Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Debaser said:
I'm not talking about drifting around corners, it's way more subtle than that. When cornering a RWD car, applying more accelerator will increase the slip angle at the rear contact patches, resulting in less steering wheel angle required. If you keep applying accelerator you'll end up with the same slip angles front and rear, with the car feeling nicely balanced. It's the vehicle tending towards this state I enjoy. Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.
If you apply more accelerator in a FWD car, you'll increase the slip angle at the front contact patches, which results in more understeer. This is the case with all FWD cars, even well developed hot hatches.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it, not in terms of driving modern cars on the public road. We're talking tiny, tiny amounts of slip angle here - I can cane my Boxster all over the place and opposite lock never really plays a part at all. I'm guessing it's why cars are coming with 'drift mode' nowadays - the situation in which opposite lock plays a part has to be set up. If you apply more accelerator in a FWD car, you'll increase the slip angle at the front contact patches, which results in more understeer. This is the case with all FWD cars, even well developed hot hatches.
Obviously some extreme cars can have large dabs of oppos in their repertoire, but this is not a reflection of the true situation for 99.999% of drivers on the road no matter how keen.
e21Mark said:
Funny that those old Fords remain so popular despite this propensity to wallow, axle tramp and understeer.
Personally I loved my RS2000's in particular and always found them to be rather good.
It's not always about outright speed/performance either. RS2000 and BMW 2002 only had about 100 bhp but they were great fun. Slight, easily controlled oversteer and real feel through the seat of your pants.
But all old cars are popular and classic car values have done bloody well, but few would want a modern car with the attributes of the old stuff, the world has moved on.Personally I loved my RS2000's in particular and always found them to be rather good.
It's not always about outright speed/performance either. RS2000 and BMW 2002 only had about 100 bhp but they were great fun. Slight, easily controlled oversteer and real feel through the seat of your pants.
However, I think a few of you guys would really benefit from seeing vintage cars race. Just go and check out stuff like MG T Types and the like - those things oversteer in a way that makes the steering wheel look redundant. They are terrific things to see and no doubt drive, but our modern cars are *nothing* like them imo. To hear the protaganists for rwd on here talk, and to see those vintage cars, you'd realise there's a gulf between the talk and the action imo.
e21Mark said:
Are front drivers compromised from the outset,
Yes, but so is pretty much every single car on the planet. An F1 car is a compromise. I agree that fwds are compromised in a way that we feel shouldn't really work, but I'm a firm believer in where the proof of the pudding lies.Anyway, the haters had better get ready to froth, because EVO magazine has placed a fwd Golf second overall in it's annual COTY. https://youtu.be/QxthzMs_M-M
A ford escort mk2 is still fun to drive today. The price/popularity of the car is irrelevant.
Modern cars adhere to the same physics just like old cars. Modern race cars still move around a lot on their tyres when driven at the limit, not so different from sorted vintage cars. A sorted vintage racer will spend very little time in true opposite lock oversteer, just like a modern racer.
If the Golf was rwd it would probably have won Evo's COTY!
Kawasicki said:
1. Modern cars adhere to the same physics just like old cars.
2. Modern race cars still move around a lot on their tyres when driven at the limit, not so different from sorted vintage cars. A sorted vintage racer will spend very little time in true opposite lock oversteer, just like a modern racer.
3. If the Golf was rwd it would probably have won Evo's COTY!
1. Of course, but their construction is completely different. They're worlds apart.2. Modern race cars still move around a lot on their tyres when driven at the limit, not so different from sorted vintage cars. A sorted vintage racer will spend very little time in true opposite lock oversteer, just like a modern racer.
3. If the Golf was rwd it would probably have won Evo's COTY!
2. That is ridiculous. I mean, every visit to the Goodwood Revival reminds me of how the old cars handle. Modern racers are on rails and have been for decades now. You're basically saying there's been development for donkeys years which is just ridiculous. I mean, it's the sheer efficiency of the modern rally car that has all but killed rallying as a spectator sport.
3. If it was rwd it'd be nowhere, because it wouldn't have that lovely fwd handling.
Again, to cite the Revival - it's like saying if Nick Swift's Mini was rwd then it would more easily beat the Alfas, Cortinas, Galaxies etc. No it wouldn't, with it's lower power it wouldn't see where they went, but as an fwd the lower powered car can harry the more powerful rwds.
I find it interesting that from the original Mini to today's Golfs, Foci and the rest, it was ever thus. A hot fwd is a great thing.
heebeegeetee said:
Again, to cite the Revival - it's like saying if Nick Swift's Mini was rwd then it would more easily beat the Alfas, Cortinas, Galaxies etc. No it wouldn't, with it's lower power it wouldn't see where they went, but as an fwd the lower powered car can harry the more powerful rwds.
I find it interesting that from the original Mini to today's Golfs, Foci and the rest, it was ever thus. A hot fwd is a great thing.
I have to say, I think in most peoples hands FWD is probably vastly quicker. Even with 2 really good drivers in similarly specced FWD v RWD cars I think there wouldn't be much in it and it could go either way.I find it interesting that from the original Mini to today's Golfs, Foci and the rest, it was ever thus. A hot fwd is a great thing.
I'm pretty sure that I could easily drive my old DC2 ITR faster across a windy road than my old Z4 Coupe despite being about 80 bhp down in the former.
I happen to prefer RWD still but mainly because my focus is no longer on getting from A-B as quickly and easily as possible; I like the challenge, and I don't necessarily want to get there quicker as I'm more about enjoying the journey (I'm getting old!).
heebeegeetee said:
2. That is ridiculous. I mean, every visit to the Goodwood Revival reminds me of how the old cars handle. Modern racers are on rails and have been for decades now. You're basically saying there's been development for donkeys years which is just ridiculous. I mean, it's the sheer efficiency of the modern rally car that has all but killed rallying as a spectator sport.
Race cars are one thing. They cannot be compared, it's class sensitive? What about the Group B cars? What would be faster up Pikes Peak, would a FWD eclipse the 4WD Norma M20, or the Chevvy SS? The fastest circuit cars are what configuration...?heebeegeetee said:
3. If it was rwd it'd be nowhere, because it wouldn't have that lovely fwd handling.
It's at the top of the current crop, but it's clear some don't fancy the idea, purely because of the driven wheels. Why are they wrong? You own a Boxster do you not, why wouldn't you plump for a Golf or equivalent?heebeegeetee said:
Again, to cite the Revival - it's like saying if Nick Swift's Mini was rwd then it would more easily beat the Alfas, Cortinas, Galaxies etc. No it wouldn't, with it's lower power it wouldn't see where they went, but as an fwd the lower powered car can harry the more powerful rwds.
Watching things like this at the Sivertone classic the smaller lighter cars always got into the apex well, and the huge American beasts tried to play catch up. The Mini was a very good handling car but so were well sorted Escorts, Cortina's, Capri's etc. heebeegeetee said:
I find it interesting that from the original Mini to today's Golfs, Foci and the rest, it was ever thus. A hot fwd is a great thing.
They are, but the fact remains that RWD is a different and IME more interesting platform to explore. It also deals with larger engines and more power more effectively as the front wheels are not tied in knots via some fancy LSD/Knuckle arrangement. Just because many believe this doesn't automatically make all FWD cars bad, or all RWD good. It's a preference.heebeegeetee said:
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it, not in terms of driving modern cars on the public road. We're talking tiny, tiny amounts of slip angle here - I can cane my Boxster all over the place and opposite lock never really plays a part at all. I'm guessing it's why cars are coming with 'drift mode' nowadays - the situation in which opposite lock plays a part has to be set up.
Obviously some extreme cars can have large dabs of oppos in their repertoire, but this is not a reflection of the true situation for 99.999% of drivers on the road no matter how keen.
It's not about driving around with loads of opposite lock, like I said before it's way more subtle. It's about feeling the balance of the vehicle shift when you accelerate. You're right, the change in slip angle is quite small, but it's very noticeable. Obviously some extreme cars can have large dabs of oppos in their repertoire, but this is not a reflection of the true situation for 99.999% of drivers on the road no matter how keen.
TameRacingDriver said:
I'm pretty sure that I could easily drive my old DC2 ITR faster across a windy road than my old Z4 Coupe despite being about 80 bhp down in the former.
That's not just down to lack of RWD talent though, the DC2 has a chassis and suspension better tuned for fast driving. Debaser said:
It's not about driving around with loads of opposite lock, like I said before it's way more subtle. It's about feeling the balance of the vehicle shift when you accelerate. You're right, the change in slip angle is quite small, but it's very noticeable.
Well, I was just addressing your statement that "eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way" which was made after your earlier comment:Debaser said:
For me it's the fact that a RWD car will tend towards being balanced when accelerating out of a corner, whereas a FWD car will always tend towards understeer (which I find incredibly boring).
Which I know isn't a fact. Indeed my experience is that far from a fwd "always" tending to understeer my hot hatches of the past were far, far more ready to oversteer than my Boxster or MX5s ever were. My old R5 was great, but I understand the good old Pug 205s far more ready. I once asked someone on a road rally about his 205gti and the answer was "mate they oversteer all the time everywhere". Maybe I differ from most PHers because in answer to the OP it's "Both" from me. Same as with petrol and diesel for me:
ChilliWhizz said:
Anyway, it seems the FWD Vs RWD split across the PH community is as controversial as the diesel vs petrol split
There's no split from me, I consider myself a car enthusiast and I like the best that is on offer in the motoring world, but I do find that both topics produces large amounts of hogwash from haters of whatever it is they hate. heebeegeetee said:
Debaser said:
It's not about driving around with loads of opposite lock, like I said before it's way more subtle. It's about feeling the balance of the vehicle shift when you accelerate. You're right, the change in slip angle is quite small, but it's very noticeable.
Well, I was just addressing your statement that "eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way" which was made after your earlier comment:Debaser said:
For me it's the fact that a RWD car will tend towards being balanced when accelerating out of a corner, whereas a FWD car will always tend towards understeer (which I find incredibly boring).
Which I know isn't a fact. Indeed my experience is that far from a fwd "always" tending to understeer my hot hatches of the past were far, far more ready to oversteer than my Boxster or MX5s ever were. My old R5 was great, but I understand the good old Pug 205s far more ready. I once asked someone on a road rally about his 205gti and the answer was "mate they oversteer all the time everywhere". culpz said:
yonex said:
Probably a better steer than an Audi A4?
Ohhh shots fired! 
Dummy has firmly been spat out i see. Those 6 cylinder fumes must be really getting up your nose 
Debaser said:
Every single FWD car in the world tends towards understeer when accelerating out of a corner.
No. Drive a DC2 or a DC5. Or a Meg RS. When well driven, they simply tend to tuck in thanks to the slipper. They are set up to do just that. You may well need to trail break them but that's no hardship.
nickfrog said:
No. Drive a DC2 or a DC5. Or a Meg RS. When well driven, they simply tend to tuck in thanks to the slipper. They are set up to do just that. You may well need to trail break them but that's no hardship.
Mine did, it tightened the line but it was always wanting to. It also under steered and span the wheels in less than ideal conditions. When dry it was a weapon, the turn in was very, very strong. But the steering wasn't the cars strong point at all. I had it for 6+ years and would like to think I got to know it pretty well. The rear was mobile. A very, very good FWD car. yonex said:
nickfrog said:
No. Drive a DC2 or a DC5. Or a Meg RS. When well driven, they simply tend to tuck in thanks to the slipper. They are set up to do just that. You may well need to trail break them but that's no hardship.
Mine did, it tightened the line but it was always wanting to. It also under steered and span the wheels in less than ideal conditions. When dry it was a weapon, the turn in was very, very strong. But the steering wasn't the cars strong point at all. I had it for 6+ years and would like to think I got to know it pretty well. The rear was mobile. A very, very good FWD car. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff