[Litos]

Originally Posted by 1fastdoc

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

[Billup]

Originally Posted by F1Venom

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

I'm sorry but a quad turbocharged W16 requires traction at all four wheels for it to perform the way it does (what is it, 983 BHP or something crazy?). Unless you'd enjoy doing a burnout until the tires blew, you'll need to transfer that amount power a little more evenly.

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Billup

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.

Hey what can I say? I can't force you to be right. Don't feel bad you are not capable of understanding. Only few of us have that talent. Good luck out there in the world. It's a crazy place.

[Billup]

For a very minute (pronounced MY-NOOT) second, I thought you were going to reply with some facts to back up your ill-informed argument. Rather, you used a sarcastic insult that really hurt my feelings (Yet again). Well played.

Reply with some facts. Just because you have yourself convinced, doesn't mean its logical. I assume your postsynaptic neurons are failing, which is why you can't grasp the facts of an AWD system, but I don't want to bring your mental disorder into this, as it's technically not your fault.

[EyeGuy]

Depends on what kind of awd system is used. I'm a big fan of torque vectoring systems which can not only transfer power from front to back, but also side to side. I personally like awd systems for being able to power out of apexes more confidently. Just my 2cents

[kits135i]

Originally Posted by Billup

For a very minute (pronounced MY-NOOT) second, I thought you were going to reply with some facts to back up your ill-informed argument. Rather, you used a sarcastic insult that really hurt my feelings (Yet again). Well played.

Reply with some facts. Just because you have yourself convinced, doesn't mean its logical. I assume your postsynaptic neurons are failing, which is why you can't grasp the facts of an AWD system, but I don't want to bring your mental disorder into this, as it's technically not your fault.

Kind of contradicted yourself there, don't you think?...

I know you are one of those people who will want the last word because you can't just admit when you are wrong. I will let you contradict yourself... again... while you attempt bash me with strong words. So in good manner, I will not continue to argue with an idiot. I do not get beat down to your level with experience. This will be my last reply to your ignorance. Good day sir.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by kits135i

Kind of contradicted yourself there, don't you think?...

I know you are one of those people who will want the last word because you can't just admit when you are wrong. I will let you contradict yourself... again... while you attempt bash me with strong words. So in good manner, I will not continue to argue with an idiot. I do not get beat down to your level with experience. This will be my last reply to your ignorance. Good day sir.

If I were wrong, I would have no problem admitting it. I've provided facts, with others that understand these facts, while you've provided nothing but stating what others have said is "most dumbest". I love a good debate, but you never provided any viable information to AWD being dominant over RWD in this whole thread, which is what the thread is about.

The only thing you've said is that everyone is dumb.

[michaelthepsycho]

Fuel economy and weight are the only two reasons. MAYBE feel.

Performance = AWD properly/race calibrated will win EVERY time (so don't give me examples of garbagey AWD systems). I'm talking pinnacle of AWD (4-wheel torque vectoring) vs. pinnacle of RWD. There's no argument to be had. Anyone who keeps tauting about "real" drivers only needs to know they ban it in most motorsport racing because it's too good. No human error = no fun to watch.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Fuel economy and weight are the only two reasons. MAYBE feel.

Performance = AWD properly/race calibrated will win EVERY time (so don't give me examples of garbagey AWD systems). I'm talking pinnacle of AWD (4-wheel torque vectoring) vs. pinnacle of RWD. There's no argument to be had. Anyone who keeps tauting about "real" drivers only needs to know they ban it in most motorsport racing because it's too good. No human error = no fun to watch.

Governing bodies ban lots of stuff for lots of different reasons. AWD is banned in most but i highly doubt that it's because it's "too good". A more likely reason is that it's another expense that limits teams from joining, that it's one more reason a car can mechanically be eliminated from the race. In F1 i bet part of the consideration would be because of standing starts. Imagine how much more difficult it would be for a driver with AWD launch grip to miss the car in front of him if that driver stalled.

My point is that it's a very general statement about race cars in a race environment. And i doubt anyone would argue that any car with power to weight ratio of an F1 car wouldn't benefit from AWD.

But the conversation was about street cars in a street environment in which, RWD is still king.

[Simsims]

Originally Posted by CJ421

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.

you cannot make an assumption like that

to compare the two requires you to eliminate all the possible variables then show the differences

and after neutralizing all variables, you did miss the fundamental difference being:
- AWD will always weight more than RWD due to added complexity/transfer case

so in essence:
AWD's sole advantage is the ability to accelerate in low-grip/friction situations, such as:
- launching the car
- powering out of a turn
- sand/gravel/snow etc.

And AWD's 3 major disadvantage is:
- more points of failure due to complexity
- always cost more
- adds weight.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Fuel economy and weight are the only two reasons. MAYBE feel.

Performance = AWD properly/race calibrated will win EVERY time (so don't give me examples of garbagey AWD systems).

this guy is soooo wrong.....

[daixloxbmw]

Just to add to the list of AWD misconceptions, many AWD fans truly believe in the motto "sends power from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip" and that just isn't true in most cases. Many AWD systems have open differentials in the front and back and it only has a limited ability to send some torque fore and aft in the center transfer case. Check out the Youtube link that proves this point.

If all AWD systems can truly send power to the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip, they should be able to easily drive off the rollers but that isn't the case for most of these AWD systems. Only ones with limited slip differentials or some sort of torque vectoring systems can pass this roller test. Notice how many Subarus failed this test miserably?

Like others have said, AWD does not improve traction, which is probably the most common AWD misconception. Better tires, downforce and suspension geometry improve traction but simply adding AWD does not. AWD can make better use of the available traction in certain situations like accelerating on low traction surfaces, from complete stop or out of a corner but beyond that, it ends up being a disadvantage in all other situations. I want to emphasize that even in these situations, AWD ONLY helps in acceleration and not in braking or cornering, which is another AWD misconception.

Most people are only aware of the advantages of AWD (and even then they have an exaggerated or misconceived notion of that) but they don't realize any of the disadvantages like the following:

Added Weight: In all the wrong places, e.g. sprung weight, reciprocating weight, weight over the front axle (in front-engine cars) and higher center of gravity (again in front-engine cars). All of this has the effect of slowing down the car, making it less responsive to throttle modulation, worsening the weight distribution and making the car more top heavy.

Reduced Efficiency: Higher drivetrain losses means less power to the ground and worse fuel efficiency.

Added cost and complexity: Self explanatory...

To summarize, AWD can have some advantages in select situations but to me, the few advantages it has does not outweigh the many disadvantages that exist in all situations and I have owned 4 RWD/Sport Pkg equipped BMWs in snowy New England. The way I explained it to one of my buddies who owns an STI was "sure, no one is going to argue that boots are better than sneakers on a snowy day but would you want to wear boots year round?"

[Billup]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Fuel economy and weight are the only two reasons. MAYBE feel.

Performance = AWD properly/race calibrated will win EVERY time (so don't give me examples of garbagey AWD systems). I'm talking pinnacle of AWD (4-wheel torque vectoring) vs. pinnacle of RWD. There's no argument to be had. Anyone who keeps tauting about "real" drivers only needs to know they ban it in most motorsport racing because it's too good. No human error = no fun to watch.

If it will win every time, while is it still failing at Nurburgring? I can't say there is a "garbage" AWD system, because most systems now are quite efficient in what they do and for what it was originally invented for. I'd like you to explain who is the "pinnacle" of AWD vs. RWD. Lamborghini AWD system still falls behind..., a Viper.

I will agree that there is no argument to be had because RWD is still dominating lap times for facts that have been stated well enough in here.

Look at Tsukuba, if I'm not mistaken fastest lap time recorded is from a UK RWD SR4 1.2.

GT-R's incredible drive train couldn't take first on its home court. The Brits did it better.

[scorcherjf]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Fuel economy and weight are the only two reasons. MAYBE feel.

Performance = AWD properly/race calibrated will win EVERY time (so don't give me examples of garbagey AWD systems). I'm talking pinnacle of AWD (4-wheel torque vectoring) vs. pinnacle of RWD. There's no argument to be had. Anyone who keeps tauting about "real" drivers only needs to know they ban it in most motorsport racing because it's too good. No human error = no fun to watch.

If the rules allowed, do you really think AWD F1 cars would actually be faster?

[MiddleAgedAl]

It's worth noting that the Pirelli World Challenge Series (used to be Speed World challenge) is one of the very few motorsports series where AWD and RWD compete in the same class against each other. (ie: it's not banned there). They are as close to showroom as you'll get in a pro racing series.

It's not a "clean" comparison because the series does things like weight penalties to artificially level the playing field, but it's one of the best we got to examine.

There were times, early 2000's, when AWD cars like the Audi won their class a couple years in a row, but overall they have not cleaned up in the manner one might expect if you think they are banned elsewhere due to them being "too good".

Having spent many an hour on the couch watching, what I recall most is that the Audi's would blast off the line at the start (series has standing starts, which hugely favors AWD). Not uncommon to see an AWD car gain a spot or 3. Then as the stint wore on, those cars would burn down both fuel and tires at a faster rate than RWD. Often drivers had to dial it back near the end to avoid another stop for fresh rubber, so the spots they gained at the start would be lost. If it rained, they'd clean up there obviously. The more wet races a season, the higher up the average AWD would finish in final points.

After many races over decades there, its clear the all the entrants are not scrambling to run AWD cars, despite the fact the rules allow them, and those who do run AWD dont clean up every time.

I think that speaks for itself.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by Litos

this guy gets it.

an AWD car will never be at the top of any fastest times list....

Bugatti Veyron is AWD.
It is the fastest production car in the world.

I'm not siding with AWD or RWD, just stating a fact.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

Bugatti Veyron is AWD.
It is the fastest production car in the world.

I'm not siding with AWD or RWD, just stating a fact.

It was the worlds fastest car in a straight line. What else would you expect from a carbon fiber vehicle bearing a quad turbo 16 cylinder. There is no way you could put that much HP to two wheels, it would only do burnouts. Can you compare a straight line $1mil car to maybe $100k-$600k super cars?

Obviously Bugatti took a leap of faith building what they had, but when do you see a Veyron in even high level competion? I personally, have not seen one.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

Bugatti Veyron is AWD.
It is the fastest production car in the world.

I'm not siding with AWD or RWD, just stating a fact.

The 2013 Hennessey Venom GT2 will shred the Bugatti Veyron, or Veyron SS in the standing mile, and it will hit 272MPH. It's a RWD car.

Just stating a fact.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

The 2013 Hennessey Venom GT2 will shred the Bugatti Veyron, or Veyron SS in the standing mile, and it will hit 272MPH. It's a RWD car.

Just stating a fact.

The Venom isn't a production car yet, I believe they require at least 20 to have been built. ~5 have been built.

The SSC Tuatara(RWD) will probably be faster than both, but until that time the Veyron SS still holds the record.

[Litos]

[asdflkijd]

RWD>AWD. What's FWD?

[michaelthepsycho]

Originally Posted by Billup

If it will win every time, while is it still failing at Nurburgring? I can't say there is a "garbage" AWD system, because most systems now are quite efficient in what they do and for what it was originally invented for. I'd like you to explain who is the "pinnacle" of AWD vs. RWD. Lamborghini AWD system still falls behind..., a Viper.

I will agree that there is no argument to be had because RWD is still dominating lap times for facts that have been stated well enough in here.

Look at Tsukuba, if I'm not mistaken fastest lap time recorded is from a UK RWD SR4 1.2.

GT-R's incredible drive train couldn't take first on its home court. The Brits did it better.

Lambo's AWD is pretty middle-of-the-pack. No review has ever praised it like the Evo X or GTR systems. Trying to cite different cars as examples of RWD's dominance is not looking at the fundamental question. Two cars, same weight/power with one being RWD, one being AWD and the AWD will win. They're only losing because they're heavier.You can't cheat physics.

You guys are not comparing the concept of AWD vs the concept of RWD. Merely using lap times of different cars with different weights / specs to prove that you're "right." Anybody can do that. If I put a Hayabusa motor into a go-kart with huge sticky tires, will I beat a Lambo?

I'm talking about two cars both 3,000 pounds, 1,500 horsepower. One has the pinnacle of AWD, where torque can be shifted to each individual wheel at will. Would you still bet on the RWD?

F1 regs are somewhat tight to promote competition. The atmosphere of F1 is such that AWD has never entered any team's minds. Therefore, nobody has seen what unlimited funds can make AWD do.

That's just one instance. And the early Porsche AWDs aren't even that trick. A heavier car beating the RWD on a TIGHT track. The advantages will be even more amplified on a big track where a properly set up AWD puts full power down 50 feet before a RWD. The fact that the GTR being so heavy and coming so close to other performance cars that are lighter and more powerful tells us so much. Yes, it loses right now. I'll admit that but the weight disadvantage is often overlooked.