What's so bad about fwd

torque steer

>be winter
>driving around
>hit gas
>understeer
>understeer
>understeer
>understeer
shit's gay

>say something I think I'm giving up on you
pretty much it just gives you less options for controlling the car

>ya cant go sideways
But in the snow you can :^)

>pull handbrake
>problem fixed

Get good

shit's spoopy as fuck if you go faster than like 25 though

You can lock the rear wheels and kick out the end for a couple seconds that's about it. Not even close to a RWD drift.

fwd causes autistic people to make threads about it

Few seconds? I'm not even talking handbrake stuff I'm talking back end slippage requiring oversteer to correct. It's the one time of the year FWD is actually fun so don't be a nitpicking nancy.

Even if you Scandinavian flick it it's still not a true drift. The rear end goes sideways for a couple seconds then goes back to following the front wheels. You can't sustain the drift like you can in a RWD, even in winter. That's why a slow RWD is more fun than a fast FWD.

Oh so that's what that's called. It's fun but if you don't correct you will most definately oversteer into the wall (hopefully of snow).

Definitely not the best for a pure performance platform, but you can tune a FWD to compete. It just won't be the best it ever can be. It's very prone to understeer, but some of that can be fixed with a locking diff in the front and trail braking toward a corner.

Atleast it has more traction (Same for RR) on loose surfaces, easier to control oversteer (Just step on the throttle, straightens out) and with left foot braking + handbrake it can dominate rally more than a FR layout can. (AWD or MR/RR can do better).

For a commuter standpoint, it's the best. A lot less drivetrain loss than FR (Better economy), more cabin space (if transverse mounted), easier to control for the average driver, more traction on snow, and cheaper to assemble in factory.

Regardless, it's not a true performance platform. Yes, a lot of FWD cars are good (Teggies, MS3's, Civic Type R's, 9-3's, Fiesta/Focus ST's, ect.) but cars with similar suspensions and power that are RWD will do better on a track.

FWD is no fun in the snow and i only ended up denting my hubcap

>and it is arguable that it isn't even that great at rally
Ok, go ahead and provide an argument. It's not going to beat 4WD, but clearly this is trying to compare to RWD because Veeky Forums.

t. person with no throttle control

>that you even need to ask...
youtube.com/watch?v=tUfkkImOwfE&list=PLdpHdEwurLyY-6PKCYsbOzVeYXnWuSldM
there are three videos of this
have a look at the different types of crash
and think how they relate to driven wheels and distribution of mass

I only opened this thread because I thought that woman was naked.

I'm disappointed.

A lot of those FWD crashes are driver error and bad line choices, note how they start to understeer then keep the brakes locked, which is a big nono.. FWD's are sketchy in long, fast turns and will understeer and snap oversteer as the video shows. Yo can't control the rear wheels without power going to them.

In cars that are actually light and compact? Nothing.

In cars that weigh a ton and a half? everything

Nothing, it's easy and cheap to build and it's good in the snow.

It's just not very fun for the car enthusiast.

oversteer is better than understeer especially at the winter.
because with oversteer you are not staring at the 18 wheeler you're about to crash into. Oversteer is controllable and can be used to go faster.

Sure on public roads you might as well drive a g-whiz or a prius.
But remember, you're on a car enthusiast board where cars have more meaning than a glorified bus

>oversteer can be used to go faster
Drifting is a horribly innefficient way to take a corner on pavement, and will always be slower.

fwd isnt bad, its just most fwd's are econo boxes. for the 95% of drivers on the road who wont push their vehicle to the limit or understand how it handles near its limits its good enough.With a good suspension set up and tires fwd can overcome alot of its shortcomings.

and besides all that efficient driving is boring
it all becomes more about average speed

Pulling is inferior to pushing

ok i'm a retard and i need some help understanding this

so for example, bmws are all rwd, right? however, the engine is in the front of the car, hence the majority of the weight is in the front, but the rear wheels move the car forward. isn't that inefficient?

Weight distribution has nothing to do with efficiency. You're thinking of "imbalanced".

alright, so the car being imbalanced is not an important factor when it comes to overall performance?

Perhaps. Some cars still have 50/50 weight distribution and are RWD. What you want is the right distribution for what your car needs to do.

There's nothing inherently WRONG with FWD, but due to the fact you're putting all of the power through the steering wheels causes problems with handling, and the fact that transverse mounting limits the engine size means that the platform simply isn't as flexible as RWD or AWD platforms, and there's a limit to how much power you can put into a FWD car.

It's absolutely fine for econoboxes and pocket rockets, but for any serious performance applications, it falls behind thanks to the limitations it has.

When I drove an FF shitbox I quickly learned to pull the handbrake during understeer slides so i would go in a direction other than "ditchwise" if/when the tires finally gripped.

Not doing so just led to the ditch

Yes, I do hoon on empty roads. But only after they've been plowed a few times so there's a good snow wall to hit.

What car do you think she drives?

Load transfer in grippy conditions. Also understeer.

But for cars with front-biased weight distribution, especially in low-grip conditions, FWD can have the advantage.
>Sliding sideways into an 18-wheeler is better than hitting it square-on
No.
>so for example, bmws are all rwd, right? however, the engine is in the front of the car, hence the majority of the weight is in the front, but the rear wheels move the car forward. isn't that inefficient?
Sometimes. Well BMWs are a bad example (most actually have 50/50 distribution), but yes, in certain conditions a FR drivetrain car with forward weight distribution may underperform against a similar FF car, because there is more load (and thus traction) on the forward axle. This is especially true in low-friction conditions.

HOWEVER, in high-friction conditions, especially with high-CG vehicles, the acceleration shifts some load from the front wheels to the back, meaning that a RWD car will develop more accelerative grip while accelerating (up until the point that the front wheels begin to lift and 100% of the weight is on the back axle, a la pic related), while a FWD car will incrementally LOSE traction under acceleration instead.

>shit at every motorsport except for rally
want to know how i know you involvement in motorsport ends at the sofa?

While significantly less than ideal, some FWD cars do compete with RWD, for example the Civic SI in the Continental Tire Series ST class.

>bus drivers ITT don't know a lot of FWDs are prone to lift off oversteer

It's funny how everyone talk about muh understeer and muh oversteer and I never ever saw someone driving like that on roads and highways.

The closest to this I saw is the car going sideways because of hard braking and no traction control.

Fuck off Corey

Is it time to whip out the best motoring videos and tsukuba lap times yet?

>Drifting is a horribly innefficient way to take a corner on pavement,
Yes
>and will always be slower.
No.

It's because you're a busrider.

Pretty much this. You will lose performance if you're transmitting the power through the same wheels responsible for steering. It's why 50/50 AWD distribution is so controversial

>triggered
>literally

Other than it's slower than its RWD counterparts and less "fun", nothing much. It effectively saves gas and that is what FWD cars are meant for, believe it or not.

Its like comparing a ballistic missile to a Saturn V rocket.

>slower than rwd counterparts
>a 98 integra type r is still faster than a toyobaru
hmm

>how to spot a busrider benchracer: the post

not an argument

>Other than it's slower than its RWD counterparts

Define "slower". RWD cars may pull faster in a straight line due to weight shifting backwards, but there are plenty of FWD cars that can set blazing laps around a track thanks to things like torque vectoring diffs.

>"fun"

Entirely subjective.

definitely bro.
youtube.com/watch?v=baFh6DiuVqo

There's nothing wrong with fwd cars. They have their advantages and most of their performance disadvantages are irrelevant for vehicles driven on the road.

I drive my cars on the road, not on some fantasy race track where I drift every corner.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ceb4861SG7Q

Literally a battle between layouts. FF absolutely CRUSHES opposition.

youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZzDVL3Agw&t
and
youtube.com/watch?v=RHpSrgHflVI

Tsuchiya gets SMOKED by an eg6 with some light mods and is visibly butthurt about it(just like the people in this thread)

youtube.com/watch?v=nwwbho87zeY

Again, a lightly tuned civic smokes all the other cars. FF is unstoppable.

youtube.com/watch?v=vu-Mq8N37UU

Riced out hondas show a shitty slow GT-R what racing is all about.
Best thing is this is just the tip of the iceberg. But I think this is enough to show the superiority of FF, for now.

Bonus video:

youtube.com/watch?v=EoW4ud32MyI

Lightly tuned civic made to rev over 10k RPM... Is your FR shitbox capable of that?

MAVARU MAVARU NO!

mercedes GL

i think he meant 'female with dick'

i just dont find it all that fun. its easier to do stupid shit in a rwd car. i dont necessarily think its bad, i just dont enjoy it as much. if youre a normal person that isnt into cars, it doesnt much matter.

wrong pic

why is no one replying to this

Physics.

Let me put it this way.

If you were given unlimited funds to design the perfect performance car.

You would not make it FWD unless you were a complete retard.

Is that a render? It looks like a real life Banshee.

cinemablend.com/games/GTA-5-Bravado-Banshee-Becomes-Real-Car-58798.html

learn to google fag.

>the perfect go-fast-in-a-straight-line car

fixed that for you bro, no worries

wrong.

Straight line performance or performance in the twisties. No one in their right mind would choose FWD in the above scenario.

>FWD
>she has no tits and zero ass
you done fucked up up this is fwd instagram.com/p/BN7MEeOD4i9/?taken-by=himiwako&hl=en

yeah they it as a promo/giveaway for gta 5

roadandtrack.com/car-culture/entertainment/videos/a25139/check-out-this-grannys-banshee-from-grand-theft-auto/
strange right ?

Let me put it this way

If you were given limited funds to design the perfect performance car.

You would not make it RWD unless you were a complete retard.

Why? RWD is more expensive to develop than FWD. The money wasted on RWD is better put into the engine, chassis design and suspension. Honda PROVED this in the 90's with their Type R.

You can use it if you get from a straight in a low speed corner to lower your speed, wich can be faster.
Usualy in most corners its not.

The problem with FWD is dynamic weight transfer: a car's weight shifts to the rear during acceleration, and shifts to the front during braking.

FWD cars lose traction during acceleration. To keep weight over the drive wheels for traction, FWD cars are front heavy (typically 65/35 to 60/40). But during braking, the weight shifts to 90/10, so the rear brakes do nothing but try to keep the car straight. So, FWD cars essentially have 2-wheels of grip for braking and less than 2-wheels of grip for acceleration.

Contrast that to a Porsche 911 that are rear-heavy. During acceleration the dynamic weight transfers to the rear wheels so it gains traction. During braking, the weight transfer forward to about 60/40, so all 4 wheels contribute to braking.

>honda proved this in the 90s with a riced version of an economy car
>fwd is literally the best option for the "perfect performance car"

jesus christ i cannot even believe that you took the time out of your life to type that garbage

are people actually this stupid or is this b8?

>fwd drivers face when turning radius

Heh

He said "with limited funds"

Turning radius is generally determined by wheelbase, wheel width and suspension setup. Rarely is it at all related to drivetrain.

For example, the Evo and RS have shit turning radii because they have wide tires and a complex suspension setup.

Hurr AWD has shit turn radius, a limo turns better

Drifting cars have complex susp yet turning radius of a forklift.

>yet turning radius of a forklift.
That really isn't how that works at all. Drifting like that can only be accomplished at a very specific speed, too slow won't work for obvious reasons, and too fast also won't work for similarly obvious reasons.

Actual "turning radius" is simply capped, you can do it as slow as you want, or as fast as you want until you lose traction.

Turning is something you do while maintaining static friction, drifting is something you do while utilizing kinetic friction.

So you're telling me those extreme angles of wheel out/in can be achieved at speed? So the car cannot turn that much while going 5 mph?

That would imply there is dead zone in the steering...

Im curious to learn, but this doesnt make sense man...

>perfect performance car
>Honda Civic Type R
FWDcucks are this delusional

Hondafags are actually retarded, don't even acknowledge them

people who defend fwd when they talk about performance should kill themselves.

fwd only exists because it's cheaper to make cars that way and gives more room in the passenger area. I.E. it's for shitboxes.

everything you do to a fwd car for performance is just compensating for the cars inheritantly flawed drivetrain layout, and you would be far far better off putting that money into an actual performance car with rwd or awd.

Where is her chin?

Shitposters can't even read. Not surprising desu

Stay mad FWDcuck

no one replies when they have nothing to shitpost, bait, or otherwise counteract stong evidence

This user gets it

Because the front wheels only have so much grip yet are tasked with all of the turning and accelerating, along with most of the braking.

Also, on quick starts the body squats putting less force down on the front wheels making it harder to maintain grip.

Also, the engines are always mounted transversely with different-length axles and open-differentials which almost guarantees all of the torque will only go to one wheel; making wheel spin now twice as easy to achieve.

If you, like me, drive like an absolute fucking madman then you will notice all of this and it will become second-nature to just prefer RWD LSD cars. It's usually fine... but some people just want more.

There is literally nothing wrong with FWD.

Yes and no, it depends on the angle, tightness of the corner and how it sets you up for the next corner.

Taking a slow corner at .5s slower over the section but ending up pointing right at your product for the next corner can be an over net increase decrease in lap time.

When I was doing ProSolo it was fairly common to see at least one corner per course have the fastest line involve a LOT of slip angle and even have corner complexes designed to encourage having to drift "slower" through a corner to line up the next for a better overall pace.

>While significantly less than ideal
that is his fucking point, dickhead

>limited funds
>literally the only pro-fwd arguement

You heard it here first folks. Hondacuck admits that FWD """performance""" is for poorfags and the only reason you would design a """"""performance"""""" car with FWD is because you're making a car for poorfags or you are a poorfag yourself.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, seeing as you are a southerner who doesn't understand snow.

There is no oversteer. It's always understeering in snow.