Dunno but during last 5 years I've seen 2 cars in the same field, both left gaps in the hedge. I've also seen a number of trails of mud from fresh gaps that I've taken as evidence of extraction of other cars that I've not actually seen in that same field. So I assume all the other holes - about 10, to have been punched in the hedge by cars.
A front wheel skid by an order of magnitude. A rear wheel skid requires very competent car control to opposite lock by the correct amount when the natural tendency of an average driver is to steer further into the corner - exactly the wrong reaction. A front wheel skid, or understeer by any other name, only requires the driver to do what his natural reaction is anyway - either lift off or steer more or both.
Then you are a lost cause as far as this debate goes and you'll just have to disagree with everyone else. I'm somewhat surprised we can even be having the discussion because anyone who's driven a car knows that losing the front end is not usually a problem and losing the back end usually means a painful and expensive outcome.
better packaging, better traction in winter, and no added complications from diffs and propshaft. RWD is pointless on small wheelbase cars....(ie small hatchbacks..)
There do seem to be round here. Fewer people might be becoming staistics when making said holes, though...
I was very pleased to have pratted about so much in RWD in the snow one night when I jinked left-right round a roundabout without slowing down on a deserted dual carriageway.
What should have been an entertaining flick suddenly got a lot more interesting when the whole back end departed sideways at speed (this was a FWD Nissan Bluebird... so oversteer was most unexpected at this point).
Luckily I caught it using both lanes and after a couple of wags got it straight and stopped to see what had happened. The offside rear tyre had developed a huge bulge in the sidewall, and obviously had just given way as I left the roundabout.
"Wheeeee"
A rear axle with a propshaft, diff, and driveshafts, is more expensive to make and fit, than a single unit combining all of the above, that can be fitted to a FWD car as an assembly.
Any perceived improvement in traction, or interior space is simply a FWD feature. It's not the reason why they are manufactured in such great numbers.
And, small RWD cars are still popular for those who appreciate the different handling characteristics of a RWD car. Mike.
Yes and no. You can get away with a spin, but losing the front end often means going off the road and bending something.
But yes, FWD understeer is usually more stable in the sense that you don't as easily get overcorrection errors and fishtailing (although that can still happen).
Now that cars are more stable anyway (especially with all the electronics) they don't need as much understeer. You can steer round things and not lose control even though you're sliding all over the place and your name doesn't end in -kkinen. Amazing.
"Mike G" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
I'm sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong. If you want a demonstration, just look how crap the packaging is on something like a 1- series compared to much physically smaller FWD cars. RWD is completely and utterly pointless for smaller vehicles.
Yes, cost is a part of that, but not all of it.
FWD cars have driveshafts, just as RWD do - but they need to be more complex, because of the need for CV joints. FWD cars have gearboxes and diffs, just as RWD do. They just live in a different place. The only extra component that's required is the prop shaft. And that's cheap.
Also, don't forget that half-decent RWD handling is a relatively recent thing - and is as much to do with the fact that many modern FWD cars have the cheapest suspension layouts possible - Mac struts & twist-beam rear axles - whilst modern RWD cars have expensive and complicated multilink rear ends. Go back a few decades, and think about the average live-axle/ leaf-spring RWD car - truly, truly awful handling and grip.
When the Traction was introduced, back in the '30s, it was widely regarded as being a massive step forward in handling, precisely because of that self-same FWD.
Don't most RWD cars have CV joints these days? Instead of a live axle (where traditionally there was just one universal joint before the diff, which bounced up and down with the axle) the diff is bolted to the chassis and then you've got CVs with sliding splines connecting the diff to each half-shaft, then possibly another CV joint at the hub.
It's not steering, but it's still all got to move up and down with the suspension.
Ben C gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
Oh, sure - but they don't have anything like the same working angle, though - suspension travel's nothing compared to steering lock. Makes 'em much simpler and cheaper.
For some bizarre reason, it actually works very well.
Not everyone wants/needs a large car. And a 1 Series is very pleasant to drive. You pays your money...
You're missing my point. There are well built and crap examples of both FWD and RWD cars, but my argument has nothing to do with the quality of manufacture. It's to do with the ease and cost of manufacture.
RWD is completely
Granted, but it's the main reason why it's so popular with manufacturers. In general it costs more to produce RWD cars than FWD cars, which is why RWD is more likely to be found on more expensive cars. BMW and Mercedes come to mind. Not forgetting, AFAIK, just about all supercars.
Which if you reread my post is what I said. The thing is that on a FWD car they are all fitted in one operation. Which is not practical if a propshaft and back axle with a diff are all attached to a gearbox and engine. RWD also means that fitting the front and rear suspension are separate ops
The only
The cost cutting is not so much to do with components, as with ease of assy.
You're making my case. Presumably you agree that such a drive layout costs more to manufacture, as well as taking longer to asemble and fit.
Go back a few decades, and think about the average live-axle/
Not entirely true. There were exceptions, and a live axle doesn't necessarily equate with bad handling and grip.
Citroen FWD cars were the exception in mainstream car manufacturers for a long time. I think you have to look at the Mini to see the roots of FWD's current popularity. Mike.
As does my old E30, but the LSD and sludgebox have a lot to do with that...
I didn't express myself too well. I'm talking about a loss of adhesion. U/s is something else. It's simply a high tyre slip angle. Once the front tyres lose all grip you have no steering or braking
Everyone else? I haven't noticed everyone disagreeing with me.
I'm somewhat surprised we can even be having
With respect that's a very patronising attitude. I am very familiar with RWD cars, and IME it does not require 'very competent car control' to control a rear wheel slide. It also depends on what you mean by 'losing'. You appear to have different stds for front and rear wheel drive cars. That in a FWD car it's simply an excess of u/s, and in a RWD car it's a total loss of adhesion. In a FWD total loss of adhesion not just u/s, is not as easily controlled as you seem to think. 'Stepping out' of the rear end of a RWD car is IMO just as easy to control as excessive u/s on a FWD car. Mike.
No it's not. The technical definition of understeer is where the slip angle of the front tyres exceeds that of the rear tyres which is an inherent function of the car's design. It's nothing whatsoever to do with the magnitude of that slip angle. An understeering car understeers all the time and vice versa for an oversteering one. As the level of understeer builds up, towards or even into the region of skid which would still be an understeering skid, the natural reaction is to steer more which is both correct and much more easily done than controlling oversteer or an oversteering skid. That's why nearly all road cars, fwd or rwd, are set up to understeer because it's so much safer, more controllable and intuitive for the average driver.
The second natural reaction is to lift off or even brake, even if this is often wrong. If the front tyres are losing traction then braking causes a weight transfer to the front which loads the tyres back up again and can restore grip. If the rear tyres have lost traction then braking simply unloads them even further and the skid turns into a 180.
For both reasons a loss of front end grip is always easier to control.
The tyres never 'lose all grip' unless they're airborn and you always have some element of steering or braking albeit not enough to save yourself if the skid if too severe for the available length (width) of road.
You need to look more closely then.
I have exactly the same standards for both. I've defined under/over steer above. The technical definition of skid, or slide, is when the slip angle of a tyre has exceeded the point at which it develops maximum grip. This usually occurs somewhere between 5% and 10% slip angle for road tyres. The same thing happens under braking or acceleration where the tyre reaches maximum grip when a certain amount of slippage is taking place and beyond that point grip diminishes. In this case the slip is defined not as an angle but as the percentage difference between the distance the car travels and the distance the tyre tread rotates in the same period.
The critical point is that when the front tyres lose traction, which is the usual case for an understeering car, the car will plough on in a straight line but is unlikely to swap ends causing a total loss of control. When the rear tyres lose traction this is a much more likely result and much less controllable.
I'm glad your car control abilities are so much higher than those of the rest of us then because it no doubt makes the roads in the vicinity of wherever you're driving a safer place. For everyone else it's much easier to control an understeering car, skidding or otherwise, than an oversteering one, skidding or otherwise. In fact I very much doubt you've ever even driven a car that actually oversteers in the technical definition of the word simply because road cars, rwd or otherwise, are not set up that way. Once you have driven a car that really oversteers, all the time, you'll realise how hard it is to control and how thoroughly unpleasant, and counter intuitive, it feels in a corner.
Anyway, for whatever reason you've set yourself up to defend a POV that's contrary to anything any professional driver, driving instructor, road safety organisation, car designer or even just Joe Sixpack would try and support so this discussion has probably passed the point of any further usefullness.
"Mike G" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
I don't think I am.
I think you're missing mine.
RWD cars with expensive, complex, high-end suspension cost more to build than FWD cars with simple, low-end suspension. No, really...?
Now put multi-link rear ends and wishbone fronts on that FWD car, and a live axle and cart springs on the RWD. Bet that cost advantage just swapped over...
No, they aren't. I've _seen_ the Browns Lane plant building XJs & XKs. Trust me, the lot - exhaust, rear suspension, prop shaft, engine, box front suspension - is fitted to the shell in one go.
Just as it all is - exhaust, rear suspension, engine, box, front suspension - is fitted to the shell in one go on FWD cars.
I'm not, y'know.
Of course. But not because of the location of the driven wheels.
No.
RWD cars get the flash stuff, because RWD is currently a selling point, and RWD cars are positioned as premium products. NOT because RWD is somehow inherently more expensive. FWD cars get the cheap stuff, because FWD is inherently better packaged, so FWD cars are positioned as the value end of the market. NOT because FWD is somehow inherently cheap.
Sure. And why was the Mini so popular? Because it'd run rings round the RWD opposition on the track and on the road.
especially with that V8 conversion pack
That was really down to other reasons. FWD doesn't rule on the track these days - quite the reverse.
You have to look at the design of other small cars at the time the Mini came out to realise why it had such good handling in comparison.
That may explain why the motoring press loved it, the public liked them because you got far more space for your money/size tradeoffs.
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.