[230 lines of quoted material snipped]
Please trim your posts. Bad enough that you top-post, but there's no excuse for quoting all that.
Your opinions about the merits of FWD aside (not all of which have merit), Volvos, until quite recently, were all RWD.
"...[P]roven facts..." Irony, at it's finest.
-- Jonesy
Further debate with this moron is pointless... if he won't listen to a mechanical engineer, ignores published articles from a variety of sources online and what has become common knowledge to anyone with an IQ over 15, we should all collectively ignore him...
Drag racing FWD? F1 racing FWD? Trucks FWD? Safari rally - have ever any RWD car won? Jupp! Any FWD? Nope. Most compact and cheapest to produce -> FWD. Most cars today also have MacPearson. Not the most safe solution and no real prestanda car use it. Same reason as FWD.
Pro and cons RWD/FWD is almost as old as the car history. There will not be any answer today either, only my opinion. I'm from Sweden, had experince in competing in rally with a lot of diffrent types of cars. Mostley Volvo as it's a cheap car in Sweden. I also own an AUDI S4-00 and a lot else. I like to compete with my car in real bad icy and snowy conditions as more depends on drivers skills and not on which have the car with most horsepower.
Nowadays in Sweden is most winter rally's won by AWD cars. Not because they in general is fastest in the bend (they are not) but they have highest speed out of the bend. They often also consumes less tires as there is less horsepower for each wheel. Before AWD, had the "Swedish rally" been mostly won by RWD cars. Exception for SAAB/Stig Blomkvist (world champion) who won for several years but he could even drive fast with an Audi. In the beginning had he big trouble with Audi Quattro as it used same type of differentials as in stock Quattro's. Terrible under steer on gravel bends. They even tried to use smaller front wheels (14") to cure the problem. As high speed as you dare against the bend, turn the car in right direction before the bend, and hope the speed was high enough to keep the over steer. To slow and you did not come out of the bend at all. Even my S4 AWD is very complicated to drive fast on gravel/winter roads compared to most RWD & FWD. ABS and other fancy letters is absolutley to no use either.
If you try to drive to start your car in a lot of snow it's easier to make a slow start with a car with big wheels and the weight of an engine over the driving wheel. Here is VW 1200 and SAAB good cars. In a competition car you don't have any use of slow starting, you must have good acceleration with aid of competition winter wheels. Fast acceleration gives most weight over rear wheels => RWD. If you must brake, never do it in the bend, do it before. Here is a bit advantage for RWD as you have more ways to brake. In the bend, full throttle with both RWD and FWD but with FWD you often also need to brake with rear wheels. You need the engine power to steer, don't use the front wheels to steer, it's to slow. Remember this is fast driving on a road whiteout meeting cars and you need to be a bit skilled to make it safe. In common snowy roads with normal speeds and normal skilled drivers around you, I guess it's easier to drive FWD compared to RWD. No special tyres, not a lot of horsepower. You just have to drive slowly and brake and steer carefully to not lose grip. If you lose your grip, just steer in the direction of the road. Easy. Either you slowly accelerate or brakes most weight is over driving wheels =>FWD.
Yes, Volvo is nowadays mostly FWD. In the past was Volvo only RWD. Volvo's first FWD was model 343. Did not won any rallies. Now is only one model left RWD and some people try to compete with it but it's a bit to big on small roads. In general is Volvo FWD more succesfull on racing tracks. RWD/FWD is not so important, it's the total balance that counts on the track.
/Alf
My dearest Jay,
It can't be called a "proven fact" until it's been actually -- you know -- proven. And unless you're prepared to actually prove it yourself, you have no right to question my skepticism of it. So far, only one participant (other than myself) in this discussion has even attempted to prove this claim. And that participant isn't you.
Goodbye, Jay. We're done.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
You're one heck of a debater, Yak. Well, you're *probably* a heck of a debater. I don't really know for sure, because you never actually entered the debate that we're having. Instead you decided to have your own little argument all by yourself. Which I've never seen before. And which I enjoyed watching. No, I didn't. Actually, it was very frustrating. And I'm glad that it's finally over. Oh, and you missed some pretty funny stuff by not finishing the rest of the message. Well, maybe it was only a little bit funny. Come to think of it, you probably didn't miss much at all.
Goodbye, Yak. We're done.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the amount of hostility that's being directed toward me because of this stupid discussion. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you people are so damned angry and defensive. It's not even really that important a topic. And I'm arguing from the minority point of view, no less!! What possible threat could my opinion on this matter pose to any of you?
All I want is a good *reason* why I should believe your claims about FWD. So far, all you've done is mostly just throw sticks and rocks. And a "good" reason is one that I can't disprove. Which is why I have been going to the trouble of disproving what's been posted here. Not to piss people off. But because that's what one does when seeking a "good" reason. Why do you demand that I accept a lower standard of proof than you yourself would be willing to accept?
I've been told that FWD's superiority is "scientifically proven" but there are no references to any scientific experiments one way or the other. I've been told that automotive engineers are seemingly in consensus on the issue, but I've not seen one participant here own up to being an automotive engineer, and I've seen no references to anything written or published by any automotive engineer. I'm starting to think that my one and only chance to get the decent explanation I've been waiting for -- however remote it may have been -- was lost when I ignored Steve Grauman's links. Had I known that they would be my only chance at a "good" reason to believe the rest of you, I'd have been more careful not to loose them. I guess I'm just used to having these discussions with a higher caliber of participants.
But at this point, even *I'm* growing tired of this useless banter. (I'm pretty sure that almost everybody else here already did so long ago.) I can see that I just expected too much out of you. And so I'm throwing in the towel. Those of you who place a tremendously high importance on "winning" in Internet discussion groups can strut around if you wish. As for me, I think I'm going to try and figure out what articles Steve wanted me to read. I'm hoping they'll contain more convincing arguments than have been presented here.
Steve: If you can at least give me the text you used to query google, that'd help a lot. If not, that's fine. I wouldn't want you to bruise your ego.
- Greg Reed
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
IOW, the animal didn't just "appear" in the middle of the road. It came from *somewhere.* Bad luck for you, yes. And not much to be done about it. But if you knew it was possible, you might have slowed down at that spot, and the antelope would have not been there right at the time your bumper got there.
There is a stretch of road near Crater Lake National Park. The woods come right up to the road, or very close. In the summer and fall, the deer are quite active along this stretch. Nobody in their right mind drives this at the posted 55mph. It's straight, and with excellent sightlines for cars, but not for wild animals. I don't recall seeing anyone drive over 35mph there. Even that is pretty fast for that section of road, and only because of deer.
You example in no way illustrates the "blind bend" you postulate.
Yes, if it's so vanishingly remote as to be absurdly unlikely, then you can do nothing but neglect it. Like a meteorite landing right in front of you.
On a blind bend, stuff doesn't just magically appear, and that goes for other roadways as well. I stand by my original statement, because anything else is a violation of the laws of physics.
I notice that you abandoned your other (incorrect) arguments. Wise choice.
-- Jonesy
Your argument is totally ridiculous as my speed was lower than the average speed you'd have been driving at.
Did you realize the difference between 50 km/h and 55mph?
If this can happen to you on a straight, then the chances of more complications arising from sth similar on a bend are also bigger.
I've been to physics college, so don't try to lecture me on that, but the sole fact you're refusing to accept the obvious doesn't make you immune to the basic principle that states that enthropy is always on the increase, i.e. things tend to chaos by nature, which means, wake up Jonesey, we live in a real world, not in perfect dreamland, as you're assuming. Now, the possibility of getting an unexpected obstacle in your way and having to brake as fast as you can is very real, and that's final. Only when you've hit sth. will you realise what I'm saying.
Which is the same reason I haven't provided a reply to the rest of your claims, because if you care to read my previous post carefully, you'll see you the suggestions you made were totally unreal and I was never proven wrong.
Yours,
JP
Again, let me remind you of the three links I provided for you, and then remind everyone that you never bothered to read *any* of them. They were from professional sources, generally well regarded and would have been difficult (if at all possible) to dispute. You continue to carry on your point of view without any regard for the sources I've provided and without an proof of your position. You cannot continue to argue a point - without proof and in light of my evidence - and not expect people to become frustrated with your tactics. I could run around claiming that 2+2 = 7 if I wanted to, but it'd be pretty hard to argue when I have no proof to back up my claims, and continue to ignore the proof other people have provided to the contrary.
I havn't demanded that you accept anything. I *expected* you to read the evidence I provided in my defense.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about what defines a truly "scientific" experiment, it's to far off topic, and not something I want to be dragged into. But I did provide you with material from well regarded sources all in agreement about FWD's superiority in inclimate weather.
Even if we had provided them, you wouldn't have read them.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Well excuse us. We didn't realize that we weren't arguing to your standard. I thought that formulating an opinion and then backing it up with evidence would be good enough for you.
I could care less about winning. I'd just like to debate with someone who will acknowledge the presence of evidence, read the evidence, and then take it into consideration when forming his rebuttle.
God I'm nice. Here's a copy of the "links" section I provided in that post, below it is the Google URL: "Reduced weight is another advantage. Lowering a vehicle's weight improves acceleration, braking, and fuel economy. Traction is improved by having the weight of the engine and transaxle over the drive wheels. This is a big advantage on slippery roads." from:
LOL. Look up the word "irony."
You have no idea what speed I might choose for any road. Arguing that somehow you'd "know" what speed I'd choose *is* quite ridiculous.
I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Here's a hint: your speed was about 5mph less than the speed at which most folks travel on the road I described.
You have no idea what you're talking about. By definition, if you don't outdrive your sightlines, you don't travel very fast coming into a blind bend. That is the only way you can stop in time in the case of an obstacle that you can't see at first. Only an imbecile would argue otherwise.
Your straight stretch has nothing to do with blind bends and cornering.
It seems your previous lectures were no very helpful in this case. Matter does not spring from nothingness in the blink of an eye. Well, discounting electron/positron pairs from certain gamma rays...
LOL. Considering how much correct information you've imparted in this thread, I'll ignore this puerile jibe.
Just because *you* say so doesn't mean anything. Funny, in all this time I've been driving, I've never seen anything magically appear in the middle of the road. What's more, I've never run into anything on the public roadway. After nearly thirty years of driving in rural, wood areas, and in dense urban areas with brain-dead American SUV drivers, I seem to never get wrinkled sheet metal. How is that possible, in your weird world where stuff appears out of thin air, right in the middle of the road?
Since I always give myself an escape route or sufficient stopping distance, I expect my perfect driving record to continue. (Well, aside from some speeding tickets, but that's life in underposted USA.)
Except you *were* proven wrong, in the absence of outside sources to back up your claims. Just because *you* say something doesn't mean it's true. If you have some links to prove your points, I'd love to see them. I sure haven't found anything that supports your contentions. I've found plenty that support mine. Go ahead, provide links. Otherwise, you're just some kid being peevish on USENET.
-- Jonesy
Since my speed was in your words about 8 km/h less than the speed at which most folks drive - and that obviously includes you as the perfect example of Mr Right - my point is now perfectly proven. I was driving more slowly than you'd have been. Thank you for your "source"! LOL. Of course, since you belong to the realm of what happens in a figment of your imagination, you will also argue against the most common of senses and logic. If you do, I'll just think you're even being more childish than you've been up to now.
Once more, if you bother to read all of our threads anyone in their right minds would understand what I'm saying and how that can happen.
If it's really true that you've been driving for 30 years, which I don't doubt, you'll have realised there's always going to be that new unfamiliar situation on the road which migh catch you out-of-balance. If you've never hit anything whatsoever in all those 30 years you must have driven very little if at all or then I'm sorry, I don't buy you on that one. However, being that you're so perfect and all that then you might as well want to buy the next lottery ticket and according to your sense of logic be a millionaire on draw day - as that sounds more probable to me! LOL!
Matter does not need to spring from nothingness, it springs from where you least expected it, and that's as real as it can get. I've got a friend whose windscreen hit a magpie when driving on the autobahn at around 200, and matter was very real to the glass - i.e. he was only lucky not to be carrying a passenger, which is the side the animal hit.
You'd rather hope, not expect as this is something only God and apparently you can predict, dear Mr Nowitatall. By the way I've got a perfectly clean speeding record myself.
Now, with all due respect, I have more important matters to attend, but I do hope you are really lucky enough not to ever hit anything.
Yours,
JP Roberts
End of thread. Period
Obviously you have no idea what your are talking about. Either that, or you are very confused. Is the stretch of road you are blathering on about near Crater Lake National Park in Oregon State? No?
Try reading something before you type - it makes you look like you actually engaged your brain.
[snipped nonsensical commentary]Ah, yes - the ad hominem logical fallacy. When you can't refute the argument, attack the person.
Did you know that you are responding to your own words? Are you now arging with yourself?
"Anyone in their right minds [sic]" would not confuse trail-braking with using a handbrake. Your credibility is low.
Of course. That's why you're not driving at the limit of adhesion on an unfamiliar public road. Since that would be a prudent thing, then the discussion about how the car is set up for performance at the limit is mostly meaningless, because you are not even approaching the limit, and have plenty of reserve to deal with these magically appearing animals, or couches or whatever materializes out of thin air.
You *are* sorry, but again, you have no idea how much I've driven. Hundreds of thousands of kilometers, all over the western U.S. Heck, to traverse the state in which I live, I have to drive over 1000km (round-trip). I do it twice a month. That includes wooded areas, open rural roads, and dense-traffic urban roads.
Well, considering your comments up to now, I can't imagine you being right on this, either.
That's the funny thing about defensive driving - you look at your situation and say "what if?" Then you drive like that "if" is going to happen. Kids jump out from between cars, dogs run out into the street, deer grazing along the side of the road decide that the other side has better forage. Driving on the public roadway is an exercise in concentration and focus - and barring really weird fall-from-the-sky stuff, you *can* drive around your entire life and not hit anything.
And no amount of suspension settings are going to prevent that. Or a rock falling from the sky, or some other event that's just plain bad luck. But you don't drive flat out around a blind bend - that's just stupid.
Good for you. I don't drive as though my life is in another's hands - I drive as though it's in *my* hands. And take appropriate action. This mysterious power that places all sorts of obstacles in your path must not like you much. I can see why, with your name-calling and other uncivil behavior. I suppose I could chalk it up to lack of a proper upbringing.
Luck has very little to do with it. If you wish to believe that life revolves around chance, that's fine with me. But I don't buy it. But why are you responding to your own words? And if you wanted to argue with yourself, why involve me or alt.autos.audi?
Sure. Your universal declaration is binding on everyone. LOL.
-- Jonesy
the Viper pulled more than 1.0g on the 600 ft skidpad
I highly doubt those number and I have a Motor Trend that has 0-60 7.5 and skidpad at 0.88g I wonder if your reading it correctly.
they do in the Accord, TL but not in the Civic/RSX
on my legitimate points, you will lose.
I don't agree with this last part you've been incorrect a few times in your post.
Those are the numbers I remember seeing! I'm glad to know I'm not dellusional.
never seen a test of a Viper they go over 1.0g a lot and the Z06 has come closed to or gone over 1.0g.
that's about correct for FWD, look most can't go over low 0.9gs they understeer to much.
when has it been proven that FWD is better in inclimate weather?? or is just cheaper to produce more cheaply.
high-performance
and that's twice what you have. day we know you have a room temperature IQ.
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.