If rear-wheel is so good...
 

then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
to me.

In article >,
wrote:

> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
> to me.

Key words: "to you".

I can and have driven FWD, RWD, 4WD and AWD (6-wheeled "doodlebug"
amphibious) vehicles.

By far, I prefer the RWDs as daily drivers. Character flaw? Lack of any
discernment? Simple personal preference? <shrug> Who cares. That's the
way it is as far as Don is concerned.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

> wrote in message
om...
> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined,
> rear-wheeled
> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to
> control
> to me.

I used to think so as well. I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
and in winter, it was baaaad. It was amazing over dry pavement:
it cornered better than my FWD car, but that one was a POS so I
do not know if it was the car, or the RWD. However, it is winter
6 months a year and because of it, I swear never ever get another
RWD. I now have an acura, which is a FWD car and I am very
pleased with it.

However, since my RWD experience, improvements such as traction
control from Porshe, Chrysler (300) and Mercedes have impressed
me to the point that I may now consider a RWD car next time
around. I will need to test drive it over ice and snow. I will
keep my acura for at least 10 years (its a 2004), so I suspect
that even better technologies will make RWD cars a serious
contender for my check book! Hum... a Porshe!


Cheers

wrote in article
>. ..
> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
> to me.
>

Let's see.

In a FWD, you've got.....

100 percent of your acceleration inputs.....

100 percent of your deceleration inputs....

100 percent of your steering inputs, and....

90 percent of your braking inputs on two tire patches.....

....and you're saying that RWD is *less* stable?!?!

Because of all the forces trying to break the road grip at the front
wheels, FWD is notorious for its inherent understeering characteristics,
and the ONLY way to counter this is to purposely make the rear suspension
unstable to "balance" the front.

Have you ever noticed racing FWD cars usually pick up the inner rear wheel
in turns doing an imitation of a male dog ata fire hydrant?

Now, tell me that you honestly believe that a car cornering on three wheels
has a better grip on the road than a car cornering with all four wheels in
contact with the road surface.

All production cars - with rare exception - *were* RWD at one time.

But it was found that building econoboxes in a FWD configuration with
transversely-mounted engines offered two advantages....

.....gave more leg room in a smaller car, and...

.....were cheaper and easier to produce with the pre-assembled powertrain
unit bolting up to the chassis with a few bolts.

Unfortunately, it also made the building of full-sized cars cheaper, so it
was incorporated.

You will notice, however, that Chrysler - a pioneer in things such as
hydraulic brakes and electronic ignition - is bucking the FWD trend, and
slowly moving back toward RWD with cars such as the Magnum and this year's
"300".

Next, you're gonna' ask the rhetorical question as to why the McPherson
strut isn't used in Formula-One cars due to its excellent suspension
geometry, despite the fact that it was originally designed to fit in a
compact space with true handling considerations being secondary.

Stop watching/reading the car advertising B.S. that tries to make a silk
purse from a sow's ear.

Manufacturers make and sell FWD because it is better for THEM.....not
necessarily better for the buyer....that's their job.

Their advertisers try to make it all appear as "benefits" for you....that's
their job.

It is up to the car consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff....that's
YOUR job.

--
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Race Car Chassis Analysis & Setup Services
Chassis Blueprinting Services (as in engine blueprinting)

Bob Paulin wrote:
> wrote in article
> >. ..
>
>>then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
>>cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
>>to me.
>>
>
>
> Let's see.
>
> In a FWD, you've got.....
>
> 100 percent of your acceleration inputs.....
>
> 100 percent of your deceleration inputs....
>
> 100 percent of your steering inputs, and....
>
> 90 percent of your braking inputs on two tire patches.....
>
> ...and you're saying that RWD is *less* stable?!?!
>

Bob, I can think of one racing arena where FWD might actually be better.
Land Speed Racing.

(btw, FWD sucks. I own a Trans Am, race a dirt Track Camaro and drive
my truck in 2wd in 99% of the winter time, which is 6 months of snow
around here.)

Most of the weight over the drive wheels = good for LSR.
Most of the weight over the steering wheels = good for LSR.
Moving the CG in front of the CP = good for LSR.
Would also allow for a teardrop shape - the shape of the car could be
teardrop/tapered and the rear tires on "outriggers" for stability.

btw, one day I do plan on going to Bonneville to compete - and my "idea"
is different enough that I'll either kick butt or crash... it'll
probably be my first FWD car...

Ray

In article >, wrote:
> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
> cars?

Rear engined is a preference, I would prefer a mid-engined or front
engined car for better weight balance. Of course that doesn't mean
well-balanced rear-engined cars don't exist, just in general I prefer
the car's weight to be well distributed.

> I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
> to me.

That's your problem. By stable I assume you mean the degree of screw-up
that is tolerated. Sure, RWD is easier to upset, but it's also easier to
recover. It's called having more control over the vehicle. With FWD do
something that upsets it, and you're probably SOL while most RWD's would
be recoverable.

I prefer the added control and ability to recover with RWD, which comes
at the cost of it being easier to screw up in certain conditions. It's the
same reason I prefer a manual trans *with* a clutch.

In article ble.rogers.com>,
Frank > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
. com...
>> then why not make all cars in production rear-engined,
>> rear-wheeled
>> cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to
>> control
>> to me.
>
>I used to think so as well. I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
>and in winter, it was baaaad. It was amazing over dry pavement:
>it cornered better than my FWD car, but that one was a POS so I
>do not know if it was the car, or the RWD. However, it is winter
>6 months a year and because of it, I swear never ever get another
>RWD. I now have an acura, which is a FWD car and I am very
>pleased with it.
>
I prefer RWD cars for precisely the reason that you dislike them.
I actually apreciate the odd handling characteristics of RWD. The
reason is actually simple: While the FWD car has an absolute advantage,
the RWD car will give a warning, so you can back off before hitting
the ragged edge of the envelope. The FWD car will feel rock solid; until,
you pushed it too far and lost it.

I practice skid recovery whenever conditions allow me to throw my car out
of control, so YMMV.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:46:39 GMT, "Frank" > wrote:

|| I had a RWD 200 SX Turbo with "posi"
||and in winter, it was baaaad.

A small RWD car with a turbo and a limited slip in a non-independent rear axle
is the perfect recipe for disaster on slick roads.
Texas Parts Guy

On 4 Sep 2004 13:05:15 -0700, wrote:

||then why not make all cars in production rear-engined, rear-wheeled
||cars? I hate RWD. It's slightly less stable and less easy to control
||to me.

In normal street driving, the forward weight of a FWD car makes the car feel
more stable. And for most street driving FWS or RWD makes no difference, other
than the particular feel and handling characteristics designed into that
particular car. There are plenty of well-engineering FWD cars that you would
swear were convention RWD chassis. I've driven more than a few cars where I
honestly did not know which end was doing the propulsion until I got out and
raised the hood.
A FWD car has some advantages in snow and poor traction conditions because
more of the weight is over the driving wheels.

Bob Paulin's response was correct in the context he is accustomed to, which
applies to a small percentage of actual use. It is correct that in a FWD car,
those front wheels have a finite amount of grip to be used for turning and
braking, and accelerating. If you have to do any two of those at the same time,
your X amount of traction must be divided among them. This comes into play, for
example, when you top a rise at freeway speeds and find yourself confronted by a
traffic jam. You are suddenly braking hard and turning to avoid. A FWD car
will have a little more tendency to understeer as the tires are asked to do too
much at once. ABS may save your bacon, but a RWD car has a better chance of
avoidance.
Someone once wrote that in a racing environment, a RWD car has a higher
theoretical cornering limit, but that limit requires more skill to achieve. A
FWD car can be driven closer to it's (admittedly lower) limits more quickly. In
my experience having driven a variety of cars of both types in autocross and
road racing, I have found that I can jump into a FWD car that is unfamiliar to
me, and drive it competitively with little practice. A RWD car requires a
longer time to learn those limits.
Again, in normal driving the differences are theoretical. It's only at the
extremes that physics is an issue.
Texas Parts Guy