Why don't people buy snow tires?

Lifting will weight the _front_ wheels (as will downshifting or braking). This is why front-wheel drive is "idiot proof"...folks panic, lift off the gas and/or brake, weight shifts toward the front wheels, and traction is (hopefully) regained.

Personally, I despise front-drive. Correcting from oversteer is instinctive, IMHO.

Here's a myth that annoys me. "Front-drive cars have better traction due to their having more weight over the front wheels". Consider this. A Honda Accord with a less-than-ideal 60/40 weight distribution probably has _less_ weight over the driven wheels than the well-balanced, slightly heavier 3-series BMW with 50/50 weight distribution.

But if you do the math, the extra traction is consumed by the equally increasing traction needs. When you adjust the weight SPLIT you get better traction at the front wheels. It comes at a price, mind you, but it's there.

FWD has a decided advantage in adverse traction conditions when speeds are low. When driven aggressively and fast all sorts of other vehicle dynamics come into play (which is why race drivers tend to prefer rear wheel drive), but for Joe Commuter, FWD offers better traction and a more graceful traction failure than RWD.

I love the comment Cam "a more graceful traction failure" Now that's political correct compared to "you totally lost it dummy" or worse.

When you lose traction in a FWD car in the snow, it tends to continue in roughly the same direction as you were already going, and will tend to gradually plow.

When you lose traction in a RWD car in the snow, you are far more likely to get the car sideways. This requires more skill and experience to recover from. It offers some benefits for those WITH the skill and experience, but is generally a less pleasant experience to the "average" commuter driver.

Which is why I think we set the bar *way* too low in this country with regard to the skill we require of drivers in order to acquire and maintain a driver's license. If airline pilots had roughly the same skill at piloting as this "average" driver to which you refer has at driving, either nobody would fly, or lots of people would fly and die.

As an added benefit, people who know how to drive well tend to involve themselves more in the task. They spend less time (note I didn't write "no time") with the sort of in-car distractions that are likely to to cause accidents. At what point did the privilege of driving (which it was, at one time, considered to be) become a *right*?

And for the record, when driving in the snow, I prefer AWD, RWD, then FWD, in that order.

- Greg Reed

Did you ever see a front wheel drive car go up a slippery icy hill? What fun! I especially like to see them smoke their tires in a vain attempt to gain traction.

Al

And the percentage of rear wheel drives on the road is? Hmmmm.

For experienced professional drivers on a closed circuit...

Going up hills is only one aspect to driving in the snow. For virtually every everyday scenario, FWD is better in the snow when driven within normal everyday driving limits.

Note: I prefer to drive RWD and AWD cars myself, but I will certainly give FWD their due.

Why is it every snow storm the ditches fill up with front wheel drives almost 100%? now that is the test of the pudding

And in pro rally where traction is the ultimate judge Front drives have the slowest times in stages Real wheel drive next best times

4 wheels are higher average speeds Front drives are just plain crap in the snow The front ends wiggle side to side up hills like a hula dancer and dont move. It is quite funny

In my neck of the woods, the ditches are filled with 4x4's about 70%, front drives 25% and RWD 5%. Most passenger vehicles are FWD so interpret that how you will.

CW

, >Why is it every snow storm the ditches fill up with front wheel drives >almost 100%?

I was driving one last winter, trying to go up that hill. You must've been watching. That car is now gone.

Ditto.

Like anti-lock brakes, FWD has been sold as a "safety feature" for people who wish to remove the Human Mind from the safety equation. We're not doing ourselves any favors, as a people, by coddling people in this way. The bar gets lower, and lower, and lower...

My favorite thing about driving my AWD Subaru in deep snow, is that it drives more like my old RWD Volkswagens, only less squirrely. As in, I can actually keep moving in the same basic direction. Same goes for my older 4WD Subarus, and my 4WD Toyota pickup. I personally think Subaru switched from their old 4WD system to full-time AWD, because people were too shy about pulling on that cool little lever.

BTW, on the Snow Tires topic: we just bought our first after-factory set of tires this fall, and we bought Bridgestone "Turanza"s. Okay, I admit it: I bought into the whole spiel the salesguy was dishing out. But they sounded really cool. And so far, I have to say, they seem pretty aggressively invinciple on our steep driveway and backroads in snow.

(apologies for any typos; I have Band-Aids on a number of fingertips right now...)

NO it transfers to drivers on the road same situation FWD has less traction End of story Get used to it sheesh

In most cars on the road, the weight balance is biased towards the front. (big heavy engine). This places more weight over the front wheels.

As a result, on a level surface, the front wheels of the car have more traction available to them (assuming same tire size and type on all 4 corners). This means that a FWD car can deliver more power to the road before wheelspin than a RWD car. Simple physics. Ff = u x Fn. As Fn increases with the weight, so does the Ff, which we all know is the traction available.

This begins to change as the car accelerates. The weight will begin to transfer rearward, and the front wheels begin to lose traction, and the rear wheels begin to gain traction. When the weight bias passes 50/50, the RWD car has the advantage under acceleration. Again, simple physics.

Most drivers on the road on a day to day basis do NOT accelerate hard enough in slippery conditions (and prudently so) to initiate enough weight transfer to give RWD a traction advantage. Competition drivers, without things like pedestrians and other unpredictable traffic to worry them, can. This is why RWD shows an advantage in racing.

Hills upset the balance somewhat, as they simulate the weight transfer of acceleration. This makes FWD have less drive wheel traction, and RWD have more on uphill starts. It also gives FWD better acceleration on downhill starts. (which is rather a moot point in everyday driving)

Corners make a difference too. Under acceleration, FWD cars have less traction when cornering than RWD. They are splitting their available traction between acceleration and steering. This promotes understeer when traction is lost. RWD cars don't have that limitation on the front, but split traction the same way at the rear. This is slightly less likely to cause loss of traction, but it does. Rear wheels have to split traction between acceleration and cornering. The result of this traction loss is oversteer. In general, understeer is easier to recover from than oversteer.

Under braking or coasting, all things are equal between the

1. When decelerating in gear with no brakes applied, RWD has the advantage of leaving the front wheels with full traction for cornering, and using the braking force on the rear wheels only.

Having said all this, I think I can sum it up rather simply.

1) Both FWD and RWD begin with the same amount of traction. They just make use of it differently, and have advantages and disadvantages in various situations. 2) The advantages FWD offers tend to line up with everyday drivers in everyday situations. RWD offers advantages to those that push the limits. 3) AWD tends to offer both the advantages and disadvantages of both, netting out to the best possible experience (in most worlds).

Well - the one big disadvantage of FWD for me is when it's wet and I'm first in line behind a crosswalk or stop line. When I accelerate, the front tires will slip on the wet painted line. I've tried starting out of 2nd gear to avoid slipping.

The solution, of course, is to stop behind the line.... ;)

What was this "spiel" that sounded really cool ?

I got them too, for my 97 OB, several years ago, and like them. Much better handling that the OEM Michelins. No way to compare on snow, since it is rare here and never drove the Michelins. They were/are fairly cheap too, and I still have lots of tread left at 50K (but I think a belt has shifted since I have gotten them balanced and still have a shimmy).

Anyhow, I'm tempted to get another set of Turanzas, but wondering if I should look at something else.

Thanks, John

Or get a car with Traction Control (unlike my GT wgn :-( & I do wish it had T/C). Terry - '02 Regatta-Red GT wagon 5spd - 25,000 miles '03 Silver Legacy SE auto-sedan - 2450 miles Yakima / TandeMover / Rockymount rack To reply, get rid of the "nonsense"

Most aggressively tractiony in wet and icy conditions, and that the rubber supposedly wears in such a way that they have more traction when worn, so have a longer useful tread life. This is a concern because our gravel road routinely eats up tires inside 25,000 miles.

He flat-out promised me it would feel like a whole new car. I was skeptical by the time I was on the way home, and feeling a little sheepish for the next couple of weeks about falling for it -- but then we got lots of snow, and hey, it _does_ feel like a whole new car! It just _goes_.