Do folk really perceive RWD to be dangerous?
Discussion
Codswallop said:
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.
Increases in power have been offset by increases in weight, ever wider tyres with improved compounds, larger brakes and ESP and safety systems that often require a lot of determination to turn off. I sincerely doubt there would be many more (maybe even fewer) accidents if all current cars were RWD given other advances.Bigger problem IMO is the number of distractions that drivers have to contend with these days.
The average company 320D driver, thirty years ago would have probably been in a Sierra 1.6/2.0, 73 - 100 bhp with 80 - 100 lb/ft, drift monsters they were not.
I think basically the powerful RWD turbodiesel only arrived after ESP became pretty much standard, powerful RWD cars before then were largely the preserve of enthusiasts.
aka_kerrly said:
To an extent RWD is a bit more of a challenge and less forgiving than a FWD/AWD set up.
As a result RWD in the wrong hands is more dangerous.
I would agree with that one. I drive fairly quickly, but my MX5 is my first RWD and is a surprisingly tricky customer in the wet - the tendency for power oversteer and quite snappy breakaway at very moderate speeds often takes me by surprise.As a result RWD in the wrong hands is more dangerous.
J4CKO said:
The average company 320D driver, thirty years ago would have probably been in a Sierra 1.6/2.0, 73 - 100 bhp with 80 - 100 lb/ft, drift monsters they were not.
I'd argue a Sierra 1.6 or 2.0 'back in the day' would have been bloody tail happy in the wet. Combine no ESP, TCS, ABS or stability control of any kind, with period tyres making P6000 look good, and you would be 360ing in no time at all.I think OP has a point but there is logic to it to - FWD if you go too fast into a corner you will under steer and you simply lift off and or brake to get it back into control, RWD go in too hot you can get a wiggle on into oversteer backing off throttle will likely spin you round braking not a good idea steering into it and holding the throttle or pushing through more power is unnatural to most people.
I've driven countless FWD 1 4x4 and 2 RWD. - for me (ignoring snow) I much prefer RWD dynamics I have done quite a number of track days so have learnt a tiny but on how to drive them.
One thing - I've never done a donut not once be it my own car or someone else's. I'd love to but rubber cost and mechanical sympathy are important to me.
I've driven countless FWD 1 4x4 and 2 RWD. - for me (ignoring snow) I much prefer RWD dynamics I have done quite a number of track days so have learnt a tiny but on how to drive them.
One thing - I've never done a donut not once be it my own car or someone else's. I'd love to but rubber cost and mechanical sympathy are important to me.
Olivera said:
I'd argue a Sierra 1.6 or 2.0 'back in the day' would have been bloody tail happy in the wet. Combine no ESP, TCS, ABS or stability control of any kind, with period tyres making P6000 look good, and you would be 360ing in no time at all.
Yep - had a very big off in my Sierra 2.0 GLS (a white over black one 
) repmobile. I came off the antiskid surface on a roundabout and completely lost it as the surface changed. Thinking about it, you don't often see anti-skid surfaces now, but it was common then.RWD in the 70's on Michelin X and then ZX tyres was a nightmare. Mind you, the Capri I had new in 1978 under-steered more than anything else - had quite a big crash in that when it was only a few months old as it simply went straight on in the wet.
Olivera said:
I'd argue a Sierra 1.6 or 2.0 'back in the day' would have been bloody tail happy in the wet. Combine no ESP, TCS, ABS or stability control of any kind, with period tyres making P6000 look good, and you would be 360ing in no time at all.
I had an 80s RWD car with 300bhp on P6000s, it was absolutely fine. According to many on here every corner should have been a massive smoking powerslide but unless you had feet of plutonium it just isn't an issue. Most people don't drive everywhere at full pelt, under normal conditions the driven wheels make no difference at all to the driving experience so most people wouldn't notice or care which wheels are driven.
Tribal Chestnut said:
No. Most 'folk' do not understand the difference between RWD/FWD, etc.
The average driver doesnt need to know. The average driver probably dosnt know if their car is front or rear wheel drive.Obviously some drivers who like hooning around do know, and can appreciate their choice of wheels.
Raman Kandola said:
Hoofy said:
Tribal Chestnut said:
No. Most 'folk' do not understand the difference between RWD/FWD, etc.
Dunno what you mean.
but seriously that is worrying First car I drove after passing my test 22 years ago was an E30 325i Sport belonging to a company that I was working for ... and I've only every owned RWD. Only ever had one minor, low speed scrape and that was nothing to do with the driven wheels. RWD is perfectly safe. Any car is dangerous in the hands of an idiot.
I think one of the issues is that, while cars have got more powerful over the years, the laws of physics haven't changed. Whether you're in a Capri, an E46 M3, the new Aston Martin or some form of 1930s Ford pickup, if you enter a greasy corner too fast, no amount of braking will stop the road punting you into the nearest sharp piece of furniture. Modern cars inhibit the more minor losses of traction - which obviously come with FR-cars as the driven wheels have less weight on them.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
Henceforth, people now assume any type of slide to be that type of uncontrollable, child-killing (ahem.) death racing slide that only maniacs do etc etc.
I remember a few years ago when a graduate took a 320d on a business trip. She got caught in some rain and somehow ended up spinning and collecting a lamp post. Her excuse was that the car was too unsafe compared to her 1.3 Fiesta. Thankfully she was pitched against the fleet manager, who himself drove a 320d and took great affront to her insult to his personal car. Her CC privileges were revoked.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
Henceforth, people now assume any type of slide to be that type of uncontrollable, child-killing (ahem.) death racing slide that only maniacs do etc etc.
I remember a few years ago when a graduate took a 320d on a business trip. She got caught in some rain and somehow ended up spinning and collecting a lamp post. Her excuse was that the car was too unsafe compared to her 1.3 Fiesta. Thankfully she was pitched against the fleet manager, who himself drove a 320d and took great affront to her insult to his personal car. Her CC privileges were revoked.
sebhaque said:
I think one of the issues is that, while cars have got more powerful over the years, the laws of physics haven't changed. Whether you're in a Capri, an E46 M3, the new Aston Martin or some form of 1930s Ford pickup, if you enter a greasy corner too fast, no amount of braking will stop the road punting you into the nearest sharp piece of furniture. Modern cars inhibit the more minor losses of traction - which obviously come with FR-cars as the driven wheels have less weight on them.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
GT86, traction off. Bliss. Life on Mars ;-)I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
Robert Elise said:
sebhaque said:
I think one of the issues is that, while cars have got more powerful over the years, the laws of physics haven't changed. Whether you're in a Capri, an E46 M3, the new Aston Martin or some form of 1930s Ford pickup, if you enter a greasy corner too fast, no amount of braking will stop the road punting you into the nearest sharp piece of furniture. Modern cars inhibit the more minor losses of traction - which obviously come with FR-cars as the driven wheels have less weight on them.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
GT86, traction off. Bliss. Life on Mars ;-)I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
. - did you see the article in Autocar today about different cars in the wet being compared?sebhaque said:
I think one of the issues is that, while cars have got more powerful over the years, the laws of physics haven't changed. Whether you're in a Capri, an E46 M3, the new Aston Martin or some form of 1930s Ford pickup, if you enter a greasy corner too fast, no amount of braking will stop the road punting you into the nearest sharp piece of furniture. Modern cars inhibit the more minor losses of traction - which obviously come with FR-cars as the driven wheels have less weight on them.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
Henceforth, people now assume any type of slide to be that type of uncontrollable, child-killing (ahem.) death racing slide that only maniacs do etc etc.
I remember a few years ago when a graduate took a 320d on a business trip. She got caught in some rain and somehow ended up spinning and collecting a lamp post. Her excuse was that the car was too unsafe compared to her 1.3 Fiesta. Thankfully she was pitched against the fleet manager, who himself drove a 320d and took great affront to her insult to his personal car. Her CC privileges were revoked.
I can understand those who say modern safety measures are somewhat of a hindrance to driver ability. While it's great knowing that my car can stop a wheelspin, sometimes it's something that doesn't really need damping. Snow driving as an example. While a bit of slip is perfectly acceptable, today's drivers either sit there with the traction saying they can't do something, or turn it off and just bury the throttle, blissfully unaware they're turning the snow into sheet ice.
Similarly, older cars would let you have a slide at low speeds, and therefore easily controllable. The only slide you'll get from a modern 318d is typically where the car is breaking the laws of physics - i.e. there's not a lot you can do apart from hope you don't end up becoming an impromptu ornament.
Henceforth, people now assume any type of slide to be that type of uncontrollable, child-killing (ahem.) death racing slide that only maniacs do etc etc.
I remember a few years ago when a graduate took a 320d on a business trip. She got caught in some rain and somehow ended up spinning and collecting a lamp post. Her excuse was that the car was too unsafe compared to her 1.3 Fiesta. Thankfully she was pitched against the fleet manager, who himself drove a 320d and took great affront to her insult to his personal car. Her CC privileges were revoked.
- cough * PUWER *cough*
- cough* reducing road risks at work *cough*
http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/hsw/workplace...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf
amazing how many businesses which rely on driving by employees to deliver their service or product do very little training of any kind for car and van drivers ... not even the theory test, driver;s medical questionnaire and short ( half day) training ./ check drive that gets you the very basic 'a to b' permits from the Reserve Forces , youth organisations , emergency services and other incidential minibus users ( where the driving is 'incidental' to the reason the person is employed so they can get away the catB derogation or a D1(101) )
vanordinaire said:
If you want a modern experience of 70's style rear wheel drive, try an empty pickup on wet roads, just like driving a Capri. Scarey ,dangerous as you can get in a modern vehicle, but some of the best driving fun to be had.
Scary? I've always found them very forgiving with the long wheelbase and slow, gradual responses. You can hang a lazy slide and practically have a nap before you start correcting it. 
s m said:
. - did you see the article in Autocar today about different cars in the wet being compared?I would say two things:
- i wouldn't want it any other way ;-)
- and bear in mind this car tells you what's going on more than the others. It's chattering away all the time, and so in the wet you're very aware of what grip there is/isn't. Most expect torque vectoring to sort it all out no matter what the conditions. It's the same in the Elise on semi-slicks: tenacious in the dry, but when it drops below 5C or is wet you can feel it, even on the straight. Back to the OP - whose in control of the car?
I also remember parking my first car (a Morris Ital which couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding) neatly in a lay by on the wrong side of the road having caught the slide but almost run out of road. Too much throttle coming over a hump back bridge into a wet left-hander. Crap tyres. There was a gravelly uphill bend near my house where I used to give that thing a bootful. I didn't really understand what was going on, but I liked it
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff