Proportionally, what drive axle safest?
Discussion
A lot of you are overlooking the fact that outside of PH-land, comparatively few people drive hard enough to ever just lose control all on their own. Accidents are caused by observational errors, lack of concentration etc etc. On that basis the way the drive layout effects the number of accidents probably has less to do with the 'handling' of the car and more to do with the strength of the passenger cell, the chance of intrusion of wheels/engines/gearboxes into the footwells, the active safety mechanisms installed etc.
Can't we just read this thread again and save a lot of time?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=128...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=128...
HustleRussell said:
A lot of you are overlooking the fact that outside of PH-land, comparatively few people drive hard enough to ever just lose control all on their own. Accidents are caused by observational errors, lack of concentration etc etc. On that basis the way the drive layout effects the number of accidents probably has less to do with the 'handling' of the car and more to do with the strength of the passenger cell, the chance of intrusion of wheels/engines/gearboxes into the footwells, the active safety mechanisms installed etc.
I was about to say that it's the one with the experienced driver in the seat. A test on Top Gear (I think) put a number of drivers in various cars (FWD and RWD plus AWD) on a dry track and a wet track, and finally on a skid pan. Few could tell from driving the cars which end was driving. As you say, not many accidents would have any different outcome whatever powertrain layout they have. It's the nut that holds the steering wheel that matters!aka_kerrly said:
I guess the old saying that with RWD you go backwards into the object you are about to hit and with FWD you go forwards into the object - I'd guess that most cars are designed with frontal crash zone bias as the majority of statutory tests involve crashing the car forwards.
I'd agree with thatmotco said:
I was about to say that it's the one with the experienced driver in the seat. A test on Top Gear (I think) put a number of drivers in various cars (FWD and RWD plus AWD) on a dry track and a wet track, and finally on a skid pan. Few could tell from driving the cars which end was driving. As you say, not many accidents would have any different outcome whatever powertrain layout they have. It's the nut that holds the steering wheel that matters!
Yup! Take the driver out of the equation and the factors determining safety are basically the passive and active safety performance of the car... and on that basis, modern cars are safest and most modern cars are FWD so there's your answer. HustleRussell said:
A lot of you are overlooking the fact that outside of PH-land, comparatively few people drive hard enough to ever just lose control all on their own. Accidents are caused by observational errors, lack of concentration etc etc. On that basis the way the drive layout effects the number of accidents probably has less to do with the 'handling' of the car and more to do with the strength of the passenger cell, the chance of intrusion of wheels/engines/gearboxes into the footwells, the active safety mechanisms installed etc.
All true on dry tarmac, add standing water or ice, and you have the crash front first or sideways 
Understeer is considered a "safe" characteristic - the tendency for a car to plough on in a straight line. FWD cars have a natural tendency to understeer.
Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Understeer is considered a "safe" characteristic - the tendency for a car to plough on in a straight line. FWD cars have a natural tendency to understeer.
Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
Peugeot 306XSi lift-off oversteer is legendary!Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
The handling of a FWD car is fundamentally simpler because as the throttle transitions from closed to open, the car simply transitions from oversteer to understeer. A RWD car goes over > under > over as the throttle position changes. Whether that makes a FWD car safer is a harder question to answer.
I think the safest layout is whatever you're used to driving.
If you want to know the statistical likelihood of a crash; look at the insurance prices for two otherwise similar cars. How does insuring, say, a mid-range A3 compare to a mid-range 1-series in terms of insurance? I doubt there's much in it.
I think the safest layout is whatever you're used to driving.
If you want to know the statistical likelihood of a crash; look at the insurance prices for two otherwise similar cars. How does insuring, say, a mid-range A3 compare to a mid-range 1-series in terms of insurance? I doubt there's much in it.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 4th January 16:58
Ozzie Osmond said:
Understeer is considered a "safe" characteristic - the tendency for a car to plough on in a straight line. FWD cars have a natural tendency to understeer.
Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
I've never understood this. Removing the driver's ability to correct a mistake by tightening their line & forcing them to understeer off into a crash is safer - in who's world?Oversteer is considered undesirable - the tendency for the back to try to overtake the front! It's difficult to get a modern FWD car to oversteer. But these days active stability control does a fair job of reining it in on RWD cars.
It's irrelevant unfortunately.
People crash because they aren't paying attention with poor observation. When push comes to shove, and finally to crunch, the end of the car which is driven is little to no importance in a modern car, where any non linear or extreme handling trates are so engineered out (and backed up by electronic stability control) as to be invisible to the average driver.
People crash because they aren't paying attention with poor observation. When push comes to shove, and finally to crunch, the end of the car which is driven is little to no importance in a modern car, where any non linear or extreme handling trates are so engineered out (and backed up by electronic stability control) as to be invisible to the average driver.
Max_Torque said:
It's irrelevant unfortunately.
People crash because they aren't paying attention with poor observation. When push comes to shove, and finally to crunch, the end of the car which is driven is little to no importance in a modern car, where any non linear or extreme handling trates are so engineered out (and backed up by electronic stability control) as to be invisible to the average driver.
So where would you rather the big heavy strong thing is when you crash?People crash because they aren't paying attention with poor observation. When push comes to shove, and finally to crunch, the end of the car which is driven is little to no importance in a modern car, where any non linear or extreme handling trates are so engineered out (and backed up by electronic stability control) as to be invisible to the average driver.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff