FWD or RWD?

[Olivera]

Debaser said:

Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

[bullio]

Perhaps not the most exciting point but... Has anyone mentioned turning circle? My old Merc turns like a London taxi, my Alfa turns like an oil tanker. When you do most of your driving in urban areas it makes a difference.

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

it even happens driving down to the shops for a pint of milk....imagine that!

It happens in a greasy school park every morning

[Debaser]

Kawasicki said:

it even happens driving down to the shops for a pint of milk....imagine that!

I know! Great fun!

[Debaser]

Olivera said:

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

During steady state cornering both RWD and FWD road cars will be set up to understeer. I'm talking about how this balance changes when power is applied.

[nickfrog]

Debaser said:

Olivera said:

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

During steady state cornering both RWD and FWD road cars will be set up to understeer. I'm talking about how this balance changes when power is applied.

When power is applied, BMWs understeer even more, unless they are M with 2 deg of front neg camber. It's called push understeer. Unless you purposely provoke a loss of traction, not exactly tactile on the road.

Conversely, you can achieve slip angle balance under trail braking, and whether front or rear wheel drive. The front drivers are actually quite adjustable because they have such a light rear. Same result, difference approach to using tractive limits.

[Toltec]

Olivera said:

Debaser said:

Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

You can certainly make a RWD car understeer by not setting up the entry to a corner properly and applying power at the wrong time.

[Olivera]

nickfrog said:

When power is applied, BMWs understeer even more, unless they are M with 2 deg of front neg camber. It's called push understeer. Unless you purposely provoke a loss of traction, not exactly tactile on the road.

Agreed, although when you say BMW make that almost every OEM car with factory geo. More power past the balance of slip angles usually equals more understeer.

[nickfrog]

Yes you're right. It's the default geo. I put M4 LCAs on my M135i (£300) and it was very neutral by contrast. A better steer than a Fiesta ST IME.

[Digby]

Never get what all the fuss is about.

I had just as much fun in my Westfield and MX5 turbo as I did in any of my tuned up FWD Volvo's etc. Really couldn't care less.

It helps if you don't fall to the floor praising people who can 'get the back out' I suppose, or care that the balance etc feels so much better with RWD as you try to shave a few seconds off the journey to Asda.

I quite like a bit of torque steer, too.

[otolith]

Toltec said:

You can certainly make a RWD car understeer by not setting up the entry to a corner properly and applying power at the wrong time.

Hence the comment from my instructor at 40s, driver error.

https://youtu.be/77ayL_8ZfWU

(bloody hell, that was ten years ago!)

[e21Mark]

Are front drivers compromised from the outset, by virtue of asking the front tyres to cope with putting the power down, affording grip in corners and dealing with braking forces? That said, some seem to do this remarkably well.

As this thread shows though, some folk like RWD, some AWD and some FWD. It'd be boring if we all liked the same thing.

Do the likes of McLaren, Porsche etc stick to RWD because it's simply better suited to performance cars or because of the amount of power being beyond that they could realistically expect the front tyres to cope with?

[Debaser]

nickfrog said:

Debaser said:

Olivera said:

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

During steady state cornering both RWD and FWD road cars will be set up to understeer. I'm talking about how this balance changes when power is applied.

When power is applied, BMWs understeer even more, unless they are M with 2 deg of front neg camber. It's called push understeer. Unless you purposely provoke a loss of traction, not exactly tactile on the road.

Conversely, you can achieve slip angle balance under trail braking, and whether front or rear wheel drive. The front drivers are actually quite adjustable because they have such a light rear. Same result, difference approach to using tractive limits.

I won't deny that it's possible to drive a BMW in a manner that saturates the front tyres, leaving you with terminal understeer (like the chap in the picture below). But if someone chooses to drive like that they'll never understand what it is I love about RWD.

[nickfrog]

Debaser said:

nickfrog said:

Debaser said:

Olivera said:

I don't know what rear wheel drive cars you are referring to, but in my experience the vast majority of RWD cars will also naturally understeer when pushing on in corners, in fact every bit as much as the FWD equivalent.

During steady state cornering both RWD and FWD road cars will be set up to understeer. I'm talking about how this balance changes when power is applied.

When power is applied, BMWs understeer even more, unless they are M with 2 deg of front neg camber. It's called push understeer. Unless you purposely provoke a loss of traction, not exactly tactile on the road.

Conversely, you can achieve slip angle balance under trail braking, and whether front or rear wheel drive. The front drivers are actually quite adjustable because they have such a light rear. Same result, difference approach to using tractive limits.

I won't deny that it's possible to drive a BMW in a manner that saturates the front tyres, leaving you with terminal understeer (like the chap in the picture below). But if someone chooses to drive like that they'll never understand what it is I love about RWD.

I know this corner well, the Megane was neutral through it about 15 times on the same day 6 weeks ago. I'd like to know in which manner you'd drive a BMW that push understeers to neutralise it under power without adding yet more understeer.

[Kawasicki]

nickfrog said:

I'd like to know in which manner you'd drive a BMW that push understeers to neutralise it under power without adding yet more understeer.

Turn into corner on a trailing throttle or with light braking, as the rear just starts to slide get back on the power.

[skyrover]

[culpz]

yonex said:

And how were the 130/135/1M?

...or shall we stick to 'probably'?

I don't have an issue with anyone who has a different point of view, just those that haven't driven things then roll out things as fact.

I didn't state that i drove them though did i? I said they would probably be the exception. I specifically said that the majority of the range, which i have drove a few of, are pretty dung.

I also never stated anything as a fact. I have a problem with people who fail to be able to read things before throwing their toys out of their pram.

In my posts, i used "IMO" and "in my eyes" multiple times. Must have missed that too eh? I'm seeing a pattern emerge here...

How was the Fiesta ST, seeing as we're clearly having a moment?

Edited by culpz on Thursday 15th December 11:28

[lickatysplit]

Nanook said:

lickatysplit said:

arn't all the new mini's RWD? yet all I see driving them are women?

Erm, no.

someone has lied to me, they will pay

[Toltec]

Kawasicki said:

Turn into corner on a trailing throttle or with light braking, as the rear just starts to slide get back on the power.

In an auto you can can also press the accelerator as you blend off the brakes which I find helps to give a more controlled and smoother rearward weight transfer. I use this mainly to remove the delay in spooling up the torque converter, it can also help if the car decides to kick down.

Of course you are driving around inherent issues with the car, but that is part of the fun. It is like using trail braking with an aggressive turn in or power lift off to get an AWD to oversteer on power. I believe you can use similar tricks in fwd cars to kill the understeer.

[heebeegeetee]

Debaser said:

I'm not talking about drifting around corners, it's way more subtle than that. When cornering a RWD car, applying more accelerator will increase the slip angle at the rear contact patches, resulting in less steering wheel angle required. If you keep applying accelerator you'll end up with the same slip angles front and rear, with the car feeling nicely balanced. It's the vehicle tending towards this state I enjoy. Obviously if you apply even more accelerator you'll end up with slip angles at the rear greater than the front, eventually requiring opposite lock to keep everything pointing the right way.

If you apply more accelerator in a FWD car, you'll increase the slip angle at the front contact patches, which results in more understeer. This is the case with all FWD cars, even well developed hot hatches.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it, not in terms of driving modern cars on the public road. We're talking tiny, tiny amounts of slip angle here - I can cane my Boxster all over the place and opposite lock never really plays a part at all. I'm guessing it's why cars are coming with 'drift mode' nowadays - the situation in which opposite lock plays a part has to be set up.

Obviously some extreme cars can have large dabs of oppos in their repertoire, but this is not a reflection of the true situation for 99.999% of drivers on the road no matter how keen.

e21Mark said:

Funny that those old Fords remain so popular despite this propensity to wallow, axle tramp and understeer.

Personally I loved my RS2000's in particular and always found them to be rather good.

It's not always about outright speed/performance either. RS2000 and BMW 2002 only had about 100 bhp but they were great fun. Slight, easily controlled oversteer and real feel through the seat of your pants.

But all old cars are popular and classic car values have done bloody well, but few would want a modern car with the attributes of the old stuff, the world has moved on.

However, I think a few of you guys would really benefit from seeing vintage cars race. Just go and check out stuff like MG T Types and the like - those things oversteer in a way that makes the steering wheel look redundant. They are terrific things to see and no doubt drive, but our modern cars are *nothing* like them imo. To hear the protaganists for rwd on here talk, and to see those vintage cars, you'd realise there's a gulf between the talk and the action imo.

e21Mark said:

Are front drivers compromised from the outset,

Yes, but so is pretty much every single car on the planet. An F1 car is a compromise. I agree that fwds are compromised in a way that we feel shouldn't really work, but I'm a firm believer in where the proof of the pudding lies.

Anyway, the haters had better get ready to froth, because EVO magazine has placed a fwd Golf second overall in it's annual COTY. https://youtu.be/QxthzMs_M-M