Close Topic Options

Love the highlander reference, I can't believe I used to watch that. I want to see floht's buntamobile though...

I'm guessing a total pig, but performance oriented.

lol, hate to get your hopes up but no such thing is being built. I drive a TDi due to gas prices and I still have my old red Nissan as my play around car.

LOL @ the pig but performance!

☆☆☆☆☆ for fooling me.

RWD

Just because it's naturally logical to push things, not to pull it.

If I picture a fastest way to push a engineless car it will probably be when two guys push it.

Pulling it won't be as effective, and combination of both pulling & pushing will need high synchronization and it may maybe be as quick as pushing a car but it's more demanding and complicated.

Was that a good reference?

This post has been edited by Riker on Jul 21 2008, 11:46 AM

Good enough, but RWD always have been weak on traction to some special occasions.

Snow, etc.

That's why I prefer AWD.

Well everything has it's advantages and drawbacks.

Front wheel drive is definitely the easiest, I don't think it's even debatable, it's just no brainer to drive - for somebody that uses car only to commute.

For some speeds, front wheel is also easy.

Basically it's pedal to the floor all the time, you don't want it to stop pulling or else you start losing control.

But every race bred car is RWD, always was and always will be.

Formula 1 will never go to 4x4 or god forbid FWD. Rally is different, for that kind of environment it's mandatory to have all wheels digging.

But then, if you want to drive superfast with 4x4 on tarmac, you need to have ox's balls because it takes a whole lotta guts to push 4x4 to the limits.

I think overall, when you add and divide everything up, rwd is probably the most "natural" drive for a car.

when you're going up a hill, i think pulling would be the preffered method....Its just logic....downhill obviously pushing would be preferred...

imagine getting a cart up a hill, maybe not so much with automotives, but you ran out of energy, youd get squashed by the cart when it starts falling down also lifts/elevators.....

Rally can be done in FF, RWD and 4WD.... Theres soooo many FF and FR rally cars around

And as for pushing a 4WD car to the limit..... have you ever driven a 4WD?
They are soooo easy to push, in a good 4WD, eliminated understeer and oversteer are present/ do-able by a good driver. Then again you can oversteer if you like, and you can understeer if you like.

Im scared of driving an FR to the limit, because of oversteer that can be very difficult to correct. And same for for FF's but with understeer.

and just incase you didnt know, 4wd systems are very heavy, that is why they are not used in F1 for example. On a circuit, apart from the start, rwd will be faster than 4wd, as 4wd cars would have extra diffs, prop shaft etc etc, which means more weight and transmission losses (some say around 24%) ...

LOL F1 AWD? Better bring back the turbo's too if that happen.

Too bad it already has happened.

Yeah the turbo's did happen, but AWD?

I don't think AWD would have enough advantage in F1 to counteract the weight.

Counter-act the weight? All F1s i can think of are well below the minimum weight requirement- and have to have weight added to meet the regulations. I doubt much if any weight would be added. To my knowledge Awd is against the regulations for f1, as much as i hate to say it im sure if it was allowed it would be used- quite successfully.

Pulling is prefered for what?

Hahaha, No. Please see the previous

Also, No. Depends on a great deal of things.

This post has been edited by sideways on Jul 23 2008, 05:56 PM

Pulling is preffered for going uphill, like i mentioned in my little example.....read the text....whatever, i was just saying in day to day life, in a car, pulling has its advantages, so does pushing. to say that pushing is better than pulling is a little rash. pushing, ie a rwd, will allow for oversteer etc, pulling will reduce oversteer, may result in understeer...

So your saying that AWD systems are lighter than RWD systems? ok whatever mate ok i dont know what point your getting at, if its the reason why they dont use it in F1, then thats a different story, transmission losses, extra components, the chance of extra components breaking....i dunno...cost?

and your telling me that 4wd isnt better at the start/ launch? your telling me that if you have 2 cars of the same power/engine, and one is say rwd and one is 4wd, that the rwd wont accelerate at a higher speed better than the 4wd? Go read and learn about the transmission losses of 4wd cars before you come on here saying "ooh no no no, your soooooo wrong"

if an FR car has say around 200bhp at the flywheel, a high percentage of that will go to the wheels. the power goes through the transmission, propshaft, diff and into the drive shafts. If we have a 200bhp 4wd, a lower percentage, compared to the FF, will go to the wheels. The power goes into the transmission, then transfer box, centre diff,then prop-shaft and rear diff....

EDIT: here we go, have a read of this page
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm


This post has been edited by djmisio85 on Jul 23 2008, 08:02 PM

You obviously do not read well.

Sideways said that AWD would be SUCCESSFUL - not that AWD was lighter.

It'd be interesting if F1 would eventually lift their sanctions on AWD drivetrains. Make for some REALLY interesting matchups.

This post has been edited by Frost on Jul 24 2008, 10:33 AM

Let me make this in bold so it gets through to you.

LEARN TO READ.

False. When going up hill "pushing" is the prefered method. You want traction on the drive wheels, when going uphill- thats the rear. Dont bother talking about daily driving as this has about as much relevence as the color of the car does.

Where did i say this?

And where did I say this?

Before you go telling me that i need to go read and learn something with a knowing "haha i just got you now heres my shit eating grin" wink, youd best learn who youre talking to. I moderate the auto forums for a reason.

So, lets break things down shall we?

You said:

For starters, they are not omg jdm very heavy- and that is NOT why they are not used in f1. F1 cars on their own fall well below the minimum weight requirement- and are forced to add weighto the vehicles in fairly decent amounts to meet them (Usually in the form or lead of other fun goodies such as depleted uranium). So it is NOT THE WEIGHT that is stopping them from being used. If youd READ THE PREVIOUS like i said at the VERY end of the sentence you yourself quoted, youd have noticed thats what i meant. Its beyond me how you got that i was meaning to say that awd is lighter, but hey- this is why ive instructed you to read. They only use rear wheel drive because theyre regulated to do so, plain and simple.

second, no, im NOT telling you that awd isnt better at launching than a 2wd vehicle is. Im telling you "On a circuit" rear wheel drive will not always be faster. The outcome of such depends on a LOT of factors and can not be summed up in such an idiotic manner.

Oh and btw, ooh no no no, your soooooo wrong.

This post has been edited by sideways on Jul 24 2008, 07:24 PM

Yep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_P99#..._P99_.281961.29

Ok then have a read of what mattw posted

heres a quote about the 4wd F1 cars....

"....it was dealt something of a body blow by the governing body's decision to reduce the size of F1 engines by 40% for 1961, making the extra weight of the 4WD transmission a much bigger penalty"

so these people consider the extra weight of a 4WD setup quite a disadvantage in F1...

Notice how it only won in the rain...?4wd has an advantage in grip, when conditions are "low grip" conditions.

My point about the track, is that a dry race track provides ideal conditions for a car to perform at its best. A good race track is where you are able to see the strong and weak points of most cars. 4WD, FR, RR, FF.....

Of course it depends on many factors, such as engine, suspension, weight of the car, driver ability, knowledge of the course....I could go on...

When making my statement that RWD will be faster, I would at least expect such a wise guy such as you to assume fair conditions....
say were making 2 cars from scratch, both have the same engine, same chassis/body, same tyres, same suspension set up ie, for tarmac....same everything apart from FR and 4WD layout.

Then the cars are pitted against each other, same driver, same conditions.

And lets do it from a rolling start.....

the 4WD will be heavier than the FR will it not?
The FR will have more power going to the wheels will it not?

Anyway, what do I know, im not an anime / manga forum moderator, so I guess that means I dont know anything about cars...

EDIT: and to be honest, pushing or pulling wont make the slightest difference going up a hill, if its in a straight line...obviously the drive wheels need traction, i mean, all those cars powering up hills with the power going to the "non-drive" wheels....haha
The difference will be where most of the weight is, so an FF with the wieght of the engine above the drive wheels, should in theory have more grip than an FR, as the rear is light....thats why Takumi put Itsuki in the back seat, to gain weight and therefore grip over the drive wheels....
See, Im using examples which are illustrated in a Comic Book.... So in this case a pulling force seems suitable.

Also take a look at how the new Civic type R sedan out performs the 4wd and FR cars such as evos, skylines and rx7s... Apart from the start, this FF is able to hold good cornering and straight line speeds... FF has minimal transmission losses, and the difference is apparent on the circuit...

This post has been edited by djmisio85 on Jul 25 2008, 12:28 AM

Wow- are you really going to use awd technology used in racing from 47 years ago?

This post has been edited by sideways on Jul 25 2008, 06:41 PM

No, i never said I would. I never actually mentioned the time when these issues apply anyway. Anyhow, in the case of the article, the weight of 4wd was a disadvantage compared to rest of the competing cars,

But it looks like your trying to tell me the weight of a 4wd system will have no influence on a F1 car...

Just how the old 4wd systems have been made lighter, so have old mr systems....fr systems etc.

And you seem to make it out that every F1 team has a car thats too light, the cars are designed to be light as they are (plus the weight of the driver), so Im sure bringing 4wd would certainly raise and issue with weight, and most probably transmission losses...

its not like these multi million teams will design a car thats way too light, knowing that they can just stick on some ballast.... they will design the car as well as they can to be as close to spot on weight when the car is put together.

This post has been edited by djmisio85 on Jul 25 2008, 07:03 PM

no they do design them to be as light as possible, then add the balast, in fact most of the lmp (or lemans prototype) do the same, then there free to add the weight were it will do the most good, ie under the drivers feet, infact most F1 teams are within grams of the minimum allowed weight at the end of a race, thats after fuelburn, tyre wear and even driver sweat

no one said an 4wd system would have no affect, but the weight disadventage isnt an issue in modern F1's its more a packaging issue, the provision for getting drivetrains and diffs past the driver impact heavily on the shape of the car, causing drag for an increase in out of corner acceleration, its debatable weither a 4wd system would have an advantade in modern f1. LMP on the otherhand...

Ok im no "expert" on F1, but surely these teams who have millions of pounds to spend on a car, would spend more time making components stronger etc, with the downside to having a "little" extra weight, and design each component in such a way, that it will be light, AND at the same time, when all the components are put together, all the parts will weigh near the 600kg-ish target weight..... This would result in a well designed, balanced car. whereas sticking ballast on various parts of a car....well, i know all teams do it at some time or another, but its not exactly high tech, which F1 is all about now.

Having read some articles, it also turns out that the teams who do not have a camera on their car, must add a complusory ballast, equal to the weight of a camera...

anyway back on topic,

even though I drive a superb 4wd car, which drives and handles amazingly etc etc, I still feel, if driven around a track by a good driver, an FR would be quicker.

Thats just my opinion, this is what forums are about... obviously in the real world (where conditions aren't always 100% perfect - unlike a race track on a sunny day ), and from my experience, I feel a 4wd can be driven faster than an FR. especially gravel, snow, uneven tarmac.....

Lets just say, id have more confidence to push my evo on a mountain road than an rx-7.
On the other hand, if I was a pro race driver, I feel that due to issues such as reduced weight, reduced transmission losses, possibilty of controlled oversteer, having the rear wheels driving and front wheels steering (taken from ID of course), that I could in effect drive an RX-7 around a track, faster than my evo...

Were talking about current f1 technology- and youre bringing up race tech from 1961. Youll have to excuse me when i raise my eyebrow at your oddly orange apples. The issues they had at that time (which yes, they did have) are in no way shape or form relevant to the problems of today. With advantage of an electronic diff over the clunky mechanical diff is enough alone to make that "point" worthless.

Yes youre right- more drivetrain loss, less straight line acceleration due to less whp. But think about this- Were talking about cars with hundreds of horsepower (with lots of fun torque to play with) being delievered to 2 wheels. Their nannies fight hard as it is to keep this power under check to those two whels so they dont just spin them coming out. With current technology youd have to be a fool not to understand how a center diff using 4 wheels to power out of a corner can and would make a HUGE difference in corner exit acceleration. With the nannies doing all the complicated work the "understeer" onset from less traction being devoted to actual handling would be minimal in comparison to the faster exit speeds they could see. if it would be noticeable at all with how complicated those nannies would be. And the nice thing- being an electronic diff, if more handling was an issue- they could just tone the center dif down, so less goes up front- just enough to haul more ass out, but not enough to spoil the needed traction from the front wheels to transition properly. The possibilities are endless.

Yes, that is what theyre doing. Once again, please read what ive said and pay more attention to those little things we call details. The cars they design are well below the REQUIRED MINIMUM WEIGHT. The ballast is added not because they want it- but because they need to. So why design a car thats well below it and then add weight to meet it? Because they can add the weight -where- they want it. As low as possible while giving them a desired weight distribution. I havent kept up with regulations on what it is, and what they "Really" are, but if its like it used to be its a fair amount under. What does this mean? They can add an awd system- still be under the weight requirement, and just add less ballast to meet it. Now theyre awd, and still weighing the same as everyone else. Now please stop beating this horse about the weight when it comes to f1.

As for the 4wd vs 2wd based on your opinion- Hey thats jim dandy, ill respect your opinions. Just dont state them as facts

This post has been edited by sideways on Jul 26 2008, 02:08 AM

Well thats cool then Maybe I got a lil hung up over the weight issue...

Oh well, we had a nice discussion and I learned some new things

now thats what the forums are about

Added- that said, knowing F1 and regulations. 5 points says if awd WAS ever allowed, youd better believe theyd add huge weight penalties to it to even it out. Just dont be surprised if they switch to it anyways in favor of the added corner exit accelerating traction.

This post has been edited by sideways on Jul 26 2008, 02:09 AM

Indeed, I would love to see 4wd make a comeback in Forumla 1/ have another decent try, I guess the only thing I could base my previous theory on was the 1961 race series lol.

Its rare to see a formula one car slide under normal circumstances, but yes, I can only imagine how fast these cars would be able to exit corners with a 4wd setup

Oh well, maybe one day