mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

FWD vs RWD

To: mgs@Autox.Team.Net
Subject: FWD vs RWD
From: Keith Wheeler <keithw@sand.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 22:00:41 PDT
Rick Morrison wrote:

>...
> As for me, IMHO FWD are for the grocery getters. RWD is for people who
>like to drive cars.

Well, I've heard it said that those who drive FWD don't drive cars,
they drive appliances.  Personally the only FWD that'll end up in
my stable would be a Mini or an MG 1300.  (And that's pretty picky
from a guy with a Renault R-10!)

Here's the why behind the "real race cars" thing.  Under acceleration
there is weight transfer to the rear tyres.  That weight transfer means
more grip.  "Floor it" in a FWD and the driven wheels get light and spin.
Accelerate hard in a RWD car and you get more grip.  What's fun is to
be loose in a corner (some oversteer) and be able to come out of it
by accelerating.  In some circumstances the rear weight transfer gives
you just enough grip to straighten the car out.  Of course it's also
possible to end up with power induced terminal oversteer.  That's fun
too, but expensive on the tyres.

Terminal oversteer leads us to another topic, front vs mid engined.  
Mid engined cars can be unbelievable!  It's amazing what the Team's
little stock FIAT X1/9 can do on an autocross course.  But, if it goes,
it goes.  I think one of (please note I am saying "one of" not "the") the
most exciting things my wife did on our honeymoon was get to ride
shotgun when the Team's famous Lori "Loudpedal" lost it in the X1/9.
The higher polar moment of inertia of front engined cars makes them less
likely to go "surprise!"

Of course front engine, front wheel drive, with understeer that makes
the car gods ashamed...well, those things are built for people who can't
drive.

(Standard disclaimers apply, some folks have had a great time with
FWD, rally cars, I don't mean to sound mean, yada yada yada etc)

-Keith Wheeler
Team Sanctuary                          http://www.teamsanctuary.com/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>