Is RWD over hyped?

[RobM77]

Great Pretender said:

thinfourth2 said:

RobM77 said:

No. Setup is something completely different. I've raced neutrally setup FWD and RWD cars and which wheels are driven is a defining factor in how a car drives, and is separate from setup, what engine it's got and other things mentioned here.

Okay

Two cars one RWD and one FWD

The FWD have been properly set-up corner weighted and all the geo set-up exactly the way you want.

The RWD one has 4 springs found in a skip, 2 working shock absorbers, a steering rack from a yugo, 4 different sized wheels all of which point in slightly different directions.

Which one will be better to drive

The RWD car?

Edited by Great Pretender on Monday 3rd January 11:42

that's such a daft argument! There are many factors that go into whether a car is good to drive or not, but they don't all melt down in a pot and produce a result that says "good" or "bad", thus removing your preferences for one or other of those initial facets.

I prefer RWD to FWD, and I also prefer small cars, lightweight cars, short wheelbase cars and normally aspirated engines. However, just because I'd therefore rather own a 106 GTi than a Cadillac does not remove the fact that I prefer RWD. The truth is that, good as the 106 GTi is, the Elise, Boxster, MR2 and MX5 all exist, so I'd rather have one of those!

Look at it this way - you offer someone who doesn't like milk in his coffee a cappuchino or liquified dog poo, and he takes the cappuchino, you cannot then conclude from that that he really doesn't mind milk in his coffee, and was just confused

[Great Pretender]

jeebus said:

Great Pretender no offence taken maybe I should of been more clear on my post, I was refering to your everyday runaround type car, dont get me wrong if you want a real purist type drivers car then rwd is the way to go as far as weight distribution and power delivery to the driven wheels etc. But for your everyday workhorse then there is no fwd vs rwd argument as in my eyes there is no notable difference.

Oh absolutely.

I guess that for me, locked away in this mire of st they call 'life', the prospect of steering a car on the throttle on the way to Sainsburys is sometimes the only thing that keeps me going. Whereas, understeering into an innocent pedestrian or five as the they stand waiting for the bus, would be rather less desirable.

[g3org3y]

Over-hyper, certainly. But what isn't nowadays.

Gold standard for proper driving enthusiasts? Probably. Physics FTW.

On the Lambo Balboni special edition, 4WD was ditched for RWD. It typically gets better reviews for the purity of the handling over the 4WD equivalent.

[jeebus]

Great Pretender said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender no offence taken maybe I should of been more clear on my post, I was refering to your everyday runaround type car, dont get me wrong if you want a real purist type drivers car then rwd is the way to go as far as weight distribution and power delivery to the driven wheels etc. But for your everyday workhorse then there is no fwd vs rwd argument as in my eyes there is no notable difference.

Oh absolutely.

I guess that for me, locked away in this mire of st they call 'life', the prospect of steering a car on the throttle on the way to Sainsburys is sometimes the only thing that keeps me going. Whereas, understeering into an innocent pedestrian or five as the they stand waiting for the bus, would be rather less desirable.

Where did I suggest any of the above mr sandy vagina. Im not saying that there is anything wrong with having An M5 as a daily driver but would I notice any difference on my almighty diesel focus if it was rwd, the cars in your garage are not im my opinion your average everyday type cars.

[RobM77]

Great Pretender said:

Ten Ninety said:

RobM77 said:

The only people I've ever met that think RWD is over-hyped simply aren't very experienced or capable drivers. Equally, the same can be said of people that think RWD is all about power oversteer, or that a 316i is crap and a 330 is great, just because of the difference in engine size - utter twaddle. This is all a little like me saying that a particular style of golf club is "all hype" or "all about the swing", when in fact I'm just crap at golf The difference is that I don't go onto golf forums and start trying to tell people they're wrong...

I'm inclined to agree with that first point. I think RWD is over-hyped, and I don't consider myself to be a particularly capable driver even after 20-something years. However, I disagree entirely with your second assertion that my lack of ability invalidates my opinion. In fact, I would suggest that the reverse is actually true: Your standing as a knowledgeable, capable, serious driver with a wealth of road and track experience places you in a tiny minority compared to most of us on the road. Such a minority in fact, that I would respectfully suggest your opinion actually has little relevance to us mere mortal drivers, as you are able to benefit from a whole myriad of things like 'balance' and 'steering feel' that remain mythically elusive to most of us.

Of course you, as an individual, are not at fault. You're not over-hyping anything - you're just stating your opinion based on your experience. However, when the motoring media circus starts up on this issue it's a different matter. Writers at the 'enthusiast' end of the market also tend to be experienced, capable drivers, many of whom have track or racing pedigree. So they tell us wonderful tales about the joys of RWD without ever realising that their audience is rather less skilled - many of us have no hope of accessing or appreciating many of the subtleties that they can detect, or indeed of even reaching the sort of limits where the location of a car's driven wheels becomes apparent to the driver. And that's before we even get on to the idea which so many of these journos propound that deliberately hanging the back end out on every corner is somehow cool, manly and desirable, when in reality for those of us with limited ability it's just plain scary and dangerous.

RWD being over-hyped is not about whether it's actually 'better' than the alternatives - it's about it being held up as some kind of singular holy grail of driving enjoyment. Yes, it may well be of critical importance to that minority of highly-capable drivers but for most people I genuinely believe there are other, more significant attributes which will determine whether they enjoy driving a car long before they get to worry about which end is being driven.

By God Jim - he's right!

I agree too. What I really should have said, and what Ten-Ninety hits squarely on the head, is that people should be saying "I feel that RWD is over-hyped for drivers like me on roads like I use, and that's my opinion for my own personal situation", just as in my analogy I would claim, specifically, that the super-dooper golf club was over-hyped for beginners who can't play very well like me on a driving range. What grates me is when people stomp onto PH and say, in a manner of speaking, "for the way I drive around Croydon town centre at 15mph with my 10 years of experience on such roads plus a few trackdays, RWD is pointless; therefore for all you people who live in the Highlands of Scotland and drive sports cars at 50mph everywhere and race Radicals at the weekends, RWD is also pointless".

The truth is that RWD is most definitely not over-hyped. RWD and FWD (and 4WD!) produce totally different driving experiences, but these are only really realised fully at a reasonable speed (not the limit, just something above 30mph on a twisty road), with a driver onboard who cares.

This isn't a new argument, people have been saying for years that sex is over-rated, but usually these people have just had crap sex. Equally, people say that French wine is over-rated, but these people have usually just drunk cheap stuff. It's a classic mis-understanding born out of ignorance, lack of experience and lack of understanding. I'm not claiming superior knowledge or experience in any of these areas, but I do know enough from my little insignificant corner of the world to recognise what's going on with these sorts of threads.

[RobM77]

jeebus said:

Great Pretender said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender no offence taken maybe I should of been more clear on my post, I was refering to your everyday runaround type car, dont get me wrong if you want a real purist type drivers car then rwd is the way to go as far as weight distribution and power delivery to the driven wheels etc. But for your everyday workhorse then there is no fwd vs rwd argument as in my eyes there is no notable difference.

Oh absolutely.

I guess that for me, locked away in this mire of st they call 'life', the prospect of steering a car on the throttle on the way to Sainsburys is sometimes the only thing that keeps me going. Whereas, understeering into an innocent pedestrian or five as the they stand waiting for the bus, would be rather less desirable.

Where did I suggest any of the above mr sandy vagina. Im not saying that there is anything wrong with having An M5 as a daily driver but would I notice any difference on my almighty diesel focus if it was rwd, the cars in your garage are not im my opinion your average everyday type cars.

I'm not sure I agree with that. My 320d is a slow, comfortable and practical everyday car, but I adore the fact that it's got a balanced RWD chassis. I couldn't bear to own something like an Octavia, Passat or A4, the other cars I've driven of that size and type. They're decent cars, but personally I can't bear the way they handle. yuk. Yes, I have driven an RS4 and an Octavia VRS and they were good, but that's a different sort of thing and if I wanted that sort of car I'd buy an M3 - I happen to want 50mpg and comfy suspension, but I still want balanced handling and RWD.

[RobM77]

physprof said:

jeebus said:

The only thing I think about when driving a rwd car is to be carefull in the wet or you could end up backwards in a hedge.

Oh FFS!

Possibly, if you drive around like a brain dead de-sensitised plank with your foot pressing the accelerator to the floor.

The majority of people here advocating RWD are IMHO suggesting that in RWD you learn that the accelerator pedal is not an ON/OFF pedal; but instead differing degrees of applicaiton allied to vehicle and environment will ellicit a wide range of performance and access 200+ bhp more productively than a FWD can.

I've never understood this one. In about 95% of situations, if you floor it in a RWD car you'll just get understeer. To achieve oversteer in a RWD car you either need a vast amount of power, or a combination of a greasy road, an initial flick of the steering, and a well timed jab of the throttle, or nackered suspension! Drive a typical 330ci or C320 on a dry road and you'll only get oversteer through weight transfer, just like with a similarly sporty FWD car. RWD is actually about control and balance, not oversteer.

[saaby93]

RobM77 said:

but I still want balanced handling and RWD.

How much of that balance is due to weight distribution?
With a RWD you have the weight of the diff and shafts shifted to the rear. If they plant the front wheels right at the corners the engine can be tucked between driver and passenger to give near 50/50 weight balance.
With FWD there's even a chance the engine is forward of the front wheels

[thinfourth2]

RobM77 said:

Great Pretender said:

thinfourth2 said:

RobM77 said:

No. Setup is something completely different. I've raced neutrally setup FWD and RWD cars and which wheels are driven is a defining factor in how a car drives, and is separate from setup, what engine it's got and other things mentioned here.

Okay

Two cars one RWD and one FWD

The FWD have been properly set-up corner weighted and all the geo set-up exactly the way you want.

The RWD one has 4 springs found in a skip, 2 working shock absorbers, a steering rack from a yugo, 4 different sized wheels all of which point in slightly different directions.

Which one will be better to drive

The RWD car?

Edited by Great Pretender on Monday 3rd January 11:42

that's such a daft argument! There are many factors that go into whether a car is good to drive or not, but they don't all melt down in a pot and produce a result that says "good" or "bad", thus removing your preferences for one or other of those initial facets.

I prefer RWD to FWD, and I also prefer small cars, lightweight cars, short wheelbase cars and normally aspirated engines. However, just because I'd therefore rather own a 106 GTi than a Cadillac does not remove the fact that I prefer RWD. The truth is that, good as the 106 GTi is, the Elise, Boxster, MR2 and MX5 all exist, so I'd rather have one of those!

Look at it this way - you offer someone who doesn't like milk in his coffee a cappuchino or liquified dog poo, and he takes the cappuchino, you cannot then conclude from that that he really doesn't mind milk in his coffee, and was just confused

Its a wonderfully daft argument But it gets the point across

RWD on its own does not make a decent car.

And neither does being light and RWD as a Reliant Robin is light and RWD.

[marcosgt]

As usual, all the RWD examples are sporty and the comment 'Most FWD cars' appears a lot.

Obviously MOST FWD cars are set up cautiously, they're shopping trolleys and family saloons, not fire breathing TVRs and Cossies!

You can easily reverse the equation by inserting "Vauxhall Omega" or "Mercedes E220D" in place of "most FWD cars".

You CAN engineer around FWD's flaws meaning that the "All RWD > All FWD" credo is false.

What IS true is that RWD is potentially better balanced, but it doesn't follow that anything with RWD is any good or better than even fairly ordinary FWD cars.

RWD IS over hyped, on PH at least!

M

Edited by marcosgt on Monday 3rd January 12:37

[Ozzie Osmond]

This thread really is a classic for bringing out the old "I'm a driving god" PH nonsense!

[CDP]

thinfourth2 said:

RobM77 said:

Great Pretender said:

thinfourth2 said:

RobM77 said:

No. Setup is something completely different. I've raced neutrally setup FWD and RWD cars and which wheels are driven is a defining factor in how a car drives, and is separate from setup, what engine it's got and other things mentioned here.

Okay

Two cars one RWD and one FWD

The FWD have been properly set-up corner weighted and all the geo set-up exactly the way you want.

The RWD one has 4 springs found in a skip, 2 working shock absorbers, a steering rack from a yugo, 4 different sized wheels all of which point in slightly different directions.

Which one will be better to drive

The RWD car?

Edited by Great Pretender on Monday 3rd January 11:42

that's such a daft argument! There are many factors that go into whether a car is good to drive or not, but they don't all melt down in a pot and produce a result that says "good" or "bad", thus removing your preferences for one or other of those initial facets.

I prefer RWD to FWD, and I also prefer small cars, lightweight cars, short wheelbase cars and normally aspirated engines. However, just because I'd therefore rather own a 106 GTi than a Cadillac does not remove the fact that I prefer RWD. The truth is that, good as the 106 GTi is, the Elise, Boxster, MR2 and MX5 all exist, so I'd rather have one of those!

Look at it this way - you offer someone who doesn't like milk in his coffee a cappuchino or liquified dog poo, and he takes the cappuchino, you cannot then conclude from that that he really doesn't mind milk in his coffee, and was just confused

Its a wonderfully daft argument But it gets the point across

RWD on its own does not make a decent car.

And neither does being light and RWD as a Reliant Robin is light and RWD.

I'm sure a few mates trying to set a time up Prescott would have fun with a Reliant.

[marcosgt]

doogz said:

RobM77 said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender no offence taken maybe I should of been more clear on my post, I was refering to your everyday runaround type car, dont get me wrong if you want a real purist type drivers car then rwd is the way to go as far as weight distribution and power delivery to the driven wheels etc. But for your everyday workhorse then there is no fwd vs rwd argument as in my eyes there is no notable difference.

Oh absolutely.

I guess that for me, locked away in this mire of st they call 'life', the prospect of steering a car on the throttle on the way to Sainsburys is sometimes the only thing that keeps me going. Whereas, understeering into an innocent pedestrian or five as the they stand waiting for the bus, would be rather less desirable.

Where did I suggest any of the above mr sandy vagina. Im not saying that there is anything wrong with having An M5 as a daily driver but would I notice any difference on my almighty diesel focus if it was rwd, the cars in your garage are not im my opinion your average everyday type cars.

I'm not sure I agree with that. My 320d is a slow, comfortable and practical everyday car, but I adore the fact that it's got a balanced RWD chassis. I couldn't bear to own something like an Octavia, Passat or A4, the other cars I've driven of that size and type. They're decent cars, but personally I can't bear the way they handle. yuk. Yes, I have driven an RS4 and an Octavia VRS and they were good, but that's a different sort of thing and if I wanted that sort of car I'd buy an M3 - I happen to want 50mpg and comfy suspension, but I still want balanced handling and RWD.

How often do you actually exploit the handling benefits that RWD offers over FWD in your diesel repmobile though?

I usually rate your opinion, but you sound a bit snobby on this particular topic. Maybe I'm just prejudiced and can't afford a 320d though.

I've not driven 3-series enough to answer that question, but you can appreciate the balance of a RWD car every day.

Maybe an RX8 is too esoteric for your case, but it's my every day car and, if you ignore the fuel consumption, is far from an expensive car (not that a used 320d is exactly bank breaking stuff...).

I do appreciate it's balance and handling every time I drive it, but RWD is STILL over hyped

M

[zakelwe]

This is sort of like whisky or brandy? When the answer is actually both. Just for variety and general hooning about.

Andy

[jeebus]

RobM77 said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender said:

jeebus said:

Great Pretender no offence taken maybe I should of been more clear on my post, I was refering to your everyday runaround type car, dont get me wrong if you want a real purist type drivers car then rwd is the way to go as far as weight distribution and power delivery to the driven wheels etc. But for your everyday workhorse then there is no fwd vs rwd argument as in my eyes there is no notable difference.

Oh absolutely.

I guess that for me, locked away in this mire of st they call 'life', the prospect of steering a car on the throttle on the way to Sainsburys is sometimes the only thing that keeps me going. Whereas, understeering into an innocent pedestrian or five as the they stand waiting for the bus, would be rather less desirable.

Where did I suggest any of the above mr sandy vagina. Im not saying that there is anything wrong with having An M5 as a daily driver but would I notice any difference on my almighty diesel focus if it was rwd, the cars in your garage are not im my opinion your average everyday type cars.

I'm not sure I agree with that. My 320d is a slow, comfortable and practical everyday car, but I adore the fact that it's got a balanced RWD chassis. I couldn't bear to own something like an Octavia, Passat or A4, the other cars I've driven of that size and type. They're decent cars, but personally I can't bear the way they handle. yuk. Yes, I have driven an RS4 and an Octavia VRS and they were good, but that's a different sort of thing and if I wanted that sort of car I'd buy an M3 - I happen to want 50mpg and comfy suspension, but I still want balanced handling and RWD.

Rob you are one of the small minority of drivers that would be able to exploit the benefits of a very well balanced and setup car, your posts are always well informed and made up of actual facts, but if I dove an audi A4 and a 320d I couldnt honestly tell you if one felt more balanced than the other. As much as I love cars I am no racing driver so for me a 320d would offer no more of a driving experience than my focus in day to day driving. But you on the otherhand know what to look for and how a car should behave and will feel on the road which will infulence your descision on a daily driver. The things about a cars handling that will be immediately apparent to you are the things that I most probably wouldn't even notice.

Edited by jeebus on Monday 3rd January 12:58

[Smike]

hotmelt said:

MC Bodge said:

remember this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o

Ford had much bigger tyre size than Bmw in this test.

Could you qualify what tyre sizes you believe the Mondeo and BMW used in the video were on?

[cerb4.5lee]

Its all about steering feel for me,i just think rwd cars leave the steering to do its job,rather than couple drive & steering together.
There have been some great fwd cars..integra,clio trophy,accord type r etc.
But i still prefer rwd & cant see why its over hyped?
Surely rwd would be a drivers choice,i appreciate that poor conditions its easier in fwd & 4wd.
Just think oversteer is more fun than understeer.
As i have said in an earlier post fwd most be everyones favourite cos thats mainly whats on the roads.

[hotmelt]

Smike said:

hotmelt said:

MC Bodge said:

remember this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtwUarhw4o

Ford had much bigger tyre size than Bmw in this test.

Could you qualify what tyre sizes you believe the Mondeo and BMW used in the video were on?

I remember watching it, and noticed bigger wheels on Mondeo than. I knew that it was the biggest optional size of Mondeo than. I am not Bmw fan but that 3-series handled beautifully that corners(light engine 318i helps too).

[Hasbeen]

If front wheel drive was the quickest form of automotive design, F1, & competition sports cars would be so configured. As they are not I think it follows that RWD is the quickest layout.

For normal road work I can't find much to recommend one over the other. It is probably true that it takes a better driver, with considerable RWD experience to approach the limit of the RWD car, & that such is less required for FWD cars.

It's when the roads are wet & slippery, particularly with any standing water on them that the RWD thing comes into it's own, provided it doesn't have silly amounts of power.

I can't imagine why, but the FWD car always seem to aquaplane & slide around in the front much more in these conditions, even good ones. They are even worse on very wet gravel roads. The real clincher for me is, what car you would choose to drive in these conditions.

With 14 inches of rain here in December, our roads were often more than damp, with quite a bit of standing water. As I could not do anything useful around the place, I was inventing reasons to go to town, to relieve the boredom. Every time I found myself reaching for my Triumph TR7. With it's compliant suspension, & about 107 BHP at the wheels, it can be thrown around in these conditions, "in gay abandon", with no fear of it biting you.

The same trip, in a FWD, or a powerful RWD, in these conditions, would have been just a chore, but the little old 7 always put a smile on my face.

[Herman Toothrot]

All this talk of "do you exploit rwd" etc, it doesn't matter as far as i'm concerned, i'm just of the opinion good rwd cars just feel nicer to drive than equivalent nice front drive cars.

I can't understand how people can say they don't notice this, or at least notice a difference?

In every fwd car I have ever driven at peak power you can feel the feedback coming through the wheel of the torque, of the front wheels trying to grip, if your in a bend the feel that they don't necessarily want to be pulling the way your steering. Rear wheel drive you only feel the steering forces coming through the wheel not the drive forces, you tend to feel that through the seat. Some people may not like this and want to feel the drive of the wheels scrabbling through the steering wheel - absolutely fair enough if that the case. I just can't understand how the difference can apparently not be noticed by some people.