Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
Greg Reed wrote:
> 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.
No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens in
the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'.
Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?
> 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.)
Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts
which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will not.
Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you come to
Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do with RWD
car here.
- Yak
> 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.
No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens in
the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'.
Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?
> 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.)
Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts
which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will not.
Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you come to
Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do with RWD
car here.
- Yak
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
"Jay Jones" <jayjones21@***.net> wrote in message news:<MmTYb.4550$iB.826@lakeread06>...
> 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. We're not
> talking about in DRY, pristine conditions here.... 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?!?!?
>
> Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...
[230 lines of quoted material snipped]
Please trim your posts. Bad enough that you top-post, but there's no
excuse for quoting all that.
Your opinions about the merits of FWD aside (not all of which have
merit), Volvos, until quite recently, were all RWD.
"...[P]roven facts..." Irony, at it's finest.
--
Jonesy
> 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. We're not
> talking about in DRY, pristine conditions here.... 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?!?!?
>
> Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...
[230 lines of quoted material snipped]
Please trim your posts. Bad enough that you top-post, but there's no
excuse for quoting all that.
Your opinions about the merits of FWD aside (not all of which have
merit), Volvos, until quite recently, were all RWD.
"...[P]roven facts..." Irony, at it's finest.
--
Jonesy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
Further debate with this moron is pointless... if he won't listen to a
mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of sources
online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an IQ over 15, we
should all collectively ignore him...
If he wants to rant on and prove his stupidity, maybe he should write emails
to Saab and Volvo so they can explain to him that in the poor weather
conditions they experience up there, it is necessary to go to FWD since it
has been proven to be superior in inclimate conditions to RWD. (PERIOD) --
there is no discussion since this is a proven fact
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4034e5d2@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** 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! =-----
>
mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of sources
online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an IQ over 15, we
should all collectively ignore him...
If he wants to rant on and prove his stupidity, maybe he should write emails
to Saab and Volvo so they can explain to him that in the poor weather
conditions they experience up there, it is necessary to go to FWD since it
has been proven to be superior in inclimate conditions to RWD. (PERIOD) --
there is no discussion since this is a proven fact
"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4034e5d2@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** 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! =-----
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:21:09 -0500, "Greg Reed"
<inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
Drag racing FWD? F1 racing FWD? Trucks FWD?
Safari rally - have ever any RWD car won? Jupp! Any FWD? Nope.
Most compact and cheapest to produce -> FWD.
Most cars today also have MacPearson. Not the most safe solution and
no real prestanda car use it. Same reason as FWD.
Pro and cons RWD/FWD is almost as old as the car history.
There will not be any answer today either, only my opinion.
I'm from Sweden, had experince in competing in rally with a lot of
diffrent types of cars. Mostley Volvo as it's a cheap car in Sweden. I
also own an AUDI S4-00 and a lot else. I like to compete with my car
in real bad icy and snowy conditions as more depends on drivers skills
and not on which have the car with most horsepower.
Nowadays in Sweden is most winter rally's won by AWD cars.
Not because they in general is fastest in the bend (they are not) but
they have highest speed out of the bend. They often also consumes less
tires as there is less horsepower for each wheel.
Before AWD, had the "Swedish rally" been mostly won by RWD cars.
Exception for SAAB/Stig Blomkvist (world champion) who won for several
years but he could even drive fast with an Audi. In the beginning had
he big trouble with Audi Quattro as it used same type of differentials
as in stock Quattro's. Terrible under steer on gravel bends. They even
tried to use smaller front wheels (14") to cure the problem. As high
speed as you dare against the bend, turn the car in right direction
before the bend, and hope the speed was high enough to keep the over
steer. To slow and you did not come out of the bend at all. Even my S4
AWD is very complicated to drive fast on gravel/winter roads compared
to most RWD & FWD. ABS and other fancy letters is absolutley to no use
either.
If you try to drive to start your car in a lot of snow it's easier to
make a slow start with a car with big wheels and the weight of an
engine over the driving wheel. Here is VW 1200 and SAAB good cars. In
a competition car you don't have any use of slow starting, you must
have good acceleration with aid of competition winter wheels. Fast
acceleration gives most weight over rear wheels => RWD. If you must
brake, never do it in the bend, do it before. Here is a bit advantage
for RWD as you have more ways to brake. In the bend, full throttle
with both RWD and FWD but with FWD you often also need to brake with
rear wheels. You need the engine power to steer, don't use the front
wheels to steer, it's to slow. Remember this is fast driving on a road
whiteout meeting cars and you need to be a bit skilled to make it
safe.
In common snowy roads with normal speeds and normal skilled drivers
around you, I guess it's easier to drive FWD compared to RWD. No
special tyres, not a lot of horsepower. You just have to drive slowly
and brake and steer carefully to not lose grip. If you lose your grip,
just steer in the direction of the road. Easy.
Either you slowly accelerate or brakes most weight is over driving
wheels =>FWD.
Yes, Volvo is nowadays mostly FWD. In the past was Volvo only RWD.
Volvo's first FWD was model 343. Did not won any rallies. Now is only
one model left RWD and some people try to compete with it but it's a
bit to big on small roads. In general is Volvo FWD more succesfull on
racing tracks. RWD/FWD is not so important, it's the total balance
that counts on the track.
/Alf
<inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
Drag racing FWD? F1 racing FWD? Trucks FWD?
Safari rally - have ever any RWD car won? Jupp! Any FWD? Nope.
Most compact and cheapest to produce -> FWD.
Most cars today also have MacPearson. Not the most safe solution and
no real prestanda car use it. Same reason as FWD.
Pro and cons RWD/FWD is almost as old as the car history.
There will not be any answer today either, only my opinion.
I'm from Sweden, had experince in competing in rally with a lot of
diffrent types of cars. Mostley Volvo as it's a cheap car in Sweden. I
also own an AUDI S4-00 and a lot else. I like to compete with my car
in real bad icy and snowy conditions as more depends on drivers skills
and not on which have the car with most horsepower.
Nowadays in Sweden is most winter rally's won by AWD cars.
Not because they in general is fastest in the bend (they are not) but
they have highest speed out of the bend. They often also consumes less
tires as there is less horsepower for each wheel.
Before AWD, had the "Swedish rally" been mostly won by RWD cars.
Exception for SAAB/Stig Blomkvist (world champion) who won for several
years but he could even drive fast with an Audi. In the beginning had
he big trouble with Audi Quattro as it used same type of differentials
as in stock Quattro's. Terrible under steer on gravel bends. They even
tried to use smaller front wheels (14") to cure the problem. As high
speed as you dare against the bend, turn the car in right direction
before the bend, and hope the speed was high enough to keep the over
steer. To slow and you did not come out of the bend at all. Even my S4
AWD is very complicated to drive fast on gravel/winter roads compared
to most RWD & FWD. ABS and other fancy letters is absolutley to no use
either.
If you try to drive to start your car in a lot of snow it's easier to
make a slow start with a car with big wheels and the weight of an
engine over the driving wheel. Here is VW 1200 and SAAB good cars. In
a competition car you don't have any use of slow starting, you must
have good acceleration with aid of competition winter wheels. Fast
acceleration gives most weight over rear wheels => RWD. If you must
brake, never do it in the bend, do it before. Here is a bit advantage
for RWD as you have more ways to brake. In the bend, full throttle
with both RWD and FWD but with FWD you often also need to brake with
rear wheels. You need the engine power to steer, don't use the front
wheels to steer, it's to slow. Remember this is fast driving on a road
whiteout meeting cars and you need to be a bit skilled to make it
safe.
In common snowy roads with normal speeds and normal skilled drivers
around you, I guess it's easier to drive FWD compared to RWD. No
special tyres, not a lot of horsepower. You just have to drive slowly
and brake and steer carefully to not lose grip. If you lose your grip,
just steer in the direction of the road. Easy.
Either you slowly accelerate or brakes most weight is over driving
wheels =>FWD.
Yes, Volvo is nowadays mostly FWD. In the past was Volvo only RWD.
Volvo's first FWD was model 343. Did not won any rallies. Now is only
one model left RWD and some people try to compete with it but it's a
bit to big on small roads. In general is Volvo FWD more succesfull on
racing tracks. RWD/FWD is not so important, it's the total balance
that counts on the track.
/Alf
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Jay Jones wrote:
> Further debate with this moron is pointless... if he won't listen to a
> mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of
> sources online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an
> IQ over 15, we should all collectively ignore him...
>
> If he wants to rant on and prove his stupidity, maybe he should write
> emails to Saab and Volvo so they can explain to him that in the poor
> weather conditions they experience up there, it is necessary to go to
> FWD since it has been proven to be superior in inclimate conditions
> to RWD. (PERIOD) -- there is no discussion since this is a proven fact
My dearest Jay,
It can't be called a "proven fact" until it's been actually -- you know --
proven. And unless you're prepared to actually prove it yourself, you have
no right to question my skepticism of it. So far, only one participant
(other than myself) in this discussion has even attempted to prove this
claim. And that participant isn't you.
Goodbye, Jay. We're done.
- 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! =-----
Jay Jones wrote:
> Further debate with this moron is pointless... if he won't listen to a
> mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of
> sources online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an
> IQ over 15, we should all collectively ignore him...
>
> If he wants to rant on and prove his stupidity, maybe he should write
> emails to Saab and Volvo so they can explain to him that in the poor
> weather conditions they experience up there, it is necessary to go to
> FWD since it has been proven to be superior in inclimate conditions
> to RWD. (PERIOD) -- there is no discussion since this is a proven fact
My dearest Jay,
It can't be called a "proven fact" until it's been actually -- you know --
proven. And unless you're prepared to actually prove it yourself, you have
no right to question my skepticism of it. So far, only one participant
(other than myself) in this discussion has even attempted to prove this
claim. And that participant isn't you.
Goodbye, Jay. We're done.
- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens
> in the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'.
> Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?
>
>> 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.)
>
> Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts
> which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will
> not. Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you
> come to Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do
> with RWD car here.
You're one heck of a debater, Yak. Well, you're *probably* a heck of a
debater. I don't really know for sure, because you never actually entered
the debate that we're having. Instead you decided to have your own little
argument all by yourself. Which I've never seen before. And which I
enjoyed watching. No, I didn't. Actually, it was very frustrating. And
I'm glad that it's finally over. Oh, and you missed some pretty funny stuff
by not finishing the rest of the message. Well, maybe it was only a little
bit funny. Come to think of it, you probably didn't miss much at all.
Goodbye, Yak. We're done.
- 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! =-----
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens
> in the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'.
> Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?
>
>> 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.)
>
> Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts
> which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will
> not. Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you
> come to Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do
> with RWD car here.
You're one heck of a debater, Yak. Well, you're *probably* a heck of a
debater. I don't really know for sure, because you never actually entered
the debate that we're having. Instead you decided to have your own little
argument all by yourself. Which I've never seen before. And which I
enjoyed watching. No, I didn't. Actually, it was very frustrating. And
I'm glad that it's finally over. Oh, and you missed some pretty funny stuff
by not finishing the rest of the message. Well, maybe it was only a little
bit funny. Come to think of it, you probably didn't miss much at all.
Goodbye, Yak. We're done.
- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
FWD vs. RWD
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the amount of hostility that's being
directed toward me because of this stupid discussion. For the life of me I
cannot figure out why you people are so damned angry and defensive. It's
not even really that important a topic. And I'm arguing from the minority
point of view, no less!! What possible threat could my opinion on this
matter pose to any of you?
All I want is a good *reason* why I should believe your claims about FWD.
So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks. And a "good"
reason is one that I can't disprove. Which is why I have been going to the
trouble of disproving what's been posted here. Not to **** people off. But
because that's what one does when seeking a "good" reason. Why do you
demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be
willing to accept?
I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there
are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other. I've
been told that automotive engineers are seemingly in consensus on the issue,
but I've not seen one participant here own up to being an automotive
engineer, and I've seen no references to anything written or published by
any automotive engineer. I'm starting to think that my one and only chance
to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may
have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links. Had I known
that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of
you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to
having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
But at this point, even *I'm* growing tired of this useless banter. (I'm
pretty sure that almost everybody else here already did so long ago.) I can
see that I just expected too much out of you. And so I'm throwing in the
towel. Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning"
in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish. As for me, I
think I'm going to try and figure out what articles Steve wanted me to read.
I'm hoping they'll contain more convincing arguments than have been
presented here.
Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google,
that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your
ego.
- 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! =-----
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the amount of hostility that's being
directed toward me because of this stupid discussion. For the life of me I
cannot figure out why you people are so damned angry and defensive. It's
not even really that important a topic. And I'm arguing from the minority
point of view, no less!! What possible threat could my opinion on this
matter pose to any of you?
All I want is a good *reason* why I should believe your claims about FWD.
So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks. And a "good"
reason is one that I can't disprove. Which is why I have been going to the
trouble of disproving what's been posted here. Not to **** people off. But
because that's what one does when seeking a "good" reason. Why do you
demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be
willing to accept?
I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there
are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other. I've
been told that automotive engineers are seemingly in consensus on the issue,
but I've not seen one participant here own up to being an automotive
engineer, and I've seen no references to anything written or published by
any automotive engineer. I'm starting to think that my one and only chance
to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may
have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links. Had I known
that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of
you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to
having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
But at this point, even *I'm* growing tired of this useless banter. (I'm
pretty sure that almost everybody else here already did so long ago.) I can
see that I just expected too much out of you. And so I'm throwing in the
towel. Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning"
in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish. As for me, I
think I'm going to try and figure out what articles Steve wanted me to read.
I'm hoping they'll contain more convincing arguments than have been
presented here.
Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google,
that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your
ego.
- 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! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c1380a$9s9$1@news.ya.com>...
> 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.
IOW, the animal didn't just "appear" in the middle of the road. It
came from *somewhere.* Bad luck for you, yes. And not much to be
done about it. But if you knew it was possible, you might have slowed
down at that spot, and the antelope would have not been there right at
the time your bumper got there.
There is a stretch of road near Crater Lake National Park. The woods
come right up to the road, or very close. In the summer and fall, the
deer are quite active along this stretch. Nobody in their right mind
drives this at the posted 55mph. It's straight, and with excellent
sightlines for cars, but not for wild animals. I don't recall seeing
anyone drive over 35mph there. Even that is pretty fast for that
section of road, and only because of deer.
You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
> The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway, however
> remote, is never to be neglected.
Yes, if it's so vanishingly remote as to be absurdly unlikely, then
you can do nothing but neglect it. Like a meteorite landing right in
front of you.
On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
I notice that you abandoned your other (incorrect) arguments. Wise
choice.
--
Jonesy
> 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.
IOW, the animal didn't just "appear" in the middle of the road. It
came from *somewhere.* Bad luck for you, yes. And not much to be
done about it. But if you knew it was possible, you might have slowed
down at that spot, and the antelope would have not been there right at
the time your bumper got there.
There is a stretch of road near Crater Lake National Park. The woods
come right up to the road, or very close. In the summer and fall, the
deer are quite active along this stretch. Nobody in their right mind
drives this at the posted 55mph. It's straight, and with excellent
sightlines for cars, but not for wild animals. I don't recall seeing
anyone drive over 35mph there. Even that is pretty fast for that
section of road, and only because of deer.
You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
> The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway, however
> remote, is never to be neglected.
Yes, if it's so vanishingly remote as to be absurdly unlikely, then
you can do nothing but neglect it. Like a meteorite landing right in
front of you.
On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
I notice that you abandoned your other (incorrect) arguments. Wise
choice.
--
Jonesy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
> > 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.
>But if you knew it was possible, you might have slowed
>down at that spot, and the antelope would have not been there right at
> the time your bumper got there.
Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the average
speed you'd have been driving at.
>Nobody in their right mind
> drives this at the posted 55mph.
Did you realize the difference between 50 km/h and 55mph?
> You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
If this can happen to you on a straight, then the chances of more
complications arising from sth similar on a bend are also bigger.
> > The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway,
however
> > remote, is never to be neglected.
> On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes
> for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because
> anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
I've been to physics college, so don't try to lecture me on that, but the
sole fact you're refusing to accept the obvious doesn't make you immune to
the basic principle that states that enthropy is always on the increase,
i.e. things tend to chaos by nature, which means, wake up Jonesey, we live
in a real world, not in perfect dreamland, as you're assuming. Now, the
possibility of getting an unexpected obstacle in your way and having to
brake as fast as you can is very real, and that's final. Only when you've
hit sth. will you realise what I'm saying.
> I notice that you abandoned your other (incorrect) arguments. Wise
> choice.
Which is the same reason I haven't provided a reply to the rest of your
claims, because if you care to read my previous post carefully, you'll see
you the suggestions you made were totally unreal and I was never proven
wrong.
Yours,
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD vs. RWD
>All I want is a good *reason* why I should believe your claims about FWD.
>So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks
Again, let me remind you of the three links I provided for you, and then remind
everyone that you never bothered to read *any* of them. They were from
professional sources, generally well regarded and would have been difficult (if
at all possible) to dispute. You continue to carry on your point of view
without any regard for the sources I've provided and without an proof of your
position. You cannot continue to argue a point - without proof and in light of
my evidence - and not expect people to become frustrated with your tactics. I
could run around claiming that 2+2 = 7 if I wanted to, but it'd be pretty hard
to argue when I have no proof to back up my claims, and continue to ignore the
proof other people have provided to the contrary.
>Why do you
>demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be
>willing to accept?
I havn't demanded that you accept anything. I *expected* you to read the
evidence I provided in my defense.
>I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there
>are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about what defines a truly
"scientific" experiment, it's to far off topic, and not something I want to be
dragged into. But I did provide you with material from well regarded sources
all in agreement about FWD's superiority in inclimate weather.
>and I've seen no references to anything written or published by
>any automotive engineer.
Even if we had provided them, you wouldn't have read them.
>I'm starting to think that my one and only chance
>to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may
>have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links.
Now we're getting somewhere.
>Had I known
>that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of
>you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to
>having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
Well excuse us. We didn't realize that we weren't arguing to your standard. I
thought that formulating an opinion and then backing it up with evidence would
be good enough for you.
>Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning"
>in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish.
I could care less about winning. I'd just like to debate with someone who will
acknowledge the presence of evidence, read the evidence, and then take it into
consideration when forming his rebuttle.
>Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google,
>that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your
>ego.
>
God I'm nice. Here's a copy of the "links" section I provided in that post,
below it is the Google URL:
"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
To Google: http://tinyurl.com/35p4n
It's thread number 68
>So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks
Again, let me remind you of the three links I provided for you, and then remind
everyone that you never bothered to read *any* of them. They were from
professional sources, generally well regarded and would have been difficult (if
at all possible) to dispute. You continue to carry on your point of view
without any regard for the sources I've provided and without an proof of your
position. You cannot continue to argue a point - without proof and in light of
my evidence - and not expect people to become frustrated with your tactics. I
could run around claiming that 2+2 = 7 if I wanted to, but it'd be pretty hard
to argue when I have no proof to back up my claims, and continue to ignore the
proof other people have provided to the contrary.
>Why do you
>demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be
>willing to accept?
I havn't demanded that you accept anything. I *expected* you to read the
evidence I provided in my defense.
>I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there
>are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about what defines a truly
"scientific" experiment, it's to far off topic, and not something I want to be
dragged into. But I did provide you with material from well regarded sources
all in agreement about FWD's superiority in inclimate weather.
>and I've seen no references to anything written or published by
>any automotive engineer.
Even if we had provided them, you wouldn't have read them.
>I'm starting to think that my one and only chance
>to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may
>have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links.
Now we're getting somewhere.
>Had I known
>that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of
>you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to
>having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
Well excuse us. We didn't realize that we weren't arguing to your standard. I
thought that formulating an opinion and then backing it up with evidence would
be good enough for you.
>Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning"
>in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish.
I could care less about winning. I'd just like to debate with someone who will
acknowledge the presence of evidence, read the evidence, and then take it into
consideration when forming his rebuttle.
>Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google,
>that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your
>ego.
>
God I'm nice. Here's a copy of the "links" section I provided in that post,
below it is the Google URL:
"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
To Google: http://tinyurl.com/35p4n
It's thread number 68
