Is there such a thing as a FWD (front-wheel drive) sportscar?

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by mini63

I would say that this makes sense - though you seem to believe that manufacturers do not make more FWD sports cars because of the perceived misconceptions about the FWD layout...and I would say that manufacturers don't build more FWD sports cars because the manufacturers, engineers and designers have come to the conclusion, over years and years of R & D, that RWD is a better platform for a "sporting", performance car.

Ok, we can agree to disagree (Gawd, I'm almost puking on myself with all the niceness we've suddennly displayed). I simply know for a fact that, with all I've read and researched that there are no longer any impediments to building a FWD sportscar. Most manufacturers didn't know how it could be done. Lotus figure it out and showed that its no worse than a RWD as a sportscar platform. You just have to know how to do it. No one else could figure that out or had the inclination to throw the required research and effort at it so they tooka pass and went with the tried and true, easy to make sportscar platform - RWD.

Hey, I could show you where FWD is BETTER than RWD in many situaiton in a sporting environment or track. Granted, there are situations where RWD is better than FWD too. They are different and have their own pros and cons but neither is necessarily better when each is done properly.

Originally Posted by mini63

I think that if FWD was deemed the way to go for performance cars, manufacturers building cars for F1, Le Mans, ALMS, etc., etc. would be building FWD cars...and they are not.

Again, I do consider the M100 to be a sports car. That is not an issue with me.

Hmm.........there are thousands of examples where the "best" of something didn't win out in the end. Betamax versus VHS is one good example. I'm not saying FWD is better at all. But consider this.

Let's say you had all your R&D in RWD and it was working for you. Then FWD comes along and you have a look at it and say, hey, there are some advantage heres. But, there's also some disadvantages too. In fact, in the end, the advantages and disadvantages pretty much are equal. Both would work but neither is better than the other.

There's no way you'd spend millions to devlop a FWD version for F1 that didn't give you significant advantages. You'd admire from afar and agree that FWD would make an interesting departure from the norm but you'd never spend the money, retrain you drivers and pit teams to get no additional advatage. You wouldn't even do it if it yeilded a 2% advantage. Its just too much work.

I'd suggest that's got more to do with why there's no FWD in F1 instead of FWD being inferior in some fashion.

[AV8NDOC]

FWIW I agree with most of what's being said by "both sides" here. But the bottom line in this thread is what the thread asks . . . .

Originally Posted by transio

On an unlimited budget, given the ability to change anything but the drivetrain, the Elan will never be able to match the performance of the Miata, simply because the potential of the FWD configuration is inately lower than that of RWD.

Now this, on the other hand, I would beg to differ. Yes, you can put a supercharged V8 in a Miata and make is go like stink in a straight line with lots of burned rubber and scary moments of loss of control--and I guess if that's what you consider a car for then MAYBE your statement is true. However I can name a few M100s that I would put on a track with similarly modified Miatas and would expect the Elan to spank it by virtue of it being the "Lotus" from the start!

Translation: you can put 300HP in an Elan and keep it trackable, but you can't get 500HP in a Miata and do the same . . .

(PS again I'm just trying to educate you about some Elan things you don't know, but I'm sure I will get attacked for it and the jist of what I am trying to say will be completely scrambled by Turden)

[mini63]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

No one else could figure that out or had the inclination to throw the required research and effort at it so they tooka pass and went with the tried and true, easy to make sportscar platform - RWD.

I'm not sure that I can agree that the reason manufacturers didn't further research FWD as a performance platform was because they didn't have "the inclination to throw the required research and effort at it." I think that the majority of sports cars made today are RWD because the manufacturers research and efforts have led them to the conclusion that RWD is the way to go.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

There's no way you'd spend millions to devlop a FWD version for F1 that didn't give you significant advantages. You'd admire from afar and agree that FWD would make an interesting departure from the norm but you'd never spend the money, retrain you drivers and pit teams to get no additional advatage. You wouldn't even do it if it yeilded a 2% advantage. Its just too much work.

I'd suggest that's got more to do with why there's no FWD in F1 instead of FWD being inferior in some fashion.

I'm not totally sure about this either, to be honest.

I guess that we're not making any progress here. I admit that I'm definitely stubborn. Though I may not be in love with the M100, I certainly respect it very much...and would never, ever (in a million years) not consider it a proper Lotus.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by mini63

I'm not sure that I can agree that the reason manufacturers didn't further research FWD as a performance platform was because they didn't have "the inclination to throw the required research and effort at it." I think that the majority of sports cars made today are RWD because the manufacturers research and efforts have led them to the conclusion that RWD is the way to go.

Exactly. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that RWD is a superior sporting platform. The fact that Lotus maximized the potential of the FWD platform in a unique instance to create a car on par with some RWD sports cars does not negate that the platform itself is less capable.

Please, Elanlover, if you care to continue this discussion, research the facts first. We're not being stubborn here. This is a matter of fact, and you're simply misinformed.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

You're missing the point. FWD has less maximum potential than RWD, because of its dynamics. Lotus overcame most of the problems with the m100, but that doesn't by any means eliminate the fact that RWD will always have greater potential and competitive advantage than FWD. ]

Well, then we agree to disagree. And I'm confused because the argument keeps changing. It seems like we're now talking about what makes a BETTER platform, not whether one or the other is a sportscar platform to begin with.

I've never said FWD was better. I happen to think its on a par with RWD with AWD being better (my opinion only). On a par? Only because FWD has some advtanages over RWD and vice versa. Which advantages are "better"? Depends a lot on your driving style and personal preference. Lotus never thought that what they did with FWD had less potential than a RWD platform. Quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by transio

I suggest that you try driving an Elise before commenting further.

I have. I quite liked it. A bit too spartan for me though as I don't run the track every weekend but it was quite a thrill. Drove my uncle's 2006 911 turbo that day too. Stark difference between the two.

Originally Posted by transio

Some more misconceptions:

RWD make up virtually all sports cars ever. The few AWD sports cars are exotic supercars with too much power to deliver to the pavement with 2 wheels on street tires.

Is the TT not a sportscar? Not supercar price. Some would argue that the Subaru is a sportscar too. I can think of a few more that are AWD that aren't supercar priced or push 400+ bhp.

I think we are going to see a lot more AWD spprtscars soon. And hey, too much power to deliver to the wheels usually refers to the first 2 seconds after you pop the clutch. Not for most of the trip so to speak.

Originally Posted by transio

[*]FWD doesn't make a great sports car. (see above)

Well, the M100 is a truly great sportscar so we know that FWD can be used to create one.

Originally Posted by transio

AWD makes for great traction in high-powered supercars and racing in the wet or on loose terrain, but is somewhat inferior in most dry conditions because there is significantly more unsprung weight, ultimately meaning less usable power delivered to the wheels and greater total vehicle weight.[/list]

I've said many times that there's pros and cons to both. You've just stated one about AWD but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Ever take an AWD into the shoulder of a road? Dry or not the traction is a benefit. Weight can be overcome with more horsepower if you have to. Handling gets a car around the track quickly though and AWD handles better than FWD or RWD for the most part (with the understanding that its all about how the car is set up).

I'm ok that we disagree. We obviously aren't going to convince each other of our opinions.

[smoseley]

I'm starting a new thread for the FWD vs RWD vs AWD discussion.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

I'm starting a new thread for the FWD vs RWD vs AWD discussion.

Please...............

I beg you..........don't.




I just don't have that much free time at work.

[Geordie]

Another advantage of RWD

[smoseley]

Ok, I changed my mind. I'm posting the reasons FWD is inferior here:

Advantages

1. Lower overall weight due to fewer components
   
   
2. Greater drivetrain efficiency, meaning slightly more power to the wheels (less unsprung weight).
   
   
3. Better slippery-surface traction than RWD
   
   
4. More predictable handling characteristics: front-wheel drive cars, with a front weight bias, tend to understeer at the limit, which is commonly believed to be easier for novice drivers to correct than terminal oversteer, and less prone to result in fishtailing or a spin.
   
   
5. Tactile feedback via the steering wheel informing driver if a wheel is slipping.

Disadvantages:

1. Forward weight bias, contributing to understeer.
   
   
2. Torque steer, making the car pull to the left or right under hard acceleration.
   
   
3. Loss of power due to weight shifting rearward under acceleration. This is most obvious in drag racers. The fastest FWDs are in the 8-second range, but the fastest RWDs are in the 4-second range.
   
   
4. Limited turning radius due to the driveshaft being attached to the front wheels.
   
   
5. No controlled oversteer, which can be beneficial at times on tight turns.

As you can see, the advantages of FWD primarily lean towards controllability and predictability, which are beneficial in harsh driving conditions (ice, snow, rain) and for less skilled drivers.

The primary reasons are that FWD tends to understeer under hard acceleration around a turn, whereas RWD tends to oversteer, and FWD loses traction to the driving wheels under acceleration whereas RWD gains traction to the driving wheels under acceleration.

Why is oversteer preferable? It's hard to explain if you haven't been on a track before. Basically, pushing to and past the limit with understeer causes your car to slide further from the apex, which always gives you a worse line, and ultimately could cause you to slide off course if you don't let off. Oversteer causes the rear of your car to swing around, which points your nose into the apex. This could also be bad if you lose control, but when done under control by an experienced driver, can improve your line, allowing you to accelerate out of the curve earlier. In simple terms, when you push FWD through a curve, it takes the curve wider. When you push RWD through a curve, it can take the curve wider OR narrower (depending on the driver's input).


Now, my knowledge of all this is admittedly less than that of many other members here, but I've read a lot on the subject and I think I covered the major points.

[AV8NDOC]

hey, good posting Mr Roboto

have we degenerated into rational discourse?

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Is the TT not a sportscar? Not supercar price. Some would argue that the Subaru is a sportscar too. I can think of a few more that are AWD that aren't supercar priced or push 400+ bhp.

The TT Quattro is neither a sports car nor true 4WD. It is a FWD fashion car. It is not designed for competitive driving. The Quattro version is fitted with a Haldex differential that drives some of the power (less than 50%) to the rear wheels. It is not a Torsen differential as seen on early Quattro rally cars.

But I digress. The Quattro system (AWD) was born from Audi's rally endeavors, where AWD is preferable due to slippier surfaces (gravel and dirt offer less traction) The STi and Evo are similar animals. They are designed for rally sport, not for road courses.

And don't say I'm hating on Audi TTs. I drive one.

Any more questions?

[LotusElanM100]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

The Mustang itself is not a sportscar, it's got backseats and is a GT to me (and many).

Forgive me, I am just trying to understand your rules here so I can understand where you are coming from. So from your statement above, if a car has a back seat then it is not a sports car? I mean no harm but I am just trying to understand your rules.

So according to the above statement we need to start remove the following vehicles from the list of "sports cars"

- Porsche 912
- Porsche 911
- Porsche 928
- Porsche 930
- Ferrari Mondial
- Ferrari 456MGTA

I originally had these cars on my "sports car" list but since your rules seam to be unbendable and written in stone then I will remove these cars from my list.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by transio

Exactly. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that RWD is a superior sporting platform. The fact that Lotus maximized the potential of the FWD platform in a unique instance to create a car on par with some RWD sports cars does not negate that the platform itself is less capable.

Actually, it's not a matter of fact - just commonly the way things are.

Maybe the reason that most (almost all?) sports cars are RWD is that it's much easier to get the performance from a RWD. It took Lotus a lot of work, knowledge, and skills to make the M100 the great sports car that it was/is. I'd say that it would be easy to agree that it's more cost effective to make great RWD sports cars than FWD sports cars. Lotus demonstrated that if you design it right and spend enough, FWD can be just as effective as RWD.

[AV8NDOC]

Tim, you are wat too rational for this thread.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

It took Lotus a lot of work, knowledge, and skills to make the M100 the great sports car that it was/is. I'd say that it would be easy to agree that it's more cost effective to make great RWD sports cars than FWD sports cars. Lotus demonstrated that if you design it right and spend enough, FWD can be just as effective as RWD.

Do you believe that the m100 is "just as effective" as the Elise?

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by LotusElanM100

Forgive me, I am just trying to understand your rules here so I can understand where you are coming from. So from your statement above, if a car has a back seat then it is not a sports car? I mean no harm but I am just trying to understand your rules.

So according to the above statement we need to start remove the following vehicles from the list of "sports cars"

- Porsche 912
- Porsche 911
- Porsche 928
- Porsche 930
- Ferrari Mondial
- Ferrari 456MGTA

I originally had these cars on my "sports car" list but since your rules seam to be unbendable and written in stone then I will remove these cars from my list.

Wow you sure are "teaching" me alot here

It's not just "my rule", as pointed out by dapinky, the dictionary even says seating for 2.

The only car that I think is an exception to that aspect is the McLaren F1 as in road going trim it seats three.... I'm sure no one will begrudge the F1 that

Besides, what made you think I didn't know that all 911s were 2+2s? And yes the Mondial and, moreso the F456 and now the F612/Scaglietti are all GTs.

Other cars which I like but are actually GTs?

Toyota Levin/Trueno (AE86)
Toyota Supra
Toyota Soarer
Nissan Fairlady (any 2+2 variety, S30/31 and Z32 especially)
Nissan Leopard
Nissan Skyline (GT-R:R32-R34, and G35/V35 coupes)
Nissan Silvia/200SX/240SX

Any other things you'd like to try and "educate" me on? I think you're just looking for excuses to argue with me

[kyohan03]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Some would argue that the Subaru is a sportscar too.

http://www.comcast.net/news/strange/...12/540510.html

[LotusElanM100]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

Any other things you'd like to try and "educate" me on? I think you're just looking for excuses to argue with me

No, these are your rules so you have been educating us. I just wanted to make sure I was playing by yuor rules since you are the one making this up as you go

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by mini63

I'm not sure that I can agree that the reason manufacturers didn't further research FWD as a performance platform was because they didn't have "the inclination to throw the required research and effort at it." I think that the majority of sports cars made today are RWD because the manufacturers research and efforts have led them to the conclusion that RWD is the way to go.

Hey, me neither. But, it makes some sense though. Consider this now. Its RWD cars that dominated the early market. FWD was never a major player, for whatever reason, in the early days. Coulsdn't have been due to performance either unless we want to start arguing that Ford was dreaming of a Model T sports coupe when he started building............

Anyway, the next step for a race car to be designed would have been to put the engine in the rear (yes, i know I'm skipping decades here but go with it for a moment). Why? Same reasons why FWD cars have an advantage. You put the engine, the tranny and drive wheels in a nice, compact area and you've got a winner. No driveshaft to worry about, etc.

Keep this thought then skip to your next quote....

Originally Posted by mini63

I'm not totally sure about this either, to be honest.

That was referring to my comment about development costs, etc. So, even if you said FWD had advantages in F1 racing think or what you'd have to do. Find a way to run a drive shaft from the rear mounted engine to the front wheels and a bunch of other nasty stuff. Or, put the engine in the front of the car. Even more work and development.

I just can't see any F1 builder doing the millions of dollars of R&D to get to that design concept unless there were major advantages in doing it. I've said there's no major, overall advantage. They are somewhat even overall when you consider each platforms various pros and cons. So you just wouldn't do it.

Let's reverse the argument. Let's ay for some strange reason that F1 cars, and cars in general, were all developed with FWD platforms. Then, some crazy engineer came up with this far flung notion that RWD had some advantages. Let's even say more than a few. How about a 5% increase in performance (whihc would be huge by F1 standards).

What's the real likelihood that current designs would be completely scrapped to go RWD with all the costs associated with that? Not much. How come all F1 cars aren't AWD right now? There's some advantage to going AWD for sure.

Of course, there are all those rules that would have to be changed first whihc F1 wouldn't likey do either.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Consider this now. Its RWD cars that dominated the early market. FWD was never a major player, for whatever reason, in the early days.

The "whatever reason" is that FWD cars are less capable as sports cars. End of story. Please stop posting your engineering theory. It's plain wrong, and beginning to annoy me. Stop theorizing and go read something about why race cars are the way they are. "Engineering to Win" is a good book. Start there.

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Let's reverse the argument. Let's ay for some strange reason that F1 cars ... were all developed with FWD platforms.

Then they would be slower than they are now. That is a fact.

Read the post I made above about why FWD cars are inferior for racing. Go research the facts and learn something.