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

Jay Jones wrote:
> We need to collectively ignore any idiot that doesn't understand
> established FACTS that FWD offers better directional stability,
> greater control, safety, with better maximum safe handling speeds
> (all things else being equal) to RWD counterparts in INCLIMATE
> weather, i.e. snow, ice, and rain.

I'm sorry. I missed where these facts were established.

> We're not talking about in DRY,
> pristine conditions here....

I also missed where somebody explained why one layout corners better in the
dry while the other corners better in the snow.

> or maybe the scandanavians are just
> retarded for making the world's safest vehicles like the Volvo and
> Saab that predominately operate in ice and snow all FWD?!?!?

Wow. I hadn't considered that. Of course, most of that built-in safety is
from things like crashworthy body structures and cutting edge safety systems
like seatbelts and ABS. So I wonder why it is that these automakers use
predominantly FWD. Because so far nobody's given me a good reason.

> Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...

If I'm on such shaky ground, why can no one refute my arguments? I may well
be an idiot, and I may well be wrong. But you've yet to prove either of
these things. And I'm growing tired of statements along the lines of
"everybody knows that FWD is better" being passed off as supporting
arguments. The fact that lots of people believe something is not proof of
its validity. Lots of people once believed the earth was both flat and at
the center of the universe (though perhaps not at the same time). They
turned out to be a little off there. And they were just as angry about
having their beliefs deposed as you seem to be. Point being, argue your
position, not your popularity. I hold minority positions on *lots* of
topics, pretty much all of which are of a lot higher importance than this
one. I've heard the "millions of people can't be wrong" argument many times
before. Truth is, millions of people *can* be wrong. As could I, but
nobody's proven that yet.

There's really little point in having discussions with people who are *just
sure* that their position is correct and that any arguments to the contrary
must therefore be flawed. I don't believe I'm one of those people. I've
presented rational arguments to support my position. There have been
several rational arguments in favor of FWD, but last I checked, I'd hit
those volleys back over to the other side of the court. Of course, I'm not
done catching up on my messages yet, either. But only when I'm unable to
return the volley will claims to my stupidity carry any weight. No,
actually that still wouldn't earn me the title of "stupid." That would only
come if I failed to return the volley but still refused to concede error.

I've been absolutely cordial in this discussion. I know from experience
that people get ornery when their beliefs are questioned. And when they
find themselves unable to defend those beliefs, they get downright angry.
And then the insults start to fly. I've seen it over and over again. But
I've learned to ignore it. Calling me an idiot won't change the fact that
I've presented very good explanations of why RWD cars corner better than FWD
cars. Calling me an idiot won't change the fact that the arguments in favor
of FWD have all, thus far, been returned to their authors for correction.
So which one of us needs to "wake up to the reality of proven facts" and
which is mired in a bog of myth and lore?

To be honest, the lack of productive discussion on this topic is really
starting to make me wonder why I'm still bothering.

- Greg Reed






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

 

> In any case, car tires that have been *equally* heat cycled (which is
> what we are talking about here), moving the less-treaded tires to the
> end of the car that you desire to have *more grip* is the proper way.
> I've done it, and it works.

"Shaving" is as much to tread wear and our discussion as much as oranges is
to potatoes, so if you don't believe I'm right when I say the car is faster
and more manageable with the slightly worn tyres at the rear rather than at
the front, I can't believe you can possibly be faster than me at all on the
track.

> > > Try a bigger rear anti-roll bar, or lower tire pressure in the rear.
> > > Works great. With the combo, you can tune it such that the car is
> > > neutral at the limit.

Certainly the anti-roll bar, but just the opposite as to tyre pressure.
Optimal tyre pressure is that which gives you optimal traction. What you are
saying does not work with Audis, as it would make them unsafe at high speeds
as a result of rubber overheating.

> I'm not sure where you got the idea I used my handbrake at all. Maybe
> you should read what I wrote more carefully.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your trail-brake and misread hand-brake.

> If it's blind, then I go only as fast as I am able to see. If that
> means 20mph around a corner, then that's what I drive. I don't
> overdrive my sightlines.

Totally agree that it's a very bad idea to overdrive your sightlines, but
you're neglecting many other factors, such as any unexpected animal dashing
across the road. Don't wait for that to happen.

I'm not sure where you got your instruction, but that
> instructor is not fit to teach even basic elementary vehicle driving.

My instructor happens to have been ranking among the top 5 rallye drivers
in this country for over 7 years. I took a course in a 325i on an ice track.
I can tell you you really learn where to oversteer there, which is roughly
proportionally distributed on both sides of apex, assuming a symmetrical
bend, with a bit more emphasis before apex.

> If you drive as you say, then I would be able to take any old A1 VW
> GTI in decent tune and do a decent job of making your day a poor one.
> When I went to a club event some years ago, one of the fellows who had
> a 308 Ferarri decided to run his everyday work car. A 1983 VW GTI.
> He said it had not been modified in any way, other than uprated
> dampers and strut tower braces. His times on the track (Portland
> International Raceway) were better than almost all of the fine iron
> driven by the invited club members. A lot of expensive European
> machinery, some of it with TRIPLE his HP numbers, were humbled that
> day. But he did have his SCCA license, and he did know how to drive
> that car at 10/10ths. I had sold my GTI long before then, but he made
> me wish I still had it. I had no idea it was that fast! He was so
> smooth it was incredible.

I'd enjoy your challenge only if you were one of those in the "triple HP"
lot.

> My point? The machinery is important, but the technique is more
> important.

Most definitely agree here. Remember what Mr Bond was capable of doing in
his Two Chevaux?

Have a good day,

JP Roberts

 

JP Roberts wrote:
> If the Focus RS would trounce the Peugeot it would only be because of its
> turbo and power, not for its suspension. This is backed up by fiasco after
> fiasco by the hand of Ford in the Wold Rallye Car Championship, and not just
> for this year.

Now that we talk about Rally, how many RWD cars do you know that use
RWD? I know several FWD ones, and in dry concrete they can achieve even
better results than AWD parts (because no loss of power, and there's
enough grip). No RWD cars there, only FWD/AWD.

Now why is that our little RWD fans? Wasn't RWD so superiour in handling?

- Yak

 

Greg Reed wrote:
> Our hypothetical RWD car also has its engine in front, and therefore has the
> exact same front axle weight bias as our hypothetical FWD car, and therefore
> shares the same benefit of added grip at the wheels that steer. But the RWD
> car lacks the disadvantage of having to also drive with those steering
> wheels. And I've explained in excruciating detail exactly why driving with
> the front wheels is a disadvantage in a curve.

How did you intend to accelerate that hypothetical RWD car? Without
weight on the back, it'll stay still. This is your opinion of a
superiour car?

> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.

Not just straight-line, you might need to accelerate also on the corner.

> You're arguing the virtues of weight distribution and not of drivetrain
> layout.

Because this is essential where FWD cars are so good, they can have
better weight distribution than RWD cars. RWD cars just can't have
weight on the front. Get it? You can't drive a car with no weight on the
back.

> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
> cornering performance. See below.

Yes, a standing still car is better on the snow. Indeed, it doesn't make
as many accidents, but I was hoping to actually move with the car from
point A to point B. You apparently don't.

> You're saying that there aren't any RWD cars with their engine in the front?

Nope, I'm saying there's also weight on the back, since otherwise they
couldn't be driven.

> As I tried to explain before, any discussion of the relative virtues of FWD
> vs. RWD must assume that all other factors are equal. This includes, among
> many other things, weight distribution. In order for this discussion to
> have any meaning at all, both cars' weight distribution must be equal.

You're trying to make a car, that can't be driven? We're talking about
FWD cars vs. RWD cars and as you can see, the FWD technique gives them
the advantage of having the weight on the front, while RWD don't. Stop
changing the subject to something what might happen in the windtunnel.

> Read again what you just wrote. You agree that both cars have the same
> amount of grip and then immediately follow it with "FWD cars have more
> grip." Where does this extra grip in the FWD car come from? And don't you

Again, the weight distribution.

> dare write that it comes from the additional weight over the front axle,
> because our hypothetical RWD car has *exactly* the same amount of weight
> over its front wheels as does the FWD car. The *only* difference is which
> axle is driven.

And again, you start to talk about cars that can't move. Yippiaijee. Now
move back to the subject and tell us, how is your RWD car going to move
without weight on the back?

> Sure I do. More weight over the front wheels. Same amount in our RWD car
> as in our FWD car. Got it. No problem. Now let's talk about what each car

No problemo? Have you ever drove when there's snow on the ground? How on
earth did you intend to drive without weight on the spinning wheels?

<cut the rest of the crap, your not talking about FWD vs. RWD anymore,
your making cars that can't work, now let's say helicopter works better>

Get back to the subject and explain us, how is your RWD car going to get
better grip? You can't take out the weight from the back without having
a car that can't accelerate.

- Yak

 

Greg Reed wrote:
> So FWD cars have an advantage because of tire size and weight distribution?
> I thought we were talking about the advantages of the *drive layouts*
> themselves. You're creating what's called a "complex question" where

We're talking about the whole technology behind it. You just can't
understand it? You can't take out the essential things that make the car
move and then say "oh yes, RWD could be better in this theoretical case,
which can't be done".

- Yak

 

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

Michael Burman wrote:
> How did you intend to accelerate that hypothetical RWD car? Without
> weight on the back, it'll stay still. This is your opinion of a
> superiour car?

We're talking about cornering ability, not acceleration -- unless you're
talking about accelerating in a curve. At which point, the RWD car is more
likely to continue in the desired direction than the FWD car.

>> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
>> cornering performance. See below.
>
> Not just straight-line, you might need to accelerate also on the
> corner.

Which is where FWD is inferior to RWD, for the reasons I've discussed. (And
will doubtless have to repeat for you again in the near future.)

>> You're arguing the virtues of weight distribution and not of
>> drivetrain layout.
>
> Because this is essential where FWD cars are so good, they can have
> better weight distribution than RWD cars. RWD cars just can't have
> weight on the front. Get it? You can't drive a car with no weight on
> the back.

We're not talking about how weight distribution affects cornering ability,
we're talking about how FWD and RWD affect cornering ability. If you change
the wieght distribution between the two hypothetical cars, then we're no
longer... Oh, never mind. You didn't grasp the concept the first half
dozen times and you're not going to grasp it this time. Besides, I'm sure
you'll give me plenty more opportunities to knock my head against this wall.

You seem to think that you've got me on the run because I keep denying you
your advantage through weight distribution. I'm not on the run. You're
trying to counter things I never claimed. When you change weight
distribution between the two cars, then we're no longer talking just about
FWD vs. RWD. We're now talking about... Wait, you got me to say it yet
agian. Is somebody giving you a nickel for every time you can get me to
write that?

>> You're arguing relative ability in straight-line acceleration and not
>> cornering performance. See below.
>
> Yes, a standing still car is better on the snow. Indeed, it doesn't
> make as many accidents, but I was hoping to actually move with the
> car from point A to point B. You apparently don't.

We were talking about which car is safer to drive in the snow. A claim was
made that FWD is safer than RWD because of its superior ability to avoid or
correct a skid in a curve. That was where I jumped into this thread, and
that's where my point lies: For any given combination of weight
distribution, tire size, and every other possible factor that can affect a
car's handling, a RWD layout will outcorner a FWD layout. It has to do with
the way each different system uses the grip that's available at each axle.
So a prerequisite to even discussing this matter is necessarily dependent on
everything else -- weight distribution included -- being identical between
our two hypothetical cars. (That's another nickel for you.) Everybody now
seems to want to throw in everything except the kitchen sink (and I'm
expecting it, too, very shortly) to steer this discussion away from what I
actually wrote. (Didja like my little pun there? "Steer" the discussion?
Ahem. Moving right along...)

>> You're saying that there aren't any RWD cars with their engine in
>> the front?
>
> Nope, I'm saying there's also weight on the back, since otherwise they
> couldn't be driven.

Yeah. And there's exactly the same amount of it back there as on the
hypothetical FWD car. That's what "otherwise identical" means.

>> As I tried to explain before, any discussion of the relative virtues
>> of FWD vs. RWD must assume that all other factors are equal. This
>> includes, among many other things, weight distribution. In order
>> for this discussion to have any meaning at all, both cars' weight
>> distribution must be equal.
>
> You're trying to make a car, that can't be driven? We're talking about
> FWD cars vs. RWD cars and as you can see, the FWD technique gives them
> the advantage of having the weight on the front, while RWD don't. Stop
> changing the subject to something what might happen in the windtunnel.

What on earth does a wind tunnel have to do with anything? I am talking
about comparing the cornering ability of FWD as compared to RWD, when the
two are put in otherwise identical cars. Specifically, I'm asserting a RWD
car will outcorner a FWD car in any weather, with all things besides the
drive axle identical between the two cars. In order for a discussion of
this subject to have any validity whatsoever, there must be no differences
between the two cars except the thing we're comparing. In this case, that
thing is the drive axle. So in order for your arguments to have any meaning
in this discssion at all, both the FWD and RWD cars have to have the same
weight distribution. They have to have the same tire size and inflation
pressures. They have to have the same wheelbase. They have to have the
same horsepower. I suppose you can change the paint color if you want, just
as long as one of the paint colors isn't heavier than the other one. And
that they both have the paint distributed equally on the car. Yeah, you
know what? I take it back. They have to have the same paint color, too.
(That one had to be worth at least a quarter.)

I'm not trying to "make a car that can't be driven." I'm trying to make a
comparison that actually means something.

>> Read again what you just wrote. You agree that both cars have the
>> same amount of grip and then immediately follow it with "FWD cars
>> have more grip." Where does this extra grip in the FWD car come
>> from? And don't you
>
> Again, the weight distribution.

That ripping sound you just heard was two fistfuls of my hair departing my
scalp. You are incapable of understanding 1) what is being discussed here
and 2) what I am writing about it. *THE CARS MUST BE IDENTICAL TO EACH
OTHER* in every respect except their drive axle. Otherwise, we're no longer
comparing FWD to RWD. You know what? I'll just take all your nickels. And
the quarter, too. Your arguments are roughly the equivalent of the
following:

Me: You can see through glass better than through brick.
You. You're wrong, because glass breaks more easily than brick.
Me: We're not talking about how easily it breaks, we're talking about how
well you can see through it.
You: But the breaking thing is important, because if it's broken it won't
keep your house warm in the winter.
Me: I'm not denying that brick is stronger than glass. That wasn't my
argument. My argument was that you can see through glass easier.
You: So you're going to have a window that will just break any time
somebody throws a rock at it?
Me: "BANG!! BANG!! BANG!!" as my forehead strikes the desk repeatedly.

>> dare write that it comes from the additional weight over the front
>> axle, because our hypothetical RWD car has *exactly* the same amount
>> of weight over its front wheels as does the FWD car. The *only*
>> difference is which axle is driven.
>
> And again, you start to talk about cars that can't move. Yippiaijee.
> Now move back to the subject and tell us, how is your RWD car going
> to move without weight on the back?

Well, it has to have *some* weight on the back. I mean, it has a rear axle,
right? And some sort of structure to connect that axle to the engine and
wheels at the front? I'll grant that it's less weight than is at the front,
but it's still there, isn't it? Or should we attach big helium balloons to
the rear end of the RWD car? (And don't forget to attach them to the rear
and of the FWD car, as well. Have to keep that weight distribution...
Wait! You almost got me again!)

>> Sure I do. More weight over the front wheels. Same amount in our
>> RWD car as in our FWD car. Got it. No problem. Now let's talk
>> about what each car
>
> No problemo? Have you ever drove when there's snow on the ground?

No, but I have *driven* when there's snow on the ground. Just this morning
on my way home from work, as a matter of fact. And I'll be doing it again
tomorrow for about 250 miles, as we're going to my cousin's wedding this
weekend. And the weather guy is predicting lots of snow. But don't worry.
I won't be driving a FWD car. So we'll be okay. (Okay, that was a cheap
shot.)

> How
> on earth did you intend to drive without weight on the spinning
> wheels?

Well, I didn't happen to be driving a RWD car at the time, but for reasons
I've already laid out numerous times, I've had had little problem hanging on
in the corners when I *did* drive in the snow with RWD. Which is what we're
discussing here. Remember? Cornering? In the snow? Around, you know,
corners? And curves? Things where the car has to, you know, turn? In the
snow? I'm repeating myself with the hope that at least one of these will
sneak into your brain. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

> <cut the rest of the crap, your not talking about FWD vs. RWD anymore,
> your making cars that can't work, now let's say helicopter works
> better>

You're demanding that *I* cut the crap? Oh, that's rich. I'm just trying
to keep you on the off-topic topic (if that makes any sense at all) that
this discussion has wandered into.

> Get back to the subject and explain us, how is your RWD car going to
> get better grip? You can't take out the weight from the back without
> having a car that can't accelerate.

As I said before, my RWD car IS NOT GOING TO GET BETTER GRIP. It's going to
start out with exactly as much grip as the FWD car. The topic of discussion
is how each car (the hypothetical FWD car and its hypothetical RWD twin)
makes use of this available grip *in a curve* and *under throttle* for the
purpose of staying on the course its driver wants it to stay. It's a very
specific statement that I'm asserting here. If you have a reason to refute
it that doesn't inherently break the above explicitly stated circumstances,
then by all means, post it for us to read. All you've managed to do so far
is disprove many things that I never claimed in the first place. I don't
know who's assertions you think you're refuting, but they're not mine.

Just to put the rest of you FWD guys at ease, don't worry. I won't hold
this guy against you.

- Greg Reed




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

 

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

Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed wrote:
>> So FWD cars have an advantage because of tire size and weight
>> distribution? I thought we were talking about the advantages of the
>> *drive layouts* themselves. You're creating what's called a
>> "complex question" where
>
> We're talking about the whole technology behind it. You just can't
> understand it? You can't take out the essential things that make the
> car move and then say "oh yes, RWD could be better in this
> theoretical case, which can't be done".

Well, at least now you've demonstrated that you understand what I'm trying
to say. And I'm not going to take your bait. The assertion remains as I
stated it. Refute it or ignore it as you see appropriate. (I just wish I
could glue a couple fistfulls of this hair back onto my head...)

- Greg Reed




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

 

"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c12ikt$hl5$1@news.ya.com>...
> > In any case, car tires that have been *equally* heat cycled (which is
> > what we are talking about here), moving the less-treaded tires to the
> > end of the car that you desire to have *more grip* is the proper way.
> > I've done it, and it works.
>
> "Shaving" is as much to tread wear and our discussion as much as oranges is
> to potatoes

If you had bothered to read the link, then you would see the
relevance.

> so if you don't believe I'm right when I say the car is faster
> and more manageable with the slightly worn tyres at the rear rather than at
> the front, I can't believe you can possibly be faster than me at all on the
> track.

No, I don't believe you are right, and until you provide something
other than your opinion to counter my *experience* and my outside
source, then you are just typing to see your words in USENET.

> > > > Try a bigger rear anti-roll bar, or lower tire pressure in the rear.
> > > > Works great. With the combo, you can tune it such that the car is
> > > > neutral at the limit.
>
> Certainly the anti-roll bar, but just the opposite as to tyre pressure.

Did you read the link I provided? Did you know that there are other
references out there that state exactly the same thing?


> Optimal tyre pressure is that which gives you optimal traction. What you are
> saying does not work with Audis, as it would make them unsafe at high speeds
> as a result of rubber overheating.

Sorry, Mr. Roberts. Tire pressures are most often given as a range,
and having the sets of tires at two different pressures within that
range is not dangerous. At any speed, other than past the speed
rating of the tire.

We're not talking about running a 36psi tire at 20psi to get results.
I run the rears of my quattro at 3psi less than the fronts.

> > If it's blind, then I go only as fast as I am able to see. If that
> > means 20mph around a corner, then that's what I drive. I don't
> > overdrive my sightlines.
>
> Totally agree that it's a very bad idea to overdrive your sightlines, but
> you're neglecting many other factors, such as any unexpected animal dashing
> across the road. Don't wait for that to happen.

Actually, I'm not. I live in a rural area with livestock and wild
animals. The terrain does consist of plenty of "blind bends." I have
never been surprised, even when an animal darts out into the road on
the corner, because I do not overdrive my sightlines. The sudden
appearance of some obstacle in the middle of the roadway is not
phyically possible.

> I'm not sure where you got your instruction, but that
> > instructor is not fit to teach even basic elementary vehicle driving.
>
> My instructor happens to have been ranking among the top 5 rallye drivers
> in this country for over 7 years. I took a course in a 325i on an ice track.
> I can tell you you really learn where to oversteer there, which is roughly
> proportionally distributed on both sides of apex, assuming a symmetrical
> bend, with a bit more emphasis before apex.

Ralleye driving and tarmac driving are not the same. Full
throttle/left-foot braking technique works for ralleye, but would be a
disaster on tarmac.

I don't ralleye.

> > If you drive as you say, then I would be able to take any old A1 VW
> > GTI in decent tune and do a decent job of making your day a poor one.
> > When I went to a club event some years ago, one of the fellows who had
> > a 308 Ferarri decided to run his everyday work car. A 1983 VW GTI.
> > He said it had not been modified in any way, other than uprated
> > dampers and strut tower braces. His times on the track (Portland
> > International Raceway) were better than almost all of the fine iron
> > driven by the invited club members. A lot of expensive European
> > machinery, some of it with TRIPLE his HP numbers, were humbled that
> > day. But he did have his SCCA license, and he did know how to drive
> > that car at 10/10ths. I had sold my GTI long before then, but he made
> > me wish I still had it. I had no idea it was that fast! He was so
> > smooth it was incredible.
>
> I'd enjoy your challenge only if you were one of those in the "triple HP"
> lot.

I have no idea what this means.

> > My point? The machinery is important, but the technique is more
> > important.
>
> Most definitely agree here. Remember what Mr Bond was capable of doing in
> his Two Chevaux?

A fine Roger Moore film. IIRC, he drove an Alfa GTV6 near the end -
Octo, right? So many Bond films - I can't keep them all
straight.

The point remains - don't take *my* word for any of this. Ask a real
instructor, or at least read the links I provided. I am absolutely
not making any of this stuff up.

R.F. Jones

 

> Now why is that our little RWD fans? Wasn't RWD so superiour in handling?

Nah, wide open roads, they almost don't exist any longer!

 

The sudden
> appearance of some obstacle in the middle of the roadway is not
> phyically possible.

Nothing further from the truth. I happened to be driving calmly at some 50
Km/h in a residential area. I was paying attention, as I always do when I'm
driving. It was a perfectly straight dry stretch and excellent weather
conditions. Neither me nor my passenger saw anything. We just only heard and
felt the smash, then by looking in the mirror I could see what looked like a
big stone in the middle of the lane behind me. It was a dead antelope, which
had just jumped over a 1.5m deep ditch and into the road from behind a
hedge. The animal happened to land in front of my bumper, so that it was
impossible to see it. Now, even if you're driving at a low speed an obstacle
might suddenly appear in front of you, and assuming you'd seen it, you would
emergency-brake, wouldn't you?

The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway, however
remote, is never to be neglected.