Do folk really perceive RWD to be dangerous?
Discussion
Since a lot people I get in a car with who don't seem to give a crap about how they drive treat the throttle as a digital switch then yeah, they probably could be dangerous.
Strange concept that you might only have to push the throttle somewhere between "not at all" and "to the carpet" to actually make suitable progress!
Strange concept that you might only have to push the throttle somewhere between "not at all" and "to the carpet" to actually make suitable progress!
Problem these days is that cars are designed to be too easy to drive with all the electronic aids fitted they remove most 'feel' of the car. As the actual driving of any car , fwd/ rwd is no different .Drivers today simply cannot 'drive'! One reason why the likes of the GTR is so popular-they drive themselves-making mr average (or below) look like a fully trained pro.
Basically, go back to un-aided rwd, they teach you how to do it.
Basically, go back to un-aided rwd, they teach you how to do it.
e21Mark in opening post said:
Spoke to friend of the woman next door and asked him about his Clio Sport. In conversation he mentioned how he would never consider a BMW down to their being RWD and inherently dangerous. He went on to describe how the rear can step out without warning, due to the poor design.
I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
There is the confusion - right there.I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
The wife having owned an early 182 Cup when it was new, I think that he is basing his entire premise on HIS car.
The Renault Sport range has some of the best electronic driver aids out there, and when I used to turn them off, the car was completely different - the front wheels span on damp surfaces, and the rear would step out as it cocked the outside wheel.
I think the Euro fighter analogy sums it up.
It was designed as a twitchy fighter, that could jig about easily. The cost being that lots of computer power was needed to 'correct' its flight amlmost constantly.
I guess stuff like the Nader book on the Corvair's handling and the Swedish authorities' stance with the E21 323i hardly help the public's perception though. Once there are a few crashes people like to seize on a 'scapegoat' in some form
Sometimes one unfavourable car review ( or vice versa ) can get blown out of proportion
Sometimes one unfavourable car review ( or vice versa ) can get blown out of proportion
MC Bodge said:
Motorbikes are (almost all) rear wheel drive and most don't have traction control either...
It is obvious, but:
Rear wheel drive has a tendency to break traction at the rear on low-friction surfaces, which can result in oversteer if the car is turning. The human instinct/survival reaction is to lift-off the throttle suddenly in the event of a problem, which can exacerbate the problem.
In a FWD car the front tends to break traction which can result in understeer. Lifting-off weights the front end, which can reduce the understeer.
Tell me about it, I have to turn the traction control (and it is just that, no active yaw, stability management or any of that stuff) off in the Mustang in slippery/wet conditions because if the back end steps out the system (I assume through the ABS sensors) detects the rear wheels are slipping and simply cuts the power to idle instantly. It’s not a pleasant experience, thankfully it has not happened in a situation where the back end could hit another vehicle.It is obvious, but:
Rear wheel drive has a tendency to break traction at the rear on low-friction surfaces, which can result in oversteer if the car is turning. The human instinct/survival reaction is to lift-off the throttle suddenly in the event of a problem, which can exacerbate the problem.
In a FWD car the front tends to break traction which can result in understeer. Lifting-off weights the front end, which can reduce the understeer.
But given I have been driving a 300+ HP RWD car in all weathers for five years and 53,000 miles I'd say that RWD cars are not inherently dangerous. It’s the nut behind the wheel that’s the problem for the most part (save the odd patch of spilled diesel on a roundabout).
I had quite a few comments from other people's parents when I bought my 328i at 19 - they were concerned about "a powerful rear wheel drive car that will spin in the wet".
As we all know this is utter rubbish, it will never even twitch under normal driving and you have to really provoke it to make it do anything.
Most have come round now, but even nearly three years on with the car in one piece some still feel the need to comment on it.
As we all know this is utter rubbish, it will never even twitch under normal driving and you have to really provoke it to make it do anything.
Most have come round now, but even nearly three years on with the car in one piece some still feel the need to comment on it.
thegreenhell said:
StuntmanMike said:
OP, I learned long ago in life, never discuss cars with f
kwits.
kwits. 
This is an absolute truth.
Hol said:
e21Mark in opening post said:
Spoke to friend of the woman next door and asked him about his Clio Sport. In conversation he mentioned how he would never consider a BMW down to their being RWD and inherently dangerous. He went on to describe how the rear can step out without warning, due to the poor design.
I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
There is the confusion - right there.I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
The wife having owned an early 182 Cup when it was new, I think that he is basing his entire premise on HIS car.
s off a nettle! I guess it's also that when I was new to cars, whether it was RWD or FWD wasn't a big deal, as RWD was the norm?
Skyedriver said:
Hoofy said:
Tribal Chestnut said:
No. Most 'folk' do not understand the difference between RWD/FWD, etc.
Dunno what you mean.
Edited by longblackcoat on Thursday 23 October 09:20
I bet that a high percentage of people (PHers obviously excluded) have no idea whether their car is FWD or RWD.
The only ones that would know are AWD drivers because they know that their vehicles can stop much quicker than the rest of us, allowing them to drive really close to the car in front in perfect safety
The only ones that would know are AWD drivers because they know that their vehicles can stop much quicker than the rest of us, allowing them to drive really close to the car in front in perfect safety
e21Mark said:
Spoke to friend of the woman next door and asked him about his Clio Sport. In conversation he mentioned how he would never consider a BMW down to their being RWD and inherently dangerous. He went on to describe how the rear can step out without warning, due to the poor design.
I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
I would say your friend has no idea how to drive safely if he cannot manage a RWD car.I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
My mother is (in my opinion), a shocking driver. The last 5 cars she's had have been BMW's. She's never had any problems with them. Also keep in mind her first (and also my first car), was an E30 with no traction control or ABS. Pure, raw, RWD. Not one problem and even in snow during the winter months.
I've also had numerous people slate my choice of a BMW when I bought mine in Austria stating they would never choose such a car in snowy conditions. I had one mishap down to driver error on my part, and I never had trouble getting up slopes or getting about in the ski resorts. I used winter tyres and sometimes chains without any issues.
Ultimately, your friend is talking total b
ks.
beanbag said:
e21Mark said:
Spoke to friend of the woman next door and asked him about his Clio Sport. In conversation he mentioned how he would never consider a BMW down to their being RWD and inherently dangerous. He went on to describe how the rear can step out without warning, due to the poor design.
I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
I would say your friend has no idea how to drive safely if he cannot manage a RWD car.I've also noted a few posts on here, with comments that suggest semi-trailing arms to be the work of Satan, despite cars like the E30 M3 having them.
I grew up with RWD being the norm', so never really gave it a second thought, but do some folk really consider RWD to be dangerous?
My mother is (in my opinion), a shocking driver. The last 5 cars she's had have been BMW's. She's never had any problems with them. Also keep in mind her first (and also my first car), was an E30 with no traction control or ABS. Pure, raw, RWD. Not one problem and even in snow during the winter months.
I've also had numerous people slate my choice of a BMW when I bought mine in Austria stating they would never choose such a car in snowy conditions. I had one mishap down to driver error on my part, and I never had trouble getting up slopes or getting about in the ski resorts. I used winter tyres and sometimes chains without any issues.
Ultimately, your friend is talking total b
ks.
)TA14 said:
longblackcoat said:
I took an E39 530D to the Alps, and coming out of Les Gets in 8" of snow
I've told you a million times...Unsurprisingly I've switched to 4wds for the Alpine trips now.....with winter tyres. And a set of chains for the really deep stuff.
Edited by longblackcoat on Thursday 23 October 11:36
longblackcoat said:
Skyedriver said:
Hoofy said:
Tribal Chestnut said:
No. Most 'folk' do not understand the difference between RWD/FWD, etc.
Dunno what you mean.Edited by longblackcoat on Thursday 23 October 09:20
In the snow I can get my E36 moving but if thick it sometimes won't matter which way I turn the wheel. Maybe chains on the front is not such a daft idea.
I suppose that the RWD is unsafe versus FWD being safe is a bit of a dangerous assumption, some RWD cars are very predictable and some FWD cars can be pretty edgy, the 205 GTI with its lift oversteer for example, also, some 4WD cars, usually regarded as unstickable can still do stuff you dont expect, a fair few Imprezas have ended up in fields as they grip like mad, in all conditions but when they do let go, you are going pretty fast and end up in a field.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff