ok, so me and a buddy had a disagreement. Of course we both agreed that all wheel drive is the ultimate for rally racing, but what would be faster if you could only have one end driving the car - front wheel drive or rear wheel drive?
Printable View
ok, so me and a buddy had a disagreement. Of course we both agreed that all wheel drive is the ultimate for rally racing, but what would be faster if you could only have one end driving the car - front wheel drive or rear wheel drive?
Rear wheel drive no doubt. Front wheel drive cars have a tendancy to bog down or understeer. IN any case it's the rear wheel drive which is my favourite out of all three, sideways is best :up:
RWD.. cuz I'm rwd junkie :p
Still though, lancia 037 and WTCC bimers prove that rwd can be really fast
RWD is for men.......FWD is for Girls!!!!
Sadly back in the 90s Audi proved that 4 wheel drive can be faster still :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by shurik
Allthough RWD is more spectacular, in modern rallying days FWD has proved the more effective drive. The last ten years there has been a focus against producing FWD cars, which means the RWD has lost out. Who knows who would be fastest in these days if the RWD would've undergone the same developement?
RWD with front engine has lack of grip on the rear axle which makes not enough traction. It is oversteery. FWD has better traction but not so much, some understeering and is more stable. RWD with rear engine has huge traction but not enough weight on front wheels which gives them not enough grip in corners. Aerodynamics can solve it only in higher speed. The best is mid-engine RWD as Lotus. But those cars can't be used in rallying since they are not touring cars (somewhere they could be used as GTs).
rwd only in case that engine is also rear. otherwise FWD no doubt faster
FWD is definetly faster in modern rally cars
Nonsense - there aren't any modern RWD rally cars to compare the modern FWD cars with, if there were the RWD would be faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by urabus-denoS2000
Away from International Rallying where only homologated cars are permitted & you'll find that RWD is still highly competitive, particularly in the UK & Ireland.
Look at the results of the Galway National Rally that ran in Ireland over the wekend. The first eight places were RWD, 9th was 4WD and the highest FWD was 13th. The winning National car (a Mk2 Escort) was faster than all except the top ten International cars (4 WRC, 5 N4 & 1 S2000), all 4WD.
I think FWD is faster when the driver is average but in the hands of a top driver, I think RWD could be faster.
From a spectators point of view, all the rallies that I have been at, the cars that get all the "oooooohh!!' and "aaaaaahh yeah!" have been RWD cars. Sure AWD is faster, but do you see Porsche, BMW and even the occasional Ferrari on rally stages anymore like their was in the 80s?
There is no exoctica in rallying.
poop
This have been discussed on some threads in the last years...
The higher the traction, the less is the difference, though FWDs generelly has the upper hand, simply because to drive with a slight understeer is generally better than to drive with oversteer.
With an FWD car, when you get off the throttle you push the driven front wheels into the road, increase front-end grip, cancel out understeer and tighten the car's line. Therefore in theory a FWD car is faster. Mind you, you can't really say categorically that one configuration is faster than the other - look at the WTCC, which other people have referenced, and see that the FWD cars are pretty much evenly matched with the RWD BMWs.
I agree, the biggest cheers are when the RWD cars are on stage - mainly Escort MkI & mK II's. Look at the success of the Roger Albert Clark Rally - nearly all RWD, fantastic stuff. I think an 'ordinary' driver can look good in a RWD car, whereas in a FWD car it's a lot harder. Remember the BRC in the F2 era, now they were fantastic looking and sounding cars - and because the drivers wrung their necks. How many road cars are RWD??? Not many, so from that point of view maybe the WRC should be FWD, personally speaking I'd like to see all 3 variants in the WRC - Let the 2WD cars have more power than 4WD (or something to level the playing field), i;e 4WD Less power,more traction - 2WD more power,less traction.Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyCat909
IIRC the RWD cars are ballasted in the WTCC.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBrooke
On many occasions RWD can match up with AWD on fast straight tarmac rallies. I prefer driving FWD cars myself since I feel it's much easier to corner and more predictable. For WRC for twisty gravel rallies I guess they tune the card toward the FWD style.
Maybe that is the case in Ireland,but we have twisty roads with little straights.That depends on the roads and drivers.FWD has a lot more traction on these twisty kinds of stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
From a spectators point of view there is no doubt which is better.In Slovenia there is a regular zero-car,a Mazda MX-5.It is spectacular.
With the 306 Maxi and Xsara Kit car they had active diffs and at least one of them had a sort of traction system that cut ignition to one or more cylinders when wheelspin was detected.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmx
Both of the cars above would absolutely murder the 4wd cars on dry tarmac.
Yes, but as far as I'm aware this is mainly to equalise the standing starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Yes :) But the start is a big thing in a touring car race. A lack of traction from the start line isn't such a big problem on a rally as it is in a race :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBrooke
That has nothing to do with who's fastest though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyCat909
As for FWD not being spectacular. You obviously haven't been to the right rallies and seen the right drivers. Sure if you go to a local even and see your average joe in a Nissan Micra it's not going to look good. How about Panizzi, Delecour and Ragnotti?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bKDwvC4_AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND6aoEPLxYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9dJ7-goZ8
What's even more ridiculous is Ste's "RWD is for men and FWD is for girls" statement. FWD requires much more skill and commitement to be driven fast than a RWD car does. If girls drive with more skill and commitment then I'm more than happy to watch girls drive than to watch "men" play about in old RWD cars.
RWD is far easier for your average Joe to drive fairly fast. For me driving a RWD car is fun and not too hard to get a good deal of the car's performance out of it with little effort. A FWD car is a totally different. You need to put quite a lot of effort in and be fairly commited just go get any speed out of the car in slippery conditions and that extra bit of speed on top of that requires god-like levels of car control which most of us don't have.
I'd take RWD on tarmac and gravel and FWD on snow and ice.
Love to see the BWW M3s and MKII Escorts ploughing snow though...
It is fun to drive RWD on snow but I feel- safer on FWD.
Yes, and I therefore think that in a rally, properly equivalent FWD cars and RWD cars would be even closer. Of course, the driver and her driving style will probably be the deciding factor as to a car's speed through a stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Which is what happened - Bugalski winning 99 Catalunya and Corsica in the Xsara Kit Car. Before that both the 306 and Xsara and challenged/got podium places in 97/98. Great sounding cars as well.
How did Ragnotti do it? :eek:
This is yust my opinion: if you look stage times of a well prepaired Porsche 911 GT3 RS on dry tarmac(Spain-Vallejo)), with a lot straight parts-in this case RWD is faster than let's say Clio R3 or even Mitsu&suby N4. But when it is wet, forget on RWD. On gravel RWD is very spectacular, but Porsche 911 can not even compete, because thay have no suspension for gravel(smaller brakes...). An old BMW M3 is spectacular on gravel, but I think stage times would be faster wit FWD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Boyd
I know Ireland has some of the best modified RWD cars in the world, but how is it there for FWD? Are there any top competitors in them? And what spec are the top fwd cars? Are they comparable to the crazy but rather wonderful Mk2 Escorts?
Sideways is not often the fastest in RWD. One of our best drivers here in a Mk2 Escort; Frank Meagher (RIP) rove an outdated car up with the best of the latest machinery, not through the usual sideways nmanner, proving that rwd cars require a more technical approach if the best is to be got out of them.
Great thread with many valid points offered for and against both, I know what I'd rather drive (RWD) but I dont believe the answer to the question is as black and white as many seem to believe. My thoughts...
Fwd- more stable, slightly more traction ?? loses slightly less power through the transmission than RWD ?? near unbeatable on tarmac. Front tyres are worked far harder and suffer on longer stages
Rwd- Less developed Imo, and so arguably has greater scope for improvement. Superior in theory due to the traction/steering/braking being shared more between front and rear.
Other factors which should also come under consideration should be what format can potentially handle the most power beyond 300 bhp, I'd imagine that to be rwd.
When I talk about RWD being less developed.... I remember a mid engined BMW M3 being unbeatable in ice racing many years ago.. just maybe a fully developed mid engined rwd rallycar would edge out an equally developed FWD car dynamically on events which suited it ?
I do recall Ford Australia building and rallying a RWD Focus that when it didnt break occasionally produced some respectable times.
Really difficult question to answer as we cant really compare them as equally developed modern machines. I suspect each of these formats may well be suited to certain events which favour certain driving styles.
Hmm...
The weakest part of that car was the driver. Michael "It was the car or a polar bear or a leaf or the tyres or something other than my fault" Guest :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
there are horses for courses, of course.
on dry tarmac, you'd probably take RWD. everywhere else, front wheel drive.
the only valid comparisons being back-to-back, i can only tell you what i've found in Group N Lancer EVO VIs.
have seen them in front and rear drive, with the same driver, due to mechanical problems in the driveline.
nearly three seconds/km off the normal, front running pace in RWD, less than half a second/km in FWD.
so, on the loose, FWD would intrinsically seem faster.
I'd disagree with that one Mickey. Always seems like FWD bogs down on gravel and you can use power in a RWD to get you out of trouble. On tarmac this doesn't apply and the two will be a lot closer. Of course it all comes down in the end to the driver but I'm still putting my money on RWD being better.
Does anyone still use the Citroen Xsara Kit car or the 306 Maxi?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Is it me, or are people using FWD for both FRONT wheel drive & FOUR wheel drive in this thread?
FWD= Front wheel drive
4WD= Four wheel drive
Langdale Forest: There are quite many 306 Maxi in France but they are not in factory F2 versions since F2 class was banned and transformed into A7VK (restrictor, no electronic traction control etc.). Maybe I'm wrong and they use different regulations in France ;) In fact they are still on top behind modern WRC cars.
One Xsara Kit Car was on sale in France...
Not only standing starts, but also concerns corner exit, especially those wich lead to straight. Rear is loaded on accelration, you just ease off whe you feel that your rear is tacklin you for position. ))) And this is the way you win the races - higher exit speed - higher speed on braking. Just be very gentle on throttle and you gain advantage. Well, exept if you have a talent of Michael Schuemacher, you'd gain advantage everywhere. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LeonBrooke
Compare it to FWD, wich has an absolutely different situation - on acceleration it sucks bad - front is lifting, less traction, hard on throttle - more understeer.
It's like two oppsites - for RWD midcorner and exit and straight acceleration is better, while FWD has staright braking, corner entry and midcorner as an advantage.
And what is 100% true is that in the end it all depends on driver behind the wheel.. RWD is no better than FWD without the driver.. its just a drivetrain, funny shaped peices of metall
Just don't take too serious what I wrote here :D
Tomski. I'm not sure what gives you the impression people are saying fwd for four wheel drive.
True,I am not sure that someone who doesnt understand that would write hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Yes, but on a rally stage where you don't know every corner coming up, I think braking, corner entry and midcorner speed are more important. Lifting to adjust your line would be more effective in a FWD, making it faster through the corners, and faster overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by shurik
If you took a WTCC BMW, Seat and Chevrolet and dumped them on a stage from the Tour de Corse, I think the BMW would be marginally slower because of this.
Of course, it comes down to the driver and whether her style suits a FWD or a RWD better.