Then that would make it 0.2 seconds slower than the RSX, not 0.02! He has trouble with his data....
And if all this is the case, why would you even think that a 7.7 second 0-60 figure for the prelude SH (your original claim) was anywhere near correct when we've established that it's almost the same (aside from a lack of 5 hp) from the RSX? Sounds like you need to use some common sense and question some other figures before you use them...
We need to collectively ignore any idiot that doesn't understand established FACTS that FWD offers better directional stability, greater control, safety, with better maximum safe handling speeds (all things else being equal) to RWD counterparts in INCLIMATE weather, i.e. snow, ice, and rain. We're not talking about in DRY, pristine conditions here.... or maybe the scandanavians are just retarded for making the world's safest vehicles like the Volvo and Saab that predominately operate in ice and snow all FWD?!?!?
Some people need to wake up to the reality of proven facts...
straight-line
distribution?
only because morons like you don't get your head out of the sand and face scientifically-proven facts about the advantages of FWD in INCLIMATE weather!!!
Our arguments aside, thank you.
Sorry, typo. See? I own up to my mistakes.
Curb weight, power delivery, gearing, drag co., grip and other factors all contribute to what makes a car perform the way it does. This is why an RX8 with considerablly less torque from a much smaller engine can keep up with a G35 coupe'. The RSX has 20 more horsepower then my car, with a higher redline, a lower curb weight, and can get away with shorter gearing in 1st-5th than my car because of it's 6 speed gearbox. All of this stuff needs to be taken into account. Even if I accept your number of 6.7 for the Prelude, this would place it .2 slower to 60 than my car, despite a displacement advantage of nearly half a liter, 15 more horsepower, and a lighter curb weight. Other things are at play. I've never seen a Prelude tick off 0-60 that quickly, and you have yet to provide a valid source which backs you up. I'm skeptical of the number, that's all. Regardless, we do seem to agree on our thinking about FWD Vs. RWD.
Sadly, I lack the ability to borrow cars from major manufacturers and subject them to performance tests. This is beside the fact that I neither have the neccesary testing equipment nor am I an "expert" driver capable of performing tests in a manner that most people would accept. With that taken into consideration, how do you propose I go about finding performance numbers? The only source I have right now are automotive journals (both in print and on the net) and I get the feeling that no matter which of those journals I cite in my posts, you'll find a problem with it.
I'm sorry, what were those scientifically-proven facts again?
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Ummm.... Right. Thanks for that. I've learned a lot from your posts, Jay.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Sorry about that last response. I reread the message a couple of times and I think I got your point. Your point, if I may paraphrase, is that the speed differences between low-grip cornering and high-grip cornering introduce "other factors" that can affect the car's cornering stability, and that might shift favor from RWD to FWD as speeds decline?
If so, what other factors do you suppose are involved?
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
I'm sorry. I missed where these facts were established.
I also missed where somebody explained why one layout corners better in the dry while the other corners better in the snow.
Wow. I hadn't considered that. Of course, most of that built-in safety is from things like crashworthy body structures and cutting edge safety systems like seatbelts and ABS. So I wonder why it is that these automakers use predominantly FWD. Because so far nobody's given me a good reason.
If I'm on such shaky ground, why can no one refute my arguments? I may well be an idiot, and I may well be wrong. But you've yet to prove either of these things. And I'm growing tired of statements along the lines of "everybody knows that FWD is better" being passed off as supporting arguments. The fact that lots of people believe something is not proof of its validity. Lots of people once believed the earth was both flat and at the center of the universe (though perhaps not at the same time). They turned out to be a little off there. And they were just as angry about having their beliefs deposed as you seem to be. Point being, argue your position, not your popularity. I hold minority positions on *lots* of topics, pretty much all of which are of a lot higher importance than this one. I've heard the "millions of people can't be wrong" argument many times before. Truth is, millions of people *can* be wrong. As could I, but nobody's proven that yet.
There's really little point in having discussions with people who are *just sure* that their position is correct and that any arguments to the contrary must therefore be flawed. I don't believe I'm one of those people. I've presented rational arguments to support my position. There have been several rational arguments in favor of FWD, but last I checked, I'd hit those volleys back over to the other side of the court. Of course, I'm not done catching up on my messages yet, either. But only when I'm unable to return the volley will claims to my stupidity carry any weight. No, actually that still wouldn't earn me the title of "stupid." That would only come if I failed to return the volley but still refused to concede error.
I've been absolutely cordial in this discussion. I know from experience that people get ornery when their beliefs are questioned. And when they find themselves unable to defend those beliefs, they get downright angry. And then the insults start to fly. I've seen it over and over again. But I've learned to ignore it. Calling me an idiot won't change the fact that I've presented very good explanations of why RWD cars corner better than FWD cars. Calling me an idiot won't change the fact that the arguments in favor of FWD have all, thus far, been returned to their authors for correction. So which one of us needs to "wake up to the reality of proven facts" and which is mired in a bog of myth and lore?
To be honest, the lack of productive discussion on this topic is really starting to make me wonder why I'm still bothering.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
"Shaving" is as much to tread wear and our discussion as much as oranges is to potatoes, so if you don't believe I'm right when I say the car is faster and more manageable with the slightly worn tyres at the rear rather than at the front, I can't believe you can possibly be faster than me at all on the track.
Certainly the anti-roll bar, but just the opposite as to tyre pressure. Optimal tyre pressure is that which gives you optimal traction. What you are saying does not work with Audis, as it would make them unsafe at high speeds as a result of rubber overheating.
Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your trail-brake and misread hand-brake.
Totally agree that it's a very bad idea to overdrive your sightlines, but you're neglecting many other factors, such as any unexpected animal dashing across the road. Don't wait for that to happen.
I'm not sure where you got your instruction, but that
My instructor happens to have been ranking among the top 5 rallye drivers in this country for over 7 years. I took a course in a 325i on an ice track. I can tell you you really learn where to oversteer there, which is roughly proportionally distributed on both sides of apex, assuming a symmetrical bend, with a bit more emphasis before apex.
I'd enjoy your challenge only if you were one of those in the "triple HP" lot.
Most definitely agree here. Remember what Mr Bond was capable of doing in his Two Chevaux? :)
Have a good day,
JP Roberts
Now that we talk about Rally, how many RWD cars do you know that use RWD? I know several FWD ones, and in dry concrete they can achieve even better results than AWD parts (because no loss of power, and there's enough grip). No RWD cars there, only FWD/AWD.
Now why is that our little RWD fans? Wasn't RWD so superiour in handling?
- Yak
How did you intend to accelerate that hypothetical RWD car? Without weight on the back, it'll stay still. This is your opinion of a superiour car?
Not just straight-line, you might need to accelerate also on the corner.
Because this is essential where FWD cars are so good, they can have better weight distribution than RWD cars. RWD cars just can't have weight on the front. Get it? You can't drive a car with no weight on the back.
Yes, a standing still car is better on the snow. Indeed, it doesn't make as many accidents, but I was hoping to actually move with the car from point A to point B. You apparently don't.
Nope, I'm saying there's also weight on the back, since otherwise they couldn't be driven.
You're trying to make a car, that can't be driven? We're talking about FWD cars vs. RWD cars and as you can see, the FWD technique gives them the advantage of having the weight on the front, while RWD don't. Stop changing the subject to something what might happen in the windtunnel.
Again, the weight distribution.
And again, you start to talk about cars that can't move. Yippiaijee. Now move back to the subject and tell us, how is your RWD car going to move without weight on the back?
No problemo? Have you ever drove when there's snow on the ground? How on earth did you intend to drive without weight on the spinning wheels?
Get back to the subject and explain us, how is your RWD car going to get better grip? You can't take out the weight from the back without having a car that can't accelerate.
- Yak
We're talking about the whole technology behind it. You just can't understand it? You can't take out the essential things that make the car move and then say "oh yes, RWD could be better in this theoretical case, which can't be done".
- Yak
We're talking about cornering ability, not acceleration -- unless you're talking about accelerating in a curve. At which point, the RWD car is more likely to continue in the desired direction than the FWD car.
Which is where FWD is inferior to RWD, for the reasons I've discussed. (And will doubtless have to repeat for you again in the near future.)
We're not talking about how weight distribution affects cornering ability, we're talking about how FWD and RWD affect cornering ability. If you change the wieght distribution between the two hypothetical cars, then we're no longer... Oh, never mind. You didn't grasp the concept the first half dozen times and you're not going to grasp it this time. Besides, I'm sure you'll give me plenty more opportunities to knock my head against this wall.
You seem to think that you've got me on the run because I keep denying you your advantage through weight distribution. I'm not on the run. You're trying to counter things I never claimed. When you change weight distribution between the two cars, then we're no longer talking just about FWD vs. RWD. We're now talking about... Wait, you got me to say it yet agian. Is somebody giving you a nickel for every time you can get me to write that?
We were talking about which car is safer to drive in the snow. A claim was made that FWD is safer than RWD because of its superior ability to avoid or correct a skid in a curve. That was where I jumped into this thread, and that's where my point lies: For any given combination of weight distribution, tire size, and every other possible factor that can affect a car's handling, a RWD layout will outcorner a FWD layout. It has to do with the way each different system uses the grip that's available at each axle. So a prerequisite to even discussing this matter is necessarily dependent on everything else -- weight distribution included -- being identical between our two hypothetical cars. (That's another nickel for you.) Everybody now seems to want to throw in everything except the kitchen sink (and I'm expecting it, too, very shortly) to steer this discussion away from what I actually wrote. (Didja like my little pun there? "Steer" the discussion? Ahem. Moving right along...)
Yeah. And there's exactly the same amount of it back there as on the hypothetical FWD car. That's what "otherwise identical" means.
What on earth does a wind tunnel have to do with anything? I am talking about comparing the cornering ability of FWD as compared to RWD, when the two are put in otherwise identical cars. Specifically, I'm asserting a RWD car will outcorner a FWD car in any weather, with all things besides the drive axle identical between the two cars. In order for a discussion of this subject to have any validity whatsoever, there must be no differences between the two cars except the thing we're comparing. In this case, that thing is the drive axle. So in order for your arguments to have any meaning in this discssion at all, both the FWD and RWD cars have to have the same weight distribution. They have to have the same tire size and inflation pressures. They have to have the same wheelbase. They have to have the same horsepower. I suppose you can change the paint color if you want, just as long as one of the paint colors isn't heavier than the other one. And that they both have the paint distributed equally on the car. Yeah, you know what? I take it back. They have to have the same paint color, too. (That one had to be worth at least a quarter.)
I'm not trying to "make a car that can't be driven." I'm trying to make a comparison that actually means something.
That ripping sound you just heard was two fistfuls of my hair departing my scalp. You are incapable of understanding 1) what is being discussed here and 2) what I am writing about it. *THE CARS MUST BE IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER* in every respect except their drive axle. Otherwise, we're no longer comparing FWD to RWD. You know what? I'll just take all your nickels. And the quarter, too. Your arguments are roughly the equivalent of the following:
Me: You can see through glass better than through brick. You. You're wrong, because glass breaks more easily than brick. Me: We're not talking about how easily it breaks, we're talking about how well you can see through it. You: But the breaking thing is important, because if it's broken it won't keep your house warm in the winter. Me: I'm not denying that brick is stronger than glass. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that you can see through glass easier. You: So you're going to have a window that will just break any time somebody throws a rock at it? Me: "BANG!! BANG!! BANG!!" as my forehead strikes the desk repeatedly.
Well, it has to have *some* weight on the back. I mean, it has a rear axle, right? And some sort of structure to connect that axle to the engine and wheels at the front? I'll grant that it's less weight than is at the front, but it's still there, isn't it? Or should we attach big helium balloons to the rear end of the RWD car? (And don't forget to attach them to the rear and of the FWD car, as well. Have to keep that weight distribution... Wait! You almost got me again!)
No, but I have *driven* when there's snow on the ground. Just this morning on my way home from work, as a matter of fact. And I'll be doing it again tomorrow for about 250 miles, as we're going to my cousin's wedding this weekend. And the weather guy is predicting lots of snow. But don't worry. I won't be driving a FWD car. So we'll be okay. (Okay, that was a cheap shot.)
Well, I didn't happen to be driving a RWD car at the time, but for reasons I've already laid out numerous times, I've had had little problem hanging on in the corners when I *did* drive in the snow with RWD. Which is what we're discussing here. Remember? Cornering? In the snow? Around, you know, corners? And curves? Things where the car has to, you know, turn? In the snow? I'm repeating myself with the hope that at least one of these will sneak into your brain. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
You're demanding that *I* cut the crap? Oh, that's rich. I'm just trying to keep you on the off-topic topic (if that makes any sense at all) that this discussion has wandered into.
As I said before, my RWD car IS NOT GOING TO GET BETTER GRIP. It's going to start out with exactly as much grip as the FWD car. The topic of discussion is how each car (the hypothetical FWD car and its hypothetical RWD twin) makes use of this available grip *in a curve* and *under throttle* for the purpose of staying on the course its driver wants it to stay. It's a very specific statement that I'm asserting here. If you have a reason to refute it that doesn't inherently break the above explicitly stated circumstances, then by all means, post it for us to read. All you've managed to do so far is disprove many things that I never claimed in the first place. I don't know who's assertions you think you're refuting, but they're not mine.
Just to put the rest of you FWD guys at ease, don't worry. I won't hold this guy against you.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Well, at least now you've demonstrated that you understand what I'm trying to say. And I'm not going to take your bait. The assertion remains as I stated it. Refute it or ignore it as you see appropriate. (I just wish I could glue a couple fistfulls of this hair back onto my head...)
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
If you had bothered to read the link, then you would see the relevance.
No, I don't believe you are right, and until you provide something other than your opinion to counter my *experience* and my outside source, then you are just typing to see your words in USENET.
Did you read the link I provided? Did you know that there are other references out there that state exactly the same thing?
Sorry, Mr. Roberts. Tire pressures are most often given as a range, and having the sets of tires at two different pressures within that range is not dangerous. At any speed, other than past the speed rating of the tire.
We're not talking about running a 36psi tire at 20psi to get results. I run the rears of my quattro at 3psi less than the fronts.
Actually, I'm not. I live in a rural area with livestock and wild animals. The terrain does consist of plenty of "blind bends." I have never been surprised, even when an animal darts out into the road on the corner, because I do not overdrive my sightlines. The sudden appearance of some obstacle in the middle of the roadway is not phyically possible.
Ralleye driving and tarmac driving are not the same. Full throttle/left-foot braking technique works for ralleye, but would be a disaster on tarmac.
I don't ralleye.
I have no idea what this means.
A fine Roger Moore film. IIRC, he drove an Alfa GTV6 near the end - Octopussy, right? So many Bond films - I can't keep them all straight.
The point remains - don't take *my* word for any of this. Ask a real instructor, or at least read the links I provided. I am absolutely not making any of this stuff up.
R.F. Jones
Nah, wide open roads, they almost don't exist any longer!
The sudden
Nothing further from the truth. I happened to be driving calmly at some 50 Km/h in a residential area. I was paying attention, as I always do when I'm driving. It was a perfectly straight dry stretch and excellent weather conditions. Neither me nor my passenger saw anything. We just only heard and felt the smash, then by looking in the mirror I could see what looked like a big stone in the middle of the lane behind me. It was a dead antelope, which had just jumped over a 1.5m deep ditch and into the road from behind a hedge. The animal happened to land in front of my bumper, so that it was impossible to see it. Now, even if you're driving at a low speed an obstacle might suddenly appear in front of you, and assuming you'd seen it, you would emergency-brake, wouldn't you?
The possibility of a sudden obstacle in the middle of the roadway, however remote, is never to be neglected.
No, we were talking about overall FWD vs. RWD, not just what happens in the corner, at your 'some speed with a car which can't be true'. Otherwise, why not comparing a car, which can't move?
Yes, being impossible to discuss with you, since you ignore the facts which have been presented to you. I did not read the rest, and will not. Me and my friends had a great laugh already. Next time you come to Finland, give me a call, you can then show me what you'll do with RWD car here.
- Yak
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.