Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>Not all... but some-- the point is that the vehicle engine/drive layout does
>not necessarily mean that the car has a particular characteristic... the
>suspension has a great deal to do with it.
FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension
tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience knows it.
The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent some of
the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.
>The fact is the Prelude SH's 0.96g skidpad numbers for the 600-ft. circle is
>better than most Corvette models and Porsche's
Where did that number come from? I've never seen any factory Honda post better
than about .90 and that's the S2000. If a Prelude SH could pull .96 than the
world would go lopsided. Every source I can find lists the Prelude SH at .89 on
the skidpad, with a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds. Not nearly enough to beat a Porsche. A
996 Turbo can pull 0.98, the GT3 can pull 1.03g and the other models aren't far
back.
>not necessarily mean that the car has a particular characteristic... the
>suspension has a great deal to do with it.
FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension
tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience knows it.
The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent some of
the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.
>The fact is the Prelude SH's 0.96g skidpad numbers for the 600-ft. circle is
>better than most Corvette models and Porsche's
Where did that number come from? I've never seen any factory Honda post better
than about .90 and that's the S2000. If a Prelude SH could pull .96 than the
world would go lopsided. Every source I can find lists the Prelude SH at .89 on
the skidpad, with a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds. Not nearly enough to beat a Porsche. A
996 Turbo can pull 0.98, the GT3 can pull 1.03g and the other models aren't far
back.
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:
<multiple snips throughout>
> The 944 was a great car, but this opinion doesn't place you well among
> automotive enthusiasts.
I never claimed to have good taste. And I honestly couldn't care less about
my standing among "automotive enthusiasts" if they're that petty.
> And I agree. My point was that FWD retains a traction advantage over
> RWD in inclimate weather. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to
> repeat that until it sinks in.
The repetition is really helping. Please do a lot more of it. Or,
alternately, describe this "traction advantage" that FWD has over RWD. (And
please describe it in a little more detail than "better.") Because it would
seem to me that applying additional loads to a given tire, and along more
axes, reduces that tire's likelihood of sticking to the road. In a FWD car,
the front tires have way more duties to perform than do the rears. In a RWD
car, these duties are more evenly distributed. FWD is therefore more likely
to lose traction at the front wheels under lateral acceleration in any
condition where the issue of driven wheels comes into play. (IOW, if you're
rolling in neutral, then the issue of which wheels are driven is moot.)
This is the reason why performance automakers don't use FWD. This is the
reason why RWD cars are less likely to lose lateral grip in *any* weather
condition. It is also the very reason for the understeer that you initially
hyped as being such a benefit. The reason FWD cars understeer so readily is
tied directly to the reason why they lose grip so easily. (Yes, there are
other factors that determine whether a car tends to over- or understeer.
But I don't think anyone -- not even you -- will deny that FWD, all by
itself, is a huge contributor to understeer.)
Is the "traction advantage" that you claim simply an advantage in
maintaining forward motion? Or does it apply to controlling the car in a
slide? Because I thought we were talking about the latter (something about
pulling the car through a skid IIRC), and you seem now to be talking about
the former.
And if you're supporting a trade-off of grip in favor of a tendency to
understeer, you should have said so. But I don't think you're saying so,
since you're saying the opposite:
> Placing weight over a vehicle's drive
> wheels aids it in maintaining traction on slippery roads. READ IT
> CAREFULLY!
Oh, I did read it carefully. So does placing weight over a vehicle's drive
wheels aid it in maintaining traction on *un*slippery roads, as well? If
not, why not? And if so, then why is weather condition a part of this
discussion?
>> So *either* FWD provides superior handling -- in which case all the
>> high-performance auto manufacturers should switch to it -- or it
>> doesn't.
>
> It doesn't work that way. Changing road conditions throw that logic
> off into the sunset, never to return.
>
>> Or, I suppose, different physical laws might apply on slippery roads
>> than apply on sticky ones, as you seem to want me to believe.
>
> If you honestly believe that your car can make and maintain grip with
> the road just as easily in wet weather as it does in dry weather,
> you're not the kind of driver I ever want to be near on a rainy day,
> you'll probably kill someone.
Didn't you just accuse *me* of using a straw man argument? (You did. And I
think you were wrong. But I snipped it rather than refute it. I'm just a
helluva guy.) At least *I've* yet to resort to ad hominem, which you've
employed several times now. I'm not trying to insult you by disagreeing
with you. You and I simply have different opinions on this matter and,
apparently, seem intent on trying to resolve those differences. Though at
this point, that conclusion seems unlikely. I've taken the unpopular side
of enough arguments -- both online and in the real world -- about various
topics to be well used to the hurling of insults by my opponents. People
arguing popularly-supported positions seem more emboldened to the use of
insults.
Getting back to the discussion at hand:
The popularly-accepted notion that FWD is better than RWD in slippery
conditions -- powerfully propagandized by GM and others in the 80's to push
acceptance of their new fleet of FWD vehicles -- is one that I don't believe
holds water. Interestingly, as automakers strive to improve the handling of
their cars today, they're switching back to RWD. (Chrysler's new 300C and
its cousin over at Dodge, as an example.) And they're going through a lot
of trouble to convince the public that FWD isn't really all that much better
than RWD. Interesting how the thing that's "best" seems always to be the
thing that's currently for sale...
I don't believe what you attribute to me in your straw man above, as
evidenced by the fact that I never wrote it. What I *did* write was
two-fold:
First: A car's fundamental handling behavior remains the same regardless of
road conditions. If car "F" loses grip before car "R" on a dry road, then
car "F" will also lose grip before car "R" when that same road is wet or
snow-covered, and with all other things being equal.
Second: The behavior a car exhibits as traction is lost remains the same
whether the car is on a dry road or a snowy one. What car "F" does when it
loses grip on a dry road is identical to what car "F" does when it loses
grip on a snowy road -- again, with all other things equal.
In each case, the argument is based on the fact -- uncontested so far by
you -- that the physical laws that define a car's behavior at and beyond the
limit of 100% tire adhesion do not change with varying road conditions. The
only thing that changes is the speed at which the friction between a car's
tires and the road surface they are contacting is no longer able to fend off
a slide. Less friction means less speed is required to induce a loss of
grip.
I did *not* write that this loss of grip occurs at the same speeds in both
circumstances, just that the laws of physics that define which car loses
grip first do not change with the weather. The car that's more likely to
lose grip in the dry is also more likely to lose grip in the wet or in the
snow, if all other variables are equal. Since you seem willing to concede
that RWD cars are better handlers in the dry, I don't understand why you
claim that they're inferior handlers in the wet or in the snow. This
insistence seems to imply that the car that handles well in the dry doesn't
also handle well in the snow. Which in turn requires that the physics
defining a car's handling characteristics change with the weather. But when
I pointed out that your argument requires this assumption, you neither
corrected nor refuted me. You insulted me.
The arguments you've presented thus far to defend your claim that FWD offers
superior handling to RWD are as follows:
First, that placing the engine over the drive wheels provides improved
"traction" due to the increased weight. But this is easily disproved in any
case where lateral forces are involved (IOW, a corner or a skid). And I
wouldn't have jumped into this argument if I believed that you were only
talking about the ability to keep a car moving forward, because that doesn't
really affect whether a car is *safe* at all, which is what started this
whole (seriously OT) thread.
Second, that automotive journalists and engineers agree with you. Even if
you had provided evidence to back this up, it would still only be arguing
from authority -- another fallacy.
Third, that I'll be made to believe your assertion if I just read it
carefully enough and enough times.
So far you have conceded that RWD cars are generally better handlers on dry
pavement than are FWD cars. You've conceded that the laws of physics don't
change just because the road got slippery. Yet you maintain that FWD cars
are generally better handlers in the snow than RWD cars. So what caused
these cars' handling characteristics to change so dramatically (relative to
one another) when the road got slippery?
I suppose there is one link in the above logical chain that I assumed and
that you might want to contest: That the laws of physics define a car's
handling.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Steve Grauman wrote:
<multiple snips throughout>
> The 944 was a great car, but this opinion doesn't place you well among
> automotive enthusiasts.
I never claimed to have good taste. And I honestly couldn't care less about
my standing among "automotive enthusiasts" if they're that petty.
> And I agree. My point was that FWD retains a traction advantage over
> RWD in inclimate weather. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to
> repeat that until it sinks in.
The repetition is really helping. Please do a lot more of it. Or,
alternately, describe this "traction advantage" that FWD has over RWD. (And
please describe it in a little more detail than "better.") Because it would
seem to me that applying additional loads to a given tire, and along more
axes, reduces that tire's likelihood of sticking to the road. In a FWD car,
the front tires have way more duties to perform than do the rears. In a RWD
car, these duties are more evenly distributed. FWD is therefore more likely
to lose traction at the front wheels under lateral acceleration in any
condition where the issue of driven wheels comes into play. (IOW, if you're
rolling in neutral, then the issue of which wheels are driven is moot.)
This is the reason why performance automakers don't use FWD. This is the
reason why RWD cars are less likely to lose lateral grip in *any* weather
condition. It is also the very reason for the understeer that you initially
hyped as being such a benefit. The reason FWD cars understeer so readily is
tied directly to the reason why they lose grip so easily. (Yes, there are
other factors that determine whether a car tends to over- or understeer.
But I don't think anyone -- not even you -- will deny that FWD, all by
itself, is a huge contributor to understeer.)
Is the "traction advantage" that you claim simply an advantage in
maintaining forward motion? Or does it apply to controlling the car in a
slide? Because I thought we were talking about the latter (something about
pulling the car through a skid IIRC), and you seem now to be talking about
the former.
And if you're supporting a trade-off of grip in favor of a tendency to
understeer, you should have said so. But I don't think you're saying so,
since you're saying the opposite:
> Placing weight over a vehicle's drive
> wheels aids it in maintaining traction on slippery roads. READ IT
> CAREFULLY!
Oh, I did read it carefully. So does placing weight over a vehicle's drive
wheels aid it in maintaining traction on *un*slippery roads, as well? If
not, why not? And if so, then why is weather condition a part of this
discussion?
>> So *either* FWD provides superior handling -- in which case all the
>> high-performance auto manufacturers should switch to it -- or it
>> doesn't.
>
> It doesn't work that way. Changing road conditions throw that logic
> off into the sunset, never to return.
>
>> Or, I suppose, different physical laws might apply on slippery roads
>> than apply on sticky ones, as you seem to want me to believe.
>
> If you honestly believe that your car can make and maintain grip with
> the road just as easily in wet weather as it does in dry weather,
> you're not the kind of driver I ever want to be near on a rainy day,
> you'll probably kill someone.
Didn't you just accuse *me* of using a straw man argument? (You did. And I
think you were wrong. But I snipped it rather than refute it. I'm just a
helluva guy.) At least *I've* yet to resort to ad hominem, which you've
employed several times now. I'm not trying to insult you by disagreeing
with you. You and I simply have different opinions on this matter and,
apparently, seem intent on trying to resolve those differences. Though at
this point, that conclusion seems unlikely. I've taken the unpopular side
of enough arguments -- both online and in the real world -- about various
topics to be well used to the hurling of insults by my opponents. People
arguing popularly-supported positions seem more emboldened to the use of
insults.
Getting back to the discussion at hand:
The popularly-accepted notion that FWD is better than RWD in slippery
conditions -- powerfully propagandized by GM and others in the 80's to push
acceptance of their new fleet of FWD vehicles -- is one that I don't believe
holds water. Interestingly, as automakers strive to improve the handling of
their cars today, they're switching back to RWD. (Chrysler's new 300C and
its cousin over at Dodge, as an example.) And they're going through a lot
of trouble to convince the public that FWD isn't really all that much better
than RWD. Interesting how the thing that's "best" seems always to be the
thing that's currently for sale...
I don't believe what you attribute to me in your straw man above, as
evidenced by the fact that I never wrote it. What I *did* write was
two-fold:
First: A car's fundamental handling behavior remains the same regardless of
road conditions. If car "F" loses grip before car "R" on a dry road, then
car "F" will also lose grip before car "R" when that same road is wet or
snow-covered, and with all other things being equal.
Second: The behavior a car exhibits as traction is lost remains the same
whether the car is on a dry road or a snowy one. What car "F" does when it
loses grip on a dry road is identical to what car "F" does when it loses
grip on a snowy road -- again, with all other things equal.
In each case, the argument is based on the fact -- uncontested so far by
you -- that the physical laws that define a car's behavior at and beyond the
limit of 100% tire adhesion do not change with varying road conditions. The
only thing that changes is the speed at which the friction between a car's
tires and the road surface they are contacting is no longer able to fend off
a slide. Less friction means less speed is required to induce a loss of
grip.
I did *not* write that this loss of grip occurs at the same speeds in both
circumstances, just that the laws of physics that define which car loses
grip first do not change with the weather. The car that's more likely to
lose grip in the dry is also more likely to lose grip in the wet or in the
snow, if all other variables are equal. Since you seem willing to concede
that RWD cars are better handlers in the dry, I don't understand why you
claim that they're inferior handlers in the wet or in the snow. This
insistence seems to imply that the car that handles well in the dry doesn't
also handle well in the snow. Which in turn requires that the physics
defining a car's handling characteristics change with the weather. But when
I pointed out that your argument requires this assumption, you neither
corrected nor refuted me. You insulted me.
The arguments you've presented thus far to defend your claim that FWD offers
superior handling to RWD are as follows:
First, that placing the engine over the drive wheels provides improved
"traction" due to the increased weight. But this is easily disproved in any
case where lateral forces are involved (IOW, a corner or a skid). And I
wouldn't have jumped into this argument if I believed that you were only
talking about the ability to keep a car moving forward, because that doesn't
really affect whether a car is *safe* at all, which is what started this
whole (seriously OT) thread.
Second, that automotive journalists and engineers agree with you. Even if
you had provided evidence to back this up, it would still only be arguing
from authority -- another fallacy.
Third, that I'll be made to believe your assertion if I just read it
carefully enough and enough times.
So far you have conceded that RWD cars are generally better handlers on dry
pavement than are FWD cars. You've conceded that the laws of physics don't
change just because the road got slippery. Yet you maintain that FWD cars
are generally better handlers in the snow than RWD cars. So what caused
these cars' handling characteristics to change so dramatically (relative to
one another) when the road got slippery?
I suppose there is one link in the above logical chain that I assumed and
that you might want to contest: That the laws of physics define a car's
handling.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:
> Have you ever been ice skating? Ever tried walking onto an ice rink
> in normal shoes? If you have, you'd know damn well it's a lot harder
> to walk on ice than it is on pavement. Ever done a burnout? It occurs
> when the tires on the drivewheels can no longer maintain grip with
> the road because of the excessive power being sent to them all at
> once. As the surface of the road gets wetter, slippier, etc...it
> becomes harder and harder for the tires to maintain grip as the
> engine is forcing them along. Adding weight over the drive wheels
> helps the tires do their jobs, and helps keep you and your car on the
> road. Are you getting this yet?
Can you put the fisticuffs away for a minute? I've been doing a bit of
thinking about this since writing my last missive on the topic, and have
decided that it seems likely neither one of us is completely correct. What
seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling
characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other.
Personally, I prefer the handling characteristics of RWD over those of FWD,
when driving a car near the limits of adhesion.
What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a
preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you
prefer FWD. This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between
how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery -- an
unstated assuption that I want you to (1) make claim to actually making (so
far, I'm not sure you even recognize that this assumption is required), and
(2) back up.
In addition, any handling characteristic that helps the driver keep the car
going in the direction he wants it to go is the "safe" characteristic.
Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly
unjustified oversimplification. (As, I suppose, was my similar claim about
oversteer. But again, *you* seem to prefer it in the dry, but not in the
snow...)
I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Steve Grauman wrote:
> Have you ever been ice skating? Ever tried walking onto an ice rink
> in normal shoes? If you have, you'd know damn well it's a lot harder
> to walk on ice than it is on pavement. Ever done a burnout? It occurs
> when the tires on the drivewheels can no longer maintain grip with
> the road because of the excessive power being sent to them all at
> once. As the surface of the road gets wetter, slippier, etc...it
> becomes harder and harder for the tires to maintain grip as the
> engine is forcing them along. Adding weight over the drive wheels
> helps the tires do their jobs, and helps keep you and your car on the
> road. Are you getting this yet?
Can you put the fisticuffs away for a minute? I've been doing a bit of
thinking about this since writing my last missive on the topic, and have
decided that it seems likely neither one of us is completely correct. What
seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling
characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other.
Personally, I prefer the handling characteristics of RWD over those of FWD,
when driving a car near the limits of adhesion.
What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a
preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you
prefer FWD. This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between
how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery -- an
unstated assuption that I want you to (1) make claim to actually making (so
far, I'm not sure you even recognize that this assumption is required), and
(2) back up.
In addition, any handling characteristic that helps the driver keep the car
going in the direction he wants it to go is the "safe" characteristic.
Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly
unjustified oversimplification. (As, I suppose, was my similar claim about
oversteer. But again, *you* seem to prefer it in the dry, but not in the
snow...)
I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Greg Reed wrote:
<cut>
> axes, reduces that tire's likelihood of sticking to the road. In a FWD car,
> the front tires have way more duties to perform than do the rears. In a RWD
> car, these duties are more evenly distributed. FWD is therefore more likely
> to lose traction at the front wheels under lateral acceleration in any
> condition where the issue of driven wheels comes into play. (IOW, if you're
<cut>
Let's take a simple example, and later I will give you a little
practical test you can do (and whichs results you should know without
doing it).
Car's front tyres point where you want to go. Whether there is grip, or
there isn't, they always point to that direction, and when they spinn,
they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle. It
doesn't matter whether they have full grip on the road, or not, it'll go
to that direction, as the tyres keep spinning and accelerating the car.
The backtyres on the other hand have full grip all the time in FWD cars,
since they're not accelerating, and are just passively following the
car, giving it better side-wise-grip.
On the other hand, with RWD car, we have front tyres, which do have
full-grip. So, we can point to any direction we want, but where do we
get the sidegrip? Goash, we don't have it when you accelerate the car,
since backwheels lose their grip -> car loses it's side-wise-grip. Now
we would need to get back this grip to actually GO somewhere, sliding
won't make our car go where we wanted, and it won't make the car go faster.
How did you plan to get more grip to backwheels with RWD, when there's
less weight & spinning takes away all the grip? You planned to drive
forward with front tyres only? Won't work.
And why are backwheels so important? And you don't believe they are?
Take your handbrake and pull. What happens to the car? Does it spin? Oh
yes. If you lock the front tyres however, what happens? Car goes
straight forward, it won't spin.
Easier, change old-used-tires to your backwheels and brand new ones to
front. Push brakes, your car will again go sidewise. Is this the
behaviour you wanted? Now you can't go forward, nor can you accelerate
the car, since the tyres can spin to whatever direction, and they don't
give you acceleration to the direction you wanted. If backtyres pull to
the right and you want to straight forward, you have a nice problem.
This added to the fact that RWD cars have much less weight on the
spinning wheels, which makes them spinn empty on ice, makes them awful
winter cars, you just get stuck everywhere. If you push more gas, your
car starts to shake and tries to go sidefirst. I'm sure the guy next to
you likes it, when you kick his car with your backside.
Don't fight the physics, try it. Even an FWD car can oversteer if
needed, just put shitty tyres to the back. And please explain, how do
you fight against the laws of physics, if you say RWD car is better at
winter, when there's little friction. My RWD car just gets stuck every
winter to few hills, I can't do anything.
- Yak
<cut>
> axes, reduces that tire's likelihood of sticking to the road. In a FWD car,
> the front tires have way more duties to perform than do the rears. In a RWD
> car, these duties are more evenly distributed. FWD is therefore more likely
> to lose traction at the front wheels under lateral acceleration in any
> condition where the issue of driven wheels comes into play. (IOW, if you're
<cut>
Let's take a simple example, and later I will give you a little
practical test you can do (and whichs results you should know without
doing it).
Car's front tyres point where you want to go. Whether there is grip, or
there isn't, they always point to that direction, and when they spinn,
they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle. It
doesn't matter whether they have full grip on the road, or not, it'll go
to that direction, as the tyres keep spinning and accelerating the car.
The backtyres on the other hand have full grip all the time in FWD cars,
since they're not accelerating, and are just passively following the
car, giving it better side-wise-grip.
On the other hand, with RWD car, we have front tyres, which do have
full-grip. So, we can point to any direction we want, but where do we
get the sidegrip? Goash, we don't have it when you accelerate the car,
since backwheels lose their grip -> car loses it's side-wise-grip. Now
we would need to get back this grip to actually GO somewhere, sliding
won't make our car go where we wanted, and it won't make the car go faster.
How did you plan to get more grip to backwheels with RWD, when there's
less weight & spinning takes away all the grip? You planned to drive
forward with front tyres only? Won't work.
And why are backwheels so important? And you don't believe they are?
Take your handbrake and pull. What happens to the car? Does it spin? Oh
yes. If you lock the front tyres however, what happens? Car goes
straight forward, it won't spin.
Easier, change old-used-tires to your backwheels and brand new ones to
front. Push brakes, your car will again go sidewise. Is this the
behaviour you wanted? Now you can't go forward, nor can you accelerate
the car, since the tyres can spin to whatever direction, and they don't
give you acceleration to the direction you wanted. If backtyres pull to
the right and you want to straight forward, you have a nice problem.
This added to the fact that RWD cars have much less weight on the
spinning wheels, which makes them spinn empty on ice, makes them awful
winter cars, you just get stuck everywhere. If you push more gas, your
car starts to shake and tries to go sidefirst. I'm sure the guy next to
you likes it, when you kick his car with your backside.
Don't fight the physics, try it. Even an FWD car can oversteer if
needed, just put shitty tyres to the back. And please explain, how do
you fight against the laws of physics, if you say RWD car is better at
winter, when there's little friction. My RWD car just gets stuck every
winter to few hills, I can't do anything.
- Yak
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>What
>seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling
>characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other.
I don't have a preference when it comes to my normal day to day driving. It's
only in bad weather that I care which wheels are being driven. Even on the
track, one isn't neccesarily better than another.
>What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a
>preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you
>prefer FWD.
I don't really prefer either one. FWD is easeir to deal with, RWD is sportier.
Either way, give me a great car and I'm happy.
>This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between
>how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery
It does. Spin your tires on a dry road and see how long it takes to recover
traction. Do the same thing on an icey/wet/snowy road and see how long it
takes. It's more difficult to make, maintain and recover traction when road
conditions get bad.
>Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly
>unjustified oversimplification.
Really? Interesting, I've never talked to anyone who knew what they were
talking about who would say that. Gross oversteer is harder to correct for than
gross understeer-it's a fact. Knowing that most drivers are of mediocre ability
at best, most manufacturers tune their cars for understeer, making them easier
and therefore safer to drive. Here are some quotes and links to settle things
for you:
"Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves
acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the
weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big
advantage on slippery roads." from:
http://www.sficc.net/features/past.html
(See the link for FWD Vs. RWD)
"The important differences between front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are
more in the ease of steering the car, particularly in slippery conditions, than
in the efficiency." from:
http://www1.science.ca/askascientist...on.php?qID=358
"One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the
driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads."
from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/tec...7/article.html
>seems likely is that both FWD and front-engine, RWD have handling
>characteristics that are preferred by some people over the other.
I don't have a preference when it comes to my normal day to day driving. It's
only in bad weather that I care which wheels are being driven. Even on the
track, one isn't neccesarily better than another.
>What surprises me about your argument is that you seem to express a
>preference for RWD in all situations except snowy roads, in which case you
>prefer FWD.
I don't really prefer either one. FWD is easeir to deal with, RWD is sportier.
Either way, give me a great car and I'm happy.
>This dichotomy implies that there's some big difference between
>how a car handles a loss of traction as the roads get slippery
It does. Spin your tires on a dry road and see how long it takes to recover
traction. Do the same thing on an icey/wet/snowy road and see how long it
takes. It's more difficult to make, maintain and recover traction when road
conditions get bad.
>Saying that understeer is always safer than oversteer is a gross and wholly
>unjustified oversimplification.
Really? Interesting, I've never talked to anyone who knew what they were
talking about who would say that. Gross oversteer is harder to correct for than
gross understeer-it's a fact. Knowing that most drivers are of mediocre ability
at best, most manufacturers tune their cars for understeer, making them easier
and therefore safer to drive. Here are some quotes and links to settle things
for you:
"Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves
acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the
weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big
advantage on slippery roads." from:
http://www.sficc.net/features/past.html
(See the link for FWD Vs. RWD)
"The important differences between front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive are
more in the ease of steering the car, particularly in slippery conditions, than
in the efficiency." from:
http://www1.science.ca/askascientist...on.php?qID=358
"One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the
driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads."
from:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/tec...7/article.html
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds on
good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
completely different story. Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the best
rallye suspension scheme in the world, and some of that gets passed on to
its street siblings, a 180HP 206 GTI's weight/power ratio must come very
close to if not over that of a Boxster (even an S one). Apart from that if a
bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for obvious
plain physics reasons. But it remains a suspension matter, which is where
Rallye experience counts. Of course, the Boxster looks gorgeous and it's a
Porsche, while a 206 is only just French rubbish, but French rubbish is so
much lighter too.
Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the road,
the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
schemes, brakes and weight. The wider open and drier the road is, the more
superior and more fun it is to be driving an RWD. AWD is just simply more
effective than both, although it must be said much more boring than RWD and
unfortunately invariably heavier (especially on the nose), so it is only for
this reason that I must agree I wouldn't mind driving a GT3 at all !
JP Roberts
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040214033330.26465.00002075@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >but you can take my word for
> >what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the
details
> >(really winding road).
>
> So a "really winding road" would allow a Peugot to beat a Boxster?
PUH-LEASE!
> Put up or shut up, show some proof of this ridiculous claim. The 911 GT3
has
> posted as high as 1.03g on the skidpad, name a French car that can best
it.
good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
completely different story. Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the best
rallye suspension scheme in the world, and some of that gets passed on to
its street siblings, a 180HP 206 GTI's weight/power ratio must come very
close to if not over that of a Boxster (even an S one). Apart from that if a
bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for obvious
plain physics reasons. But it remains a suspension matter, which is where
Rallye experience counts. Of course, the Boxster looks gorgeous and it's a
Porsche, while a 206 is only just French rubbish, but French rubbish is so
much lighter too.
Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the road,
the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
schemes, brakes and weight. The wider open and drier the road is, the more
superior and more fun it is to be driving an RWD. AWD is just simply more
effective than both, although it must be said much more boring than RWD and
unfortunately invariably heavier (especially on the nose), so it is only for
this reason that I must agree I wouldn't mind driving a GT3 at all !
JP Roberts
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040214033330.26465.00002075@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >but you can take my word for
> >what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the
details
> >(really winding road).
>
> So a "really winding road" would allow a Peugot to beat a Boxster?
PUH-LEASE!
> Put up or shut up, show some proof of this ridiculous claim. The 911 GT3
has
> posted as high as 1.03g on the skidpad, name a French car that can best
it.
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
He's got some strange sources--- we all know the Prelude SH 0-60 was more
like 6.7 seconds than 7.7 seconds... and you must be looking at a 700-ft.
skidpad number-- different mags use different tests... check out car and
driver from anytime in the 98-99 time frame and look at their car log and
you'll begin to see things a little more clearly.
The only vehicle tested that ever exceeded 1.0 g in the skidpad test was the
Ferrari F40 and F50 and McLaren F1. I'm not sure where you're getting your
numbers, but they are way off.
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040214221655.21920.00001947@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Not all... but some-- the point is that the vehicle engine/drive layout
does
> >not necessarily mean that the car has a particular characteristic... the
> >suspension has a great deal to do with it.
>
> FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension
> tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience
knows it.
> The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent
some of
> the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.
>
> >The fact is the Prelude SH's 0.96g skidpad numbers for the 600-ft. circle
is
> >better than most Corvette models and Porsche's
>
> Where did that number come from? I've never seen any factory Honda post
better
> than about .90 and that's the S2000. If a Prelude SH could pull .96 than
the
> world would go lopsided. Every source I can find lists the Prelude SH at
..89 on
> the skidpad, with a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds. Not nearly enough to beat a
Porsche. A
> 996 Turbo can pull 0.98, the GT3 can pull 1.03g and the other models
aren't far
> back.
like 6.7 seconds than 7.7 seconds... and you must be looking at a 700-ft.
skidpad number-- different mags use different tests... check out car and
driver from anytime in the 98-99 time frame and look at their car log and
you'll begin to see things a little more clearly.
The only vehicle tested that ever exceeded 1.0 g in the skidpad test was the
Ferrari F40 and F50 and McLaren F1. I'm not sure where you're getting your
numbers, but they are way off.
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040214221655.21920.00001947@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Not all... but some-- the point is that the vehicle engine/drive layout
does
> >not necessarily mean that the car has a particular characteristic... the
> >suspension has a great deal to do with it.
>
> FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension
> tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience
knows it.
> The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent
some of
> the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.
>
> >The fact is the Prelude SH's 0.96g skidpad numbers for the 600-ft. circle
is
> >better than most Corvette models and Porsche's
>
> Where did that number come from? I've never seen any factory Honda post
better
> than about .90 and that's the S2000. If a Prelude SH could pull .96 than
the
> world would go lopsided. Every source I can find lists the Prelude SH at
..89 on
> the skidpad, with a 0-60 of 7.7 seconds. Not nearly enough to beat a
Porsche. A
> 996 Turbo can pull 0.98, the GT3 can pull 1.03g and the other models
aren't far
> back.
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:
<snip my stuff>
> Let's take a simple example, and later I will give you a little
> practical test you can do (and whichs results you should know without
> doing it).
>
> Car's front tyres point where you want to go. Whether there is grip,
> or there isn't, they always point to that direction, and when they
> spinn, they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle.
> It doesn't matter whether they have full grip on the road, or not,
> it'll go to that direction, as the tyres keep spinning and
> accelerating the car. The backtyres on the other hand have full grip
> all the time in FWD cars, since they're not accelerating, and are
> just passively following the car, giving it better side-wise-grip.
>
> On the other hand, with RWD car, we have front tyres, which do have
> full-grip. So, we can point to any direction we want, but where do we
> get the sidegrip? Goash, we don't have it when you accelerate the car,
> since backwheels lose their grip -> car loses it's side-wise-grip. Now
> we would need to get back this grip to actually GO somewhere, sliding
> won't make our car go where we wanted, and it won't make the car go
> faster.
>
> How did you plan to get more grip to backwheels with RWD, when there's
> less weight & spinning takes away all the grip? You planned to drive
> forward with front tyres only? Won't work.
>
> And why are backwheels so important? And you don't believe they are?
> Take your handbrake and pull. What happens to the car? Does it spin?
> Oh yes. If you lock the front tyres however, what happens? Car goes
> straight forward, it won't spin.
>
> Easier, change old-used-tires to your backwheels and brand new ones to
> front. Push brakes, your car will again go sidewise. Is this the
> behaviour you wanted? Now you can't go forward, nor can you accelerate
> the car, since the tyres can spin to whatever direction, and they
> don't give you acceleration to the direction you wanted. If backtyres
> pull to the right and you want to straight forward, you have a nice
> problem.
>
> This added to the fact that RWD cars have much less weight on the
> spinning wheels, which makes them spinn empty on ice, makes them awful
> winter cars, you just get stuck everywhere. If you push more gas, your
> car starts to shake and tries to go sidefirst. I'm sure the guy next
> to you likes it, when you kick his car with your backside.
>
> Don't fight the physics, try it. Even an FWD car can oversteer if
> needed, just put shitty tyres to the back. And please explain, how do
> you fight against the laws of physics, if you say RWD car is better at
> winter, when there's little friction. My RWD car just gets stuck every
> winter to few hills, I can't do anything.
This would all make perfectly good sense. Except that one of your premises
isn't quite right:
You wrote "when they spinn [sic], they give car normal acceleration to the
center of the circle." They don't.
The reason that the tail end of a car does the things you describe when
yanking the emergency brake is also the reason why FWD cars are less adept
at driving and steering at the same time: When a wheel's speed isn't the
same as the surface over which it's traveling -- when it stops rolling -- it
loses the ability to control lateral acceleration (that is, to prevent a
sideways slide). In your example, applying the parking brake causes the
rear wheels to be going more slowly than the road, thereby causing the rear
of the car to lose lateral stability. But the exact same rules apply to the
front wheels of a FWD car. When you press the accelerator (or lift off for
engine braking) on a sufficiently slippery surface, the front wheels' speed
will no longer match that of the road, thereby losing the ability to control
lateral acceleration. The result? The front end of the car keeps going in
the direction of its momentum, unaffected by the position of the steering
wheel. Also called "understeer."
The front wheels "point where you want to go" in RWD cars as well as FWD
ones. In FWD cars, they are additionally responsible for affecting forward
motion. Whenever lateral forces are being applied to the front tires (as
when turning), any application of the throttle increases the likelihood of
these tires breaking free and therefore losing their lateral grip. In a RWD
car, however, the front tires never have to do anything except "point where
you want to go," leaving all accelerative functions to the other axle at the
back end of the car. Therefore, when applying throttle in a curve, the
front tires won't lose their lateral grip until the *speed* of the car (as
accelerated by the rear tires) finally exceeds their lateral grip
capability. The action of applying or lifting throttle won't, in and of
itself, contribute to the front tires losing lateral grip as is the case
with FWD. So while the back of a RWD car might step out under acceleration,
at least the front tires will still be assuring that the car is going in the
direction the driver wants it to go -- or at least will be doing a better
job of it than those of a FWD car. Whatever advantage a FWD car might gain
over RWD due to having more vehicle weight over its drive wheels is *more*
than lost as a result of this overtaxing of the tires on the front of the
car when it's driven at the limit of adhesion.
And when a RWD car is understeering (as they are often designed to do), at
least the front wheels are devoting all of their available grip to
controlling lateral acceleration -- that is, to trying not to understeer.
When a FWD car is understeering, if the driver is applying (or lifting)
throttle, the front wheels have just traded in some of their available grip
to be used for acceleration or deceleration, leaving less grip available for
controlling lateral acceleration. Ergo, less vehicle control.
Now that the theory is out of the way, let's do another experiment -- one
far more like real-world driving than yanking on the parking brake. Try
entering a snowy curve with your FWD at a speed that can be just barely mana
ged -- the speed at which any *additional* speed would result in a loss of
lateral grip. Now add power. The car stops turning in toward the center of
the circle and starts understeering right into that guard rail. And if you
instead *lift* the throttle too much or too quickly, you'll get the exact
result from loss of grip due to engine braking.
Now try entering that same curve with just a bit too much speed -- so that a
slide is inevitable. Now it doesn't matter *what* you do, you're going to
hit
the guard rail.
Now let's try the same hypothetical experiment with a RWD. Enter the corner
just below the skid threshold and apply power. Rear wheels come out from
behind you (a little bit). Correct with a bit of opposite lock, and you're
still heading in nominally the direction you want to head. The front wheels
never stopped rolling. You've missed the guard rail.
Next we enter that same curve with just a bit too much speed. The car
begins to slide -- butt end out. A bit of opposite lock on the wheel, and
you're still heading in nominally the direction you want to head -- albeit
with a bit more butt sticking out than in the first example. And since all
of the front tires' grip is being devoted to keeping the car going in the
direction they're pointed (they're not trying to accelerate or decelerate
the car), you have a better chance of still missing the guard rail.
I really do believe that the *only* advantage of FWD is that it presents its
driver with a less-intimidating dance when grip is lost than does RWD. But
when it comes right down to it, *I* can go faster through any given curve
with RWD than FWD. And if the limit at which I can take that corner is
faster in the RWD car, then it stands to reason that for any given speed,
the RWD car is farther from the limit, and therefore, farther from being out
of control. (And a car that is sliding *isn't* necessarily out of control.)
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Michael Burman wrote:
<snip my stuff>
> Let's take a simple example, and later I will give you a little
> practical test you can do (and whichs results you should know without
> doing it).
>
> Car's front tyres point where you want to go. Whether there is grip,
> or there isn't, they always point to that direction, and when they
> spinn, they give car normal acceleration to the center of the circle.
> It doesn't matter whether they have full grip on the road, or not,
> it'll go to that direction, as the tyres keep spinning and
> accelerating the car. The backtyres on the other hand have full grip
> all the time in FWD cars, since they're not accelerating, and are
> just passively following the car, giving it better side-wise-grip.
>
> On the other hand, with RWD car, we have front tyres, which do have
> full-grip. So, we can point to any direction we want, but where do we
> get the sidegrip? Goash, we don't have it when you accelerate the car,
> since backwheels lose their grip -> car loses it's side-wise-grip. Now
> we would need to get back this grip to actually GO somewhere, sliding
> won't make our car go where we wanted, and it won't make the car go
> faster.
>
> How did you plan to get more grip to backwheels with RWD, when there's
> less weight & spinning takes away all the grip? You planned to drive
> forward with front tyres only? Won't work.
>
> And why are backwheels so important? And you don't believe they are?
> Take your handbrake and pull. What happens to the car? Does it spin?
> Oh yes. If you lock the front tyres however, what happens? Car goes
> straight forward, it won't spin.
>
> Easier, change old-used-tires to your backwheels and brand new ones to
> front. Push brakes, your car will again go sidewise. Is this the
> behaviour you wanted? Now you can't go forward, nor can you accelerate
> the car, since the tyres can spin to whatever direction, and they
> don't give you acceleration to the direction you wanted. If backtyres
> pull to the right and you want to straight forward, you have a nice
> problem.
>
> This added to the fact that RWD cars have much less weight on the
> spinning wheels, which makes them spinn empty on ice, makes them awful
> winter cars, you just get stuck everywhere. If you push more gas, your
> car starts to shake and tries to go sidefirst. I'm sure the guy next
> to you likes it, when you kick his car with your backside.
>
> Don't fight the physics, try it. Even an FWD car can oversteer if
> needed, just put shitty tyres to the back. And please explain, how do
> you fight against the laws of physics, if you say RWD car is better at
> winter, when there's little friction. My RWD car just gets stuck every
> winter to few hills, I can't do anything.
This would all make perfectly good sense. Except that one of your premises
isn't quite right:
You wrote "when they spinn [sic], they give car normal acceleration to the
center of the circle." They don't.
The reason that the tail end of a car does the things you describe when
yanking the emergency brake is also the reason why FWD cars are less adept
at driving and steering at the same time: When a wheel's speed isn't the
same as the surface over which it's traveling -- when it stops rolling -- it
loses the ability to control lateral acceleration (that is, to prevent a
sideways slide). In your example, applying the parking brake causes the
rear wheels to be going more slowly than the road, thereby causing the rear
of the car to lose lateral stability. But the exact same rules apply to the
front wheels of a FWD car. When you press the accelerator (or lift off for
engine braking) on a sufficiently slippery surface, the front wheels' speed
will no longer match that of the road, thereby losing the ability to control
lateral acceleration. The result? The front end of the car keeps going in
the direction of its momentum, unaffected by the position of the steering
wheel. Also called "understeer."
The front wheels "point where you want to go" in RWD cars as well as FWD
ones. In FWD cars, they are additionally responsible for affecting forward
motion. Whenever lateral forces are being applied to the front tires (as
when turning), any application of the throttle increases the likelihood of
these tires breaking free and therefore losing their lateral grip. In a RWD
car, however, the front tires never have to do anything except "point where
you want to go," leaving all accelerative functions to the other axle at the
back end of the car. Therefore, when applying throttle in a curve, the
front tires won't lose their lateral grip until the *speed* of the car (as
accelerated by the rear tires) finally exceeds their lateral grip
capability. The action of applying or lifting throttle won't, in and of
itself, contribute to the front tires losing lateral grip as is the case
with FWD. So while the back of a RWD car might step out under acceleration,
at least the front tires will still be assuring that the car is going in the
direction the driver wants it to go -- or at least will be doing a better
job of it than those of a FWD car. Whatever advantage a FWD car might gain
over RWD due to having more vehicle weight over its drive wheels is *more*
than lost as a result of this overtaxing of the tires on the front of the
car when it's driven at the limit of adhesion.
And when a RWD car is understeering (as they are often designed to do), at
least the front wheels are devoting all of their available grip to
controlling lateral acceleration -- that is, to trying not to understeer.
When a FWD car is understeering, if the driver is applying (or lifting)
throttle, the front wheels have just traded in some of their available grip
to be used for acceleration or deceleration, leaving less grip available for
controlling lateral acceleration. Ergo, less vehicle control.
Now that the theory is out of the way, let's do another experiment -- one
far more like real-world driving than yanking on the parking brake. Try
entering a snowy curve with your FWD at a speed that can be just barely mana
ged -- the speed at which any *additional* speed would result in a loss of
lateral grip. Now add power. The car stops turning in toward the center of
the circle and starts understeering right into that guard rail. And if you
instead *lift* the throttle too much or too quickly, you'll get the exact
result from loss of grip due to engine braking.
Now try entering that same curve with just a bit too much speed -- so that a
slide is inevitable. Now it doesn't matter *what* you do, you're going to
hit
the guard rail.
Now let's try the same hypothetical experiment with a RWD. Enter the corner
just below the skid threshold and apply power. Rear wheels come out from
behind you (a little bit). Correct with a bit of opposite lock, and you're
still heading in nominally the direction you want to head. The front wheels
never stopped rolling. You've missed the guard rail.
Next we enter that same curve with just a bit too much speed. The car
begins to slide -- butt end out. A bit of opposite lock on the wheel, and
you're still heading in nominally the direction you want to head -- albeit
with a bit more butt sticking out than in the first example. And since all
of the front tires' grip is being devoted to keeping the car going in the
direction they're pointed (they're not trying to accelerate or decelerate
the car), you have a better chance of still missing the guard rail.
I really do believe that the *only* advantage of FWD is that it presents its
driver with a less-intimidating dance when grip is lost than does RWD. But
when it comes right down to it, *I* can go faster through any given curve
with RWD than FWD. And if the limit at which I can take that corner is
faster in the RWD car, then it stands to reason that for any given speed,
the RWD car is farther from the limit, and therefore, farther from being out
of control. (And a car that is sliding *isn't* necessarily out of control.)
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
the windier - I meant "the more winding".
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:c0oq7m$4hp$1@news.ya.com...
> Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds
on
> good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
> completely different story. Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the
best
> rallye suspension scheme in the world, and some of that gets passed on to
> its street siblings, a 180HP 206 GTI's weight/power ratio must come very
> close to if not over that of a Boxster (even an S one). Apart from that if
a
> bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for
obvious
> plain physics reasons. But it remains a suspension matter, which is where
> Rallye experience counts. Of course, the Boxster looks gorgeous and it's a
> Porsche, while a 206 is only just French rubbish, but French rubbish is so
> much lighter too.
>
> Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the
road,
> the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
> schemes, brakes and weight. The wider open and drier the road is, the more
> superior and more fun it is to be driving an RWD. AWD is just simply more
> effective than both, although it must be said much more boring than RWD
and
> unfortunately invariably heavier (especially on the nose), so it is only
for
> this reason that I must agree I wouldn't mind driving a GT3 at all !
>
> JP Roberts
>
> "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:20040214033330.26465.00002075@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > >but you can take my word for
> > >what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the
> details
> > >(really winding road).
> >
> > So a "really winding road" would allow a Peugot to beat a Boxster?
> PUH-LEASE!
> > Put up or shut up, show some proof of this ridiculous claim. The 911 GT3
> has
> > posted as high as 1.03g on the skidpad, name a French car that can best
> it.
>
>
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:c0oq7m$4hp$1@news.ya.com...
> Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds
on
> good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
> completely different story. Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the
best
> rallye suspension scheme in the world, and some of that gets passed on to
> its street siblings, a 180HP 206 GTI's weight/power ratio must come very
> close to if not over that of a Boxster (even an S one). Apart from that if
a
> bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for
obvious
> plain physics reasons. But it remains a suspension matter, which is where
> Rallye experience counts. Of course, the Boxster looks gorgeous and it's a
> Porsche, while a 206 is only just French rubbish, but French rubbish is so
> much lighter too.
>
> Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the
road,
> the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
> schemes, brakes and weight. The wider open and drier the road is, the more
> superior and more fun it is to be driving an RWD. AWD is just simply more
> effective than both, although it must be said much more boring than RWD
and
> unfortunately invariably heavier (especially on the nose), so it is only
for
> this reason that I must agree I wouldn't mind driving a GT3 at all !
>
> JP Roberts
>
> "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:20040214033330.26465.00002075@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > >but you can take my word for
> > >what I wrote, assuming you haven't forgotten to read about all the
> details
> > >(really winding road).
> >
> > So a "really winding road" would allow a Peugot to beat a Boxster?
> PUH-LEASE!
> > Put up or shut up, show some proof of this ridiculous claim. The 911 GT3
> has
> > posted as high as 1.03g on the skidpad, name a French car that can best
> it.
>
>
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
> FWD cars all understeer, and most AWD cars do too. No level of suspension
> tuning can ever make this not true, and anyone with tuning experience
knows it.
> The Integra Type R, Volkswagen Corrado and 1990 Lotus Elan SE represent
some of
> the best FWD cars ever devised, all of them understeer.
Understeering doesn't have so much to do with AWD as with weight. The main
culprit for that, apart from suspension, is weight distribution. What
really happens is that most AWD vehicles predominantly lean on their noses,
as a result of AWD's weight burden predominantly leaning on the front axle.
If you don't want to take my word for that, just check a Mitsubishi EVO and
you'll see that because that is one of the best balanced cars in terms of
weight understeering is much less present and oversteer is thus made
possible on many occasions.
This is why I'm waiting to see if BMW are capable of manufacturing a new 3
series with their great 3l diesel engine, their new X-drive system -
apparently just as good as Quattro, though its reliability remains to be
seen, and their famous neutral distribution of weight. The present 330xi and
xd models still also suffer from excessively heavy noses, not to mention
Audis which are notoriuous for that. Of course while the new S4 is an
otherwise great car, it would be so very much better if it could see some of
its weight transferred to its back, or better still, see it vanish.
JP Roberts