front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive

[Daniel]

Yes, but as far as I'm aware this is mainly to equalise the standing starts.

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

[Daniel]

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

That has nothing to do with who's fastest though.

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.

[jiipee64]

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.

[LeonBrooke]

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.

[AndyRAC]

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.

Both of the cars above would absolutely murder the 4wd cars on dry tarmac.

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.

[Erki]

How did Ragnotti do it?

[jure dvorsek]

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.

[cut the b.s.]

Nonsense - there aren't any modern RWD rally cars to compare the modern FWD cars with, if there were the RWD would be faster.

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 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?

[gravelman]

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.

[Zico]

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...