Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed wrote:
>> job of it than those of a FWD car. Whatever advantage a FWD car
>> might gain over RWD due to having more vehicle weight over its drive
>> wheels is *more* than lost as a result of this overtaxing of the
>> tires on the front of the car when it's driven at the limit of
>> adhesion.
>
> However, your forgetting that pressing the clutch, an FWD driver
> suddenly gains back all the lost friction he has when accelerating.
> The wheels start spinning free, and in this case we again have
> exactly the same amount of side-wise-friction like the RWD cars. So
> we don't lose anything here, we get the maximum spinning speed, and
> we're at the same situation as RWD cars, since exactly when they lose
> their grip, you can't push more power to the wheels either, or you're
> getting out of the circle and hit the wall. No advantage to RWD here.
And none to FWD, either. If, in order to get the front tires to match the
lateral adhesion capabilities of those on a RWD car, you have to press the
clutch, then the car becomes *no* wheel drive. If throttle is applied
during cornering, lateral adhesion capability is lost -- or at least
diminished.
>> When a FWD car is understeering, if the driver is applying (or
>> lifting) throttle, the front wheels have just traded in some of
>> their available grip to be used for acceleration or deceleration,
>> leaving less grip available for controlling lateral acceleration.
>> Ergo, less vehicle control.
>
> However, in this case FWD car hasn't lost it's grip on the backwheels
> at any point. It's still in control, and it's not losing it's grip.
> The situation here is easily fixed by taking off the power from
> frontwheels.
But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going to
travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the direction
of the front wheels. If the front tires have lost grip, the car will keep
going in its present direction due to momentum. It's more important to
retain lateral grip capability in the front wheels than the rear, because
the fronts do all the, you know, steering.
> However, in the case of your RWD car, your backside is now out of the
> control, and pressing clutch for example might not be enough. The back
> is out of control and will push the car on opposite direction than
> frontwheels, not happening with the FWD.
Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's just
silly. Or are you saying that understeer is easier for a novice driver to
correct than oversteer? No, that can't be it, because you write "I know
fixing RWD is easier than FWD's slide" in another paragraph below. And
besides, this is a completely different assertion than you originally made
(and repeated as recently as the post to which I'm now replying). That
assertion was that FWD has an advantage *under acceleration* due to a
combination of weight over the front wheels and the tires pulling the car in
the direction you want it to go. It is this assertion that I am attempting
to refute. (And I suspect that I'm confusing your writing with that of
Steve Grauman right now.)
>> entering a snowy curve with your FWD at a speed that can be just
>> barely mana ged -- the speed at which any *additional* speed would
>> result in a loss of lateral grip. Now add power. The car stops
>> turning in toward the center of the circle and starts understeering
>> right into that guard rail. And if you instead *lift* the throttle
>> too much or too quickly, you'll get the exact result from loss of
>> grip due to engine braking.
>
> However, proven in the real world, if I add any more power, in this
> case in the snow, my car would start accelerating to the direction
> where my front tyres are pointing to.
Not my experience, and the analysis (which I detailed in my last post)
doesn't back it up. And which is the proper reaction to experiencing
understeer in a FWD car? Because here you seem to imply that applying
additional throttle is the correct response. But elsewhere in this post,
you imply that lifting is the correct response. And still elsewhere you
write that pressing the clutch (which is neither lifting nor accelerating)
is beneficial, though you don't seem to be implying that this is the desired
action but just one possible action.
It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer
in a FWD car. My guess as to the theory behind this is the weight transfer
back up to the front wheels combined with a return to "rolling" of the front
wheels (as opposed to spinning in the forward direction) which allows more
lateral grip. Again, this seems to counter the common "FWD pulls in the
direction you want to go" assertion.
>> Now let's try the same hypothetical experiment with a RWD. Enter
>> the corner just below the skid threshold and apply power. Rear
>> wheels come out from behind you (a little bit). Correct with a bit
>> of opposite lock, and you're
>
> Now this hypothetical experiment however happens at lower speed with
> your RWD, or in other words, your back is lost more easily than the
> FWD car starts to understeer. And this is the worst part. I know
> fixing RWD is easier than FWD's slide, but RWDs slide happens at a
> lower speed, since there isn't that much friction at the front wheels
> (you need weight to the backwheels), and there's not as much friction
> on the backwheels, since you need to accelerate also. What happens at
> the limit speed is another question.
Not wanting to be a pinhead here, but I had to read this paragraph a couple
of times to ascertain just what it was trying to tell me. So you're saying
that a RWD car loses grip at the rear sooner than a FWD car loses grip at
the front? And you're saying that the reason for this is the additional
weight over the front wheels of the FWD car? If I got the meaning of this
paragraph wrong, please accept my apologies for wasting your time.
This assertion is a red herring. There are lots of things that can affect
which end of the car steps out of bounds first, as detailed by somebody else
in this very thread (suspension settings, tire pressures...), and even by
you (placing bald tires on the rear of the car). In order for any
comparison between FWD and RWD layouts *on their own merits* to be valid,
all other factors must be equal. IOW, both of our hypothetical cars (one
FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the same
weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear. The weight
advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road
at the front wheels is identical between the two cars. Likewise, the weight
*dis*advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the
road at the rear wheels is identical between the two cars. So in any given
curve, both cars are exactly as likely to lose grip at either axle under
neutral throttle (clutch pressed). The only differences that are relevant
to a comparison of FWD to RWD are those pertaining to what happens when you
release the clutch and either apply or lift the throttle. If you toss
anything else into the comparison, then you're no longer just comparing FWD
to RWD.
> Btw, your still forgetting that the RWD loses grip easier than FWD,
> and pointing to only the fact what happens at the limit. Now please
> also remind us, how did you manage to get more grip with RWD than
> with FWD.
I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make everything else
equal between the two hypothetical cars that are being compared. I was
comparing cars that are equal in every way except their drivetrain layouts.
They both therefore have *the same* grip available to them. I was then
contrasting the differences between them on throttle application. And if
you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through a corner faster
(and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're not likely to get an
argument out of anybody here, and certainly not out of me. But then you'd
no longer be comparing the relative advantages of the two drivetrain
layouts. You might just as well put snow tires on your FWD car and baldies
on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should remind us
how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And if you write that
it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll assume
that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you don't have an
answer.)
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Michael Burman wrote:
> Greg Reed wrote:
>> job of it than those of a FWD car. Whatever advantage a FWD car
>> might gain over RWD due to having more vehicle weight over its drive
>> wheels is *more* than lost as a result of this overtaxing of the
>> tires on the front of the car when it's driven at the limit of
>> adhesion.
>
> However, your forgetting that pressing the clutch, an FWD driver
> suddenly gains back all the lost friction he has when accelerating.
> The wheels start spinning free, and in this case we again have
> exactly the same amount of side-wise-friction like the RWD cars. So
> we don't lose anything here, we get the maximum spinning speed, and
> we're at the same situation as RWD cars, since exactly when they lose
> their grip, you can't push more power to the wheels either, or you're
> getting out of the circle and hit the wall. No advantage to RWD here.
And none to FWD, either. If, in order to get the front tires to match the
lateral adhesion capabilities of those on a RWD car, you have to press the
clutch, then the car becomes *no* wheel drive. If throttle is applied
during cornering, lateral adhesion capability is lost -- or at least
diminished.
>> When a FWD car is understeering, if the driver is applying (or
>> lifting) throttle, the front wheels have just traded in some of
>> their available grip to be used for acceleration or deceleration,
>> leaving less grip available for controlling lateral acceleration.
>> Ergo, less vehicle control.
>
> However, in this case FWD car hasn't lost it's grip on the backwheels
> at any point. It's still in control, and it's not losing it's grip.
> The situation here is easily fixed by taking off the power from
> frontwheels.
But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going to
travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the direction
of the front wheels. If the front tires have lost grip, the car will keep
going in its present direction due to momentum. It's more important to
retain lateral grip capability in the front wheels than the rear, because
the fronts do all the, you know, steering.
> However, in the case of your RWD car, your backside is now out of the
> control, and pressing clutch for example might not be enough. The back
> is out of control and will push the car on opposite direction than
> frontwheels, not happening with the FWD.
Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's just
silly. Or are you saying that understeer is easier for a novice driver to
correct than oversteer? No, that can't be it, because you write "I know
fixing RWD is easier than FWD's slide" in another paragraph below. And
besides, this is a completely different assertion than you originally made
(and repeated as recently as the post to which I'm now replying). That
assertion was that FWD has an advantage *under acceleration* due to a
combination of weight over the front wheels and the tires pulling the car in
the direction you want it to go. It is this assertion that I am attempting
to refute. (And I suspect that I'm confusing your writing with that of
Steve Grauman right now.)
>> entering a snowy curve with your FWD at a speed that can be just
>> barely mana ged -- the speed at which any *additional* speed would
>> result in a loss of lateral grip. Now add power. The car stops
>> turning in toward the center of the circle and starts understeering
>> right into that guard rail. And if you instead *lift* the throttle
>> too much or too quickly, you'll get the exact result from loss of
>> grip due to engine braking.
>
> However, proven in the real world, if I add any more power, in this
> case in the snow, my car would start accelerating to the direction
> where my front tyres are pointing to.
Not my experience, and the analysis (which I detailed in my last post)
doesn't back it up. And which is the proper reaction to experiencing
understeer in a FWD car? Because here you seem to imply that applying
additional throttle is the correct response. But elsewhere in this post,
you imply that lifting is the correct response. And still elsewhere you
write that pressing the clutch (which is neither lifting nor accelerating)
is beneficial, though you don't seem to be implying that this is the desired
action but just one possible action.
It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer
in a FWD car. My guess as to the theory behind this is the weight transfer
back up to the front wheels combined with a return to "rolling" of the front
wheels (as opposed to spinning in the forward direction) which allows more
lateral grip. Again, this seems to counter the common "FWD pulls in the
direction you want to go" assertion.
>> Now let's try the same hypothetical experiment with a RWD. Enter
>> the corner just below the skid threshold and apply power. Rear
>> wheels come out from behind you (a little bit). Correct with a bit
>> of opposite lock, and you're
>
> Now this hypothetical experiment however happens at lower speed with
> your RWD, or in other words, your back is lost more easily than the
> FWD car starts to understeer. And this is the worst part. I know
> fixing RWD is easier than FWD's slide, but RWDs slide happens at a
> lower speed, since there isn't that much friction at the front wheels
> (you need weight to the backwheels), and there's not as much friction
> on the backwheels, since you need to accelerate also. What happens at
> the limit speed is another question.
Not wanting to be a pinhead here, but I had to read this paragraph a couple
of times to ascertain just what it was trying to tell me. So you're saying
that a RWD car loses grip at the rear sooner than a FWD car loses grip at
the front? And you're saying that the reason for this is the additional
weight over the front wheels of the FWD car? If I got the meaning of this
paragraph wrong, please accept my apologies for wasting your time.
This assertion is a red herring. There are lots of things that can affect
which end of the car steps out of bounds first, as detailed by somebody else
in this very thread (suspension settings, tire pressures...), and even by
you (placing bald tires on the rear of the car). In order for any
comparison between FWD and RWD layouts *on their own merits* to be valid,
all other factors must be equal. IOW, both of our hypothetical cars (one
FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the same
weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear. The weight
advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road
at the front wheels is identical between the two cars. Likewise, the weight
*dis*advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the
road at the rear wheels is identical between the two cars. So in any given
curve, both cars are exactly as likely to lose grip at either axle under
neutral throttle (clutch pressed). The only differences that are relevant
to a comparison of FWD to RWD are those pertaining to what happens when you
release the clutch and either apply or lift the throttle. If you toss
anything else into the comparison, then you're no longer just comparing FWD
to RWD.
> Btw, your still forgetting that the RWD loses grip easier than FWD,
> and pointing to only the fact what happens at the limit. Now please
> also remind us, how did you manage to get more grip with RWD than
> with FWD.
I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make everything else
equal between the two hypothetical cars that are being compared. I was
comparing cars that are equal in every way except their drivetrain layouts.
They both therefore have *the same* grip available to them. I was then
contrasting the differences between them on throttle application. And if
you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through a corner faster
(and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're not likely to get an
argument out of anybody here, and certainly not out of me. But then you'd
no longer be comparing the relative advantages of the two drivetrain
layouts. You might just as well put snow tires on your FWD car and baldies
on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should remind us
how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And if you write that
it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll assume
that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you don't have an
answer.)
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Look Steve, before you can call me ignorant, I'll tell you all that you say
is absolutely rubbish as you have no hands-on experience. Now, you're just a
child and I wonder if you've got a driving licence at all. The only thing
you're capable to do is read BADLY and quote like a parrot. Get down to real
earth and start driving before you can open your mouth again. Whatever I
said is true, if only you stopped reading and started experiencing. You just
need to grow up before you can start any arguments with adults, right?
Now go to your mum, little Steve, and ask her to buy you a Porsche, before
you can talk Porsche again!
JP Roberts
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040216195320.22874.00002256@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds
on
> >good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
> >completely different story.
>
> This is a foolish, ignorant statement that you have absolutely no ability
to
> back up with fact. I've provided links showing that FWD cars maintain
better
> traction in poor weather and that a GT3 is capable of 1.03g on the
skidpad. And
> I'm sick of being the only one here who's required to back up what I say.
>
> > Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the best
> >rallye suspension scheme in the world
>
> This has little to do with anything, and I'd argue that it's a false
statement
> to boot. When Peugeot's Rallye record looks anywhere near as good as
> Mitsubishi's or Subaru's, we can talk about it. And what about the fact
that
> Audi dominated rally and road racing in the 1980s and early 90s? What
about the
> fact that Audi held overall victories at LeMans for 3 years straight and
took
> 2nd overall the fourth year? Or that they've won the ALMS for four years?
Or
> that Randy Probst won the Speedvision Touring series for the third time
last
> year in an RS6? What about the fact that Porsche won the Paris-Dakar
rallye on
> their first try? Or that they have 16 overall victories at LeMans, more
than
> any other company? How about the fact that the Carrera gets it's name from
the
> Carrera PanAmerica race which Porsche won several times? Or that their
total
> number of victories as a company puts anyone else's to shame? This puts
Porsche
> and Audi in a league way above any French manufacturer. Ever notice how
few
> positive things the automotive press has had to say about the Renault Clio
V6?
>
> >Apart from that if a
> >bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for
obvious
> >plain physics reasons
>
> More false information. FWD maintains an advantage only in bad weather.
The
> 1991 Lotus Elan SE Turbo had fantastic handling, but a 944 Turbo from 2
years
> earlier would destroy it on any track.
>
> >Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the
road,
> >the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
> >schemes, brakes and weight.
>
> You're ignoring the fact that mid and rear-engined cars like the Boxster
and
> 911 share most of if not all of the traction benefits of FWD cars. Either
start
> backing up your (obviously false) claims with facts or conceed defeat.
is absolutely rubbish as you have no hands-on experience. Now, you're just a
child and I wonder if you've got a driving licence at all. The only thing
you're capable to do is read BADLY and quote like a parrot. Get down to real
earth and start driving before you can open your mouth again. Whatever I
said is true, if only you stopped reading and started experiencing. You just
need to grow up before you can start any arguments with adults, right?
Now go to your mum, little Steve, and ask her to buy you a Porsche, before
you can talk Porsche again!
JP Roberts
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040216195320.22874.00002256@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Porsches are famous for their brakes, engines and handling at high speeds
on
> >good open roads. Now, the moment you take them to a mountain pass, it's a
> >completely different story.
>
> This is a foolish, ignorant statement that you have absolutely no ability
to
> back up with fact. I've provided links showing that FWD cars maintain
better
> traction in poor weather and that a GT3 is capable of 1.03g on the
skidpad. And
> I'm sick of being the only one here who's required to back up what I say.
>
> > Apart from the fact that Peugeot holds the best
> >rallye suspension scheme in the world
>
> This has little to do with anything, and I'd argue that it's a false
statement
> to boot. When Peugeot's Rallye record looks anywhere near as good as
> Mitsubishi's or Subaru's, we can talk about it. And what about the fact
that
> Audi dominated rally and road racing in the 1980s and early 90s? What
about the
> fact that Audi held overall victories at LeMans for 3 years straight and
took
> 2nd overall the fourth year? Or that they've won the ALMS for four years?
Or
> that Randy Probst won the Speedvision Touring series for the third time
last
> year in an RS6? What about the fact that Porsche won the Paris-Dakar
rallye on
> their first try? Or that they have 16 overall victories at LeMans, more
than
> any other company? How about the fact that the Carrera gets it's name from
the
> Carrera PanAmerica race which Porsche won several times? Or that their
total
> number of victories as a company puts anyone else's to shame? This puts
Porsche
> and Audi in a league way above any French manufacturer. Ever notice how
few
> positive things the automotive press has had to say about the Renault Clio
V6?
>
> >Apart from that if a
> >bend is sharp enough an FWD will always tract better than an RWD for
obvious
> >plain physics reasons
>
> More false information. FWD maintains an advantage only in bad weather.
The
> 1991 Lotus Elan SE Turbo had fantastic handling, but a 944 Turbo from 2
years
> earlier would destroy it on any track.
>
> >Now, on the subject of FWD and RWD, the windier and more slippery the
road,
> >the more superior FWD is over RWD, given similar engines, suspension
> >schemes, brakes and weight.
>
> You're ignoring the fact that mid and rear-engined cars like the Boxster
and
> 911 share most of if not all of the traction benefits of FWD cars. Either
start
> backing up your (obviously false) claims with facts or conceed defeat.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
> I'll agree that Audi makes the best handling FWD cars
> on the market right now, as long as we're talking about mainstream autos
> avaliable in North America.
All wrong again, the best handling FWD car on the market right now is the
Peugeot 206 GTI, whether you like it or not. And then, the stock Alfa 146
GTA holds far far better than any stock VAG FWD and absorbs bumps better
too. In fact all magazines praise it for being even more supple, dynamic and
effective than a R32 on the dry, right? And we're talking about a modest
FWD. Now you tell me of any VAG FWD that can be compared to the R32 in terms
of handling! Well, remember the R32 is still inferior to the Alfa, OK? When
are you going to come to terms with the fact you've lost your argument?
VAG has NEVER held the best suspension. Indeed the best overall suspension
belongs to Mercedes, and then after that, BMW suspension is also much better
than VAG's. You should just try to drive any Porsche on a bumpy European
mountain pass, and you'd soon realise you're talking nonsense. Porsches
only excel on the Autobahn and wide open roads, drill this into your mind,
right?
By the way, the GT3 could never cope with an M3 SMGII on a winding mountain
pass, either, I feel sorry for you, since you seem to be so fond of
Porsches.
JP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Steve Grauman wrote:
<sniperoo>
> More false information. FWD maintains an advantage only in bad
> weather.
Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"? Aren't the same
physics in play on dry pavement as in snow? Sure, snow gives less overall
grip than dry pavement. But the car that can make the best use of available
grip on one surface should also make the best use of available grip on the
other surface. You complain about being tasked with backing things up, but
you've yet to back up this claim despite my repeated requests that you do
so. You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
condescension.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Steve Grauman wrote:
<sniperoo>
> More false information. FWD maintains an advantage only in bad
> weather.
Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"? Aren't the same
physics in play on dry pavement as in snow? Sure, snow gives less overall
grip than dry pavement. But the car that can make the best use of available
grip on one surface should also make the best use of available grip on the
other surface. You complain about being tasked with backing things up, but
you've yet to back up this claim despite my repeated requests that you do
so. You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
condescension.
- Greg Reed
--
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood 75 9-Pass sedan
(FS: http://www.dataspire.com/caddy)
1989 Audi 200 Turbo Quattro 5-Speed sedan
2000 Oldsmobile Intrigue
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
"JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0rc2r$5pl$1@news.ya.com>...
> > My quattro oversteers at the limit because that's the way I've set it
> > up. I used tire pressure alone to get it to do this.
>
> I sympathise with what you said about tyre pressure. Another good thing to
> do if you want oversteer is - because front tyres get the brunt of wear - to
> move them to the back, while keeping those in the front pretty new.
Uhh, no. As the tread gets worn, the tires PICK UP grip in dry
conditions. That's why folks "shave" tires for racing.
> However, I have to say in the case of my Quattro it is still mostly
> understeer that I get on sharp bends, unless braking heavily or lifting the
> gas pedal abruptly half way.
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.
> I've found the best way to tackle sharp
> cornering is by lifting off the accelerator just before the sharpest point
> and then flooring the pedal there or a tiny wee little before that to allow
> for turbo lag.
Goodness - sounds like you're going to have an accident some day. If
you're still on the gas from turn-in to apex, then you weren't going
fast enough BEFORE turn-in. Lifting at the apex and then grabbing
loads of torque after that sounds like a good way to exit the roadway
***-first. Well, if the car is understeering at the limit, lifting is
the only way to get the damn nose around...
> If on the other hand, I try to kick on the gas too early it
> is mostly understeer I get for the beginning of the corner, then if a bit
> lucky and depending a lot on the quality of tarmac, some oversteer. Now, I'd
> like to hear how you tackle your corners.
I am on the gas until some distance before the turn-in (differs with
turn and road conditions), turn in and trail-brake (sometimes, if I am
VERY familiar with the corner,) keep the throttle up over 3k rpm to
keep the turbo spinning, select down to whatever gear is called for
(depends on corner), off the brakes, late apex and full on the
throttle. Trail-braking is tough, so I don't do it much unless there
is good run-out from the corner in case I over-cook it. Otherwise, I
have all my braking done before turn-in. Keeping the turbo up keeps
me from getting a surprise on turn exit.
> It must also be said that if you set your car up for blunt oversteer - which
> will usually happen mostly when braking, then you might be interfering with
> the stock design of your EBD brake system - my car does not have ESP, and in
> the event of an emergency stop half way through a sharp bend that might be
> very dangerous because there wouldn't be a way to prevent your car from
> spinning then.
No, I have it set for slight oversteer, and I do not put myself in a
position to have to emergency-brake in any corner.
I'm not exactly sure that you should be instructing others on
cornering technique. Following your method might lead to a hell of a
lot of surprises where none need to be, and on the track, it would be
damn slow. But hey, what do I know? I've only had a few days of Skip
Barber, so I'm no expert. Ask Krieger - he's a real instructor.
--
Jonesy
> > My quattro oversteers at the limit because that's the way I've set it
> > up. I used tire pressure alone to get it to do this.
>
> I sympathise with what you said about tyre pressure. Another good thing to
> do if you want oversteer is - because front tyres get the brunt of wear - to
> move them to the back, while keeping those in the front pretty new.
Uhh, no. As the tread gets worn, the tires PICK UP grip in dry
conditions. That's why folks "shave" tires for racing.
> However, I have to say in the case of my Quattro it is still mostly
> understeer that I get on sharp bends, unless braking heavily or lifting the
> gas pedal abruptly half way.
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.
> I've found the best way to tackle sharp
> cornering is by lifting off the accelerator just before the sharpest point
> and then flooring the pedal there or a tiny wee little before that to allow
> for turbo lag.
Goodness - sounds like you're going to have an accident some day. If
you're still on the gas from turn-in to apex, then you weren't going
fast enough BEFORE turn-in. Lifting at the apex and then grabbing
loads of torque after that sounds like a good way to exit the roadway
***-first. Well, if the car is understeering at the limit, lifting is
the only way to get the damn nose around...
> If on the other hand, I try to kick on the gas too early it
> is mostly understeer I get for the beginning of the corner, then if a bit
> lucky and depending a lot on the quality of tarmac, some oversteer. Now, I'd
> like to hear how you tackle your corners.
I am on the gas until some distance before the turn-in (differs with
turn and road conditions), turn in and trail-brake (sometimes, if I am
VERY familiar with the corner,) keep the throttle up over 3k rpm to
keep the turbo spinning, select down to whatever gear is called for
(depends on corner), off the brakes, late apex and full on the
throttle. Trail-braking is tough, so I don't do it much unless there
is good run-out from the corner in case I over-cook it. Otherwise, I
have all my braking done before turn-in. Keeping the turbo up keeps
me from getting a surprise on turn exit.
> It must also be said that if you set your car up for blunt oversteer - which
> will usually happen mostly when braking, then you might be interfering with
> the stock design of your EBD brake system - my car does not have ESP, and in
> the event of an emergency stop half way through a sharp bend that might be
> very dangerous because there wouldn't be a way to prevent your car from
> spinning then.
No, I have it set for slight oversteer, and I do not put myself in a
position to have to emergency-brake in any corner.
I'm not exactly sure that you should be instructing others on
cornering technique. Following your method might lead to a hell of a
lot of surprises where none need to be, and on the track, it would be
damn slow. But hey, what do I know? I've only had a few days of Skip
Barber, so I'm no expert. Ask Krieger - he's a real instructor.
--
Jonesy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Greg Reed wrote:
> But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going to
> travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the direction
Nope, backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left. If it's lost,
the front tyres may point to any direction they want, the car itself
might be going to other direction (rear becomes front).
> Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
> differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's just
Nope, they're the same, except that FWD car is differently balanced and
front wheels have more grip again. I'm pointing that your disadvantage
is easily taken out by this clutch. If your back is not pointing where
rest of the car is, going with the clutch will not help endlessly,
instead the car will still have to fix it before going straight.
> silly. Or are you saying that understeer is easier for a novice driver to
> correct than oversteer? No, that can't be it, because you write "I know
I don't know about novice drivers, most likely isn't. Not every novice
driver know how to fix RWD either. I can't remember saying I was that
novice driver, and pointing to RWD/FWD.
> Not my experience, and the analysis (which I detailed in my last post)
> doesn't back it up. And which is the proper reaction to experiencing
> understeer in a FWD car? Because here you seem to imply that applying
> additional throttle is the correct response. But elsewhere in this post,
I haven't said it's the only and correct response. It's a possibility.
> you imply that lifting is the correct response. And still elsewhere you
> write that pressing the clutch (which is neither lifting nor accelerating)
> is beneficial, though you don't seem to be implying that this is the desired
> action but just one possible action.
I haven't said lifting is a right choice, don't quote me with that. I've
said clutch is a nice answer in this case.
> It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer
> in a FWD car. My guess as to the theory behind this is the weight transfer
As it might do with the oversteering aswell.
> Not wanting to be a pinhead here, but I had to read this paragraph a couple
> of times to ascertain just what it was trying to tell me. So you're saying
> that a RWD car loses grip at the rear sooner than a FWD car loses grip at
> the front? And you're saying that the reason for this is the additional
> weight over the front wheels of the FWD car? If I got the meaning of this
> paragraph wrong, please accept my apologies for wasting your time.
Having less weight on the front means you will have less grip on the
frontwheels. And you need to have more weight on the rearwheels with
RWD, otherwise the car won't even go forward. Now you have this problem,
you need weight to the back, but you would need more weight to the front.
FWD car doesn't have this problem, since it's rear doesn't need that
much weight, and it's front does have all the weight, which means more
grip to the frontwheels. And this is, as you said, important. Again, if
you going to the clutch, your rearwheels get the grip, you have less
grip on the front. A problem.
> FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the same
> weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear. The weight
Can't work, try accelerating with RWD when your rear is light. The car
will just spinn empty. Try this on a hill, you'll again run into the
problem. So the weight distribution must be in the back with RWD,
otherwise you'll just ruin your case.
> advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road
> at the front wheels is identical between the two cars. Likewise, the weight
> *dis*advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the
> road at the rear wheels is identical between the two cars. So in any given
As said, having more weight in the front helps you with getting going
and with your words, having more grip on the front. RWD can't get these
two, it has to lose front-weight to get weight balance to back. You just
can't create an RWD car with weight on the front, it won't work.
> to a comparison of FWD to RWD are those pertaining to what happens when you
> release the clutch and either apply or lift the throttle. If you toss
> anything else into the comparison, then you're no longer just comparing FWD
> to RWD.
Well, if you seriously want this comparision, try some old RWD car with
weight balance on the front. You'll soon notice how funny RWD becomes
with snow.
> I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make everything else
> equal between the two hypothetical cars that are being compared. I was
Then your saying that RWD can keep up with the grip without weight on
the wheels? Funny, why doesn't this work? RWD needs to use some weight
to get more grip to rearwheels, FWD doesn't need this.
> They both therefore have *the same* grip available to them. I was then
And again, they don't. Or then the car is so bad, it's impossible to
drive with either FWD or RWD, having no weight to right place.
> contrasting the differences between them on throttle application. And if
> you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through a corner faster
> (and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're not likely to get an
> argument out of anybody here, and certainly not out of me. But then you'd
No of course not, we don't need no arguments here. We know that more
grip means faster through the corner. Now we get to the point, FWD cars
have more grip than RWD, which makes them better winter-cars, since
there isn't enough available grip.
> on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should remind us
> how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And if you write that
I hope you read this time, I have the weight on your favourite
frontwheels. You don't with the RWD.
> it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll assume
> that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you don't have an
> answer.)
You seem to be ignoring the lovely weight distribution point, and hoping
we build a car that has identical weight distribution, only having
difference with RWD/FWD. And saying so, you completelly forgot, why FWD
was the better way, and what has been told in you thread.
- Yak
> But the back wheels don't determine which direction the car is going to
> travel. If the front tires have grip, the car will travel in the direction
Nope, backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left. If it's lost,
the front tyres may point to any direction they want, the car itself
might be going to other direction (rear becomes front).
> Are you now saying that otherwise identical FWD and RWD cars handle
> differently when both cars have the clutch pressed? Because that's just
Nope, they're the same, except that FWD car is differently balanced and
front wheels have more grip again. I'm pointing that your disadvantage
is easily taken out by this clutch. If your back is not pointing where
rest of the car is, going with the clutch will not help endlessly,
instead the car will still have to fix it before going straight.
> silly. Or are you saying that understeer is easier for a novice driver to
> correct than oversteer? No, that can't be it, because you write "I know
I don't know about novice drivers, most likely isn't. Not every novice
driver know how to fix RWD either. I can't remember saying I was that
novice driver, and pointing to RWD/FWD.
> Not my experience, and the analysis (which I detailed in my last post)
> doesn't back it up. And which is the proper reaction to experiencing
> understeer in a FWD car? Because here you seem to imply that applying
> additional throttle is the correct response. But elsewhere in this post,
I haven't said it's the only and correct response. It's a possibility.
> you imply that lifting is the correct response. And still elsewhere you
> write that pressing the clutch (which is neither lifting nor accelerating)
> is beneficial, though you don't seem to be implying that this is the desired
> action but just one possible action.
I haven't said lifting is a right choice, don't quote me with that. I've
said clutch is a nice answer in this case.
> It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer
> in a FWD car. My guess as to the theory behind this is the weight transfer
As it might do with the oversteering aswell.
> Not wanting to be a pinhead here, but I had to read this paragraph a couple
> of times to ascertain just what it was trying to tell me. So you're saying
> that a RWD car loses grip at the rear sooner than a FWD car loses grip at
> the front? And you're saying that the reason for this is the additional
> weight over the front wheels of the FWD car? If I got the meaning of this
> paragraph wrong, please accept my apologies for wasting your time.
Having less weight on the front means you will have less grip on the
frontwheels. And you need to have more weight on the rearwheels with
RWD, otherwise the car won't even go forward. Now you have this problem,
you need weight to the back, but you would need more weight to the front.
FWD car doesn't have this problem, since it's rear doesn't need that
much weight, and it's front does have all the weight, which means more
grip to the frontwheels. And this is, as you said, important. Again, if
you going to the clutch, your rearwheels get the grip, you have less
grip on the front. A problem.
> FWD and the other RWD) have to have, among many other things, the same
> weight distribution -- more at the front and less at the rear. The weight
Can't work, try accelerating with RWD when your rear is light. The car
will just spinn empty. Try this on a hill, you'll again run into the
problem. So the weight distribution must be in the back with RWD,
otherwise you'll just ruin your case.
> advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the road
> at the front wheels is identical between the two cars. Likewise, the weight
> *dis*advantage as it relates to the car's ability to make traction with the
> road at the rear wheels is identical between the two cars. So in any given
As said, having more weight in the front helps you with getting going
and with your words, having more grip on the front. RWD can't get these
two, it has to lose front-weight to get weight balance to back. You just
can't create an RWD car with weight on the front, it won't work.
> to a comparison of FWD to RWD are those pertaining to what happens when you
> release the clutch and either apply or lift the throttle. If you toss
> anything else into the comparison, then you're no longer just comparing FWD
> to RWD.
Well, if you seriously want this comparision, try some old RWD car with
weight balance on the front. You'll soon notice how funny RWD becomes
with snow.
> I don't think RWD *does* lose grip before FWD, when you make everything else
> equal between the two hypothetical cars that are being compared. I was
Then your saying that RWD can keep up with the grip without weight on
the wheels? Funny, why doesn't this work? RWD needs to use some weight
to get more grip to rearwheels, FWD doesn't need this.
> They both therefore have *the same* grip available to them. I was then
And again, they don't. Or then the car is so bad, it's impossible to
drive with either FWD or RWD, having no weight to right place.
> contrasting the differences between them on throttle application. And if
> you're arguing that a FWD car with more grip will go through a corner faster
> (and safer) than a RWD car with less grip, you're not likely to get an
> argument out of anybody here, and certainly not out of me. But then you'd
No of course not, we don't need no arguments here. We know that more
grip means faster through the corner. Now we get to the point, FWD cars
have more grip than RWD, which makes them better winter-cars, since
there isn't enough available grip.
> on the RWD car to help prove your point. So perhaps you should remind us
> how you managed to get more grip with FWD than RWD? (And if you write that
I hope you read this time, I have the weight on your favourite
frontwheels. You don't with the RWD.
> it's because the FWD car has its engine over the drive wheels, I'll assume
> that you either didn't bother to read this post or that you don't have an
> answer.)
You seem to be ignoring the lovely weight distribution point, and hoping
we build a car that has identical weight distribution, only having
difference with RWD/FWD. And saying so, you completelly forgot, why FWD
was the better way, and what has been told in you thread.
- Yak
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
Greg Reed wrote:
> Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"? Aren't the same
> physics in play on dry pavement as in snow? Sure, snow gives less overall
We have less grip, while there might be enough grip on the dry road,
there certainly isn't in the snow. Of course, grip runs out in the dry
weather also, but at that speed there might be other factors that affect
the cars driveability. In the snow, we don't have those speeds and the
grip becomes the main factor.
- Yak
> Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"? Aren't the same
> physics in play on dry pavement as in snow? Sure, snow gives less overall
We have less grip, while there might be enough grip on the dry road,
there certainly isn't in the snow. Of course, grip runs out in the dry
weather also, but at that speed there might be other factors that affect
the cars driveability. In the snow, we don't have those speeds and the
grip becomes the main factor.
- Yak
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>All wrong again, the best handling FWD car on the market right now is the
>Peugeot 206 GTI
Jesus Christ, did you read my post? It said: "...as long as we're talking about
mainstream autos avaliable in North America." Peugeot no longer sells cars in
North America dimwit, try a reading comprehension course. Besides, the Focus RS
would trounce the Peugeot.
>In fact all magazines praise it for being even more supple, dynamic and
>effective than a R32 on the dry, right?
I wouldn't know, I've never seen a comparison between them.
>When
>are you going to come to terms with the fact you've lost your argument?
We aren't having an argument because you obviously:
1. Don't properly read my posts
2. Don't provide any evidence besides biased opinion.
>VAG has NEVER held the best suspension. Indeed the best overall suspension
>belongs to Mercedes, and then after that, BMW suspension is also much better
That's an interesting theory, albeit completely wrong. The A4 and RS6 trounced
the C32 and E55 in a recent comparison by Car and Driver, in terms of overall
dynamics and track-ability. BMW has a great suspension, but the S4 was also
better around a track in than the M3 in the same test.
>Porsches
>only excel on the Autobahn and wide open roads, drill this into your mind,
>right?
You apprently have no idea what you're talking about. Not only am I sure that
you've never driven these cars, it's apprent you don't bother to do any
research. You should try to find the recent Top Gear DVD (produced by the BBC
for UK television) where they praise the GT3 as being one of the best driver's
cars on earth.
>By the way, the GT3 could never cope with an M3 SMGII on a winding mountain
>pass, either, I feel sorry for you, since you seem to be so fond of
>Porsches.
I feel sorry for your ignorance. And I thought Europeans were soupposed to be
better educated than us Yanks...
>Peugeot 206 GTI
Jesus Christ, did you read my post? It said: "...as long as we're talking about
mainstream autos avaliable in North America." Peugeot no longer sells cars in
North America dimwit, try a reading comprehension course. Besides, the Focus RS
would trounce the Peugeot.
>In fact all magazines praise it for being even more supple, dynamic and
>effective than a R32 on the dry, right?
I wouldn't know, I've never seen a comparison between them.
>When
>are you going to come to terms with the fact you've lost your argument?
We aren't having an argument because you obviously:
1. Don't properly read my posts
2. Don't provide any evidence besides biased opinion.
>VAG has NEVER held the best suspension. Indeed the best overall suspension
>belongs to Mercedes, and then after that, BMW suspension is also much better
That's an interesting theory, albeit completely wrong. The A4 and RS6 trounced
the C32 and E55 in a recent comparison by Car and Driver, in terms of overall
dynamics and track-ability. BMW has a great suspension, but the S4 was also
better around a track in than the M3 in the same test.
>Porsches
>only excel on the Autobahn and wide open roads, drill this into your mind,
>right?
You apprently have no idea what you're talking about. Not only am I sure that
you've never driven these cars, it's apprent you don't bother to do any
research. You should try to find the recent Top Gear DVD (produced by the BBC
for UK television) where they praise the GT3 as being one of the best driver's
cars on earth.
>By the way, the GT3 could never cope with an M3 SMGII on a winding mountain
>pass, either, I feel sorry for you, since you seem to be so fond of
>Porsches.
I feel sorry for your ignorance. And I thought Europeans were soupposed to be
better educated than us Yanks...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>Look Steve, before you can call me ignorant, I'll tell you all that you say
>is absolutely rubbish as you have no hands-on experience.
Ha! I'd say the same to you. You're living in dream land. I'm the only one here
who can find evidence besides antecdotes to support my claims and probably the
only one here that's ever actually been behind the wheel of a Porsche. So ****
off you complete and total ignoramice.
>is absolutely rubbish as you have no hands-on experience.
Ha! I'd say the same to you. You're living in dream land. I'm the only one here
who can find evidence besides antecdotes to support my claims and probably the
only one here that's ever actually been behind the wheel of a Porsche. So ****
off you complete and total ignoramice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Buying new A4,330i, G35, CTS, C320
>Why does FWD have an advantage "only in bad weather"?
Did anyone actually bother to read the three links I provided? Do a google
search and see for yourself, the artciels are all very clear on the advantages
and disadvantages of FWD. I'm not even asking you people to take my word for
things, simply read over the expert sources I provided for you.
> You complain about being tasked with backing things up, but
>you've yet to back up this claim despite my repeated requests that you do
>so.
I provided THREE links with analysis of FWD Vs. RWD, did you read them?
Everything I'm "claiming" was in black and white!
>You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
>condescension.
I'm constantly being attacked for my position even though I'm the only one here
so far that's been able to site credible sources for my "claims". The rest of
you seem to have the keen ability to ignore the source material I've provided
as well as read only the parts of my posts you feel like reading so that you
can make me seem a fool. I'm not sure how many of you went to college, but if
you did you should remember the constant reminders from your professors that
any and all claims need to be backed up, ideally with cited sources. I've done
that, how come no one else seems to need to play by the rules?
Did anyone actually bother to read the three links I provided? Do a google
search and see for yourself, the artciels are all very clear on the advantages
and disadvantages of FWD. I'm not even asking you people to take my word for
things, simply read over the expert sources I provided for you.
> You complain about being tasked with backing things up, but
>you've yet to back up this claim despite my repeated requests that you do
>so.
I provided THREE links with analysis of FWD Vs. RWD, did you read them?
Everything I'm "claiming" was in black and white!
>You choose instead to repeat the assertion with insults and
>condescension.
I'm constantly being attacked for my position even though I'm the only one here
so far that's been able to site credible sources for my "claims". The rest of
you seem to have the keen ability to ignore the source material I've provided
as well as read only the parts of my posts you feel like reading so that you
can make me seem a fool. I'm not sure how many of you went to college, but if
you did you should remember the constant reminders from your professors that
any and all claims need to be backed up, ideally with cited sources. I've done
that, how come no one else seems to need to play by the rules?
