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

[Taxcheat]

Originally Posted by transio

Clearly not. AWD is superior in cases where traction is a problem, such as in high powered cars on street tires or rally cars. It has some serious detractors that would make it inferior for F1, though.

I thought I'd point out that Colin Chapman would disagree with you on AWD. Chapman really wanted to have an AWD F1/Indy car, but never got the bugs worked out to make the car fully competitive.

The advantage of AWD doesn't just come into play on dirt roads and wet weather. On any road it has the advantage when powering out of a corner or accelerating from a stop. Does that offset the weight penalty? Depends.

The only reason you don't see AWD in F1 and Indy-type racing today is the rules ban it.

[smoseley]

Taxcheat, that Lotus AWD F1 car is interesting. Never knew about that!

Originally Posted by Taxcheat

The only reason you don't see AWD in F1 and Indy-type racing today is the rules ban it.

Then why don't we see it in any other form of racing, other than rally? I mean, if it's really superior in all forms of racing, why stick with RWD?

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by transio

Taxcheat, that Lotus AWD F1 car is interesting. Never knew about that!

You never heard of the famous Indy turbine cars?

It led the race (I seem to remember it was a least a lap up on the second place car), when just a couple of laps before the end of the race, it broke a minor part (something like a $5 U-joint) that caused it to drop out of the race.

By the next race, "they" had placed so many restrictions on the turbine cars, that they could not be competitive - they were "ruled" out of competition.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

You never heard of the famous Indy turbine cars?

Yeah, I've read about it, but didn't know it was AWD!

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

AWD is superior in cases where traction is a problem, such as in high powered cars on street tires or rally cars.

I just saw this again and had to comment. I'm not sure people rally understand what "traction" truly means. I'm not directing that at you transio, most of the world, including auto journalists don't even really describe it properly.

Traction is the ability for the tire to keep the contact patch as large as possible and in contact with the road surface (I'm paraphrasing - probably not well either). "Traction", therefore, has far more to do with the tire itself than the drivetrain.

If a FWD car, RWD car and even AWD car drive over the same gravel dump the tires on each will lose the same amount of traction. The contact patch will shrink by the same amount and traction will be reduced. The bigger the contact patch, the more traction you have. Better tires give you a bigger CP and allow you to maintain the size of the CP longer under different conditons.

Now, "wheel slippage" is a completely different thing. A RWD car may experience more wheel slippage but that's not the case in straight line driving like above if we hit that gravel patch on a highway. The car has to be in a corner, under hard acceleration, etc. in order for the CP to break traction. Tires, again have a lot to do with this. Yes, FWD (and AWD) can have less slippage than RWD and part of that is due to more weight on the front tires in FWD cars. But, I can stick a couple of cases of beer in the trunk of a RWD car and reduce slippage can't I? More appropriately, I can redistribute the weight or add some techno gizmos like most cars have now to a RWD car to reeuce slippage.

Even better, I can make a RWD car with a mid or rear mounted engine to get more weight over the wheels thereby reducing slippage to the point where its likely exactly like a FWD car. Again, noe of this has anything to do with the drivtrain layout - only what you do with it.

I know this is niggling details on traction but I thought it could be important.

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

I can stick a couple of cases of beer in the trunk of a RWD car and reduce slippage can't I? More appropriately, I can redistribute the weight or add some techno gizmos like most cars have now to a RWD car to reeuce slippage.

Adding weight doesn't improve handling. It increases downward force, but also increases lateral forces experienced when cornering.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by Taxcheat

The only reason you don't see AWD in F1 and Indy-type racing today is the rules ban it.

Bloody purists.............:middle finger raised smilie:

Originally Posted by Taxcheat

I thought I'd point out that Colin Chapman would disagree with you on AWD.

Colin Chapman would have designed an AWD, 4 wheel steering, flying, submersible sportscar that would also make your expresso for you. He was brilliant.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

Adding weight doesn't improve handling. It increases downward force, but also increases lateral forces experienced when cornering.

Yes, but the net result is less wheel slippage, bigger CP and therefore, better handling. CP is bigger = more traction.

Here's another question. If you leap of the line with spinning tires do you have more or less traction than if you speed away at just the point before the wheels spin?

Answer: It depends.

A spinning tire also has a contact patch. And, it can be the same size as one where the tires isn't spinning. A car spinning its wheels is still moving forward which means traction to the road. Normally, the CP gets smaller when you spin the wheels because the tire actually baloons a bit reducing the CP's size.

So, imagine if you will, a tire that never ballooned when spinning. Would you have the same traction as if the tires weren't quite spinning? Possibly. Now, tire compounds and 10,000 other things are at play here that i don't understand but I hope you can see the point I'm getting at.

[bhtooefr]

Originally Posted by transio

Then why don't we see it in any other form of racing, other than rally? I mean, if it's really superior in all forms of racing, why stick with RWD?

BTCC?

I seem to recall Audi kicking BTCC ass thanks to quattro, and then AWD was promptly banned, causing Audi to leave BTCC.

[zr1fan]

Originally Posted by PhlypSide

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?

I don't know why I keep reading this... But anyway. So I've two things. One, are you saying then that the 911 is not a sports car? You have implied it, but is that truly what you think?

And the second, man you really keep amazing me with the arguments you'll throw out. So you are saying that there is a defined rule as to what exactly constitutes a sports car? That there's no leeway or interpretation (except of course for that pesky McLaren F1)?

If not, would you have to consider the Ford Thunderbird, in 1st and/or last generation format, to be a sports car? It had sleek lines, it's a two seater, and it has a powerful engine up front that drives wheels out back. If you don't consider that it is, then what's the rule it breaks?

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Yes, but the net result is less wheel slippage, bigger CP and therefore, better handling. CP is bigger = more traction.

That's a misconception. There is only better traction on standing starts. At speed, aerodynamics play a bigger part in contact patch than the weight, and in corners, increased weight increases lateral loads, which exponentially decreases road-holding ability, despite a marginal increase in CP.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by transio

That's a misconception. There is only better traction on standing starts. At speed, aerodynamics play a bigger part in contact patch than the weight, and in corners, increased weight increases lateral loads, which exponentially decreases road-holding ability, despite a marginal increase in CP.

Well, aerodynamics affects cd. That's all it does really. Physics related things, like adding a spoiler to the back to create down force is a little different (fluid mechanics). And, that physics thing basically increases the weight. It creates downforce and is even measured in pounds. Adding weight can reduce wheel slippage. Aerodynamics does nothing for the contact patch. You'd never get a auto engineer to agree to that. I know this may be splitting hairs but people do seem to like getting into details here.

Any weight in a car can be seen in lateral loads going around a corner. That's not a relevant point. Adding extra weight, in my simple example, or redistributing the weight so you can get that perfect 50-50 ratio will still get you lateral loads. That doesn't affect the contact patch. And road holding ability is ALL about the car's ability to maintain that patch. CP gets small and you lose the back end for example.

Now, there's so much more to the CP than what i've talked about. I'm way oversimplifying here. More importantly, this really doesn't have much to do with the subject.

FWD cars CAN be true sportscars. No doubt at all. Since RWD sportscars exist and it would be hard for someone to say AWD cars either aren't or can't be then its pretty clear that the drivetrain platform plays absolutely no role in what makes up a sportscar.

Its all about what you do with it that matters. No?

[Taxcheat]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Colin Chapman would have designed an AWD, 4 wheel steering, flying, submersible sportscar that would also make your expresso for you. He was brilliant.

He designed that, too.

[Elanlover]

Originally Posted by Taxcheat

He designed that, too.

Hehe.........was expecting that one soon

I was waiting for the expresso equipped verson though. Never came out with it so I bought a used '75 Honda Civic instead. It didn't have cup holders either although the holes in the floorboards woulda worked I guess. Lotus probably didn't do it because they would have had to make cup olders to go with it...............

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by zr1fan

I don't know why I keep reading this... But anyway. So I've two things. One, are you saying then that the 911 is not a sports car? You have implied it, but is that truly what you think?

And the second, man you really keep amazing me with the arguments you'll throw out. So you are saying that there is a defined rule as to what exactly constitutes a sports car? That there's no leeway or interpretation (except of course for that pesky McLaren F1)?

If not, would you have to consider the Ford Thunderbird, in 1st and/or last generation format, to be a sports car? It had sleek lines, it's a two seater, and it has a powerful engine up front that drives wheels out back. If you don't consider that it is, then what's the rule it breaks?

Aaaaaaaaaaah! Not again

No the 911s while popularly considered sportscars are technically GT's because they have back seats (I personally do think they are sportscars, but will concede that they're GTs because they have backseats). The dictionary entry that dapinky pointed out mentioned seating for 2.

The first Thunderbirds were sportscars to me, but the newest retro one was FWD, and therefore not a sportscar to me (or many ).

My definition of sportscar, which sounds like something you'd like finalized and expressed is as follows:

Originally Posted by My definition of a sportscar

1) Not a trim-level difference model only (e.g. Honda Civic/Integra Type Rs or Neon SRT-4s)
2) Not FWD (RWD is most common with AWD obviously working for Lamborghini and Bugatti as well)
3) Seating for 2

I don't hold that a sportscar should be hardtop/convertible or a certain color, but that's my understanding. Honestly I actually prefer hardtops (w/o sunroofs might I add), but am fortunate enough to have access to convertibles/targas.

That's it

[Elanlover]

Who's this guy

My definition of a sportscar

you quoted above???????????

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by bhtooefr

BTCC?

I seem to recall Audi kicking BTCC ass thanks to quattro, and then AWD was promptly banned, causing Audi to leave BTCC.

+1 I remember this... AWD was too much of an advantage. Over in Japan in the JGTC/SuperGT series, the Skyline GT-R had to run in RWD mode only as AWD was simply too much of an advantage.

Additionally, in the US pro-Drifting series FormulaD AWD cars must be converted to RWD.

[PhlypSide]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Who's this guy

My definition of a sportscar

you quoted above???????????

I quoted my definition for reference, it's just a block style I wanted to use not an actual user here hehe >=P

[smoseley]

Originally Posted by Elanlover

Well, aerodynamics affects cd. That's all it does really. ... and a whole bunch more stuff.

Let's end this. If you're really interested in learning this stuff, go read a book that from a source that you respect. You obviously don't respect my knowledge, so I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. All you're doing is wasting my time.

[Elanlover]

We're no longer even talking about the original subject and are way off base. Did you have a comment about the remarks i made related to drivetrain platforms? Its more relevant I think.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Cartman

Respect My Authoritai!