Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Technical Discussion > Forget FF, RWD vs. AWD!!!!


Posted by: chaos Oct 22 2004, 03:30 PM
As my name implies I love chaos, especially when I cause it. I remember the FF arguments and I declare FR WINNER laugh.gif !!! Don't argue. Now the next challenger...............wait for it..................AWD!!! (if u didn't c the topic..somehow)
Now we must work ppl and hopefully I will ensinuate a very long argument.

Here's my piece. Awd have the acceleration, stability and are difficult to spin out. On the other hand they can't take a turn as well as an FR because of the afore-
mentioned stability and therefore traction. However they can put a lot of power down in the coners (more than FF) and can enter a drift at much higher speeds. Plus, they can use their redicilious power and through sheer force accelerate out of a corner quickly. Look at the evo, it's a rallyist's wet dream, fast in, fast out, get it?
This ofcourse is not the best thing to do except on really sharp turns as it shreads the tires. Also, some AWD are prone to understeer and can't oversteer too well. In some cases this kill's time (g circle) and sometimes proves invincible (salomn).

Well I'm done. Hopefully sidewaysgts or somebody who is good at arguing will expand this to a huge 1 month 20 page flame war....er....I mean "debate".

ChAoS out fear2.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 22 2004, 05:45 PM
Id still go FR.. awd have acceleration goign for them but thats it, and thats just not my style.

Theyre heavy because of their drive train, and have more components in it so they also lose more power
through its. More weight = crappy turn in, also they understeer like a b*tch. Since their front tires have power they often spin easily while cornering, thus less traction, thus the understeer.

Theyre fast as hell from corner to corner, and slow in them.

Really comes down to personal preference and what your doing...

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 22 2004, 06:31 PM
I personally *HEART* AWD, and I wouldn't trade it for any other drivetrain. But you are right, AWD does have its downfalls... mainly in the understeer department (sure the power is a bit down to the wheels too... but then again the power is split between 4 wheels so it ain't all bad). I only wish that all cars had an AWD system like the GT-R, where in normal conditions the power is 0:100 (RWD), but when the rear tires slip the power gets shifted partially to the front wheels (AWD), and a Controller to control this (like DCCD). If you set up your AWD car's suspension for slight oversteer instead of slight understeer like most Subaru's have for safety concerns (all it takes is a larger rear swaybar usually), and you will be smokin'. The EVO is already set up for a more oversteer-like cornering at the limit (but it still SLIGHTLY understeers at the limit), which is why it always beats the STi in a cornering comparison stock vs stock... but this isn't the case with a tiny modification. smile.gif

I like AWD becuase it can do everything a RWD car can do (except long, smoking burnouts). All you have to do is shift the weight on the car before cornering, becuase of the natural understeer characteristics of AWD (but hey, its not as bad as FF, lol). I like driving in the snow a lot as well, and I would never dream taking a RWD car in the snow when AWD is available. Also.. through the mountains... nothing will beat a well-tuned AWD car (I would like to see ANY RWD car beat a WRC car with the same hp, etc on a tarmac rally. Actually any hp is fine, it doesn't make a difference...)

So i see it like this... AWD = more adaptable, good in all driving conditions (better than RWD on rain, gravel, snow), RWD = good on tarmac, but not adaptable like AWD. RWD and AWD are both good... I guess its just where your tastes lie. I think we need a link to the RWD vs AWD touge battle video from best mororing in this topic smile.gif (http://auto.joins.com/upboard/pds/pdst/BestMotoring_Touge_2WDvs4WD.asf link is dead crying2.gif ) Also... if you watch best motoring April 1999... Nakaya tests the 1999 WRC EVO VI on tsukuba, and it almost beats the record lap time!! (and its only got 300hp!!)... it also recorded the fastest cornering speed out of any car to be tested on tsukuba.

So it goes like this for me.....

AWD > RWD > MR (unless on really tuned cars like f1 cars) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWD happy.gif (can you tell I hate FWD?)

And as for driving conditions... its like this...
Tarmac: RWD>AWD>FWD
Snow: AWD>FWD>RWD
Rain: AWD>FWD=RWD
Gravel: AWD>RWD=FWD

sidewaysgts: understeer like a b*tch?? very slow in corners? i think you are overexaggerating a little happy.gif

Also... not that this has to do with anything in this topic.. but I love it in initial D how (spoilers, highlight the text below)
the only 2 cars to beat the AE86 are both AWD... the EVO III and the WRX STi Type-R =)

Posted by: sideways Oct 22 2004, 06:45 PM
Most awd systems to udnersteer like a b*tch especialy at high speeds. There are of course well tuned exceptions, like the skyline you mentioned, but they still understeer a lot compared to ff or rwd wink2.gif They make up for it with acceleratoin power though. If you can deal with the udnersteer their acceleration on straights and just at the endo f corners is awesome.

Posted by: alanj Oct 22 2004, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (chaos @ Oct 22 2004, 03:30 PM)
Look at the evo, it's a rallyist's wet dream, fast in, fast out, get it?

i get it dry.gif not sure what the 2nd part of that pun has to do w/ rally drivers but i myself still prefer FR. I have driven an AWD car and it still doesnt compare in any way (except for cornering) to an FR in my opinion

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 22 2004, 07:23 PM
Not that this has to do much with the topic... but which do you think would win on a road course... a WRC car or a Nextel Cup NASCAR? I definatley think it would be the WRC car, but my dad doesn't believe me and he thinks a NASCAR would destroy a WRC car on a road couse (hes a stupid NASCAR fan) rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Rayp Oct 22 2004, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 22 2004, 06:31 PM)
And as for driving conditions... its like this...
Tarmac: RWD>AWD>FWD
Snow: AWD>FWD>RWD
Rain: AWD>FWD=RWD
Gravel: AWD>RWD>FWD

Since i'm the local FF guy, i can say i disagree a little with your summary. FF aren't bad at all in gravel, sand or dirt. It's a lot easier to get the rear loose, and i can pull it off without much weight shifting (usually with only the steering and throttle). With some tuning (and a nice LSD and tyres) it can be made even better... Well, as long as the drivers has some experience doing this.

Of course i mean a sport compact car, not some family car.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 22 2004, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Oct 22 2004, 07:25 PM)
Since i'm the local FF guy, i can say i disagree a little with your summary. FF aren't bad at all in gravel, sand or dirt. It's a lot easier to get the rear loose, and i can pull it off without much weight shifting (usually with only the steering and throttle). With some tuning (and a nice LSD and tyres) it can be made even better... Well, as long as the drivers has some experience doing this.

Of course i mean a sport compact car, not some family car.


I'm basing the gravel part on a rally-type situation. Since im a rally guy, and i do A LOT of rally spectating... i can tell you that AWD cars are the fastest on gravel, RWD cars are next (sometimes), and FWD cars have problems with understeering on gravel, and therefore are the slowest (sometimes). Sure, you can get the rear end loose, but how are you gonna get the power on and go through the corner fast? becuase if you hit the gas pedal all it will do is make your car understeer. If you have a properly tuned FWD car on gravel though (as in set-up for rally), it will probably be quicker than a RWD car (look at the Mopar SRT-4 rally car, its pretty quick for a FWD) The difference between RWD and FWD isn't much on gravel though (you are right though, in certian situations FWD could possibly be better than RWD on gravel in a street car)... but AWD is wayyy out ahead of both of them smile.gif


Now that I've thought it out more throughly.. i think ill put an equals sign in there instead. Thanks smile.gif

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 22 2004, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 22 2004, 06:31 PM)

Tarmac:  RWD>AWD>FWD

This really depends on what type of race and what the track is like. I used to watch BTTC alot back in the days, before they banned the AWD Audis. With sharp turns and corners, the order is AWD > RWD > FWD. With tracks with almost no turns just long swoops, FWD = RWD > AWD. They gave the AWD weight penaltys and yet they still dominated, dominating so much they kicked them out. laugh.gif Every other type of race, gravel, snow, rain I agree with you on there.


Im a fan of both AWD and FR. AWD has so much going for it, it is so easy to drive. Make a mistake and you can easily easily correct yourself. You can take a awd car anywhere. If I had a family and kids I would definitely get a WRX/STi or EVO. You would think I would be all over a AWD car by now...but still I perfer FR. FR is more of a challenge then anything. It levels the playing field and it requires more of the drivers SKILL then anything. AWD cars can almost drive themselves, with almost no skill at all to get through a corner. So IMO, not to bag on any of you in here or piss anyone off, having two extra front wheels to help guide you, to me is like training wheels. whistling.gif Theres a reason why every major automotive sport the vehicals are FR or RWD, cuz bottomline, they want SKILL to be the determining factor. Lets see, 90% sports cars, 95% exotics, NASCAR, F1, F3, ALMS, 24 Hours of LeMans, CART, JGTC all are rear driven cars. And yes, even the Skyline GTR is made FR just for JGTC.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 22 2004, 08:04 PM
Six wheel drive pawns.

http://www.f1nutter.co.uk/tech/6wheels.php

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Oct 22 2004, 08:30 PM
IMO, AWD>FF>FR in any low traction environments

Posted by: sideways Oct 22 2004, 09:05 PM
In low traction condition, agreed.

Posted by: GC8 Bunta Oct 22 2004, 09:11 PM
awd = great traction in any condition...

but in terms of steering response and that sharp turning ability.... RWD all the way.

rwd imho is the best drivetrain for dry weather conditions...

awd drifting is incredible. nothing like the zero countersteer.... where the car is going complete sideways but the front wheels are completely straight.

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 22 2004, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (Nd4SpdSe @ Oct 22 2004, 08:30 PM)
IMO, AWD>FF>FR in any low traction environments

Which is why most factory cars out now are FF. It is safer. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 22 2004, 09:13 PM
Sadly, yup. and cheaper now too. Understeer = safe for drivers.. Who tend to slam on the brakes in an emergency.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 22 2004, 11:50 PM
I guess it depends a lot on living conditons weither you like AWD or FR more. I've been living in canada for the past 12 years, so my driving conditions suit AWD more... im sure if i lived in Arizona or SoCal i would probably like FR more since you can't really reap the major benefits of AWD unless the conditions get tricky...

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Oct 23 2004, 12:31 AM
Lets also not forget about mid-engine RWD and rear engine rwd(ie porsche's).


Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 08:27 AM
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 22 2004, 07:23 PM)
Not that this has to do much with the topic... but which do you think would win on a road course... a WRC car or a Nextel Cup NASCAR? I definatley think it would be the WRC car, but my dad doesn't believe me and he thinks a NASCAR would destroy a WRC car on a road couse (hes a stupid NASCAR fan) rolleyes.gif

I totally think a WRC car would definatly win on a road course, I mean sure NASCAR is fast on ovals but I mean put them on a road course like luguna seca or somthing like that, not those road courses NASCAR has. Also I like AWD and RWD a few FWD but it all depends where you live, I live in MN and you can drive RWD all season but it becomes a pain. Anyways RWD tends to act a little better at highspeeds ie: F1 . Both are good and suspension on AWD can always be set to lessen the understeer, or of course you can go with AYC like in the evos and that will actuall give you some oversteer. I'm a huge fan of RWD but I must give the AWD respect, I mean slap an anti-lag system on there and you're set.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 08:30 AM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Oct 22 2004, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 22 2004, 06:31 PM)
And as for driving conditions... its like this...
Tarmac:  RWD>AWD>FWD
Snow: AWD>FWD>RWD
Rain: AWD>FWD=RWD
Gravel: AWD>RWD>FWD

Since i'm the local FF guy, i can say i disagree a little with your summary. FF aren't bad at all in gravel, sand or dirt. It's a lot easier to get the rear loose, and i can pull it off without much weight shifting (usually with only the steering and throttle). With some tuning (and a nice LSD and tyres) it can be made even better... Well, as long as the drivers has some experience doing this.

Of course i mean a sport compact car, not some family car.

Yea FF's arent bad I have seen them in rally alot, gravel, dirt ,tarmac, they do it all, very nicely I might add but they are in no way compitition for the AWDs. FF"s arent bad if you tune them right.

Posted by: TRD-hachi-roku Oct 23 2004, 09:03 AM
there are after market ayc's?????? ohmy.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2004, 09:20 AM
ALS (anti lag systems, misfiring systems) are a waste of money. Theyre needed in professional races becuase they have turbo restrictors, if you dont have one of those on your car your doign a lot of un-needed damage.

Id like to believe the wrc car would win, but it might easily go to the nascar. They do handle pretty well, have the horsepower, and gearing to give them an advantage i think (and trust me, i hate nascar more then anyone here)

And ive yet to see an evo oversteer... Suspension settings only go so far in helping a car handle. Even then, forcing an udnersteering car to oversteer may not always be the best and fastest way, this may actualy hurt the traction the car is capable of. You can tune a suspension but you can never hide a charecteristics of a vehicles handling abilities.




...TWINKIES RULE! makefun.gif

Posted by: F22A6 Oct 23 2004, 10:15 AM
It all depends on what your gonna do

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 10:29 AM
Actually I have seen alot of EVOs using zero-counter, I've also seen a few of them drifting, also the anti-lag system depends on just that, how much lag you have, sure its a waste for most people but if your a serious racer then it might be a good investment.

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2004, 10:38 AM
Id rather get a bov to help with lag instead of blowing up my manifolds. And you can drift a car and still take a line that resembles what you would have taken if you understeered. Imo theres 2 types of understeer/oversteer. What your car is doing, and what line your car is taking, know what i mean?

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 10:45 AM
Agreed, I was saying the anti-lag system for those who are harcore rally racers, you know true die hard fans, since an anti-lag system would simply blow up any regular manifold. Don't get me wrong I'm a die hard FR fan but you can't really saw AWD vehicles are bad, I mean they have become alot more sophisticated in the past 20 years.

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2004, 10:49 AM
Even on the kick ass manifolds the rally cars have they need to be changed like every 500 miles or so isnt it?

Granted, most are on a "Switch" so you can turn it on or off.. but man.

I will agree and admit there is an advantage to a als over a bov, but its slight. the damage just isnt worth the difference really though.

For those who dont know, like rally cars whore under regulations to what they can and can not do. Theres literaly, think of an "intake tube" on the turbo. This intake tube is actually smaller then what the turbo is capable of, restricting how much air it can bring in and how fast. Even with a bov this greatly affects a turbos tiem to spool up. its because of these LFB was used in rally (trying to stop the car while kepeing the engine up to keep the turbo going) but this obviously isnt a very good way to stop.

So the als was created to help with that, and does a damn good job at it.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 10:52 AM
yes it does, you can't LFB everywhere know what I mean? well you could but...you know what I mean grin2.gif

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 23 2004, 01:10 PM
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 23 2004, 10:29 AM)
also the anti-lag system depends on just that, how much lag you have, sure its a waste for most people but if your a serious racer then it might be a good investment.

Do you know how much a real ALS system cost? It is about $50k. Nobody has that on their regular car. They do have cheap ass systems, I wouldnt even trust those..you can blow up easy if you set it up wrong.

ALS are high tech. It cost so much cuz it is the entire system, turbo(highly modified that can handle high amounts of compressor surge), exhaust manifold(extremely tuff that can handle explosions like a engine), and a computer that controls everything and it still has to work with the cars stand alone, now that is $$$ for tuning..and it is changed and tuned on almost every track. WRC arent just striped down STi's or EVO's...they are high tech expensive ass machines.

In basic terms, ALS makes a turbo car operate like a NA. Step on the gas = instant boost, let off the gas = car still in boost.

LFB is the alternative. Poor mans anti-lag system.

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2004, 01:43 PM
Ive always said you should never compare your car to the car youll find in things like wrc rally, jgtc.. they may -look- the same.. but thats about all they got in common

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 23 2004, 03:02 PM
QUOTE (1slowsupra @ Oct 23 2004, 01:10 PM)
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 23 2004, 10:29 AM)
also the anti-lag system depends on just that, how much lag you have, sure its a waste for most people but if your a serious racer then it might be a good investment.

Do you know how much a real ALS system cost? It is about $50k. Nobody has that on their regular car. They do have cheap ass systems, I wouldnt even trust those..you can blow up easy if you set it up wrong.

ALS are high tech. It cost so much cuz it is the entire system, turbo(highly modified that can handle high amounts of compressor surge), exhaust manifold(extremely tuff that can handle explosions like a engine), and a computer that controls everything and it still has to work with the cars stand alone, now that is $$$ for tuning..and it is changed and tuned on almost every track. WRC arent just striped down STi's or EVO's...they are high tech expensive ass machines.

In basic terms, ALS makes a turbo car operate like a NA. Step on the gas = instant boost, let off the gas = car still in boost.

LFB is the alternative. Poor mans anti-lag system.

$50000??? WTF?!?!Have you ever watched a non-wrc event like SCCA pro rally... and seen how many cars are running ALS? I think you should go over to http://www.specialstage.com (where all the rally drivers post on forums), and ask if a good-quality ALS system costs 50 grand (including everything necessary to make the ALS work and be safe)... lol you will get laughed at... damn... you can buy a whole group A lancer evo IV with ALS, 10 sets of spare rally tires, etc for 50 grand (usually even less..) >.> http://www.rallyclassified.com/detail.php?cat=18&de=788 I have vids of this car actually... heres one right here (look at 2:05 in)... http://www.ncrally.com/media/movies/04RNY/RallyNYSS9.wmv

Maybe the ALS system on a WRC car is $50k... but for your average turbo AWD rally car, try like around $2000 (and not for a pile-of-crap system, im talking a top-of-the-line aftermarket anti lag system)... here's and example of an ALS system that a lot of the guys in SCCA Pro Rally use... its the Autronic SM2, and its an ECU with a whole bunch of other stuff in it required to tune the engine, including anti lag http://www.autronic.com/technical_data_files/antilag.pdf. A lot of people use the SMC as well. Here's the Autronic homepage so you can get the specs on the SMC and SM2... http://www.autronic.com/. SRTC (subaru rally team canada) uses a LINK system on their STi rally car, its even cheaper than the autronic... I have a pic i took of the inside of their car (Patrick Richard's car) attached to the bottom of the post...

and a place in the USA where you can buy the SM2 and SMC from... http://www.tatomotorsports.com/autronics_price.asp

All anti lag is (in a simple description), is that engine timing retards when the accelerator is let off, and unburnt fuel is let into the exhaust system, and the fuel ignites when it hits the hot exhaust gases, producing an explosion which creates pressure to spool the turbo. This makes the turbo keep boost pressue when the acceletator is let off. When you get back on the gas, you will have instant response, since turbo lag is eliminated. If you wanna throw in the cost for a full-racing exhaust (which is pretty much needed for ALS since you will destroy an exhaust with a cat in it), then toss that in too, as well as a few extra parts for anti-lag (like a throttle opening device if you need it). But its not $50000 for a really good ALS system... lol. Also... there are multiple ways to achieve anti lag, they are not all the same...

If you want to get into a discussion about anti-lag... jump in this topic http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID9/90.html , cause everyone chatting in that topic is a professional rally driver with ALS on their car.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 23 2004, 06:52 PM
Whoa there, never did I say any of those cars were even close to WRC class. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never do such a thing for others, so it would be greatly appreciated if you wouldn't. Also thanks AWDdrifter for saving me the time of having to post such things.

Posted by: Solid Snake Oct 23 2004, 07:36 PM
QUOTE (Nick @ Oct 23 2004, 01:31 AM)
Lets also not forget about mid-engine RWD and rear engine rwd(ie porsche's).

Throttle-lift oversteer is cool. cool.gif

Posted by: AJS13 Oct 23 2004, 10:07 PM
QUOTE (Solid Snake @ Oct 24 2004, 04:36 PM)
Throttle-lift oversteer is cool. cool.gif

I can do that in my Mini.

Posted by: MidnightViper88 Oct 23 2004, 10:30 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 23 2004, 01:43 PM)
Ive always said you should never compare your car to the car youll find in things like wrc rally, jgtc.. they may -look- the same.. but thats about all they got in common

Chassis is still the same...The 300-hp Focus RS WRC uses 54 stock Ford parts from the regular street 210-hp Focus RS, including the powertrain (Same 2.0L Zetec I4 and Garrett turbo)...Yes, body work is nowhere near what you see on a street example, but it's not a mechanical alteration, and is done mearly for aerodynamics...Engines are also tilted back for balance, and other things like internal engines modifications, strengthened chassis, and larger intercooler/radiator are done for endurance reasons...

After all that, it's still dramatically different from a street car...But, uhh...

I don't know about anything else, but at least with WRC and the Focus, you can buy most of the parts used on the Focus WRC car from the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog...

You still have to build your car to those specs, but I don't see any other companies supply OEM parts from their race cars like that... tongue.gif

*mindless, tired ramble*

Posted by: sideways Oct 23 2004, 11:44 PM
Street car is to wrc car as paper is to art master piece... its the same thing, buut with a few added things wink2.gif

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 23 2004, 11:45 PM
QUOTE (MidnightViper88 @ Oct 23 2004, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 23 2004, 01:43 PM)
Ive always said you should never compare your car to the car youll find in things like wrc rally, jgtc.. they may -look- the same.. but thats about all they got in common

Chassis is still the same...The 300-hp Focus RS WRC uses 54 stock Ford parts from the regular street 210-hp Focus RS, including the powertrain (Same 2.0L Zetec I4 and Garrett turbo)...Yes, body work is nowhere near what you see on a street example, but it's not a mechanical alteration, and is done mearly for aerodynamics...Engines are also tilted back for balance, and other things like internal engines modifications, strengthened chassis, and larger intercooler/radiator are done for endurance reasons...

After all that, it's still dramatically different from a street car...But, uhh...

I don't know about anything else, but at least with WRC and the Focus, you can buy most of the parts used on the Focus WRC car from the Ford Racing Performance Parts catalog...

You still have to build your car to those specs, but I don't see any other companies supply OEM parts from their race cars like that... tongue.gif

*mindless, tired ramble*

Even on the Impreza WRC group A8... the chassis is the same as the street car, the engine is the EJ20 (except its heavily modified, obviously), shares a lot of common parts with the stock STi (lights are the same! lol)... all thats really different is a lot of the major compnents are a lot more sophisticated (suspension, transmission, AWD system (although the basic AWD system isn't modified that much, but the diffs are), and everything is lot more expensive smile.gif

But as for Group N cars... they are like 90% stock... really close to street cars smile.gif

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 24 2004, 01:03 AM
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 23 2004, 03:02 PM)


Maybe the ALS system on a WRC car is $50k... but for your average turbo AWD rally car, try like around $2000 (and not for a pile-of-crap system, im talking a top-of-the-line aftermarket anti lag system)... here's and example of an ALS system that a lot of the guys in SCCA Pro Rally use... its the Autronic SM2, and its an ECU with a whole bunch of other stuff in it required to tune the engine, including anti lag http://www.autronic.com/technical_data_files/antilag.pdf. A lot of people use the SMC as well. Here's the Autronic homepage so you can get the specs on the SMC and SM2... http://www.autronic.com/. SRTC (subaru rally team canada) uses a LINK system on their STi rally car, its even cheaper than the autronic... I have a pic i took of the inside of their car (Patrick Richard's car) attached to the bottom of the post...

and a place in the USA where you can buy the SM2 and SMC from... http://www.tatomotorsports.com/autronics_price.asp

All anti lag is (in a simple description), is that engine timing retards when the accelerator is let off, and unburnt fuel is let into the exhaust system, and the fuel ignites when it hits the hot exhaust gases, producing an explosion which creates pressure to spool the turbo. This makes the turbo keep boost pressue when the acceletator is let off. When you get back on the gas, you will have instant response, since turbo lag is eliminated. If you wanna throw in the cost for a full-racing exhaust (which is pretty much needed for ALS since you will destroy an exhaust with a cat in it), then toss that in too, as well as a few extra parts for anti-lag (like a throttle opening device if you need it). But its not $50000 for a really good ALS system... lol. Also... there are multiple ways to achieve anti lag, they are not all the same...

If you want to get into a discussion about anti-lag... jump in this topic http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID9/90.html , cause everyone chatting in that topic is a professional rally driver with ALS on their car.

Dude look at the product you just posted. The Autronic SMC or SM2 is JUST THE COMPUTER! LMAO. Yah $2k for a computer that adjusts your timing...that sounds about right. What about the turbo, what about the turbo manifold? What about the tuning? Anyone can install a SM2 on any turbo car, it will drive but guess how long they will last. A STOCK TURBO W/ STOCK TURBO MANIFOLD WOULDNT LAST A BLOCK.
Most cars that are this modified have stand alones, which needs extensive tuning...throw in a ALS, that is even more tuning. In my previous post, I am talking about the whole shabang, not just one piece of the anti-lag system...you have to have all the parts to make it work and run reliably you know.

$50k for a USED Rally car...yah that sounds about right, cuz I know damn well I wouldnt pay $100k for a used one thats beat to hell. Rally cars I am emphasizing in my post are brand new with new parts retail cost..and you got to be a idiot to pay retail on anything, but hey those prices are reality.

That forum, Ive never heard of any of those guys, so i guess they arent so professional. Sounds like a ametur class if you ask me, but hey they still have some serious shit no doubt about that...and that still leads me to believe they are running second rate shit compared to WRC cars.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 24 2004, 02:34 AM
QUOTE (1slowsupra @ Oct 24 2004, 01:03 AM)
Dude look at the product you just posted. The Autronic SMC or SM2 is JUST THE COMPUTER! LMAO. Yah $2k for a computer that adjusts your timing...that sounds about right. What about the turbo, what about the turbo manifold? What about the tuning? Anyone can install a SM2 on any turbo car, it will drive but guess how long they will last. A STOCK TURBO W/ STOCK TURBO MANIFOLD WOULDNT LAST A BLOCK. 
Most cars that are this modified have stand alones, which needs extensive tuning...throw in a ALS, that is even more tuning. In my previous post, I am talking about the whole shabang, not just one piece of the anti-lag system...you have to have all the parts to make it work and run reliably you know.

$50k for a USED Rally car...yah that sounds about right, cuz I know damn well I wouldnt pay $100k for a used one thats beat to hell. Rally cars I am emphasizing in my post are brand new with new parts retail cost..and you got to be a idiot to pay retail on anything, but hey those prices are reality.

That forum, Ive never heard of any of those guys, so i guess they arent so professional. Sounds like a ametur class if you ask me, but hey they still have some serious shit no doubt about that...and that still leads me to believe they are running second rate shit compared to WRC cars.

Maybe you should actually read my post... i already pointed out everything you just said laugh.gif laugh.gif I already said that you could add in the cost of the exhaust manifold, turbo etc and it wouldn't come anywhere NEAR $50000... also... read up what the SM2 and SMC actually does...

Everyone isn't millionaires and can't afford some half-million dollar budget to build a rally car.. becuase if you think just the ALS system (including the parts to make it safe) costs $50000... you're looking at that price range... and I can garuntee all those guys don't have half a mil around to make their rally cars. Try around $50k-$60k to build an EVO to open class spec... including the car...

and... just because YOU haven't heard of them... that makes them not professional??? LOL!!! the guy with the Screenname "patr" raced in the WRC group N championship last year in a subaru factory team car... and he won both the Canadian and USA rally championships this year as well... and he won the USA rally championship in an under-powered group N WRX (non-STi), facing many open class evo's and the such... i think he at least qualifies in the "professional" category laugh.gif

and also "Running second-rate shit compared to WRC cars"... lol... of course Cpt. Obvious... I don't think they are all made of money like multi-billion dollar corporations laugh.gif Do you expect every car to have a semi-automatic hydraullic gearbox as well? Rally cars aren't defined as just FIA group A8 rally cars, we are talking about non-works cars here as AETRAN86 already pointed out... not "how much do ALS systems cost on a WRC group A8 works car" laugh.gif

Posted by: flohtingPoint Oct 24 2004, 02:42 AM
Sweet! An internet fight! Havent seen one of those in... 5 minutes.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 24 2004, 06:25 AM
1st off, floating whats with the "I love granny porn"??? blink.gif

anyways so if a ALS isnt WRC spec its 2nd hand? thats like saying any part that anyone puts on theyre car is 2nd hand if its not race or pro spec. alot of companies make parts that aren't race spec but theyre still damn good parts. From the sounds of it AWDdrifter might even be a rally driver himself, he's got alot of insight, and everyone should be open minded about information anyone has to share that may teack any of us some new things, I don't know everything or pretend to, but I'm always interested in learning somthing new, don't you guys agree?

Posted by: flohtingPoint Oct 24 2004, 11:50 AM
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 24 2004, 06:25 AM)
1st off, floating whats with the "I love granny porn"??? blink.gif

anyways so if a ALS isnt WRC spec its 2nd hand? thats like saying any part that anyone puts on theyre car is 2nd hand if its not race or pro spec. alot of companies make parts that aren't race spec but theyre still damn good parts. From the sounds of it AWDdrifter might even be a rally driver himself, he's got alot of insight, and everyone should be open minded about information anyone has to share that may teack any of us some new things, I don't know everything or pretend to, but I'm always interested in learning somthing new, don't you guys agree?

Ah, about that, I pm'ed Indy, and told him that I didnt really care what title he put, just something other than Pm Indy for custom blah blah blah. So he threw this on there. Its better than PM Indy for blah blah blah, so I dont really care.

Posted by: sideways Oct 24 2004, 11:59 AM
Ahh so its indy who loves the granny porn, and hes speaking it through flohting... it all makes sense now..

Posted by: flohtingPoint Oct 24 2004, 12:04 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 24 2004, 11:59 AM)
Ahh so its indy who loves the granny porn, and hes speaking it through flohting... it all makes sense now..

Nah, we both like it. We trade videos. Come, join the granny porn revolution!

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Oct 24 2004, 01:17 PM
QUOTE (flohtingPoint @ Oct 24 2004, 01:50 PM)
. Its better than PM Indy for blah blah blah, so I dont really care.

sad.gif

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 24 2004, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (awddrifter @ Oct 24 2004, 02:34 AM)

Maybe you should actually read my post... i already pointed out everything you just said  laugh.gif  laugh.gif I already said that you could add in the cost of the exhaust manifold, turbo etc and it wouldn't come anywhere NEAR $50000... also... read up what the SM2 and SMC actually does...


Taken from Autronic website:
QUOTE
The Autronic SM2 includes harness, air and water temp sensor, internal map sensor, fuel pump relay, PC data cable, calibration and data logging software, 100 page manual.

Auuuugggghhh...heellllloooo mmmccccffllllllllyyyy... THE SM2 OR SMC DO NOT INCLUDE THE TURBO OR MANIFOLD, IT IS JUST A COMPUTER!! HELLO!!! DAMN, i CAN GET A MOTEC FOR ABOUT THAT MUCH...ITS NOT THE PRICE OF THE PART THAT MAKES IT EXPENSIVE. You can hav a SM2 and say "yah I have a ALS in my car" doesnt mean you can use it to its full advantage.



Alright, Ill admit...$50k for a ALS is for a WRC car. Ive never seen a ALS on a regular car...I never looked into a ALS in amateur class. Ok than, technology im sure has caught up with itself and is now affordable. Even if a ALS can cost as low as $10k, still not worth it if you do not do rally driving. You can not have that shit on the street, cop bust your ass in a hot second. SO EVERYONE HEAR THIS, ALS IS AFFORDABLE, GO OUT AND BUY IT!!

Ok so one guy on that forum happend to have been a pro. So what. Thats just one guy.

When I mentioned 2nd rate(I DID NOT SAY SECOND HAND), I did not mean junk. I meant alternative to what the pros use. Hell I have a gang of shit on my car that isnt race spec and works great for what I want...and yea, to me it is second rate but is the best on the street.

Posted by: flohtingPoint Oct 24 2004, 02:52 PM
/em grabs popcorn and waits for this to come to fisticuffs.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 24 2004, 02:52 PM
Sorry then, I took it out of context. Like you meant it was a bad thing to have somthing "2nd rate" on your car.

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 24 2004, 03:07 PM
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 24 2004, 02:52 PM)
Sorry then, I took it out of context. Like you meant it was a bad thing to have somthing "2nd rate" on your car.

Naw, nothing wrong with 2nd rate. Anyone or tuner will tell you the best ECM for a project race car is a stand alone...but most people dont need that high of a demand. Having piggy back systems working with the stock computer(or moded ECM) is what I would call 2nd rate stuff, and that can work even better on lightly to mildly tuned street cars..but not for full blown race cars.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 24 2004, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (1slowsupra @ Oct 24 2004, 02:23 PM)
Auuuugggghhh...heellllloooo mmmccccffllllllllyyyy... THE SM2 OR SMC DO NOT INCLUDE THE TURBO OR MANIFOLD, IT IS JUST A COMPUTER!! HELLO!!! DAMN, i CAN GET A MOTEC FOR ABOUT THAT MUCH...ITS NOT THE PRICE OF THE PART THAT MAKES IT EXPENSIVE. You can hav a SM2 and say "yah I have a ALS in my car" doesnt mean you can use it to its full advantage.



Alright, Ill admit...$50k for a ALS is for a WRC car. Ive never seen a ALS on a regular car...I never looked into a ALS in amateur class. Ok than, technology im sure has caught up with itself and is now affordable. Even if a ALS can cost as low as $10k, still not worth it if you do not do rally driving. You can not have that shit on the street, cop bust your ass in a hot second.  SO EVERYONE HEAR THIS, ALS IS AFFORDABLE, GO OUT AND BUY IT!!

Ok so one guy on that forum happend to have been a pro. So what. Thats just one guy.

When I mentioned 2nd rate(I DID NOT SAY SECOND HAND), I did not mean junk. I meant alternative to what the pros use. Hell I have a gang of shit on my car that isnt race spec and works great for what I want...and yea, to me it is second rate but is the best on the street.

I only posted the SMC and SM2 to provide examples of ECU's that can control anti-lag... i didn't mean its the only thing needed for anti-lag to work safely, and I know its just a computer...

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my first post about anti lag where I said:
QUOTE
If you wanna throw in the cost for a full-racing exhaust (which is pretty much needed for ALS since you will destroy an exhaust with a cat in it), then toss that in too, as well as a few extra parts for anti-lag (like a throttle opening device if you need it). But its not $50000 for a really good ALS system... lol. Also... there are multiple ways to achieve anti lag, they are not all the same...


And I agree with you, ALS should not be run on the street... only rally cars... because the benefits don't overweigh the risks of running ALS on a street car smile.gif

Also... if you want an example of ALS being run on a street car... here is one... http://www.22b.com/video/als.mpg (I would highly advise NOT to follow in this guy's footsteps though happy.gif )

I'm glad we've come to an agreement smile.gif

Posted by: chaos Oct 24 2004, 04:26 PM
Man I miss out on a lot. I just don't go on often. Catch up time.

1. The pun was not aimed negatively at rally drivers, I come from Europe, although I love autocross most, I can appreciate a rally driver. Speaking of european rally cars, HOLY CRAP!!! The new Focus RS is so awesome. AWD, 280 hp, tuned chassis, it's amazing.

2. So far, good job, the "debate" is intense. As I predicted, this is in part thx to sidewaysgts and his ae86 loving ways.

3. A little off topic: I feel so cheated. I saw pictures of the new Skyline that we are getting (2007). It's a frickin modyfied g35. I could have done that myself, like WTF?! Hey, guys, let's modify a s15 and call it the new 300zx reborn! My life is in ruins, hopes and dreams of awd whoopass gone, all gone............ crying2.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 24 2004, 05:08 PM
I havent been able to do much unsure.gif

I bet you that g35 will kick ass though.. hopefully itll be awd..

Posted by: BOZZ Oct 24 2004, 05:15 PM
Isn't there a G35Q that features the awe-inspiring, captivating, mouth-watering, explosive, hot hot ATTESA-ETS?

Posted by: RakeRon Oct 24 2004, 05:50 PM
So what about Toyota's Alltrac system found in the Celica GT-Alltrac? That thing has a 50/50 power distrobution between the front and rear wheels wouldn't it make it better than the average AWD system?

Posted by: ghwanderer Oct 24 2004, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (BOZZY @ Oct 24 2004, 05:15 PM)
Isn't there a G35Q that features the awe-inspiring, captivating, mouth-watering, explosive, hot hot ATTESA-ETS?

umm have you been in one of those attesa cars
wether it be the skyline or the new g35 it is scary.

a guy who owns a skyline/motorsport shop over here took me for a ride one day. I was like shit you arent even driving half the time, the car has a mind of it's own

i'd take a good ol fr anyday

even though i do love the r34 worship.gif

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 24 2004, 07:08 PM
Yes respect the AWD. But my true love will always be FR. grin2.gif

Posted by: AJS13 Oct 24 2004, 07:51 PM
I like FR and MR, there pretty much the only drivetrain I will take, unless its a Skyline GT-R.(But then I would disable the AWD, and make it FR)

Posted by: sideways Oct 24 2004, 08:49 PM
its drivetrain is purely awesome, you expect awdto losem ore through its drivetrain ebcasue of all the extrap arts but a skyliens system loses abou as much as a rwd from what i udnerstand

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Oct 24 2004, 09:00 PM
I like FF cause its what i started with, and i don't want to move on until i've mastered* it. I would like to get a FD3S sometime soon after i turn 25 (i turn 24 in feb) cause of insurance would kill me, and hopefully have a carrier. I would like to start playing around with FR's, but i'll still keep my FF Mx-3 along side an FR, i can choose to drive which ever, depending on the conditions, event and how i feel biggrin.gif... AWD would be fun, but i'd rather get a 4x4 truck, cause there are places that even the best AWD car can go biggrin.gif

I like FF cause i can control between understeer, neutralstreer or oversteer with a variete of techniques, but the problem with FF is that weight tranfter technique are very limited because of the drivetrain layout, and the main thing, you cant drift...

*mastered meaning pushed the limit of FF, so the point where i'm content and couldnt gain more unless i became a professional driver

Posted by: AJS13 Oct 24 2004, 09:10 PM
QUOTE (Nd4SpdSe @ Oct 25 2004, 06:00 PM)
I like FF cause its what i started with, and i don't want to move on until i've mastered* it. I would like to get a FD3S sometime soon after i turn 25 (i turn 24 in feb) cause of insurance would kill me, and hopefully have a carrier. I would like to start playing around with FR's, but i'll still keep my FF Mx-3 along side an FR, i can choose to drive which ever, depending on the conditions, event and how i feel biggrin.gif... AWD would be fun, but i'd rather get a 4x4 truck, cause there are places that even the best AWD car can go biggrin.gif

I like FF cause i can control between understeer, neutralstreer or oversteer with a variete of techniques, but the problem with FF is that weight tranfter technique are very limited because of the drivetrain layout, and the main thing, you cant drift...

*mastered meaning pushed the limit of FF, so the point where i'm content and couldnt gain more unless i became a professional driver

Ive already reached that with the mini. I can do so much with that car its not funny. I love that cars handling, its better than anycar.

Posted by: Jayson Oct 24 2004, 09:41 PM
bah, don't have time for reading BS so here's my say.

AWD is more stable then an FR set up, but a good drive will overcome this minor issue. And since AWD does understeer winner is FR

AWD accelerates better from a standstill, no arguing that. Winner AWD

AWD has to distribute all it's power to four wheels, so it can actualy lose up to 40%hp going from engine to road. Seems inefficent to me. Winner FR.

Also, look at ANY major Championship series(besides WRC obviously), they are ALWAYS ran with an FR setup, even if the car is naturaly AWD, they'll convert it to FR because it's a better set up for racing period. World class drivers prefer FR over anything else (except MR maybe, but thats another story). Go ahead, ask any pro/semi-pro driver and they 99.9% say FR.

Sorry, but FR>AWD Period.

But in me book MR is superior to all

Posted by: sideways Oct 24 2004, 10:34 PM
awd usually doesnt have better acceleration from a stop, more weight to get moving.. once theyre going however its a different.

as for upper end racing, one word: Skyline.

as a "general rule" though, i agree with pretty much everything you said.

Posted by: Jayson Oct 24 2004, 10:45 PM
If by upper you mean GT style racing, the Skylines are FR

Posted by: RandRace Oct 25 2004, 06:36 AM
"Weight is the enemy of performance" - Colin Chapman

AWD tends to be too heavy. For off road or bad weather the increased traction makes up for it, but for dry weather road racing I prefer the lighter weight and better balance provided by a FR or MR setup.

Posted by: Zero Oct 25 2004, 10:32 AM
Driven properly, AWD can just about always get the jump off the line but the launch is really hard on the drivetrain. That's why auto mags give the WRX good times, but the average driver isn't gonna drop the clutch at 6K. AWD isn't so hot on the straight.

And yes I'm a little unfairly biased. Too many DSM's around here that think they're god. . .

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 12:05 PM
Ill just let the 0-60 times for awds speak for themself.

Posted by: Jayson Oct 25 2004, 12:23 PM
Meh, 0-60 and top speed are meaningless now a days

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 01:02 PM
Very, im just syaign from a dead stop awd dont have the advantage in comparison, they tend to lose more hp through their drive train, and they have more weight to get moving off the line. a mr or fr car has an easy time beating them when in the same hp/torque ranges.

As i said though, once they -are- moving, its a different story however and accleration belogn to awd, then mr, fr, ff.


Posted by: Jayson Oct 25 2004, 06:24 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 25 2004, 03:02 PM)


As i said though, once they -are- moving, its a different story however and accleration belogn to awd, then mr, fr, ff.

Thats SOOO backwards

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 06:28 PM
Soo FFs accelerate faster then fr? Fr accelerate faster then mr? and mr accelerates faster then awd for the most part? Guess my image of FFs is really f**ked up unsure.gif

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 25 2004, 06:48 PM
I think its like this... correct me if im wrong..

For 4 identical cars (except for drivetrain), with same crank hp, same gear ratios, and same weight etc... the acceleration order will go like this..

From a stop:

AWD(if you drop the clutch from high rpm)>MR>FR>FF

And from a roll:
MR or FF (im not sure) > FR > AWD

The from a roll numbers are like that becuase mr and ff have about the same drivetrain loss of power from the engine to the wheels, then fr is next since it has to go through the driveshaft, and then AWD becuase they naturally have the most power lost becuase it has to channel the power through the front and rear wheels. Im assuming you don't have an assload of HP so you don't spin the tires from a roll. It sounds logical to me, but correct me if im wrong smile.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 07:33 PM
From a stop Mr/Rr has the biggest advantage since it has a low drivetrain loss (comparable to ff), and all its weight is over the driving wheels.

AWD from a stop is a bit disadvantage because theres more weight to get moving, and a bulky drivetrain to do it with (loses more hp through it in comparison to the others)

Fr does pretty good becasue keep in mind as a car starts moving, the weight goes backwards, right onto the drive wheels.

FF is the worst in acceleration be it at a stop or going, because weight moves back under acceleration... unless it was in reverse, anyways its just a major lack of traction

So from a stop rr/mr are on top, awd/fr are pretty close at hand.. depends a lot on the system and setup really, with ff being last.

From a roll awd is usually top dog, being able to push and pull the vehicle at the same time despite the drivetrain loss is a big advantage. next up is fr, then last is ff (weight moving backwards thing still, less traction)

Keep in mind systems arent designed the same, and theres ups and downs to each system/layout, lots of different variables to take into account when comparing.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 25 2004, 07:41 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 25 2004, 07:33 PM)
From a stop Mr/Rr has the biggest advantage since it has a low drivetrain loss (comparable to ff), and all its weight is over the driving wheels.

AWD from a stop is a disadvantage because theres more weight to get moving, and a bulky drivetrain to do it with (loses more hp through it in comparison to the others)

Fr does pretty good becasue keep in mind as a car starts moving, the weight goes backwards, right onto the drive wheels.

FF is the worst in acceleration be it at a stop or going, because weight moves back under acceleration... unless it was in reverse.

So from a stop rr/mr are on top, awd/fr are pretty close at hand.. depends a lot on the system and setup really, with ff being last.

From a roll awd is usually top dog, being able to push and pull the vehicle at the same time despite the drivetrain loss is a big advantage. next up is fr, then last is ff (weight moving backwards thing still)

Keep in mind systems arent designed the same, and theres ups and downs to each system/layout, lots of different variables to take into account when comparing.

I dunno... I think its the other way around..

from a roll... awd is just dead weight, and you have less hp to the wheels as compared to the other drivetrains. Also.. AWD> all other drivetrains from a stop if you drop the clutch from high rpm (which hurts your tranny and clutch)... its a known fact... the biggest change in inertia is from stop to go (theres a reason why cars only do wheelies when they go from stop to go), so i don't think it will make a difference between ff or mr which one will out-accelerate the other from a roll, and fr has less hp than than ff or mr to the wheels...

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 07:53 PM
FF is always the slowest to accelerate. Keep in mind when something is accelerating weight moves back.

In an FFs case this means weight is moving off of the drive wheels, and giving them less traction. Less traction = less acceleration.
__

as for this awd accelerating slow thing, well.. theres a reason the porsche 911 turbo awd accelerates faster in comparison to the rr porshes, despite the loss of power through the drivetrain.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 25 2004, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 25 2004, 07:53 PM)
FF is always the slowest to accelerate.  Keep in mind when something is accelerating weight moves back.

In an FFs case this means weight is moving off of the drive wheels, and giving them less traction. Less traction = less acceleration.
__

as for this awd accelerating slow thing, well.. theres a reason the porsche 911 turbo awd accelerates faster in comparison to the rr porshes, despite the loss of power through the drivetrain.

the AWD porches always beat the RWD ones because those numbers are usually measured from 0-60 (or 1/4 mile from a stop). I think that the shift of weight from front to back is minimal once the car is in motion... and any loss of traction to the front wheels is not realy as large a benefactor as the difference in wheel hp.

So i should re-phrase what I said smile.gif

from 0-60... its

AWD>MR>FR>FF

and from 5-60 its

FF=MR>FR>AWD

I know im right about the 0-60 part.. but im basing the 5-60 numbers on the 5-60 numbers of cars, where power-to-weight is the same or similar on each car with a different drivetrain. Gearing could come into effect etc... so I could be possibly wrong on the 5-60 order.

For example.... an Evo will annihiate a SRT-4 from a dead stop... but from a 5 mph roll the SRT-4 will (usually) pull on an Evo (stock vs stock). The Lancer Evo has a better power-to-weight ratio as well (3263lbs/271hp=0.0836) compared to the SRT-4 (2939lbs/225hp(its listed as 215hp but dodge lowballs their hp numbers)= 0.07655). Besides... theres tons of videos out there of a stock Evo racing a stock SRT-4 off the line and wasting it... but on a rolling start it gets pulled on...

but then again... the power-to-weight ratio at the wheels for an Evo might be less than the SRT-4...but thats already factorted into my order list above (as in same hp at the crank, same weight, etc, meaning same power-to-weight ratio at the crank). And also I really don't know the real hp at crank for an srt-4... some have been claiming 230hp at the wheels... so i dunno (I personally hate the SRT-4, but I give it props for being fast). So this means that my big example I just went through could be a pile of BS. LOL laugh.gif

I love AWD and all, its my favourite drivetrain, but it does have its downfalls....

Posted by: sideways Oct 25 2004, 10:16 PM
FF is -always- the slowest in acceleration, from a stop, or a go, under hard acceleration they simply have much elss traction. True they dont lose as much power through the drivetrain, but were talking a few % difference. thats just a -few- horsepower.

A few horsepower wont make the difference, its all about traction.

RR/Mr have a big advantage in launch from a stop, i mean look at say top fuel dragsters, rear mounted engines which are 2 wheel drive. If awd was better at launch, im pretty sure they -too- would be. They have greta traction, minimal drivetrain loss, and their light weight.

AWD takes more torque to get going due to the excess bulk, but once its going it has superior traction to both push and pull the vehicle. awds downfall is its understeer exhibited in the corners.

Posted by: the dude Oct 26 2004, 03:18 AM
You guys are over exagerating the drivetrian loss of awd. It does take some power, but not nearly as much as some of you are saying

I prefer allwheel drive. I have owned an mr and an ff, but I never have driven and fr

Posted by: Zero Oct 26 2004, 07:05 AM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 26 2004, 02:16 AM)
RR/Mr have a big advantage in launch from a stop, i mean look at say top fuel dragsters, rear mounted engines which are 2 wheel drive.  If awd was better at launch, im pretty sure they -too- would be.  They have great traction, minimal drivetrain loss, and their light weight.


That's like saying "if awd was better from a roll, why doesn't everyone in NASCAR drive AWD cars?" Of course RR/MR top fuel dragsters launch better, they're also a completly different class of specialized racing cars. Concerning regular cars, unless you have slicks or something, an AWD can usually outlaunch a FR (considering that they are similar hp cars on street tires). Well at least that's what I've seen, and that's what everyone on every auto forum has always said, but hey we could all be wrong. So, you're basically saying:

1. AWD is slow off the line. (due to its weight and drivetrain loss)
"Very, im just syaign from a dead stop awd dont have the advantage in comparison, they tend to lose more hp through their drive train, and they have more weight to get moving off the line."

2. AWD is fastest from a roll. (suddenly no more weight and suddenly drivetrain loss isn't an issue)
You stated in regards to FF, but about drivetrain loss in general: "True they dont lose as much power through the drivetrain, but were talking a few % difference. thats just a -few- horsepower. A few horsepower wont make the difference, its all about traction."

If its all about traction, doesn't that give AWD a very big advantage right off the line? But once moving, straight line traction isn't as much of an issue making their drivetrain less effective.

"as for this awd accelerating slow thing, well.. theres a reason the porsche 911 turbo awd accelerates faster in comparison to the rr porshes, despite the loss of power through the drivetrain."

'99 Porsche 911 Carrera 4
Rear Engine/4WD
3263 lbs.
296 bhp@6800
258 ft.lbs.@4600
1/4mile: 13.5
0-60: 5.0
0-100: 12.6

'99 Porsche 911 Carrera
Rear Engine/Rear Wheel Drive
2919 lbs.
296 bhp@6800
258 ft.lbs.@4600
1/4mile: 13.2
0-60: 4.6
0-100: 11.6

Granted they aren't 911 Turbos, but they have the exact same engine output.

However, I'll say that your points make much more sense if you're looking at it from a HIGH horsepower point of view. If a FF is making say 400+hp, it's probably going to be spinning tires all the way up to 3rd gear, and even a FR will start having trouble getting the power down without LSD and/or slicks. And in that power range, of course the AWD will have a traction advantage from a roll. So maybe everyone is looking at this in different ways. . .

(not trying to start an arguement flame war)



Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 26 2004, 08:12 AM
AWD is faster off the line.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 26 2004, 08:37 AM
I agree with 1slow honestly. First off the porchses' are very good off the line becasue of the rear engine layout, that car just tkaes off. ALso the thing is I have seen AWD vehicles always jump ahead off the line against FF FR, I have seen this first hand while riding along w/ people are even watching the old Speed touring series with the audis, they always were on pole and then they would just jump way ahead right off the line, then tire wear would slow them down allowing the other to catch up. Anyways the only reason the AWD porsche is slower is becasue the other porsche is lighter, its basically the same car with more weight.

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 10:53 AM
Zero, you effictively have proven my point, and for that i thank you.

You compared 2 cars, of the same specs, one bing rear wheel drive, the other being awd.

If youll notice from a stop, talking the 0-60, and the 0-100, the rear wheel drive version BEATS the awd version, which is what i said would happen, isnt it?

Now something funny happens; compare the times.. do some math in your head. 60-100 on the rear wheel drive it 7 seconds. 60-100 on the awd is 7.6, thats a .6 second difference.

Now compare their 1/4 mile times, theres only a .3 second difference. That can only mean one thing; the awd is starting to accelerate faster then the rear wheel drive once in motion.

Added: Oh and one more thing, thats from a "rolling" point of view.. keep in mind from a dead stop it takes the awd a full second longer to reach 100, and then it shaves the difference in the 1/4 mile down to .3

Thanks for the information.

Posted by: HorizontalMitsubishi Oct 26 2004, 11:07 AM
"your as cold as ice!" Foreigner

Posted by: Zero Oct 26 2004, 01:44 PM
Sideways, if I sounded like an ass earlier, I truly apologize. Having said that, I don't appreciate your attitude in your response, we can be civil about this. You're obviously one of the most knowledgable people on this forum and if you are indeed right, hats off to you sir. I'll help you spread the truth.
But, I believe that the math you used and the comparisons that you made are wrong. There are fundamental differences between:

0-60 and 60-100 times (measures of mph acceleration)
and the quarter mile (measure of time over a straight distance being 1320 feet)

They're different aspects of acceleration and velocity, but they're NOT equivalent scales and can't be used together like you did. It just doesn't make sense physics and math-wise. Apples and oranges basically. Besides, you have know that 0.3 seconds is an ETERNITY in drag racing.
Alright, so you say that "the awd is starting to accelerate faster then the rear wheel drive once in motion".
So, I did some math in my head and this is what I got:

AWD 0-60 = 5.0
RWD 0-60 = 4.6
The difference is 0.4 here.

AWD 60-100 = 7.0
RWD 60-100 = 7.6
The difference is 0.6 here as you stated.

The acceleration difference is INCREASING, favoring the RWD. So at what point does the AWD suddenly pass the RWD? It definitly isn't going to do it before top speed.

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot, but perhaps I didn't understand your original point and maybe you misread mine. You said the AWD is faster. Okay. Well if you're looking at numbers, the AWD is behind the RWD in every comparison. So you're saying that even though the AWD lost EVERY time, it's still somehow accelerating faster?


Posted by: am3pkcet Oct 26 2004, 03:13 PM
QUOTE (AETRAN86 @ Oct 26 2004, 09:37 AM)
Anyways the only reason the AWD porsche is slower is becasue the other porsche is lighter, its basically the same car with more weight.

agreed. it has nearly a 350lb weight dissadvantage, which, when comparing only the drivetrain layout, throws another variable into the mix. if you want to accurately use those times to compare awd and rwd, then all other elements must be the same, IE, two cars with the same power output and same weight. then and only then will you have meaningfull comparissons.

Posted by: GT3 Oct 26 2004, 03:44 PM
ur right sideways. it makes perfect sense. people dont like to be wrong thats all..........porsches are cool

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 04:23 PM
I never said the awd would beat it in the 1/4 mile, just that it was starting to accelerate faster.

The 2wd porsche gets to 100 in 11.6 seconds, and finishes the 1/4 mile at 13.2; meaning it crosses the line 1.6 seconds after it reaches 100.

The awd porsche reaches 100 in 12.6 seconds, and crosses the 1/4 mile line .9 seconds later.

If the 2wd porsche is always accelerating faster the entire time, why is its 100mph-1/4 mile line time so much higher then the awd porsches 100mph-1/4 line time? Doesnt this mean the awd is accelerating faster somewhere, considering its time is shorter? In all hoensty you may be right, and i may have done my math wrong, in which case i fully apologize and take back what ive said.
___

I was doing some digging of my own, and most the sources ive used have given me slightly different numbers (though very close to yours in all respects) but i found something interesting.

The 2wd usually beatst he awd in 0-60, and 0-100 by quit a bit. However in the 1/4 mile the 2wd barely manages to beat the 4wd, BUT i have noticed the 4wd has had a slightly higher 1/4 mile speed. Considering the 4wd reaches 100 mph later, and exits with a higher 1/4 mile speed.

Sourves were like msn autos, motor trend, super cars, and a few various sites i didnt recognize (some even had the exact same info and review though word for word which i found funny)

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 26 2004, 04:32 PM
the thing is 1/4 mile is measured like that becasue of distance covered and tq. this is the reason why you may see somone running a 1/4 mile with a certain MPH then somone else may have the same MPH but a slower or faster time. The AWD has no wheelspin even though a RWD car may beat it in the 0-60 or 0-100 it doesnt mean its neccassarily quicker over a certain distance just to that MPH. would somone like to add/correct me if I have said somthing wrong?

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 04:46 PM
The awd reaches 100 mph after the 2wd

the awd goes from 100mph- 1/4 line faster then the 2wd, and leaves at a higher speed. It accelerates to a higher mph in a shorter amount of time.

Once again i never said the awd should beat the rear wheel drive in the 1/4 mile, i said it would be slower at the start, and start to accelerate faster towards the end. which according to the numbers shown is pretty much what is happening.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 26 2004, 04:48 PM
This thread is very confusing to read, so i'll just add what I know without referencing anything above:

In theory, an awd car will accelerate better from a dead stop since it can transfer more power to the ground. So an awd car should go faster 0-60, all other things equal. This is theory, in the real world this might not be the case if the awd drivetrain adds so much weight it negates this, if the drivetrain saps enough power to negate this, or if the car is so underpowered that it can use most of its power on launch. (A good example would be the FF eclipse vs the AWD eclipse, stock for stock, the AWD is faster 0-60 but the FF is faster in the quarter mile)

In theory, a 2wd car should be slower to launch. But this is not always the case. Especially if all the weight is over the rear axle. Or if the rear geometry of the car is setup like a live axle drag car, to actually use the axle's rotational inertia to plant the tires into the ground. (Alot of muscle cars still have live axles for drag racing)

In theory, an awd car is slower to accelerate from a roll than its 2wd counterpart. Since there are more parts involved in sending power to 4 wheels as oppose to 2, it makes sense that more drivetrain loss will occur. Also since awd hardware is almost always heavier, it makes sense that the 2wd car will be faster from a roll because it is lighter. Technology however is the great equalizer, when it comes to drivetrain loss, a modern system will lose less compared to something designed 4 decades ago. (I'll bet that the EVO loses alot less through the drivetrain than a 1970 Nova)

So what does that all mean? Nothing! wink2.gif

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 26 2004, 04:50 PM
no kidding, everyone just needs to do some reasearch and make theyre own desicion.

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 05:55 PM
As i said from the start, it -really- depends on the system laugh.gif

Posted by: Zero Oct 26 2004, 06:18 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 26 2004, 09:55 PM)
As i said from the start, it -really- depends on the system laugh.gif

Er, from the way you posted I thought you were speaking in absolutes.

I understand your points, and I think we probably got caught up in the details and limits of magazine specs (1/4 miles, etc.). I was really looking for trap speeds, but couldn't find any. The porsche thing was just the only example I could find of the same engine in AWD and RWD. Which in itself was a bad example cause it's RR and not FR, and RR is a very small niche of the auto market. Hmm, maybe I should've looked at the Skyline or something. . .

Well I'm done, until sidewaysgts gets an AWD 911 and I get a RWD one. Then it's on! grin2.gif



Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 06:28 PM
but i dont like awd sad.gif you take the awd.. ill take the rwd...

shifty2.gif

Posted by: Zero Oct 26 2004, 06:42 PM
ha, sideways911. . .

yah it's all about the rwd.

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 06:45 PM
agreed cool.gif the ability to create and maintain oversteer for an unlimited amount of time is what makes them fun, im not into driving to be the best (maybe close to it wink2.gif ), but its an event ive enjoyed 100% so far.

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 26 2004, 07:39 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 26 2004, 04:23 PM)
The 2wd porsche gets to 100 in 11.6 seconds, and finishes the 1/4 mile at 13.2; meaning it crosses the line 1.6 seconds after it reaches 100.

The awd porsche reaches 100 in 12.6 seconds, and crosses the 1/4 mile line .9 seconds later.

If the 2wd porsche is always accelerating faster the entire time, why is its 100mph-1/4 mile line time so much higher then the awd porsches 100mph-1/4 line time? Doesnt this mean the awd is accelerating faster somewhere, considering its time is shorter? In all hoensty you may be right, and i may have done my math wrong, in which case i fully apologize and take back what ive said.

I don't wanna sound like an ass or anything... but your logic is a bit off on your example.... This is becuase it took a longer distance for the AWD porche to reach 100mph. And when you take a longer distance to reach a certain mph, the distance is shorter to the goal. Its pretty simple math...

For example... I could accelerate up till 99 mph... stay at 99mph... and wait till i was 50 feet from 1320feet, and hit the accelerator and do the 1/4 mile .05 secs or so after I hit 100mph. Or better.... if you had a car that trapped the 1/4 mile at 101mph, this would mean that the time interval from 100mph-1/4mile is probably around .1 seconds.

If you compared distance to distance your numbers might work... but you are comparing distance to velocity...


Anyways... yeah... both AWD and RWD rule cool.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 07:52 PM
I dont see how i was off in my logic.

According to what ive been reading the awd has a higher 1/4 mile speed then the rwd.

The awd once it reaches 100 mph has .9 seconds until it crosses the line. The rwd has 1.6 seconds until it crosses the line. Awd is ending up with a higher speed, in a fraction of the time.
__

Im comparing the speed they was at (100 mph), the time they had left until it finishded the 1/4 mile (1.6 in the rwd, .9 in the awd), and their speeds at the 1/4 mile line.

The awd near the end of the 1/4 mile accelerated to a highger speed in a shorter frame of time.


Added: In a 1/4 mile, slow starting speeds and a higher top speed at the end mean better acceleration -down- the line.

(pointing this out would have saved much time and argument...)

Posted by: awddrifter Oct 26 2004, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 26 2004, 07:52 PM)
I dont see how i was off in my logic.

According to what ive been readin the awd has a higher 1/4 mile speed then the rwd.

The awd once it reaches 100 mph has .9 seconds until it crosses the line.  The rwd has 1.6 seconds until it crosses the line.  Awd is ending up with a higher speed, in a fraction of the time.
__

Im comparing the speed they was at (100 mph), the time they had left until it finishded the 1/4 mile (1.6 in the rwd, .9 in the awd), and their speeds at the 1/4 mile line. 

The awd near the end of the 1/4 mile accelerated to a highger speed in a shorter frame of time.

Ah. If the AWD does in fact have a higher 1/4 mile trap speed then I suppose you are right. I didn't see any 1/4 mile trap speeds in the numbers zero gave, so I just assumed that the RWD would have a higher trap speed since it got to 100 mph way before the awd did. I would like to see these numbers if you have them though... not to prove you wrong, but to just see them for myself since im amazed the AWD car gained so much speed in the last second ohmy.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 08:06 PM
From the soces i found the awd has a higher 1/4 speed, as low as .7 mph faster (thats right) up to nearly 4 mph faster (different tests give different resutls, no drag launch will get the same time every time due to drive and weather conditions)

And btw

QUOTE
If you compared distance to distance your numbers might work... but you are comparing distance to velocity...


Acceleration is = Change of velocity over time... which is what i pointing out tongue.gif

the rwd was going from about 100 to 103+ in about 1.6 seconds, where the awd was going from about 100 to 104+ (as i said these speeds differe depending where u get the info from, this is just one example) in about .9 seconds.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 26 2004, 08:47 PM
If I am reading this right, you are saying that the AWD carrera accelerates faster from a roll.

I think you've got it backwards. Think of it in terms of simple physics. If both cars put out the same power but one car is heavier, shouldn't the lighter one go faster? online2long.gif

Posted by: AJS13 Oct 26 2004, 09:32 PM
Things that are heavy and are moving have more momentum, than light things that are moving.

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 09:33 PM
Yes, but dont forget the extra traction given by having all 4 wheels pull the vehicle.

The numbers are there, argue with them all you want not me.

The rwd is lighter, pulls off the lien faster, and even (barely) crosses the 1/4 mile line faster.

The awd starts off much slower, but pulls a higher 1/4 mile speed (not time, speed, as in mph)

Slow start + higher finished speed = faster acceleration down the line somewhere.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 26 2004, 10:02 PM
I dont feel like debating.

I'll give one more example then you can believe me or not, it doesn't really affect me:

If I get on a bicycle and pedal as hard as I can, then attach 300 lbs worth of dead weight to the back of the bicycle and pedal as hard as I can. Do you think I'll be faster with the 300 lbs of dead weight?

The laws of physics can't be broken. Force = mass x acceleration.

Or in other words Acceleration = Force / Mass

If mass increases and force stays the same, acceleration decreases.

shuriken.gif fear2.gif ph34r.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 26 2004, 10:28 PM
Your absolutely right.. but lets add one more important part into this equation.

More traction = more force.

You could add the power to the rwd vehicle, that the awd vehicle loses through its drivetrain (becasue this is the cost of awd along with the weight), but the rwd still wouldnt have as much traction in comparison.

you can believe me or not, as i said, argue with the numbers.. not me.

Added: Haha crap man, this must be good stuff, 1001 views already. Looks like we have some good ass debates jabber laugh.gif

Posted by: Zero Oct 27 2004, 05:03 AM
The problem with traction is that it's kind of an "x" variable. There's no such thing as more traction than traction, you have it or you don't. And that's dependent on too many things like hp/torque, weight, tires, clutch, LSD, driver ability, etc. That's why turbo 240's on open differentials and street tires are all over the place in the quarter. Of course an AWD will accelerate faster, but give the the same 240 slicks and a LSD, and the numbers will change. Will it be faster than the AWD? Maybe, maybe not. . .

So its up to whether or not AWD traction can compensate for the weight in a certain situation against a certain car. I think most everyone has good points from different views.

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 27 2004, 07:28 AM
You guys are looking at this all wrong. Of course a FWD Eclipse will be faster then a AWD Eclipse, that is if both cars were bone stock. What your failing to look at is the power...it totally fails to drive the AWD drivetrain and tires to its maximum potential. Mod both cars to 400hp and the AWD will rip the FWD Eclipse in both the 0-60 and quarter mile.

Same thing goes for the Porsches. 300hp is right at the line on driving a AWD system to its limit. The RWD car will keep up. Now take a look at the 996 Turbo AWD and RWD Porsches. The AWD runs a 3.94 0-60, while the RWD runs it in a 4.3. Quarter mile the AWD runs a full 0.2 seconds faster, that is two cars.

On the street, AWD is ridiculous. I ran a couple modded EVOs and STi's from a dead stop...they blow me out the hole! Then Ill grab 3rd gear and fly past them. It would take a RWD car on slicks to keep up with the traction of a AWD car from a stop. Even the AWD Pikes Peak Celica ran a 9sec quarter mile on a drag strip, and that was on rally dirt tires! As long as it has those front wheels pulling it, that intially doubles the contact patch for acceleration. Traction is what it boils down too...you can do the math, contact patch of 4 tires w/ 400hp vs contact patch of 2 tires w/ 400hp. To be the fastest is placing that 400 horses of power through the tires and keeping it in constant contact with the ground with out slipping...RWD will always have a harder time of doing this, and once it slips just alil bit, it will be slower. As long as the power is there to drive everything to the limit, AWD will always win.


From a roll, weight is meaningless(AWD or RWD wouldnt make a differance)...if both cars have the same exact wind resistance, the one with the most power will win. This is just like in physics class. Take a fat 200lb kid and 85lb kid, and put them both on a swing. It will take more force to push the fat kid then it would the skinny kid...BUT once they are in full swinging motion it will take the same amount of power to keep them both in a even swinging motion. If you want to accelerate the swinging motion, apply the same amount of force to each and they will still swing the same.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 27 2004, 07:37 AM
Most cars do not have trouble putting down power once you get it rolling. You can push the gas all the way down once you get going. So from a roll, the force vector actually stays the same. What happens as the eclipse get modded is that the increase in lateral accleration doesn't offset the advantage of the launch. Neither car are traction limited once they get rolling, so the FF eclipse pull harder due to a better power to weight ratio, modded or not. A=F/M again.

The quarter mile example is just flawed you are assuming both cars are the same distance to the goal when they hit 100mph. A stock neon and a corvette hit it, and you mark the spot where each car gets up to 100mph, it will not be the same spot because that means that they are neck to neck.

Weight is not meaningless from a roll. The amount of kinetic energy required to accelerate an object to a certain speed depends on mass. K = M x V^2

Or energy = mass times velocity squared
If it took the same amount of energy to accelerate or decelerate a heavy object vs a light object, then me chucking a paper ball at you should hurt the same as me chucking a rock at you. Try actually pushing the fat kid on a swing when it is going, you'll need to push harder.

Most of this is common knowledge and very simple physics. No offense, but if you have trouble understanding a simple junior high level physics equation like F = MA, then maybe you should do some reading (not ricer mags either).

If you still don't believe me. Go down to your local drag strip and tell people that awd sucks at launching but acclerates harder to make up for it. Just remember I told you so when people start laughing their asses off at you. shifty2.gif

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 27 2004, 08:44 AM
Anyways, AWD is faster. rolleyes.gif I guess you just like arguing, when I actually thought i was agreeing with you. We can sit here for years breaking down every detail. Which it seems you want to get into. Ive been to the track and see it all first hand and experianced it myself.

QUOTE
If it took the same amount of energy to accelerate or decelerate a heavy object vs a light object, then me chucking a paper ball at you should hurt the same as me chucking a rock at you. Try actually pushing the fat kid on a swing when it is going, you'll need to push harder.


I was not speaking of acceleration or deceleration. I am talking about a object "already" in motion(like both cars traveling 120mph). Drop two objects from a plane, 10lb weight and 5lb weight...they will both fall at the same speed. It wont take more energy to move the 10lb weight faster when it is already in motion...double the force on both and I bet you the 10lb weight will not pull ahead of the 5lb weight, it will still be even. Acceleration is completely different.

Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 27 2004, 08:54 AM
Oh well.

FYI though, weight always matter, whether is it during braking accleration or cornering.

Posted by: Zero Oct 27 2004, 10:16 AM
Man I feel like I'm in school. This thread could use some Cliff notes at this point. . .


Posted by: Jabberwocky Oct 27 2004, 10:23 AM
I've said everything I could say, and I've tried to be as clear as possible. smile.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 27 2004, 11:06 AM
i was never copmaring the distance of the cars at 100 mph, nor have i said they were the same. obviously the car who reaches 100 mph faster will have more distance to vocer to the 1/4 mile line.

In terms of the porsches (and ive said this before) The rwd ocne it hits 100 has 1.6 seconds, the awd has .9

The awd has less time once at the same speed, and still pulls out of the 1/4 mile -faster- then the rwd porsche. If that doesnt prove that its accelerating faster, i dont know what will.
___

Added oh ya as for what supra said, start adding more power at the awd is goign to always win thing.

Thats just becasue as you add more power, the weight disadvantage because less of a handicap, and at one point will even become a advantage. More weight means more mass over the tires which will mean youll have even more traction.

THink of weight reduction as an example. Take one pound from 20 pounds, not much of a difference, take 1 pounds from 2 pounds thats a 50% difference.

As you start adding more and more power, the power:weight ratio gap closes.

Posted by: InitialN00b Oct 27 2004, 11:17 AM
for those that needs convincing about the potency of AWD on the track, just look at the history of touring car races.

When the R32 came out, it BLEW THE DOORS off every other Gr.A car PERIOD. it ran circles around E30 M3s and Sierra Cosworths even tho the R32 was prolly heavier by a mile.

Then in the mid 90s you have the Audi A4 who dominated BTCC w/ the Quattro before the system was banned and they had to go FF. A4s had to carry penaly weights and they STILL won by a landslide.

Most recent "balance of scale act" is on the RS6 that are racing in the SCCA WC series. Quattro again and now they have a TON of restrictions placed on em to "level the playing field". (it's in this month's GRM)

The only reason why you DON'T see open wheelers using AWD system is trying to package everything in while keeping drag to a minimum (and weight). Weight isn't as critical when it comes to saloon racing as the drivetrain makes for a lower percentage of the entire vehicle, thus using an AWD system has more positives than it does downside.


Posted by: sideways Oct 27 2004, 12:00 PM
weight is -not- the concern of many open wheeled racers. F1 being a perfect example, there is a minimum weight requirment and f1 cars often are -way- below that, and actualy have to -add- weight to the vehicle, like adding depleted urnaium to the bottom of the chassis. a awd system would help then be closer to this.

The thing is the straight line acceleration would be pretty useless, f1 courses are tight and passing directly isnt easy. the understeer it would bring into the corners would bea big disadvantage as well. The guy following your ass into the corner (becuase you were on someone elses ass) could easily just pass you on the inside as soon as your understeer started to show.

too bad its banned from so many races hough sad.gif

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Oct 27 2004, 12:31 PM
user posted image
Who needs AWD when you can do this? Yay for power wheelies. nuts.gif

lol

Posted by: RandRace Oct 27 2004, 01:19 PM
Jabber, you've been crystal clear and absolutely correct. Some people need to take some physics courses.

However, it is dependant on power as 1slow says.

Given equal weight, for low-power cars (75-125WHP or so) FWD is going to rule because less drivetrain loss and not enough torque to really spin the wheels. For medium power cars (125-250 whp) RWD will win due to better traction than FWD combined with less drivetrain loss than AWD. For high power the AWD comes into its own due to the traction it offers and the lesser importance of its added weight. All this is strait line speed from a dead stop of course.

MR layouts like in open wheel racing are a whole 'nother ball of wax; the low drivetrain loss and weight of a FF with the traction and balance of a FR. In F1 they avoid AWD due to the drivetrain loss primarily, although Lotus ran a turbine powered AWD car in 1971. It had 150 HP on all the other cars though... and still never completed a race.

Posted by: InitialN00b Oct 27 2004, 04:43 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 27 2004, 04:00 PM)
weight is -not- the concern of many open wheeled racers. F1 being a perfect example, there is a minimum weight requirment and f1 cars often are -way- below that, and actualy have to -add- weight to the vehicle, like adding depleted urnaium to the bottom of the chassis. a awd system would help then be closer to this.

The thing is the straight line acceleration would be pretty useless, f1 courses are tight and passing directly isnt easy. the understeer it would bring into the corners would bea big disadvantage as well. The guy following your ass into the corner (becuase you were on someone elses ass) could easily just pass you on the inside as soon as your understeer started to show.

too bad its banned from so many races hough sad.gif

it sure is a concern.
there is a reason why they are WELL below the weight limit.

the POSITION of their ballast affects the handling of the car TREMENDOUSLY. the more ballast they have to put on to get to that minimum weight figure the better.

if you've ever raced karts competitively, you'll know what i mean.

there's also the question of packaging AWD into an open wheeler w/o having detriment effects on aerodynamics.

straight line acceleration uselss in F1? try telling Jarno Trulli that when he got his doors blown off of him by Juan Pablo on the OUTSIDE of turn 3 at Hockenheim this year.


road racing is just drag racing between corners wink2.gif

Posted by: sideways Oct 27 2004, 05:40 PM
I never said straight line acceleration was useless wink2.gif I meant its pretty difficult to -pass- on the straights from what i have seen, just due to a lack of room to do it in, thats all.

And from what ive seen abou the weight they add, its usually undert he legs of the driver forward to bring the weight oft he car to, or as close to 50:50 as they can (they can actually make damn good use of thise weight distribution)

Theres many reasons not to use awd for f1, i was just hitting some i was told by people who have done cart racing (none in f1 though from what i know, so it may not count.. haha), and youve obviously made some good points yourself.

___

Back to the subject: I feel this topic has been pretty damn hot so far, i think it deserves to be pinned for now unless i find it useless or something later...

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 28 2004, 01:14 AM
damn this thing got a sticky?

Posted by: sideways Oct 28 2004, 02:08 AM
I think its a good comparison of all the drivetrains now, not just awd vs fr. not -too- often good info and a good debate like this happens.

Posted by: Rayp Oct 29 2004, 03:08 PM
Well, after all thoses 5 pages of debates, i have one small detail i want to add. The weight shifting that occur when accelerating don't affect each drivetrain the same. For exemple high power FR can lift their front end from sheer acceleration, but won't happen in an FF or AWD (unless the AWD has disabled the front wheels traction). FF don't loose that much grip accelerating, it's more they don't GAIN any. By their suspension geometry and the fact the car get pulled, the rear can't sink much under acceleration and the front is very unlikely to lift (so the grip remain mostly even). And last, the AWD weight distribution remain mostly even under acceleration as not as much weight can move in the back due to the front pulling it.


Posted by: sideways Oct 29 2004, 03:19 PM
Thats true but keep in mind theres a reason -why- FF cant get their front up and their back down.

They can not accelerate fast enough, plain and simple. Give them more power and their front tires are just going to slip and fight for traction.

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Oct 29 2004, 04:28 PM
The faster you accelerate the more weight transfers off the front and to the rear, so you have less and less force pushing, or holding the front tires down to the ground...it becomes a loosing battle the more power you put out on FF

Posted by: Rayp Oct 29 2004, 05:34 PM
My point was that no matter how much acceleration you put on an FF, the front can't lift off the ground, not even a little (try to picture an FF front lift off like an high powered FR). That's regardless of the tyre's grip, it's impossible. The rear might sink a little but that's all. Also i'm pretty sure even an high powered skyline can't lift it's front (as long as it's not FR). But it's a common problem for high powered FR.

Posted by: InitialN00b Oct 29 2004, 05:35 PM
QUOTE (Nd4SpdSe @ Oct 29 2004, 08:28 PM)
The faster you accelerate the more weight transfers off the front and to the rear, so you have less and less force pushing, or holding the front tires down to the ground...it becomes a loosing battle the more power you put out on FF

if the car has double wishbone rear on an FF, the designers theoretically COULD factor for some anti-squat.

tho of course just how much would of course be limited by the overall packaging (aka size of the car)

Posted by: Rayp Oct 29 2004, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (InitialN00b @ Oct 29 2004, 05:35 PM)
if the car has double wishbone rear on an FF, the designers theoretically COULD factor for some anti-squat.

tho of course just how much would of course be limited by the overall packaging (aka size of the car)

Well, i'm pretty sure they do.

Posted by: 1slowsupra Oct 29 2004, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Oct 29 2004, 05:34 PM)
My point was that no matter how much acceleration you put on an FF, the front can't lift off the ground, not even a little (try to picture an FF front lift off like an high powered FR). That's regardless of the tyre's grip, it's impossible. The rear might sink a little but that's all. Also i'm pretty sure even an high powered skyline can't lift it's front (as long as it's not FR). But it's a common problem for high powered FR.

I dont think he meant "lift off the ground", more like weight shifting to the rear. Both front tires can still be in contact with the ground when the weight shifts, but less weight on the front means less traction. You ever seen the pathetic times FWD cars run at the 60ft mark? And look at the highly modified drag fwd cars, they put wheelie bars on the back so weight cant shift all the way to the rear.

Posted by: sideways Oct 29 2004, 08:20 PM
thank you cool.gif

Posted by: AETRAN86 Oct 29 2004, 10:02 PM
QUOTE (1slowsupra @ Oct 29 2004, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (Rayp @ Oct 29 2004, 05:34 PM)
My point was that no matter how much acceleration you put on an FF, the front can't lift off the ground, not even a little (try to picture an FF front lift off like an high powered FR). That's regardless of the tyre's grip, it's impossible. The rear might sink a little but that's all. Also i'm pretty sure even an high powered skyline can't lift it's front (as long as it's not FR). But it's a common problem for high powered FR.

I dont think he meant "lift off the ground", more like weight shifting to the rear. Both front tires can still be in contact with the ground when the weight shifts, but less weight on the front means less traction. You ever seen the pathetic times FWD cars run at the 60ft mark? And look at the highly modified drag fwd cars, they put wheelie bars on the back so weight cant shift all the way to the rear.

Glad somebody said that, alot of domestic guys I know would ask me why FF cars have wheelie bars. Some people just dont believe it.

Posted by: Rayp Oct 30 2004, 09:09 AM
QUOTE (1slowsupra @ Oct 29 2004, 06:25 PM)
I dont think he meant "lift off the ground", more like weight shifting to the rear. Both front tires can still be in contact with the ground when the weight shifts, but less weight on the front means less traction. You ever seen the pathetic times FWD cars run at the 60ft mark? And look at the highly modified drag fwd cars, they put wheelie bars on the back so weight cant shift all the way to the rear.

I've seen 400+ hps Civics and CRX, but never seen one with wheelie bars yet. I don't know the time cars usually make a drag so i can't comment. Did not mean to argue that wheight shift or not, just that it happen differently in each drivetrain.

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Oct 30 2004, 05:26 PM
user posted image

and if you understand french
http://membres.lycos.fr/mazatenza1/Dave.htm

Posted by: sideways Oct 30 2004, 08:21 PM
So weird seeing big FRONT tires...

Posted by: Rayp Oct 31 2004, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (Nd4SpdSe @ Oct 30 2004, 05:26 PM)
and if you understand french

Lucky for me, i do.

sidewaysgts : May look weird, but it's a sure way to improve traction of an FF.

Posted by: sideways Oct 31 2004, 01:29 PM
Nah I fully understand it and why its done, but its just so funny.

FFs with big front tires, FFs with wheelie bars, FFs doing nice smokey burn outs.. do you know how funny smoking front tires look?? I guess its my rwd biased nature or something laugh.gif

I respect their racing abilities in their class, and i guess its cool to say you have the fastest ff (maybe..) but it seems like theyre tryign to make FFs do soemthing they really shouldnt be doing

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Oct 31 2004, 08:43 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Oct 31 2004, 01:29 PM)
but it seems like theyre tryign to make FFs do soemthing they really shouldnt be doing

Sometimes, that the fun part biggrin.gif

user posted image

Posted by: sideways Oct 31 2004, 08:46 PM
^-- My point exactly about FF burn outs... Looks like the engine bay is on fire

Posted by: chaos Nov 2 2004, 07:45 PM
fear2.gif Time for a ChAoS update.
First of all: SCORE! I got my topic pinned, I compliment myself on being an awesome topic catalyst. Nyways on more important notes....

Although I usually don't have time to be actively participating in theese interesting debates, I do try to keep up and I must say, so far pretty interesting. As predicted, this is in largely thanks to sidewaysgts grin2.gif .

Also I noticed a few mentions of MR. There were a few reasons why I did not include MR in the topic. They are either too rare, expensive or not good enough ( <-- usually not likely). I mean really, whatever car your thinking of now is too expensive or uncommon, and I'm not wrong just because a) youre ignorant of the scraps most of the world make and think an NSX is pocket change cool.gif you live in Japan and you can go all hardcore with JDM flava.

I am aware of toyata's mr2 and that can't be include because about 75% of the tuner world (jurnalists and circuit racers) thinks that car is lacking in too many areas and IS a demon to drive at high speed. It's no Elise. It's a fact, I know you can tune it but that doesn't change the essence of the car.

Also more scraps to throw in the arena for you guys to tear apart: do you know if it is possible to add bias in an AWD car to front or back (whp wise). I was thinking 40/60, this would theoretically lower the tendancy for that annoying understeer, and improve turn in response. I have seen WRX's converted to rwd (..cough...cough...ricersdesperateforburnouts....cough..) but this kills the rear axles because all the power is going to the rear wheels. I don't know what kind of modification this would take or if it's possible, maybe ECU tuning or some lsd work, no idea....

Lastly, a little off topic but I have noticed that sidewaysgts and a few others here actually race and don't paint there cars two-tone black and white and put tofu insignia cuz they have hard-ons for Tak (Takumi) from Intial D. This is very good and I would like to direct you guys to IMO one of the best and most "down to earth lets race for fun and self improvement not for vinal and bling" club. Check it out -----------------> High Tach Motorsports at www.high-tach.com

They have some club videos, they rock, and they actually race..........

fear2.gif ChAoS out. fear2.gif

Posted by: Jabberwocky Nov 2 2004, 08:34 PM
You can adjust bias with a different center diff or better yet an adjustable center diff.

The Subaru automatics for example have something like a 60/40 initial split. The manuals have a 50//50. And the US version of the STi has an adjustable diff, you can set initial bias up to 80% to front or back.

Posted by: AETRAN86 Nov 2 2004, 08:37 PM
I thought it was 60%?? but im no STI expert.

Posted by: sideways Nov 2 2004, 08:53 PM
I odnt know the numbers but it changes slightly. THe more the rears slip, the more power is sent up front.

The more power you have up front the more you will understeer, This is because your giving more power to acceleration now and less to the turning abilities of the tire.

I should probably state now i dont actively race or even practice overly hard, the current state of my car doesnt allow it, at the least i dont trust it. Need to rebuild my lsd for one and fix my steering, It sits to the left, so turn ins can be hard to a point i dont turn enough or too much the other way, and when i get it sideways i often coutner-steer too much or not enough. Most of my experience comes from talkign and sitting in the passenger seats of other experienced drivers, and what i can piece together with my understanding of physics (though i admit i have no degree in physics, i do understand whats going to happen and a rough idea why even if i dont know the terms)


Posted by: Jabberwocky Nov 2 2004, 08:56 PM
whistling.gif You might be right. I'm too lazy to check. Anyhoo, the point is that the inital bias can be adjusted via center diff.

Posted by: sideways Nov 2 2004, 08:58 PM
They do make Dif controllers for this reason, i dont know their limits or how much they cost, or even simplicity to use.. but they do exist!

Posted by: AETRAN86 Nov 2 2004, 08:59 PM
Hey sideways I got some prices for that speed racer 1900cc kit, it's pretty damn expensive.

Posted by: sideways Nov 2 2004, 09:05 PM
But u gotta admit, 220 hp NA with a stock redline aint bad wink2.gif

Posted by: AETRAN86 Nov 2 2004, 09:08 PM
Oh man hell yea, your putting out almost as much HP as a Formula atlantic motor, with alot more tq! It's over 10K though ermm2.gif

Posted by: sideways Nov 2 2004, 10:42 PM
huh.gif


<-- Would opt to make his own 4age built to formula atlantic specs.

(Then again the point was they had limits on how high a engine could rev)

Posted by: AETRAN86 Nov 3 2004, 09:17 PM
If you want I can send you the the pricing and specs.

Posted by: KeisukeR Mar 21 2005, 04:45 AM
I would choose FR and 4WD if i get enough money...

Posted by: KunPHYooz3D May 1 2005, 11:48 AM
hmm... Problem = fr better or awd better? solution = get one of those porsches that has that button that changes the car from rwd to awd real spiffy

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R May 1 2005, 07:40 PM
WHAT?!?^^^^

They can do that? I gotta find me a wrecked porsche and do some parts scavenging for my all the time AWD impreza. tongue.gif

Posted by: KunPHYooz3D May 2 2005, 01:10 PM
believe it or not it can! i saw it on tv before... i think the speed channel... the dude was 4wd in snow then he changed rwd and started doin' doughnuts on a parkin' lot tongue.gif

Posted by: fobio May 2 2005, 03:06 PM
From experience, FR is a very dangerous drive train, because you can't use it's full potential without losing control of the car. Personally, i think drifting is slow, and you don't see F1s drifting. While driving a FR you have to keep the car in low RPM when taking a turn or high RPM and you'd start to tail fish. So what if you drive a Ferrari? or a powerful Lamborgini? that means you have to take a turn with low rpm to keep the tires from fishing out. I believe AWD is the best followed by FWD then RWD. for amaeuturs of course, if your really pro maybe RWD will be good for you. but i believe AWD WRC cars have the best drive train, driving one of them you can enter the corner with high RPM without worrying about spinning out and floor it without the car fish tailing or losing control. AWD you can enter a corner faster and exit a corner faster. FR you have to keep the throttle body steady and FF you can floor it through the corner if you have good suspension. i believe in stiff suspension and even if FR had stiff suspension it will still face the problems of spinning out. FR is good for slow driving but if you pusht he car too much it will spin out. AWD and FF you can push it all you want. im talking about cars in the same class here.

FR is just only for drifting and drifting is slow... ohmy.gif

drifting is just show~!!! wink2.gif

my personal experience and my opinion im not a car freak or anyting. just enjoy initial d but don't believe in drifting.

Posted by: KunPHYooz3D May 2 2005, 06:04 PM
rally fan w00t drifting is good in that stuff but how can you rally with out the slidey anyway whats the major difference in awd and 4wd? is there a major difference? all 4 wheels spin yay grin2.gif f1 go to fast to do some slidey stuff to mess up their tires big time duh! pinch2.gif its harder to slide for low center of gravity cars like f1 anyway unless your going uber fast like f1 cars... ahh what a oxy moron i am

Posted by: sabishii May 2 2005, 06:12 PM
But if FR cars need to be kept in low RPMs during a corner then what's the point of downshifting to brake but keep the RPMs in the powerband? I don't think RPMs matter - that pertains to the speed of the wheels; rather, what matters would be the amount of throttle and the rate at which the throttle is applied.

Posted by: JoeImp Jun 21 2005, 12:53 PM
sidewaysgts
QUOTE

"Theyre heavy because of their drive train ... More weight = crappy turn in"


My car weighs 2420lbs stock whistling.gif

That isn't too heavy in my book grin2.gif

Imp

Posted by: ~Rev Free~ Aug 13 2005, 08:07 PM
Cornering savior, Front 1 way LSD for a AWD...

haha what do I know...

Front LSD's minimize wheel slip under hard acceleration and allow you to get on the power sooner out of a corner. Clutch type front LSD's can have a negative effect on handling so care should be taken in choosing the proper one for your application. 1.5-way front LSD's should be used for rally on low traction surfaces. 1.5-way front LSD's can be used for tarmac use if set up with low lock-up ratio. 1-way LSD's are better options for tarmac use. Helical front LSD (similar to Quaife & Torsen) is best option for road use (also good for autocross and track).

http://www.rallispec.com/

- 1 way front LSD:
Specially suited for front wheel drive cars and 4WD car front axles.
Activates under acceleration, and acts as a true LSD when the throttle is off. A great chance for improved lap times.

Posted by: Zilious Aug 16 2005, 07:48 PM
hmh...

I'd go for AWD on winter time but RWD on summer not even wet weather is obstacle for driwing... though AWD has better grip on slippery surfaces but.... that's not what I'm looking from a car which is my hobby.. Still this winter shall be fun as I'm driving 200sx (180sx) this winter let's see on next spring how did RWD handle in winter time

that's just a opinion, though AWD's are faster on slippery surfaces compared to RWD.. (depends on the drivers skill though)

// Zil

Posted by: Sweeper Aug 19 2005, 05:00 AM
QUOTE (fobio @ May 2 2005, 03:06 PM)
From experience, FR is a very dangerous drive train, because you can't use it's full potential without losing control of the car. Personally, i think drifting is slow, and you don't see F1s drifting. While driving a FR you have to keep the car in low RPM when taking a turn or high RPM and you'd start to tail fish. So what if you drive a Ferrari? or a powerful Lamborgini? that means you have to take a turn with low rpm to keep the tires from fishing out. I believe AWD is the best followed by FWD then RWD. for amaeuturs of course, if your really pro maybe RWD will be good for you. but i believe AWD WRC cars have the best drive train, driving one of them you can enter the corner with high RPM without worrying about spinning out and floor it without the car fish tailing or losing control. AWD you can enter a corner faster and exit a corner faster. FR you have to keep the throttle body steady and FF you can floor it through the corner if you have good suspension. i believe in stiff suspension and even if FR had stiff suspension it will still face the problems of spinning out. FR is good for slow driving but if you pusht he car too much it will spin out. AWD and FF you can push it all you want. im talking about cars in the same class here.

FR is just only for drifting and drifting is slow... ohmy.gif

drifting is just show~!!! wink2.gif

my personal experience and my opinion im not a car freak or anyting. just enjoy initial d but don't believe in drifting.

Drifting is not slow, you got to do it right.
After studying some corner physics I finally found the weakspot in the 180 degree corners that grip has on turn in...
But still for grip racing 4WD/AWD will be superior.
With a FR you just cannot get fast enough out of the corner due to wheelspin while a 4WD has power on the front tires to assist.

So catching a 4WD car you will need to do it on the entry, you need to enter fast and exit fast.
How do you do that in a 180 corner?
The answer is drifting, use the total grip on all the tires to brake, since the tires have more grip moving sideways that straightahead braking.
But the drift must end halfway into the corner, it must end at the point where grippers stop trailbraking and begins to accelerate again.
And from that point you got to charge out with full grip.

Thats the only way I see in defeating a 4WD...

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Aug 19 2005, 06:35 AM
^ What if the AWD driver knows how to get his/her car into an AWD drift?

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 19 2005, 08:27 AM
QUOTE (Sweeper @ Aug 19 2005, 05:00 AM)
[QUOTE=fobio,May 2 2005, 03:06 PM]
So catching a 4WD car you will need to do it on the entry, you need to enter fast and exit fast.
How do you do that in a 180 corner?
The answer is drifting, use the total grip on all the tires to brake, since the tires have more grip moving sideways that straightahead braking.
But the drift must end halfway into the corner, it must end at the point where grippers stop trailbraking and begins to accelerate again.
And from that point you got to charge out with full grip.

Thats the only way I see in defeating a 4WD...

sorry, but you are wrong. it is far more efficient to stop a car going straight instead of sideways. once you are sideways, the tires are just slipping, and a slipping tire grips less than one that isn't slipping.

fobio
you're wrong in most of your observations. rwd is almost always better than fwd. it distributes the work load better among the tires, they tend to be better balanced, the rear wheels tend to be better for accelerating (like the fronts do most of the braking), etc etc...

and having to keep the rpms low is nonsense.

rwd outshines fwd in nearly every form of motorsport. do you see much fwd in nascar? f1?


Posted by: sideways Aug 19 2005, 12:21 PM
^-- What he said. Slipping tires = less grip, plain and simple. The only situations where it can be useful are when even at full grip ud still have a decent amount of understeer- Or if you just plan on blocking your opponent with ur slowness. THen of course theres driver preference- some prefer mild oversteer to keep things in control, others like mild undesteer for stability.

though i wont agree AS strongly with the ff thing wink2.gif For the "toe-gay" ffs do fine, basicly in any racint situation require emphasis on braking and transition, FFs do alright. Their "wrong wheel drive" typicly gives them a advantage in weight and size- Otherwise FF starts to lack wink2.gif

nascar/f1 are bad examples too tongue.gif nothing like trying to see over a huge v10 wink2.gif

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 19 2005, 02:28 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Aug 19 2005, 12:21 PM)
nascar/f1 are bad examples too tongue.gif nothing like trying to see over a huge v10 wink2.gif

their great examples because of the terms he was using. he was using broad generalizations. in fact, he said that FR was best for low speed driving, and FF was superior in any fast driving.

he is wrong on that account. wrong on needing to "keep the revs down". and his observation of being able to keep an ass dragger floored through a corner is completely without merit. (sure you can, but you will just spin the front tires and understeer, you CAN NOT accelerate AND turn to your fullest at the same time, no matter the drive train. and an FR will pull out of the corner better than an FF, always.)

his entire issue with RWD cars being "unstable" is really unfounded in the context of performance use.

all you have to do is look to the big racing leagues. you wont find many FFs in f1, nascar, prototype cars, etc etc. because it is an inferior drivetrain. you overload the front tires, you have bad balance, you can't accelerate as well because of the rearward weight shift found in all cars accelerating. need i say more? ok, i will. torque steer.

yeah, they take a bit more skill to drive at the limit. but you will be rewarded. you can't just go from flying a Cessna to flying an f16 without training, can you? but which would you rather have in a dog fight?

wink2.gif

Posted by: Rayp Aug 21 2005, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 19 2005, 02:28 PM)
he is wrong on that account.  wrong on needing to "keep the revs down".  and his observation of being able to keep an ass dragger floored through a corner is completely without merit. (sure you can, but you will just spin the front tires and understeer, you CAN NOT accelerate AND turn to your fullest at the same time, no matter the drive train.  and an FR will pull out of the corner better than an FF, always.)


I did drive FR and do know what he meant. He was refering to the Fr's tendency to loose traction if you accelerate or slow down during a corner. Of course it depend strongly on the tyres you have, it's a lot less likely to happen with high end tyres.

About the Ass dragger and flooring it, you can and it doesn't always mean understeer. Usually steering at the same time as increasing/decreasing throttle can disrupt traction, but once the steering is done (ie you stop moving the steering wheel) you can puch it without much hassle (even if you just entered the corner). You can't steer and accelerate at the same time, but nothing state you can't accelerate while turning...


QUOTE
his entire issue with RWD cars being "unstable" is really unfounded in the context of performance use.


FF hardly ever spinout, fairly easy to do with an FR.

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 22 2005, 08:25 AM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Aug 21 2005, 05:24 PM)
I did drive FR and do know what he meant. He was refering to the Fr's tendency to loose traction if you accelerate or slow down during a corner. Of course it depend strongly on the tyres you have, it's a lot less likely to happen with high end tyres.

About the Ass dragger and flooring it, you can and it doesn't always mean understeer. Usually steering at the same time as increasing/decreasing throttle can disrupt traction, but once the steering is done (ie you stop moving the steering wheel) you can puch it without much hassle (even if you just entered the corner). You can't steer and accelerate at the same time, but nothing state you can't accelerate while turning...




FF hardly ever spinout, fairly easy to do with an FR.

this isn't a debate. you can't turn at your fullest and accelerate at the same time no matter what drivetrain. and front drive cars are at a disadvantage when it comes to accelerating out of a corner. again, not a debate, this just is.

so you can floor it in an FF all you want, you won't be faster in the turns. you wont be faster coming out of the turns. if you aren't braking the traction in both front tires while you are flooring it through corners, then you either don't make any hp, or you are spinning the inside front. both of which aren't good. you probably wont spin out, but you sure wont be going faster.

the same things that make FF's safer make them slower. therefor, in a performance application, FR's being "less stable" is moot point. an f16 is far less stable than your average small high winged commuter plane. an f16 can't even be flown without computers helping to stabilize it. and which is better in a dogfight??

if a well tuned rwd car is too much for you to handle, get the f**k out of the kitchen. you guys might be saying "FFs are better because they are more stable", but i'm reading "FFs are better because i don't have the talent to drive a real car, so i need to pull things out of my ass to hide the fact that i suck at driving".

the facts are that rwd is better for accelerating, and that a better balanced car is better for turning.

how about looking to the fastest cars around nurburgring?

Posted by: AETRAN86 Aug 22 2005, 08:36 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 22 2005, 08:25 AM)


if a well tuned rwd car is too much for you to handle, get the f**k out of the kitchen.  you guys might be saying "FFs are better because they are more stable", but i'm reading "FFs are better because i don't have the talent to drive a real car, so i need to pull things out of my ass to hide the fact that i suck at driving".

the facts are that rwd is better for accelerating, and that a better balanced car is better for turning.

how about looking to the fastest cars around nurburgring?

Agreed, if your car is balanced entering the turn the car should not lose traction unless your going over the cars limit. It just makes sense, why do people think drivers heel and toe? To keep the car perfectly balanced upon corner entry. I mean this is what makes a good/great driver keeping the car at it's limits while making perfect weight transfers, isn't better weight transfer the whole purpose of MR?? so the weight shift is smoother. FF may be safer but it's not faster, high speed cornering on an FF is not as high (it may be more stable) as an FR. I don't see and FF cars in JGTC F1 NASCAR, becasue the rear tires don't do anything except grip and brake. They don't steer or accelerate, even watching speed touring championship etc.. the FF cars have to change they're front tires ONLY very often. Sure FF cars can hang but when you start getting serious like JGTC or somthing serious that has big HP numbers an FF just won't cut it. They're ability to corner is effected everytime the HP goes higher and higher becasue this = more understeer.

Posted by: Rayp Aug 23 2005, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 22 2005, 08:25 AM)
this isn't a debate.  you can't turn at your fullest and accelerate at the same time no matter what drivetrain. and front drive cars are at a disadvantage when it comes to accelerating out of a corner.  again, not a debate, this just is.


If you say so.

QUOTE

so you can floor it in an FF all you want, you won't be faster in the turns.  you wont be faster coming out of the turns.  if you aren't braking the traction in both front tires while you are flooring it through corners, then you either don't make any hp, or you are spinning the inside front.  both of which aren't good.  you probably wont spin out, but you sure wont be going faster.


I think you are generalising a lot here. I can accelerate pretty easily through a corner. The point is not moving the steering wheel while trying to accelerate (read: having the wheel turned to prevent accelerating). I can grant you that a FR may be able to accelerate more than an FF, but saying it can't accelerate in corner is not true.


QUOTE

if a well tuned rwd car is too much for you to handle, get the f**k out of the kitchen.  you guys might be saying "FFs are better because they are more stable", but i'm reading "FFs are better because i don't have the talent to drive a real car, so i need to pull things out of my ass to hide the fact that i suck at driving".


I find FR easier to drive than FF. I know pretty well the difference between the two (and the pro and con of each). I drive an FF for practical reasons and personnal preferences, not because i believe they are any better. My driving skills are not limited to one drive train.

QUOTE

the facts are that rwd is better for accelerating, and that a better balanced car is better for turning.


MRs are even better at that, so following you logic they are even more suited for tuning. My take is at some point or another it's driver preference and desired results. Want speed enough and you end up with an airplane on wheels, not a "car".

I know someone who drive a tuned Accord 4th gen. Not the best car to mod but his car is pretty fast (at least for the few mods he did on it) and does pretty well into corners. In fact the guy is unbelievable, going way above 100 km/h in corners that are both sharp and tight. I'm sure that guy could show quite a few FR drivers what cornering mean despite his "inferior car".

QUOTE

how about looking to the fastest cars around nurburgring?


Cars that are worth more than i can hope to earn in 20 years.

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 23 2005, 12:15 PM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Aug 23 2005, 08:34 AM)
If you say so.

that's just it, i don't say so. the laws of how tires work say so. your failure to recognize this is the problem.

QUOTE
I think you are generalising a lot here. I can accelerate pretty easily through a corner. The point is not moving the steering wheel while trying to accelerate (read: having the wheel turned to prevent accelerating). I can grant you that a FR may be able to accelerate more than an FF, but saying it can't accelerate in corner is not true.


you are missing the point. we aren't just talking about turning. we are talking about racing. when you turn at the limit of your tires grip, they don't have anything left for accelerating or braking. any extra load on the tires at this point will cause them to break loose. the only drivetrain that has even a tiny advantage here is AWD, but even then, if you are turning fast enough, it doesn't really matter.

QUOTE
MRs are even better at that, so following you logic they are even more suited for tuning. My take is at some point or another it's driver preference and desired results. Want speed enough and you end up with an airplane on wheels, not a "car".


this isn't "my" logic, it just is. why do you think they use MR's in f1? the middle is simply the best place for all of the weight in the car, why not put the engine there.

though a well balanced FR well tend to be a lot less disadvantaged to MR than an FF.

drivers preference, sure. my preference is going fast.

QUOTE
I know someone who drive a tuned Accord 4th gen. Not the best car to mod but his car is pretty fast (at least for the few mods he did on it) and does pretty well into corners. In fact the guy is unbelievable, going way above 100 km/h in corners that are both sharp and tight. I'm sure that guy could show quite a few FR drivers what cornering mean despite his "inferior car".


sure, he might be a great driver. but put him in a real car and he'd have more room to be faster.

QUOTE
Cars that are worth more than i can hope to earn in 20 years.


and yet they are still RWD for a reason. go figure. and hey, there are more affordable real cars on the market.

but you can sure have a fast FF, they aren't totally useless. but they are handicapped. whether you admit it or not.

Posted by: Rayp Aug 23 2005, 05:40 PM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 23 2005, 12:15 PM)
you are missing the point. we aren't just talking about turning.  we are talking about racing. when you turn at the limit of your tires grip, they don't have anything left for accelerating or braking.  any extra load on the tires at this point will cause them to break loose.



Each drivetrain has their own limitations and quirks.

QUOTE

this isn't "my" logic, it just is.  why do you think they use MR's in f1?  the middle is simply the best place for all of the weight in the car, why not put the engine there.


And why not remove all seat outside the main one? Why not remove the carpet and every else un nessessary? Right that's what many peoples do to go faster, and the faster you want to go the more drastic the measures. I don't want to go fast as bad as you do. So telling me that driving an extremly noisy and completly gutted car is the way to go, i'm not willing.

QUOTE

though a well balanced FR well tend to be a lot less disadvantaged to MR than an FF.


I'm not as much a racer as you are, i don't really care about the winner combo everyone should go for. I enjoy my car for what it is and what i can get from it. A "real car" for me can do much more than just go fast. I can drive mine all year long, go almost anywhere and hull some stuff around, can't say as much for many of the "real cars" you talk about...

QUOTE

drivers preference, sure.  my preference is going fast.


My preference is the challenge of going fast with what i currently have.

QUOTE

sure, he might be a great driver.  but put him in a real car and he'd have more room to be faster.


Sure, but there is quite a few reasons why he stick to "that" car. I think there is much more of a challenge to try to go faster with a car you like than switch to whatever is faster (or more convenient to be faster). I feel there is much more merit to use an "underdog" and become a great driver than be an average one in a great car...

QUOTE

and yet they are still RWD for a reason.  go figure.  and hey, there are more affordable real cars on the market.


I know real well why.

QUOTE

but you can sure have a fast FF, they aren't totally useless.  but they are handicapped.  whether you admit it or not.


And what make you think i don't? I just don't think they are as lame as you make them to be.

Posted by: sabishii Aug 23 2005, 06:01 PM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Aug 23 2005, 09:40 PM)
And what make you think i don't? I just don't think they are as lame as you make them to be.

I agree. FWDs may be disadvantaged compared to RWDs, but it's not a *huge* difference. Only MRs are used in F1s, yes, but that doesn't mean FF is bad; they want to be better by every margin, even the slightest, so it *could* be that FFs are very well be suitable for racing, just that MRs barely outclass them.

But to look at a less "competitive" comparison: http://www.world-challenge.com/2005/tc-standings.html
The top 5 (and 6) are all FFs (TSXs, RSXs, and Mazda6s).

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 23 2005, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Aug 23 2005, 05:40 PM)
Each drivetrain has their own limitations and quirks.

that sure is true, but i am talking about the limitations of TIRES. which i said a few times. it doesn't matter what drivetrain you have if all of your tires are infact turning at their most.

QUOTE
And what make you think i don't?  I just don't think they are as lame as you make them to be.


great, thanks for wasting my time. this isn't about what i think, all i've been trying to get across is that they are in no f**king way better than RWD for performance applications, as the original people i quoted said. sorry, just not true.


QUOTE (sabishii)
I agree. FWDs may be disadvantaged compared to RWDs, but it's not a *huge* difference. Only MRs are used in F1s, yes, but that doesn't mean FF is bad; they want to be better by every margin, even the slightest, so it *could* be that FFs are very well be suitable for racing, just that MRs barely outclass them.


not barely. hugely. because what happens when you accelerate quickly in a car? the car tilts backward. and what does that mean in an FF? it tilts off of the front tires. yay! and you also tend to get torque steer, which is a whole nother barrel of fun. this is why rwd is better for accelerating.

now, FF's having ALL of their drive train at the very front of the car, does another fun thing. it puts all the heavy stuff in the front, and hurts the weight balance of the car. more weight, means more inertia, so the front tires have a harder time turning the front of the car. this kind of understeer is hard to dial out, because it isn't just a setting in the suspension, it's a fundamental charactoristic of cars that are very front heavy. they can still handle well, but they could handle better with better balance.

and what happens when the front tires have to do all the accelerating, turning, and most of the braking? they wear out more quickly! yay.



and i have a few quick retorts to your link.

1. take a look at the cars running TC class, and then GT. of course FF's should have a good chance in that class, it's the lightweight class. and faster cars are penalized in all of that sort of racing.

2. bmw took 1st and 2nd last year. against the same cars. that only reinforces my point about a rule change. not that i really follow that series.

Posted by: sideways Aug 23 2005, 09:54 PM
I agree a lot with what Vr, one thing comes to mind though

F1 cars are balanced to be 50/50- how is weight shifting affected compared to fr cars that also share a 50/50? under those circumstances i thought it was more of a "zOMG i cant see with this huge noisy ass v8 in my face" thing?

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Aug 23 2005, 10:29 PM
A modern Formula 1 car has a weight distribution of 43f:57r
of corse thats just their weight when they are sitting their not accelerating and braking and zigging and woowap... and uhh.. oh yeah, and not counting the great down force generated by their wings'n'stuff.

QUOTE
though a well balanced FR well tend to be a lot less disadvantaged to MR than an FF.

Sorry but I do not understand sure exactly what you meen by that. Can you rephrase or explain that?


Posted by: sideways Aug 23 2005, 11:34 PM
before or after the balast (tungston/depleted uranium) to meet minimum weight requirments? i was under the impression theyd do what they could to move as much weight as possible forward to get it closer to 50/50 for better handling and to suit the aerodynamic balance, or whatever its called?

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Aug 24 2005, 12:27 AM
it was the first few numbers that came up on a quick google search. tongue.gif I believe it was 2004 though.
actualy its interesting I was just browsing threw a thread at mr2oc about this very subject a day or so ago. So to make it easier I'll just copy what I read. tongue.gif

The point here is that a static weight distribution is a meaningless measurement. Do you want a car that is well balanced sitting in your garage, or one that is well balanced for best performance in motion?

In a mid-engine car with a balance around 42/58, you get the following characteristics, all of which are excellent for braking and handling:

* Near 50/50 weight balance under braking.
* Greater rear weight bias under accelleration, which improves rear tire traction at launch and rear tire traction when accellerating out of a corner.
* A lightweight front end that turns without great effort.

If you change a mid-engine's car to be closer to 50/50 static you will ask the front brakes to do more work, requiring larger rotors and calipers to stop the vehicle as effectively and incidentally adding more weight. You will lose some of the rear traction at launch and when exiting corners. And you will increase the work required to turn the front end.

The MR2 is a mid-engine car. Please stop trying to compare it with numbers for front-engine cars. It doesn't work. There are important and fundamental differences in how they behave and are balanced. Weight distribution is always a compromise in a front-engine rwd vehicle.

Posted by: Cubits Aug 24 2005, 06:04 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 23 2005, 07:06 PM)
now, FF's having ALL of their drive train at the very front of the car, does another fun thing. it puts all the heavy stuff in the front, and hurts the weight balance of the car. more weight, means more inertia, so the front tires have a harder time turning the front of the car.

Do you have any idea how heavy a propellor shaft/diff/rear suspension assembly is in an FR?

A FF has LESS inertia in most instances because it has all of the drivetrain in the front end (much like an MR has it all in the tail). On better FF's the engine/gearbox will sit slightly behind the front wheels too, giving the car a decent balance (under 60:40). Turn-in is not an issue with an FF, they will beat FR's of comparable specs any day, it's everything after the apex that catches them out.

About F1's. The weight balance is slightly rearward because they can brake harder than they can accelerate (bout 4-5G's braking), and the key to maximising grip is to spread the load equally over all four tyres as much as possible (it has to do with load sensitivity).

Now onto the biggie. I'd take an FR over an AWD simply because i prefer the balance and control. Of course, i prefer an MR over an FR any day too, no matter what the road conditions. To me, covering ground the fastest possible isn't the epitome of a great drive. I'd prefer to take my time in a slower car and have more fun.

On the track this changes of course (faster, FASTER!), in which case i'd be with the MR still. AWD's might be full of computers nowadays, but they're fighting the understeer tendancies of both FWD and RWD drivetrains, and i just hate understeer.

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 24 2005, 12:01 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Aug 23 2005, 09:54 PM)
I agree a lot with what Vr, one thing comes to mind though

F1 cars are balanced to be 50/50- how is weight shifting affected compared to fr cars that also share a 50/50? under those circumstances i thought it was more of a "zOMG i cant see with this huge noisy ass v8 in my face" thing?

too lazy to explain, and some of our resident HS mech-eng students could probably explain it better.

http://www.k12.nf.ca/gc/Staff/Teachers/Crummey/fiero/polarmoment.htm

QUOTE (But she looked 18 officer)
Sorry but I do not understand sure exactly what you meen by that. Can you rephrase or explain that?


same as above. an FR that was balanced like an MR would still tend to be at a slight handicap to a car will all the mass bunched into the center (a nice MR). though it's hardly as much of a handicap as an FF. at least it still powers the correct wheels.


QUOTE (Cubits)
Do you have any idea how heavy a propellor shaft/diff/rear suspension assembly is in an FR?

A FF has LESS inertia in most instances because it has all of the drivetrain in the front end (much like an MR has it all in the tail). On better FF's the engine/gearbox will sit slightly behind the front wheels too, giving the car a decent balance (under 60:40). Turn-in is not an issue with an FF, they will beat FR's of comparable specs any day, it's everything after the apex that catches them out.


oh, i have a damn good idea. but how about a FR and FF that weigh the same? no more inertia argument for the FF. just it's shitty balance, and all the other issues, of course.

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_full_specs.asp?ModelName=Civic+Si&Category=4
61:39
2782lbs.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=9827&page_number=5
50:50
2500lbs.


WTFHAXOMGPOSLOL the miata has better balance AND IS MOTHER f**kING LIGHTER.


now care to try and address the issues of torque steer and weight shifting off of the front wheels under acceleration?


this is seriously wasting my time.

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Aug 24 2005, 12:17 PM
ah okay, I just miss read the line. I thought you ment that FR cars have less disadvantages(performance wise) then a MR and FF.

uhh.. mybad. laugh2.gif


Posted by: sideways Aug 24 2005, 01:08 PM
QUOTE
In a mid-engine car with a balance around 42/58, you get the following characteristics, all of which are excellent for braking and handling:

* Near 50/50 weight balance under braking.
* Greater rear weight bias under accelleration, which improves rear tire traction at launch and rear tire traction when accellerating out of a corner.
* A lightweight front end that turns without great effort.

If you change a mid-engine's car to be closer to 50/50 static you will ask the front brakes to do more work, requiring larger rotors and calipers to stop the vehicle as effectively and incidentally adding more weight. You will lose some of the rear traction at launch and when exiting corners. And you will increase the work required to turn the front end


Bwahuh, biased mr2 owners i tell ya. Granted they got the acceleration thing down, the turning in thing is a bit off. Mid engine cars are generaly known to UNDERSTEER on enterance- despite being so light up front. Granted the lighter front is easier to redirect- mid engien cars have poor weight shifting to the front, and simply dont get the proper weight up there to properly turn that nose in. Then u know about the weight going outwards, where it is, blah and blah- this is that "snap" oversteer charecteristic a lot will complain of until they know how to cope with it.

This is pretty much the reason Mid engine cars dont exactly celebrate a great rally record- poor weight transfer. Knowing you youll know of the few mid engine cars that HAVE done well in rally- but GENERALLY, theyre not known to be the best there.

Posted by: backinitin Aug 24 2005, 02:19 PM
I think each configuration has it's advantages I've experienced them first hand,
my dads fc non turbo could smoke my old talon tsi on curvy roads because of my understeer but I could charge into and out of tight low speed corners faster because I could brake harder and get on the gas sooner due to the AWD.

So IMO FR's have the edge in most cornering situations and top speed(less rotating mass and parisitic loss due to the poweer changing directions so many times in an AWD system) and AWD's have the edge in accleration and low speed turns so I belive niether is superior to the other and boils down to driving style and preferance

and for FF's they have the edge in keepin yo momz out the ditch. smile.gif

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Aug 24 2005, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Today at 3:08 PM)

Bwahuh, biased mr2 owners i tell ya. Granted they got the acceleration thing down, the turning in thing is a bit off. Mid engine cars are generaly known to UNDERSTEER on enterance- despite being so light up front. Granted the lighter front is easier to redirect- mid engien cars have poor weight shifting to the front, and simply dont get the proper weight up there to properly turn that nose in. Then u know about the weight going outwards, where it is, blah and blah- this is that "snap" oversteer charecteristic a lot will complain of until they know how to cope with it.

This is pretty much the reason Mid engine cars dont exactly celebrate a great rally record- poor weight transfer. Knowing you youll know of the few mid engine cars that HAVE done well in rally- but GENERALLY, theyre not known to be the best there.

a little biased perhaps, but knowledgable and experienced as well. The guy I quoted seemed like an intellegent person, not some kid saying Mr2's rule your car suckz0r.

the "slight"(obviously depends on vehicle and supsension tune) understeer is when in hard acceleration, which is actualy prefured becuase it gives a sense of stability. It is not like a typical fwd car where you hit the gas and turn and completely overload the tires causing you to slowly go strate.
hit brakes, slowly release and start to initiate the turn(not to the point where your rear end becomes loose!), that will give the front tires the ability to grip to turn the car(which takes less force becuase of the natural lower polar weight), then off the brake and on the gas and unwind the wheel.
Look at the porsche 911's, REAR engined RWD(ie, the polar weight isnt much better then a typical FWD vehicle) cars and they arent known to have a slow turn in at ALL! Quite the oposite infact! They have a reputation for not only being exelent performing vehicles but also really hard to handle for inexperienced driver.

There where MANY fast mid engine vehicles in rally, the faster ones just happend to be mid engined and AWD tongue.gif. matter of fact, some of the fastest rally vehicles in the world had the engine in the mid/rear of the car. Group B rally monster the lancia delta s1(M,AWD), Renault R5 Turbo, lancia stratos and 037, pikes peak escudo(AWD)
*you would think that with the lack of weight on the front end on some of these mid engined AWD cars, that the front tires would struggle to get enough grip to not only turn but to accelerate... apperently, that was not the case and they where still very competitive), toyota was even going to enter an awd mr2 for group b!
Mid engined rear wheel drive vehicles(stratos, 037) where the cars to beat before AWD came into the picture in rally. So next best thing for rally, mid engined AWD! From the lancia delta s1 to the monster escudo to the Peugeot 405(vehicle used in the ClimbDance video).
I'm sure you happend to watch the pikes peak hill climb this week right? Quite a few mid engined rwd dirt cars there that were insanely quick. God those look like fun.
The reason you dont see mid engined RWD vehicles in pro rally anymore is becuase AWD simply works better for rally, not becuase of the weight distribution. There arent any manufacturors that build a mid-engined AWD vehicle to be used for such races.
I'd love to own something like an awd version renault clio v6. But then again, the regular clio v6 is IIRC a 40 thousand dollar vehicle so I dont even care to wonder what an AWD turbo version of that would be. :/

Posted by: Cubits Aug 25 2005, 05:54 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Yesterday at 12:01 PM)
oh, i have a damn good idea. but how about a FR and FF that weigh the same? no more inertia argument for the FF. just it's shitty balance, and all the other issues, of course.

Even if they weigh the same, the FF will have less inertia. I wasn't talking about a hit to total weight, but the fact that you now have heavy stuff in both ends. More stuff further from the CoG means more inertia.

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Aug 25 2005, 06:32 AM
FWD vehicles have their transmissions and engine hanging over and partly infront of the front wheels. A front engined rear wheel drive has the engine on and depending on the car a bit twords the center of the font axle but not inftont of it, and the transmission(and driveshaft) is obviously behind the engine which would have it in partly in the middle of the car.
A Front engined RWD car that has a good share if not the majority drivetrain mass between the wheels while a FWD vehicle not only twords the front of the car, but twords the VERY front of the car and even having a good shair of the engin/tranny weight infront of the frontwheels which gives it a higher Polar Moment of Inertia.
assuming both vehicles are the same weight it will require more energy to rotate the Front engined FWD vehicle then it would a typical front engined RWD vehicle that has a somewhat respecable weight distribution.

Posted by: Cubits Aug 25 2005, 06:52 AM
QUOTE (But she looked 18 officer @ Today at 6:32 AM)
FWD vehicles have their transmissions and engine hanging over and partly infront of the front wheels. A front engined rear wheel drive has the engine on and depending on the car a bit twords the center of the font axle but not inftont of it, and the transmission(and driveshaft) is obviously behind the engine which would have it in partly in the middle of the car.
A Front engined RWD car that has a good share if not the majority drivetrain mass between the wheels while a FWD vehicle not only twords the front of the car, but twords the VERY front of the car and even having a good shair of the engin/tranny weight infront of the frontwheels which gives it a higher Polar Moment of Inertia.
assuming both vehicles are the same weight it will require more energy to rotate the Front engined FWD vehicle then it would a typical front engined RWD vehicle that has a somewhat respecable weight distribution.

Not all fwd's have the engine ahead of the front wheels. You assume too much. There are plenty that have the gearbox in front of the engine (which again is tilted back), which makes the balance a lot better. Subaru fwd's are awful in that respect because they use a longitudinal engine.

A fwd with the engine set back has similar interia to an MR car (actually, less because the steering components are also closer to the CoG), because all of the weight is centred at one point. An FR car even with a 50/50 balance still has the engine set in the front, but also has another weight centre two and a half metres behind that (transaxle gearbox, diff, live axle, whatever).

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 25 2005, 07:17 PM
so what you are saying, is that a horribly balanced wheel with all of its weight on one end is easier to turn that one with the same weight spread end to end.

hrm... consider a car turning a full 360 degrees. a skidpad. a nose heavy car will overload the front tires sooner and understeer. same for rear heavy cars. doesn't even matter what drivetrain.

i'm just not seeing where you are going, but i'm not a mech engineering major. but i don't think "inertia" is the term you want to use, at least on it's own.

anyway most popular FF's have most of the drivetrain right over the front axle. cars like the civic and integra. FF icons. but that still doesn't address weight shift and torque steer.

Posted by: Cubits Aug 25 2005, 08:51 PM
But it makes them dirty fast through the first half of a corner. It's why my car can keep up with mx-5's on trackdays no problem (with equal power and near identical weight). They get better exit speed, but i've already managed to hold more into the apex. On longer exits with big straights they'll leave me, but in the twisties i have them every time.

Torque steer is a load of crap too. When you fit an ATB (torsen/quaife) diff to the car it is all but abolished (gets a little touchy over rough surfaces, but that's it). The torque will actually turn the car into the corner harder (skid steer effect) instead of spinning up the inside wheel and bucking around.

There's a reason FF's are bloody fast down twisty roads, aren't left in the dust at motokhana/autocross, and make damned good rally cars (in the BRC some 1600cc fwd's beat the ex wrc cars on gravel).

Being fwd has a definite inertia advantage over an FR which aids direction change (yes, it's called inertia... oOOOohh), while still offering more stability than an MR by having a lighter tail.

Having weight spread about only increases the inertia, so having a 50:50 static balance is meaningless with respect to that. When you have to change direction, having that heavy arse end will only slow it down, make it less stable, and work the rear tyres harder.

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 28 2005, 11:47 AM
QUOTE (Cubits @ Aug 25 2005, 08:51 PM)
Being fwd has a definite inertia advantage over an FR which aids direction change (yes, it's called inertia... oOOOohh), while still offering more stability than an MR by having a lighter tail.

Having weight spread about only increases the inertia, so having a 50:50 static balance is meaningless with respect to that. When you have to change direction, having that heavy arse end will only slow it down, make it less stable, and work the rear tyres harder.

but FF's always have trouble on higher angle corners. if "inertia" was the correct term, it wouldn't just apply to the first half of corners. by what your saying, FF's have less inertia for turn in but more inertia for corner exit. therefor, they don't have "less inertia".

in·er·tia : The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.

it doesn't say : the tendency to resist turn in, but then get walked on in sweepers and general corner exit. and acceleration. (oOOOohh) you could have looked this up in the dictionary in 30 seconds and saved me the time.



but yes, torque steer is a pretty real thing when you start making some power. an LSD even gives you another thing to wrestle with. and then the weight shift problem...

Posted by: Cubits Aug 28 2005, 08:32 PM
By inertia i mean rotational inertia (you'd think all the comments about turn-in and weight spread would have been a good clue). Having less of it will aid in turn-in/changing direction because there is less "inertia" for the car to overcome to start the car turning. OMG.

My comment about their exits being weaker has nothing to do with rotational inertia, and everything to do with putting the power down while in a turn. A fwd will understeer more than a rwd when you gun it from the apex, i wasn't arguing otherwise. The effect can be managed by a good setup, but it will never totally negate the issue.

You're always banging on about the "horrible" weight distribution too. Have you seen the balance of a porsche 911? They used to stuff the front end with lead to make it more balanced (and increased the rotational inertia a whole lot), but the modern ones "make do" with a 38:62 bias, worse than a lot of fwd's. Has anyone been banging on about the way that hampers their performance? No.

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Aug 29 2005, 05:16 AM
I can't see how torque steer is an issue unless your pushing like 300+ hp


Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 29 2005, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (Cubits @ Yesterday at 8:32 PM)
You're always banging on about the "horrible" weight distribution too. Have you seen the balance of a porsche 911? They used to stuff the front end with lead to make it more balanced (and increased the rotational inertia a whole lot), but the modern ones "make do" with a 38:62 bias, worse than a lot of fwd's. Has anyone been banging on about the way that hampers their performance? No.

because the old 911 will accelerate harder and probably stop harder too. it has bad weight distribution, but it has great traction from a dig. and torque steer will never be an issue.

Posted by: Cubits Aug 30 2005, 01:35 AM
Pity it's like driver a hammer handle first then... Would explain why they're such successful rally cars compared to fwd's.. oh wait.

Posted by: VRr1FD Aug 31 2005, 12:03 PM
QUOTE (Cubits @ Yesterday at 1:35 AM)
Pity it's like driver a hammer handle first then... Would explain why they're such successful rally cars compared to fwd's.. oh wait.

yeh, because mid and rear engine cars didn't dominate group B. and you wont see them in the dakar. nope, no legacy of porsche 959's in that.

you got me there.

see, we're back at it again. while 911's are rather rear heavy, they are still better at high speed rally than FFs. go figure.

Posted by: flohtingPoint Aug 31 2005, 01:36 PM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 25 2005, 07:17 PM)
hrm... consider a car turning a full 360 degrees. a skidpad. a nose heavy car will overload the front tires sooner and understeer.

Check out the skidpad numbers for the SVT Contour... Over here in Europe (home of quality automobiles) about 75% of the cars here are FF. When you go to junkyards, you'll see 3 racks of trannys for FF/AWD for every one you will see for FR. The higher end Golfs and Fiats smoke up Nurburgring each time I go.

Posted by: VRr1FD Sep 4 2005, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (flohtingPoint @ Aug 31 2005, 01:36 PM)
Check out the skidpad numbers for the SVT Contour... Over here in Europe (home of quality automobiles) about 75% of the cars here are FF. When you go to junkyards, you'll see 3 racks of trannys for FF/AWD for every one you will see for FR. The higher end Golfs and Fiats smoke up Nurburgring each time I go.

.84-.90 depending on year. *shrug*

again, not a bad car. but again, a car that would probably be better if it powered the rear wheels instead of the front.

Posted by: Cubits Sep 5 2005, 07:26 AM
QUOTE (VRr1FD @ Aug 31 2005, 12:03 PM)
yeh, because mid and rear engine cars didn't dominate group B. and you wont see them in the dakar. nope, no legacy of porsche 959's in that.

you got me there.

see, we're back at it again. while 911's are rather rear heavy, they are still better at high speed rally than FFs. go figure.

The dakar is hardly a race of handling. A renault won one year! My argument is that although the FF isn't a superior drivetrain, it isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be. At lowish power levels (under 200hp), it is all but a match for FR in most conditions. Just look at how well renault clio's do at track days (they hit apex speeds as high as an evo 8 on their standard rubber, which is hardly R compound stuff as seen on the latest subaru wrx sti which it also matches).

Besides, mid and rear engined cars didn't "dominate" group B. The Peugeot 205 T16 pretty much dominated it (yes, mid engined) single handedly, and i'm pretty sure the audi quattro was front engined. I can't recall any rear engined group b cars being significant... The reason there were no FF's? Well, i would have to admit that 600hp through massive forced induction techniques may be a little hard to control through the front wheels. Still, RWD was just as pointless. The lancia 037 did squat against the 4wd monsters, hence the creation of the S4 delta.

A fairly direct comparison would've been between the mini cooper and the abarth 1000 TCR of the mid/late 60's touring car racing. These cars were very even in every respect (weight, size, power...), and the abarth didn't dominate, even though it was free of a "horrible balance" by being rwd.

Or how about the ETCC/BTCC/ATCC, where they have fwd and rwd 2L touring cars that don't always see the BMW/IS200 caning off the front and winning... They don't have any special rules against them, they just don't have that amazing edge you keep harping on about.

Posted by: Rose Gold Sep 18 2005, 12:08 AM
FR IS WHAT IT IS.

FRONTS STEER.

REAR PUSHES.

Posted by: Rose Gold Sep 18 2005, 12:11 AM
...

Posted by: Nd4SpdSe Sep 18 2005, 07:02 AM
lol,
FR = Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
FF = Front Engine, Front Wheel Drive
MR = Mid Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
RR = Rear Engine, Rear Wheen Drive

Posted by: Rose Gold Sep 18 2005, 11:36 AM
^^^lol is that to me? everybody knows what they are comin in this thread.

FR >>>

Posted by: ing2ning Dec 6 2005, 06:34 AM
Generally, for the optimal layout you look to the ultimate car: race cars. MR with the highest level drivers and circuit machines is the pinnacle of motorsport.

sidewaysgts, the reason MR vehicles do not exist in WRC is because of the varied driving terrains the season consists of. MR vehicles dominate nearly every form of road racing. Also, MR vehicles do quite well in other forms of rally.

Posted by: Subaru Jan 4 2006, 09:26 AM
Just wanted to give my opinion,

FF is just wrong wheel drive to me unless the driver know how to push it hard.

RR is fun to drive and most the time fast cars are FR i dont know how to say it clearly unsure.gif -->Popular among racers and car enthusiast.

Awd..my fav..fastest start, mostly, but vulnerable after start due to his loss of power, really stable, cant really drift on dry surface like FR more like a grip..
On snow, if it awd, it act how you want it and you sure have the full control over it...unless your runnin summer tire like Potenza RE92..youll get bad experience rofl whistling.gif

Posted by: Frost Jan 5 2006, 12:39 PM
To SidewaysGTS: Just out of curiousity, you seem to have a streak of not-liking MR's. Any real reason? Just wondering...

First gen MRs in rallying sucked because they were too well balanced. Everything was too gradual with no snap ability (either through weight transfer or suspension setup). This frustrated the hell out of drivers so they started tweaking the cars for non-tarmac courses. On tarmac, MRs just kicked ass plain and simple. On gravel and anything loose, it would just plain suck ass.

Ironically enough, front engined AWDs are what killed the progression towards mid engined RWDs. There was some back and forth between FWDs and MRs but there was no clear winner until AWD came into maturity and killed everyone else.

I've got a book at home that slowly documents the progress through drivetrains in the history of rallying at home. Will post up some memorable quotes from drivers and the like when I get ahold of it.

Frost

Posted by: kingthomas Apr 9 2006, 07:52 AM
rear wheel drives are great for drifting, and so are 4wd.

both have their advantages and disadvantages.

rwd cars tend do drift quickly, while 4wd does drift, their powerful traction makes drifting a bit of a challenge.

Posted by: nethneth Apr 14 2006, 10:57 AM
ahem... can anyone tell me wat is FC means?

Posted by: Smikey Apr 14 2006, 11:14 AM
FC = Full customization...

unless u are refering to the car, then that is refering to the FC3S which is the Chassis Code I think for the Rx-7 Infini III. Ryosukes car, a 1991 RX-7...anyone want to add on?

Posted by: MAD MAX Apr 14 2006, 12:01 PM
Not only for the Infini. FC3S is the chassis code for all RX7 from 1986 to 1991, the 2nd gen. Ryosuke probably drives a GTX in the anime.

Posted by: nethneth Apr 14 2006, 08:14 PM
actually i juz onli know how to drive car.... i dun know there is so mani things which i nv contact b4.... i'm still at e learning stage... thks for e help outside....

Posted by: tivx Apr 15 2006, 07:04 AM
QUOTE (MAD MAX @ Yesterday at 2:56 PM)
Not only for the Infini. FC3S is the chassis code for all RX7 from 1986 to 1991, the 2nd gen. Ryosuke probably drives a GTX in the anime.

i think i remember seeing infinni(?) on the car somewhere. huh.gif

Posted by: nethneth May 15 2006, 01:33 AM
how abt FF? and issit true tat SOHC works wif one valve while DOHC haf two valves.. is twin cam same as DOHC? wats e different twin cam n DOHC?

Posted by: d3v May 15 2006, 02:02 AM
QUOTE (nethneth @ Today at 1:28 AM)
how abt FF? and issit true tat SOHC works wif one valve while DOHC haf two valves.. is twin cam same as DOHC? wats e different twin cam n DOHC?

FF means Front Engine, Front-wheel drive. As for DOHC and all that, I answered that in your other thread.

If you really want to learn more, follow this link:
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/tech_index.htm

Posted by: nethneth May 15 2006, 05:32 PM
d3v
is der a tread tat explain all tis FF or FWD means...
i cant find one..

Posted by: rneteoriteflo Jun 12 2006, 05:19 PM
not really into this topic. because i like both rwd/awd chassis. but lets let this video talk. best motoring!! there's another one with rwd vs awd somewhere...i can't find it. but this one has AE86 VS Nissan Skyline..... S15 Silvia VS MR5 ...........Type R VS S14 Silvia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-rSiAPseAc

Posted by: OWEN Industries Jul 27 2006, 01:03 AM
AWD is always going to be faster because of the increased traction and because it can handle more power through the corners without spining.

Any good driver knows how to kill any understeer in a AWD car although it is always better if the AWD car has a rear wheel bias (Like Skylines, Subarus, EVOs, and AWD Porsches)

Me I am thinking about changing my 944 into AWD and sticking a turbo on it. And when I say thinking I mean I have most of the parts I am just contemplating when to start.

Posted by: d3v Jul 27 2006, 01:44 AM
But you have to remember that FR tends to be lighter than AWD. Plus good engineering and an even better right foot can make up for traction. It's like that video in TopGear where they compared a 997 Carrera 4 and a Carrera 2, running them through the indoor stadium super stages used in the UK round of the WRC. While the Carrera 4 had better traction out of a turn, the Carrera 2 eventually got through the corners quicker, negating any advantage that the AWD system gave.

Posted by: sideways Jul 27 2006, 03:41 AM
Hmm, no right foot could make up for that exit acceleration. And the comparison really depends a lot on the car. Intelligent awd drivetrains have really coming a long way, and with future advancements i can easily see them dominating even more.

Posted by: Cubits Jul 27 2006, 04:14 AM
For instance, in a test compiled by Evo magazine that compared awd sportscars, the evo whooped the carrera 4 around the track.

The 911 really doesn't lend itself to awd that well, as every time you're accelerating hard there's about three pounds of weight on the front wheels. It may be handy on ice where you don't get such a weight shift, but who cares about that in a sportscar (unless it's a rally car...).

Posted by: genk Jul 27 2006, 08:26 AM
I think the electronics in AWD discount some of the skill factor in driving fast. Like the EVO 8's center diff / yaw control for example. I know a guy with an EVO 8 MR who is really really quick on high speed stuff. My miata cant even hang with him in anything uphill / anything very high speed / anything that requires power. However, if i take him to tighter roads that are downhill (ive only driven with him when my car was on bald tires ) he has a LOT harder time out pacing me or really gaining on me. AWD are NOT always faster in every situation and are far from being full proof. For really tight downhill stuff id almost always put my money on a lighter weight FR machine.

Posted by: sideways Jul 27 2006, 01:19 PM
He doesnt have ayc. Id question the evo drivers skill and/or his tires. Its nice to claim "its all about skill" when refering to the downhill, but power sure makes for one -hell- of a handicap, specialy when theyve got nearly double (short of you having a msm miata)

Posted by: genk Jul 27 2006, 01:29 PM
my miata is a 2002 with the sport package which basically just means it has bilstein shocks that are non adjustable a slightly better brake pad from stock, torsen LSD and 16" wheels. To put that in perspective though im working with 142bhp so maybe 128 or so hp to the wheels, and something in the area of 120 lb tq.

On higher speed downhill...with straights sure power is a big advantage but that wasnt my point. If you go somewhere that puts less emphasis on power it turns into an entirely different situation. The course is a huge, huge variable in what car will be faster.

In a way if you really wanted to get down to it, in a way you cant really compare awd to FR or FF. Also, i wasnt aware the MR comes w/o AYC. If thats true thanks for clarifying.

*** just checked it out and i guess no US spec evo's have AYC...kinda weird.

Posted by: Cubits Jul 27 2006, 05:06 PM
Well braking ability and turn in speed is mostly due to weight, so i'd certainly hope the miata could flog an evo into a corner (which is more evident on downhill turns).

Australia's Motor magazines PCOTY showed that a renault clio sport on the same compound as an evo/sti (with ayc) will out-apex them confidently. The clio is fwd, but it weighs a good 400kg less than either of the japanese couple. If it had an LSD and some tweaks to the suspension to take it to the tech level of those cars it'd demolish them throughout the turns.

Posted by: d3v Jul 27 2006, 09:52 PM
In other words, what matters is not the drivetrain, but rather the cars overall balance and agility.

Posted by: sideways Jul 27 2006, 09:55 PM
Compare any Ff/Fr/Mr/Rr/Awd of equal weight, balance, and power, and youre not going to have a car that handles like the other

Posted by: genk Jul 28 2006, 12:53 AM
I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who has an S2000 and does electrical / engineering stuff. He brought up the point that wit hthe exception of Rally almost every car that dominates each type of major circuit racing is MR or FR. Kinda thought that was interesting.

Posted by: OWEN Industries Jul 28 2006, 04:57 AM
QUOTE (genk @ Today at 1:53 AM)
I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who has an S2000 and does electrical / engineering stuff. He brought up the point that wit hthe exception of Rally almost every car that dominates each type of major circuit racing is MR or FR. Kinda thought that was interesting.

There is a very good reason for that AWD has been outlawed in almost every single type of racing (excluding rally) at some point or another someone has tried to bring AWD into sports like F1, JGTC, DTM and it has always been outlawed because it was seen as an unfair advantage even with weight penalties.


Ponder that for awhile.

Posted by: sideways Jul 28 2006, 04:02 PM
Another point to bring out is a lot of the more popular races are endurance races- awd generaly have a bit more tire wear to deal with that causes them to pit in more often.

Posted by: OWEN Industries Jul 29 2006, 01:31 AM
and they were still banned inspite of that fact although it isn't even that true. AWD cars only have more tire wear because people drive them like RWD cars which scrubs all the tires harder, drive it like an AWD car and they can actually have less wear (think about it with 4 wheels sharing power there is less power per wheel!)

Posted by: Rayp Jul 29 2006, 03:18 AM
QUOTE (OWEN Industries @ Today at 2:31 AM)
and they were still banned inspite of that fact although it isn't even that true. AWD cars only have more tire wear because people drive them like RWD cars which scrubs all the tires harder, drive it like an AWD car and they can actually have less wear (think about it with 4 wheels sharing power there is less power per wheel!)

There may be less power, but there is more weight on each wheels. But AWD have another flaw : for equal power output, they consume more fuel than a RWD or FWD ( due to the extra mass and mechanical complexity). In endurance race, not only they have to change wheels more often, they need to fuel more often. In endurance race, performance matter less than reliability, fuel efficiency and tire wear. AWD are the worst there.

Posted by: Cubits Jul 29 2006, 11:06 AM
QUOTE (genk @ Yesterday at 1:53 AM)
I was having this discussion with a friend of mine who has an S2000 and does electrical / engineering stuff. He brought up the point that wit hthe exception of Rally almost every car that dominates each type of major circuit racing is MR or FR. Kinda thought that was interesting.

What about WTCC (The world touring car championships), or the ETCC, BTCC...

They've consistently had fwd's vs rwd's without one dominating the other. Mini's vs fiats, alfa 156's vs bmw 320i's...

There's a long history of fwd's being compeditive in touring cars that stretches back to the early 60's.

Posted by: sideways Jul 29 2006, 03:52 PM
QUOTE (OWEN Industries @ Today at 3:31 AM)
drive it like an AWD car and they can actually have less wear (think about it with 4 wheels sharing power there is less power per wheel!)

... haunh?? blink.gif

Youve got the front 2 wheels doing both handling and acceleration- putting more load on those tires when being raced then any rwd car, in a generally heavier car. And obviously unlike a ff car, youve got rear wear going on too. Its not about the "power per wheel", its how much use youre getting out of each tire- If you drive an awd like "an awd", youll be taking advantage of that corner exit acceleration ability... Otherwise theres no general point to an awd

Posted by: d3v Jul 31 2006, 02:13 AM
QUOTE (OWEN Industries @ Jul 28 2006, 05:57 AM)
There is a very good reason for that AWD has been outlawed in almost every single type of racing (excluding rally) at some point or another someone has tried to bring AWD into sports like F1, JGTC, DTM and it has always been outlawed because it was seen as an unfair advantage even with weight penalties.


Ponder that for awhile.

Well, honestly, AWD just never worked in Formula 1 when they tried it back in the 60s and 70s. They were to complex and heavy back then and by the time the technology was more or less refined where it probably would have worked, F1 had moved onto aerodynamics to get grip.

Where AWD really shone was in the Group A Touring Cars (and to the extent that they did exist Group B Touring Cars). Hence it wasn't rare to see an all R32 skyline podium at the JTCC or even the Australian touring car championship (where I beleive the car did well in Bathurst, much to the chagrin of the local fans). The reason IMO that AWD probably did fare better in touring cars was the fact that teams couldn't resort to aerodynamics to get good grip in the corners, whereas GT and prototypes could run such high downforce numbers (especially Group C cars which which had cornering speeds approaching 200mph) that AWD was no longer needed - bascially the faster they went, the more grip became available sicne the car was getting pushed down more and more (similar to a mdoern F1 car that is almost undriveable at low speed but very stable at high speed).

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Jul 31 2006, 05:35 AM
QUOTE (Rayp @ Jul 29 2006, 07:18 AM)
There may be less power, but there is more weight on each wheels. But AWD have another flaw : for equal power output, they consume more fuel than a RWD or FWD ( due to the extra mass and mechanical complexity). In endurance race, not only they have to change wheels more often, they need to fuel more often. In endurance race, performance matter less than reliability, fuel efficiency and tire wear. AWD are the worst there.

Not completely true. Aerodynamics, the kind of motor and displacement also affects fuel consumption. Rotory engined vehicles naturally aspirated or turbo consume more fuel than an awd boxer engined vehicle naturally aspirated or turbo.

EDIT: Oh, and speaking about AWD car's and weight, here's something interesting picked off on Wikipedia after i searched for "WRX STi".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Impreza_WRX_STi

The GC Imprezas were notable for being very lightweight despite having 4WD, the WRX Type STi Version VI, at 1260 kg, was lighter than the concurrent Mazda RX-7 type RZ (1270 kg) and Honda NSX type S Zero (1270 kg). In this fashion, the GC chassis has a better advantage.

^ Found that when they compare the GD chassis to the GC chassis. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Rayp Jul 31 2006, 06:33 AM
QUOTE (WRX DEMON @ Today at 6:35 AM)
Not completely true. Aerodynamics, the kind of motor and engine size also affects fuel consumption. Rotory engined vehicles naturally aspirated or turbo consume more fuel than an awd boxer engined vehicle naturally aspirated or turbo.

Of course, if you compare to a rotary, an AWD car like the STI will get better mileage. But if you compare to an Integra or a Miata, you still get a worst power to weight ratio. Months ago there was an article about Honda winning another endurance race. Their Integra had a serious advantage with pit time : they needed less pit time and fewer pitstops because the car required less gas, less tires, and less parts replacements. Of course, performance wise, the Teg was next to the bottom (there was even exotics in that race, as well as several AWD like the STI or EVO)... Only the driver's skills evened the odds a bit.


Posted by: genk Jul 31 2006, 06:31 PM
Well, after doing 2 full days of autocross this weekend with a few multi multi national champions i realized this thread is pretty pointless haha. No offense or anything but it just kinda clicked. the AWD cars did well but the top cars were mostly rwd. Driver skill is greater than any drive train.

Posted by: Rayp Jul 31 2006, 07:01 PM
QUOTE (genk @ Today at 7:31 PM)
Well, after doing 2 full days of autocross this weekend with a few multi multi national champions i realized this thread is pretty pointless haha. No offense or anything but it just kinda clicked. the AWD cars did well but the top cars were mostly rwd. Driver skill is greater than any drive train.

Having owned/used both FRs and FFs, i do believe you need much more driving skills to push an FF to it's genuine limits than for an FR. When i got my first FR, i expected it to be hard to drive, but it wasn't, my skills were already good enough. It's a lot harder to learn how to maximise the use of tires used for both turning and throttling, when they are separated it's just too easy. Learning to get the rear loose and getting it back was so easy to learn when i have been trying that with my FF with throttle and steering alone! My only problem was getting used to "free fall" forward, i was too used to be pulled around...

AWD are easy to learn, easy to master.
RWD have a step learning curve, but get easier later on.
FWD are very easy to start with, but very hard to master.

Posted by: Cubits Aug 1 2006, 06:04 AM
I don't think AWD's are easy to master, they have a lot of little issues which need adapting to if they're not loaded with torque-fiddling computers.

Pushing a conventional AWD (WRX, galant vr4... 205 t16) too early in a long sweeper often results in the front washing out, which requires you to lift off and stab the throttle hard to try and keep the nose in. It's quite a similar technique to driving an older 911, except instead of having no weight on the front, you have tractive force robbing you of that potential lateral grip.

That trait of the AWD platform is what causes most of the "performance" oriented crashes on our streets in them. Oh the countless subaru's/galants i've seen front-ended into trees and poles... tongue.gif

And as for RWD's, I think there are distinct variations on that platform which effects just how forgiving they are. Your average mk1 mr2 is somewhat harder to confidently push than your average mk1 miata. wink2.gif

FWD's are indeed quite difficult to keep "on the edge", but they're techniques you would need to use to maximise any drivetrain really (braking to the apex etc). I find the oversteer characteristics and general balance of a hot fwd to be similar to a formula vee (which doesn't really power oversteer so easily, but you end up drifting into every corner).

FWD's are probably the hardest to drive in a simulator though as you cannot gauge the grip available with enough precision to extract the last couple of tenths.

BTW, in autocross it's not too rare for people to build their own cars specifically for the task. What's interesting about that is just how many of them are FWD, and how they're just as compeditive as the RWD's. In a sport where acceleration out of slow turns is key to speed, it's remarkable how evenly matched the two drivetrains are.

Posted by: Rayp Aug 1 2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (Cubits @ Today at 7:04 AM)
I don't think AWD's are easy to master, they have a lot of little issues which need adapting to if they're not loaded with torque-fiddling computers.

Well, i did not mean there was nothing to learn, just that in comparaison to the other drivetrain, they are easier to learn on and master (not that everyone manage to). But i guess it depend on what you are trying to learn to do. Driving at the edge of tire grip is quite hard, and it's what i always aimed to do. I like to oversteer and regain grip on a moment notice, in a very smooth motion. It's hard, but i'm getting quite good at it...

Posted by: OWEN Industries Aug 3 2006, 01:13 AM
QUOTE (sidewaysgts @ Jul 29 2006, 04:52 PM)
... haunh?? blink.gif

Youve got the front 2 wheels doing both handling and acceleration- putting more load on those tires when being raced then any rwd car, in a generally heavier car. And obviously unlike a ff car, youve got rear wear going on too. Its not about the "power per wheel", its how much use youre getting out of each tire- If you drive an awd like "an awd", youll be taking advantage of that corner exit acceleration ability... Otherwise theres no general point to an awd

Ok lets think about this:

To accelerate you need to put power through your wheels.

A AWD car puts less power through each wheel than a RWD would put through it's rear wheels, causing less wear on the wheels getting power.

Next during cornering you use traction from all 4 wheels to help resist lateral movement, now the amount of traction left for that is dictated by what else you are using the wheels for. In the RWD car the rear wheels will not be able to hold as much as the front wheels and as soon as they break traction wear goes up. On the AWD car all the wheels have roughly the same traction available for lateral restraint (we are not taking weight shifting into account here) and therefore you can go around the corner faster with less tire wear (because they wont break traction)

Now because AWD cars have normally higher lateral traction levels, people drive them like a RWD car with stickier tires trying to get the back to break traction so they can control it. This way of driving will lead to greater wear on the AWD car.

Posted by: alfa75 Nov 12 2006, 07:07 AM
Nobody has brought up my favorite drivetrain type: front engine-rear transaxle. I am biased because I drive an 87 Alfa with rear mounted clutch and transaxle.

Owen Industries drives a rear transaxle car too! (Porsche 944). This is the drivetrain that Porsche decided was best for road cars when they admitted to themselves that rear engines were giving them an engineering handicap. They designed the 928 to replace the 911, but Porsche owners never took to it. They preferred the 911 for it´s familiar quirks (air cooling and tendency to go off track backwards if the driver pushed one millimeter past the handling limit or lifted off the throttle during a turn).
Still, 928 ended up being a faster platform than the 911. Even decked out in full grand touring trim (auto box and all), they were nearly as fast as the racey 911 turbos.

Front engine-rear transaxle is still going strong today in vehicles like the current and last gen corvette (c5 and c6, I think), and my favorite luxury car to read about, the Maseratti Quattroporte. Quattroporte has shown itself able to post lap times competitive with the M5 on some tracks despite having 100 or so less horsepower and a few hundred more pounds!


Posted by: FinToy-83 Apr 22 2007, 12:43 PM
QUOTE (But she looked 18 officer @ Aug 24 2005, 07:17 PM)
There arent any manufacturors that build a mid-engined AWD vehicle to be used for such races.

I dare to disagree..

user posted image

Peugeot manufactured 200 road going homologation models of these. same car as Ev0 1, but with restrictors in the engine and more creature comforts.

user posted image

And Lancia made 200 of these. And yes, the engine is super-and turbocharged even in this model.

Then there was Mg Metro 6R4 Clubman, also a homologation model, 200 were built.

and modern mr awd cars? well, Audi R8, Lambo Murcielago and Gallardo, Diablos, and naturally, big bad motherf**kers, Bugatti Veyron and EB110..

do I need to go on?

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Jun 15 2007, 09:27 AM
Since it has been quite awhile since I posted that I cant be sure anymore but I think I talking about any manufacturers currently building mid engined AWD vehicles for rally competitions like those from the Group-B era.
If you notice on my post I mentioned the first two cars you did. As for some of the others, such as the current lambo's, 911 turbo's and whatever else... What races are they being built for? What races do you see an awd lambo and porsche in? Granted I live in America and getting coverage on any form of racing that doesnt involve the good ol boys going 'round a circle is hard to do.. but I've yet to see any of those AWD super sports cars in a real race series.
Also, in 2005 when I made that post there was no official information made public to the veyron or r8.

Posted by: Fujiwara Bunta-san Jun 19 2007, 07:08 AM
Fully All-Time Engaged 4WD is bull... unless it's a Mitsubishi Electronic-Control or Subaru Symmetrical System...

Get a Nissan ATTESA-ET-S Pro 2 System instead... dynamic 40/60-50/50-0/100 F-R Balancing with Super-HICAS 4 Wheel Steering and other systems that I am currently in the progress developing with my fellow engineers here at Nissan Japan... we're a pretty tight-lipped bunch of meditative tire-kickers...

Posted by: Inygknok Jun 20 2007, 05:18 AM
QUOTE (genk @ Jul 31 2006, 06:31 PM)
Well, after doing 2 full days of autocross this weekend with a few multi multi national champions i realized this thread is pretty pointless haha. No offense or anything but it just kinda clicked. the AWD cars did well but the top cars were mostly rwd. Driver skill is greater than any drive train.

The smartest post in the entire thread.....


Here's a fact for all of those saying, "I think this, and I think that". When placing equivalent drivers up against each other, it doesn't matter what car they're driving, especially if the performance of those cars are all up to par against each other (which is why they have regulations). Ask anyone who has competed or has at least tried this out (I have tried it out personally in advice of some pros), and what it all comes down to when those guys compete is their tires. Since they are usually equally matched in aspects of driving skills and car performance, it's their selection of tires that makes the difference. An excellent AWD car with an excellent driver, but unlucky selection of tires, will lose to an excellent FWD car with an excellent driver with a lucky selection of tires.


That's it. What you guys should be focusing on is not which type is better for racing or whatever, but at which things each drivetrain set up excels, including their pros and cons.

Posted by: SR5Sedan Jun 22 2007, 04:45 AM
FRs rule.

RRs are still terrible when there are a lot of corners.
FFs were meant to be cheap and easy to drive when it rained.
AWD should be "all weather drive" for your grandma.

The enemy of any platform is the stupidity of the driver getting into a race he can't win.

Posted by: Inygknok Jun 22 2007, 09:15 PM
QUOTE (SR5Sedan @ Today at 4:45 AM)
FRs rule.

RRs are still terrible when there are a lot of corners.
FFs were meant to be cheap and easy to drive when it rained.
AWD should be "all weather drive" for your grandma.

The enemy of any platform is the stupidity of the driver getting into a race he can't win.

This is one of the most ignorant posts I have read in my entire life.....


Edited the rather harsh reply I started writing. Don't wanna piss off the admins already. I'll just let him be.

Posted by: WRX DEMON Type R Jun 23 2007, 02:06 AM
QUOTE (SR5Sedan @ Yesterday at 7:45 AM)

AWD should be "all weather drive" for your grandma.

laugh.gif I'm busting a gut over this comment. LOL. laugh2.gif

Yep, yep. And hey, WRC stands for "weather really creepy", hence why they use AWD (all weather drive) cars in it now. laugh2.gif

Posted by: SR5Sedan Jun 23 2007, 04:26 AM
w00t2.gif Heh, thanks for recognizing it _was_ a joke.


Posted by: Inygknok Jun 23 2007, 09:00 AM
QUOTE (WRX DEMON Type R @ Today at 2:06 AM)
laugh.gif I'm busting a gut over this comment. LOL. laugh2.gif

Yep, yep. And hey, WRC stands for "weather really creepy", hence why they use AWD (all weather drive) cars in it now. laugh2.gif

Sometimes they use FWD cars....

Posted by: SR5Sedan Jun 29 2007, 12:30 PM
QUOTE
This is one of the most ignorant posts I have read in my entire life.....


wink2.gif

NOT!

It was just overly succinct.

--- RRs ---
Old 911s RRs sucked in tight corses and Porche made the ass wider, shortened the axles and put on big rims and tires to keep rich guys from spinning them out. I drove an 80's Targa and the legend is true. On tight corner courses at what we might consider moderate speeds, the heavy ass of the car would kicks out like a weight on a pendulum, to correct this, you stay on the gas and hope the road straightens out.

This handling flaw is understandable at the time, due to the construction of the Autobahn and the fact that Porche was designing for high-speed roads with regulated design criteria that narrowed both road pitch and road curve angles to facilitate high-speed driving even with consumer cars.

In the aftermarket scene, Bugs excelled in the 1/4 mile. I drove a couple of friends' cars at about %75 and the cars would "squat" off the line very violently. Antique race bugs will put even modern AWD cars to shame in a stoplight to ~1/4 mile situation where their air-cooled/lightweight engines don't have time to overheat.

They do not handle well at all. Rumor once had it that at about 85mph, the car was more aerodynamic backwards than forwards (like a Pinto). I think that they were just plain dangerous.


--- FFs ---
AFAIK right now, the concept of the FFs was around for a long time, but FFs really took off for two reasons: The 1973 oil crisis and the fact that Volkswagen needed a new platform to replace their RR air-cooled platforms.

In Japan, auto makers had already embraced FF as a platform for use in domestic-only kei-cars - super-lightweight fuel efficient tiny vehicles. Full-size (exportable) FRs were intended for export and marketed domestically in Japan as performance platforms and luxury vehicles (every country likes to have its hotrods and limos).

Volkswagen used it's Audi/Auto Union resources to create the Golf/Rabbit. Volkswagen essentially sold the concept of German Engineering to validate FF to the US public. The hippy era was over. Volkswagen was going broke and needed to sell cars in the USA.

What are the advantages of FF that they sold? Weight, performance, and fuel economy.

FFs allow you to "package" a vehicle so that you don't have a driveshaft tunnel and rear differential to worry about. In terms of ride height, drivetrain losses, and vehicle volume (interior space + cargo space), it's hard to argue against FF especially if you are an automotive manufacturer making cars for your momma.

The engine weight over the steering tires leads to predictable behavior for everyday drivers both in bad weather and over-speed conditions.

The weaknesses of FFs are in standing starts, front tire wear, braking bias and tuning options.


--- AWD ---

I've never owned a AWD, so hats off to those than tune them well. The WRX (non-STi) rocks on the street and handled even better than a well-tuned Eclipse, some of it due to chassis stiffness issues (WRX won) and the fact that the Eclipse's turbo was meant for races of several miles at high-speed.

AWD is still very good for your grandma in bad weather.

Mitsu makes very good dependable trucks (and excellent rice cookers), but probably has elements in the automotive company that are pissed because BMW is recognized as a "driving machine" company. Both made war airplanes in WWII.

At some point, I surmise that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan backed out of the WRC to allow Subaru and Mitsubishi to compete against the Germans with the AWD concept. According to the July 2007 Motor Trend, a company called Prodrive has been running Subarus WRC operations for almost 20 years.

I haven't driven an R32, or R34, or one of the new Porches, but AWD should probably have it's own category due to the way that the power is distributed to the tires can vary greatly between implementations.

What I do not like about AWD is:
1) Complexity
2) Weight
3) Cost
4) Tuning. Systems tuned to keep your rich nephew safe may keep me from doing potentially dangerous things.

--- FRs ---

FRs as a platform give you a lot of flexibility:

1) Drivetrain. Lots of choices depending on what you want to live with. You can run ungodly swaps in an FR that aren't possible with FFs or AWDs.
2) Suspension. Same thing. FFs and AWDs don't have flexibility for relocating rear wheel hubs because of the powertrain layout.
3) Weight. FRs might weigh more than FFs, but the rear diff weight is in the back of the car, which helps balance and puts more weight over the driving wheels. AWD systems are heavy.

btw, I don't know what I'm talking about.

The other day, I sword that WRC meant "Wrecking Really Common" crying2.gif


Posted by: Inygknok Jun 29 2007, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (SR5Sedan @ Today at 12:30 PM)

wink2.gif

NOT!

It was just overly succinct.

--- RRs ---
Old 911s RRs sucked in tight corses and Porche made the ass wider, shortened the axles and put on big rims and tires to keep rich guys from spinning them out. I drove an 80's Targa and the legend is true. On tight corner courses at what we might consider moderate speeds, the heavy ass of the car would kicks out like a weight on a pendulum, to correct this, you stay on the gas and hope the road straightens out.

This handling flaw is understandable at the time, due to the construction of the Autobahn and the fact that Porche was designing for high-speed roads with regulated design criteria that narrowed both road pitch and road curve angles to facilitate high-speed driving even with consumer cars.

In the aftermarket scene, Bugs excelled in the 1/4 mile. I drove a couple of friends' cars at about %75 and the cars would "squat" off the line very violently. Antique race bugs will put even modern AWD cars to shame in a stoplight to ~1/4 mile situation where their air-cooled/lightweight engines don't have time to overheat.

They do not handle well at all. Rumor once had it that at about 85mph, the car was more aerodynamic backwards than forwards (like a Pinto). I think that they were just plain dangerous.


--- FFs ---
AFAIK right now, the concept of the FFs was around for a long time, but FFs really took off for two reasons: The 1973 oil crisis and the fact that Volkswagen needed a new platform to replace their RR air-cooled platforms.

In Japan, auto makers had already embraced FF as a platform for use in domestic-only kei-cars - super-lightweight fuel efficient tiny vehicles. Full-size (exportable) FRs were intended for export and marketed domestically in Japan as performance platforms and luxury vehicles (every country likes to have its hotrods and limos).

Volkswagen used it's Audi/Auto Union resources to create the Golf/Rabbit. Volkswagen essentially sold the concept of German Engineering to validate FF to the US public. The hippy era was over. Volkswagen was going broke and needed to sell cars in the USA.

What are the advantages of FF that they sold? Weight, performance, and fuel economy.

FFs allow you to "package" a vehicle so that you don't have a driveshaft tunnel and rear differential to worry about. In terms of ride height, drivetrain losses, and vehicle volume (interior space + cargo space), it's hard to argue against FF especially if you are an automotive manufacturer making cars for your momma.

The engine weight over the steering tires leads to predictable behavior for everyday drivers both in bad weather and over-speed conditions.

The weaknesses of FFs are in standing starts, front tire wear, braking bias and tuning options.


--- AWD ---

I've never owned a AWD, so hats off to those than tune them well. The WRX (non-STi) rocks on the street and handled even better than a well-tuned Eclipse, some of it due to chassis stiffness issues (WRX won) and the fact that the Eclipse's turbo was meant for races of several miles at high-speed.

AWD is still very good for your grandma in bad weather.

Mitsu makes very good dependable trucks (and excellent rice cookers), but probably has elements in the automotive company that are pissed because BMW is recognized as a "driving machine" company. Both made war airplanes in WWII.

At some point, I surmise that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan backed out of the WRC to allow Subaru and Mitsubishi to compete against the Germans with the AWD concept. According to the July 2007 Motor Trend, a company called Prodrive has been running Subarus WRC operations for almost 20 years.

I haven't driven an R32, or R34, or one of the new Porches, but AWD should probably have it's own category due to the way that the power is distributed to the tires can vary greatly between implementations.

What I do not like about AWD is:
1) Complexity
2) Weight
3) Cost
4) Tuning. Systems tuned to keep your rich nephew safe may keep me from doing potentially dangerous things.

--- FRs ---

FRs as a platform give you a lot of flexibility:

1) Drivetrain. Lots of choices depending on what you want to live with. You can run ungodly swaps in an FR that aren't possible with FFs or AWDs.
2) Suspension. Same thing. FFs and AWDs don't have flexibility for relocating rear wheel hubs because of the powertrain layout.
3) Weight. FRs might weigh more than FFs, but the rear diff weight is in the back of the car, which helps balance and puts more weight over the driving wheels. AWD systems are heavy.

btw, I don't know what I'm talking about.

The other day, I sword that WRC meant "Wrecking Really Common" crying2.gif

I never said it was wrong (though it is to an extent), but it was still ignorant. It is very ignorant to say, "this sucks, that rocks, end of story".


Everyone knows about the old Porsche 911 legend (hence, the joke about the 911 number on the back of Porsches).


And I just decided to finish reading the last paragraph in your post, lol. Did you copy paste all of this from somewhere then? Or what? Just so I know if I should bother replying wink2.gif

Posted by: But she looked 18 officer Jul 3 2007, 01:52 PM
QUOTE
handled even better than a well-tuned Eclipse, some of it due to chassis stiffness issues (WRX won) and the fact that the Eclipse's turbo was meant for races of several miles at high-speed.


It isnt chassis rigidity that is the cause of the DSM's ill handling abilities.. The car has quite a handfull of things working against it such as it's narrow track and tall strut which is more prone to bodyroll. Plus the car's are severely front heavy.. but I guess the same can be said about most front engined AWD vehicles.

Posted by: SR5Sedan Jul 6 2007, 06:13 AM
QUOTE
And I just decided to finish reading the last paragraph in your post, lol. Did you copy paste all of this from somewhere then? Or what? Just so I know if I should bother replying wink2.gif


Actually, I had a 72 Corolla 2-door sedan 1200cc with a '73 SR5 drivetrain 2TC plus a lot of homegrown mods in the engine and suspension. It was messy but it the sedan was several hundred pounds lighter than the coupe, plus I gutted it. I had holes in the floor covered by sheet metal and screws (yes, sheet metal screws) in order to get to the bolts on the bellhousing when I needed to drop the transmission. I'd swear that the bolts were 17 mm, but it's been a long time.

I wrenched on pal's 70-something Nova small block with an M21 trans until he shipped in a big-block crate motor/trans and twisted the unibody frame like a pretzel. I had fun helping him stuffing it into a Plymouth Sattellite. That was a nice combo despite the weight.


QUOTE
It isnt chassis rigidity that is the cause of the DSM's ill handling abilities.. The car has quite a handfull of things working against it such as it's narrow track and tall strut which is more prone to bodyroll. Plus the car's are severely front heavy.. but I guess the same can be said about most front engined AWD vehicles.


Sorry, off the top of my head, the WRX is lighter so it might have been the weight, but the suspension/steering in the WRX was way more precise. Also, I can't speak for the condition of the suspension bushings on the Eclipse as the owner was more of and engine+handling guy than a handling+engine guy. I kind of just meant it to be an example of differences between AWD setups.

Posted by: digitalsymphony Aug 31 2007, 09:42 AM
My opinion is that both of the drivetrains (AWD & FR) has their own advantages on various courses.

AWD cars has a very good grip on almost any road surfaces. It didn't oversteer easily, BUT it understeers easily.
On courses with mild-speed and high-speed corners, it might be an advantage for AWD cars because of that AWD cars has high-powered engine in common, so that the after-corner acceleration is better than other cars, and did not oversteer that easily.

FR cars has a so-so grip but it has a good manuverability.
On courses with low-speed corners such as tight hairpins, it might be an advantage for the FR cars because of their manuverability.

Posted by: Mbius Aug 31 2007, 02:28 PM
QUOTE (Inygknok @ Jun 23 2007, 01:00 PM)
Sometimes they use FWD cars....

And one of the most succesful rally cars up to this date still, is an MR. smile.gif

Posted by: FinToy-83 Sep 7 2007, 10:59 PM
And that would be 205 T16. wink2.gif

Posted by: Mitsubooshi Sep 8 2007, 08:01 AM
QUOTE (FinToy-83 @ Today at 2:59 AM)
And that would be 205 T16. wink2.gif

Hmm. You sure it wasn't the Lancia Stratos?

Posted by: FinToy-83 Sep 8 2007, 08:21 AM
205 T16 was the most successful mid-engined AWD-rallycar.. but if we talk about mere 2wd MR category..

Posted by: Mitsubooshi Sep 8 2007, 08:49 AM
QUOTE (FinToy-83 @ Today at 12:21 PM)
205 T16 was the most successful mid-engined AWD-rallycar.. but if we talk about mere 2wd MR category..

Which is what we're talking about, right? The 205 isn't an MR. Besides, you're missing the point. The idea was that success in WRC isn't necessarily dependent on a 4WD layout. The Stratos was an MR, and the Citroen Xsara was FF, yet both saw great results in competition.

Posted by: Max911 Sep 8 2007, 11:56 AM
QUOTE (FinToy-83 @ Today at 2:59 AM)
And that would be 205 T16. wink2.gif

Eh, wasn't it a Renault?

Anyway, AWD cars tend to have more neutral steering. It's better for grip driving.

Posted by: Sweeper Sep 8 2007, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Max911 @ Today at 9:56 PM)
Eh, wasn't it a Renault?

Anyway, AWD cars tend to have more neutral steering. It's better for grip driving.

FinToy is thinking of the car that had nice specs but crappy solutions to achieve it (Typical French cars anyway) and this is the car he is thinking of:
user posted image
user posted image

But you are correct it isn't a MR (Mid engined Rear wheel drive) but more like a Mid engined 4 wheel drive car.

user posted image

Posted by: FinToy-83 Sep 10 2007, 10:01 AM
10 points to Sweeper. thumbsup.gif That's exactly what I was thinking of. This car was one of the many that was made famous by Flying Finns. ( Yes, Finns can win even with a "crappy French car and equally crappy Italian car (Delta S4)" )

Posted by: Spike Razzor Sep 14 2007, 06:37 PM
AWD obviously better, its the only drivetrain that allows you to tweak it to have FF or FR characteristics or a balance of both.

For everyday purposes FF is a lot more approachable and easier to get into to but is none the less slow and not worth it dollar for dollar when where talking about modifying. AWD has much better grip and stability (this can be a bad thing too), but cost a hell of a lot more to buy and modify. FR, new ones anyways, cost a lot more money than FF but no as much as AWD, there only real flaw is stability and traction when where talking more than 700HP.

Posted by: FinToy-83 Sep 19 2007, 10:10 AM
and I fail to see why would anyone want a rwd roadcar with more than 500ish bhp? most of that is already enough to turn the tires into smoke and require expensive racing specification parts just to keep running. 400 bhp is enough to get you up to 180mph, and that's about 40 mph more than what I'd consider even remotely safe.

Posted by: Spike Razzor Sep 19 2007, 10:15 PM
QUOTE (FinToy-83 @ Yesterday at 1:10 PM)
and I fail to see why would anyone want a rwd roadcar with more than 500ish bhp? most of that is already enough to turn the tires into smoke and require expensive racing specification parts just to keep running. 400 bhp is enough to get you up to 180mph, and that's about 40 mph more than what I'd consider even remotely safe.

Go to carforums, its full of anti-import (Asian/Euro) lovers who build up 1000HP cars for 20k. One moron, who is all pro American (but hates American women?) says hes going to built a 1000HP Corvette C5 Z06 that will eat up 500HP imports on any track lol! Its hilarious how stupid this guy is, seeing as he claims to have racing school experience. Everyone, even fellow domestic lovers think hes nuts, but the fool is working on this car as we speak, counting down to the day when either he or his car will die.

Posted by: Mbius Sep 22 2007, 07:41 PM
QUOTE (FinToy-83 @ Sep 8 2007, 02:59 AM)
And that would be 205 T16. wink2.gif

Sorry, but no... tongue.gif

The 205 has 2 consecutive championships under its belt.

The Lancia Stratos has 3 consecutive... wink2.gif

Posted by: Cyrus430 Dec 29 2007, 03:42 PM
*BUMP*

This comes down to preference.

My friends LOVE FR.

I am the only one of the bunch that likes AWD.

They like it because you can put on a smoke show...

I like AWD because it gives you response and a good acceleration. The turning is good (speaking of my presonal car experience).

FF is like whatever to me. It's just there IMO.

They all have their good points and bad points. It's just about preference. Some like control, some like losing control, other like FF.

I'd take FR over FF any day though.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Dec 30 2007, 07:06 PM
^ Generally speaking, you're right, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss FF cars as some of them are really good at what they do, like the VW GTI, which handles pretty well for being FWD and without an LSD. Plus a lot of FF handle quite respectably... I would LOVE to have a reasonable mileage '00-'01 Integra Type-R as a daily driver (pretty easy on gas for what it is, plus it handles really well stock). And for people who are only able to have one car and live in an area that sees snow, FF is a lot easier to handle than FR.

Posted by: Cyrus430 Dec 30 2007, 07:33 PM
That's true. I saw a Cobalt SS today and it reminded me of FF cars that are pretty quick. As well as the GTI and the Neon SRT-4...

I've never dealt with snow so I wouldn't really be sure about the comparison... but knowing how an FF drives in the rain is enough to make me want one if I lived in Big Bear or something...

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Dec 30 2007, 08:09 PM
Or just get AWD and enjoy the best of both worlds in any terrain tongue.gif

Posted by: Cyrus430 Dec 31 2007, 12:45 AM
That's pretty much what I did... lol... although I miss being able to just burn rubber whenever I wanna... is there a way to heat up your tires using AWD before going into like a race?

Posted by: NismoTime Dec 31 2007, 01:36 AM
yea, you get a lighter and you go tire by tire, or get some friends to help. haha, but seriously, with AWD there isnt a need to warm up the tires too much.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Dec 31 2007, 08:54 AM
QUOTE (T. Cyrus @ Today at 1:45 AM)
That's pretty much what I did... lol... although I miss being able to just burn rubber whenever I wanna... is there a way to heat up your tires using AWD before going into like a race?

Unless you have 800 hp or something ridiculous, warming up the tires prior to a race (assuming you are talking about a sanctioned straight-line race) isn't absolutely necessary, since not hooking up isn't a huge worry with a moderately powered AWD car, as opposed to driving a torque-rich Corvette or something. But one way to warm up the tires is like how F1 cars do, just driving down a straight path but zig-zagging left and right quickly for a bit. This helps warm up the outer edges of the tires, which is good for driving around a course.

Posted by: RalliKai Dec 31 2007, 12:12 PM
I've driven FWD vehicles most of my times on the road. Almost all of them Cavaliers. I test drove a Subaru Impreza on a few occasions along with an Audi once on nice days. I was pretty impressed with the stable feeling you get in them. Living up in the snow belt, this means a lot. Granted I've learned how to drive in the snow quite well with the FWD vehicles I've had in the past but I'm still curious on how AWD feels on snow and wet roads.

I agree, there are quite a few FWD vehicles that handle very well like the VW GTi, Mazda3 and the like. They will still handle alright on snow if you drive them properly.

Posted by: Cyrus430 Dec 31 2007, 12:42 PM
QUOTE (DeeezNuuuts83 @ Today at 8:54 AM)
Unless you have 800 hp or something ridiculous, warming up the tires prior to a race (assuming you are talking about a sanctioned straight-line race) isn't absolutely necessary, since not hooking up isn't a huge worry with a moderately powered AWD car, as opposed to driving a torque-rich Corvette or something. But one way to warm up the tires is like how F1 cars do, just driving down a straight path but zig-zagging left and right quickly for a bit. This helps warm up the outer edges of the tires, which is good for driving around a course.

That makes sense... I was just wondering what could be done.

Posted by: RisfortypeR Jan 14 2008, 10:33 PM
QUOTE (DeeezNuuuts83 @ Dec 30 2007, 08:09 PM)
Or just get AWD and enjoy the best of both worlds in any terrain tongue.gif

+1 Fellow AWD driver tongue.gif

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jan 15 2008, 01:08 AM
^ You know what I mean. Have you ever tried launching on dirt or gravel? It's amazing how it still grips and goes.

Posted by: RisfortypeR Jan 15 2008, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (DeeezNuuuts83 @ Today at 1:08 AM)
^ You know what I mean. Have you ever tried launching on dirt or gravel? It's amazing how it still grips and goes.

Nope, but I'm a fan of high entry speeds and grip driving. After owning both FWD and RWD cars I must say AWD has the most potential in grip driving.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jan 15 2008, 10:37 PM
QUOTE (RisfortypeR @ Today at 11:08 PM)
Nope, but I'm a fan of high entry speeds and grip driving. After owning both FWD and RWD cars I must say AWD has the most potential in grip driving.

That too tongue.gif

On my way home, there is a corner (somewhere between 75 and 80 degrees) that I LOVE blazing through. I haven't gone all-out through it yet (since I don't always drive the Evo), though I've taken it at similar speeds in both FWD and RWD vehicles, which provide some aural drama (i.e., tire squeal from either understeer or power sliding, depending on the car). The AWD option has let me go through the corner at higher speeds without any fuss (typically exiting between 60-70 mph in third gear), not even requiring much (if any) countersteering. I'd like to push the car a little harder, though I get a little concerned as the lane itself is pretty narrow and has an island on one side, curb on the other.

Posted by: RisfortypeR Jan 24 2008, 04:53 PM
QUOTE (DeeezNuuuts83 @ Jan 15 2008, 10:37 PM)
That too tongue.gif

On my way home, there is a corner (somewhere between 75 and 80 degrees) that I LOVE blazing through. I haven't gone all-out through it yet (since I don't always drive the Evo), though I've taken it at similar speeds in both FWD and RWD vehicles, which provide some aural drama (i.e., tire squeal from either understeer or power sliding, depending on the car). The AWD option has let me go through the corner at higher speeds without any fuss (typically exiting between 60-70 mph in third gear), not even requiring much (if any) countersteering. I'd like to push the car a little harder, though I get a little concerned as the lane itself is pretty narrow and has an island on one side, curb on the other.

Well with the Evo (and some other AWD cars) just take a FF-line for that turn.
Late braking + go as far to the outside (almost touching the curb) as you can, hit the apex as close to the island without touching it. I use the same principle on freeway onramps/offramps. Just take a line that minimizes stress on the suspension/chassis.

Posted by: Cubits Jan 24 2008, 08:33 PM
You'd be suprised at the apex speeds achieved by good fwd's, but as far as i can tell, you don't get any good ones in the states. You'd be suprised at how little they understeer too...

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Jan 24 2008, 09:02 PM
QUOTE (RisfortypeR @ Today at 5:53 PM)
Well with the Evo (and some other AWD cars) just take a FF-line for that turn.
Late braking + go as far to the outside (almost touching the curb) as you can, hit the apex as close to the island without touching it. I use the same principle on freeway onramps/offramps. Just take a line that minimizes stress on the suspension/chassis.

Out of curiosity, what difference would it make if I stayed closer to the island rather than closer to the outside curb? While it's a 50/50 torque-split AWD system, I've read in several publications that the Evo can power oversteer (obviously not to the degree of a decent RWD car), though it's more due to its more unique suspension tuning.

Posted by: sabishii Jan 24 2008, 09:34 PM
QUOTE (Cubits @ Yesterday at 11:33 PM)
You'd be suprised at the apex speeds achieved by good fwd's, but as far as i can tell, you don't get any good ones in the states. You'd be suprised at how little they understeer too...

Theoretically FWD itself shouldn't affect entry or apex speed, given you're not on the throttle at these times (e.g. not in a high-speed sweeper). Exit speed would be the one slightly limited by the traction circle. And then perhaps in choosing a later-apex driving line to accommodate for the exit speed limitation then more speed may be scrubbed from the entry to the apex.

Posted by: Koykis Feb 17 2008, 02:05 PM
I'm not really familiar with the english terms of driving/racing but I'll try to keep up. To add some to what sabishii said, if a FWD car has a good LSD it can follow the line a 4WD or RWD would without having to worry about understeer or oversteer. From my personal experience, in the case you frive a FWD with LSD you MUST apply throttle while you're on the apex of the corner (since your entry speed is faster than the normal FWD) if you want to have the right position to exit the turn so you wont have to strain the body or lose speed trying to avoid the pavement.
In a similar situation the advantage of the 4WD would be the control you have and depending on what you decide you can use the power to slightly oversteer to get in line for the exit or loosen the power on the gas pedal to increase the grip on the front wheels and get the same result. Though with a 4WD, if you want to drive fast your brake/accelaration timing is totally diffirent from the FWD.
As for the RWD with LSD.... I dont have the slightest idea because I've never driven one rolleyes.gif
(theoretically the same rules apply with the FWD but instead of eliminating understeer it eliminates oversteer... I leave the details to someone else who has experience)

Posted by: AE86Takumi Feb 18 2008, 08:50 AM
QUOTE (DeeezNuuuts83 @ Jan 15 2008, 10:37 PM)
That too tongue.gif

On my way home, there is a corner (somewhere between 75 and 80 degrees) that I LOVE blazing through. I haven't gone all-out through it yet (since I don't always drive the Evo), though I've taken it at similar speeds in both FWD and RWD vehicles, which provide some aural drama (i.e., tire squeal from either understeer or power sliding, depending on the car). The AWD option has let me go through the corner at higher speeds without any fuss (typically exiting between 60-70 mph in third gear), not even requiring much (if any) countersteering. I'd like to push the car a little harder, though I get a little concerned as the lane itself is pretty narrow and has an island on one side, curb on the other.

I drive a Civic Si 2002 HB FF, I generally pass a similar curve shaped like a complete circle on the way home. What I do is take the lines closest to the edge, and always one hand steering. I have stopped using 2 hands since I practiced Godhand's style. Also , I tip the accelerator as well revving the car, the result, going through the curve at 45 miles per hour which is very fast, most cars I have seen go at 30 - 35. Same speed either dry or in rain. Another which is at 45 degrees in curve, the car exits at near 60mph, I guess you must thank the car's handling.

Posted by: Cubits Feb 18 2008, 05:44 PM
QUOTE (AE86Takumi @ Today at 8:50 AM)
I drive a Civic Si 2002 HB FF, I generally pass a similar curve shaped like a complete circle on the way home. What I do is take the lines closest to the edge, and always one hand steering. I have stopped using 2 hands since I practiced Godhand's style. Also , I tip the accelerator as well revving the car, the result, going through the curve at 45 miles per hour which is very fast, most cars I have seen go at 30 - 35. Same speed either dry or in rain. Another which is at 45 degrees in curve, the car exits at near 60mph, I guess you must thank the car's handling.

lol.

Seriously?

Funny, funny stuff.

Posted by: djmisio85 Feb 18 2008, 11:06 PM
ok guys, just been having a bit of banter on the citroen ax forum, cos some dude bought a pulsar gti-r, then all the 4wd haters came along to say rwd is faster around a corner than a 4wd.....

BUT

The main poster, whos is in favour of rwd, accidentally said, that in the hands of a normal driver, ie not keichii tsuchiya, that if a car were to spin out of a corner, the point at which the car would lose all its grip, the 4wd would be going faster than the rwd.

Which in easy terms means..................

4wd is faster than rwd around a corner.

Posted by: backalleyracer Feb 18 2008, 11:38 PM
to mean that means that a 4wd will understeer far before it spins out

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Feb 19 2008, 12:07 AM
QUOTE (backalleyracer @ Today at 12:38 AM)
to mean that means that a 4wd will understeer far before it spins out

Generally speaking, yes, but more advanced technology introduced by various companies through the years helps alter the platform's typical handling characteristics.

Posted by: djmisio85 Feb 19 2008, 12:17 AM
remember, awd does have power going to the rear wheels, just as easily as one can understeer a 4wd, same applies to rwd, dont tell me every single corner you take in a rwd always results in oversteer laugh.gif

and vica versa, oversteering a 4wd is not that difficult, if you have any idea of being able to drive.

This is the real world, give a complete novice 2 cars, a rwd and a 4wd, and give him a big corner to take at whatever speed he pleases........

I can guarantee he or she will come out safely in a 4wd , and most probably spin out in the rwd.

Just means that 4wds are made better, and easier to drive. Easy to drive doesnt mean its a bad car, just cos a rwd is challenging and fun, doesnt make it a good car and vica versa.....they have rubbish 4wds which understeer, ie impreza, they have good 4wds which over steer, ie evo.

Everyones saying, a well setup rwd is faster, or a well set up ff can go just as fast........Well imagine a well set up 4wd wink2.gif

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Feb 19 2008, 12:57 AM
QUOTE (djmisio85 @ Today at 1:17 AM)
remember, awd does have power going to the rear wheels, just as easily as one can understeer a 4wd, same applies to rwd, dont tell me every single corner you take in a rwd always results in oversteer laugh.gif

True, as it depends on the application.
QUOTE
remember, awd does have power going to the rear wheels, just as easily as one can understeer a 4wd, same applies to rwd, dont tell me every single corner you take in a rwd always results in oversteer laugh.gif

But there is a MUCH higher likelihood of oversteering a RWD car, especially with a certain amount of throttle input.
QUOTE
and vica versa, oversteering a 4wd is not that difficult, if you have any idea of being able to drive.

Oversteering in an AWD car can be tedious depending on the car, especially when considering a variety of factors (engine power, suspension setup, front-to-rear weight distribution, front-to-rear torque distribution, etc.)
QUOTE
Just means that 4wds are made better, and easier to drive.

I don't know about them being made better, but they are definitely easier to drive.
QUOTE
Easy to drive doesnt mean its a bad car, just cos a rwd is challenging and fun, doesnt make it a good car and vica versa.....they have rubbish 4wds which understeer, ie impreza, they have good 4wds which over steer, ie evo.

The natural response from the Subaru camp is that you're supposed to throw the car sideways into a turn. Not saying that I agree or disagree, but that's what is said and done to deal with the understeer.
QUOTE
Everyones saying, a well setup rwd is faster

A reasonably set up RWD just allows for better fine-tuning of a car's line when sliding.
QUOTE
Well imagine a well set up 4wd wink2.gif

Like the GT-R? tongue.gif

Posted by: Frost Feb 19 2008, 08:47 AM
AWD > RWD.

Anytime you have four wheels being powered, the likelihood of you launching in any condition (low traction, high G cornering, etc.) is better. Additional understeer from a AWD setup under throttle can always be corrected by the driver (when was the last time you heard about a rally driver b*tch about a properly set up AWD car understeering?). Subaru cars understeer because that is their trait. Some rally drivers like how their Subarus stay calm and collected on corner entry, flick it out prior to apex and floor the gas for exit.

With the Evo, some drivers find it unnerving how it tends to be wishy washy on entry and you need some serious wheel work to maintain a steady exit out of a corner. So preference really.

RWDs for most part will oversteer in the same situation that an AWD will not.

AWD is the next evolution. FWD and RWD were more lateral technological improvements. One gained compactness and fuel efficiency but lost out on performance unless you slapped on some serious work.

With AWD, you have both. There is a reason why for most part, AWDs dominate the rally scene. On tarmac and better conditioned tracks, the difference isn't as much since the odds of you finding traction is high.

Posted by: sideways Feb 19 2008, 05:48 PM
QUOTE (djmisio85 @ Today at 1:17 AM)
remember, awd does have power going to the rear wheels, just as easily as one can understeer a 4wd, same applies to rwd, dont tell me every single corner you take in a rwd always results in oversteer laugh.gif

and vica versa, oversteering a 4wd is not that difficult, if you have any idea of being able to drive.

This is the real world, give a complete novice 2 cars, a rwd and a 4wd, and give him a big corner to take at whatever speed he pleases........

I can guarantee he or she will come out safely in a 4wd , and most probably spin out in the rwd.

Just means that 4wds are made better, and easier to drive. Easy to drive doesnt mean its a bad car, just cos a rwd is challenging and fun, doesnt make it a good car and vica versa.....they have rubbish 4wds which understeer, ie impreza, they have good 4wds which over steer, ie evo.

Everyones saying, a well setup rwd is faster, or a well set up ff can go just as fast........Well imagine a well set up 4wd wink2.gif

Oh yippe, a fun topic. Where to start? I suppose the begining is as good as any. Hope you dont mind if i keep my points short and rather blunt.

1, No- It is not just as easy to understeer in a rwd as it is a awd. Its an inherited trait of the drivetrain. The extra weight makes them harder to stop and effects the weightb allance drasticly, using the front wheels helps them go wide on exits, etc.

2, True- Oversteering in an awd isnt overly difficult. But when it comes to racing, oversteering isnt always equal. Sure you can slide the rear end around and tuck the car nicely around a corner- Or you can really step it out and have a very fun drifty slide. But whats also important is the line- The extra goodies that make awd cars so much fun effect the line-taking abilities of the car greatly. Just because your oversteering, does not mean youre taking a tight line- An awd car will pull to the outside much easier. You cando a lot of trickery to help hide this, but its always there. Their great advantage isnt their direct handling, but their acceleration out of a corner.

3, The real word example is jim dandy and all. But a totaly moot point. In the real world FF cars are a lot easier to make, theyre cheaper, have more interior room, and get better gas mileage an awd- All while having the same panic tendencies of a awd.

4, This last bit just amuses me honestly. Please keep your ignorant comments to yourself about "rubbish" cars like the imprezza and "good" cars like the evo to yourself, I've no problem making you look the fool youre starting to present yourself to be.

5, Im not going to say a well setup rwd is faster, I will however say each accels in their own category. You wont see rwd cars dominating rally and you wont see awd cars dominating autox. What should you take from this? Decide for yourself.

Frost- You actually make some decent points but I have to just point out theyre strongly rally biased- If were speaking stricly from a rally point of view Id agree. On paved roads though things start to change.

Posted by: Frost Feb 19 2008, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (sideways @ Today at 5:48 PM)
Frost- You actually make some decent points but I have to just point out theyre strongly rally biased- If were speaking stricly from a rally point of view Id agree. On paved roads though things start to change.

Had this been 5 years ago, I would agree with your point but now with 3 years under my belt and 4+ years of viewing, I'm not so sure RWD would fare much better than AWD on autoX if at all. The problem with interpreting these results is that our test standards are not the same. It's hard to compare a Miata (which 99.9% of the time pwnz autoX) to an STi. They're both extremely different cars. Until they make the same car in RWD and AWD layout (like the G35 and G35x with ATTESSA) and run it on the course, I'd be hard pressed to say which one is better.

I know for a fact that even on good tyres with the IS300, I can easily power slide through a turn which makes me wonder if an IS with AWD (can't compare the IS250 since it has less hp) would launch better. The amount of control required to keep the 300 balanced between power and traction abilities could be better used to put the car in a better line.

AWDs are extremely amplified in rally yes. But in rally it is much harder to keep a good line since you're on loose ground or at the limits of traction over half the time.

For me, I'd hold back on saying RWD > AWD on dry land. Heck, I've seen Sti's kick Miata asses before but that doesn't mean AWD >>> RWD either. Database of useable results is too biased (as we have just seen) or too unempirical.

The scientist in me tells me to stfu until I have better evidence.

Posted by: djmisio85 Feb 19 2008, 06:38 PM
QUOTE (sideways @ Today at 5:48 PM)


4, This last bit just amuses me honestly. Please keep your ignorant comments to yourself about "rubbish" cars like the imprezza and "good" cars like the evo to yourself, I've no problem making you look the fool youre starting to present yourself to be.


ok maybe "rubbish" was a bad word to use,

stis are very good car, better than the evo nowadays, no doubt.

But they are well known for understeering.

And as for taking a tighter line, just watch an evo doing donuts, its turning on its own axis, u cant get any tighter than than

Posted by: Frost Feb 19 2008, 07:03 PM
You're comparing making donuts in parking lot to taking tighter lines in a RACE?

That should make you think twice.

Posted by: DeeezNuuuts83 Feb 19 2008, 07:18 PM
QUOTE (djmisio85 @ Today at 7:38 PM)
stis are very good car, better than the evo nowadays, no doubt.

Obviously there's no way that I can say this without sounding biased, but how exactly?

Posted by: sabishii Feb 19 2008, 07:38 PM
QUOTE
Had this been 5 years ago, I would agree with your point but now with 3 years under my belt and 4+ years of viewing, I'm not so sure RWD would fare much better than AWD on autoX if at all. The problem with interpreting these results is that our test standards are not the same. It's hard to compare a Miata (which 99.9% of the time pwnz autoX) to an STi. They're both extremely different cars. Until they make the same car in RWD and AWD layout (like the G35 and G35x with ATTESSA) and run it on the course, I'd be hard pressed to say which one is better.
Actually I think the AW11s can be faster than Miatas in many courses. Autox seems to be more based on lightness and (thus) ease of rotation than platform. The limitation of AWD in this case is more the weight required than drivetrain.

As for RWD vs AWD on tarmac racing... I can imagine some advantages and disadvantages of each, but I'd be loathe to come to a solid conclusion due to the lack of real-life data. Cornering-wise, AWD would be at some disadvantage due to weight. Though a professional racing situation I don't think front-wheel-power-induced understeer would be a problem with the available computer systems like ATTESA. Coming out of the corner, AWD's advantage would of course be exit traction, but in the overall straight line it would have more powertrain loss and again weight shows up. I'm not sure how that would balance out, though. Perhaps the greater the horsepower of the cars, the more the exit traction comes into play. And then it would also depend on the circuit itself - how long its straights are, for example. This is all really just theoretical, though.

Posted by: Frost Feb 19 2008, 07:51 PM
QUOTE (sabishii @ Today at 7:38 PM)
Actually I think the AW11s can be faster than Miatas in many courses. Autox seems to be more based on lightness and (thus) ease of rotation than platform. The limitation of AWD in this case is more the weight required than drivetrain.

As for RWD vs AWD on tarmac racing... I can imagine some advantages and disadvantages of each, but I'd be loathe to come to a solid conclusion due to the lack of real-life data. Cornering-wise, AWD would be at some disadvantage due to weight. Though a professional racing situation I don't think front-wheel-power-induced understeer would be a problem with the available computer systems like ATTESA. Coming out of the corner, AWD's advantage would of course be exit traction, but in the overall straight line it would have more powertrain loss and again weight shows up. I'm not sure how that would balance out, though. Perhaps the greater the horsepower of the cars, the more the exit traction comes into play. And then it would also depend on the circuit itself - how long its straights are, for example. This is all really just theoretical, though.

Hard to say really... an experienced Miata driver sat in with me (in the AW11) and commented that I was smooth, quick and pretty decent but when I sat in his car (89 Miata I think? old one) he was crazy quick and I noticed he just had crazy pull in 2nd which I lacked severely. When I asked him how the hell he does it (since the AW11 and 89 Miata engine specs were somewhat similar), he just said that the Miata doesn't suffer as much from lift oversteer as the AW11 did. He too, used to have an AW11 and thinks the Miata is a better platform. He hasn't driven the MKIII MR2 so he can't compare.

I tried to duplicate the scenario and lo and behold I spun out from lifting off at around 6600 RPMS in 1st. If I shifted to 2nd, I'd drop to 4000 RPMs and lose most of my speed. Eventually I found ways to get around this problem (one of which was really hard to pull off - stab the brake and clutch and turn while shifting to second on some turns goddamn hard when doing 90 deg turns with no power steer).

The AW11 was a great car but it taught me the severe need for torque in that engine at low RPMs. I learnt at lot from it.

Posted by: djmisio85 Feb 19 2008, 08:04 PM
frost,a decent race circuit, especially a rally course, has hairpins, obviously the tighter a car can take a line is better. anyway, i dont feel that 4wd have too much of a disadvantage in taking a tigher line.

deezdonuts, if you look at all the comparison videos between the evo x and impreza, you will see, sadly the new impreza is faster, and the new impreza and hawkeye imprezas are also faster than the evo IX.

i saw many videos , on best motoring, yeah i know some of these are staged etc etc, but the newer generation of imprezas, altho still slightly understeering, are very fast.

Posted by: Frost Feb 19 2008, 08:15 PM
Show me a race course where you do donuts to go around a hairpin please because I've seen road courses with hairpins and none of them are taken like donuts. In fact, I have in car video of a SCCA Subaru STI driver who races on Laguna Seca and he doesn't donut on hairpins.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I understand I am not the authority on racing (far from it) but what you say does not make sense.

Posted by: sabishii Feb 19 2008, 08:20 PM
QUOTE (Frost @ Today at 10:51 PM)
Hard to say really... an experienced Miata driver sat in with me (in the AW11) and commented that I was smooth, quick and pretty decent but when I sat in his car (89 Miata I think? old one) he was crazy quick and I noticed he just had crazy pull in 2nd which I lacked severely. When I asked him how the hell he does it (since the AW11 and 89 Miata engine specs were somewhat similar), he just said that the Miata doesn't suffer as much from lift oversteer as the AW11 did. He too, used to have an AW11 and thinks the Miata is a better platform. He hasn't driven the MKIII MR2 so he can't compare.

I tried to duplicate the scenario and lo and behold I spun out from lifting off at around 6600 RPMS in 1st. If I shifted to 2nd, I'd drop to 4000 RPMs and lose most of my speed. Eventually I found ways to get around this problem (one of which was really hard to pull off - stab the brake and clutch and turn while shifting to second on some turns goddamn hard when doing 90 deg turns with no power steer).

The AW11 was a great car but it taught me the severe need for torque in that engine at low RPMs. I learnt at lot from it.

Well I drew the conclusion from Nationals results and what I last read was the consensus of many autoxers. So I think it's considered "the car." I wouldn't make a final conclusion like that because there's so many different variables, and I've heard that the type of course (its "tightness") definitely makes a difference.

Posted by: djmisio85 Feb 19 2008, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Frost @ Today at 8:15 PM)
Show me a race course where you do donuts to go around a hairpin please because I've seen road courses with hairpins and none of them are taken like donuts. In fact, I have in car video of a SCCA Subaru STI driver who races on Laguna Seca and he doesn't donut on hairpins.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I understand I am not the authority on racing (far from it) but what you say does not make sense.

what i meant, by saying, "look at how an evo performs donuts"

Its taking the tighest line possibe. if there is a situation, where u have a 180degree hairpin turn, which there are plenty of in wrc, then a 4wd would deal with it nicely

I mean, that a 4wd has no issues taking a tight line, compared to a rwd.

donuts, is just an illustration of how tightly a 4wd can turn.........

Posted by: RisfortypeR Feb 19 2008, 09:29 PM
As with the whole "rally tradition" AWD excels at consecutive low-speed/tight corners. But this is given that the driver as at least a basic concept of how he can shift the weight of the car to complement the AWD system. As for the argument for FF cars above; yes the highest corner entry/apex speeds can most likely be achieved by a very light FF car (which is what made my DC2 Type R so fun to drive) but it will lose steam as FF cars are not very good at corner exits. As for the corner exit "oversteer/understeer" issue, it can be argued that these can be easily countered with steering input/brake/throttle control with any car without the loss of speed and maintaining an optimal line.

A favorite AWD technique of mine is derived from FF techniques actually. I would brake at the same points I would in a FF car, and use throttle lift-off right the instant before hitting the apex. My car would respond similarly to my Type R but without the FF weakness of not being able to carry revs immediately after the apex. It feels so much better to have the strengths of both FF and FR cars.

AWD at its limits will exhibit understeer (if computerized traction control systems are utilized- they are programmed to make the car understeer right before losing control). But once you hit beyond its limits the car will exhibit extremely uncontrollable oversteer. But it can be argued that if you can control AWD oversteer theoretically you can "drift" into and out of a corner at even higher entry speeds and exhibit the same kind of exit speed as if you had gripped the corner.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)