while the magnitude that you are increasing in another direction increases rapidly.

Regardless of all of this, the point I was trying to make in my last point was that, despite what you may intuitively think, if you look at the front and rear tyres one by one, and ignoring some higher level discrepancies, they will be under pretty much the same conditions. Same slip angles, same lateral forces (for a 50:50 car), etc. Thus adding the same amount of drive force to either one would have the same effect (whether that be losing traction, or just accelerating longitudinally, etc)

So what you're saying is that in theory a FWD car tuned to be completely neutral steering with a good F:R weight ratio can turn just as well as a RWD car? Interesting.

Anyway here is my opinion, based on personal experience driving, side-by-side comparisons I've read of FWD and RWD platforms in the same vehicle, and information given to me by experienced road racers.

Drag Strip: RWD is the clear winner, AWD in close second, and FWD last. AWD suffers from low trap speeds, and once traction is met for the power level, becomes unnecessary. Huge slicks and the prepped sticky surface makes AWD less important. FWD launches suffer from lack of low speed traction. At the outer edge of performance, RWD is best, then FWD, then AWD. AWD is better than FWD into the ~9 second range, then FWD starts to take over (with purpose built drag cars that have plenty of traction).

Road Course:

RWD and FWD are reasonably close with the edge to RWD, in ideal conditions and vehicle tune. In the rain, FWD beats RWD by a large margin. AWD destroys both (see: Skylines owning japan's racing circuits when released, only to have their AWD system banned), except on the outer limits of physical possibility (Formula One).

Street driving and moderate street racing:

AWD wins by a huge margin. Amazing launches on a regular street (instead of a prepped track) cannot be matched by RWD or FWD, giving it a big street racing advantage. (See: Stock Mitsu Evo can out-launch a Dodge Viper). AWD is the easiest to drive fast through turns, and the most forgiving of mistakes.

If it happens to rain or snow, AWD has a huge & obvious advantage. Especially if you're driving a very powerful car and need to take it home. FWD has a disadvantage for any type of drag racing, but is more forgiving of mistakes than RWD in any type of cornering. FWD wins if it happens to rain or snow, RWD fails hard... especially with performance tires.

FWD wins on the highway, with less drivetrain loss than RWD, and a LOT less drivetrain loss than AWD. FWD cars excel at rolling races, which are popular with high powered or expensive vehicle owners than don't want to wear their expensive clutch launching, have trouble with street traction from a stop, or just don't want to break anything. They're also popular with exotic owners, since their cars are designed for high speed racing, not drag racing. AWD FAILS at roll racing, and is at a -big- disadvantage.

Ease of safe, speedy driving and emergency maneuvers: AWD wins by a landslide, followed by FWD and then RWD. AWD is forgiving and generally amplifies a driver's skill. AWD is the easiest to drive hard. FWD is second most forgiving of mistakes, UNTIL it's tuned to the limits. Then it is the LEAST forgiving.

Rain or Snow ANYTHING: AWD wins again, followed by FWD and then RWD.

Off road: 4WD, then AWD... the other two are moot.

Obviously each has their strengths, and saying "____ is the best drivetrain out there!" can never be correct.

AWD gives you the BEST street dragging performance, second best drag strip performance, the easiest, safest, and most forgiving cornering in dry, wet or snow, and the ability to move off road with ease (even if it's just some sand or a muddy back road). You lose good roll racing performance, which is a small compromise to make for all the bonuses. You also lose the ability to properly "DRIFT"... but that shit is retarded anyway, and AWD has plenty of drifting ability in snow and dirt. You can't do an AWD burnout with 1000+ horsepower, so it loses some show off ability there too... which again doesn't matter.

RWD is great for a sunny day car, great to show off with drifting/burnouts, and makes an amazing drag car. When it rains or snows, RWD fails hard. Going off road, RWD fails again. It's decent at roll racing, but gets upstaged by FWD. It's more difficult to control for a new driver in a powerful car, but easier to drive through curves than FWD.

FWD is an amazing high speed car, is forgiving in handling (until tuned hard) and can be tuned to turn just as fast as a RWD car (though it loses it's forgiveness). FWD is the most difficult to control through curves in full race tune. FWD is easy to control in straight lines in high powered trim, as opposed to RWD which can get "squirrely". FWD is much easier to control in rain or snow than RWD, no matter how powerful the car. FWD is easier on the street than RWD, as long as it has at least a little bit of understeer left in it.

So there you have it.

So what you're saying is that in theory a FWD car tuned to be completely neutral steering with a good F:R weight ratio can turn just as well as a RWD car? Interesting.

Well if you don't apply throttle, then yeah, since there is very little difference between the two (though linking the wheels with a differential, etc has an effect).

But if you do, the problem of load transfer occurs. I'm just saying that 'RWD is good because one pair of tyres handles turning while another handles accelerating' is a misconception.

There are still a lot of other problems.

- Load transfer off the drive wheels if you apply drive force in a turn, exacerbating the fact that they are already handling lateral and drive forces at the same time.

- For the sake of acceleration, you will probably have a crappy weight distribution

- Etc.

Off road: 4WD, then AWD, then FWD and then RWD
Eh? RWD beats FWD off-road...

Drag Strip: RWD is the clear winner, AWD in close second, and FWD last. AWD suffers from low trap speeds, and once traction is met for the power level, becomes unnecessary. Huge slicks and the prepped sticky surface makes AWD less important. FWD launches suffer from lack of low speed traction. At the outer edge of performance, RWD is best, then FWD, then AWD. AWD is better than FWD into the ~9 second range, then FWD starts to take over (with purpose built drag cars that have plenty of traction).

I feel AWD needs more credit here. Why do they suffer from low trap speeds? I would have thought the opposite with their traction advantage, though at the end of the track, they kind of serve to eat up more power than necessary with the longer drive train.

I must say I've never looked into this so I may be completely wrong.

I feel AWD needs more credit here. Why do they suffer from low trap speeds? I would have thought the opposite with their traction advantage, though at the end of the track, they kind of serve to eat up more power than necessary with the longer drive train.

I must say I've never looked into this so I may be completely wrong.

AWD has more drivetrain loss, and the low trap speeds are a function of their low 60 foot times, as well as their power disadvantage at higher speeds.

For example, a FWD car may make a pass: 11.3 @ 145 MPH
An AWD car with the same power might do: 10.4 @ 128 MPH
and the RWD car would put down a: 10.6 @ 133 MPH

I mean these are just guesses... but the difference is that:

AWD gets a LOW 60 foot time, and a great E.T because less time is wasted going SLOW... but they start bogging down once traction is no longer an issue due to the heavier drivetrain, more differentials, higher vehicle weight vs. 2WD, etc.

FWD spins through first and second gear with that much power, and nets a 2.2 60 ft and a really slow 1/8th mile, but muscles extremely hard through third and fourth, and would pass the AWD car very shortly after crossing the finish line as it accelerated faster and faster.

RWD gets a decent 60 ft. time and accelerates nicely through 2nd, but loses more power through third and fourth.

So AWD gets a low trap speed, but also a lower E.T. FWD gets a really high trap speed, but a higher E.T. RWD gets a nice compromise of both. The FWD would toast them both the faster and faster they went. If the race started closer to 40 or 60mph, the FWD would have roasted both. If the race started on regular pavement, the AWD would probably have such a big advantage neither of the others would catch it until the race was over. This is assuming the cars all had similar weights and powers.

Eh? RWD beats FWD off-road...

Wrong, FWD has weight over the drive wheels, which is extremely important in low traction situations. It's why a FWD will go up a hill in the snow with all season tires while RWD police cars with snow tires spin pitifully at the bottom.

It is also easier to "Left footed brake" (it has a technique name, but I forgot it at the moment) which allows you to control all 4 wheel's spin nicely and induce oversteer or understeer as needed for high speed. It's more forgiving, which helps a lot in high speed dirt, mud, ice, gravel, etc.

This is why you see successful FWD rally cars for some circuits, but no successful RWD rally cars. The FWD is just BETTER in any low traction situation than RWD. Be it snow, water, dirt, gravel, dusty tarmac, leaves, children, etc.

Play some rally games, will ya? :P Better yet, go play in the snow with some different types of vehicles.

For real "OFF ROAD" you need a 4WD... as in a 4x4 with a low gear range... but that's kind of off topic.

RWD is the way to go for circuit and drag. Leave 4wd for dirtfags and fwd for the street for people who find kelvinator with wheels an acceptable form of transport.

But yeah anyone into cars needs rwd. Inb4 'fwd can handle better than rwd screaw' from 3000gt nigger.

Lol

I'm not black, but you're a douche nozzle for throwing that word around.

Also your post is full of vast generalizations, idiocy, and fail.

Please take your idiocy somewhere else.

AWD has more drivetrain loss, and the low trap speeds are a function of their low 60 foot times, as well as their power disadvantage at higher speeds.

For example, a FWD car may make a pass: 11.3 @ 145 MPH
An AWD car with the same power might do: 10.4 @ 128 MPH
and the RWD car would put down a: 10.6 @ 133 MPH

I mean these are just guesses... but the difference is that:

AWD gets a LOW 60 foot time, and a great E.T because less time is wasted going SLOW... but they start bogging down once traction is no longer an issue due to the heavier drivetrain, more differentials, higher vehicle weight vs. 2WD, etc.

FWD spins through first and second gear with that much power, and nets a 2.2 60 ft and a really slow 1/8th mile, but muscles extremely hard through third and fourth, and would pass the AWD car very shortly after crossing the finish line as it accelerated faster and faster.

RWD gets a decent 60 ft. time and accelerates nicely through 2nd, but loses more power through third and fourth.

So AWD gets a low trap speed, but also a lower E.T. FWD gets a really high trap speed, but a higher E.T. RWD gets a nice compromise of both. The FWD would toast them both the faster and faster they went. If the race started closer to 40 or 60mph, the FWD would have roasted both. If the race started on regular pavement, the AWD would probably have such a big advantage neither of the others would catch it until the race was over. This is assuming the cars all had similar weights and powers.

I see, I agree then.

I was thinking of trap speed as speed at 60 feet, instead of speed at the finish line.

Shows how much I know about drag racing.

Lol

I'm not black, but you're a douche nozzle for throwing that word around.

Also your post is full of vast generalizations, idiocy, and fail.

Please take your idiocy somewhere else.

Go back to being an argumentative pirate. If FWD was good they would use it in real racing. They don't, simple as that. Please take your shitty econocar drivetrain somewhere else, like the dump or a corolla where it belongs.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this, but while the equation for that moment is... I guess... true, it isn't the same for all FWD cars or all turns. Obviously you know this since you know wheelbases change, etc... did you mean something else by this?

Of course not, and it's not completely true because it will also be a function of the other tires and which direction they are pointing and their relative force vectors. However, it is just a model to show that for any moment arm the lateral force on the tire increases as cosine(slip angle) + 1 with increasing slip angle in order to maintain that same turning force. Because you need more and more lateral force it is much easier to exceed the friction limits of the tire when you apply an accelerating force.

*laughs at Sephiroth Angelus*

G Please take your shitty econocar drivetrain somewhere else, like the dump or a corolla where it belongs.

Why are you an acolyte?

Of course not, and it's not completely true because it will also be a function of the other tires and which direction they are pointing and their relative force vectors. However, it is just a model to show that for any moment arm the lateral force on the tire increases as cosine(slip angle) + 1 with increasing slip angle in order to maintain that same turning force. Because you need more and more lateral force it is much easier to exceed the friction limits of the tire when you apply an accelerating force.

You mean, because the tyre is turned to one side relative to the chassis, the tyres lateral force is not pointing directly out the side, perpendicular to the cars heading, but rather at an angle somewhere beyond that, thus requiring more total lateral force to get the same 'perpendicular' lateral force?

*waits for confirmation to avoid confusing the issue*

Wrong, FWD has weight over the drive wheels, which is extremely important in low traction situations. It's why a FWD will go up a hill in the snow with all season tires while RWD police cars with snow tires spin pitifully at the bottom.

Assuming the engine is always in the front, yes.

And assuming you can't throw a few sandbags in the ass of a RWD car. Which you can...

Why are you an acolyte?

I have no idea. I think all my posts got deleted or they reset totse or something.

Lol

I'm not black, but you're a douche nozzle for throwing that word around.

Also your post is full of vast generalizations, idiocy, and fail.

Please take your idiocy somewhere else.

If you can't handle someone saying nigger then don't come to totse.

Also...one question, what exactly is a douche nozzle?

Also...one question, what exactly is a douche nozzle?
From the small amount of info I have about hygienic practices in porn, it's the bit an adult performer sticks in her or his (yckh!) anus (and/or vagina, if/where applicable) in order to administer themselves a more compact version of an enema.

I have no idea. I think all my posts got deleted or they reset totse or something.

Seems like it.

On another note.

18000 posts!

You mean, because the tyre is turned to one side relative to the chassis, the tyres lateral force is not pointing directly out the side, perpendicular to the cars heading, but rather at an angle somewhere beyond that, thus requiring more total lateral force to get the same 'perpendicular' lateral force?

*waits for confirmation to avoid confusing the issue*

The lateral force is perpendicular to the direction of the tire's forward rolling direction. If it's turned, the lateral force is still perpendicular to the tire.

The lateral force is perpendicular to the direction of the tire's forward rolling direction. If it's turned, the lateral force is still perpendicular to the tire.

But isn't your point that it is no longer perpendicular to the cars heading, and thus no longer pointing to the center of the turning circle?

If yes, you will find that the center of the turning circle is in line with the perpendicular to the rear wheel - therefore it is actually 'behind' the front tyres, and thus they still point to the center (assuming ackermann steering geometry)

PS: In a turn, the forces on a tyre with a slip angle (thus generating a lateral force) do not necessarily point directly perpendicular to the tyres heading. Effects like induced drag, etc, move it around.

But isn't your point that it is no longer perpendicular to the cars heading, and thus no longer pointing to the center of the turning circle?

If yes, you will find that the center of the turning circle is in line with the perpendicular to the rear wheel - therefore it is actually 'behind' the front tyres, and thus they still point to the center (assuming ackermann steering geometry)

PS: In a turn, the forces on a tyre with a slip angle (thus generating a lateral force) do not necessarily point directly perpendicular to the tyres heading. Effects like induced drag, etc, move it around.

The lateral force should, if you decompose the discrete resistance into the x-y plane. You will end up with a lateral force and a resistance force.

Your first question, no. It's a torquing force acting on where center of rotation is located. It isn't pointing perpendicular anymore, but it still generates a torque. Like if you were to put a wrench on a bolt and push at an angle, you would still have some torque. The dot product of the torquing vector and length vector is always the applied torque.

The lateral force should, if you decompose the discrete resistance into the x-y plane. You will end up with a lateral force and a resistance force.

Your first question, no. It's a torquing force acting on where center of rotation is located. It isn't pointing perpendicular anymore, but it still generates a torque. Like if you were to put a wrench on a bolt and push at an angle, you would still have some torque. The dot product of the torquing vector and length vector is always the applied torque.

Sorry if this is getting frustrating, but I am confused as hell here, obviously text on the internet is a pretty poor medium for this discussion.

I have a series of inklings of what you may mean, but really I'm still clueless. Could you perhaps have a go in paint and draw what you are talking about, and then also point out how this makes a difference between FWD and RWD?

I will reiterate my point in the meanwhile - to the best of my knowledge, in a 50:50 car, and without any overly complex modeling (i.e. using the bicycle model), both the front and rear tyres will both have to react the same lateral force, and having the same weight on them, they will have the same slip angle, thus will react the same way when introduced to a driving torque from the engine.

Assuming the engine is always in the front, yes.

And assuming you can't throw a few sandbags in the ass of a RWD car. Which you can...

Explain the lack of RWD cars in rally, and the prevalence of FWD in some stages. The same with ice racing, FWD is dominant in the 2WD class.

Sand bags are more weight. Extra weight is always a disadvantage.

Having rear weight doesn't make the car more forgiving in low traction situations, it makes it more likely to rotate far too much. The rear wheels, lacking traction, cannot shift weight back to the rear through acceleration. FWD cars can pull through with power, settling the sliding back wheels.

An MR car or FR car cannot pull itself out of a slide like that, you just have to countersteer and wait for the rears to regain traction. Application of power in FWD settles the rears and you rocket out of the corner. A 4WD car exits a corner similarly, but too much power will make it "dance" sideways instead of getting any grip. They both "pull" through a slide with proper power application, though.

This applies similarly to pavement driving in a neutral-steering FWD car, where the power from the front wheels keeps the easily rotating rear of the car planted through corner exit (weight shift to the rear under power). This is why a neutral steering FWD car is so dangerous to bad or inexperienced drivers, and why factory FWD cars are tuned to understeer heavily (and thus perform badly). The easy rotation makes turn-in easy, and the front power makes corner exit every strong.

There's a reason front engine front wheel drives win certain rally stages, and why cars like the Integra Type R (FF, limited slip diff) are considered some of the best handling cars made.

If you can't handle someone saying nigger then don't come to totse.

Also...one question, what exactly is a douche nozzle?

This is gearheads, not spurious. I shouldn't have to listen to anyone yelling nigger.

Wrong, FWD has weight over the drive wheels, which is extremely important in low traction situations. It's why a FWD will go up a hill in the snow with all season tires while RWD police cars with snow tires spin pitifully at the bottom.

For real "OFF ROAD" you need a 4WD... as in a 4x4 with a low gear range... but that's kind of off topic.
Ahh...I assumed by off-road, you meant real off road...not a gravel road. :D

Ahh...I assumed by off-road, you meant real off road...not a gravel road. :D

I mean dirt, gravel, shallow mud, grass... or any low traction situation, really. Not driving through the mountains in a CJ. Things that a car could reasonably drive through.

RWD sucks balls for "off-road" in any case. If you've ever been, you'll know that you can't really go anywhere in your truck until you put it in 4WD.

One time, in the Suburban, I tried going up a like 10 degree incline in the snow. It had nicely treaded all-season truck tires. Bitch just span until I put it into 4WD. I had lived in the snow belt my whole life, so it's not like I didn't understand snow driving.

RWD sucks balls for "off-road" in any case. If you've ever been, you'll know that you can't go anywhere in your truck until you put it in 4WD.
I've had quite a bit of experience driving off road, in a utility Land Rover. :D

I've also driven it off-road with a broken rear halfshaft in 4WD, meaning only the front axle is driven. And I can tell you that compared to RWD, it's practically impossible to handle, let alone make decent progress!

It's possible to drive through quite challenging stuff with it still in RWD. Yes, I've forgotten to stick it in 4wd more than a few times...:o

You can't compare a RWD truck with a 4WD system that is broken to an actual FWD system. Compare a Nissan 240SX to a Toyota Celica in off-roading capability. Or a Ford Crown Vic to a Toyota Avalon. The FWD car wins every time, simply because of the weight being over the wheels. It would stand to reason that as traction decreases, the advantage of FWD increases linearly over that of RWD.

Either way, they don't even make FWD trucks because it would be completely impractical for any kind of "truck duty" like towing or hauling. So you're kind of comparing apples to oranges.

FWD beats RWD in any kind of car oriented low traction situation, especially those which involve speed.

1234564645
Eh...:confused:

Eh...:confused:

I'm not sure if it's Firefox, or what... but when I try to make a new post I get a text box that is only one character wide and normal length. It happens to me for new topic, new post, or quote replies. But not edits.

So I type gibberish, then edit the post.

Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Not quite sure what causes it.

You can't compare a RWD truck with a 4WD system that is broken to an actual FWD system. Compare a Nissan 240SX to a Toyota Celica in off-roading capability. Or a Ford Crown Vic to a Toyota Avalon. The FWD car wins every time, simply because of the weight being over the wheels. It would stand to reason that as traction decreases, the advantage of FWD increases linearly over that of RWD.

Either way, they don't even make FWD trucks because it would be completely impractical for any kind of "truck duty" like towing or hauling. So you're kind of comparing apples to oranges.

FWD beats RWD in any kind of car oriented low traction situation, especially those which involve speed.
Ah, I see your argument. This kind of off roading doesn't involve speed at all - in fact, 20mph is considered carelessly fast...

My argument was referring to FWD vs. RWD in a purely off-road situation, in which case RWD wins every time.

Explain the lack of RWD cars in rally, and the prevalence of FWD in some stages. The same with ice racing, FWD is dominant in the 2WD class.

Sand bags are more weight. Extra weight is always a disadvantage.

I wasn't exactly talking about racing, just getting around in bad conditions.

Wrong, FWD has weight over the drive wheels, which is extremely important in low traction situations. It's why a FWD will go up a hill in the snow with all season tires while RWD police cars with snow tires spin pitifully at the bottom.

It is also easier to "Left footed brake" (it has a technique name, but I forgot it at the moment) which allows you to control all 4 wheel's spin nicely and induce oversteer or understeer as needed for high speed. It's more forgiving, which helps a lot in high speed dirt, mud, ice, gravel, etc.

This is why you see successful FWD rally cars for some circuits, but no successful RWD rally cars. The FWD is just BETTER in any low traction situation than RWD. Be it snow, water, dirt, gravel, dusty tarmac, leaves, children, etc.

Play some rally games, will ya? :P Better yet, go play in the snow with some different types of vehicles.

For real "OFF ROAD" you need a 4WD... as in a 4x4 with a low gear range... but that's kind of off topic.

But surelywhen a car is facing uphill, it doesn't matter where the engine is?

If the front of the car is facing up, gravity will be making the centre of gravity towards the back, where if it is RWD there will be grip/drive, but in a FWD it will have less traction as all the weight is shifted away from it.

Also, the Lancia Stratos was a pretty successful rally car. And the 037. Just look at the poise and control http://www.rallyservice.it/images/lancia%20037.jpeg. And the Ford Escort. And some Saab or other I forget the name of. They were all RWD.

Sorry if my post makes no sense, my cold has blocked up my ear, and me and my friend chipped in for an ounce of MDMA for new year, and I just couldn't wait any longer.

But to broaden my post, in normal driving conditions, with drivers of average skill, there is negligible difference between different drivetrains. I've beasted people through corners in their RWD BMW's in my FWD Rover, and my dad's 4WD (or AWD, even with that other website, the 'difference' makes no sense to me) Integrale had a weeny bit of trouble keeping up with a RWD Ferrari 360 round a country lane.

Maybe in racing when the chassis is tuned to its limits, there will begin to emerge differences.

Also, I'd like to note, back in about 2000-ish, Volvo raced a 4WD car in the British Touring Car Championship. Said car was promptly banned as it just constantly beat all the other non-4WD touring cars.

But surelywhen a car is facing uphill, it doesn't matter where the engine is?

If the front of the car is facing up, gravity will be making the centre of gravity towards the back, where if it is RWD there will be grip/drive, but in a FWD it will have less traction as all the weight is shifted away from it.

Good logic, and something I didn't even consider.

Gold star to you sir.

But to broaden my post, in normal driving conditions, with drivers of average skill, there is negligible difference between different drivetrains.

Damn straight. Most people don't even know or care wtf understeer or oversteer is.

Also, the Lancia Stratos was a pretty successful rally car. And the 037. Just look at the poise and control http://www.rallyservice.it/images/lancia%20037.jpeg. And the Ford Escort. And some Saab or other I forget the name of. They were all RWD.
Actually, all the SAABs were FWD. As far as I've learned from my (admittedly superficial) research into rally history, RWD cars (like the Renault-Alpine A110) were considered better on dirt, while FWD (rep. by Mini, Saab 96/Sport etc.) had an advantage on tarmac. A pretty substantial advantage, apparently, since after the Ur-Quattro (and similar) appeared, most RWD cars vanished in a blink (having no advantage over AWD on dirt), while FWD cars (like the Renault 5 Turbo) still managed to soldier on for a bit in the tarmac and asphalt-concrete stages, mainly due to their better power-to-weight ratio (compared to AWD cars of the time).

Good logic, and something I didn't even consider.

Gold star to you sir.



Damn straight. Most people don't even know or care wtf understeer or oversteer is.

Yeah! See, your mind whizzing along off MDMA makes you think about things! Oh yes. Dunno what though. But I sure do think a lot!

Good logic, and something I didn't even consider.

Does it actually work though? I'd think that you'd have to be going up quite an incline to have much of a difference. Mind you I have no idea what I'm talking about and came to that conclusion after playing with a lighter for 3 minutes;)

But from my experience(correlation=causation:mad:), while I've never had problems in a fwd car, I actually had to work to get my moms truck over a landscaping tie. The fucker just sat there and spun so I had to take a run at an obstacle like 3 inches tall. ...therefor FWD>RWD offroad;)

Damn straight. Most people don't even know or care wtf understeer or oversteer is.

While many people aren't aware of the terms, anybody who should be on the road is fully aware they exist, and how they happen. Really, I don't think you could find someone who's driven for a year or more who hasn't experienced one or both depending on the vehicle they drive.

... (or AWD, even with that other website, the 'difference' makes no sense to me)

If it has a LOW range it's a 4wd, if not it's an AWD. That's a close enough explanation...

Does it actually work though? I'd think that you'd have to be going up quite an incline to have much of a difference. Mind you I have no idea what I'm talking about and came to that conclusion after playing with a lighter for 3 minutes;)

Yes it does - incline has a significant difference on load distribution, it's even in a lot of textbooks.


While many people aren't aware of the terms, anybody who should be on the road is fully aware they exist, and how they happen. Really, I don't think you could find someone who's driven for a year or more who hasn't experienced one or both depending on the vehicle they drive.

You need to make friends with some more responsible drivers then.

I think you're overestimating cautious driving. Even driving my grandmas imprezza around town I slid a couple times at the bottom of second gear in the snow, and once you hit gravel or washboard roads shit gets interesting. Even in places without snow or dirt roads you'd probably run into dirt on the road by a construction site or something.

But my point wasn't that everybody has hours of experience driving too fast/recklessly, but that the average person is aware their fwd can sometimes go a little wide, or the back end could step out in a rwd...

I think you're overestimating cautious driving. Even driving my grandmas imprezza around town I slid a couple times at the bottom of second gear in the snow, and once you hit gravel or washboard roads shit gets interesting. Even in places without snow or dirt roads you'd probably run into dirt on the road by a construction site or something.

But my point wasn't that everybody has hours of experience driving too fast/recklessly, but that the average person is aware their fwd can sometimes go a little wide, or the back end could step out in a rwd...

Not everyone has driven in snow. I've driven for a couple years, never in snow though.

There are lots of places where it just doesn't snow.

^^^Hence only one sentence mentioning snow;)

Not everyone has driven in snow. I've driven for a couple years, never in snow though.

There are lots of places where it just doesn't snow.
It hasn't snowed here for a good few years.

Snow this year lasted about three hours and barely covered the ground, let alone cause the roads to snow up...

me and my friend chipped in for an ounce of MDMA

An ounce? Surely you mean a gram... an ounce would be what, about 750 pound quid?

It hasn't snowed here for a good few years.

Snow this year lasted about three hours and barely covered the ground, let alone cause the roads to snow up...

And yet they closed the A1 for a whole morning about a week before Christmas... idiots

edit - although in York it snowed quite a lot and for about a week there was snow on the ground

And yet they closed the A1 for a whole morning about a week before Christmas... idiots

edit - although in York it snowed quite a lot and for about a week there was snow on the ground
The day I left Lincoln to head back down to Reading it snowed a load. And I missed it. :mad:

Down here in Reading it hasn't snowed properly in ages. It's just been fucking freezing outside - last night I wore four layers and a coat cos it was so damn cold.

I think it was about minus five here last night (Helsinki)

Obviously I was bladdered so I have no idea.

I think it was about minus five here last night (Helsinki)

Obviously I was bladdered so I have no idea.

Dead Man is such a great film.

I don't get it.

I'm off now.

An ounce? Surely you mean a gram... an ounce would be what, about 750 pound quid?

£700 we got it for. £350 each for 14g each. Good shit too. All the way from Manchester. Which isn't bad, cause last I heard psychadelics had dried up round there.

Neizzzzz...

Is it for personal consumption?

At £25/g you could make £150 profit easily

Why are you an acolyte?

They re-titled him for being a tool :)

Seriously, I came late to the party. I have a good excuse but anyways:

FWD can be fun in a lightweight hot hatch. They have excellent handling characteristics which make them easy to drive quickly. And, oversteer isn't unreachable. That said, RWD is usually more fun in almost all performance and fast-driving circumstances.

Personally though, I still dream about the Urquattro at night, and I wish dearly that my Vanagon had the Syncro 4WD system that was an option in some models - I hope to attempt to get the necessary bits to rectify the situation, bearing in mind the rest of the drivetrain is getting changed sooner or later anyway. I would cast my vote towards the AWD camp. It's generally heavier but there's no arguing the vast traction advantages. But, after all it comes down to what sort of car you're driving.

The fact of the matter is in normal driving situations where you've got a dry road, you're following the speed limit, and you aren't a douchebag redneck that likes to do burnouts everywhere, then the driving characteristics between any of them are negligible.

Neizzzzz...

Is it for personal consumption?

At £25/g you could make £150 profit easily

It was yes. However, anything up here is so expensive compared to the south (apart from heroin, about £20/g. Mainly because the mayor sells it to convicts in prison in exchange for information), and by the time it has got up here it is obscenely cut too, that something pure like MDMA commands a premium of at LEAST £40/g. But I don't like dealing. Far too risky.

Back on topic though: Township, my dad used to own an Ur Quattro 20v turbo. I tell you, the noise of that thing is one of the resounding memories of my childhood. Get it on boost and rev it up to 7000rpm. Magnificent vehicle. Saved us from the fuel shortage in the late 90's. Good old thing still ran on leaded fuel, and the shortage of fuel across the country was unleaded. "Oh don't mind us, we'll just sail past this mile long queue and take a bit of 4-star thanks"
Eventually sold it for £65 cause no fucker wanted it, so he had to sell it to a junkyard. I told my mate the day after and he nearly started crying.

It was yes. However, anything up here is so expensive compared to the south (apart from heroin, about £20/g. Mainly because the mayor sells it to convicts in prison in exchange for information), and by the time it has got up here it is obscenely cut too, that something pure like MDMA commands a premium of at LEAST £40/g. But I don't like dealing. Far too risky.

Back on topic though: Township, my dad used to own an Ur Quattro 20v turbo. I tell you, the noise of that thing is one of the resounding memories of my childhood. Get it on boost and rev it up to 7000rpm. Magnificent vehicle. Saved us from the fuel shortage in the late 90's. Good old thing still ran on leaded fuel, and the shortage of fuel across the country was unleaded. "Oh don't mind us, we'll just sail past this mile long queue and take a bit of 4-star thanks"
Eventually sold it for £65 cause no fucker wanted it, so he had to sell it to a junkyard. I told my mate the day after and he nearly started crying.

:(

Way to make me cry too. Well, fortunately these days Urquattros have risen heavily in value. The only issue for me will be; where the hell will I find one in BC???

Also, regarding the posts on the first page depicting RWD and FWD burnouts, fuck em both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgUHB5W4T_M

mother fuckes xwd is the way it is

mother fuckes xwd is the way it is
XWD? The trade name for Saab's electronically controlled rear diff? A smart system indeed. But it's also very complex compared with a traditional AWD system, and it's limited to one manufacturer. Hardly "the way it is" IMO.

XWD? The trade name for Saab's electronically controlled rear diff? A smart system indeed. But it's also very complex compared with a traditional AWD system, and it's limited to one manufacturer. Hardly "the way it is" IMO.

Bee emm dubba hoo has it too!

Saab's XWD is better.

Bee emm dubba hoo has it too!

xdrive is bmw's system.

saab's are just overpriced gm's now... 'tis true, sad, but true.


the only real AWD systems in my book are subaru's and audi's. full time awd, 50/50 split, or on the most recent models a 40/60 split. torsen center diff (superior to any electronical system IMO, because it reacts before a slip loses traction rather than after a computer detects a slip). electronic locking diffs in the front and rear.

the heart of quattro, the center diff:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Audi_quattro_AWD_system.jpeg

slip a couple of carefully machined washers in there and you can change the front / rear bias. stasis does this themselves, and have a sweet diff thats like a 20/80 split.

XWD is just a purdy haldex (i.e. every other weak reactive awd system) with better programming


from wiki:

"XWD, an acronym for Cross-Wheel Drive, is an advanced all-wheel drive system designed by Haldex in partnership with Saab. Also known as Haldex Generation 4, it is an intelligent permanent all-wheel drive system that can pre-emptively and continuously change torque distribution before wheel slip occurs"

...

"The Haldex 4WD system is currently used in the following vehicle models:
Audi A3 quattro
Audi S3
Audi TT quattro
Bugatti Veyron <!! WTF really, it does use haldex, full time.
SEAT León 4
SEAT Altea Freetrack 4
SEAT Alhambra 4
Škoda Octavia 4x4
VW Golf 4motion
VW Golf R32
VW Bora 4motion
VW New Beetle RSi
VW Passat 4motion B6 Platform
VW Sharan 4motion
VW Tiguan
VW Multivan 4motion
VW Caddy 4motion
Volvo S40 AWD
Volvo V50 AWD
Volvo S60 AWD
Volvo S60R AWD
Volvo XC60 (Haldex Fourth Gen)
Volvo V70 AWD
Volvo S70 AWD
Volvo V70R AWD
Volvo XC70 (Haldex First Gen 1998-2001, Second Gen 2002-2005, Third Gen 2006+)
Volvo S80 AWD
Volvo XC90 (Haldex Second Gen)
Ford Five Hundred
Ford Freestyle
Ford Kuga
Mercury Montego
Land Rover LR2
Saab 9-3 Aero XWD (Haldex Fourth Gen 2008.5+)
Saab 9-3 Turbo X (Haldex Fourth Gen)

I drive RWD American Muscle. Own a 1980 Z28 and would love another RWD car, but that being said I would take an Audi A4 in a heartbeat. You have to give serious effort to fuckup control in that car, entering donuts at 60mph isn't enough to break traction to the wheels, and even a stupid fuckup teen can handle back roads at upwards of 100MPH in that car.

I drive RWD American Muscle. Own a 1980 Z28 and would love another RWD car, but that being said I would take an Audi A4 in a heartbeat. You have to give serious effort to fuckup control in that car, entering donuts at 60mph isn't enough to break traction to the wheels, and even a stupid fuckup teen can handle back roads at upwards of 100MPH in that car.

I think a teen driving an A4 at 100mph on narrow dirt backroads would probably end in a crash of some sort.
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z245/mberescik/SLR-Guy-Hindenberg.jpg

I think a teen driving an A4 at 100mph on narrow dirt backroads would probably end in a crash of some sort.
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z245/mberescik/SLR-Guy-Hindenberg.jpg

God I fucking hate SLR guy

I think a teen driving an A4 at 100mph on narrow dirt backroads would probably end in a crash of some sort.

ok, so the year was 2005, and my a4 was in the shop, so dfw audi gives me keys to a brand new 2005.5 (when they switched to the new body) a4. 2.0t quattro, sports package, all that jazz.

since i have a brand new car, and the invincibility of being 17, i take it out to the country to rag it on some back roads i frequent.

here's the intersection:
http://tinyurl.com/9aey3b

so i'm on the dirt road going south off of f.m. 920, i got well close to 100 going down it, and wanted to do the same going back. the gravel was much, much looser towards the intersection, as i'm gunning it, leaving a wonderful cloud of dust behind, i see an early 90's escort wagon coming down fm 920 from the west. i hit my brakes, and just get abs kicking back, and not much stopping at all, with non-abs i would have probably slid into a ditch at that speed. so, as i'm passing the property line from the house to the west of the dirt road i'm finally down to about 50 mph, and i know i wont make it in time, and that escort was going to be close. i'm forced to make a decision:
1: slam on the brakes, understeer out into a ditch on fm 920, and pray i dont hit that wagon / wagon doesnt rear end me.
2: gun it before the apex, use quattro to my advantage, and pray i'm in front of that wagon.





so, being invincible at the time, i gun it, and some how make it, all i know is that i exited the apex at 55 mph or so, barely kept it on the road, and the escort wagon was behind me in a cloud of dust, probably shitting bricks. biggest adrenaline rush i've ever had driving myself on public roads. f'in stupid when i think about it now, but it was fuuuuun at the time.

i was a stupid fuckwit driver at the time, but did go to audi's advanced handling school for teens a year or so ago so i was confident, overly so, but that never got me into trouble. if i didn't go to that school and understand under/over steer, quattro's handling dynamics, the limit of adhesion, and what to do in emergency situations, i probably would have slammed onto my brakes, and understeered right into that wagon, it was fuuuucking close, so close i had my left foot hovering over the brake pedal just incase i saw taillights coming around that bend at speed.

also some notable driving areas around that that i enjoy:

lovely bends, both are blind though, so i actually have more confidence running faster through there at night because i can see headlights through trees alot easier than cars during the day.

http://tinyurl.com/ayqnh3

well shit, the whole 920 to 919 to 1016 loop was proving grounds for cars. hit over 100 mph around where 919 hits 920, there's a slight dip in the road, not noticable going 45 mph, but at 100+ shit gets pretty violent, almost bottomed out.

http://tinyurl.com/9mqwf8