Handling: FWD vs RWD
- Thread starter achtung
- Start date
apdrive
Member
Re: Handling: FWD vs RWD
hi folks,
pardon this newbie here.., just for the uninformed, the MME champs one or 2 or 3 years back (not 2008) was a ES civic (yes the 7th gen 2001-06 ol boring VTI / VTI-S civic) with a K20A. It was the Class A winner, outgunning some porches and stuff.. not too sure the overall position, but I remembered vividly that it outpaced many more exotic brandnames (from other classes) enroute to being the class winner.
I'm a track nut, but only read up the techie stuff when absolutely necessary, other than that, i just like to floor it. Used to have a mr2 aw11, then a ef3 civic si, now a CTR... the fwd are, as most of u will know, easier to exploit better performance from.
hi folks,
pardon this newbie here.., just for the uninformed, the MME champs one or 2 or 3 years back (not 2008) was a ES civic (yes the 7th gen 2001-06 ol boring VTI / VTI-S civic) with a K20A. It was the Class A winner, outgunning some porches and stuff.. not too sure the overall position, but I remembered vividly that it outpaced many more exotic brandnames (from other classes) enroute to being the class winner.
I'm a track nut, but only read up the techie stuff when absolutely necessary, other than that, i just like to floor it. Used to have a mr2 aw11, then a ef3 civic si, now a CTR... the fwd are, as most of u will know, easier to exploit better performance from.
Crufty Dusty
Well-Known Member
Re: Handling: FWD vs RWD
The Honda teams were factory-backed with pro drivers, that alone is a very big advantage. In practically all forms of high-level racing where a factory team is involved in that particular class, they are expected to be on podium.
The Honda teams were factory-backed with pro drivers, that alone is a very big advantage. In practically all forms of high-level racing where a factory team is involved in that particular class, they are expected to be on podium.
Re: Handling: FWD vs RWD
I wouldn't say sticking is a subset of handling because handling is more about the speed and controllability (have to strike balance between the two) of the transitions back and forth between lat. and long. accel. no and high yaw, An older gen MX5 isn't known to stick unusually well, but its great handling is always mentioned. Certain cars or tires are known to grip tenaciously and then let go uncontrollably once past the limit.
That being said, a low stick car can hide some of handling characteristics or deficiencies by just providing low grip.. resulting in low forces on the car overall, and lower force imbalances (the ones that cause accel and decel, cause yaw and de-yaw ) such that the driver feels very comfortable and in control. An extreme example just for illustration is driving a big heavy RWD car on a course laid out on a extremely slick muddy field. It can't put power down, so accel is very slow, decel is predictably weak as well lacking range, the turns all happen in slow motion as the car slides and the high inertia of the big car on the grip surface just damps all driver input and combined with the low speeds make it easy to make many small inputs and feel for the reaction or learn how it reacts pretty soon. Power oversteer is no problem. Now take that same car and run the same course except on dry asphalt, and suddenly everything changes. Good speed can be built, decel range is much larger, lat accels are higher, load transfers in all directions are larger leading to much larger balance changes, there is too much grip to power oversteer now, there is no time to make as many decisions in the duration of the same corner, the transitions from grip to slip and back are all much shorter, etc. You've probably experienced the same thing to lesser degree in your cars' dry vs wet handling.
The fact that rain allows 'rain masters' in racing to shine doesn't contradict the above because those cars are in a different range of input sensitivity, steering range, and very low inertia. Same goes for enthusiast on a wet track and the time spread not closing up but instead widening - it's because of driver confidence and general lack of car control skills. There are in fact lower forces and more time to make inputs (that will be averaged to larger degree because the car cannot respond quickly enough with low grip) which help but then the tricky part is leading the car and getting used to how car it is going to slide, etc. It's a different set of control issues... moving in the direction from somewhat closed loop control (dry) to much more open loop control (wet) with the latter a lot more experience based. A good go kart in the dry is an example of handling that is much closer to the closed loop end of control with reponse to inputs coming instantly - no need to lead, ability to make 4-5 small corrections in a single corner. It trains the body to make precise high frequency inputs, and the mind to make decisions in rapid succession, but it doesn't develop the think-ahead and leading-input areas of driving higher inertia, soft, lower grip cars.
So across the vehicle and course permuations, there are different combinations of qualities being tested.. Sense of speed, accel, jerk (deriv. of accel), psychomotor speed and precision, mental discipline, memory, risk tolerance, physical fitness, etc. There is no one type of driving that is the ultimate. Many test very different sets of qualities, but there are few that really test them to a very high limit. It is these forms that are celebrated, but then hyped to an extreme especially if backed by money and ego, but the truth is there are many lesser known forms that are just as difficult, if not more so, but perhaps just in other ways.
In the muddy field scenario, a pro vs a normal driver with decent car control would yield low time difference would be relatively small whereas on the asphalt it would be much larger. The same difference exists to smaller degree with low and high stick cars. It is for the same reason that proper race teams spend alot and work hard to maintain baselines while trying to find the last few tenths in a setup and go through new tires like crazy, sometime running them less than 5 laps before junking them and putting on another new set to eliminate the slightest changes in grip affecting balance of the car at the ultimate grip level to hone say a qualifying setup that doesn't have to last.
Short duration runs and handicapping of superior chassis and engines. If you look into the specs you may find that the RWDs are handicapped by ballast, limitations on aero, or smaller air restrictors. Sanctioning bodies often interfere to keep the racing close and interesting so people watch so advertizers are happy, bring money.
It has already been said so many times on this thread there will be no clean comparison. There is no good reason for FWD in principle. Proof of this on the practical side, again as already mentioned, you never see a designer pick FWD for a pure performance car.
I'm not bashing FWDs, it is just fact. I prefer FWD road cars actually because they can be made overall lighter, quieter, cheaper, more efficient, more spacious... just very practical. I have mentioned this some years ago, even on this forum IIRC.
As already mentioned by others, external factors to the discussion at hand. None of it changes the principle and what is applied in real lfe. Compare any two cars in detail and reasons for observations will be made clear.
achtung;401055 said:
I wouldn't say sticking is a subset of handling because handling is more about the speed and controllability (have to strike balance between the two) of the transitions back and forth between lat. and long. accel. no and high yaw, An older gen MX5 isn't known to stick unusually well, but its great handling is always mentioned. Certain cars or tires are known to grip tenaciously and then let go uncontrollably once past the limit.
That being said, a low stick car can hide some of handling characteristics or deficiencies by just providing low grip.. resulting in low forces on the car overall, and lower force imbalances (the ones that cause accel and decel, cause yaw and de-yaw ) such that the driver feels very comfortable and in control. An extreme example just for illustration is driving a big heavy RWD car on a course laid out on a extremely slick muddy field. It can't put power down, so accel is very slow, decel is predictably weak as well lacking range, the turns all happen in slow motion as the car slides and the high inertia of the big car on the grip surface just damps all driver input and combined with the low speeds make it easy to make many small inputs and feel for the reaction or learn how it reacts pretty soon. Power oversteer is no problem. Now take that same car and run the same course except on dry asphalt, and suddenly everything changes. Good speed can be built, decel range is much larger, lat accels are higher, load transfers in all directions are larger leading to much larger balance changes, there is too much grip to power oversteer now, there is no time to make as many decisions in the duration of the same corner, the transitions from grip to slip and back are all much shorter, etc. You've probably experienced the same thing to lesser degree in your cars' dry vs wet handling.
The fact that rain allows 'rain masters' in racing to shine doesn't contradict the above because those cars are in a different range of input sensitivity, steering range, and very low inertia. Same goes for enthusiast on a wet track and the time spread not closing up but instead widening - it's because of driver confidence and general lack of car control skills. There are in fact lower forces and more time to make inputs (that will be averaged to larger degree because the car cannot respond quickly enough with low grip) which help but then the tricky part is leading the car and getting used to how car it is going to slide, etc. It's a different set of control issues... moving in the direction from somewhat closed loop control (dry) to much more open loop control (wet) with the latter a lot more experience based. A good go kart in the dry is an example of handling that is much closer to the closed loop end of control with reponse to inputs coming instantly - no need to lead, ability to make 4-5 small corrections in a single corner. It trains the body to make precise high frequency inputs, and the mind to make decisions in rapid succession, but it doesn't develop the think-ahead and leading-input areas of driving higher inertia, soft, lower grip cars.
So across the vehicle and course permuations, there are different combinations of qualities being tested.. Sense of speed, accel, jerk (deriv. of accel), psychomotor speed and precision, mental discipline, memory, risk tolerance, physical fitness, etc. There is no one type of driving that is the ultimate. Many test very different sets of qualities, but there are few that really test them to a very high limit. It is these forms that are celebrated, but then hyped to an extreme especially if backed by money and ego, but the truth is there are many lesser known forms that are just as difficult, if not more so, but perhaps just in other ways.
In the muddy field scenario, a pro vs a normal driver with decent car control would yield low time difference would be relatively small whereas on the asphalt it would be much larger. The same difference exists to smaller degree with low and high stick cars. It is for the same reason that proper race teams spend alot and work hard to maintain baselines while trying to find the last few tenths in a setup and go through new tires like crazy, sometime running them less than 5 laps before junking them and putting on another new set to eliminate the slightest changes in grip affecting balance of the car at the ultimate grip level to hone say a qualifying setup that doesn't have to last.
achtung;401057 said:
Short duration runs and handicapping of superior chassis and engines. If you look into the specs you may find that the RWDs are handicapped by ballast, limitations on aero, or smaller air restrictors. Sanctioning bodies often interfere to keep the racing close and interesting so people watch so advertizers are happy, bring money.
It has already been said so many times on this thread there will be no clean comparison. There is no good reason for FWD in principle. Proof of this on the practical side, again as already mentioned, you never see a designer pick FWD for a pure performance car.
I'm not bashing FWDs, it is just fact. I prefer FWD road cars actually because they can be made overall lighter, quieter, cheaper, more efficient, more spacious... just very practical. I have mentioned this some years ago, even on this forum IIRC.
apdrive;401137 said:
As already mentioned by others, external factors to the discussion at hand. None of it changes the principle and what is applied in real lfe. Compare any two cars in detail and reasons for observations will be made clear.
