> (And I suspect that I'm confusing your writing with that of
>Steve Grauman right now.)

Please don't. I'm having enough trouble keeping up as it is without people
thinking I wrote things that I didn't write.

>It's my experience that lifting gives the best chance of stopping understeer
>in a FWD car.

Mine too, when my car begins to understeer through a turn, lifting off the
throttle slightly usually helps bring it back into line.

 

Steve Grauman wrote:
> 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.

Ever heard that there's life outside USA? And that we have lots of cars
in Europe that don't get sold there? Like if any european actually cares
if they sell a normal model of a car there?

Get real, I'm not saying Peugeot is better than Focus, but it's still a
valid car to compare to. If it's get sold in the US or not, who cares.
All the mentioned cars in this topic are European.

> I wouldn't know, I've never seen a comparison between them.

Have you guys ever drove any of these? Or are these just something you
look in the magazine and say "this must be the best, since my favourite
magazine says so" ?

> 2. Don't provide any evidence besides biased opinion.

This one is for you:

3. Get some experience with real cars, even a kid can compare cars from
magazines and say "MB is the best!"

> 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.

I wouldn't put S4 before M3 in the track tests, seems odd. S4 isn't
designed for that, M3 on the other hand is. Weird driver they've had, in
this case, get a better source

> 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.

Top Gear is a nice show, however source source, they've also said
something you're trying to bash.

> I feel sorry for your ignorance. And I thought Europeans were soupposed to be
> better educated than us Yanks...

Next you're saying Porsche GT3 can beat any other cars in snow too? I'd
say my little sisters Toyota Yaris could be faster . You're seriously
forgetting the situation where your driving cars. A nice Ferrari Enzo
won't go anywhere in frozen snow, it gets stuck. A 40s Russian truck
will go further.

- Yak

 

1. Honda still uses double wishbone on everything except the civic-- I know
since my brother is an engineer for them-- you need to really learn what
you're talking about...

2. Horsepower makes a car fast, not torque, which just makes greater weight
have a lesser impact on the acceleration. And the Prelude SH, at 2800 lbs
is considerably lighter than your comparison GTi... and with 195 horsepower,
the 0-60 figure of 6.7 seconds (I've seen tests of 6.6 and 7.1 also) is
totally believable...

3. I didn't imply that this prelude could take on ALL porsches... simply
some of them to show that you can't generalize in a car's handling ability
by drive layout. If you want to use the example of a $125K+ Porsche
top-of-the-line supercar versus a $26K Honda... go right ahead... the few
lunatics that pay that much for a car will be proud.

4. As you stated before, anything over 1.0 g on the skidpad is questionable,
thus subject to scrutiny... 0.9 + g is a very high mark, but not that
rare... hence my skepticism...

5. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with
rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me on
my legitimate points, you will lose.


"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040216221230.27200.00002314@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >I would question the 1.03 figure
>
> So I shouldn't question the .96 for a Prelude, but you can question the
numbers
> I linked to for everyone to see?
>
> >You yourself originally said 7.7 secs for the prelude
> >(probably the automatic) versus your later figure of 7.1
>
> I've seen road tests of the Prelude from everywhere between 7.3 to 7.7 and
I'd
> be willing to believe 7.1 is possible. My GTi does 0-60 in 6.5, but it has
more
> torque, a flatter powerband, and curb weight that I believe is lower.
>
> >could it be that
> >you don't read as many magazines as I do?
>
> I read nearly every issue every month of 5 or 6 different mags. But I
looked at
> the last of the Preludes very closely in 2001 while I was shopping for a
car,
> and I did a *lot* of research on them. I've never seen numbers that high.
> Beyond that, I've never seen anyone claim that a Prelude SH would be able
to
> succesfuilly take on a Porsche, because it simply can't be done. I would
paint
> myself yellow and run through the streets naked if a 2001 Prelude SH could
take
> a 2001 Carrera with equally matched drivers.
>
> >Also, don't try to imply that Honda can't achieve such a figure... they
have
> >next to VW/Audi probably the 2nd best FWD suspension of any car maker
with
> >the double-wishbone front suspension.
>
> Honda doesn't use the double wishbone setup anymore. They dropped it for
cost
> and cabin-space issues. 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.

 

the same physics, yes-- and greater weight on a smaller cross-sectional area
yeilds greater pressure, friction, and TRACTION.
since a FWD car has its weight bias on the front (hence a natural tendency
for understeer without other compensations), it has more weight on these
steering and drive wheels to maintain more traction. RWD cars have a more
equal weight distribution and, thus, less percentage of weight on BOTH the
drive and steering wheels... if the cars are the same weight, and use the
same size tires, the FWD will ALWAYS maintain better traction and
controllability in inclimate weather as the greater pressure will yeild
greater traction, reduced tendency for hydroplaning, etc...

For example.... try driving a RWD car with very wide tires at high speeds in
the rain-- it's unsafe at high speeds and subject to hydroplaning long
before a FWD car with more narrow tires--- the same principle is involved.

"Greg Reed" <inet_user@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40322f68@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** 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! =-----
>

 

>1. Honda still uses double wishbone on everything except the civic-- I know
>since my brother is an engineer for them-- you need to really learn what
>you're talking about...

I know for a fact that the Civic and CRV don't get double wishbones and I was
told that the Accord lost them as well, although I won't argue with you over
it. I remembered the Civic losing the double wishbone setup and applied it to
all the models, and I'll conceed I may have made an error. But it doesn't
really have any relevance to the discussion.

>2. Horsepower makes a car fast, not torque, which just makes greater weight
>have a lesser impact on the acceleration

If this were true than the last Prelude, with 15Hp more than my GTi, would be
faster, not slower.

>and with 195 horsepower,
>the 0-60 figure of 6.7 seconds (I've seen tests of 6.6 and 7.1 also) is
>totally believable...

The Acura TSX has 200Hp and more torque from a larger 2.4 liter i-VTEC motor
and can't break 7.1 to 60. If you had claimed 7.1 seconds for the Prelude from
day 1, I probably would've passed it on as at least somewhat reasonable.

>I didn't imply that this prelude could take on ALL porsches... simply
>some of them to show that you can't generalize in a car's handling ability
>by drive layout.

I'll give you this:
1. Honda builds a damn good car
2. The Prelude was a great car that is sorely missed among import enthusiasts.
3. I was impressed with it's abilities when I test drove it

>If you want to use the example of a $125K+ Porsche
>top-of-the-line supercar versus a $26K Honda...

My only point was, you get what you pay for. The Boxster and Carrera lines
represent some of the best in the world, and I've never seen anyone who would
makes such broad claims about a Honda's capabilities without any kind of real
world testing to back them up.

>the few
>lunatics that pay that much for a car will be proud.

If you had that kind of money for a car, I seriously doubt you'd turn down the
chance to own something in that price range.

>4. As you stated before, anything over 1.0 g on the skidpad is questionable,
>thus subject to scrutiny... 0.9 + g is a very high mark, but not that
>rare... hence my skepticism...

But I've been able to show you the GT3 tests. A skidpad number of .88-.91 is at
the high end of where the best FWD cars place. Anything much higher than that
is subject to heavy scrutiny and I'd need to see a road test to have any faith
in it.

>5. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with
>rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me on
>my legitimate points, you will lose.

You havn't had many legitimate points. You've had a lot of andecdotal evidence
and wide claims about the Prelude's capabilities. Why don't you take a run over
to the Porsche NG and see how *they* respond to your claims?

 

>Ever heard that there's life outside USA?

I was talking about cars sold in the U.S.A, if I was taking about cars sold
elsewhere, I would have said so. The Peugeot didn't have any place in that
post.

>And that we have lots of cars
>in Europe that don't get sold there? Like if any european actually cares
>if they sell a normal model of a car there?

Do you think I care what Europeans think? Do you think I care what *you* think?
Do you know how to read other people's posts and comment on them in a relevant
manner? Do you understand that I was not comparing Audi to Europe-only
manufacturers? Are you awake and lucid? Get real man.

>Get real, I'm not saying Peugeot is better than Focus, but it's still a
>valid car to compare to.

It would have been a valid comparison if I was talking about cars sold only in
Europe, which I wasn't doing in the post you responded to.

>If it's get sold in the US or not, who cares.
>All the mentioned cars in this topic are European.

Some of them are made in Europe (the Porsches) but other than the Peugeot, they
are all sold in the U.S.

>Have you guys ever drove any of these? Or are these just something you
>look in the magazine and say "this must be the best, since my favourite
>magazine says so" ?

I've driven 5 different Carrera, 2 944s, a 924, and a 912 (non-E). I've also
driven 2 A4s, an S4, 3 Preludes, an SVT Focus (if that matters), a 328i, a
330i, and an E36 M3. Along with several others, want me to keep going?

>get a better source
>

It's only a "bad" source because you disagree.

 

1. Only the Civic Platform (CRV and Element and Acura RSX/TSX are made on it
also) was changed from double wishbone to macpherson strut front
suspension-- you know, the same kind used on all BMWs and Ford Mustangs).
The new Odyssey platform (shared with MDX/Pilot/upcoming SUT) also uses the
strut suspension-- but it was a totally new design. My point in this
comment was to highlight that you don't know much about what you're trying
to say. The accord, TL, and RL still use double wishbone and always have.

2. Look at the tests for an Acura RSX type S (200 HP, 2800 lb.) with a
manual transmission-- should be almost identical to the old Prelude-- if you
look, you'll see 0-60 numbers of 6.5 or 6.6 seconds... There are MANY more
examples--- like the '92-'94 Maxima SE 5sp man (3100 lbs, 190 hp, 0-60 6.7
secs), etc.... The TSX (sports sedan) isn't geared to run like the Prelude
and RSX (sports coupes) are. This is the range to expect-- your numbers
looked skewed somewhat (almost like Road and Track testing, which always
sucks). And horsepower always makes a car go faster, not torque-- ask any
other engineer-- or look at the tests of the new RX-8-- with only 147 lb-ft
of torque, but 238 hp, it runs with the G35 at 260 hp and gobs more torque.

3. You haven't showed me with any tests-- I've still never seen a 1.03
from any vehicle, but if any could do it, it would be a "supercar" from
Porsche or Ferrari.

4. As far as your 0.88-0.91 range being the limit of front-drivers, I've
seen tests of the mid-90s Ford Probe GT between 0.92 and 0.94, depending
upon the test and the tires used. If memory serves, the 4-wheel-steering
equipped late 80s Preludes hit close to the same mark.

5. My LEGITIMATE points were where this started, that there are always
exceptions, which was my response to some idiot who claimed that no FWD
vehicle could ever run with (handling wise) true sports cars like Mustangs,
Vettes, Porsches, etc... These were just examples to show that there are
exceptions-- and that things like suspension design and powertrain tricks /
technology can make exceptions to his generalizations.

I hope this experience has been educational for you-- looks like you need to
open your mind up a bit...

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040217211844.28383.00002237@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >1. Honda still uses double wishbone on everything except the civic-- I
know
> >since my brother is an engineer for them-- you need to really learn what
> >you're talking about...
>
> I know for a fact that the Civic and CRV don't get double wishbones and I
was
> told that the Accord lost them as well, although I won't argue with you
over
> it. I remembered the Civic losing the double wishbone setup and applied it
to
> all the models, and I'll conceed I may have made an error. But it doesn't
> really have any relevance to the discussion.
>
> >2. Horsepower makes a car fast, not torque, which just makes greater
weight
> >have a lesser impact on the acceleration
>
> If this were true than the last Prelude, with 15Hp more than my GTi, would
be
> faster, not slower.
>
> >and with 195 horsepower,
> >the 0-60 figure of 6.7 seconds (I've seen tests of 6.6 and 7.1 also) is
> >totally believable...
>
> The Acura TSX has 200Hp and more torque from a larger 2.4 liter i-VTEC
motor
> and can't break 7.1 to 60. If you had claimed 7.1 seconds for the Prelude
from
> day 1, I probably would've passed it on as at least somewhat reasonable.
>
> >I didn't imply that this prelude could take on ALL porsches... simply
> >some of them to show that you can't generalize in a car's handling
ability
> >by drive layout.
>
> I'll give you this:
> 1. Honda builds a damn good car
> 2. The Prelude was a great car that is sorely missed among import
enthusiasts.
> 3. I was impressed with it's abilities when I test drove it
>
> >If you want to use the example of a $125K+ Porsche
> >top-of-the-line supercar versus a $26K Honda...
>
> My only point was, you get what you pay for. The Boxster and Carrera lines
> represent some of the best in the world, and I've never seen anyone who
would
> makes such broad claims about a Honda's capabilities without any kind of
real
> world testing to back them up.
>
> >the few
> >lunatics that pay that much for a car will be proud.
>
> If you had that kind of money for a car, I seriously doubt you'd turn down
the
> chance to own something in that price range.
>
> >4. As you stated before, anything over 1.0 g on the skidpad is
questionable,
> >thus subject to scrutiny... 0.9 + g is a very high mark, but not that
> >rare... hence my skepticism...
>
> But I've been able to show you the GT3 tests. A skidpad number of .88-.91
is at
> the high end of where the best FWD cars place. Anything much higher than
that
> is subject to heavy scrutiny and I'd need to see a road test to have any
faith
> in it.
>
> >5. BTW... since I'm an engineer, you can bet I check all my facts with
> >rationality and logic-- if you continue down the path of arguing with me
on
> >my legitimate points, you will lose.
>
> You havn't had many legitimate points. You've had a lot of andecdotal
evidence
> and wide claims about the Prelude's capabilities. Why don't you take a run
over
> to the Porsche NG and see how *they* respond to your claims?

 

>1. Only the Civic Platform (CRV and Element and Acura RSX/TSX are made on it
>also) was changed from double wishbone to macpherson strut front
>suspension--

Between the Civic, CRV, Element, RSX, and TSX as well as the MDX/Pilot and
Odyssey, that's most of Honda's offerings that aren't using double wishbones.

> My point in this
>comment was to highlight that you don't know much about what you're trying
>to say.

Actually, I know quite a bit about this. The fact that I was mistakenly
informed about the suspension on certain Hondas (by a dealer!) has little
relevance, and I admitted to my mistake.

>2. Look at the tests for an Acura RSX type S (200 HP, 2800 lb.) with a
>manual transmission-- should be almost identical to the old Prelude-- if you
>look, you'll see 0-60 numbers of 6.5 or 6.6 seconds...

The RSX was tested by C&D at 6.3 seconds, .02 faster than my GTi, but it's
lighter, has 20 more HP, and a higher redline. It's also a bit more expensive
and not as "refined" or comfortable.

>This is the range to expect-- your numbers
>looked skewed somewhat (almost like Road and Track testing, which always
>sucks)

All I can do is repeat the test numbers I've seen. If you have other tests to
pull from, you havn't bothered to link to them.

>or look at the tests of the new RX-8-- with only 147 lb-ft
>of torque, but 238 hp, it runs with the G35 at 260 hp and gobs more torque.

The RX-8 is also lighter than a G35 with shorter gears and a much higher
redline. There's more than just output at play there.

>You haven't showed me with any tests-- I've still never seen a 1.03
>from any vehicle, but if any could do it, it would be a "supercar" from
>Porsche or Ferrari.

I showed you the god damned C&D test where they produced the number. What else
should I be showing you?

> As far as your 0.88-0.91 range being the limit of front-drivers

I never said it was the absolute limit. I said that .88-.91 is the high end of
where I've seen FWD cars test. It's certainly possible for them to go higher,
but I still doubt the .96 number for the Prelude.

>My LEGITIMATE points were where this started, that there are always
>exceptions, which was my response to some idiot who claimed that no FWD
>vehicle could ever run with (handling wise) true sports cars like Mustangs,

I'd agree with you here. I'm not disagreeing that FWD cars can be competant, or
that they have benefits. The only point I've disagreed with you on is your
claims of a Prelude being able to beat or match a newer Porsche.

 

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

Michael Burman wrote:


> 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).

So you're trying to say that a car's direction is better controlled when the
front wheels are slipping and the rears have grip than the other way around?
Did you read my last post? I'll say it all again, just so that those who
are trying to ignore this discussion can have a new reason to beat their
heads against a wall:

When a FWD car's front wheels lose grip, the car has no choice but to
continue traveling in the direction of its momentum. The lateral grip the
rears have is of no use, because the car is no longer turning. When a RWD
car's rear wheels lose grip, the car's direction can still be controlled by
the fronts. The rear will swing around (a little or a lot, depending on how
badly you've exceeded their capability), but the front can still be pointed
in the direction you want the vehicle to go. In what way is a FWD car's
nose slide superior to a RWD car's tail wag in controlling a car's motion
through a curve?

You keep saying that the "backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip
left." This is half true: The back wheels determine if you have any
sidegrip left *at the rear of the car.* The *front* wheels determine if you
have any sidegrip left *at the front of the car.* When you lose "sidegrip"
at the wheels that are responsible for steering, you can no longer steer.
When you lose "sidegrip" at the rear wheels, all you lose is the butt end of
the car. The wheels that steer are still steering, and as long as the rear
end of the car remains attached to the front, it will follow.

If you disagree with the above, *PLEASE*, for the love of God, explain
exactly what is happening at each axle's wheels as grip is lost. The
statement "backwheels determine if you have any sidegrip left" to the
exclusion of the "sidegrip" of the other half of the vehicle's wheels (that
is, those at the *front* of the car that do all the, you know, steering) is
itself a conclusion, and needs to be justified before it can be used as a
premise for another argument (such as "FWD is superior to RWD in a curve,"
for example). Again, once the car has stopped turning and is plowing
straight ahead despite the desires of its driver, the "sidegrip" of the rear
wheels becomes rather a moot point.

>> 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.

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

> 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.

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

> 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.

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

>> 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.

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

>> 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.

You're saying that there aren't any RWD cars with their engine in the front?
As I tried to explain before, any discussion of the relative virtues of FWD
vs. RWD must assume that all other factors are equal. This includes, among
many other things, weight distribution. In order for this discussion to
have any meaning at all, both cars' weight distribution must be equal.

>> 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.

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

>> 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.

Read again what you just wrote. You agree that both cars have the same
amount of grip and then immediately follow it with "FWD cars have more
grip." Where does this extra grip in the FWD car come from? And don't you
dare write that it comes from the additional weight over the front axle,
because our hypothetical RWD car has *exactly* the same amount of weight
over its front wheels as does the FWD car. The *only* difference is which
axle is driven.

>> 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.

Sure I do. More weight over the front wheels. Same amount in our RWD car
as in our FWD car. Got it. No problem. Now let's talk about what each car
does with this available *and equal* amount of grip at its front wheels.
(Actually, why don't *you* talk about it. I've been through it several
times now.)

>> 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.

No, actually I'm *conceding* a front weight bias. And I even said so.
*You're* the one who tried to make the weight distributions unequal between
our two hypothetical cars. For *any* given distribution of weight, a RWD
car's cornering ability will be equal to or better than that of an otherwise
identical a FWD. (I had to toss in the "equal to" because under zero
acceleration, the two are identical.) As I've already explained a couple of
times.

What exactly are we talking about here as far as superiority goes? Because
*I* thought we were talking about which car can best handle a curve or
correct a skid, which is paramount to vehicle safety on slippery roads. You
seem now to be talking about which car can best accelerate in a straight
line. RWD excels at the former, while FWD excels at the latter -- at least,
it does when the roads are sufficiently slippery.

Straight-line acceleration is one instance where I'll concede that FWD and
RWD handle differently as road conditions deteriorate, and where FWD is
therefore superior to RWD. A RWD car relies on its weight shifting to the
rear under acceleration in order to retain grip. The slicker the road is,
the less acceleration is possible, therefore the less weight transfer,
therefore less grip at the rear of the car. Because this weight shift is
absent when accelerating slowly on a slippery road, the FWD will
out-accelerate RWD in a straight line. So if your only argument is that FWD
will accelerate better than RWD -- in the snow and in a straight line --
then we can end this discussion here and now.

But if we're discussing which car can better handle a curve or correct a
skid (which, I'm pretty sure, is more important to safety than straight-line
acceleration), then we are still at odds. And nothing in the above post
supports FWD's superiority in a curve.

- 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! =-----

 

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

Michael Burman wrote:
> 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.

You make no sense.

- 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! =-----