JPF

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:35:05 GMT, Wolfgang Pawlinetz <mille@afm.at>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:20:30 -0500, JPF
><frickjphasgrownwearyofspam@noemail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
>><saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>>
>>
>>Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
>>Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.
>
>Well, I think in fact he's not entirely wrong.
>
>You can see it that way: AWD distributes the acceleration forces (not
>decceleration) to all four tires.............

>Snip<<

Exactly.

A FWD car loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than a RWD
or AWD car. What happens in a turn in a FWD car when your drive
wheels lose adhesion? You cannot steer. You cannot turn. Your car
understeers, and the car continues in the path it was on before the
traction loss.
A RWD loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than an AWD
car. What happens in a turn when your drive wheels lose adhesion?
The tail swings out, the car oversteers, and if uncorrected, the car
continues in the path it was on before the traction loss. If the
front tires have traction, however, the car can be steered by a
competent driver. Worse case scenario, the drivers makes a feeble
correction and veers into oncoming traffic.
An AWD car powers all four wheels. When it loses adhesion in a
turn, the car continues on the path it was on before it loss adhesion.
That point, however, is significantly higher than the point at which
either FWD or RWD lose adhesion.
That's not safer?

Why do two-wheeled drive cars have traction control?
So inept drivers can steer.

AWD is safer than FWD or RWD. It cannot overcome the laws of physics,
stupidity, or lack of reason.

AWD is not a marketing tool. Cupholders are a marketing tool. DVD
players are a marketing tool.

Take a moment and do a search on "Ice Racing."
Ice racing is a perect display of the physical forces exerted on a
vehicle. You have accelleration, decelleration, lateral adhesion
around a course. Compare times on AWD/FWD/RWD cars.

Then convince me that AWD is a gimmick.

Boston BMWCCA does some events. One guy in particular runs a Subaru
and an M3. Same driver, same course, same tires. Care to guess which
times are significantly lower?


As for what planet I live on? I live on the one where most cars are
FWD, and at least here in the US, most drivers have no clue as to how
to pilot them.

Dave LaCourse

JPF writes:

>Boston BMWCCA does some events. One guy in particular runs a Subaru
>and an M3. Same driver, same course, same tires. Care to guess which
>times are significantly lower?
>

True. I used to race on Newfound Lake in NH with the Boston BMW CCA. An Audi
Quattro with snows on all four corners was faster than any of the FWD or RWD
cars equipped with studs on all four corners. There was one gentleman (forget
his name) who ran with his son. Their times with awd were much faster than
with rwd or fwd.

Are they still racing on Newfound Lake? Have to get up there some Sunday.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

Saintor

> A FWD car loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than a RWD
> or AWD car. What happens in a turn in a FWD car when your drive
> wheels lose adhesion? You cannot steer. You cannot turn. Your car
> understeers, and the car continues in the path it was on before the
> traction loss.

Quite the opposite. FWD have more traction than RWD because there is more
weight on the driving wheels. In the olds days of RWD cars, we were adding
sand of bags to increase traction.

> A RWD loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than an AWD
> car. What happens in a turn when your drive wheels lose adhesion?
> The tail swings out, the car oversteers, and if uncorrected, the car
> continues in the path it was on before the traction loss. If the
> front tires have traction, however, the car can be steered by a
> competent driver. Worse case scenario, the drivers makes a feeble
> correction and veers into oncoming traffic.
> An AWD car powers all four wheels. When it loses adhesion in a
> turn, the car continues on the path it was on before it loss adhesion.
> That point, however, is significantly higher than the point at which
> either FWD or RWD lose adhesion.
> That's not safer?

The point here is 'predictability' and easiness to recover in a drifting
situation; AWD has no more lateral adhesion at all. As for losing adhesion
of the driving wheel, this is what traction control is for. It does 90% of
the job right.

>
> Why do two-wheeled drive cars have traction control?
> So inept drivers can steer.
>
> AWD is safer than FWD or RWD. It cannot overcome the laws of physics,
> stupidity, or lack of reason.
>
> AWD is not a marketing tool. Cupholders are a marketing tool. DVD
> players are a marketing tool.

AWD is a marketing tool since it is sold on false assumptions that it is
safer. Mercedes-Benz, Lexus, BMW, SAAB and Volvo clearly do not believe
this. Why would you?

>
> Take a moment and do a search on "Ice Racing."
> Ice racing is a perect display of the physical forces exerted on a
> vehicle. You have accelleration, decelleration, lateral adhesion
> around a course. Compare times on AWD/FWD/RWD cars.
>
> Then convince me that AWD is a gimmick.
>

Again confusion between safety and rally performance. Sorry but when there
is a snowstrom, it is not the time to play rally on roads.

> Boston BMWCCA does some events. One guy in particular runs a Subaru
> and an M3. Same driver, same course, same tires. Care to guess which
> times are significantly lower?

AWD does *NOT* stand out in Solo racing series. IIRC, it was not a Subaru
that won the last season (Integra Type R?) BTW, if it was a WRX Sti, it is
already a quicker car than a M3 at the start.

daytripper

On 25 Jan 2004 14:43:57 GMT, davplac@aol.comDumbo (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

>JPF writes:
>
>>Boston BMWCCA does some events. One guy in particular runs a Subaru
>>and an M3. Same driver, same course, same tires. Care to guess which
>>times are significantly lower?
>>
>
>True. I used to race on Newfound Lake in NH with the Boston BMW CCA. An Audi
>Quattro with snows on all four corners was faster than any of the FWD or RWD
>cars equipped with studs on all four corners. There was one gentleman (forget
>his name) who ran with his son. Their times with awd were much faster than
>with rwd or fwd.
>
>Are they still racing on Newfound Lake? Have to get up there some Sunday.
>Dave

They're racing today!

http://www.boston-bmwcca.org/events/bulletin.asp?id=261

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd

Richard Potato

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
<saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:

>>As for the expense, quatrro is a safety feature.
>
>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.

I believe what I want to believe. I also understand the relationship
between active and passive safety. Quatrro is active, airbags are
passive. Like that. You believe that the extra 110 lbs of h/w for
quattro is wasted, fine, stay FWD, RWD or take the bus.

And I don't have the $1M for the MB. The A4 is an expense I can
rationalize: safety is my concern.

>
>If it was a safety feature, you can bet that Mercedes-Benz S600, SLR and
>Maybach would have it standard, no question asked. But there are questions.
>The only thing that AWD does it better is accelerating on slippery surfaces.
>All the rest is urban legend. It adds mass and is less predictable when
>going over the limits. Car&Driver did many times comparos between twins 2WD
>and AWD. Their conclujsion is always repetitive. Addtional mass of AWD is
>more of a detriment. This is not to say thatyAWD can not be fun in winter
>(it is), but as a safety feature, NOTHING supports this claim... except
>marketing.
>
>Actually, it is a safety measure; it saved Audi and Subaru from going in
>bankruptcy. ;o)
>
>

Richard Potato

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:27:26 -0500, "Tha Ghee" <grewatson@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Richard Potato" <@tater.cu> wrote in message
>news:401018a0.9493020@news.gv.shawcable.net...
>
>> >Pete
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The Ghee is threadbare.
>>
>> Audi has bumper to bumper coverage for 4 years. I have not seen the
>> warranty in person, so to speak, but have been told that it includes
>> ALL consumables. Including brake pads. IOW, I pay for nothing other
>> than gas for the car for 4 years. Tires are of course not included but
>> I have been told that I will not have to spend any $ for the first 4
>> years. No other company (maybe MB sort of) offers this warranty. It is
>> worth about $2K or so over 4 years. That is worth something that other
>> companies don't offer. So for the same $ for a similar car (G35X for
>> eg) you can save some $.
>>
>it's "THA" you do realize were talking about the oil changes most likely
>after the bumper 2 bumper expires before that is on Audi's tab.
>
>

As as I said, threadbare.

My thread, I'll write about what I want.

So fuel costs are 4% higher, I buy one more oil change per year...
blah blah blah. I have the money for the car and any service it will
require.

I don't have to justify my understanding of the product, my need/want
for the product or defend any of it to you or anyone else.. Free to
choose. I choose to disregard your silly reply.

Wolfgang Pawlinetz

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:35:18 -0500, JPF
<frickjphasgrownwearyofspam@noemail.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:35:05 GMT, Wolfgang Pawlinetz <mille@afm.at>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:20:30 -0500, JPF
>><frickjphasgrownwearyofspam@noemail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:42:54 -0500, "Saintor"
>>><saintor1@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Another thought from the ramblings of an antagonist.
>>>Thank you so much for your viewpoint, it's always entertaining.
>>
>>Well, I think in fact he's not entirely wrong.
>>
>>You can see it that way: AWD distributes the acceleration forces (not
>>decceleration) to all four tires.............
>
>>Snip<<
>
>Exactly.
>
> A FWD car loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than a RWD
>or AWD car. What happens in a turn in a FWD car when your drive
>wheels lose adhesion? You cannot steer. You cannot turn. Your car
>understeers, and the car continues in the path it was on before the
>traction loss.
> A RWD loses adhesion on the drive wheels much easier than an AWD
>car. What happens in a turn when your drive wheels lose adhesion?
>The tail swings out, the car oversteers, and if uncorrected, the car
>continues in the path it was on before the traction loss. If the
>front tires have traction, however, the car can be steered by a
>competent driver. Worse case scenario, the drivers makes a feeble
>correction and veers into oncoming traffic.

I agree, but what happens in an AWD car if the front or rear wheels
lose traction? Exactly the same.

> An AWD car powers all four wheels. When it loses adhesion in a
>turn, the car continues on the path it was on before it loss adhesion.
>That point, however, is significantly higher than the point at which
>either FWD or RWD lose adhesion.

The point is that despite AWD the traction is dependent on the
rubber/tarmac combination and not on the drive concept used.

I.e. the tires build up the same traction, so the actual maximum curve
speed (for a given curve) is identical.

The only difference is that as soon as acceleration is coming into
play (i.e. increasing speed in a curve) the additional force vector is
distributed across four wheels. So in fact, if you are at 80% of the
maximum friction you can use the 20% of _all_ wheels to accelerate.
And that in turn means you can drive higher curve speeds and
accelerate harder with an AWD car without flying off.

If you brake during this phase, there is no difference between AWD and
2WD

>That's not safer?

Depends. You can accelerate harder. If that counts for safety, then so
be it.

>Why do two-wheeled drive cars have traction control?
>So inept drivers can steer.

Why does the A4 1,8T quattor has traction control (ESP) if it would
not be needed? You can fly off with every drive train concept.

>AWD is safer than FWD or RWD.

Could you please argue physically why? I mean really, I am a fan of
the quattro drive train for reasons of uphilldriving in snow et al,
but why would it be _safer_ (except for obviously this uphill driving
).

>It cannot overcome the laws of physics,
>stupidity, or lack of reason.

Full ack.

>Take a moment and do a search on "Ice Racing."
>Ice racing is a perect display of the physical forces exerted on a
>vehicle. You have accelleration, decelleration, lateral adhesion
>around a course. Compare times on AWD/FWD/RWD cars.
>
>Then convince me that AWD is a gimmick.

I don't want to or even have to convince you because AWD is not a
gimmick. It does have it's merits, but in every day driving it's IMO
grossly overestimated. I just laid down physics. I might be wrong, but
I haven't seen a proof yet for it. And the reason why AWD car's are
faster in rallies or ice racing is that they can accelerate harder and
much earlier than 2WD. That gives them an advantage on the track.

>Boston BMWCCA does some events. One guy in particular runs a Subaru
>and an M3. Same driver, same course, same tires. Care to guess which
>times are significantly lower?

I would guess it's the 4WD if you ask like that. Yes, why not.
Different cars, different setups, different suspension. And yes, the
4WD will give it's share to the better performance.

I just say this is limited to acceleration. Which is an advantage on
the track, but does not help you the least bit if you emergency brake
on a wet road in a curve. Or even if you brake downhill on a steep
road which you travelled up just an hour ago with the quattro.

In that case, 4WD is just plainly no advantage. It does not help,
because it's not even engaged.

>As for what planet I live on? I live on the one where most cars are
>FWD, and at least here in the US, most drivers have no clue as to how
>to pilot them.

Oh, the same here. And I personally think extended driving lessons and
dedicated training weeks on track (as example) would be very _very_
beneficial.

No doubt.

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *

Saintor

> >>As for the expense, quatrro is a safety feature.
> >
> >No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>
> I believe what I want to believe.

Of course, you can believe in pink flying elephants, too.

Greg Reed

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***

Saintor wrote:
>>>> As for the expense, quatrro is a safety feature.
>>>
>>> No it is not. This is what marketing wants you to believe.
>>
>> I believe what I want to believe.
>
> Of course, you can believe in pink flying elephants, too.

So tell me: Do you have a religion? A political affiliation?

People tend to believe the craziest things sometimes, and often those
beliefs aren't too far off from your pink flying elephants example. Point
being, *every* man believes what he wants to believe, almost always
including the belief that he's too smart to believe something that's wrong.
We all have our pet convictions, and none of us is completely innocent of
clinging irrationally to something that's just not true. Any person who
thinks he's the exception is deluding himself. So everybody: lighten up.

- Greg Reed

Sig #211:
"Convictions are more dangerous to truth than lies."

[F. W. Nietzsche, "Human All-too-Human," 1878]





-----= 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! =-----

quattroA4cars

"Richard Potato" <@tater.cu> wrote in message
news:400d9c61.14423199@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> I >
> This was Audi's sale to lose and they hit it out of the park every
> time. As for the Japanese: come back in about ten years. And BMW and
> Mercedes: too much dough for the same thing which is not as good as
> the bullet proof quattro.

Richard,

I drove BMW's for over 15 years, and I can attest to your comment on "too
much dough". They are nice cars, but I just could not justify the expense. I
purchased a new '00 A4 1.8tq with all the options and could not be happier.
I've owned it since new, and this is the first year that I've driven it in
the snow. (only had the Dunlop 8000E's on it till now). It's great in the
snow, and in 4 years and 38K miles, it's only needed regular service. I'm
ready for another, and as much as I want to like the new BMW's, I just
can't. So I'm hoping that the new A6 will appeal to me(as I want to move up
to that class of car over the A4).
Anyway, good luck on your purchase.

Glenn