Stupid question: why aren't all performance cars AWD?

[Billup]

I still like this design better.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

This X1000


And this.

BTW OP, the middle ground is called Audi.

Who wants to drive around with what feels like you passenger tugging on the steering wheel every time you hit the throttle?? Not this guy.

Having never even driven a AWD I feel I am best qualified to comment on this.
IRL AWD is for safety to deal with snow and rain, and at most allows boy racers to beat people off the line at traffic lights.
But it SUCKS balls in term of feel /driver enjoyment.
Like Tonka said, it's like trying to have sex with a chick who is constantly trying to do the opposite of whatever you are doing.
One set of wheels to to drive, one set to steer, ok?
AWD is like tranny sex..

and I hate Audi

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Billup

That is surely the most dumbest thing ever. One superlative > AWD > RWD.

RWD>...... .... ... .. Nkc's wife>AWD>OBL

[RambleJ]

Originally Posted by 1fastdoc

I was recently looking at getting a WRX as a DD but I just couldn't get past how cheap it felt. Also looked at the STi and in doing so, have come across a lot of info on the Evo and it got me thinking.

I was at an open track event a year ago and one of the fastest cars out there was a modded STi. At one point it passed me and my instructor told me to just stay on his bumper. LOL. That lasted about 10 seconds -- the time it took to go through the next turn. Gone...

So it seems, on paper, on a tight track, that the AWD cars should lay waste to the M3's, the vettes, etc. But if that was really the case, I would imagine that BMW would make the M3 an AWD vehicle. Clearly, they haven't.

Why not? What am I missing? What is the advantage to NOT having AWD? Many times I've heard that the AWD cars are easier to drive fast on a course. Isn't that the goal?

And on a similar note, why is there such a discrepancy when it comes to AWD performance? You either pay $35k for an STi or you pay over $100k for a GTR or AWD Porsche. Where is the middle ground??

The STi was modded and probably had a driver who is very experienced.
Driver mod and you could have probably kept on his ass.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Having never even driven a AWD I feel I am best qualified to comment on this.
IRL AWD is for safety to deal with snow and rain, and at most allows boy racers to beat people off the line at traffic lights.
But it SUCKS balls in term of feel /driver enjoyment.
Like Tonka said, it's like trying to have sex with a chick who is constantly trying to do the opposite of whatever you are doing.
One set of wheels to to drive, one set to steer, ok?
AWD is like tranny sex..

and I hate Audi

Having never even had tranny sex, I feel I am best qualified to comment on this....

tranny sex is like AWD.....

[Billup]

I always thought the criteria to buy an AWD car, was that you had to have sex with a tranny anyways.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Billup

I always thought the criteria to buy an AWD car, was that you had to have sex with a tranny anyways.

Something like that .. seriously, Audi?!
Aargh I hope I never try one
I don't know why Audi gets on my nerves

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Litos

Having never even had tranny sex,

sure bro

[Litos]

Originally Posted by grimlock

sure bro

i did not KNOWINGLY have tranny sex.......

it's different.......

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Billup

You need to do the research, Mr. two superlatives. Common knowledge. Well..., apparently it is not.

I'm deeply concerned with this "moron list", however. I can't stand the thought of being on a complete strangers crap list. Let me know when I am off so I can resume sleeping at night.

Sniff... Sorry I hurt your feeling. You keep thinking AWD is the best and be uneducated. No skin off my back.

[CJ421]

Strictly talking about performance - it's pretty much the same argument for driving in the snow.

An AWD and a RWD car will:
-Stop in the same distance
-Have the same amount of grip in turns (as determined by the tires)

Several posts in this thread have stated this.

AWD will have the advantage accelerating, that's all; it gets you moving from a stop. On a racetrack, it may help you power out of corners earlier depending on the car.
There is definitely a use-case; I'm sure AWD is a worthwhile option depending on the location (Alaska, Wisconsin, &c). The blissful ignorance amongst people buying cars in this country though think AWD is some sort of magic that makes the car perform better in all conditions. Simply untrue. AWD is a placebo feel-good option in most cases I observe.

[Simsims]

Originally Posted by CJ421

Strictly talking about performance - it's pretty much the same argument for driving in the snow.

An AWD and a RWD car will:
-Stop in the same distance
-Have the same amount of grip in turns (as determined by the tires)

Several posts in this thread have stated this.

AWD will have the advantage accelerating, that's all; it gets you moving from a stop. On a racetrack, it may help you power out of corners earlier depending on the car.
There is definitely a use-case; I'm sure AWD is a worthwhile option depending on the location (Alaska, Wisconsin, &c). The blissful ignorance amongst people buying cars in this country though think AWD is some sort of magic that makes the car perform better in all conditions. Simply untrue. AWD is a placebo feel-good option in most cases I observe.

incorrect.

an AWD car will always stop with a longer brake distance due to added weight.

[Robin_NL]

The worlds fastest cars are still rwd(also on the Nordschleife)956, Radical, Gumpert, ZR1, Viper etc.

And/but on difficult surfaces(snow/ice/gravel and rainy conditions) a good awd system can come in very handy, like here in the Rally of Finland. Only 315BHP and AWD. You can't fly faster than this over those gravel roads. BTW who cares about NASCAR, Indy, GT, LM, Supercars or even F1 now

Thanks Joost for this footage man!

And no I didn't see any guy named Ken Block. Because he isn't worth this kind of sport, sorry.


Cheers
Robin

[Billup]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Sniff... Sorry I hurt your feeling. You keep thinking AWD is the best and be uneducated. No skin off my back.

I will probably end up crying myself to sleep. Most likely from the hilarity of your incompetent ideology. That is neither here, nor there. From what I can gather, the most vehicular knowledge you have might be from High school, and that is alright, it takes a strong mind to get into physics (I'm sure you're cosmetology class didn't cover any of this).

I don't see how I am the uneducated one, you may want to go back and verify you can complete a simple sentence before you talk about education. I'm satisfied to the fact that you can't comprehend the purpose of why an AWD system was invented in the first place.

In 1893 Bramah Diplock (sp?) invented the first "AWD" system. I'm sure you're asking why. To create a vehicle that could tackle road ways and surfaces that were not paved.

It reduced power and added weight back then, and it does the same now, which may lead to a resulting lack of power compared to a RWD vehicle.

Please go on about lacking education, please.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Understeer is slow. AWD will unduce understeer, not just because of the extra weight up front, which doesnt help, but also because the tires can only give so much. As you start asking the tire to pull you forward, it reduces the tire's ability to hold side loads for cornering. Cant have your cake and eat it too, at least not at the same time. (google Friction Circle)

This is the real reason the fastest cars don't use AWD. In physics, the tire can only exert 100% of available grip. If 20% of that grip is used for propulsion, only 80% is available for directional grip. This is a constant, there is no getting around it, no matter how much RD is done.

The argument about making the AWD cars lighter isn't viable because you could also strip and lighten the RWD car. That's the same argument where someone says that they can make a honda civic is faster than an M3. Which is a true statement.....unless the same mods are done to the M3.

I am in the camp that believes the AWD option is more or less a marketing gimmick that is probably a 75% profit margin option for the manufacture. My M3 offers more confidence than my AWD 911GTS4. I sooooo wish i would have just got the 911GTS. I'm quite sure it would be a much better driver.

This is of course due Porsche trying to overcome the grip physics problem by only having the front wheels come on when "needed". This usually happens in the middle of a turn and if you haven't all of a sudden lost turning grip in the middle of a turn; it's not fun. Only if you're really into the trottole will the extra propulsion grip help you out, marginally. This doesn't happen though because as soon as you lose turning grip your instinct is to let off the throttle to let the front tires regain grip. it's just bad in this particular case. If you're driving at 9/10ths all the time it feels fine but that's near impossible on the street.

I'm RWD all the way, all the time. The only tires i want breaking loose are the rear ones.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

This is the real reason the fastest cars don't use AWD. In physics, the tire can only exert 100% of available grip. If 20% of that grip is used for propulsion, only 80% is available for directional grip. This is a constant, there is no getting around it, no matter how much RD is done.

Oh my. Someone who understands the basics of physics. Kits135i almost had me thinking I was the only crazy one, putting me on a moron list and all. Sorry Tonka, but if I am on the list, you are going down with me.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

In physics, the tire can only exert 100% of available grip. If 20% of that grip is used for propulsion, only 80% is available for directional grip. This is a constant, there is no getting around it, no matter how much RD is done.

Yes, and it's really worth noting that when you start changing the load on a tire (going from pure cornering to cornering + accel) the change in what the tire can provide is not symmetrical, since a friction circle is not really a circle, more like a flattened oval.

See: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...riction-circle

If you ask the tire to give 20% more propulsion, you'll be hit with MORE than a 20% loss of cornering grip.

When you exit a corner with AWD, you need to be straightening the wheel at a faster rate than you roll on the throttle, or you'll get tons of understeer. Of course this is made even worse due to the weight transfer off the front as you accelerate.

Warning: really understanding the friction circle, and how weight transfer affects it's shape, may lead to people approaching you between sessions at a track day, and asking you silly questions about what kind of camber plates you are running, since you MUST have some as they cant keep up with you in the twisty bits.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes, and it's really worth noting that when you start changing the load on a tire (going from pure cornering to cornering + accel) the change in what the tire can provide is not symmetrical, since a friction circle is not really a circle, more like a flattened oval.

See: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...riction-circle

If you ask the tire to give 20% more propulsion, you'll be hit with MORE than a 20% loss of cornering grip.

When you exit a corner with AWD, you need to be straightening the wheel at a faster rate than you roll on the throttle, or you'll get tons of understeer. Of course this is made even worse due to the weight transfer off the front as you accelerate.

Warning: really understanding the friction circle, and how weight transfer affects it's shape, may lead to people approaching you between sessions at a track day, and asking you silly questions about what kind of camber plates you are running, since you MUST have some as they cant keep up with you in the twisty bits.

hahahaha Isn't that the truth!! Understanding the physics of driving can garner more speed that just about any modification.

I remember one track day when 3 guys, driving a NSX, Viper and Calloway Vette approaching me to ask about the turbo set up on my 1985 supra. They were less than thrilled to find out that my car was turbo-less and only produced 185hp..... at the crank. They were less than thrilled because i was consistently lapping the Sebring long course about 18 to 20 seconds faster than each of them. I was even able to lap them in one of our 30 minute sessions.

[F1Venom]

Well, keep in mind the Bugatti Veyron is AWD only....
I, for one, love RWD but would only drive AWD in snow.

[Litos]

I think the only subjects on car forums that get more run than "AWD vs. RWD" are "which intake is the best".......

[CJ421]

Originally Posted by Simsims

incorrect.

an AWD car will always stop with a longer brake distance due to added weight.

I'm aware of that distinction. The point of my post is less than scientific; rather, to isolate what AWD helps and conversely what it doesn't. I think the intention of my post was fairly obvious, but for the sake of argument, and to appease those that look no further than the dotted line (ahem), we'll amend my post; this time we'll imagine it's a perfect world where the two cars being compared are identical in all respects save for RWD vs. AWD. This allows us to focus on the pure advantages and disadvantages of RWD and AWD. You can dissect it from there to your heart's content. Good day.

[1fastdoc]

Originally Posted by Litos

I think the only subjects on car forums that get more run than "AWD vs. RWD" are "which intake is the best".......

Perhaps. But searching turns up a lot of crap info to sift through and asking the question was helpful.