Intelegent Drivetrain Debate

[DJPimpFlex]

OK so my friend is in love with front wheel drive (hold your chuckles). He is by far one of my most hard core friends, but we fight about FF VS. FR all the time. We have a lot of points, but I was looking for more.

Overall this is how I feel about FR as a correct layout:

The tires dutys should be split between the front and rear tires. The front wheels turn the car and the rear wheels propell the car. By combining the dutys all into the front tires (IE propelling and turning) you are not using traction in the rear and over using of the front tires, downing the overall lateral grip of the car.

At corner entry with all the weight transfered to the front wheels, a front wheel drive car tends to understeer more because its trying to turn, brake, and keep the car moving forward all at the same time. RWD cars dont have as much of a problem because they can propell the car with the rear wheels and use some of the rear tires avaliable traction.

At corner exit the weight transfers back to the rear wheels so there is more traction on the wheels that are pusing the car forward, letting the car put down more power (FF is oppsit obviously)

With all this work being put onto the front tires by the FF layout, they ware out faster than the rears. RWD cars with the split dutys in tire dutys, the tires ware more evenly (NOT DRIFTING Duh....)

Why he thinks FF is better:
Mid corner control. When you get off the throttle during the corner the weight transfers to the front and gives you more traction giving you more traction in the front and less in the rear = oversteer, get back on the throttle, tranfering weight to the rear, off the front and giving you understeer. RWD is the exact opposite.

overall control. Understeer in a FWD car is extremely to control. More throtte=more understeer, remove throttle=less understeer.

Being easy to control. If you can control the car easily, you can drive faster.

The weight resides on the drive wheels so you have more traction on the drive wheels.

Less weight, no drive shaft and tranny the size of a basketball.



Once again this is INTELLIGENT DEBATE not FF suxors.

[undesiredshoe]

Well, about the weight thing. Yea there are lightweight FF cars like the crx and so on. But consider the Integra, 2600 lbs. 240sx's weigh that much even with a 2.4L engine, bigger tranny and driveshaft. The crx might be light but theres always a competitor, the miata!

Just because its FF doesnt automatically mean its light

Plus, FR cars tend to have better weight distribution aiding in overall balance

[g6civcx]

I can tell this is going to be bad already. It doesn't really matter what you have. Ultimately it's the cheaper and more reliable car that wins because you can afford to get more experience on the track.

1. FWD cars can have really good steering response. This is because the throttle can be used to modulate front wheel grip as necessary.

2. FWD cars can be really stable under oversteer conditions because as long as the frong wheels are turning, it doesn't matter what the rear wheels are doing. Therefore FWD cars can actually have really deep slip angles while still maintaining control, whereas RWD cars have to find traction between front and rear to correct the oversteer.

3. FWD cars are easier to remove weight since there are less parts.

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

[OptionZero]

If you have a billion dollar budget to make a fast car, how many engineering teams choose front-wheel drive?

Zero.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Front wheel drives cannot practically handle that much power, at least not if you want any semblance of control on the track. Any 500-hp road racing FWD cars out there worth talking about?

[d*star180]

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

[reflexdb]

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

Thank you! That made my day. Anyways, for road racing, RWD is better due to the overall physics of a race car. During acceleration, weight transfers to the rear tires, so there is more weight over the driven wheels. Same principle in reverse for braking, weight transfers to the front tires. That is why cars need more stopping power (aka larger brakes) on the front wheels.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Exactly!

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

What proof do you have of this?? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are talking about launching, where pulling a car from a stop is a little bit easier than pushing a car from a stop. But we're talking about road racing. Not too much launching there.

As for FWD and controlable understeer, well, RWD controls oversteer pretty easily too, as long as the car doesn't snap oversteer. More throttle, more oversteer. Easy as that.

[aznpoopy]

Originally Posted by reflexdb

What proof do you have of this?? Doesn't make any sense to me, unless you are talking about launching, where pulling a car from a stop is a little bit easier than pushing a car from a stop. But we're talking about road racing. Not too much launching there.

he doesn't need any proof. fwd cars tend to understeer. understeer translates into stability in rain, snow and dirt.

more throttle more oversteer depends on the fr car and what's going on when you slam on the throttle. it's hardly a universal rule. or else there'd be no such thing as throttle lift oversteer.

as for the debate overall, FR is superior hands down for normal driving and road racing. if you're driving on ice or dirt, FF might be more advantageous. but at our amateur level, it really doesn't matter. just drive whatever you like. i would like to learn both.

[DJPimpFlex]

Originally Posted by d*star180

In a bit of irony...YOU MISPELLED INTELLIGENT.

lol..pwoned myself...anyway the message is still there.

Originally Posted by g6civcx

4. FWD traditionally have better grip than RWD cars on surfaces with low friction coefficients.

I dont know about them having more grip overall, but they are easier to control. You dont very often find any RWD rally cars, but you do see the FF cars tearing it up out there. I know AWD is king of rally ofcourse, but FF does get drive in the lower classes.

Originally Posted by undesiredshoe

Well, about the weight thing. Yea there are lightweight FF cars like the crx and so on. But consider the Integra, 2600 lbs. 240sx's weigh that much even with a 2.4L engine, bigger tranny and driveshaft. The crx might be light but theres always a competitor, the miata!

Just because its FF doesnt automatically mean its light

Plus, FR cars tend to have better weight distribution aiding in overall balance

Well all he was saying is that overall an FF car has less shit in it, so removin more weight tends to be easier, or at least there is less weight than if the exact same car was RWD.

Good shit guys....

[OptionZero]

So for ultimate speed, RWD>AWD>FWD

For practicality, user difficulty, and non-speed reasons, FWD may be superior in some areas.

[chrisstroud]

A lot of it has to do with car setup too.
I used to be really into older watercooled VWs (hell, I still am. I work around veedubs all day). None of that gay-ass 95+ VW stuff. Only old school.
A FWD with a big rear sway has no problem bringing the back end around to correct cornering angle in mid-turn. They just have lift throttle oversteer instead of power over.
The only real disadvantages of FF are weight distribution and problems putting down power.
Wheelspin is always a problem, and no matter what you do, weight transfers off the drivewheels. That is unless it's a drag only car and you can use absurd rear springrates and wheelie bars.
One benefit to FWD is that it's more compact, usually lighter, and usually come in smaller, lighter cars.
A FWD VW tranny weighs WAY less than an S-chassis trans, and being fwd eliminates all of the weight of a pumpkin, driveshaft, and relatred bracing.

Honestly, I've never really driven a fully prepped rwd track car, so I'm looking forward to doing everything I can to my s14, as the stock suspension doesn't do the chassis setup justice at all. But I have driven some very well prepped VW track cars, and they all handled pretty neutrally.
If anything, they leaned towards lift thottle oversteer more than understeer.

[kouki_s14]

my opinion, and i hope no one gets offended here.
FFs is just an easier overall car to drive. it understeers at its limit in a corner, which is somewhat easily corrected
FR cars are harder to push to the limit, in other words, you need more skill to be able to push these type of cars hard.

For example, if two cars were set up for track, one FWD and another RWD, same weight, same power, and as close as suspension mods can be for the two, a beginning driver could most likely go faster in the FWD
On the other hand give both cars to a more skilled moderate/pro driver, than the RWD would easily beat the FWD.

There are always exceptions because there are plenty of amazingly fast FF, but in the end there is a FR out there that can beat it.

My opinion, i may be wrong. ehh i have respect for both drivetrains, but i do believe FR is better.

[chmercer]

hm, since you wanted to have an INTELEGENT DEBATE,

fwd is shit and sucks dick

if you would however like to have an INTELLIGENT DEBATE, might want to make another thread

[McRussellPants]

Originally Posted by OptionZero

If you have a billion dollar budget to make a fast car, how many engineering teams choose front-wheel drive?

Zero.

Tires have X amount of grip. That grip can be divided among 3 tasks: acceleration, braking, and cornering. When the front tires are asked to handle all 3 tasks, there is less available for each one.

Front wheel drives cannot practically handle that much power, at least not if you want any semblance of control on the track. Any 500-hp road racing FWD cars out there worth talking about?

Good thing everyone ignored this, or else people wouldn't have been able to parrot things about FF vs FR handling... wait?

[driftyour40]

Seem that there is no answer, that it’s just opinion. If you are sure the rwd is better then it is, if you think fwd is better then it is no debate, no bullshit.

For me its rwd, because I’m more comfortable with that layout, it’s what I learned on. Just like I do not like ABS, not because I think it does not work, but because I prefer to control lock up on my own. I have driven both platforms, and I find fwd to be a great car for driving daily, I have noticed that the more power the more broken axels lol, but every platform has its limits. For me rwd is just more fun to drive, and you can do way cooler stupid shit in it.

If you are really so dead set on changing your friends opinion, lend him your car for a few weeks.

+1 for rwd though, when you do a phaty burnout you don’t eat the smoke, lol.

[g6civcx]

Keep in mind that in order to compare the different designs, you have to keep as many things as constant as possible. Comparing different cars that are set up differently is not a good way to do it because people don't understand vehicle dynamics.

To respond to the comments above:

* FWD have better traction in low friction surfaces because the engine sits on top of the front wheels, giving the front wheels more downforce and more traction. On these surfaces, the car doesn't hook enough to exhibit rearward weight transfer. True that on high grip surfaces that the weight will transfer to the rear and allow RWD cars to hook, but on ice/snow/rain slick surfaces, it's harder for RWD cars to hook the rear end. This leaves the rear wheels spinning helplessly until you can find rear traction.

* FWD is theoretically more reliable since it has fewer moving parts than the RWD car. This may not be true from manufacturer to manufacturer, but in theory less moving parts = more reliability.

* For the reason mentioned above, FWD cars can be made lighter.

* Race cars DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT understeer like street cars. Handling is a matter of taste, and all well-prepped race cars are very neutral, with slight over or understeer at the limit as tuned to the driver's preference. Driving a rusty 15 year old FWD car with blown suspension does not give you a good feel of what the design is capable of. Same for driving a rusty 15 year old S13.

* People who do not have a lot of experience with different types of designs and layout can develop very narrow ideas. You have to experience many different things to get a good feel for what works and what doesn't.

* If you see somebody who is passionate about one or the other, ask them what their background is with each. You can generally see why people stereotype the various designs.

RWD also has its advantages, but since the original poster requested specific FWD information I chose not to cover the RWD pros, especially since I know many people will chime in.

[OptionZero]

Originally Posted by driftyour40

Seem that there is no answer, that it’s just opinion. If you are sure the rwd is better then it is, if you think fwd is better then it is no debate, no bullshit.

For me its rwd, because I’m more comfortable with that layout, it’s what I learned on. Just like I do not like ABS, not because I think it does not work, but because I prefer to control lock up on my own. I have driven both platforms, and I find fwd to be a great car for driving daily, I have noticed that the more power the more broken axels lol, but every platform has its limits. For me rwd is just more fun to drive, and you can do way cooler stupid shit in it.

If you are really so dead set on changing your friends opinion, lend him your car for a few weeks.

+1 for rwd though, when you do a phaty burnout you don’t eat the smoke, lol.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

RWD v FWD is NOT a matter of opinion.

At the highest levels of racing (Formula One, JGTC, Euro series, Le Mans, etc), NO ONE uses FWD. That's empirical evidence.

When a car accelerates, weight goes backwards- an advantage to RWD in many cases. That's theoretical evidence.

Front tires have limited grip to perform acceleration and turning. That's fact.


In PRACTICE, at lower levels of skill and motorsport, FWD may be desirable due to cost, availablility of vehicles, or class restrictions, but when it coems to going fast (not money, or rules, or daily drivability), RWD wins in nearly every circumstance (exception: Rallying).

Saying it's just a matter of preference only reveals an ignorance of the debate itself. RWD is better, unless your PREFERENCE is to go slower than you can. If a fanboy said he likes the Integra Type R is better than a Lotus Elise or Corvette Z06 and therefore thinks that FWD is better, would he be correct? No, he'd be fodder for a slap upside the head.

Can you imagine Ferrari or Lotus or Porsche saying...hey, we need to make a fast car, we should use FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!

[McRussellPants]

Homogolation or cost is the only reason to use FWD.


Slow in Fast out > Fast in Slow out. every day of the week.

[NemeGuero]

Originally Posted by OptionZero

I'm sorry, I can't let that go.

RWD v FWD is NOT a matter of opinion.

At the highest levels of racing (Formula One, JGTC, Euro series, Le Mans, etc), NO ONE uses RWD. That's empirical evidence.

When a car accelerates, weight goes backwards- an advantage to RWD in many cases. That's theoretical evidence.

Front tires have limited grip to perform acceleration and turning. That's fact.


In PRACTICE, at lower levels of skill and motorsport, FWD may be desirable due to cost, availablility of vehicles, or class restrictions, but when it coems to going fast (not money, or rules, or daily drivability), RWD wins in nearly every circumstance (exception: Rallying).

Saying it's just a matter of preference only reveals an ignorance of the debate itself. RWD is better, unless your PREFERENCE is to go slower than you can. If a fanboy said he likes the Integra Type R is better than a Lotus Elise or Corvette Z06 and therefore thinks that FWD is better, would he be correct? No, he'd be fodder for a slap upside the head.

Can you imagine Ferrari or Lotus or Porsche saying...hey, we need to make a fast car, we should use FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!

WORD! well put.. but I think you meant FWD in that part I bolded

[sw20>>s14]

Originally Posted by OptionZero

So for ultimate speed, RWD>AWD>FWD

MR>FR>RR>AWD>FF

its way too broad of an argument to start comparing specific cars, but i would have to agree that FR is the superior setup compared to FF when it comes to road racing...its just the most logical layout when concerning weight transfer and physics...besides, as mentioned above, FF's main objectives are cost effectiveness and safety...but if you can be fast with the layout, more power to ya! there are a lot of FF layout cars that i highly respect and wouldnt mind driving...

[OptionZero]

Ah yes..RR.

In Theory, RR should be a horrible setup, more dangerous and uncontrollable than FWD. Without weight on the front, there's understeer as well, same problem as FWD.

In practice however, the only mainstream RR car is Porsche...and they've done RR so long that they've pretty much negated all the problems and a Carrera S and its variants can...well..kick ass.

MR is, ultimately, the best though.

[chmercer]

porsche is dumb lol

cayman turns faster laps on ring than carerra even though it has much less power, just because the engine isnt slanging around over the rear axles, but people keep buying carreras, ugh

oh yeah also awd is generally faster than rwd on tight tracks, but other than that, its just more drivetrain loss

FWD is good if you are poor, its bad for everything else

[OptionZero]

LINK to the Cayman S turning faster times than the Carrera S?

Cayman doesn't even have a diff.

edit:
found this.. http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/...e_cayman_s.asp

Says Cayman S beat the Boxster S, which makes sense, but lost to the 911. I highly doubt Porsche would make the Cayman S faster than the 911; they've gone to such lengths the Cayman S to be clearly inferior than the Carrera S.

EDIT x2:

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...sche_cayman_s/

This says the Cayman S beat the *BASE MODEL* Carrera, which is down on power, brakes, etc. I could believe that.


MR is technically superior than RR...I just think Porsche fucked up the Cayman by making it so expensive but flawed.

[Kn1ves]

Just ask him, what layout F1 cars are. Case dismissed.

[CKAMC]

Here's another thing to consider. How would an MR2 or rear mounted rear wheel drive cars handle and what are their characteristics?

....

Edit: just saw cayman postings......

Edit x2 : can someone shead some more light on MR VS RR? I am a bit rubish on the difference between the two and well, how they handle overall.

[NemeGuero]

In automobile design, an MR or mid-engine, Rear wheel drive layout is one in which the rear wheels are driven by an engine placed just in front of them, behind the passenger compartment. In contrast to the rear-engined RR layout, the center of gravity of the engine is in front of the rear axle.

In Automobile design, an RR, or Rear-engine, Rear wheel drive, layout places both the engine and drive wheels at the rear of the vehicle. In contrast to the MR layout, however, the center of gravity of the engine itself is actually past the rear axle. This is not to be confused with the center of gravity of the whole vehicle, as an imbalance of such proportions would make it impossible to keep the front wheels on the ground.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR_layout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RR_layout

[g6civcx]

The bottom line is most people here don't have a racing license, a single sponsor that gives them any sort of budget (running stickers on your windows for free oil-changes doesn't count), a team, any real competitive racing experience in a homologated class, any motorsports engineering training (classically and/or in the field), or any of the other one thousand things you need to at least be competitive in pro racing.

If you have any of those you're in the rare minority.

Keep in mind that we don't fully understand 99% of the technology used in Formula 1. This is because some of the designs are trade secrets and the details are not released to the public.

With that said to frame the various perspectives, please continue the discussion. I think it's interesting to see what different people have to say on the topic.

[s14slide]

just look at any professional motorsports body and see what the majority runs. Probably close to 90% run FR or any non FF setup, and then see who's on the podiums all the time.

[DJPimpFlex]

well hes all in love with the real time raceing integra type R which, granted, did do very well. It won a shit load of world championships in the speed vision touring series. Then they wernt allowed to race it any more because it was to old, so now they race RSX's an TSX's which dont do as well.

[OptionZero]

In that class I think they really limit the available cars.

There are 328s and shit but no m3's.

[DoriftoSlut]

My favourite part of this whole thing is the whole "FWD CAN oversteer by lifting the throttle mid-corner". Whoa, what kind of drivers are those people?

Jackie Stewart (ex F1 driver and team owner) was teaching James May of Top Gear how to drive (he shaved 20 seconds off his lap time). He said "Do not get on the throttle until you absolutely know you will not get off it until the next corner." That is how you drive fast, not by how much throttle you give, per se, but WHEN you give it and how long your balls allow you to hold it on the floor.

There are next to no advantages to FWD in racing applications. The reason FWD was even invented was for consumer cars, and production cost. The engine and drivetrain is contained in one overall unit, and it is then possible for the floor pan of the car to be flat, maximising interior volume and passenger space. It has not place in racing, and the only applications of it in racing, like the WTCC and BTCC are because MSOT production cars (which the series must be based off of) are FWD, so their racing counterparts of course have to be. But given the CHOICE, no one would race a FWD car is RWD was available. Hell, in WTCC, you know who is dominating? BMW. With a heavier, RWD 320si vs. Seat Leon Cupras and Alfa 157s, the latter are both FWD.

So then... in a RWD car you can get on the throttle sooner, making RWD more suited for road racing.