RS or ST

[neiljohnson]

I have a focus RS which is the ideal car for me ie makes me smile every time i drive it, running costs are low and with the mods i have done quicker than a lot of much more expensive cars.
I did look at swapping it for a new ST but after a test drive it was not the car for me.
Both are very good cars but i think of the 2 the ST is the grown up of the 2 as it is nicer to drive every day and if i did loads of miles i would probably get one over my RS but i dont so ill stick with it.

I think if you dont do many miles (i do about 12k a year in the RS, my only car) or just want a secound car thats fun then the RS is the car to have, but if you do a lot of miles or prefer comfort over out and out ability then the ST is the car for you.

[D1MAC]

vino187 said:

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

:J: said:

vino187 said:

only a 4 wheel drive car can really handle like its on rails.

ermm yes actually. its called physics.

Ask Kimi & Lewis whether they prefer their Sunday wheels or an Audi 1.9TDi quattro


If I were you, I'd ask for my first big book of physics for Chrimbo!

any car 4 wheel drive, 2 wheels drive or pushed by a horse that weighed 600kgs and was sat 2 inches off the floor would handle like its on rails but if u hadnt realised brainiac we are talkin about road cars on here.

Hallelujah, I do believe brain cell 1 is communicating with brain cell 2 and my extreme example might just have worked.

Like I intimated, if you actually had even the first idea about physics you would realise that there are a multitude of factors that can affect cornering speed and thus whether a car can handle 'like it's on rails'.
So Einstein, what about the influence of (in no great order and by no means a complete list) prevailing weather conditions, track/road surface, tyres (design of tread and composition), CoG, weight distribution, engine power (absolute and delivery), suspension components, overall weight/mass etc etc


Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well

[Welshbeef]

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

:J: said:

vino187 said:

only a 4 wheel drive car can really handle like its on rails.

ermm yes actually. its called physics.

Ask Kimi & Lewis whether they prefer their Sunday wheels or an Audi 1.9TDi quattro


If I were you, I'd ask for my first big book of physics for Chrimbo!

any car 4 wheel drive, 2 wheels drive or pushed by a horse that weighed 600kgs and was sat 2 inches off the floor would handle like its on rails but if u hadnt realised brainiac we are talkin about road cars on here.

Hallelujah, I do believe brain cell 1 is communicating with brain cell 2 and my extreme example might just have worked.

Like I intimated, if you actually had even the first idea about physics you would realise that there are a multitude of factors that can affect cornering speed and thus whether a car can handle 'like it's on rails'.
So Einstein, what about the influence of (in no great order and by no means a complete list) prevailing weather conditions, track/road surface, tyres (design of tread and composition), CoG, weight distribution, engine power (absolute and delivery), suspension components, overall weight/mass etc etc


Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well

One other thing is what is the power split fron to rear i.e. the bias. I believe that the Audi RS4 (current one) had a 64% rwd bias yet other cars have 50% or sub 50% rwd bias so no 4wd unless identical front:rear drive split can be compared.

[Damian S]

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

:J: said:

vino187 said:

only a 4 wheel drive car can really handle like its on rails.

ermm yes actually. its called physics.

Ask Kimi & Lewis whether they prefer their Sunday wheels or an Audi 1.9TDi quattro


If I were you, I'd ask for my first big book of physics for Chrimbo!

any car 4 wheel drive, 2 wheels drive or pushed by a horse that weighed 600kgs and was sat 2 inches off the floor would handle like its on rails but if u hadnt realised brainiac we are talkin about road cars on here.

Hallelujah, I do believe brain cell 1 is communicating with brain cell 2 and my extreme example might just have worked.

Like I intimated, if you actually had even the first idea about physics you would realise that there are a multitude of factors that can affect cornering speed and thus whether a car can handle 'like it's on rails'.
So Einstein, what about the influence of (in no great order and by no means a complete list) prevailing weather conditions, track/road surface, tyres (design of tread and composition), CoG, weight distribution, engine power (absolute and delivery), suspension components, overall weight/mass etc etc


Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well

Thats a bit harsh. I think what he was trying to say it that with 4wd you get more options on cornering than you do with fwd, in like for like conditions. Having owned a couple of 4wd cars myself I completely agree with him.

[Welshbeef]

Well it all comes down to power bias for the 4wd.

[D1MAC]

Damian S said:

Thats a bit harsh. I think what he was trying to say it that with 4wd you get more options on cornering than you do with fwd, in like for like conditions. Having owned a couple of 4wd cars myself I completely agree with him.

Maybe, but then again maybe not.
The implication was that only 4wd can handle well (with statements from a 'position of knowledge' like "its called physics" and an Audi A3 handles like it's on rails but an Evo FQ360 doesn't) is somewhere between misguided and plain dumb ass. When added to a patent lack of knowledge of physics then it just gets even worse.

If it was that simple then why do car companies, racing teams, tyre companies etc p*ss away countless millions and waste the time of thousands of engineers trying to improve all of the other factors when they could just go away and plug in a 4wd system - which might not work anyway if the Evo is anything to go by

4wd is one way of countering the problems but it doesn't work on it's own (marry 4wd to crappy tyres, high CoG, poor weight distribution and so on and it will be more or less as rubbish as FWD or RWD) and it isn't necessarily a great benefit in certain circumstances due to the presence of other influencing factors.

[Welshbeef]

D1MAC said:

Damian S said:

Thats a bit harsh. I think what he was trying to say it that with 4wd you get more options on cornering than you do with fwd, in like for like conditions. Having owned a couple of 4wd cars myself I completely agree with him.

Maybe, but then again maybe not.
The implication was that only 4wd can handle well (with statements from a 'position of knowledge' like "its called physics" and an Audi A3 handles like it's on rails but an Evo FQ360 doesn't) is somewhere between misguided and plain dumb ass. When added to a patent lack of knowledge of physics then it just gets even worse.

If it was that simple then why do car companies, racing teams, tyre companies etc p*ss away countless millions and waste the time of thousands of engineers trying to improve all of the other factors when they could just go away and plug in a 4wd system - which might not work anyway if the Evo is anything to go by

4wd is one way of countering the problems but it doesn't work on it's own (marry 4wd to crappy tyres, high CoG, poor weight distribution and so on and it will be more or less as rubbish as FWD or RWD) and it isn't necessarily a great benefit in certain circumstances due to the presence of other influencing factors.

4x4 is a true anti green stance, who needs a 4x4 car when it never really gets used? If your approaching speeds on the UK public highway where loss of traction is an issue then either your tyres/suspension are shot Or your travelling beyond the NSL. (imagine doing that say 70-90mph on a b road with lots of sweeping corners your pushing on then a cyclist in on the road and you have to overtake but there is a car coming the otherway whatever happens that poor chap is going to be seriously hurt).
I recall one of J Clark DVD's where he had the Evo & Sub and he stated that if anyone got into trouble in one of them on the public highway they should be taken away in a straight jacket and rightly so - fully agree with him.

[:J:]

Damian S said:

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

D1MAC said:

vino187 said:

:J: said:

vino187 said:

only a 4 wheel drive car can really handle like its on rails.

ermm yes actually. its called physics.

Ask Kimi & Lewis whether they prefer their Sunday wheels or an Audi 1.9TDi quattro


If I were you, I'd ask for my first big book of physics for Chrimbo!

any car 4 wheel drive, 2 wheels drive or pushed by a horse that weighed 600kgs and was sat 2 inches off the floor would handle like its on rails but if u hadnt realised brainiac we are talkin about road cars on here.

Hallelujah, I do believe brain cell 1 is communicating with brain cell 2 and my extreme example might just have worked.

Like I intimated, if you actually had even the first idea about physics you would realise that there are a multitude of factors that can affect cornering speed and thus whether a car can handle 'like it's on rails'.
So Einstein, what about the influence of (in no great order and by no means a complete list) prevailing weather conditions, track/road surface, tyres (design of tread and composition), CoG, weight distribution, engine power (absolute and delivery), suspension components, overall weight/mass etc etc


Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well

Thats a bit harsh. I think what he was trying to say it that with 4wd you get more options on cornering than you do with fwd, in like for like conditions. Having owned a couple of 4wd cars myself I completely agree with him.

Hey, I just found the comment of "only a 4 wheel drive car can really handle like its on rails" amusing, with emphasis on the 'only', mainly cause that's a load of rubbish

[pinchmeimdreamin]

but the ST is still the better car

[Damian S]

Welshbeef said:

Well it all comes down to power bias for the 4wd.

and suspension setup.

The 2 4wd cars Ive owned were a 50/50 split, but they had a tendancy to oversteer on power which was oodles of fun on those wet roundabouts.

It is true that people dont believe we need 4x4. thats fair enough, but in a car putting out a fair bit of power its pretty essential to get the best out of it. My old modded GT4 would spin up in 2nd, wheels pointing straight, in the wet. (this is what makes me think that these modified STs with 300+ through the front wheels must be absolutely gash in the wet, my TDCI is bad enough)

[:J:]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

but the ST is still the better car

At what it does

[pinchmeimdreamin]

:J: said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

but the ST is still the better car

At what it does

well yes ok

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Damian S said:

Welshbeef said:

My old modded GT4 would spin up in 2nd, wheels pointing straight, in the wet. (this is what makes me think that these modified STs with 300+ through the front wheels must be absolutely gash in the wet, my TDCI is bad enough)

Trust me they are a handfulland spin up in 3rd but personally in the wet i wouldnt be pushing even a 4wd motor, But in the dry when the conditions allow they can make alot "faster cars" think again

[GSXRJIM]

Didnt realise this was going to cause such a debate. Anyway i have decided to get a 2001 1.4 focus with a big body kit which dwaine was selling cheap at McDonalds carpark the other night. He said its better than the RS and the ST so i took his word for it (joke). Thanks for all the responses. Jim

[Funk]

Jim, if you're anywhere near the Pompey area, get yourself along to one of the meets (I'm thinking about organising one soon for the area) where you can see a good range of STs and the various mods and such that people are making to the cars.

Can't help on the RS front though I'm afraid.

[GSXRJIM]

cheers mate, let me know, [e-mail]

[vino187]

what a tool u are. try actually driving an evo fq360 even in dry. yes it handles like it on rails at 30 mph as does a ford galaxy. u push the evo and it goes wild. u push an a3tdi quattro and it does nothing but go round the corner.anyway my point was that front wheel drive cars dont corner like on rails except crazy racecars for geek boy and yeh some rear ones might if they are of a very lightweight construction. and yeh back to the subject the st is better at what it does. oh yeh and back to my point the rs doesnt handle like its on rails.

im sure there are exceptions to every generalisation. like when i call u a tt, you are`nt like most drivers i come across on uk roads, you are an exceptional one.

Edited by vino187 on Wednesday 21st November 18:54

[vino187]

Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well

[/quote]

tell me a biggen then? as u only seem to have names racecar type lightweights.

[D1MAC]

vino187 said:

what a tool u are. try actually driving an evo fq360 even in dry. yes it handles like it on rails at 30 mph as does a ford galaxy. u push the evo and it goes wild. u push an a3tdi quattro and it does nothing but go round the corner.anyway my point was that front wheel drive cars dont corner like on rails except crazy racecars for geek boy and yeh some rear ones might if they are of a very lightweight construction. and yeh back to the subject the st is better at what it does. oh yeh and back to my point the rs doesnt handle like its on rails.

im sure there are exceptions to every generalisation. like when i call u a tt, you are`nt like most drivers i come across on uk roads, you are an exceptional one.

Edited by vino187 on Wednesday 21st November 18:54

Ever heard the quote "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" - I suggest you think that one over.

This wayward and positively dangerous FQ360 you speak of, is it the same car that in 340 form managed to lap the Bedford circuit within a gnat's chuff of other notorious duffers on the handling front such as the F430, the 997 GT3-RS and the Gallardo
If so, I would suggest you might want to ring up those nice fellows at Evo magazine and point out that they are sorely misguided, are pulling a fast one on their readership and really ought to be adding the A3 TDi Q to their next junior supercar group test.
You might also want to ring up Bill Ford and a few of his mates and point out to them just how much money they're wasting on making 2wd cars handle well when all they have to do is slot in a haldex system and all their woes will be cured - Christ knows they need all the money they would save from getting rid of a host of engineers as a consequence of your advice.
You might also want to ask the chaps at Audi why they have re-engineered their real AWD platform so that the engine can sit further backward to the benefit of weight distribution (which you seem to think is irrelevant), plus have introduced a RWD bias.


Why don't you just accept that there are a host of influencing factors on handling/cornering speed of which driven wheels is just one
The A3 is a nice hatchback with some additional traction in Quattro form. It has fairly ordinary outright handling by any sporting standards and will understeer like a supermarket trolley once it breaches it's reasonably lowish limits. It just simply isn't set up to be a sports car, nor does it pretend to be one

[D1MAC]

vino187 said:

Oh and if you want road car examples (not that it's actually that relevant since the laws of physics hold true regardless - but you'd know that wouldn't you), what about Elise/Exige, any Caterham, Ariel Atom, Radical, Westfield and so on - and that's just the little manufacturers. Plenty of big 'uns as well


tell me a biggen then? as u only seem to have names racecar type lightweights.

There are way too many to mention but if you really want a couple then here you are:

Audi S3 (current) - Bedford lap time: 1:30.4
BMW 330i M-Sport (RWD, heavier and probably less powerful in reality) - Bedford lap time: 1:30.0

Boxster S (295 bhp tops) - Bedford time of 1:28.55
Audi RS4 (414 bhp) - Bedford time of 1:28.25