Do folk really perceive RWD to be dangerous?

[Olivera]

XJ Flyer said:

Which leaves the question why do the FWD supporters think that an unchecked power slide,that causes loss of grip at the rear of a RWD car,but which still leaves the ability to steer.Is worse than the same unchecked power slide in a FWD car that causes total loss of steering control.

Simply because a FWD car understeering usually requires only a little braking or lift off the throttle to regain grip (and hence steering). Little skill is required to accomplish this and is achievable by most or all drivers.

A RWD car oversteering is corrected by steering in the opposite direction whilst balancing the throttle, then the steering lock is carefully unwound. Too little steering in the opposite direction and you will spin, too much throttle and you will spin, too slow unwinding of the lock and you will spin in the opposite direction. A much higher level of skill and experience is required to correct oversteer.

[Steve_F]

Hol said:

Some people have the misconception that AWD cars will stop better in the snow, but in reality the have the same tyres as everyone else - and the same problems with sliding on ice. Been there, so I know.

Assuming the BMW guy in the picture can get enough traction to get going, he will also actually be better off when goes down a compacted snow/icy hill where the comparible BMW guy next to him with chains on the back will have no steering capability (apart from bouncing off the kerbs).

Try telling that to the Forester I had, the engine braking was much more noticeable than anything FWD or RWD that I've driven. Used to drive up to traffic lights at the same speed as the car in front every night and slow down by downshifting as they were on the brakes until the last phase where the clutch had to be used.

Not sure in the Cherokee as it's an auto but with increased engine braking an AWD should be better at slowing down in snow and ice as the driver can use less force through the brakes.

Can definitely see the logic in the chains on the front though, get it moving and keep going and they should be ok...

[Bonefish Blues]

Seemingly...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[unpc]

Baryonyx said:

NiceCupOfTea said:

What I've never understood:

E36 compact and z3 roadster - crap handling and rear suspension
E30 - excellent fun tail out handling

Same rear end isn't it?

That is a good point. I've always thought the snide remarks directed at the Z3's rear suspension were a bit iffy considering the E30 is a reasonable handler and the Z3 was never meant to handle with the finesse of a Boxster or whatever (it was conceived as a GT for the US market IIRC).

Did the Z3 also have a slightly wider rear track and tyres?

Dunno where this myth came from. I had an E30 325i back in the day and it handled quite badly on the limit and was quite unpredictable. A mate's E30 M3 that I drove many thousands of miles in, was sublime. There was nothing wrong with the geometry of my car but fundamentally cooking E30s were pretty rubbish. I guess the more limited wheel travel of the M3 helped reduce the camber change.

[AuthurDaley]

I am glad this thread came up, for some light mind cleansing.

Recentley had a conversation with someone who said C63 AMG, M5, M3 etc are crap as you cannot drive fast in the wet. Audi Quattro is best car as you can nail it wet or dry with minimal issues.

Concerns understood, but I would much rather be mindful of potential danger in such a class of car in the wet and treat it with respect accordingly. I am sure it would make up for it in better conditions with the right driver .

[MC Bodge]

Olivera said:

Simply because a FWD car understeering usually requires only a little braking or lift off the throttle to regain grip (and hence steering). Little skill is required to accomplish this and is achievable by most or all drivers.

A RWD car oversteering is corrected by steering in the opposite direction whilst balancing the throttle, then the steering lock is carefully unwound. Too little steering in the opposite direction and you will spin, too much throttle and you will spin, too slow unwinding of the lock and you will spin in the opposite direction. A much higher level of skill and experience is required to correct oversteer.

Exactly. many people don't understand or practice it. Most modern cars are fairly benign and forgiving in most circumstances

There will always be some people who disagree with everything.

[Walford]

No

[XJ Flyer]

Olivera said:

XJ Flyer said:

Which leaves the question why do the FWD supporters think that an unchecked power slide,that causes loss of grip at the rear of a RWD car,but which still leaves the ability to steer.Is worse than the same unchecked power slide in a FWD car that causes total loss of steering control.

Simply because a FWD car understeering usually requires only a little braking or lift off the throttle to regain grip (and hence steering). Little skill is required to accomplish this and is achievable by most or all drivers.

A RWD car oversteering is corrected by steering in the opposite direction whilst balancing the throttle, then the steering lock is carefully unwound. Too little steering in the opposite direction and you will spin, too much throttle and you will spin, too slow unwinding of the lock and you will spin in the opposite direction. A much higher level of skill and experience is required to correct oversteer.

Therein sits the double standards being applied.An over steering power sliding RWD car is 'actually' dealt with in just the same way as you've described in the case of the under steering power sliding FWD car.IE cut the power.

The difference in the case o the RWD car is that it remains steerable throughout whereas the FWD car doesn't.

The fact that advantage means that a RWD car remains steerable is just a bonus which 'can be' exploited assuming anyone wants to balance that loss of traction and grip against throttle input while still being able to steer the car.'Can be' in that case doesn't mean 'has to be'.

[Hasbeen]

I find this thread very interesting.

I find it is front wheel drive cars you can't trust, not rear wheel. I have had many more heart in the mouth moments in front drive cars.

I do a fair bit of driving on gravel roads. These tend to have clear wheel tracks, with a mound of loose gravel between them, & on the outside of each track. None of the utes, mostly 2WD Holden, Ford & Toyota are effected by these mounds, nor are my Triumphs or the S2000.

However my wife & daughters cars, Mazda 2 & 3, Astra, front drive Rav 4, Toyota Camry & a Peugeot 306 have all had the same problem. The gravel mounds grab the front wheels & fling the car across to the next wheel tracks.

We get very heavy rain, an inch in 20 minutes is not unusual. With standing water from this, or water running across the road it is the front drive cars that "head for the hills" even at quite moderate speeds, where the rear drive things just plough on. I took the 306 on a 300Km run in moderate rain, & the thing could not handle just half an inch of water, a couple of meters wide without taking flight.

Am I really the only one who does not like this behaviour with front drive? Yes the S2000 can wag it's tail a bit on wet roads, but it never just takes off, unless the water is deep, & you are traveling very fast.

[Olivera]

XJ Flyer said:

Therein sits the double standards being applied.An over steering power sliding RWD car is 'actually' dealt with in just the same way as you've described in the case of the under steering power sliding FWD car.IE cut the power.

The difference in the case o the RWD car is that it remains steerable throughout whereas the FWD car doesn't.

...

Cutting the power (a little or all of it) in a RWD car if it oversteers will often result in a spin unless you simultaneously countersteer in the opposite direction, with the right amount of lock, then unwind the lock correctly. This is not an easy task for most drivers.

In a FWD drive car cutting the power in the same manner when understeering will usually never result in a spin, and requires very little driving skill.

However this argument is actually moot for two reasons. Firstly most modern FWD and RWD cars have TCS/ESP which will reign in most slides. Secondly, and one that many people forget, is that all modern RWD cars have a default chassis setup which ensures they also understeer in most circumstances in exactly the same manner as a FWD car. Oversteer is usually only possible through power, which is only easy if an LSD is fitted, or more rarely unsettling the balance of the car in a ham-fisted manoeuvre.

[otolith]

The handling dynamics of (most) front drive cars are simpler than rear drivers, because the effects of weight transfer and demand for traction both work in the same way. Unless the car has a clever diff, more throttle always increases understeer in a front driver. In a rear driver, more throttle may increase or decrease understeer, depending on the circumstances.

[e21Mark]

Isn't the snow problem down to wide tyres rather than which are driven wheels?

[otolith]

Static weight distribution plays a part on snow. Front drive cars often have a larger proportion of the car's weight over the driven wheels.

[Dave Hedgehog]

otolith said:

Static weight distribution plays a part on snow. Front drive cars often have a larger proportion of the car's weight over the driven wheels.

well my OHs MR2 roadster had most of the weight over the back wheels and it was next to bloody hopeless in the snow, it was often stuck

[e21Mark]

My old 316 had 165/70's and was great in heavy snow.

[otolith]

Dave Hedgehog said:

otolith said:

Static weight distribution plays a part on snow. Front drive cars often have a larger proportion of the car's weight over the driven wheels.

well my OHs MR2 roadster had most of the weight over the back wheels and it was next to bloody hopeless in the snow, it was often stuck

These things are relative. Some front drivers are also hopeless, usually because they have wide summer tyres fitted. Her MR2 would have been even worse with a smaller proportion of the weight over the driven wheels.

[Leins]

I got so worried by hearing these tales of RWD danger that I sold my E30 and went in search of something far safer in design. However, I haven't found an early Merc A-Class or Audi TT that I really like yet

[MC Bodge]

Hasbeen said:

I find this thread very interesting.

I find it is front wheel drive cars you can't trust, not rear wheel. I have had many more heart in the mouth moments in front drive cars.

I do a fair bit of driving on gravel roads. These tend to have clear wheel tracks, with a mound of loose gravel between them, & on the outside of each track. None of the utes, mostly 2WD Holden, Ford & Toyota are effected by these mounds, nor are my Triumphs or the S2000.

However my wife & daughters cars, Mazda 2 & 3, Astra, front drive Rav 4, Toyota Camry & a Peugeot 306 have all had the same problem. The gravel mounds grab the front wheels & fling the car across to the next wheel tracks.

We get very heavy rain, an inch in 20 minutes is not unusual. With standing water from this, or water running across the road it is the front drive cars that "head for the hills" even at quite moderate speeds, where the rear drive things just plough on. I took the 306 on a 300Km run in moderate rain, & the thing could not handle just half an inch of water, a couple of meters wide without taking flight.

Am I really the only one who does not like this behaviour with front drive? Yes the S2000 can wag it's tail a bit on wet roads, but it never just takes off, unless the water is deep, & you are traveling very fast.

A friend of mine destroyed an S2000 (without Tc) within 2 miles of ownership. It was wet, she gave it too much welly and lost the back end pulling away from some traffic lights...

Just saying like.

[Lost soul]

J4CKO said:

Back when RWD was the norm, most cars your average punter could buy were 60, 70, maybe 100 bhp, the odd exceptions were 130 - 140 bhp V6 Capris, nowadays even cooking BMW 1 series have 150 odd, ranging up to 300 ish for the 135i, power is much more accesible and I do think that without ESP there would be a lot more accidents, especially with the torquey turbodiesel engines.

back then a 3lt Capri or RS1600 Escort were the dog's in the every day performance car world with 100-140 bhp or so and an Etype was a rare beast

[SonicShadow]

Dave Hedgehog said:

otolith said:

Static weight distribution plays a part on snow. Front drive cars often have a larger proportion of the car's weight over the driven wheels.

well my OHs MR2 roadster had most of the weight over the back wheels and it was next to bloody hopeless in the snow, it was often stuck

Weight distribution is such a small factor really. As are the driven wheels. The biggest difference is tyres. I used to have some pretty poor mid-budget tyres on my Mk2 MR2. In the wet and dry, they were pretty crap compared to the T1R's that replaced them. They were OK in the snow though. The T1R's by comparison were awful in the snow. At least with the budgets I could pull away on a small gradient and trundle along quite happily, continuing on where other vehicles had got stuck. The T1R's by comparison just won't grip at all in the snow due to the tread pattern.