Picked up my MCS

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

I assume you mean "rotate under acceleration" - otherwise, a FWD car, with all that weight bias toward the front, can rotate quite easily indeed - a little throttle lift into turn can do the trick.

Ed

i meant 'rotate' period.

to simply say that a FWD car, with 60% of the weight in front, can rotate easily by lift throttle is difficult to come by, esp. in a car with a long wheelbase and decent tires. it'll terminally understeer like mad --not that an awd car or the MINI won't either.

[ff]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

a FWD car, with all that weight bias toward the front, can rotate quite easily indeed

My Civic feels like it wants to rotate while in the turn, even with steady throttle. Something I've commented on before. But it's probably done with electronics, which isn't "natural".

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by lemming

i meant 'rotate' period.

to simply say that a FWD car, with 60% of the weight in front, can rotate easily by lift throttle is difficult to come by, esp. in a car with a long wheelbase and decent tires. it'll terminally understeer like mad --not that an awd car or the MINI won't either.

When I was at Skip Barber's driving school a few years ago, part of an afternoon was devoted to emergency lane changes.

In this test, you accelerate up to 40 mph in the center lane, or the extreme right or left lanes of a three lane runway (depending on where the instructor puts you).

There's a traffic light ahead and as you get to what feels like right under it, the instructor changes one to green.

The object is without, and this is the important part, without braking, you're to swerve into that lane. Naturally, it's most difficult from the far lane to the other far lane.

It was an eye-opener to see students completely spin the stock FWD Dodge Neons around - on dry pavement - because they either lifted off the throttle too fast or braked when they weren't supposed to.

At only 40MPH

Ed

[BahnBaum]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

In today's ultra-competitive touring class, FWD cars do quite well indeed - Acuras, Mazda3's etc. door handle to door handle with BMW's, the new Caddy's and AWD Audis.

The series is ultra-competitive because they've done a great job of making the cars ultra-competitive through their management of individual model specs for rev limits, minimum weight, permitted mods, front/rear weight distribution etc.

Alex

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

When I was at Skip Barber's driving school a few years ago, part of an afternoon was devoted to emergency lane changes.

In this test, you accelerate up to 40 mph in the center lane, or the extreme right or left lanes of a three lane runway (depending on where the instructor puts you).

There's a traffic light ahead and as you get to what feels like right under it, the instructor changes one to green.

The object is without, and this is the important part, without braking, you're to swerve into that lane. Naturally, it's most difficult from the far lane to the other far lane.

It was an eye-opener to see students completely spin the stock FWD Dodge Neons around - on dry pavement - because they either lifted off the throttle too fast or braked when they weren't supposed to.

At only 40MPH

Ed

they have the same exercise at the Bondurant school (they all do this exercise). lift, turn, squeeze. it's no biggy. much hairier in a mustang than a neon or a civic. point being, it's not impossible to make the rear end on a car lighten up to unweight the wheels.

but it's always easier in a RWD and more fun. all i'm pointing out to the h8rs is that there is a world of difference in FWD (think accord, camry, etc) and something with a short wheelbase.

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by BahnBaum

The series is ultra-competitive because they've done a great job of making the cars ultra-competitive through their management of individual model specs for rev limits, minimum weight, permitted mods, front/rear weight distribution etc.

Alex

I haven't kept up with it - I've mostly stopped watching racing on tv. If you're saying the FWD's are handicapped then I'll take your word for it.

It's hard to argue that for the purposes of enjoying a car like Plaz's Mini, its FWD layout is a demerit of any kind - especially since you couldn't really package a car like that without it.

Minis were pretty remarkable when they came on the scene in the 60's - as rally cars, they won so many races, essentially as street models (the S) the French found a way to disqualify them for their headlights.

That's a pretty impressive heritage and something any Mini driver can be proud of.

Ed

[BahnBaum]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

I haven't kept up with it - I've mostly stopped watching racing on tv. If you're saying the FWD's are handicapped then I'll take your word for it.

I don't know what models are currently handicapped or to what extent. What I do know is that the cars are competitive because the series works hard to make them that way.

You seemed to be implying that they're ultra competitive because their handling and performance characteristics are similar. I'm not sure that you're correct.

Alex

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

I haven't kept up with it - I've mostly stopped watching racing on tv. If you're saying the FWD's are handicapped then I'll take your word for it.

It's hard to argue that for the purposes of enjoying a car like Plaz's Mini, its FWD layout is a demerit of any kind - especially since you couldn't really package a car like that without it.

Minis were pretty remarkable when they came on the scene in the 60's - as rally cars, they won so many races, essentially as street models (the S) the French found a way to disqualify them for their headlights.

That's a pretty impressive heritage and something any Mini driver can be proud of.

Ed

i think bahnie's point is that there are several factors as to why the FWDers are a little more than competitive; the driving factor is likely to keep interest in the racing series (from manufacturers) high?

1. "fairness" rules
2. OEM support
3. driver talent.

i'd say that #1 would tend to favor FWDers quite a bit because they're just not competitive as the RWD equivalent (same weight, same power, same swept braking area) on a race course.

#2 is a huge factor and drives the success of the TSX (in the past) as well as the Mazda team.

#3 is tied into #2 (budget) but the big bucks teams can lure the established drivers into their cars.

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by lemming

but it's always easier in a RWD and more fun. all i'm pointing out to the h8rs is that there is a world of difference in FWD (think accord, camry, etc) and something with a short wheelbase.

It's relative.

Today, the standard family car is a front driver (or AWD) and sure, they're no fun, just as yesterday's standard bearer was a rear driver, and they were certainly no fun.

The cars I grew up with, the big RWD Buicks, Pontiacs etc., were not fun to drive, in fact they were horrid, dangerous things with bad brakes and poor dynamics - period. RWD notwithstanding.

Today's Accords and Camry's are waaaaaay, way better than the old behemoths and are even dynamically better than the typical "performance" car of the 70's ( the Accord especially). If you could've magically pulled a modern Accord out of your hat in 1969, people would've thought it a race car.

The Mini's exceptionally fun - it's light, it's wheels are pushed way, way out to the corners, it feels like a go cart.

That it's a FWD car makes all this possible and is in no way a demerit.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: Some of today's big SUV's and crossovers are approaching the size of the sedans I drove in my youth. My mom's 1969 Pontiac Catalina had a 122 inch wheel base and was, if I remember correctly, over 200 inches long.

It weighed only 4000lbs though - about what an X3 or an RDX weighs and a lot less than a Pilot, a Toureg, an Escalade etc. weighs.

Yet Pontiac's V8 sucked premium fuel at a rate of 10 mpg - yep we've come a long way (in those days, the less MPG your car got, the more prestigious it was - it was a way to brag about power).

Ed

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by BahnBaum

I don't know what models are currently handicapped or to what extent. What I do know is that the cars are competitive because the series works hard to make them that way.

Isn't this the case across the board? Look at the last Daytona 500 - in the old days you would never have seen that many cars on the last lap together.

You seemed to be implying that they're ultra competitive because their handling and performance characteristics are similar. I'm not sure that you're correct.

Alex

I don't know the answer, but I certainly don't think they're "similar" - I would imagine all things being equal, the rear driver enjoys an advantage, but the fact front drivers can win is noteworthy - it shows that the driving wheels are only a part of the equation. As it should be.

I''m just pointing out to the knee-jerk FWD critics, the touring class cars seem to do pretty well, but they're race cars after all.

Having said all that, I choose rear drivers - my allegiance should be obvious (although the Mini would be an exception - I'd get one of those).

Ed