Non bait: Why is fwd considered such a joke?

Fanboys (notably hondacucks) who can't admit it's a superior platform for performance cars so they just shitpost endlessly.

>>14877013
Assmad FR cucks

>>14877013
Understeer vs Oversteer
one is fun one is terrifying

>>14877027
BenchParrot detected

Fwd is limited. Tires are highly stressed and give poor handling characteristics. Still gud if car is light and low power. Fr is better though.

File: fwd vs rwd in a nutshell.png (253KB, 637x573px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 637x573px

daily assmad RWDcuckboi thread?

>>14877042
>implying RWD and AWD are not limited
>what is changing your driving style?

File: not_even_trying.jpg (48KB, 627x626px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 627x626px

>>14877013
>non bait

>>14877050
>more expensive
>more power

>0.6 seconds faster
kek

>>14877074
>change how you drive because your car is handicapped

now tell me why rwd is limited other than "muh economy"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gearbox/2003/04/why_frontwheel_drive_sucks.html

File: 1450869579173.jpg (49KB, 576x440px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 576x440px

>>14877013
>accelerate
not enough weight on the driven wheels
>brake
too much weight one the driven wheels
>steering braking and acceleration all on the same contact patch

>in the case of most hatchbacks
suspension is designed entirely around minimum bulk to the exclusion of other factors
it's one of the few reasons they have a large interior volume

my experience is that they can not be provoked and everything about them is sluggish and lossy
you have no other choice but to be smooth and have good lines that plan ahead

>>14877099
>more epensive
except a brand new fd2 was 25k, which is cheaer than an optioned gt86

>more power
100 kgs more aswell

>.6
two seconds slower around tsukuba

damn, assmad RWDcucks are usually pretty fucking dumb but this one is special

>>14877198
>except a brand new fd2 was 25k
a type R was closer to 65k you fucking retard
>100 kgs more aswell
still more power to weight
>two seconds slower around tsukuba
congrats

>>14877013

The rear wheels are just flopping around like dildo's on a FWD, might as well replace the rear wheels with sticks to save weight... You can't control the wheels aside from using the e-brake. FWD can't really handle that much power in the turns which is why all GOOD AWD platforms are RWD biased.

>>14877013
because FWD cucks refuse to admit that everything good about a RWD layout is thrown out the window for the sake of cost.
>weight distribution
>inherit grip levels
>front wheels need wide tires for grip, wide wheels = less steering radius at a certain point.

File: 7.jpg (62KB, 874x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 874x480px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w_z9UG-Wng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMgvVxR5VLE

>>14877013
The primary advantage everyone cites for FWD is that it has disgustingly bad weight distribution, which is theoretically superior to RWD under certain rare circumstances, but always inferior to AWD or 4WD.

Take that as you will.

>>14877013
skid kids can't make them do doughnuts or drift

Imagine modern civics with a rwd layout

>>14877207
>a type R was closer to 65k
you are a dumb nigger

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/honda/civic-type-r/first-drives/honda-civic-type-r
>Honda Japan would charge you the equivalent of £11,561 for this car

which back in the day when the pound was higher and yen wasn't as low is close to 20k usd in japan

serious question, you clearly are nothing but a waste or air and space, why don't you kill yourself?

>still more power to weight
tought RWD was better

>congrats
you don't have to congratulate me

File: 1460175383435.png (154KB, 331x391px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 331x391px

>fwd and rwd fags bitching out again
>mfw glorious 4wd master race

>>14877013

Because people who say FWD sucks are generally the ones who can't drive and hide behind other layouts thinking that it will make them faster.

i can't see it as anything other than a production cost cutting measure

>>14877274
>all the understeer of FWD
>combined with none of the fun of RWD

>>14877013
>understeer
>can't powerslide therefore drifts look really stupid
>abysmal weight distribution
>torque steer if you have a more powerful car
>failed at lemans
>worse steering

>>14877396
>rolled his plastidipped Mazda 3

Because one set of wheels needing to both drive the car and steer is inherently more complex

Because transverse engines are harder to work on

Because inertia puts the weight onto the rear wheels on acceleration and beyond a certain power/weight ratio a car needs to be rwd to be able to get the power to the pavement

Most /o/tists will never work on their car and never have big power though so it doesn't
really matter to them.

>>14877013
Bitches be mad at my red EG FR killing hatch

>>14877027
Retard alert

as >>14877034 you're just spouting shit you heard without actually understanding how it works

>>14877461
What is your favorite flavor of vape juice ?

>>14877597
Gotta love the grape, mang. I just wish they'd make that cloud purple as well.

File: 1454991048617.png (70KB, 1072x1493px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1072x1493px

>drivetrain cucks

not

File: 2755065_orig.jpg (235KB, 1100x447px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1100x447px

>>14877393
>he thinks people use 4wd vehicles for high speed maneuverability
lol typical boyracer

Do your fucking job mods

File: engineers at work.gif (195KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 400x225px

>thingken about 50/50 weight distributions

What about a rear engine, front wheel drive car with rear wheel steering?

>>14877013
>ctrl+f 'hektik'
>no results
You guys are avoiding the big point here

>>14877459
Finally, someone who knows what he's talking about in these fucking threads. Having your steering, brakes, and power on the same wheels puts a lot of stress on those wheels, and fwd just can't handle the shifting weight of a car or losing traction as well as rwd. There's nothing inherently wrong with fwd, which is why most econoboxes use it because it's cheaper, but on the track rwd will always be better.
>>14877858
accurate

>>14878281

The chair is bolted in backwards.

>>14878281

Every turn would have to be 90 degrees.

File: come on now.jpg (38KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x375px

>his car isn't starboard-wheel drive

>>14878410
TARBO FORKLIFT

>>14878423
You wanna say, every turn could be taken with way less steering input then usual.

>>14877106
>http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gearbox/2003/04/why_frontwheel_drive_sucks.html

>why rear wheel drive is coming back
>2003
>it's now 2016
>RWD isn't back

top kek how will FR cucks live with themselves.

>>14877013

this guy is fucking brilliant though, love his yt

>>14879088
are you literally 12 and female?

>>14877013
because cars should oversteer when you push the gas not understeer

File: 1396114550111.gif (1MB, 244x109px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 244x109px

>>14879128

can you be any more jealous?

oversteer is more fun

that's all

why need to dilute it 90% of you motherfuckers won't come within 8/10ths of your car's capabilities and 99% of you aren't in a spec racing series where it actually matters. i just prefer oversteer because i like having fun my car and don't care about going fast like sanic (otherwise i'd get a liter bike)

>>14877190
this. fucking shitbox fwd celica had this.

>>14877013
>Why is fwd considered such a joke?

It's not, it's just an /o/ meme

>>14877013
Generally because people on /o/ are stupid.

FWD is prone to understeer. You can correct it by letting off the gas and pressing on the brakes, hoping that your front tires get traction. You can't make it through the corner if they don't.

RWD is prone to oversteer. You can correct it by letting off the gas and steering in the opposite direction, hoping that your rear tires get traction. However, you can still make it through the corner even if you don't stop pressing on the gas, and even if your rear tires don't get traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVoz-uJsxTY

Here is the simplest answer.

On a track with turns my Saabs will shit all over 75% of the RWD cars out there. Those 25%, which happen to be of equal 'quality', will wreck my Saabs completely. That being said my Saabs may have equal, if not more power, and get 30% gas mileage.

Only 2% of /o has the ability to extract the performance difference between FWD and RWD outside of 'wicked skids'.

>>14878477
why is it always FF vs FR
there are so many different types and details

>>14881351
Because RR is hilarious and everyone knows this (but still nobody builds this for some reason besides fucking Merc and their Smart car) and RF is just memeworthy.

This entire thread is retarded

FWD is for economy cars
RWD is for sport-y cars

Most high performance cars nowadays have AWD anyway

RWD only became popular initially because we didn't have the technology for CV joints or ball joints to make the front wheels turn while obtaining power, but now we do so we can make cars FWD
They're cheaper cuz less drive shafts and shit

>>14881372
The most successful sports car in the history of man is RR.

>>14881393
Yes, I also liked Herbie and I wish he'd come back. Me mum drives a Smart. If there even was a manual gearbox for that it mitebcool if you'd completely overtune it then that would be it, if you're not afriad of rolling over if you fuck up dagumi'ing.

>>14877212
>all GOOD AWD platforms are RWD biased.

Except the Evo, faglord. Modern Quattros are also rear biased but understeer just as much as their FWD equivalents except for some very low grip situations.

>>14881384
also better acceleration. dat FR driveline weight.

>>14881372
>nobody builds this for some reason

uhhh Porsche?

File: AllMyKeks.png (51KB, 412x280px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 412x280px

>>14881450

>Except the Evo, faglord.

If the Lancer Evolution was a good car, it would still be in production.

File: ork car waaagh.jpg (52KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x375px

>>14881460
*nobody builds it in a car everyone can afford
I mean, all the nips do for their Keicars is FF after FF with the odd mid-engine Keivan. Why doesn't anyone make a new Beetle? If stuffing the engine up front gets you space savings then just turn the design 180° and bolt the seats in backwards. Give it a frunk that actually connects directly into the shotgun footwell allowing for long-item storage if you take the seat out.

>>14881475

You could say the same thing about RX7/8, or Nissan Silvia.

>>14877190
>>14879242
Explain this one to me?

>>14881486

Literally the new Twingo.

It gets snowy on winters so I very much prefer my xDrive thank you.
Also the power distribution is set at 40-60 front to rear at normal circumstances in case anyone starts barking about how there's no fun with 4wds.

>>14881502
The new Twingo is so modded out with stability crutches it is completely impossible to drift it even if you disable the ESP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nD4VydzlnM

>>14881526
still RR

>>14881504
>xD
>xD rive

File: new twingo hood.jpg (104KB, 729x486px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 729x486px

>>14881533
Wait a second- no it fucking isn't! The new Twingo is FF as always!

File: Scion.png (622KB, 1328x608px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1328x608px

>>14881495

They had shit designs too. Same goes for the Toyota FJ Cruiser. It tried to compete with the Wrangler while pandering to rich suburbanites. Glad to see it go.

Hopefully the Infiniti Q60 and Scion tC will join that list too.

File: renault_twingo_2.jpg (54KB, 680x353px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 680x353px

>>14881548
nice try
http://m1.de.f6m.fr/renault-modellpalette/renault-pkw/twingo/twingo/att0c070be5294f4fa3849a75a37d29425b/NEW_RENAULT_TWINGO_BTL__BONNET_1MIN15_CENTRAL_.mp4?v=78629447.34290941

File: hoda ascot gearbox.png (114KB, 1045x475px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1045x475px

>>14881372
id say its just that designers are lazy and cheep
that and no one buying the cars gives a shit

>>14881561
Fucking hell. Casuals everywhere. That infomercial is giving me cancer.

>>14881638
>MF

Why can`t we get modern cars like that?

>>14877013
Torque steer, understeer while cornering in the wet, handling issues with lots of power, and acceleration lifting weight of the drive wheels.
And it's mechanically complex, due to everything being clustered in the front end.
It's also hard to ballast the drive wheels in adverse conditions for more grip.

But for lower power applications, it's fine. Forgiving handling characteristics, tendency not to spin, cheap, compact, and effective.

File: saab 900.jpg (66KB, 981x526px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 981x526px

>>14881654
bulk and complexity

>>14881702
>compact

who gives a shit, I want a MF performance car.

>>14881654
What the fuck do you want a mid engine for? Inb4 weight distribution, fuck off. We got light-construction down to such a degree that the engineers can make any layout nowadays and just later on adjust where the center of gravity will be by tweaking it a little. It's just that most modern cars are being designed to be babby-safe and chock full of crutches.

The only thing that matters is that (at least) the rear wheels are powered and that it tends to oversteer instead of understeer so we can dagumi like fuck. The former must be selected for. The latter can be improvised with the right suspension mods.

>>14881759
>weight distribution
>no tork steer

Thats why, you mongoloid.

>>14881777
>tork steer
>hurr it's so fucking hard to put in one more linkage so the two driveshafts angling down to the wheels are of the same length
Nigger the only reason tork steer exists is because of cost cutting shit, see there >>14877190

>>14881497
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gearbox/2003/04/why_frontwheel_drive_sucks.html
>3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.)

If you just give it a short central axle that equal length driveshafts bolt to instead of these retarded-ass direct driveshafts then it's 99% solved. If you mount the engine transverse then it almost entirely disappears because now the engine just leans forward or backwards depending on what direction the crankshaft spins instead of left and right.

>>14881806
Ah, I see. Thanks!

>all these assmad fwd faggots

get a real car fuckbois you everyone is laughing at you

>>14877083
I say no homo before every blow job I've given and it's kept me straight so it definitely works

File: pinion_angle_bad_angles.png (154KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x480px

>>14881497
most cv joints loose some power at greater angles
the longer prop shaft shaft operates at a lesser angle throughout the range of suspension travel

another aspect is that the longer shaft will bend more under torsional strain so has to be made thicker to resist this
and if not made carefully will have more inertia than the shorter and smaller shaft
different types of metal can be used in each shaft to try and even this out

there are also other factors affecting torque steer
see the videos in >>14877222

>>14878477
this makes no mention of the inertial forces that can affect an FR lay out such as the mass of the crank shaft and drive shaft
shaft driven motor cycles have this problem as well

>>14882043
So literally "just fucking bolt it in place harder"?

File: 1435647742506[1].jpg (260KB, 900x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 900x948px

>>14877013
>I watch Engineering Explained

File: Wheelhop.gif (37KB, 350x193px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 350x193px

>>14882073
is good fix yes

>>14882043
>>14882073
Yup. I have Boomba Racing motor mounts on my Si. Completely eliminates wheel hop.

File: traction bar.jpg (83KB, 599x781px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 599x781px

fix works on other types also

>>14882114
so you can do sikk peelouts now?

Because nobody ITT drives on ice.

>>14882085
at least he actually knows what hes talking about. cant say the same for 90% of /o/

>>14881942
your miata is not fast nor manly cuck

>>14877021
>i'm going to disagree with a group of people who have an extreme , unreasonable stance by tanking the polar opposite position , in effect taking an equally unreasonable position .

FWD has come a long way , but it hits it's limit when it comes to handling and performance way sooner than RWD . Most modern FWD cars drive pretty good , some platforms are actually genuinely great handling machines . But you can't put a lot of HP on FWD cars without them spinning the wheels under hard acceleration , and you cant balance them as well as RWD due to inherit nose-heaviness , thus the handling will suffer when at the limit . There is a reason why real sportscars are RWD of AWD , but there is also a reason why Hot-Hatches give them a run for their money .

>>14882383
>at least he actually knows what hes talking about
lal

>>14877027
Oversteer is scarry AF , just like understeer . in general , cars doing something that youdon't want without you being fully in control is fucking scary .

Also FWD car do Oversteer if you lift off throttle mid corner, and RWD cars can understeer if they have poor weight distribution. I've done some sick skidz in FWD , I've also shat my pants oversteering , and i've understeered driving a FWD . All forms of loss of control are scary if you are not on top of them .

>>14882653
for me the lack of response is more concerning
with oversteer you at lest can intervene

to rank crashes in terms of injury
side is instant death kill
front is getting raped
backward you can take a nap

>>14881759
>Inb4 weight distribution, fuck off. We got light-construction down to such a degree that the engineers can make any layout nowadays

WRONG
WRONG
WRONG.

Big engines are heavy. The lighter the car, the heavier the engine is in comparison to the rest of the car.
So.
If you have a fuckhuge engine and a light as fuck car, where do you need the engine for optimal performance?
IN THE MIDDLE.

Physics, shitdick. That's why a 911 will kill you when it pendulums, and a GT will never beat a supercar in a race if that's the only difference between the cars.

>>14882135
I do occasionally, in winter, trying to get out of my un-gritted sideroad onto a major road.

Even with FWD, it's scary shit. If it was a faster road, I'd have to grit it myself.

File: IMG_0329.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>14877013
depends on what you want from a car

my ideal car was lightweight, seats 5, has cargo room, is sporty, gets over 30mpg, is easy to work on and under 5k there was only one choice

>94 civic si hatch
>flawless