Do folk really perceive RWD to be dangerous?

[boroandy87]

I've noticed this, along with higher Horsepower cars and the perceived perception that your going to immediately crash and burn...

[MC Bodge]

philmots said:

If you know what you're doing then rwd isn't dangerous.

If the back goes under power, ride it out or balance it.. Let off and you're round the other way.

I think that is the point.

Most people do not know anything about this and many of those that do know it, probably haven't learnt to actually do it.

Another example of where riding a motorbike can be of benefit (if you make the effort to ride well) -to the understanding of weight transfer, balance, grip and awareness of road conditions.

[Vipers]

Monkeylegend said:

The only thing that makes a RWD unsafe is the person behind the steering wheel.

May I just add that applies to any vehicle on our roads.

MC Bodge said:

Another example of where riding a motorbike can be of benefit (if you make the effort to ride well) -to the understanding of weight transfer, balance, grip and awareness of road conditions.

Another point on motorbikes, if you have ever pushed one with a flat back tyre, you will appreciate the drag soft tyres put on your car.

Edited by Vipers on Thursday 23 October 12:13

[boobles]

My two Elise's where a "handfull" in the wet & my Z3M was crap in the snow. My Crossfire is fine in all weather (snow can be tricky at times but no where near as bad as the BMW was)

[Z.B]

Most people's knowledge of this subject doesn't extend beyond 'bmw are crap in the snow Innit'.

The rest get their opinions from magazines (journalistic license) or pub talk (almost certainly BS).

The truth is that individual models and even individual examples vary greatly. Gross generalizations based on which wheels are driven are not very illuminating.

[J4CKO]

Z.B said:

The truth is that individual models and even individual examples vary greatly. Gross generalizations based on which wheels are driven are not very illuminating.

Yeah, that is a really good point, I mentioned my 944 earlier, widely regarded as a paragon of faithful handling, however after 20 plus years, on non oem tyres, with unknown geometry and suspension with a fair few miles on it is probably best to not rely on reputation as you might be explaining to a copper from a ditch that "Autocar magazine 23/01/1989 said it was very progressive".

[g3org3y]

HertsBiker said:

Symbolica said:

Well I'm still alive. With anything modern you really have to cock it up to lose control, at which point FWD vs RWD is of limited relevance - you're going to hit that wall, regardless.

Not looking forward to any snow with RWD and an autobox though

I keep hearing auto bad for snow, why is this? My auto Mondeo (ok it is fwd) feels like it would be excellent on snow...

Never had issues with my auto box.

[NicheMonkey]

Hoofy said:

Dunno what you mean.

Hahahaha that's classic!

[PanzerCommander]

g3org3y said:

HertsBiker said:

Symbolica said:

Well I'm still alive. With anything modern you really have to cock it up to lose control, at which point FWD vs RWD is of limited relevance - you're going to hit that wall, regardless.

Not looking forward to any snow with RWD and an autobox though

I keep hearing auto bad for snow, why is this? My auto Mondeo (ok it is fwd) feels like it would be excellent on snow...

Never had issues with my auto box.

A decent slush box will be fine on snow I have never had a problem in the Mustang. Indeed in winters of previous years the only times it didn't venture off the drive was when the snow was simply too deep.

I can imagine an SMG or DSG would be interesting. I certainly wouldn't want to drive the passat DSG that I once had as a hire car in the snow.

[jamieduff1981]

g3org3y said:

HertsBiker said:

Symbolica said:

Well I'm still alive. With anything modern you really have to cock it up to lose control, at which point FWD vs RWD is of limited relevance - you're going to hit that wall, regardless.

Not looking forward to any snow with RWD and an autobox though

I keep hearing auto bad for snow, why is this? My auto Mondeo (ok it is fwd) feels like it would be excellent on snow...

Never had issues with my auto box.

Likewise I've used my S-Type for the last 5 winters. It's not a Defender, but it's not dangerous in the snow. I'm not sure if I'm a car-whisperer or what, but it never kicks down unexpectedly. It's very easy to anticipate the gearchanges.

I did the first 4 Scottish winters on Pirelli P-Zero Assymetricos. Last year was the first one with winter tyres.

I once took our old summer tyred MX-5 to work in snow just to prove to all the nay-sayers that it could be done. It wasn't great traction-wise, but it would have taken particular inattention to lose control of it once moving.

[JDMDrifter]

Idiots perceive it as dangerous because they cant drive, FWD cars are quite forgiving and you have to drive them like and utter tool before they are dangerous. RWD cars are less forgiving and if driven like a spanner will probably kill you.

For reference I've just started driving an mx5 after owning 2 fwd cars, i'm still alive

[bennyboysvuk]

Welshbeef said:

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

That's not necessarily true. Clios, 106s, Pumas, Fiestas of a certain era will all do fantastic lift-off oversteer slides if you go too fast into a corner and then back off and turn in at the same time.

I agree there is logic to it, but it's largely about accelerating off of roundabouts etc that people worry about.

Back to the OP:

My Dad dislikes RWD cars because he changed down a gear whilst driving in a straight line on ice and lost the back, putting him sideways into a concrete bollard.

I was wary of them before I drove them. Now I love them and would never again consider a FWD car.

[Paddymcc]

PanzerCommander said:

A decent slush box will be fine on snow I have never had a problem in the Mustang. Indeed in winters of previous years the only times it didn't venture off the drive was when the snow was simply too deep.

I can imagine an SMG or DSG would be interesting. I certainly wouldn't want to drive the passat DSG that I once had as a hire car in the snow.

Smg and DSG are woeful in the snow. I couldnt get my m3 or passat off my drive a few winters ago. In the end the mighty 206 1.9hdi rescued us from being stuck at home and eventually cannibalism.

In fact the 206 was better going in reverse in the snow than forwards after I got stuck on some country roads.

[Hol]

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.

Made me smile

I took an E39 530D to the Alps, and coming out of Les Gets in 8" of snow needed to put the chains on the front - the problem was not with traction (I was going slightly downhill) but with steering and braking. Obviously the best option in that case would be two sets of chains, but who carries those?

Edited by longblackcoat on Thursday 23 October 09:20

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).

[framerateuk]

I think people do genuinely believe this - but as it's been said, lots of people now probably haven't driven rear wheel drive cars.

First RWD car I drove was a Caterham! I didn't have any issues with grip or the car "wanting to kill me". I own my own now, and I've driven it through the worst rain imaginable, and had no issues at all. So long as you drive to the conditions. Even when you start pushing on a bit, the car doesn't try and slide out from underneath you!

[Dog Star]

It's obvious that they are more "dangerous" - it's taken into account by insurance companies. I'm pretty sure that it was someone on PH a couple of years ago who couldn't get insurance on a RWD (and it was the fact that it was RWD, not bhp etc) car - it was something pretty normal like a BMW320i or similar.

I was looking round for quotes for my renewal a couple of weeks ago and one of the insurerance bods specifically asked about how long I'd owned the car and what I'd had before and said "so you're experienced with rear wheel drive".

I can see their point - the only issues I've ever had with losing it/fishtailing etc have been RWD cars. I've owned exclusively as my main car mid-engined RWD or front engined RWD cars (MR2 Mk2, MR2 Mk3, SLK R170, SL R230 and 2x SLK R172s) since 1994 and I still treat them with respect - I'm not confident in my abilities to save it if I lose the back.

[XJ Flyer]

e21Mark said:

thegreenhell said:

StuntmanMike said:

OP, I learned long ago in life, never discuss cars with fkwits.

This is an absolute truth.

Lesson learned.

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.

The wife having owned an early 182 Cup when it was new, I think that he is basing his entire premise on HIS car.

Till that point, I had just not spoken first hand, to someone who just felt RWD was so dangerous. He was of the opinion you could simply find yourself being spat off the road at any time. I offered to take him for a spin in my E30 M3 and you'd have thought I'd asked if he wanted to lick ps 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?

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.

[Hol]

Dog Star said:

It's obvious that they are more "dangerous" - it's taken into account by insurance companies. I'm pretty sure that it was someone on PH a couple of years ago who couldn't get insurance on a RWD (and it was the fact that it was RWD, not bhp etc) car - it was something pretty normal like a BMW320i or similar.

I was looking round for quotes for my renewal a couple of weeks ago and one of the insurerance bods specifically asked about how long I'd owned the car and what I'd had before and said "so you're experienced with rear wheel drive".

I can see their point - the only issues I've ever had with losing it/fishtailing etc have been RWD cars. I've owned exclusively as my main car mid-engined RWD or front engined RWD cars (MR2 Mk2, MR2 Mk3, SLK R170, SL R230 and 2x SLK R172s) since 1994 and I still treat them with respect - I'm not confident in my abilities to save it if I lose the back.

Im being honest:
Cheapest insurance I could find for my 17year old son, as a learner/provisoonal licence was a 52plate 320 BMW.

Somebody on a PH, suggested I try it and I was shocked - less than £900.00.

He's still getting an Aygo though.

[XJ Flyer]

Dog Star said:

It's obvious that they are more "dangerous" - it's taken into account by insurance companies. I'm pretty sure that it was someone on PH a couple of years ago who couldn't get insurance on a RWD (and it was the fact that it was RWD, not bhp etc) car - it was something pretty normal like a BMW320i or similar.

I was looking round for quotes for my renewal a couple of weeks ago and one of the insurerance bods specifically asked about how long I'd owned the car and what I'd had before and said "so you're experienced with rear wheel drive".

I can see their point - the only issues I've ever had with losing it/fishtailing etc have been RWD cars. I've owned exclusively as my main car mid-engined RWD or front engined RWD cars (MR2 Mk2, MR2 Mk3, SLK R170, SL R230 and 2x SLK R172s) since 1994 and I still treat them with respect - I'm not confident in my abilities to save it if I lose the back.

Why would you need to 'save' anything when you know that the reason why it is sliding is because power input has overcome traction so the obvious answer is to reduce the throttle input in that case.In just the same way that if/when a FWD car is even more likely to lose traction under acceleration because of rearward weight transfer you have the even worse choice of keep your foot in and lose all steering control or reduce the throttle input.As for the insurers the RWD non issue is obviously being taken advantage of as yet another excuse to rip off customers.

[Dog Star]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would you need to 'save' anything when you know that the reason why it is sliding is because power input has overcome traction so the obvious answer is to reduce the throttle input in that case.

Cos I'm a poo driver!!!